Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, I am joining Senator Capito to introduce the Innovation in Pediatric Drugs Act of 2025 in order to improve access to needed therapies for children.

Children are not just small adults. Drugs affect their developing bodies differently, so new treatments need to be studied carefully to ensure that they are appropriately prescribed and that dosages are properly adjusted. Additionally, drugs that are designed to treat a specific condition in adults may have enormous benefits in treating completely different illnesses in kids. But research is needed to unlock these potentially lifesaving possibilities.

Unfortunately, drug development still leaves children behind. The legislation we are introducing today would help speed therapies to children who need them by making needed changes to the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, BPCA, and the Pediatric Research Equity Act, PREA--two laws that encourage and require the study of drugs in children.

Data resulting from BPCA and PREA studies are added to drug labels to give parents and providers essential information on the safety and efficacy of drugs used in children. I was proud to have helped author these laws when I was a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. While we have made tremendous progress in advancing treatments for children because of these laws, there are gaps. For example, there is a loophole in PREA that exempts drug companies from pediatric study requirements when the treatment would only be used for a rare pediatric condition.

There are close to 7,000 rare diseases without appropriate treatments, and the vast majority of these diseases affect children as well as adults. But in developing new drugs also known as orphan drugs to treat rare diseases, pharmaceutical developers focus their research on adult patients only since they are not required to study their impact on children.

Since the majority of new drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, are orphan drugs, this means that the majority of newly approved drugs have not been studied for their impacts on kids. This leaves doctors, parents, and sick kids in the dark about the best possible treatments. Our bill closes this loophole to require studies for children so that that they, too, can benefit from new and innovative treatments for rare diseases.

In addition to this change, the Innovation in Pediatric Drugs Act would invest in pediatric studies of older, off-patent drugs. The FDA incentives and requirements under BPCA and PREA work for many newer drugs, but unfortunately cannot help encourage studies of older drugs. For this reason, in 2002, Congress authorized a program which funds the National Institutes of Health to conduct studies of off-patent drugs used in children that would never be completed otherwise. Drug studies are expensive, and costs have only increased since then, but the program has been flat-funded at $25 million since it was created more than 20 years ago. Our legislation would increase the authorization for the BPCA NIH program to ensure we have better data about older drugs to treat diseases in children.

Lastly, the Innovation in Pediatric Drugs Act would give FDA the authority it needs to ensure that legally required pediatric studies are completed in a timely manner. Due dates for studies required by PREA are typically deferred by FDA until after the approval of the drug for adults, but FDA has no effective enforcement tools to ensure that these studies are completed on time--or at all.

I am pleased to be working with my colleague Senator Capito again on pediatric health issues. We have worked closely for many years on pediatric cancer, first authoring the Childhood Cancer Survivorship, Treatment, Access, and Research, STAR, Act in 2015. That bill was signed into law in 2018, and we worked to fully fund the law every year since.

I look forward to working with her to move the Innovation in Pediatric Drugs Act forward, to give children and their families more options for treatments.

Mr. President, today, I am joining Senator Capito to introduce the Innovation in Pediatric Drugs Act of 2025 in order to improve access to needed therapies for children.

Children are not just small adults. Drugs affect their developing bodies differently, so new treatments need to be studied carefully to ensure that they are appropriately prescribed and that dosages are properly adjusted. Additionally, drugs that are designed to treat a specific condition in adults may have enormous benefits in treating completely different illnesses in kids. But research is needed to unlock these potentially lifesaving possibilities.

Unfortunately, drug development still leaves children behind. The legislation we are introducing today would help speed therapies to children who need them by making needed changes to the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, BPCA, and the Pediatric Research Equity Act, PREA--two laws that encourage and require the study of drugs in children.

Data resulting from BPCA and PREA studies are added to drug labels to give parents and providers essential information on the safety and efficacy of drugs used in children. I was proud to have helped author these laws when I was a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. While we have made tremendous progress in advancing treatments for children because of these laws, there are gaps. For example, there is a loophole in PREA that exempts drug companies from pediatric study requirements when the treatment would only be used for a rare pediatric condition.

There are close to 7,000 rare diseases without appropriate treatments, and the vast majority of these diseases affect children as well as adults. But in developing new drugs also known as orphan drugs to treat rare diseases, pharmaceutical developers focus their research on adult patients only since they are not required to study their impact on children.

Since the majority of new drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, are orphan drugs, this means that the majority of newly approved drugs have not been studied for their impacts on kids. This leaves doctors, parents, and sick kids in the dark about the best possible treatments. Our bill closes this loophole to require studies for children so that that they, too, can benefit from new and innovative treatments for rare diseases.

In addition to this change, the Innovation in Pediatric Drugs Act would invest in pediatric studies of older, off-patent drugs. The FDA incentives and requirements under BPCA and PREA work for many newer drugs, but unfortunately cannot help encourage studies of older drugs. For this reason, in 2002, Congress authorized a program which funds the National Institutes of Health to conduct studies of off-patent drugs used in children that would never be completed otherwise. Drug studies are expensive, and costs have only increased since then, but the program has been flat-funded at $25 million since it was created more than 20 years ago. Our legislation would increase the authorization for the BPCA NIH program to ensure we have better data about older drugs to treat diseases in children.

Lastly, the Innovation in Pediatric Drugs Act would give FDA the authority it needs to ensure that legally required pediatric studies are completed in a timely manner. Due dates for studies required by PREA are typically deferred by FDA until after the approval of the drug for adults, but FDA has no effective enforcement tools to ensure that these studies are completed on time--or at all.

I am pleased to be working with my colleague Senator Capito again on pediatric health issues. We have worked closely for many years on pediatric cancer, first authoring the Childhood Cancer Survivorship, Treatment, Access, and Research, STAR, Act in 2015. That bill was signed into law in 2018, and we worked to fully fund the law every year since.

I look forward to working with her to move the Innovation in Pediatric Drugs Act forward, to give children and their families more options for treatments.

Mr. President, the rhetoric of Donald Trump and Republicans on the budget is all over the map. Here is what is important to know. Republicans want $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, primarily for the richest Americans, paid for with sharp cuts in programs that help average Americans and the most vulnerable in our society.

Yesterday, I spoke on the floor about one of the most cynical parts of this resolution: gutting healthcare for children, seniors, and Americans with disabilities through extreme cuts to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP.

Donald Trump said that Medicaid and Medicare would be off limits, but the budgets put out by Republicans indicate something quite different.

During the debate on this budget, Republicans will have the opportunity to vote on amendments to show where they stand, and, more importantly, who they stand with--everyday Americans or the roughly 750 billionaires in the United States. That is the stakes--hundreds of millions of nurses, firefighters, office workers, systems administrators, salespeople, and their children versus the interests of roughly 750 people whose wealth grows by millions every single day.

Ripping health coverage away from Americans may be the worst part of this budget, but it is far from the only bad provision. Instead, this budget is part of a broader decision by President Trump and congressional Republicans to force American families to pay more for food, healthcare, and education--again, all so the wealthiest Americans can get a huge tax break.

The ``big, beautiful bill'' that Donald Trump favors is expected to gut Medicaid by at least $880 billion dollars. The cuts would be devastating for the 80 million Americans who rely on Medicaid and CHIP, who are almost entirely children, seniors, people with disabilities, and working men and women who depend upon Medicaid protection. Forcing struggling Americans to pay more for health insurance or to lose health coverage altogether is heartless policy and a slap in the face to the millions of families who are struggling to make ends meet.

And yet Medicaid is not the only target in this resolution. Food for the dinner table is also on the chopping block with cuts of reportedly at least $230 billion to SNAP. Each of us has seen news reports about the long lines at food pantries in our States. Who hasn't heard that the price of eggs is up 15 percent in the last month alone? Who doesn't remember, also, the campaign promise of Donald Trump to bring grocery prices down on the first day of his term?

Yet here we are with a Trump-backed bill that makes groceries even more expensive for 42 million Americans who qualify for SNAP. Gutting this program, the SNAP program, doesn't lower prices, but it sure will increase the problem of hunger in the richest country in the world.

Put simply, President Trump's ``big, beautiful bill'' is forcing vulnerable American families to pay more for food and healthcare. Such policies directly contradict the President's campaign promise that ``starting on day one, we will end inflation and make America affordable again.

Republicans can't dodge the truth: $880 billion in Medicaid cuts and $230 billion in SNAP cuts will mean more kids go hungry, more seniors can't afford lifesaving treatment, and more households are forced into poverty.

The budget resolution's cost-raising trifecta ends with higher education costs. Instead of making college more affordable and offering young Americans more pathways to prosperity, this Republican budget will increase the cost of student loans and cut other programs that help Americans offset the costs of education.

Education cuts come at, perhaps, the worst time. Most jobs that provide living wages require some postsecondary education or training. A college education, which has long been a ticket to the middle class, is now too expensive for too many families. Meanwhile, the main source of government higher education aid for low- and moderate-income families, the Pell grant, has lost most of its purchasing power. At its peak in 1975 and 1976, the Pell grant--named after my predecessor, Senator Claiborne Pell--covered more than 75 percent of the cost of attendance at a public 4-year college. Today, it covers less than 30 percent.

Unsurprisingly, over 40 million Americans now have student loan debt, which prevents them, in many cases, from purchasing a home or moving to areas where they might be able to use their talents more effectively, and has many other consequences.

Forcing Americans to pay even more for college makes higher education less attainable, weakens our labor force, and will have long-term repercussions for American families, American prosperity, and American security.

Now, many Americans may be wondering: What is the point of all of these cuts?

It is not about reforming programs. There has been no serious cost- benefit analysis of any of these programs. All they have looked at is, What does it cost, and how can we use that money to fund taxes?

That is not government reform. That is not wise government. That is just ripping off most Americans to satisfy 750 billionaires.

And it is not even about reducing the deficit. As I said, it is just about unlocking a fast-track way to reward the wealthiest Americans-- some of whom are now in the Trump administration.

Republicans have been pretty clear. The central purpose of their budget is to permanently extend the failed 2017 Trump tax bill, which was an unpopular giveaway to the wealthiest Americans. Nearly half of the benefits from extending the Trump tax bill will flow just to the richest Americans, those earning $450,000 or more each year.

President Trump promised on the campaign trail that ``starting on day one, we will end inflation and make America affordable again.'' But we are now on day 32, and costs have not come down. In fact, inflation hit 3 percent for the first time in months this January, and the President took no action while egg prices hit record highs--a particular point of pain for many families.

And just like this budget resolution, the President has been intent on forcing families to pay more, not less, for everyday goods. In just 1 month, the President has implemented or threatened tariff taxes on nearly every item imaginable.

Nonpartisan experts are clear: These tariff taxes will not ``make America affordable again.'' The Peterson Institute projects the tariff taxes on Canada, Mexico, and China alone would cost U.S. households $1,200 a year--a tariff tax. Yale researchers have found the President's threat to place reciprocal tariffs on our trading partners would cost families $2,600. Analysts at the investment bank Jefferies projects car prices will jump by $2,700 under the President's Canada and Mexico tariffs, while the National Association of Home Builders found President Trump's lumber tariffs during his first term--which he promised to raise again--in his first term, raised housing prices by $9,000, and he still wants to do it again.

We have also heard a lot about Mr. Musk's DOGE and fraud, waste, and abuse, but that operation doesn't seem to be about preventing fraud, waste, and abuse, or lowering costs.

By the way, if you were really interested in eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government, why would you fire all the inspectors general? They are independent agents who are charged specifically to root out waste and corruption in the Federal

Government. President Trump did that. So this is not about getting rid of waste or anything else. Again, it is finding trillions of dollars to give away to rich Americans.

In fact, the other aspect of DOGE is just to create mayhem to impact so much of government: firing responsible staffers who are handling key issues, weapons--nuclear weapons.

I was in the airport, on Monday evening, flying down from Providence, and a young lady came up to me and said she was fired a few days ago from the National Nuclear Security Administration because she was a probationary hire. But guess what. When they discovered that they could not protect nuclear weapons--not do sensitive maintenance on them so that they would be ready for deterrence--she was suddenly called back. Not very smart.

DOGE is also trying to fire researchers who are out to cure Alzheimer's disease, trying to get rid of experts who fight bird flu, and seeking access to computer systems at the IRS and the Social Security Administration--which contain personal and financial information for each and every single American.

I don't think most Americans want Elon Musk to know all of their financial information, their personal information, maybe even healthcare information. But that could happen.

It is not combating fraud, all of these things. In fact, it is close to--particularly with the IRS information--committing fraud.

Indeed, the budget resolution we will vote on tonight is just further evidence that Republicans and President Trump have no plan and no real interest in lowering costs for families, and I think that is wrong.

Now, I am all for tax cuts, but it should be tax cuts for the middle class, tax cuts for those struggling with high prices, and tax cuts for small businesses, not 750 billionaires. Forcing regular Americans to cover tax cuts to the richest Americans is not the sort of economic policy we should be pursuing in the Senate.

I urge my colleagues to rethink which Americans deserve their support.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 172, which is cosponsored by my colleagues Senators Lujan and Alsobrooks, and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, the other day, President Donald Trump said:

Medicare, Medicaid--none of that stuff is going to be

touched.

If that statement had any truth behind it, then my colleagues on the other side of the aisle should be voting for this amendment, which calls for a point of order against any legislation that cuts Medicaid or Medicare.

Medicare serves 67 million seniors and people with disabilities, and nearly 80 million Americans rely on Medicaid. Failing to pass this amendment will be a signal that these programs are on the chopping block.

This vote will be a test for all of us, particularly my Republican colleagues. Are we going to protect Medicare and Medicaid or are they, my Republican colleagues, going to use this as a piggy bank for tax cuts for the wealthy?

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, before I call up my amendment, I ask that Senator Coons be added as a cosponsor of the Reed-Shaheen amendment No. 299.

I call up my amendment No. 299 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, this amendment ensures continuous support for the government of Ukraine to stand firm against Russian aggression.

For 3 years, Ukraine has fought tooth and nail for its very survival.

Heroically withstanding barbaric attacks and unspeakable violence by Russia.

The Ukrainians have achieved hard-won victories and have refused to bend to Putin's demands, but they require continued U.S. support to sustain their progress.

In those same 3 years, in this body, we have heard extensive criticism of the Biden administration's Ukraine policy. They were not going fast enough. They were not allowing Ukraine to be aggressive enough. The strategy is not enabling Ukraine to win on the battlefield. And yet, now, when the Trump administration is cutting deals with Putin and walking away from Ukraine, we do not hear much at all--a deafening silence. What has happened?

Well, regardless of what has happened, we cannot abandon Ukraine. We

cannot rush into a negotiation with a brutal dictator who we know will not stop at Ukraine. He will next turn his sights on NATO allies--

We must support this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, and particularly Senator Baldwin, in expressing my strong opposition to the Republican budget resolution and deep concern over the future of the Medicaid program.

This resolution has one main priority: gutting programs like Medicaid and food stamps to pay for a $4.5 trillion--that is right--trillion- dollar tax cut for the wealthiest Americans.

Donald Trump calls this ``one big, beautiful bill,'' but it is a bill that average Americans and the most vulnerable will be paying for years to come.

Among the most egregious and cynical cuts are the proposed cuts to Medicaid. These are expected to be at least $880 billion under the budget that President Trump favors. Cuts of this magnitude would be devastating to the 80 million Americans who rely on Medicaid and the related Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP. We are talking about essential healthcare coverage for children, seniors in nursing homes, people with disabilities, among other vulnerable populations.

In my home State of Rhode Island, Medicaid provides crucial healthcare and peace of mind for over 300,000 of my constituents, about one-third of the State. If you think Medicaid is some program far removed from your life, I can tell you, you are wrong.

So many of our friends, families, and neighbors are served by the Medicaid program. It is not a program for poor people alone. It is a program that is accessed by many different people, and it will touch every family one way or the other in Rhode Island if it is defunded as proposed in this resolution.

Nationally, about half of all children will get healthcare through Medicaid--half of all children. Roughly 40 percent of all births are paid for by the Medicaid program. Medicaid also provides essential coverage for pregnant women. If we are concerned about supporting families and making sure kids get a healthy start in life, Medicaid is crucial to this effort. So who will suffer? Children. Who will benefit from this resolution? The wealthiest corporations and the wealthiest Americans.

Medicaid is also critical for seniors getting nursing home care. They make up a small percentage of the Medicaid population but account for roughly half of Medicaid spending. In Rhode Island, roughly 22 percent of the Medicaid population are seniors and people with disabilities, but that accounts for half of Rhode Island's Medicaid spending. And many, many, many of these seniors come from working families.

They have spent their whole life trying to improve themselves, give their children a better chance in life, support their community, serve their Nation--all of these things. And now at a time of great medical need, we have to be there for them. And this proposal shuts the door effectively on it.

To put a finer point on it, with respect to nursing home patients, 60 percent of these residents get their healthcare through Medicaid, and this proposal will not only harm the recipients, it will effectively put most nursing homes out of business. So where will these people go, these seniors go?

And it will also put so much pressure on our other healthcare systems--like emergency rooms and hospitals--that they, too, will start to falter and fail. The second- and third-order consequences of these cuts are just as bad as the initial cuts to Medicaid.

And if you cut this access to nursing homes, it will reverberate throughout our entire healthcare system. And if there is no Medicaid, then the burden falls on the families. So families in America will be facing another great obstacle.

They are looking at inflation today, which is going up, not coming down. They are looking at an affordable housing crisis, which is raising their rents. And now they will be looking at the need to care for their elderly parents, elderly relatives, and that will be crushing to many families.

Now, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have talked about adding work requirements to the Medicaid Program in particular. They claim that enabling the most vulnerable people to get access to healthcare discourages them from working. But after hearing about those who are served by the Medicaid Program, I am not sure whom it is they are looking to go back to work. The millions of children who are covered by Medicaid, should they be forced to work? We can repeal the child labor laws. Or the seniors in nursing homes? Well, put them out. They are seniors that worked all their lives and put them back to work.

And even when you drill down to the working population, the nondisabled Medicaid population, 92 percent are working full or part time or are unable to work due to caregiving responsibilities, illness, or school attendance--92 percent. These people work hard, and they deserve access to healthcare.

The so-called able-bodied adults who are not working because they get free healthcare through Medicaid is more a myth than anything else. In fact, access to healthcare keeps people healthy and able to work. Taking away healthcare keeps people sick and unable to work. That is something that I hope we all realize.

Now, I would also like to talk for a minute about the unique structure of the Medicaid Program. It is a State-Federal partnership. By and large, States design their programs so they can best serve the needs of their State. This is the ultimate example of giving power back to States to determine what is best for their residents. States put up money and then the Federal Government puts in their share to help the States provide such healthcare.

Medicaid is also flexible and able to contract and expand as needed. For example, during the economic downturns and recessions, if more people are unemployed and lose health coverage with their job, Medicaid is able to step in and provide coverage. That is especially important in making sure that kids don't lose coverage when a parent is laid off.

In 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, when so many people lost work through no fault of their own, Medicaid was a critical lifeline in providing care. Can you imagine how terrifying it would have been to have suddenly lost your job and your health insurance in the middle of a pandemic? It was a new disease that we knew so little about, sending otherwise healthy people to the hospital unable to breathe. The last thing you want to be thinking about in that circumstance is whether or not you can afford to go to the hospital because you just lost your health insurance. Medicaid stepped forward and eased that fear.

Now, certainly, we always should be open to have discussions about how we can make improvements to Federal programs to better serve our constituents and be more cost-effective, but what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are engaging in this week is not a substantive debate about the Medicaid Program. There has been no cost-benefit analysis done on Medicaid because I would argue that the benefits far outweigh the costs: healthy children that can learn, mature, and go on to be effective members of our economy and our society, seniors who have worked their whole lives and deserve a respectful and effective care when they are ill.

In fact, we haven't really been talking about Medicaid at all. Again, without any analysis, this is just to find money for tax cuts. So what they have been looking at is not cost and benefits, just costs. Give me money, and I will give it away and not to those who are in the working class but those who are very, very wealthy.

Last night, President Trump said:

Medicare, Medicaid--none of that stuff is going to be

touched.

I will say it again. Last night, President Trump promised the American people:

Medicare, Medicaid--none of that stuff is going to be

touched.

Well, of course, like he frequently does, he has changed his position in less than 24 hours. He is endorsing a House bill that would severely cut Medicaid.

I would hope that my Republican colleagues will join myself and others in voting for our amendments to protect these vital programs. You will have that choice, and I hope you do it for the people you represent.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to President Trump's nominee for Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

The Department he has been picked to lead is charged with protecting the health of all Americans, from safeguarding Medicare and nursing home care for seniors to investing in medical research, to safeguarding the Nation's food supply and supporting public health programs such as lead poisoning prevention and suicide prevention.

One of the most important public health inventions of the last century is vaccines, making many deadly and debilitating diseases a thing of the past. The Secretary of Health and Human Services has an outsized role in making vaccines available to children and adults throughout the country, and that is something that gives me great pause about Mr. Kennedy's nomination.

For those of us who grew up in the 1950s and 1960s, polio was an insidious threat that sent fear literally through every home in this country until Dr. Salk invented a vaccine. And it literally saved the lives--many, many lives--of generations of Americans. It was approved, and then it went forward. But I can recall lining up--in fact, my parents pulling me along and urging me to stand in line to get the first shot, and then the following year, get the next shot, because to them it was not just a medical routine. It could eliminate the constant worry and concern that one day their child could be subject to polio. So this notion of vaccine that is prompted by Mr. Kennedy is, I think, contrary to the great experience, at least, of those who have been through that period of time.

Mr. Kennedy has spent the last decade or more spreading lies about vaccines and encouraging families not to vaccinate their children. He is not just an advocate with a loud bullhorn spreading that message. Indeed, Mr. Kennedy has made a living making millions of dollars, no less, questioning the safety of vaccines--safety that has been proven time and time again.

Mr. Kennedy chaired one of the most prominent anti-vaccine organizations, the Children's Health Defense, for almost a decade, stepping aside only to run for President in 2023.

Mr. Kennedy had a long and successful career as an environmental lawyer, and he has a compelling personal history overcoming addiction and should be commended for that. However, Mr. Kennedy's only work in the health space has been deeply detrimental to the public health of the United States and, indeed, across the globe. There is no starker example of this than his work in Samoa 5 years ago.

In 2018, in a tragic mistake, two infants in Samoa died after receiving their measles vaccine. The vaccines had been improperly prepared--improperly prepared--with a muscle relaxer instead of water. To be clear, nothing about the vaccine itself killed these children. Indeed, two nurses were imprisoned for 5 years for the mistake they made that day.

Children's Health Defense, again, chaired by Mr. Kennedy, seized on the opportunity and began questioning the safety of the measles vaccine online. Between the tragic accident and the spread of misinformation, the vaccine rate in Samoa fell to dangerously low levels.

Children's Health Defense pressed on, paying for Mr. Kennedy to travel to Samoa, with a prominent anti-vaccine activist, to meet with the Prime Minister and other government officials, as well as other anti-vaccine activists.

And the damage was done. A measles outbreak began a few months later and, with such low vaccination rates, spread rapidly. By January 2020, there were almost 6,000 cases of measles, which resulted in the death of 83 people, and nearly all of the deaths were in children under the age 5.

Two truly tragic deaths spiraled into over 80 deaths, mostly of young children. And really think about that: children dying of a vaccine- preventable illness, with a vaccine widely available. And Mr. Kennedy was one of the leading voices opposing vaccination, encouraging places like Samoa to embrace a natural experience to see what happens when we stop routine vaccinations.

We have seen what happens. Children die.

And on top of that, Mr. Kennedy not only maintains no wrongdoing; he takes no responsibility. He denies the reality of what happened. In his confirmation hearing, he claimed that the cause of these children's death wasn't clear. Nothing could be further from the truth. We know exactly what happened, and Mr. Kennedy is still peddling misinformation to the U.S. Senate and to the people of America.

Now, I mentioned that Mr. Kennedy stepped down from Children's Health Defense in 2023 to run for President, which leads me to my next concern. It has been reported that Mr. Kennedy, in fact, approached both the Trump and Harris campaigns offering his support if he could take on a prominent role in the winning campaign's administration.

Then-Candidate Donald Trump took him up on his offer. In short order, Mr. Kennedy abandoned his campaign, endorsed President Trump, and, it appears, agreed to do whatever President Trump would demand of him in the new role as Secretary of HHS.

The American people, I do not believe, can trust Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy has proven, time and time again, that he will bow to President Trump and his reckless agenda.

For example, Mr. Kennedy has a long, lifetime record of being pro- choice. Yet he said at his confirmation hearing that he will do whatever President Trump wants on issues of reproductive health, perhaps taking away lifesaving care for women.

During his confirmation hearings, Mr. Kennedy downplayed the work that he had done discrediting vaccines, no doubt to secure the votes he needed to get confirmed in this role. When asked about his affiliation with Children's Health Defense, which, again, promotes anti-vaccine views widely and he chaired for almost a decade, he acted like he had barely heard of it.

When asked about his previous statement sowing doubts about vaccines, he claimed it was taken out of context or misrepresented. Yet these anti-vaccine statements are not things he has said once or twice; they are deeply held views that he has spent a lifetime pushing.

In 2015, for example, Mr. Kennedy falsely associated autism with vaccines, saying:

They get the shot, that night they have a fever of 103

degrees, they go to sleep, and three months later their brain

is gone. This is a Holocaust, what this is doing to our

country.

He did later apologize for equating autism with the Holocaust, but he has

only doubled down on his lies about vaccines and autism. As recently as 2023, in an interview he said:

I've read the science on autism and I can tell you, if you

want to know. David, you've got to answer this question: if

autism didn't come from the vaccines, then where is it coming

from?

Well, ask scientists, not Robert Kennedy.

However, this wasn't the first time he had made references to such despicable examples as Nazi Germany when talking about childhood immunizations.

When speaking at a conference in 2013 about his claim that vaccines cause autism--a claim that has been debunked decades before and many times since, he stated:

To me this is like Nazi death camps, what happened to these

kids.

When asked why the CDC would cover up the supposed link between vaccines and autism, Mr. Kennedy said:

I can't tell you why somebody would do something like that.

I can't tell you why ordinary Germans participated in the

Holocaust.

This is not the language of a thoughtful, insightful person dealing with a subject so critical to our country as vaccines. This is inflammatory, outrageous, and I think consistent with his behavior, unfortunately.

Now, Mr. Kennedy has also said that vaccine scientists should be imprisoned for their work. At the same conference he said of vaccine researchers:

Is it hyperbole when I say these people should be in jail?

They should be in jail and the key should be thrown away.

In 2021, speaking on a podcast about how he encourages people not to vaccinate their children, he said:

If you're walking down the street--and I do this now

myself, which is, you know, I don't want to do--I'm not a

busybody. I see somebody on a hiking trail carrying a little

baby, and I say to him, ``Better not get him vaccinated.''

And he heard that from me. If he hears it from 10 other

people, maybe he won't do it, you know, maybe he will save

that child.

In case it wasn't clear, he repeated his position later in the same podcast saying:

If you're one of 10 people that goes up to a guy, a man or

a woman, who's carrying a baby and says, ``Don't vaccinate

that baby,'' when they hear that from 10 people, it'll make

an impression on `em, you know. And we all kept our mouth

shut. Don't keep your mouth shut anymore. Confront everybody

on it.

In the summer of 2023, speaking on a podcast, he was asked if there was any vaccine he thought was good, and he responded:

There's no vaccine that is safe or effective.

That says it all. He has a long, long record of opposing vaccines and discouraging families from getting vaccinated.

But now that Mr. Kennedy is facing a nomination vote in the Senate, he changes his tune. Mr. Kennedy said in his own confirmation hearing that he did not oppose vaccines and had, in fact, gotten all of his kids vaccinated.

That is a hard pill to swallow for the families in Samoa whose children died after Mr. Kennedy and his organization convinced them not to vaccinate their children.

If confirmed to this role, I don't know which Robert Kennedy we will get: the pro-choice, environmental lawyer with a penchant for conspiracy theories and pushing anti-vaccine propaganda or a mouthpiece for President Trump, pushing an anti-choice agenda, putting women's lives at risk, advocating for an end to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, and allowing Elon Musk and DOGE to undermine HHS at every turn.

Either outcome is dangerous to the American people and their health, and I will oppose the nomination.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to oppose the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to be Director of National Intelligence.

In its first few days in office, the Trump administration has been remarkably cavalier and incompetent in its handling of our national security affairs--shutting off foreign aid; threatening Panama, Greenland, and Canada; calling for the mass deportation of Palestinians from Gaza. And just last week, it was reported that the CIA sent an unclassified email, listing all employees it had hired over the last 2 years, in order to comply with an Executive order from President Trump. One former Agency officer called this a ``counterintelligence disaster.''

The President's choices to lead our national security Agencies have also not inspired confidence.

The Director of National Intelligence, or DNI, serves a critical role in leading the intelligence community and in collecting analysis so that the President, Congress, and decisionmakers across the U.S. Government have the best and most timely information for our national security. Indeed, the office was created after 9/11 to better coordinate analysis across the intelligence community. The position of DNI requires someone of great experience, character, judgment, and the confidence to speak truth to power, especially when the findings of the intelligence community differ from the policy objectives of the administration.

While I respect Ms. Gabbard's military service, including overseas deployments, she does not have a demonstrated record of experience to qualify her to lead the intelligence community. As DNI, she would oversee 18 different organizations, tens of thousands of military and civilian personnel, and an annual budget of more than $100 billion. She has never even served in an intelligence role, much less led a global intelligence enterprise.

More concerning than Ms. Gabbard's lack of experience is her record of erratic statements and actions, many of which have run counter to the interests and findings of the intelligence community.

In 2020, Ms. Gabbard and Congressman Matt Gaetz cosponsored a resolution calling on the Federal Government to drop all charges against Edward Snowden. Snowden was a contractor who was indicted for espionage and for publicly releasing the details of some of our most sensitive intelligence efforts, including those that were conducted jointly with foreign allies and partners, before Snowden fled to Russia.

Former Deputy DNI Sue Gordon responded to Ms. Gabbard's defense of Snowden by saying:

It reflects a lack of understanding of who we are, and it

reflects a lack of respect for what we do. Unauthorized

disclosures of intelligence are always bad. Don't go with the

good or bad, any good outcome or whether he was right or

wrong. . . . He not only harmed intelligence, he harmed our

allies and partners, and he harmed our businesses by what it

allowed China to assume about that. There is nothing

justifiable about what he's done. None.

Let me be clear: Edward Snowden's betrayal has cost American lives. He is a traitor by every definition of the word.

As the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Cotton, has said in the past, Mr. Snowden is an ``egotistical, serial liar and traitor whose unauthorized disclosures of classified information have jeopardized the safety of Americans and allies around the world. Snowden's close and continual contact with Russian intelligence services speak volumes. He deserves to rot in jail for the rest of his life.''

Yet, during her confirmation hearing, Ms. Gabbard was repeatedly asked whether or not she believed that Snowden was a traitor. I think colleagues on both sides of the aisle were stunned that she not only refused to do so but that she continued to defend him.

Our national security leaders consistently emphasize that the greatest advantage we have over our adversaries is our network of allies and partners, including those who share intelligence with us. If Ms. Gabbard is confirmed as DNI, I have serious concerns about whether or not our allies and partners will trust her with their nations' most sensitive intelligence given her past actions.

I am also concerned about the pattern of statements over the years by Ms. Gabbard peddling what the intelligence community has found to be Russian propaganda.

For example, at the outset of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, as eloquently described by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Ms. Gabbard stated:

This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if

[the] Biden administration [and] NATO had simply acknowledged

Russia's legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine's

becoming a member of NATO, which would mean U.S. [and] NATO

forces right on Russia's border.

After Ukraine bravely withstood Russia's initial assault, the Kremlin began a campaign of misinformation designed to legitimize its illegal war. These themes were repeatedly amplified by Gabbard in her public comments, including with respect to the widely disputed Russian allegation of a U.S.-funded covert biological weapons program in Ukraine.

As our former colleague Mitt Romney tweeted at the time she made these bogus claims, ``Tulsi Gabbard is parroting false Russian propaganda. Her treasonous lies may well cost lives.''

In reviewing Ms. Gabbard's statements, the New York Times found:

Ms. Gabbard honed her pro-Russia views on [Tucker]

Carlson's show on FOX News before his program was canceled.

She became a regular guest and occasionally filled in as host

when Mr. Carlson was away.

Clips from her appearances on Mr. Carlson's show that

repeated Kremlin talking points were quickly picked up by

Russian state media.

In some cases, she echoed story lines that Russia's

propagandists created, which the Russians then recycled on

their own media as evidence that the conspiracy theories they

had manufactured were true. For the Kremlin, it was a

virtuous cycle.

Ms. Gabbard has been roundly and appropriately criticized for her unannounced 2017 trip to Syria, where she met with Syria's then- President Bashar al-Assad. She justified that trip by saying:

We've got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if

there's a possibility that we could achieve peace.

Ms. Gabbard's decision to carry out an unofficial trip to Syria in the midst of a civil war--a conflict in which Bashar al-Assad was using chemical weapons against his own people--showed incredibly poor judgment. Her visit did nothing to advance the cause of peace but, rather, helped to legitimize Assad's brutal dictatorship.

Just months later, Ms. Gabbard criticized President Trump's decision to use military force to deter further chemical weapons use by Assad and even expressed skepticism about whether Assad had actually used chemical weapons.

Madam President, it would be the height of charity to say that Ms. Gabbard has consistently demonstrated poor judgment on critical national security matters, but it is more than just that. Ms. Gabbard clings to her misjudgments even when she is shown to be wrong. That is a disturbing character flaw for this critical role.

Above all else, the DNI must be unquestionably loyal to our national interests and trustworthy with our national secrets. The intelligence they control has life-or-death consequences.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle--some of whom have indicated great discomfort with Ms. Gabbard and her troubling disregard for America's security interests--appear willing to vote for her confirmation despite their misgivings.

At this critical moment, all Senators must honestly answer these questions: Given everything you know about Tulsi Gabbard, do you trust her with life-or-death national secrets? Can you look members of our intelligence community in the eye and say that you believe Tulsi Gabbard will serve and protect them and this Nation?

I have seen enough to know my answer, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this nominee.

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 rise today with grave concerns about the nomination of Russell Vought to be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or as it is more popularly known, OMB.

If confirmed, this would be Mr. Vought's second time in this role, and based on his past performance and his radical views, I believe it would be reckless to confirm his nomination.

Most Americans will be unfamiliar with OMB and the work that it does, but OMB touches every major government policy and every cent of Federal spending. OMB sits at the center of the budget process, overseeing everything from the initial development of Agency budget requests all the way through executing funding appropriated by Congress.

OMB also plays a critical role in the regulatory review process. It ensures that Agencies' reports, rules, and testimony are consistent with administrative policies.

All of that is to say that every regulation and every investment in the American people--our infrastructure, domestic manufacturing, small businesses, healthcare systems--you name it--goes through OMB. That role as a central clearinghouse of all executive branch spending and regulation comes with significant authority and requires a high level of trust, as well as fidelity to the Constitution and to the law.

Unfortunately, the Trump administration's OMB has already broken that trust with Congress and the American people and the Constitution.

While not yet confirmed as OMB Director, Mr. Vought's influence over the Agency can be felt even now because, in part, he played a central role in developing the Trump administration's policy agenda in Project 2025 and also because of the way he ran the Agency as Director and Deputy Director during the first Trump administration.

As Senator Peters, the ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, pointed out during Mr. Vought's confirmation hearing, there are numerous examples of OMB flouting the law during Mr. Vought's previous tenure.

The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found that OMB broke the law eight times under Mr. Vought's leadership by directing certain Federal Agencies to continue to operate during the 2018-2019 shutdown.

GAO also found that under his leadership, OMB violated the law by withholding vital security assistance to Ukraine that Congress explicitly provided, putting our national security at risk.

The Trump-appointed inspector general for the Department of Housing and Urban Development found that OMB, under Mr. Vought's leadership, inappropriately delayed disaster relief funding for Puerto Rico following the devastation of Hurricane Maria.

With the level of natural disasters that are unfolding, no Senator-- Republican or Democrat--should empower someone who delays and denies disaster relief.

This record is troubling, and it has set the stage for the actions taken by the Trump administration in its first few days in office.

Last week, the Acting OMB Director issued a memorandum instructing Federal Agencies to freeze funding that had been authorized and appropriated by Congress until it could be determined that the programs aligned with Donald Trump's ideological views--views espoused in Project 2025--again, a manifesto that Mr. Vought helped write.

That means that President Trump's OMB, just days into a new administration, has wasted no time in usurping Congress's congressional authority over government spending by withholding funding previously approved by Congress on a bipartisan basis. This illegal action, initiated through OMB, demonstrates just how important and powerful the OMB Director position is.

With Mr. Vought at the helm, everyone should fear that OMB will zealously pursue a radical agenda that includes withholding funding from Americans based on their religion, their thoughts, their appearance, or political affiliation.

In evaluating Federal spending for ideological purity under the Federal funding freeze, the Trump administration cast a wide net, scrutinizing funds for grants for law enforcement, veterans care, disaster relief and mitigation, and even the 988 suicide prevention lifeline that has proven to be extremely effective in dealing with the epidemic of suicide we have seen in the nation over the last few years.

Even for a time, Medicaid funding was held up. And that funding is not just for low-income Americans. It is one of the major sources of funding for nursing homes throughout the country that are taking care of the parents of working men and women all over this country. To shut those funds off means literally to push those people out of those homes.

Even now, the administration appears to be holding funds, for example, to fix an interstate bridge in Rhode Island that closed due to a catastrophic engineering fault that was detected. It seems as if the administration is now concerned about woke bridges, as well as other woke issues.

Even now that a Federal court issued a temporary restraining order to block the funding freeze, I continue to hear from Rhode Island agencies and organizations that are struggling to access Federal funds that have already been awarded, with no answers from the administration on what the problem is and how they plan to fix it.

I fear that this funding freeze is emblematic of this administration more broadly, putting out directives with little to no thought or coordination, without anticipating, and more importantly, without caring about the negative impacts that reckless orders like this could have for the American people and American businesses.

It is important to emphasize that the Trump OMB does not have the authority to freeze funding.

Back in 1974, Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act, which effectively makes it illegal for the President to ignore the law and not spend funds which Congress has appropriated.

The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, and the Impoundment Control Act is an important tool in retaining that authority by clarifying that the President has no inherent power to reject Congress's will when it comes to lawfully appropriated spending.

The Impoundment Control Act has never been found unconstitutional by any court of law. It is the law of the land.

Yet both the President and Mr. Vought have said that they believe the Impoundment Control Act to be unconstitutional. And Mr. Vought has not only repeatedly refused to commit to following the law but has publicly pushed the President to break the law and ``impound.''

Neither the President nor his unelected OMB Director can pick and choose which laws they like and which ones they are going to follow. And neither the President nor his unelected OMB Director can pick and choose which components of congressionally passed funding laws they want to implement.

To be clear, this isn't just a matter of policy disagreements over funding priorities. Democrats and Republicans have and will continue to have disagreements over where we should prioritize Federal funding. But we resolve those disagreements in Congress, in a bipartisan manner, working together to pass appropriations laws that benefit the country. It is this or any other administration's obligation to follow these laws.

This is Congress's constitutional role, and I would remind my Republican colleagues that we should not--we must not--cede our obligations under the Constitution to any other branch of government.

I have been astounded, quite frankly, that so many of my Republican colleagues seem willing to let this administration walk all over this Congress on this issue.

I have no doubt that these funding freezes are a test--a test of our obligation to defend the Constitution of the United States, to play our role in the constitutional scheme.

Trump and his acolytes are counting on a cowed congressional majority and a compliant Supreme Court, stacked with Justices who are willing to ignore decades of precedents to sanction this lawbreaking.

As Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy wrote in the Wall Street Journal last year:

Mr. Trump has previously suggested this statute--

The Impoundment Control Act--

is unconstitutional, and we believe the current Supreme Court

would likely side with him on this question.

I want to be very clear. I don't believe for a moment that Donald Trump has any idea what the Impoundment Control Act is or does. But rightwing activists like Mr. Vought do. They are fanning the flames in hopes of overturning the law so they can radically reshape the Federal Government to their worldview.

And what is that worldview? Rather than serving the American people, they seem to want to punish Americans--punish them for holding different political views; punish them for being low-income; punish them for being sick or homeless.

In particular, they want to further erode trust and belief in government, so they will make the government less efficient by pushing out the people who answer the call to serve the country and their fellow citizens as Federal employees.

In a recent speech, Mr. Vought put it this way:

We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. When

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

to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains.

There is a common adage here in Washington: ``Show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.''

We haven't seen Trump's budget yet, but back in 2023, Mr. Vought produced a budget plan entitled ``A Commitment to End Woke and Weaponized Government,'' which was designed to assist House Republicans in their new majority. In it, Mr. Vought called for extending the Trump tax cuts for the richest Americans, and paying for them by cutting domestic funding by $3.5 trillion. For example, Medicaid would be cut by $2.1 trillion; food stamps by $400 billion; and eliminating the Affordable Care Act tax credits would also be included in this.

I think it gives a pretty good indication of where the Trump administration's priorities lie, and it is certainly not with the average American.

There is another reason I am troubled by Mr. Vought's nomination, and that is his disdain for Congress as an institution. Despite having drawn a number of paychecks as a congressional staffer, he has shown contempt for the Congress.

As I noted earlier, when Mr. Vought served as the Acting Director of OMB, during the first Trump administration, he was integral to the 2019 effort to withhold almost $400 million in military aid for Ukraine--an event, as my colleagues will recall, that led to Trump's first impeachment.

Mr. Vought's contempt for Congress was on full display when he defied a congressional subpoena to produce documents and to testify in the impeachment inquiry. He even went as far as to turn to Twitter to publicly call the House of Representatives' inquiry a ``sham process'' and to say that he had no intent to comply with the subpoena.

Mr. Vought has also refused to cooperate with inspector generals and has advocated that the President exercise emergency powers to circumvent congressional decisions.

This is not an individual this Congress, or any Congress, should put its faith in. He has shown us who he is and how he views this institution and our Constitution, and as such, we should not confirm his nomination.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

For our veterans, I vote no.

Mr. President, I rise today because, over the last 2 days,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Justin Pacheco, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 119th Congress.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to carefully consider their vote on the nomination of Mr. Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense.

The Senate is now in the process of voting on many members of President Trump's new Cabinet, who will determine policies that will affect the lives of every American. However, I would argue that the position of the Secretary of Defense is unique. It requires

the highest quality of leadership, the ability to make on-the-spot life-or-death decisions, excellent diplomatic skills, and character beyond reproach.

There is no question that President Trump has the right to select his Cabinet, but his Defense Secretary should be someone who is capable, without question, to meet the demands of the job and the expectations of those he will lead. They should have the knowledge and experience to manage one of the most complex organizations in the world, and they should be willing to admit what they do not know and assemble a team who will help them carry on.

In his hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, last week, and in his writings and comments, Mr. Hegseth has not proven that he is qualified to be Secretary of Defense. He has been questioned about allegations of significant personal misconduct, including alcohol abuse, infidelity, sexual harassment and abuse, and toxic work environments. He refused to really address or take ownership of these allegations. As a result, he leaves himself open to having his personal history subject to exploitation by adversaries, which is the last thing we need for the leader of the most powerful military in the world.

If confirmed, Mr. Hegseth would be giving orders to men and women of every race, religion, and sexual orientation. His orders may result in these men and women risking and perhaps losing their lives. These men and women must trust that the Secretary of Defense giving those orders respects and supports them.

Instead, Mr. Hegseth has disparaged military personnel with racist and sexist comments, he has derided diversity in the ranks, and he has openly opposed women in combat roles. How can we expect our military to overcome recruiting challenges, maintain retention, and remain the most ready and lethal fighting force in the world if they do not have respect for their leader? Who would want to follow the orders of someone who belittles them?

For better or worse, the industry and workforce that supports the Pentagon is enormous, complicated, and is a huge factor in our Nation's economy, as well as national security. Mismanaging it can cost fortunes in our taxpayers' investments, the American economy, and workers' lives.

It has been widely documented that the extent of Mr. Hegseth's management experience was running two small veterans organizations, both of which he drove to the verge of bankruptcy and had to be relieved from his leadership roles. He has refused to acknowledge this, and it does not seem that he has learned from the experience. Do we want to risk an organization with a $900 billion annual budget to such a nominee?

Another keystone of the U.S. military is that it is entirely professional, unlike many other nations' armies. The U.S. military is held in such high esteem around the world because we follow the rule of law and the Geneva Conventions. Our military is not like those of Russia, Iran, or North Korea, whose soldiers terrorize and kill civilians, pillage cities, and torture captives. When the U.S. military arrives, our enemies should be afraid, but civilians should be relieved because we hold our servicemembers to the highest standards.

But in his writings, Mr. Hegseth has shown nothing but disdain for the rule of law and the men and women who attempt to keep our military personnel disciplined. He wants the United States to ``fight by our own rules.'' But do we want the U.S. military to fight like the Russian military that is destroying Ukraine--or the Chinese or Houthis, who show no regard for international law? Do we want to vote for a nominee who will tear down 250 years of honorable service by the men and women of our U.S. forces? I hope not.

As I hope my colleagues know, my top priority has always been national security, and I have tried to avoid partisanship. I don't think it has a place in that mission. I will always pick up the phone and call whoever holds the position of Secretary of Defense and seek out opportunities to work with them to strengthen and support our military.

Whoever they may be, I hope they comport themselves with the wisdom, composure, and character that this awesome responsibility demands. Our military men and women--indeed, the American people--deserve nothing less from their Secretary of Defense.

The question I have is this: Is Pete Hegseth truly the best we have to offer?

I do not believe so, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this nominee.

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

Mr. President, first, I want to commend Senator Shaheen for a typically thoughtful and compelling speech concerning the proposed nomination of Mr. Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense. I will follow by rising to express my opposition to Mr. Pete Hegseth's nomination to be Secretary of Defense.

Mr. Hegseth is the ninth Defense Secretary nominee I have considered as a member of the Armed Services Committee. I have voted in favor of all of his predecessors, including those in the first Trump administration. While some former Secretaries and I have disagreed politically, there was always an understanding that partisanship has no place when it comes to providing for our men and women in uniform.

Indeed, the weight of this position--Secretary of Defense--is enormous. The Secretary is responsible for leading a Department of 3\1/ 2\ million servicemembers and civilians; an annual budget of nearly $900 billion; and hundreds of thousands of aircraft, ships, submarines, combat vehicles, satellites, and our nuclear arsenal. They also play a powerful role with allies, partners, and adversaries abroad, having to

meet, communicate, and coordinate with a whole range of individuals from many different ethnic groups and many different religious groups. That is part of the role of Secretary of Defense.

At a bare minimum, former Secretaries of Defense have had the experience, wisdom, and character to do that job. Mr. Hegseth, however, is simply not qualified to meet the overwhelming demands to be Secretary of Defense.

Last week, the Armed Services Committee held a nomination hearing for Mr. Hegseth. During the hearing, my colleagues and I raised a number of concerning reports about him. A variety of sources, including his own writings, implicate him with disregarding the laws of war, financial mismanagement, racist and sexist remarks about men and women in uniform, alcohol abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and other troubling issues.

Instead of addressing these reports, many of which are documented and on the record, he dodged and deferred. He did not attempt to alleviate the fears my colleagues and I have that there is blackmail material and a pattern of abuse in his personal history that could be used by adversaries to try to influence him, to try to deflect him from his sworn obligations and duties to the United States, and, frankly, to embarrass him as Secretary of Defense.

These reports are unlike anything we have seen for a nominee of this importance, and if they are confirmed, they would undermine his ability to be an effective leader.

As I have said for months, it is critical that the FBI and the Trump transition team carry out an exhaustive background investigation on Mr. Hegseth. In that regard, I must say that I am extremely disappointed by the investigation process.

Before Mr. Hegseth's hearing, I was briefed by the transition team on the findings of the background check. I was alarmed that investigators had neglected to contact critical witnesses and whistleblowers, and I urged them to reopen the investigation.

During my experience on the Armed Services Committee, it is unprecedented that the FBI has returned to my office two more times--as recently as last night--to provide additional information on a nominee. Frankly, I still do not believe the background investigation is complete.

Last week, after the hearing, I was made aware that an individual with disturbing information about Mr. Hegseth has been interviewed by the FBI in December as part of the background investigation. However, their testimony was not adequately included in the briefing provided by the Trump transition team. As such, I asked this individual to recount to me directly the testimony that she had provided to the FBI. I was disturbed by what I received.

Earlier this week, the Armed Services Committee received a sworn affidavit from Pete Hegseth's former sister-in-law that alleges specific incidents of Mr. Hegseth's alcohol abuse, threatening and abusive behavior toward his second wife, and a repeated pattern of offensive public misconduct. The affidavit was signed and sworn under penalty of perjury, and it has been made available to all Senators to review, and I hope they do. I will share a few examples from her sworn testimony, which she gave to FBI investigators.

Once, while drunk in uniform--which is a violation of military law-- Mr. Hegseth was so inebriated that his brother had to carry him out of a Minneapolis strip club. This occurred during a drill weekend with the Minnesota National Guard.

The FBI was also told that Mr. Hegseth's second wife had an escape plan that involved texting a ``safe word'' to her friends and family to urgently request help without putting herself in more danger. This escape plan was executed on at least one occasion. On at least one occasion, his second wife hid in her closet out of fear.

In many detailed examples, the FBI was told that Mr. Hegseth regularly became so drunk that he passed out, vomited, and had to be carried out of family events and public settings, sometimes shouting sexually and racially offensive comments.

My point is this: We know that Pete Hegseth's former sister-in-law testified to the FBI about his history of abuse, alcoholism, and disgraceful public behavior; however, we know now that her testimony was not adequately included in the Trump transition team's background briefing to the Senate. This begs the question, what else is missing from the FBI report?

The Senate is not considering a low-level appointee right now; we are advising and consenting on a nominee for Secretary of Defense. We cannot risk installing a leader who may have a history that is exploitable by our adversaries, nor can we risk confirming a Secretary of Defense who has shown that he is incapable of being responsible, accountable, and law-abiding 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, as that job requires.

In addition to Mr. Hegseth's troubling personal conduct, I also have grave concerns about actions he would take as Secretary of Defense.

During his nomination hearing, I asked Mr. Hegseth about disturbing efforts underway within the Department of Defense to intimidate military personnel and their families and reports that the Trump administration may implement a so-called purge board to screen senior military officers for ``unfitness'' to lead. This raises the chilling possibility that the Trump administration may fire officers who are deemed to have the wrong political view. I believe that the Tuesday firing of U.S. Coast Guard Commandant ADM Linda Fagan, who by all objective accounts was an admirable leader, proves that the purge is underway.

Unfortunately, Mr. Hegseth would not categorically condemn those efforts during his hearing and instead talked about ``meritocracy'' and ``restoring accountability'' within the senior ranks of the military.

If the Senate confirms Mr. Hegseth this week, who will be fired at the Department of Defense next week? I doubt very seriously it will be based upon merit or anything else other than a political agenda. That would be the beginning of the unraveling of the core element of our military. It is not political. It serves neither party nor person. It protects and defends the Constitution of the United States. If we lose that, we will have lost something that is, I think, the key to our success not only as a military force but as a nation.

Despite Mr. Hegseth's comment, the U.S. military is already one of the finest meritocracies in the world. Every member of the military is in their position because of their ability. They are chosen by boards of other senior officers who evaluate their performance, who look closely at what they have done, and render their best professional opinion of the capability of that person to move on and assume a particular job.

Every member of the military is in their position because of their ability. When there is always a possibility that you need to count on the person next to you to save your life, there is no other choice but meritocracy and value. There is no other choice that you must or can make other than to pick someone whose focus, whose heart, and whose spirit is to protect their fellow soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, guardians--not to exploit them, to make a judgment about their colleagues not based on their political affiliations but on the fact that they are a fellow soldier, sailor, or airman.

I see a dangerous, dangerous point at which we will divert from this historic and compelling approach and become a political organization. We have seen it happen in other places around the world, where militaries are undermined and subjected by political leaders who have a particular political point of view and passion, and they become essentially not an army but an extension of the political aspirations of the great leader. We can't see that here in America.

Our present servicemembers can and should be confident that with hard work and skill and character, they will be successful in their military careers. That is the key criteria.

Indeed, this very meritocracy would prevent a person like Mr. Hegseth from rising higher in the ranks of the military. The totality of his own writings and conduct would disqualify any servicemember from holding any leadership position in the military, much less being confirmed as the Secretary of Defense.

If there was evidence that a serving officer in the military was drunk in

uniform, in a strip club, if there was evidence that a senior military officer was engaged in sexual relations while married to another woman, having just fathered a child from another woman, I can guarantee you that officer's career would end swiftly, either by resignation or by court martial.

Moreover, our servicemembers, since the birth of this country 249 years ago, have taken an oath to the Constitution. Their mission is to protect the country and all of its citizens and the ideals this country was founded on, which should endure no matter who is President or what political party is in power. Mr. Hegseth's idea of meritocracy, however, seems to be that servicemembers should pledge fealty to a President who will be in power for only 4 years and fit the ideas of a party that only half of this Nation supports. There is no faster way to undermine the lethality and morale of our Nation's military--and support of the Nation's citizens for it--than to inject politics into the system. Mr. Hegseth, if confirmed, will not improve our military but destabilize it and weaken the institution.

Further, during his hearing, Mr. Hegseth failed to convince me and many of my colleagues that he is capable of running any organization remotely as complex as the Department of Defense. Mr. Hegseth has been the head of two separate veterans organizations. From 2008 through 2010, he led the organization Veterans for Freedom, which had an annual budget of less than $10 million. Each year he was in charge, outlays exceeded revenues, until the organization verged on bankruptcy and had to be merged with another group.

From 2011 until 2016, Mr. Hegseth ran the organization Concerned Veterans for America. During each of those 5 years, tax records show that the organization spent more than it raised.

If this is how Mr. Hegseth manages organizations with a comparatively small staff and budget, how can anyone have confidence that he will be able to effectively manage an organization with hundreds of multi- million- and multi-billion-dollar contracts that literally drive the economy of many parts of this country?

If confirmed, Mr. Hegseth would be the leader of millions of men and women of every race, religion, and political belief. He can only be an effective leader of an effective fighting force if he has respect for those he leads, and they trust he supports them. Unfortunately, Mr. Hegseth has shown disdain and outright hostility for many he would lead. His writings and his speeches make clear his opposition to diversity issues. He has said:

Diversity is not our strength. Unity is.

On a recent podcast, he said:

I'm straight up just saying we should not have women in

combat roles.

Mr. Hegseth has also written:

The other side, the left, is not our friend. We are not

esteemed colleagues, nor mere political opponents. We are

foes. Either we win or they win. We agree on nothing else.

That is not the spirit to bring to lead the men and women of our military forces.

When I joined the Army as a young officer in the 1970s, the U.S. military was rife with racial tension, women were prohibited from serving in most roles, gay servicemembers were banned, and we relied on a national draft to fill our ranks. The soldiers I served with were proud to do so, but it was certainly not the Nation's most capable military by any standard.

We have made great progress since then. Today, the Department of Defense is fully integrated, every race and religion is accepted, women serve in all combat roles and leadership positions, sexual orientation is irrelevant to service, and the All-Volunteer Force visibly reflects the Nation it protects.

Our military is more diverse than it has ever been, but, more importantly, it is more lethal than it has ever been. This is not a coincidence. This diversity and nonpartisanship is the bedrock of our military power. But Mr. Hegseth seeks to destroy that.

One other strength of the U.S. military which has made us respected around the world is the adherence to the rule of law and clear standards on the battlefield to protect civilians and treat prisoners with humanity. Once again, this nominee for Secretary of Defense, if confirmed, will put that principle in doubt. Mr. Hegseth has championed the pardoning of military members who were turned in by their fellow soldiers and SEALs as well as military contractors convicted of killing 14 Iraqi civilians without cause. He has advocated for the reinstitution of interrogation methods like waterboarding that have been defined as torture and has belittled the advice and counsel of the Judge Advocates General while on deployment.

In his book ``The War on Warriors,'' he wrote:

Should we follow the Geneva Conventions? If our warriors

are forced to follow rules arbitrarily and asked to sacrifice

more lives so that international tribunals feel better about

themselves, aren't we just better off in winning our wars

according to our own rules?!

How can our military personnel trust each other and the partners and allies we need in this dangerous world trust the United States if such rules and conventions are tossed aside? What a bounty this would give our adversaries.

And how would we have the moral authority to criticize the North Vietnamese, for example, who tortured pilots like our colleague John McCain if our Secretary of Defense is saying waterboarding is perfectly fine?

We wouldn't. In fact, I think our pilots would be very much concerned if they felt there are no rules of the game and that, if they went down behind enemy lines, they would be just brutalized, tortured, et cetera, and we don't even have a moral objection to it.

Finally, my top priority as a U.S. Senator has always been national security, and my colleagues, I hope, know this. I don't seek partisan wins or the political spotlight. I want to do right by our men and women in uniform, and I refuse to compromise or cut corners on national security issues.

The greatest privilege I have had in my life is to lead soldiers, to understand and respect them, to do my best by example and leadership so that they would have confidence that their best interest was my sole interest. That is not what I heard from Mr. Hegseth, and that is not what he would bring to the Department of Defense.

Process is important for a nomination of this sort. Other than me, Mr. Hegseth refused to meet with any of my Democratic colleagues on the committee--an unprecedented act, a signal that he is not trying to be a nonpartisan Secretary. He is, in fact, going to be very partisan-- again, injecting politics into the Department of Defense, which is, in my view, fatal.

The committee was denied a second round of questioning of Mr. Hegseth, although we needed it at that time. And I should point out, historically, when Secretary Hagel was here, we had three rounds of questioning; when Secretary Carter was here, we had two rounds of questioning. So the precedent was strongly in favor of an additional round. So we have essentially been denied the kind of access that would have revealed more of Mr. Hegseth's qualities, conduct, and thoughts. And that is not appropriate.

And as I said previously, the FBI background check was inadequate-- again, the first time I have ever had a background check supplemented by two additional addendums of background check. That is not the way I have experienced this.

So I would hope my colleagues are a bit alarmed and are asking themselves: Does this individual have the character and the competence and the composure to be Secretary of Defense? I, frankly, am not convinced and am stunned, in many respects, at the lack of scrutiny which too many of my colleagues are using to consider this nomination.

The lives of thousands and thousands of men and women in uniform, the security of our Nation--and, indeed, the world--is at stake. I hope we will all take time to reflect on whether we are ready to confirm Mr. Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense.

I will personally urge my colleagues to vote against this nominee.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of our colleagues who will conclude their service in this body at the end of the 118th Congress: Senators Mike Braun, Sherrod Brown, Laphonza Butler, Ben Cardin, Tom Carper, Bob Casey, Joe Manchin, Mitt Romney, Kyrsten Sinema, Debbie Stabenow, and Jon Tester.

Each of these colleagues and friends has made important contributions to our Nation. And while there is no greater job than being a U.S. Senator, it is a job that requires tremendous dedication and sacrifice. So I thank these colleagues and their families for all that they have done.

I had the privilege to serve with Senator Mike Braun on the Senate Appropriations Committee, where we led the legislative branch subcommittee for 2 years. In the aftermath of the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, we were able to come together to make critical investments to improve the security of the congressional campus while also safeguarding Senators, Representatives, and staff working in their home States and districts. I appreciated Mike's preparation, his thoughtful ideas, and his commitment to getting the job done. I know he will bring the same commitment as he leads the State of Indiana as its next Governor.

My dear friend Senator Sherrod Brown has been a champion of working men and women for his entire life. He has done more to protect the jobs and livelihoods of autoworkers, steelworkers, construction workers, truck drivers, transit workers, and virtually every blue-collar profession than anyone serving in Congress today. He stood shoulder-to- shoulder with Ohio workers fighting to save factories and pensions. He stood up against unfair competition and bad trade deals. He fought to secure funding for Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and NASA's John Glenn Research Center. And with the passage of the bipartisan infrastructure law, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, he has championed investments that will benefit working people for years to come. I have been fortunate to be at Sherrod's side as he has quarterbacked Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee over the last decade, including 4 years as chairman. He guided us through the COVID-19 pandemic and through the largest bank failures since the Great Recession. He worked on a bipartisan basis to crack down on fentanyl trafficking and to advance meaningful sanctions on our adversaries. He also worked with Vice President-elect Vance and Senator Bob Casey to advance bipartisan rail safety legislation in the wake of the derailment and fire in East Palestine, OH. Through his temperament and work ethic, Sherrod has been a real champion of working Americans. With two grandchildren in Rhode Island, Sherrod is already an honorary Rhode Islander, and I look forward to seeing him in the Ocean State frequently.

The prospect of succeeding a Senate legend and representing the Nation's most populous State with only 14 months to make a mark would have been intimidating to anyone. But Senator Laphonza Butler embraced the challenge, becoming a respected voice on the Judiciary, Banking, Homeland Security, and Rules Committees. She worked to champion the needs of her State, and she worked across the aisle on legislation to help advance the interests of children and families. I am delighted that in her final week in office she was able to secure passage of legislation awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm, a trailblazer for Congress and America.

In the tradition of Barbara Mikulski and Paul Sarbanes, Senator Ben Cardin has been a smart, principled, pragmatic, and, most of all, effective Senator for the State of Maryland. With over two decades of service in the House before being elected to the Senate, Ben's policy expertise runs the gamut. Mastering the intricacies of the Tax Code, trade, Social Security and Medicare, he is also a leader on the international stage, where his advice and wisdom are often sought and followed. A champion of human rights and good government, Ben joined John McCain in originating the Global Magnitsky Act, which allows the United States to sanction foreign government officials who are human rights offenders. In the years since, he has worked to expand the Magnitsky Act to cover more regimes that were oppressing their own people. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he has been at the center of critical debates on Ukraine and the Israel-Hamas conflict, providing wise, steady leadership on these very challenging topics.

Senator Tom Carper has been a friend and great leader. He is the last of a generation of Vietnam veterans who have served in the Senate. As such, he has focused on supporting national defense and our veterans. He has also worked on eliminating waste and supporting smart investments in our transportation and water infrastructure. Tom has always found a way to work across the aisle on issues he has cared about. Indeed, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, he led the effort to craft the bipartisan infrastructure law, which is

channeling funding into fixing our highways and bridges, as well as funding programs to get lead and other contaminants out of drinking water. He crafted the Water Resources Development Act of 2024, which is named in his honor. Tom has also been a leader on climate change, helping craft the Inflation Reduction Act and supporting climate mitigation and resilience efforts. His work in support of his dear friend and former colleague President Biden in support of this legislation over the last 4 years will make a huge difference for Americans for decades to come.

Senator Bob Casey has been a champion of the most vulnerable: children, the elderly, individuals with disabilities, and people just trying to make ends meet. He has been a leading Senate advocate for addressing food insecurity, supporting programs like the emergency food assistance program (TEFAP) and SNAP. He is the author of the bipartisan ABLE Act, which allows individuals with disabilities to save funds for care and qualified expenses without jeopardizing their eligibility for other Federal assistance. And he has introduced legislation to expand and build on this successful initiative. Bob also wrote the Campus SAVE Act to create uniform reporting for sexual violence on college campuses. It is a testament to Bob's character that so many Pennsylvania's political leaders from both parties have praised his work ethic and commitment to helping the people of the Commonwealth.

Senator Joe Manchin has been at the fulcrum of power in the Senate over the last 4 years. In working to address the interests of his State, he has been unafraid to challenge and change orthodoxy. While his views may differ from others in our party, there is no doubt that he has done much to advance the goal all Democrats share: making life better for average Americans. Quite frankly, without his leadership, we would not have the bipartisan infrastructure law or the Inflation Reduction Act. And because of Joe's involvement, we were able to ensure that all of the investments in the Inflation Reduction Act were fully offset by ensuring that corporations and the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share of taxes. That is an important achievement, and Joe deserves full credit for it.

Senator Mitt Romney is an extraordinary American. Respected across the aisle, across the country, and throughout the world, he has held high office in two States: Senator for Utah and Governor of Massachusetts. He has been the Republican nominee for the Presidency. After becoming CEO of the Salt Lake Olympics organizing committee, he helped save the 2002 Winter Games from disarray and mismanagement, making it one of the most successful Winter Olympics ever. Mitt really has done it all. He has even laced up the gloves and boxed with heavy- weight champion Evander Holyfield. Now, the politics of Massachusetts and Utah are vastly different, but Mitt has shown that he can bring people with different outlooks together to get things done. And truth be told, the reforms to the healthcare system that he implemented when he was Governor of Massachusetts helped shape the Affordable Care Act at the Federal level. As a Member of the Senate, Mitt has been a courageous defender of democracy, willing to put country ahead of party, even when it meant harsh criticism. I have been delighted to work with Mitt, and I am proud to be joining in introducing his final piece of bipartisan legislation, the Preserving American Dominance in AI Act, which we will be working to pass next year.

Senator Kyrsten Sinema has been a skilled and pragmatic dealmaker, working on a variety of important bills from the bipartisan infrastructure law to the bipartisan immigration bill, which unfortunately, was scuttled at the last minute at the request of President Trump. I know that in her next chapter Senator Sinema will continue to work hard to bring people together, build consensus, and solve problems.

Senator Debbie Stabenow has been a colleague, friend, and leader here in the Senate since she arrived in 2001. She has been a defender of the auto industry, helping U.S. automakers emerge from the Great Recession and turn to a new, greener future. She has also been at the forefront of revitalizing Michigan cities through initiatives like the New Markets Tax Credit and through investments to remove lead from drinking water. With Senator Roy Blunt, she helped expand the Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic Program nationwide under the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, and she has championed funding for community health centers along with Senator Roger Wicker. And as chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, she has fought to expand child nutrition programs, which have been so critical in reducing poverty over the last 4 years and in helping kids get a great start in life. I am going to miss Debbie and her ability to work hard and achieve results for people who need help the most.

Senator Jon Tester is a big man with a big heart. He will tell you he is just a simple farmer from Big Sandy, MT, and that is true. Running the family farm remains the center of his life and defines his character, but it is not the full story. His interests, knowledge, and intellect are wide-ranging and deep. He can speak with authority on complex banking, foreign policy, defense, and veterans issues, as well as agriculture. As a plain-spoken Westerner, he can put these complicated topics in terms everybody can understand, usually with a healthy dose of humor. But when it comes to hard work, Jon is no- nonsense. He is a serious legislator, particularly as chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee. His work to pass the PACT Act has thrown a lifeline to veterans who were exposed to toxins as a result of their service. Millions of veterans and their families are receiving lifesaving benefits as the result of his work. And without Jon, it wouldn't have happened.

These colleagues have made the Senate and our Nation a better place because of their service. While their time in this body will be ending with the 118th Congress, I know each of them will continue to work to make a positive difference for the country.

Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the fiscal year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act. I am glad that we will soon be voting on final passage of the bill, and I expect it to pass with strong support.

First, I would like to acknowledge the great work and leadership of my colleague Senator Roger Wicker; also our colleagues in the House, Chairman Mike Rogers and Representative Adam Smith. Their partnership has been crucial for the success of this bill. The hallmark of the Senate and House Armed Services Committee has long been bipartisanship, and I am glad that we have continued that tradition for the 64th consecutive year.

I would also like to thank the Members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees who helped produce this bill, as well as Leader Schumer, Leader McConnell, Speaker Johnson, and Leader Jeffries, who facilitated a thorough debate and enabled all Members to engage in the process.

We were able to negotiate hundreds of bipartisan provisions between both Chambers over the past 2 months. This is a strong, forward-looking bill that we can all be proud of. This NDAA is laser-focused on the threats we face.

First and foremost, it recognizes the urgent challenge that China poses to our national security. Beijing continues to escalate its aggressive behavior both militarily and economically against the United States and our allies, and we must respond with resolve.

This NDAA makes strong progress in that regard. Among many other efforts, it authorizes $15.5 billion for the Pacific Deterrence Initiative. It establishes a joint force headquarters in Japan, and it strengthens a number of our regional networks, including AUKUS, the Quad, our trilateral partnership with South Korea and Japan, our alliance with the Philippines, and our partnership with Taiwan. These are momentous accomplishments.

The NDAA also addresses the evolving threats from Russia, Iran, North Korea, and transnational criminal organizations.

It authorizes full funding for the European Deterrence Initiative, provides support for our security cooperation missions with Israel, and improves our counterdrug capabilities in the Western Hemisphere.

Importantly, the bill authorizes record-level investments in key technologies, like hypersonics and artificial intelligence, and significantly increases resources for uncrewed systems and counter-UAS development.

Indeed, our drone capabilities, both defensive and offensive, must be improved quickly as we are seeing every day.

The bill also makes substantial progress toward modernizing our ships, submarines, aircraft, and combat vehicles.

Most importantly, this NDAA provides a historic level of support for our troops and their families. We have included the largest pay raise for junior enlisted servicemembers in decades, expanded eligibility for the Basic Needs Allowance, and authorized increased funding to repair barracks around the world.

Now, I acknowledge the concerns that some of my colleagues have about the bill. A number of Senators hoped to see a higher top line to match the threats we face around the world. Their concern is well-reasoned. However, I would point out that the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, which was demanded by House Republicans, clearly set forth the top-line cap and the budgetary consequences that would result from breaking it. The top line we ultimately negotiated adheres to that law. Nonetheless, I am confident that this bill will provide robust capabilities for the Department.

In addition, I share many of my colleagues' frustrations that the bill includes a provision that would prohibit gender-affirming healthcare for minors in certain circumstances. I voted against this provision in committee, and I disagree strongly with including such a, frankly, I think misguided provision in the Defense bill. We will continue to work to ensure the healthcare rights of all military personnel and their dependencies.

Ultimately, though, we have before us a very strong National Defense Authorization Act. I am confident it will provide the Department of Defense and our military men and women with the resources they need to meet and defeat the national security threats we face.

Now I would like to take an opportunity to recognize the staff who have made this bill possible. Senator Wicker has already pointed out the extraordinary members of his staff and rightfully commended them for their excellent work. I specifically want to recognize, first, the director of the Democratic staff Elizabeth King and the director of the Republican staff John Keast. They did a superb job. They have led their staffs with professionalism and skill.

I would also like to thank members of the Armed Services Committee staff on my side of the aisle: Jody Bennett, Carolyn Chuhta, Jon Clark, Jenny Davis, Jonathan Epstein, Jorie Feldman, Kevin Gates, Creighton Greene, Chad Johnson, Gary Leeling, Maggie McNamara Cooper, Mike Noblet, John Quirk, Andy Scott, Cole Stevens, Meredith Werner, Alison Warner, Isabelle Picciotti, Leah Brewer, Sean Jones, Joe Gallo, Ryan Bates, Sean Jones, Brittany Amador, Sofia Kamali, Noah Sisk, and Zachary Volpe.

Also, I want to thank the floor staff and the leadership. We can't get anything done around here without the floor staff and the leadership.

Thank you, Senator Schumer.

As the majority leader points out, the floor staff is the most important component of what we do.

You have been part of this process for the last several weeks and have done a remarkable job getting us to this point, and I thank you very much.

Finally, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

I yield the floor.