Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Pratt & Whitney, a pioneer and titan in the field of aviation.

The Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Company was founded in 1925 in Hartford, CT, by Frederick B. Rentschler and colleagues from his previous position at Wright Aeronautical, with funding and facility space from Pratt & Whitney Machine Tool.

Rentschler, along with George J. Mead and other colleagues, were designing and developing a new air-cooled radial engine design that would enable an unprecedented power-to-weight ratio. The company's first engine, the 425-horsepower R-1340 Wasp, was completed by the end of 1925. On its third test run in March 1926, the engine easily passed the U.S. Navy qualification test and proceeded to revolutionize military and commercial aviation through a combination of both performance and reliability.

In order to ramp up production, the company moved to East Hartford, where assembly lines, research and testing, and administrative offices are still located, along with an airfield, known as Rentschler Field.

Notably, the R-1340 powered the aircraft of many high-profile aviators of the day, including Wiley Post and Amelia Earhart. It also gave birth to an entire Wasp series, which are used in agricultural aircraft and other aviation applications around the world to this day.

Engine production soared during World War II, and in 1944, Pratt & Whitney--now independent of Pratt & Whitney Machine Tool and part of the United Aircraft Corporation--began its gas turbine and jet propulsion initiative. The company constructed a wind tunnel, laboratory, and engineering center to support the United States and its allies in World War II. By 1945, wartime production of these engines totaled more than 300,000 and were known by servicemembers to be extremely dependable. Indeed, the ``Dependable Engines'' has been one of the company's slogans--and its overriding goal--for decades.

After World War II, Pratt & Whitney continued designing and innovating aircraft engines that were more powerful, agile, and reliable. Today, they remain a world leader in the commercial and defense aerospace industry, with more than 85,000 engines in service, approximately 17,000 customers worldwide, and plants across the United States.

With roughly 11,000 employees between its headquarters in East Hartford and a facility in Middletown, Pratt & Whitney continues to be one of the greatest, most impactful commercial institutions in Connecticut. I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring the 100th anniversary of Pratt & Whitney and the tremendous legacy it has left-- and continues to forge--in the aerospace industry.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following motion to recommit for the bill H.R. 4 be placed in the Congressional Record:

A motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on

Appropriations of the Senate with instructions to report the

same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on

which the Senate is not in session, with changes that are

within the jurisdiction of such committee and would ensure

that no rescission of funding for the Corporation for Public

Broadcasting impedes or stops public television stations from

producing or broadcasting local news and homegrown content to

rural, remote, and underserved communities.

Mr. President, I was unable to vote on Executive Calendar No. 81, Scott Kupor, of California, to be Director of the Office of Personnel Management for a term of four years, due to my participation at the Ukraine Recovery Conference in Rome, Italy, on July 10, 2025. I am working with Senator Graham to build international support to advance our bipartisan Sanctioning Russia Act in an effort to end the bloodshed in Ukraine. I would have opposed confirmation of the nomination had I been present for the vote. The vote was rollcall vote No. 379.

I was unable to vote on Executive Calendar No. 58, William Briggs, of Texas, to be Deputy Administrator of the Small Business Administration, due to my participation at the Ukraine Recovery Conference in Rome, Italy, on July 10, 2025. I am working with Senator Graham to build international support to advance our bipartisan Sanctioning Russia Act in an effort to end the bloodshed in Ukraine. I would have opposed confirmation of the nomination had I been present for the vote. The vote was rollcall vote No. 380.

I was unable to vote on Executive Calendar No. 64, Jonathan Gould, of Virginia, to be Comptroller of the Currency for a term of five years, due to my participation at the Ukraine Recovery Conference in Rome, Italy, on July 10, 2025. I am working with Senator Graham to build international support to advance our bipartisan Sanctioning Russia Act in an effort to end the bloodshed in Ukraine. I would have opposed cloture on the nomination had I been present for the vote. The vote was rollcall vote No. 381.

I was unable to attend the cloture vote for Executive Calendar No. 261, Whitney D. Hermandorfer, of Tennessee, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, due to my participation at the Ukraine Recovery Conference in Rome, Italy, on July 10, 2025. I am working with Senator Graham to build international support to advance our bipartisan Sanctioning Russia Act in an effort to end the bloodshed in Ukraine. I would have opposed cloture had I been present for the vote. The vote was rollcall vote No. 382.

I was unable to vote on Executive Calendar No. 64, Jonathan Gould, of Virginia, to be Comptroller of the Currency for a term of five years, due to my participation at the Ukraine Recovery Conference in Rome, Italy, on July 10, 2025. I am working with Senator Graham to build international support to advance our bipartisan Sanctioning Russia Act in an effort to end the bloodshed in Ukraine. I would have opposed confirmation of the nomination had I been present for the vote. The vote was rollcall vote No. 383.

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

Mr. President, I am here to sound the alarm--to make my colleagues aware--of the crisis that faces us. It challenges all veterans. It faces the United States of America because of the chaos and confusion that continues at the Veterans Health Administration and the sliding downward of service that is available to our Nation's heroes.

On Monday, VA Secretary Doug Collins announced that he would be abandoning his disastrous plan to fire 83,000 VA employees, and the reason is pretty simple: The Trump administration is set to lose 30,000 employees at the end of the year. That number is incredibly worrisome. It is a significant number. The VA typically has a net gain of 10,000 VA employees every year. Yet, this year, it stands to lose more than 30,000 of its workforce, despite serving more veterans than ever before--significantly more--because of the PACT Act.

So, at a time when the VA already has 40,000 vacancies in veterans' healthcare, this administration ought to be focused on hiring more employees, not touting how its employees are abandoning the VA--fleeing a toxic work environment and a demoralizing work environment. They are fleeing the VA because of a failed and failing leadership.

Now, the reason why the VA Secretary has abandoned this plan to fire 83,000 people is, essentially, unexplained. There is no transparency. He has denied us information about who would have been fired. He has refused to provide information about the 30,000 individual workers who are leaving and what positions they hold.

But here is what we know for sure. Only because of the blistering backlash of veterans themselves, the veterans service organizations that represent them, Members of Congress like myself, and the public, is he, in fact, abandoning this cruel and stupid plan, which has never been explained. He is abandoning it because of the protests of veterans and VSOs who spoke out. And I thank them. I am here to say ``thank you'' to the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the DVA, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans--I could go through the entire list. And to all the veterans posts and organizations, thank you for helping to save those jobs and those workers who would have been fired--by the way, a third of them veterans themselves.

But this 30,000 number is no cause for relief or complacency. In fact, it is unconscionable because it will undercut veterans' care and benefits. We have already seen some of the impacts of this haphazard effort to force hard-working public servants out of the VA because of a toxic work environment created by this administration and DOGE's slash- and-trash policy.

VA nurses across the country are having to perform mandatory overtime. Lifesaving clinical trials have been canceled. Veterans are being directed to call the Veterans Crisis Line instead of regular appointments as mental health providers leave the VA in droves.

This announcement by the VA Secretary makes clear that the VA, essentially, is bleeding employees across the board. And the loss of key people includes clinical staff: doctors, nurses. There are already 40,000 vacancies. How can the VA possibly recruit talented, skilled, dedicated employees when they know they will be fired at any moment?

We know that a lot of the people leaving or declining jobs at the VA because of this chaos are, in fact, the professionals who deliver medical care--like doctors and nurses--to veterans. These positions are already facing shortages, especially in rural areas. How will rural veterans fare between the bleeding out of the VA employees when many rural hospitals are now set to shutter their doors under the President's ``Big Beautiful Betrayal,'' the bill he just signed into law?

Make no mistake, this attrition is not natural. It is not natural attrition to lose 30,000 employees when the ordinary rate is to hire 10,000 per year. It is a reduction in force. You can call it what you will, but it is essentially a purposeful and intentional reduction in the workers necessary to provide medical care and benefits to veterans. It is shameful to ruin a great institution. And veterans' healthcare has provided world-class, gold-standard care to countless heroes across the country. This administration is decimating that institution.

American veterans deserve nothing less than for every single Member of this body to call out and challenge these damaging policies--not applaud them as some measure of success or even to sanction them by our silence. We need to speak out, stand up for our veterans. Now is the time, before the damage escalates and becomes more serious.

I am absolutely anguished and furious about these cuts, which not only destroy an institution but endanger our veterans who want to go to VA clinics and hospitals like the ones we have in Connecticut in West Haven or in Newington, rural hospitals that will be shuttered, clinics providing telehealth--all of the people who are necessary to provide those services, whether they are the technicians or the clinician or the janitors who are part of a team. And the VA thrives on teamwork.

As things stand, 30,000 VA employees will lose their jobs. That is not what America should be tolerating or celebrating on Independence Day and this time in our Nation's history.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask that the scheduled vote be commenced immediately.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.

I ask that further reading of the motion be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I make this motion to commit the reconciliation bill to the Armed Services Committee on behalf of myself and Senator Schumer because President Trump, earlier this year, solicited and accepted a $200 million gift from the Government of Qatar, a Boeing 747 jet to be retrofitted supposedly for use as Air Force One. Make no mistake, this transfer is illegal. It is a blatant violation of the Constitution's emoluments clause, which prohibits exactly this kind of foreign gift, risking undue foreign influence.

It is also abhorrently wasteful, costing taxpayers at least $1.5 billion to strip it down and install all the necessary security systems. And it won't even be ready before the end of Trump's term. And now we learn from the Air Force Secretary just last week that the money will be transferred from modernization of our nuclear arsenal, the Sentinel Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Program.

It is a sacrifice of our national security. Illegal, exorbitantly costly, dangerous to our national defense--we should stand up to this corrupt self-dealing.

This motion, which I have worked on with Senators Schumer and Schatz, would send the bill back to the Armed Services Committee with instructions to add a prohibition on using funds for this unconstitutional, wasteful self-enrichment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in the 30 seconds I have left, let me just respond.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Vote on Motion to Commit

Mr. President, I am honored to follow my colleague Senator Reed, and he is absolutely right that this bill is almost un- American. In fact, I would say it is un-American because it is so destructive to the middle class, to healthcare, to education, to basic fairness and decency in our great country, the greatest country in the history of the world.

It would balloon the debt and the deficit by $4 trillion, and yet my Republican colleagues have sought to disguise and hide that reprehensible pain and damage to the American system.

It would cut Medicaid by $930 billion, which means billions in cuts for Connecticut, hundreds of thousands of Connecticut children and families off Medicaid, food nutrition shredded, and student loans decimated.

These kinds of impacts on Connecticut are mirrored through the whole country.

And the American people are beginning to get it. That is why this bill--this so-called One Big Beautiful Bill--is so deeply unpopular--in fact, by a 2-to-1 majority.

I want to talk not only about Connecticut but two of the States that are represented by colleagues here. They are so-called red States. But make no mistake, this bill is seismically catastrophic not just for Connecticut but for the whole country and for Louisiana, where this measure, if it is passed, will mean that my colleagues from Louisiana are voting to kick roughly 250,000 people in their State off health insurance. They will be voting for a bill that could close 33 rural hospitals in their State alone and cost their State's healthcare providers $588 million for services that newly insured patients simply will not be able to pay back. Their State program would lose $4 billion.

That is Louisiana alone in funding.

These numbers are staggering, and they are the reason that every major health system in Louisiana is opposing this bill. Just yesterday, they sent a letter warning that cuts in this bill--and I am quoting the Louisiana healthcare providers here--``would be historic in their devastation and warrant our shared advocacy to protect our patients and the care we provide them in hospitals and clinics.''

I could go on about Louisiana. I am going to abbreviate my remarks and ask unanimous consent to put my full statement in the Record.

This bill also reduces SNAP benefits for 206,000 Louisianians. It eliminates the benefits entirely for 94,000 of them.

I want to see my colleagues from Louisiana go home and face their constituents, having cut the legs from SNAP and the Medicaid Program and many other benefits.

And in Utah, that same tragic scenario is unfolding in a State where 337,000 children and adults depend on Medicaid. Nearly half of all children in Utah are covered by Medicaid and 59 percent of nursing home residents, and 60,000 people living in rural Utah communities are covered by Medicaid.

If this bill passes, at least 180,000 Utahns will lose healthcare coverage, and Utah's uninsured rate will increase by a staggering 67 percent. If this bill passes, 31,000 of the people in Utah could see their benefits slashed, and 13,000 would risk losing their benefits entirely.

I just want to say, in conclusion, these numbers for Connecticut, for Louisiana, for Utah, for the State of Washington--and my wonderful colleague Senator Cantwell will be talking shortly--they are not just numbers. They are faces. They are lives. They are children who are just beginning to be Americans, and their productivity and their contributions back to America will be hamstrung. Their lives will be financially handicapped, and healthwise, they will be impaired as a result of these irresponsible and reprehensible cuts.

I couldn't be angrier about these kinds of cuts in programs, done only so that the ultrawealthy will receive tax cuts. I am willing to bet that a lot of those billionaires and millionaires would forego those tax benefits if they understood the consequences. But my Republican colleagues, who are in disarray at this moment, they can't come together on a program because they know how abhorrent its effects would be on their States. They ought to listen to the people of America, not the ultrawealthy. The people are speaking in the polls. They are speaking through their elected representatives. And they are speaking because their conscience simply won't let them support a bill that does such abhorrent damage to the American middle class, the American way of life, and American values.

I am proud to stand here. I wish we weren't here going all night into Monday morning. But I am proud to stand here with my colleagues. I just wish my Republican colleagues were on the same side of these issues, because they are going to go home, and they will have to face the children and families who will be hurt so deeply by this bill.

Mr. President, I stand here today to, again, express my staunch opposition to the proposed Republican reconciliation bill. This legislation includes sweeping cuts that would raise costs for the American people and make it harder to access health care and food.

Over the past few weeks, my Democratic colleagues and I have spoken at length about the impact this bill would have on everyday Americans. This reconciliation bill is not about savings or government efficiency. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office found just last night that it will INCREASE the deficit by $4 trillion.

Instead, this bill funds tax cuts for billionaires by gutting life sustaining services like SNAP and Medicaid that help everyone else. It will cut $930 billion from Medicaid--that is $930 billion that helps states provide health care services to their residents--and lead to nearly 12 million people losing coverage. That's 12 million people who won't have health insurance when their child breaks their arm on the playground, or when they feel a lump that could be cancer.

This budget is a disaster for Connecticut.

But this budget will not just harm Connecticut. It will not just harm those living in blue states. This budget will harm Americans in every state across the country. That is why I am joining my Democratic colleagues to share some of the impacts this legislation will have on the Americans whose

Senators plan to vote for these cuts. If my Republican colleagues do not want to highlight these harms, we will.

In Louisiana, nearly 2 million people are enrolled in Medicaid. This includes 64% percent of moms giving birth, 54% percent of children, and 74% percent of seniors in nursing homes. One-fifth of Louisiana's Medicaid population lives in a rural area where access to coverage is already difficult.

Medicaid also supports school health professionals, like speech pathologists, occupational therapists and school psychologists. Without Medicaid, many of the 96,000 students with disabilities in Louisiana schools could have essential services ripped away from them. Is Louisiana expected to pick up the bill for these kids? Will the parents be forced to pay? Or will these children just lose out on these services entirely because their legislators decided that tax cuts for the rich are more important?

Currently, the state of Louisiana receives $13 billion in federal Medicaid funding every year. That means that my colleagues from Louisiana are voting to kick roughly 250,000 people in Louisiana off their health insurance. The majority of the Louisiana Congressional Delegation is poised to vote for a bill that could close 33 rural hospitals and cost the state's health care providers $588 million for services that newly uninsured patients simply will not be able to pay back. The state Medicaid program would lose $4 billion in funding.

These numbers are staggering, but they will never fully capture the impact on Louisiana families. How many couples will now have to pay out of pocket if they want to have a baby? How many will simply forgo having a child altogether? How many grandparents will see their care worsen because of cuts to nursing homes? How many kids will miss a doctor's appointment because mom and dad can't afford to pay the bill? These cuts aren't just numbers--they will impact lives and livelihoods for everyone, even those who keep their coverage.

That is why every major health system in Louisiana is opposing this bill. Just yesterday, they sent a letter warning that the cuts in this bill, and I am quoting Louisiana health care providers here, ``would be historic in their devastation and warrant our shared advocacy to protect our patients and the care we provide them at our hospitals and clinics.''

That is straight from the people providing care in Louisiana. Historic devastation for the state.

The letter went on to say, and I quote: ``[The] economic consequences pale in comparison to the harm that will be caused to residents across the state, regardless of insurance status, who will no longer be able to get the care that they need.''

The letter highlighted nearly 17,000 jobs likely to be lost in the State and tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue. It is just senseless. It is a senseless cut to the State's budget, to the State's health care system, and to the State's economy.

However, Republicans are not stopping there. They are also going after SNAP benefits.

In Louisiana, one in six people live with food insecurity. The SNAP program helps. This federal program feeds hungry people. That is it. That is what the program does. SNAP supports 849,163 people in Lousiana, including over 22,000 veterans, 33% of households with older adults, and 50% of households with children. That means 377,258 children in Louisiana were fed, in part, by SNAP. This bill would reduce SNAP for 206,000 Louisianans and eliminate the benefit entirely for 94,000.

I want to be clear about what this means. SNAP feeds people. These taxpayer dollars make sure children and veterans have enough food to eat. They make sure our friends and loved ones who have fallen on hard times don't go hungry. They make sure our neighbors can afford to share a meal with family.

We can debate day and night about our Federal spending, but this funding--keeping our Nation fed--should not be controversial. But this bill will force people to go hungry. It will force kids to lose out on school meals. It will overwhelm already stretched Louisiana food banks. People facing hunger in Louisiana report needing an estimated $528 million more per year to meet their food needs. This bill will exacerbate that. Simply put, the Federal cuts in this bill will force people in Louisiana to go hungry or pay more at the grocery store.

A similar and tragic scenario would unfold in Utah where 337,000 children and adults depend on Medicaid. Nearly half of all children in Utah are covered by Medicaid, 59% of nursing home residents in Utah are covered by Medicaid, and 60,000 people living in rural Utah communities are covered by Medicaid. If this bill passes at least 180,000 Utahns will lose health coverage, and Utah's uninsured rate will increase by a staggering 67%.

As a result of this bill, Utah's health care system will lose an estimated $559 million per year in Federal funding, making it nearly impossible for the State to maintain current levels of coverage, benefits, and payments to providers.

Providers in Utah are speaking out. Kasey Shakespear, from the Rural Health Association of Utah, said of the bill, and I am quoting him here: ``It's going to dramatically reduce the support rural Utah is getting from the state of Utah and take a lot of resources away from them that are crucial to their success.''

An OB-GYN from Utah specifically spoke about the impact of the Republican bill on pregnant women and their newborn infants. He said: ``I don't think I can count the number of times where Medicaid has made a difference in my practice.''

He told us about the women he saw in his practice who, because of Medicaid coverage, were able to bring home a healthy baby. Moms in Utah who did not have to worry about accessing care or how to pay for coverage, and whose pregnancy complications were kept to a minimum as a result. This Utah doctor said, and I am quoting him again here: ``If Congress slashes Medicaid funding, this kind of care disappears for thousands of Utahns.''

Do my colleagues from Utah really support taking away support for new moms and their children?

Utahns will also face greater food insecurity. Right now, one in seven people in the State struggle to put food on the table and more than 178,000 residents depend on SNAP. This include nearly 5,000 veterans, 56% of households with children, and 32% of households with older adults.

If this bill passes, 31,000 Utahns could see their benefits slashed and 13,000 would be at risk of losing their benefits entirely. This could have severe consequences for the Utah Food Bank, the primary food bank distributing food to a network of over 200 partner agencies across the state.

These statistics are not just numbers, and these cuts are not abstract. They represent real people, real families, and real harm. It is our duty to protect our constituents, but it is also our duty to protect the American people. As U.S. Senators, we were not elected by a political party. We were elected by the constituents in our States who entrusted us with the responsibility of representing and protecting them at the highest level.

In publishing this reconciliation bill forward, my Republican colleagues are prioritizing partisan loyalty.

My Republican colleagues have access to the same data that I do. They know how devastating this bill would be and I implore them to remember that their responsibility is to their constituents, and the people of the country, and not to President Trump and his billionaire cronies.

I want to conclude by reading from the letter that Louisiana healthcare organizations sent. The letter ends by saying, and I quote the Louisiana healthcare community here: ``Protecting Medicaid is not just about avoiding budget cuts; it is a commitment to our shared values of community, resilience, and economic vitality.''

The letter goes on, and I quote: ``We take no pleasure in having to speculate about the impact of these cuts. However, in light of the cuts being proposed, we must have honest conversations together, and with you--the communities we serve. Louisiana and our healthcare delivery system are at a crossroads. We face the largest cut to healthcare in our state's history. Will our leaders in Washington choose to protect the health of our people, hospitals and economy? We are counting on them to do so.''

Mr. President, all of us, in Connecticut, in Utah, and in Louisiana, are counting on them, too. Let's hope our commitment to shared values rises above partisan politics, and that this devastating bill can be voted down.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following motion to commit for the bill H.R. 1 be placed in the Congressional Record:

A motion to commit the bill to the committee on Armed

Services with instructions to prohibit the Department of

Defense from using any funds appropriated by Congress for

national security purposes and to support the troops of the

United States to accept, retrofit, or transfer a plane given

by a foreign government for use as Air Force One during the

Trump Administration.

Mr. President, I am so honored to follow my colleague from Wisconsin, who has been such a steadfast and strong partner in this effort to advance the Women's Health Protection Act.

I will be honest in this Chamber. When we first introduced this measure, almost 15 years ago, the idea that Roe v. Wade could or would be tossed aside was unimaginable. It was firmly established law for decades, relied on by American women and men.

In a stroke of catastrophic, misguided ruling, the Supreme Court cast it aside, ignoring strong precedent and all the doctrines of law that normally would apply. So the Women's Health Protection Act now is more necessary than ever before, certainly than in the days when we first offered it.

My own involvement, actually, in this issue began when I was a law clerk to Justice Blackmun in the year after Roe v. Wade. There was still controversy about whether Roe would survive. But in decision after decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed it. And, in fact, as a member of the Connecticut State Senate, I offered a bill, and it passed, to codify Roe v. Wade in our State laws in Connecticut.

Connecticut has led the Nation proudly in protecting reproductive rights, in safeguarding access to clinics where abortion services are provided, in fighting for Planned Parenthood funding, in protecting doctors who provide these critical services to women coming from other States that may actually criminalize that kind of care.

But we know now what the challenge is and what we must do. The Women's Health Protection Act should be the law of our land. But in the meantime, we have to fight the efforts to handicap and straitjacket women in their efforts simply to seek basic healthcare.

We are in the midst of an assault on women's healthcare. It is really an attack on women and families.

Men have a stake in this fight. You cannot escape this issue simply because you are a man. It affects you and your family as much as it does women.

The decision in Dobbs stripped millions of women of the freedom to make their own healthcare decisions. The idea that Dobbs would simply return the issue of reproductive rights to the State was always disingenuous. States across the country have created a full-blown healthcare crisis in the chaos and confusion that has ensued.

Since Dobbs, more than 31 million women live in States where abortion is banned or under the threat of banning it, and nearly 9 million women live in the 12 States with bills proposing to bring homicide charges against them for having an abortion.

The effects of Dobbs don't have to be a matter of speculation anymore. I actually commissioned or requested a study from the GAO in 2022 about the economic effects of Dobbs. That report has just been released 3 years later. My first reaction was: Why did it take so long? My second reaction was: Thank goodness you took that long and you did an honest and accurate appraisal of what the effects are.

Here is the bottom line: Dobbs has been a death sentence--literally, a death sentence--for countless women, and it has been a condemnation to financial disaster for many more.

This study shows, inextricably, the link between denial of healthcare and the maternal mortality rate for women and their financial distress, even if they survive.

The Trump administration has aggravated this problem in, literally, just recent weeks. On June 19, 2025, a Trump-appointed Federal judge struck down a Biden administration rule that strengthened privacy protections for information related to productive healthcare, such as abortion and gender-affirming care.

On March 5, 2025, President Trump announced his administration would no longer enforce a Federal law that requires hospitals to provide women abortion care in an emergency when their lives are threatened. When, literally, they could die, no longer will emergency rooms be required to provide that care.

On April 1 of this year, the Trump administration began withholding tens of millions of dollars under title X in family grants for Planned Parenthood and other organizations in our country that support critical family planning efforts and preventive healthcare, including cancer screening, pregnancy testing, birth control, treatment of sexually transmitted infections, infertility services, and more. It is not just efforts to prevent abortion; it is a war on women's health, launched by this administration. And, unfortunately, this administration is just getting started.

The fact is that unsafe and unintended pregnancies have huge costs in lives and dollars, impacting all of us. That is why I am proud to live in Connecticut that has expanded abortion care and ensured that women in other States could access compassionate care if necessary.

But the attacks by Republicans continue, and they are attacks on reproductive freedom, on women's healthcare, seeking now to restrict access to abortion medication, refusing to recognize the right to use contraceptives, working to defund preventive healthcare through Medicaid in clinics like Planned Parenthood.

I am proud to continue this fight. It is a fight that we absolutely must win. It may not be in the next days, but we will be fighting in the next days against the provisions of this ``Big Ugly Betrayal'' that so disgrace our Nation if passed.

I am grateful for all of the Members on our side who are joining us today on this third anniversary of Dobbs to say: Enough is enough. We need to protect reproductive freedoms from this onslaught against women.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Frank Pepe Pizza Napoletana, a bona fide institution in Connecticut.

Frank Pepe was born in the foothills of Maori, Italy, near Naples. He immigrated to the United States as a teenager in 1909, having neither money nor fluency in English but with a strong work ethic and ambition to make a life for himself. After briefly returning to Italy to fight in World War I, he met Filomena Volpi in Maori in 1919. Together, they moved back to New Haven, marrying and settling down to raise a family.

In New Haven, Frank worked first in a pasta factory and then in a bakery on Wooster Street. While at the bakery, Frank began making his own version of the classic ``apizza''--then a relatively obscure ethnic dish--and selling them off of a special headdress in the Wooster Square market. As his tomato pies became increasingly popular, he eventually saved enough money to buy a wagon before taking over the bakery's operations in June 1925 and officially establishing Frank Pepe Pizzeria Napoletana.

In his early years, Frank employed a small staff of relatives. His wife Filomena was especially invaluable. Unlike Frank, she could speak and write English and so took over the pizzeria's administrative and other business-related operations.

Business was booming, and in 1937, Frank bought the larger building next door at 157 Wooster Street, where the primary New Haven location still stands. Frank also became incredibly active in the New Haven community, coming to be known as ``Old Reliable'' for his numerous contributions to his neighborhood and unwavering love for his growing extended family.

Frank Pepe passed away in 1969, leaving the pizzeria to his two daughters Elizabeth and Serafina. They continued to expand the pizzeria, purchasing the old bakery next door in the late 1970s and reopening it as Frank Pepe's The Spot.

Frank Pepe's reputation as one of--if not the--premier pizzerias in the country continued to spread far and wide. In the early 1990s, Elizabeth and Serafina retired and passed the pizzeria on to their children Anthony, Francis, Lisa, Bernadette, Genevieve, Jennifer, and Gary, who still operate the business to this day. They have also overseen its expansion across the country, now having 17 stores in 7 States.

Frank Pepe's story is truly quintessentially American: an immigrant who came to America in search of a better life, bringing with him an element of his cultural heritage that bettered his community. And Frank Pepe's continues to make some of the best pizza in the world. I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring the 100th anniversary of Frank Pepe Pizzeria Napoletana and the tremendous legacy of the Pepe family.

Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the 95th birthday of Rabbi Philip Lazowski and the 90th birthday of his wife Ruth, both extraordinary Holocaust survivors and towering figures of Hartford's Jewish community.

Rabbi Lazowski was born on June 13, 1930, in Bielica, Poland, and Ruth on June 9, 1935, in Zhetel in modern-day Belarus. He was the oldest of five, with three younger brothers and a younger sister. She was the oldest of two, with one younger sister.

In June 1941, Nazi Germany invaded both towns, destroying their family homes and beginning mass killings of the Jewish population. On November 10, 1941, the remaining Jewish population in Bielica, including Philip and his family, were forced into Zhetel, where a ghetto was established in February 1942. Soon after, in April 1942, the Germans began rounding up the Jewish population in Zhetel. While Philip's family was able to find shelter in a cave under their home, Philip himself was caught by a German soldier. He was found by a woman, Miriam Rabinowitz, who took him in as her own along with her two daughters and saved his life.

After August 6, 1942, when the Zhetel ghetto was liquidated, Philip and Ruth fled--separately. Philip fled first to Dworetz, reuniting with one of his brothers and his uncle, and then eventually to the woods near Bielica where his father was living. Ruth and the Rabinowitz family fled to the Nakryshki forest, where they helped to establish a family camp with other survivors from the area. Both Philip and Ruth managed to survive in the woods for 2 and a half years, enduring the incredibly harsh conditions of Eastern European winters.

After the war, Philip, his father, and his brother left for the U.S. and settled in Brooklyn, NY, in 1947. Ruth and the Rabinowitz family settled in Hartford, CT. Philip attended Brooklyn College and the Yeshiva University Rabbinical School. At a wedding in New York, a chance conversation led him to be reunited with a member of the Rabinowitz family. Philip visited them in Hartford, where he was properly introduced to Ruth. Ruth and Philip fell in love and married in 1955. They have three sons Barry, Alan, and David and seven grandchildren.

Philip was ordained as a Rabbi in 1962. Starting in Beth Shalom Synagogue, and then serving Beth Hillel from 1969 to 2000, Rabbi Lazowski quickly became a preeminent spiritual leader and mentor for the Hartford community. He is now rabbi emeritus of the Emanuel Synagogue in West Harford, a position he has held since 2001. Always active in his community, he has also been chaplain of the Connecticut State Senate, the Institute of Living at Hartford Hospital, and the Hartford Police. He has written over a dozen books, including his story of surviving the Holocaust, ``Faith and Destiny.'' Ruth has been an essential partner in all he has accomplished, a respected and loved community member. She has also been a dedicated Jewish educator in both Hartford and Bloomfield, CT.

Rabbi Philip and Ruth Lazowski's story is truly one of the indomitable human spirit and miraculous survival, but also the power of love, even in the face of immense hatred. It is also a stark reminder of the great evils of the past and the necessity of fighting hate wherever we find it.

I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating Ruth Lazowski's 90th birthday and Rabbi Lazowski's 95th birthday and honoring their remarkable example of love, service, and leadership.

Mr. President, I am here to join my colleagues--with thanks to them, most especially to Senator Durbin--to highlight the impact of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which for the last 13 years has benefited countless young people who have come to this country as infants or young children, brought by their parents before they could even speak any language, some of them, and many of them here knowing only English, only the neighborhoods where they live now, only this country as their home.

DACA has offered safety, security, and hope to thousands of people, including 3,000 active DACA recipients living in Connecticut alone. They are our friends and neighbors. They are students, nurses. They have all kinds of jobs that are important to our community and our State in Connecticut. They are key members of communities, having lived in the United States for an average of 26 years--that is right, 26 years on average. Ninety-one percent of DACA recipients in Connecticut participate in the Connecticut labor force.

Mr. President, 92 percent of DACA recipients have a high school diploma, and 81 percent have some college education. In Connecticut, 30 percent of DACA recipients are married, 17 percent have children, and there are 6,000 U.S. citizens living with DACA recipients.

Let me tell you the stories of two DACA recipients in Connecticut.

Agnes was brought to Connecticut when she was 9 years old. She worked hard in school and qualified for a Rotary Club scholarship to attend Western Connecticut State University. Because of DACA, she was able to obtain work authorization and get a job upon graduating college.

She says DACA eliminated the uncertainty she felt as a child and allowed her to pursue opportunities she otherwise would not have. She is now a U.S. citizen, married, with two beautiful boys. She owns a home. She manages a global team at a commodity trading company in Connecticut.

Another DACA recipient who also came to the United States when she was 9 years old said DACA was ``monumental.'' It gave her a sense of independence. It allowed her to build a future for herself that she wanted and aspired to have. She can't imagine what her life would have been like without it.

In 2009, before she graduated from college, she learned about the

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following Senate resolutions in the order listed: S. Res. 242, S. Res. 243, S. Res. 244, and S. Res. 245; that there be up to 2 hours for debate on each resolution, individually; and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on adoption of the resolutions, individually; and that if any of the resolutions are adopted, the preambles be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, the purpose and effect of these resolutions, very simply, is to provide votes. That is what we do in the U.S. Senate--we vote. And on these votes, the Constitution is involved. The provision of the Constitution commonly known as the emoluments clause enables officials of the Federal Government--from a sergeant in the Air Force or some other military branch to the President of the United States--to accept payments or benefits from a foreign power or other foreign entity or individual but only if there is approval by the U.S. Senate and Congress.

We need to take those votes if the President of the United States is to accept any benefits or payments. And that is what is happening in plain sight, openly, for all to see.

Literally, tomorrow night, in the White House, individuals who have invested to the President's benefit in his meme coin and World Liberty Financial will have dinner with him in the White House. He has literally put a ``For Sale'' sign on the White House. But money in his pocket will come from some anonymous donors, some foreign investors, and others in violation of the emoluments clause, unless there is approval from the U.S. Congress. That is tomorrow night in the White House.

And today, the Trump administration formally accepted a $200 million Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet as a gift from the Government of Qatar. Now, that plane may be used as Air Force One while he is in office before it is transferred to the Trump Presidential Library Foundation before the end of his term.

The Department of Defense has confirmed that the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, has ordered the Air Force to plan rapid modifications to upgrade the plane for use as Air Force One. They are no small modifications. The plane has to be stripped down virtually to its shell to ensure the installation of multiple top-secret systems. The work will take, potentially, years to complete. And the estimate to taxpayers--all of us American taxpayers--is about $1 billion.

That plane probably won't even be ready before the end of President Trump's term when the foundation--his foundation--takes ownership of it. It is a gift, in effect, to him from Qatar.

The Air Force is a passthrough entity. That is the arrogance of this step--corruption--but also a violation of the emoluments clause, unless there is approval from the U.S. Congress.

Majority leader Thune has said:

If and when the plane is no longer a hypothetical, I can

assure you there will be plenty of scrutiny of whatever that

arrangement might look like.

Well, it is no longer a hypothetical. Selling out American interests began the first days and hours of this administration in President Trump's second term. How did he celebrate his inauguration? Well, he launched a cryptocurrency scheme, a meme coin. The only purpose of it was to enrich the President. Unsurprisingly, by design, foreign governments, unscrupulous foreign individuals, and anonymous foreign nationals are competing with themselves--literally, there is a leaderboard--to line his pockets and make known how they are lining his pockets.

There is no reason for them to write him a letter or file with some government Agency. Face-to-face, he will be with them in the White House tomorrow evening. They are competing--and I mean literally competing--with each other for access, and he has put his office and the White House on the auction block.

Tomorrow evening, he will be hosting that dinner--personally hosting it for 220 holders of that meme coin. Wherever the dinner occurs, whether it is in the White House or someplace else, the effect is the same: to be selling access.

And after the dinner competition was announced--alongside a ``Special VIP White House Tour'' for the top 25 holders--President Trump cashed in. The price of that meme coin rose more than 50 percent after the announcement of that dinner. In total, President Trump and his sons and his business partners have now earned $350 million in sales and related fees from that scheme.

Come tomorrow evening, he will have pumped up the price. And sometimes the price goes down. He may have dumped part of his holding-- pump-and-dump--raise the price and then dump the stock. It is a classic Wall Street corrupt move that would normally go to the SEC. But, of course, there is no regulation.

Bidders aren't hiding the pay-for-play scheme either. The winner of Trump's contest--the grand winner--is Justin Sun, who faces a civil fraud case from the SEC over allegations of market manipulation and unregistered asset sales.

Since the election, Justin Sun has poured nearly $100 million into Trump's crypto ventures. And guess what. Trump's SEC--poof--it is not a legal term, by the way--poof--the SEC paused the litigation and now is in negotiations to settle that case. It is out in the open.

One shipping firm with operations in Mexico announced it has raised $20 million to purchase the Trump coins for the express purpose of influencing tariff policy in the United States of America.

When Donald Trump negotiates tariffs, is he protecting American consumers and small businesses? No, not so much. More likely, he is cutting deals for his crypto friends. That is the essence of selling public office, and it is corruption.

But put aside the criminal violations of law that may be involved because the U.S. Supreme Court has given him immunity for what he is doing in the White House, the emoluments clause forbids him from taking those payments--benefits--without coming to the U.S. Congress and seeking our consent and approval.

Foreign governments are paying President Trump through another one of his cryptocurrency ventures, in addition to the FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT meme coin. World Liberty Financial, on May 1--literally, this month-- World Liberty Financial announced an investment fund backed by the United Arab Emirates. The government of that country, using Trump's digital coins, is completing a $2 billion transaction that, once again, puts money in his pocket. From this deal, Donald Trump and his family stand to gain hundreds

of millions of dollars--apart from the $350 million I mentioned earlier--hundreds of millions more from this foreign government.

His sons are traveling around the world getting VIP treatment in Pakistan and elsewhere, using the President and the White House to strike deals for World Liberty Financial. We simply cannot accept this kind of practice as normal or legal. We can't abdicate our responsibility. We cannot seem to endorse or encourage this kind of corruption. That is the reason we have the emoluments clause. That is the reason the Founders wanted Congress to be involved whenever there is any benefit or payment to a member of the executive branch. Again, it applies not only to the President of the United States but all of the Federal officials, down to the rank and file.

Right now, the Senate is considering legislation to promote the growth of cryptocurrencies. This legislation has no ethical rules or conflict of interest provisions that would stop the President or his family from using the White House to enrich himself--none applying to the President. It fails to provide many basic consumer protections and national security rules. It invites Big Tech into our financial system.

We are considering this legislation at the very same time as Trump's crypto dinner will be happening literally within about 24 hours. Is there any wonder that the public's esteem for the U.S. Congress has sunk to the kinds of lows we are seeing right now? We are adding to the perception that Congress somehow is legitimizing or overlooking his behavior--in fact, looking the other way. That is not the message we ought to be sending at this moment in our history, and it is not legally right under the Constitution.

We ought to be voting on his emoluments, every one of these benefits. That is the reason I have separate resolutions--simply to preserve our own authority and power and our integrity and send a signal about the independence of this branch, the legislative branch.

Foreign governments have figured out a lot of ways to line Donald Trump's pockets. The Trump Organization--he is still the owner. It may be in trust. He maybe figured out some technical legal way to seem to insulate or isolate himself from it. But that organization is doing business deals with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, and with Oman and Serbia.

LIV Golf, backed by the Saudi Arabian Government, hosted a tournament at Trump National Doral in April--April--of this year. The Trump Organization has signed $5.5 billion in real estate deals with a Qatari Government-owned firm, and it is going to build a new development on government-owned land in Serbia and Oman. The Trump Organization has already received $5 million from Oman. These are violations of the emoluments clause plainly, simply, in plain sight.

We have no excuse for failing to vote. We have no excuse for remaining silent. We have no excuse for ducking or dodging.

The foreign emoluments clause states:

[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under

them, shall, without the Consent of Congress, accept of any

present, Emolument, Office, or Title of any kind whatever,

from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Foreign states are clearly involved in these transactions.

The purpose of this clause is basic and unassailable, indisputable. It is to prevent undue foreign influence and foreign corruption.

The Founders knew about the dangers of a foreign government trying to influence our President or anyone under him. They knew about those powerful Kings in France and England. We had just liberated ourselves from England. We were a small, struggling country, and they were afraid that our executives would be influenced by those more powerful countries.

It was to ensure our government officials work for the American people and the Nation rather than their own financial self-interests or on behalf of any foreign government that the emoluments clause was adopted. But President Trump seemingly doesn't care about working for the American people; he cares about his own pocketbook. Not once has he come to Congress for consent on any of these deals. He hasn't even hinted at it. And he will continue pursuing these corrupt foreign deals until we, as Congress, have the gumption to act.

Today, I am introducing resolutions that condemn President Trump's violation of the foreign emoluments clause and demand the transfer to the U.S. Government of any gifts, benefits, or payments recovered or received from foreign governments or others through his illegal dealings.

I have asked for unanimous consent to schedule floor votes--I want floor votes--on each of these resolutions. I think the American people deserve to know where we stand, who is going to allow him to go forward with these deals, who is going to sacrifice the integrity and independence of this branch of government, and where every Senator stands on Donald Trump's self-enrichment schemes. We need to know whether the Senate is willing to stand up and show up against this corrupt self-dealing.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues Senator Durbin and Senator Welch for being here today. I know my resolutions reflect unanimity on our side, and I believe sincerely the reservations and doubts on the other side as well. And I regret the objection to these resolutions because I think that my colleagues deserve a vote. We deserve a vote on both sides of the aisle.

This violation of the Constitution benefits nobody. Many of the votes we take here, there are differing interests, there are contrasting and sometimes conflicting points of view on the merits, on who benefits and who may be hurt. Here, there is only one beneficiary: Donald Trump and his family--maybe some of the foreign investors, maybe some of the others who have donated or contributed to his campaign and have invested in the meme coins or in World Liberty Financial stablecoin.

This plane should be built by an American company. It should be built so that President Trump can use it--or any other President--on time, on schedule. It is now already delayed. Boeing should be held accountable. And if it can't deliver it when the President needs it, somebody else ought to be required to build it.

So I am deeply disappointed we are not going to have these votes, at least right now. I am going to be coming back to the floor and asking for these votes on the emoluments clause because it is part of our job, it is part of our constitutional responsibility, and Donald Trump is violating the Constitution by accepting gifts in the plane, investments, and money in his pocket from his cryptocurrency ventures and other schemes that he is enabling in plain sight. This corruption should not be allowed to continue.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I appreciate my colleague from Florida asking for a competent team of professionals at the Department of Defense. We all want the Department of Defense to be managed efficiently and effectively. It is vital to our national security.

What we have right now is chaos, literally, confusion, turmoil, and turbulence, in part, because we have a Department of Defense that is unaccountable.

Last Congress, I led a bicameral letter to then-Secretary Austin demanding answers after a GAO report found significant failures in barracks' facilities across the country. Billions of dollars have been poured into installations for housing and infrastructure improvements. Again, those investments are being undercut by the mass layoffs we see right now at the Department of Defense.

We expect Mr. Marks to manage the entirety of these installations and environmental programs at DOD, but the administration, in effect, is undercutting at every turn.

This Secretary of Defense has created that chaos. He has shredded the Department's report on climate change, despite its outlining the serious implications it will have on the military in coming decades. I wonder whether the Secretary has actually visited Guam or Alaska and seen the effects of climate change in either place. I wonder whether he understands the equipment, the electronics, the ammunition that are required and that themselves require special storage and resilient infrastructure if we expect them to perform in combat effectively.

As climate change creates a more challenging environment for our warfighters, the DOD should be leading the charge in research and adaptability.

I feel especially strongly that the DOD, in firing its scientists and throwing research in the trash, is betraying the values and principles that the Secretary ought to be fighting to uphold.

Mr. Marks would be responsible for all of it. Yet the Secretary hasn't the slightest idea of what he is doing in these areas. We questioned him for more than 4 hours during his hearing at the Armed Services Committee; that is, the Secretary. We all knew that he was the least qualified Secretary of Defense in our history. And 4 months later, sadly, unfortunately, we can say, confidently, we were right.

What he is doing is slashing personnel, the experts, the scientists. He is the reason I stand here and say that we cannot accept Mr. Marks' shortcutting the proper process that provides for debate on all these issues, and therefore I object.

Reserving the right to object, I, once again, agree with my colleague from Florida that we worked together in a bipartisan way for years now, and I appreciate his leadership on the C Power Subcommittee where we share a number of interests.

I fear that the chaos at the Department of Defense, due to the slashing of positions, the confusion caused by ideological interventions that are harmful, reckless, and unnecessary, that those kinds of downsizing and defects in leadership will hurt the military families and, particularly, their access to healthcare.

TRICARE provides for the well-being of our servicemembers, their families, and loved ones.

Mr. Bass has a long service record, but this administration is undercutting his potential work, and we deserve to debate it on the floor of the Senate without unanimous consent, without shortcutting public accountability.

The administration now in charge of the Department of Defense should be held accountable for exactly the healthcare interests that Mr. Bass will have responsibility for advancing. Therefore, I object.

Mr. President, on this one, I think the stakes are particularly high. At the Department of Energy, the DOGE-Musk cuts led to hundreds of employees being fired. They were responsible for overseeing our nuclear weapons stockpile. That set of moves caused a massive counterintelligence disaster and a logistical train wreck. After realizing these employees were indispensable, the Agency begged for them to come back.

Billions of dollars have been poured into this program, and what we have seen now is the whirlwind, the confusion, and chaos caused by this mismanagement. We need full accountability. We need more facts, which we have been denied.

Our Armed Services Committee, along with other committees, should be looking into what the consequences were of those DOGE slashing-and- trashing steps that put our Nation in jeopardy. We are not going to have it if we proceed to this nomination with unanimous consent, shortcutting public debate. Therefore, I object.

Mr. President, I wish I could agree to the unanimous consent on this nominee.

As my colleague from Florida obviously understands, the issues here are bigger than any one of these nominees. The issues are more consequential than the career or advancement of any single member of the Department of Defense team. This Secretary seems more concerned with his own public image than the safety of our servicemembers because he has violated basic security protocols.

We are talking here about an official who will be responsible for securing our national intelligence. When this Secretary, in effect, has jeopardized them through actions that are currently under investigation, how is the person responsible for the Office of Intelligence and Security at the Department of Defense supposed to do their job when they face the most serious counterintelligence threat in recent memory from within the Department of Defense? Elon Musk's firings put thousands of highly qualified people out of a job. Many of them possessed security clearances and knowledge of their Departments' most sensitive programs. Their service is vital to our national security. Thousands were fired without cause. Our adversaries couldn't be happier, and they may be profiting from those mistakes right now.

These cuts come at a time when we are prioritizing--we in the U.S. Senate--funding to expand our nuclear triad and to counter China's growing nuclear capabilities. These workforce reductions undermine our goals across the board in the Department of Defense. We need to provide personnel for program oversight, supply chain management, cyber security, and other critical functions. So I think we need accountability, and we need the facts. They haven't been forthcoming.

I object.

What I hear from the other side is, essentially, ``Give the President whatever he wants in the name of his having the prerogative.'' He should name his own team, but we have a responsibility. It is a constitutional obligation. ``Advice and consent'' is more than just saying: Give him his own team. If we had been responsible in this body--if my Republican colleagues had stood up and spoken out as they should have done--we would have a different Secretary of Defense right now. It would have been unnecessary for the Vice President to come here and break a tie. We would have a more competent Secretary of Defense. That is the mindset that got us where we are today, and that is the reason I have lodged these objections.