Floor Statements

Mr. President, my thanks to Senator Thune for yielding and the Presiding Officer for presiding over the balance of the day.

I am here with sadness--not for the first time and, tragically, not for the last, I fear--because I am here to speak to the decimation and destruction of veterans services ongoing in real time, right before our eyes, affecting real people in their daily lives. And it is a tragedy and a travesty because the people affected are our Nation's heroes, whom we all say we respect, but in practice, right now, Elon Musk and Donald Trump have launched an assault to degrade and denigrate.

Donald Trump has called veterans suckers. Elon Musk shows the same kind of disrespect in the cuts, in hiring freezes, and in reductions in amounts of research--a panoply, a tsunami, of cuts in both resources and workers that are essential to the VA's functions in providing healthcare as well as PACT Act benefits that veterans have earned. They deserve them without delay. And this assault on veterans is unprecedented in our Nation's history.

We had a hearing this morning in the VA Committee on various pieces of legislation, some of them probably positive in the effects that they may have if we pass them. I have cosponsored some of them and will support others. But their meaning and effect will be absolutely eviscerated if these cuts--including 80,000 workers in addition to the 2,400 already fired--are, in fact, discharged in the future.

The plan that the Secretary of the VA has stated--it is his word, ``plan''--is to fire 80,000 workers. It is his goal. He said it in an interview, and I ask unanimous consent that that interview be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, but we did learn in this legislative hearing that, in fact, there is no plan. The 80,000-worker target for firing is in the absence of any plan. It is the target. It is the goal. It is the intention: Fire now, plan later. No plan, no metrics, no methodology, no strategy for right-sizing the VA.

Now, we know a right-sized VA needs every one of those 2,400 workers who have been discharged now. It needs every one of the 80,000 that are targeted in the next few months to be fired. And we learned this morning that there are, in fact, open positions--36,000 of them, including more than 3,000 positions for doctors, thousands others for nurses, thousands for the custodians who maintain the VA healthcare properties.

We are talking about real people who will be fired who are on the job doing essential work right now, and we are talking about discharging people when there are open positions, a need for more doctors, nurses, and others. How is that going to work for recruiting? Not so well when the VA is firing exactly the people whose positions it is trying to fill. That is absolutely a disgrace, and it will be seen as a disgrace by anybody wanting to serve in the VA.

We also learned today that the VA is focusing on legislative measures that will make it easier to fire people, that will more readily enable it to discharge people without stating a reason, without a performance- related reason for firing them.

So we are seeing the biggest attack and assault on veterans' access to care and benefits at least in a generation and maybe in our history, and Trump and Musk have already fired more veterans than any administration before now.

But the numbers fail to adequately tell the story because it is a story of heartbreaking loss as a result of heartless decisions--loss of healthcare on a timely basis, loss of benefits, fear from people who have earned the right to security when it comes to healthcare or the PACT Act.

Over the weekend, there was an article in the New York Times that described some of this real impact going on right now: a VA clinical trial for treating advanced cancers of the mouth put on hold; a VA supply technician whose role was described as critical, fired; a vet center office manager fired, leaving therapists, who should be treating patients, using their precious time sitting at the front desk to check in the patients.

Talk about waste. What we are seeing in real time is not just heartless, heartbreaking firing and deprivation of care; we are seeing waste of talents and time that cry out for action. And in fact, we are hearing that cry from thousands of constituents of my colleagues from all around the country.

This chart shows where we have received complaints and stories from people. Some of their words are here:

Please do not let this administration take all of this away

from not only me, but thousands of other Veterans in my

similar situation.

I'm a spouse of a 100 percent permanent and total disabled

veteran with two young kids. I am scared to fight back and

have them target me to eliminate my job entirely, so I just

have to take it to protect my family's only income.

The VA provides the veterans community with excellent

healthcare in my area, and anything done to devalue that care

or its facilities would be detrimental to the veteran

community.

The blue represents the States that we have heard from--almost every State in the country, some with many different complaints but all of them expressing fear, apprehension, and anger at what they see as the looming additional cuts in care coming to their communities.

This administration, very simply, is failing to put veterans first.

Let me tell you about a veteran who knows that it is failing to put him first, a veteran on the west coast who shared his story.

I lost part of my foot serving this country, and now,

people with zero military experience are gutting the benefits

Veterans have earned.

And he continued:

If it were not for the VA, I would not have been able to be

in the position I am in now. I own a home and I am able to

manage my anxiety with therapy and medication.

He was homeless in 2012. He would go to the library every day to search for--he was not receiving any VA benefits. He didn't know he was eligible. Once he knew about it and he signed up and the healthcare and disability benefits began, he was ``propelled . . . into success.'' He was able to rent an apartment, purchase a car, get a job--``all thanks to the VA.'' ``All thanks to the VA.''

And his final comment was:

Please do not let this administration take all of that away

from not only me, but thousands of other Veterans in my

similar situation.

He knows this administration is not putting veterans first.

What I was hoping to hear in today's hearing was a call to action. Well, we didn't hear a call to action. In fact, we didn't even hear from the Secretary of the VA, who has dodged our questions, refused to answer them, who has failed to be transparent with our committee and with Members of Congress. I was hoping that he would be there or at least that he would be invited to a date certain, but none of it happened.

Instead, the agenda included legislation that attempts to make it even easier for the VA to fire employees. It ignores what is happening on the ground, ignoring the illegal mass terminations of those 2,400 VA employees, with tens of thousands of firings now in the works. That is no way to put veterans first. It is illegal; it is unlawful; it is reckless; and it is morally repugnant because it involves breaking promises.

A great nation keeps its promises, as we promised to veterans that we would provide for their healthcare, that we would give them the benefits of the PACT Act, that we would care for them after they were exposed to toxic chemicals, that we would give them skilled training and job assistance--all of it now potentially ended, at least for a lot of those veterans, because there is a funny thing about service: It is difficult to provide service in an empty office with an empty chair behind an empty desk. Service really does consist of people helping each other. Veterans know it better than anyone because peer-to-peer veterans programs work better than any other kind, and it is one of the reasons why it is important that 30 percent of the Veterans' Administration workforce are themselves veterans. They help each other.

It is no accident that many of those provisional employees who were fired--they are the ones who were fired first--are veterans as well because they are coming out of the service and they are looking for meaningful and productive ways to help other veterans.

I am introducing this week a measure called the Putting Veterans First Act. Essentially, it is a comprehensive effort to ``stop the bleeding.'' I am quoting the commander-in-chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars--``stop the bleeding.'' Put pressure on and ``stop the bleeding'' is what he told us in one of our hearings.

The best way to stop this administration from actively robbing and rolling back our recent bipartisan accomplishments, canceling contracts critical to the implementation of the Dole Act or the Deborah Sampson Act, firing thousands of workers critical to the basic functioning of the PACT Act, from the schedulers who connect veterans to care to the claims staff who process those PACT Act claims--the best way to stop the bleeding is to put veterans first.

No. 1, hire back all of the veterans who have been fired. No matter what the Agency, hire back those veterans along with all of the military spouses, the veteran caregivers, survivors, members of the Guard and Reserve. They, too, served. Hire back all the VA employees who have been fired, whether or not they are veterans or military spouses or veteran caregivers, survivors, members of the Guard and Reserve--everyone that has been fired from the VA.

Then, if the administration wants to eliminate waste and fraud, let's have some standards, performance-based standards, not just ``You are fired because we don't need you'' when, in fact, they are needed. But more to the point, any sort of firing ought to be based on individual performance.

Nobody is arguing here that there is no waste in the VA. Nobody is arguing that there is no waste in other Agencies of the Federal Government any more than we would argue there is no waste in any American corporation. Everybody knows there is waste. The trick is to eliminate the waste without throwing the baby out with the bathwater-- or to use a much more direct analogy that came from Al Lipphardt, the commander-in-chief of the VFW--when he was wounded in Vietnam, the surgeon took shrapnel out of his arm with a scalpel; he didn't amputate the arm.

Exactly the same choice faces us here--performance-based criteria and standards and a means of appeal for those employees who may be terminated, a means of readily bringing their claim about improper firing to some kind of appeal that is based on performance and merit. It ought to be a matter of merit, not just money, not just slashing and trashing--merit, and then hiring to replace that person. If that person has no merit, fill the position so the job can be done because the need is there. Of course, notice to Congress, to labor partners, and impacted employees before instituting any changes to telework or remote work policies, allowing time for employees to submit reasonable accommodation requests to their supervisors, which would help a veteran, spouse, and caregiver. I have been contacted by those kinds of spouses, like the spouse of a 100-percent disabled veteran with two kids:

I have worked for the Feds for 20 years. My spouse was

Active Duty. I am also ADA disabled myself, performed full-

time telework for 5 years successfully, including preCOVID

with reasonable accommodation. The Agency is re-adjudicating

my lifelong disabilities and telework accommodations, even

though the prior one approved had no expiration date.

When Trump or Musk talk about mandating return to office--I personally love being in the office. As a former prosecutor, I think being in the office makes managing a workforce

easier in some institutions but not all and not for all employees and certainly not for the disabled veteran who wrote to me. This employee has outstanding performance reviews, and her duties haven't changed. The only change here is the one prompted by President Trump's draconian return-to-office policy.

The Putting Veterans First Act would take other commonsense veterans- first action, such as prohibiting--and this one is really important-- prohibiting unauthorized, unlawful access to veterans' data and VA systems by unqualified, uninformed tech bros.

Well, we know what is happening in the VA. Elon Musk's tech bro elves are muscling and plundering their way through the VA's database.

Now, you may say: What is harmful about access to private, confidential, sensitive information potentially about healthcare?

Well, it is an invasion of privacy, but No. 2, it is also illegal. It is potentially a monetization of your information, used for Elon Musk's corporations to make more money or to be shared with his fellow billionaires so they can make more money.

That invasion of privacy, the monetization and possibly weaponization of that information, would be prohibited by the Putting Veterans First Act. It is comprehensive, it is specific, and it makes a priority of protecting veterans and putting them first.

Now, I don't want to exaggerate the chances of this measure passing in the next month. I am very clear-eyed. I recognize that the administration will put a full-court press against us, that Elon Musk will perhaps denounce it. But I think we have on our side an indomitable, undefeatable, and indefatigable force, and that is veterans, because I am listening to the veterans service organizations who came before our committee on prior days and this morning, representatives from the American Legion, Mr. Coyle from the VFW, and Mr. Murray. We have heard from other organizations that have expressed their concerns about what is happening at the VA. They can put a face and voice to this issue. Their support for putting veterans first can make an absolutely critical difference.

So I want to make a plea to our veterans: You may feel you don't need it, but there is no question you deserve it.

The ones who need it really deserve it as well. They deserve to be put first. They deserve to have no fear or uncertainty or insecurity about whether they live in a State that will not be receiving the kind of benefits and care under the PACT Act or their VA facility won't be renovated or their doctor will be gone or nurses will be missing, their positions unfilled. They deserve to know with the kind of certainty they have earned.

We all talk about our veterans as heroes, which they are, but let's put our money where our mouths are. Let's be measured by what we do, not what we say. And I am extending an arm and a hand to my colleagues across the aisle to join me in this comprehensive bill that guarantees veterans what they have earned and what they deserve against someone whom we didn't choose--nobody did except Donald Trump. Elon Musk is unelected, unappointed, and unconfirmed, and his DOGE boys are depriving our veterans of what they have earned.

We can't lose hope or energy. We can't abandon our veterans. We can't surrender in this battle. Our veterans have served, and they can continue to serve by helping their brothers and sisters make sure that the Veterans' Administration puts veterans first.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are considering today S.J. Res. 28. That sounds highly technical, complex, and difficult to understand, and some may consider it so; but, in fact, it would have the very simple, straightforward effect of undoing a rule that is vital to protecting consumers. It would undo the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's larger participant rule under the Congressional Review Act.

I think most people, by now, know about the CFPB, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is, in effect, the top cop on the beat of reviewing Big Banks' activities to prevent consumers from being cheated, scammed, and defrauded. It is under attack by the Trump administration and, of all people--surprise--Elon Musk. Elon Musk's attack on this rule is not coincidental, as I will explain in just a couple of minutes. To add insult to injury, our Republican colleagues are forcing a vote on this CRA to overturn the CFPB's larger participant rule, which protects consumers as big tech companies rush into offering financial services.

The big tech companies are getting into this business. Why? Because that is where the money is. This rulemaking allows the CFPB to supervise larger, nonbank companies that offer digital payment services, including peer-to-peer apps like Venmo or Cash App.

Again, it sounds complicated; but, really, at its core, it is very simple. It means that the CFPB can protect consumers on Venmo and other apps in the same way they do with banks. That is what the rule enables them to do. You are not a big bank, but consumers can still be protected if you fail in your duty to them. It is a commonsense measure to deter misconduct and protect consumers. If this CRA attempt is successful, it will undermine the CFPB's efforts to crack down on peer- to-peer fraud--apps which are misused or abused--and that fraud has surged in recent years.

To make it real, let me just tell you about my experience as chair of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. I opened an inquiry into the handling of scams and fraud on Zelle. Our investigation found that the level of reimbursement for fraud has dropped precipitously in the last 5 years, from 62 percent to 38 percent. What does that mean? Reimbursement for fraud has diminished hugely in the last 5 years, even though the rate of fraud has, probably, increased. In other words, peer-to-peer companies like Zelle are not returning money they are supposed to be giving back to people who are scammed on their app.

Not only are consumers who have already been harmed by fraud and scams on peer-to-peer payment platforms not seeing relief by rolling back the larger participant rule, the Trump administration is effectively telling tech companies that want to offer payments: Do whatever you want. The floor is yours. No one will be watching you. No one will be enforcing reimbursement if you permit fraud on your platform.

Now, just so everyone understands, requiring reimbursements provides a pretty strong incentive for any platform to police and prevent fraud. That is the reason reimbursements are important in a more general sense. Obviously, they are important to somebody who has been defrauded in that they want their money back, but the requirement that the platform provide reimbursements is a very strong and persuasive deterrent to lax and lackadaisical oversight by the platform itself. These platforms are speedy; they are quick; they are easy. It becomes speedy, quick, and easy to lose your money, and most of the payments are irreversible.

People watching at home may be wondering why Republicans are spending their time trying to roll back a commonsense rule that will empower the CFPB to protect everyday consumers from scams.

Well, like I was saying a little bit earlier, you don't have to look very far for the answer. As with most of the havoc wreaked by this administration in the last month, follow the money. It leads to Elon Musk. In January, Musk announced that he will be partnering with Visa to launch xMoney--a new venture that would provide X users with access to a mobile wallet and the ability to make peer-to-peer payments. So this new service, provided by X, would be, in fact, potentially subject to this rule and requirements for reimbursement that, of course, would check the laxity of oversight and force the kind of responsibility--it is really a responsibility to consumers--that these peer-to-peer platforms owe them morally. It ought to be a legal obligation, not just a moral one.

The value of X has dropped dramatically--another surprise since Musk purchased it 2 years ago with Fidelity--estimating the value has declined by nearly 80 percent. Now, seemingly, Musk is desperate to turn a profit on his investment in X. The CFPB, which Musk has attacked and now the administration is moving to shut down, will be one of xMoney's regulators--in fact, its key regulator. Given the spike in scams, bots, and hate speech on X since Musk purchased the site, one can only imagine how prevalent scams are likely to be on xMoney, especially with a diminished--or no--CFPB to regulate it.

I know ``regulation'' is becoming a dirty word, but think of it as protecting consumers, preventing fraud that may be irreparable when it occurs because consumers can't get their money back.

The larger participant rule, if it is not repealed, would authorize the CFPB to examine xMoney's books and records and look for illegal practices. The CFPB would be at X's door, asking for those records, overseeing their transactions, protecting consumers. No wonder Elon Musk doesn't like it. He is averse to transparency and disclosure as a matter of principle, and that is why he is trying to make ``regulation'' a dirty word.

Hence, while Elon Musk continues to ride roughshod over the CFPB, Senate Republicans are doing his bidding today. They are attempting to overturn the rule he doesn't like because it would require more disclosure, more transparency, more responsibility legally as well as morally from xMoney, his company.

When you come right down to it, it seems more simple than even I thought at the beginning of my talk here today. The CFPB, through rulemaking like the larger participant rule, protects consumers from fraud, scams, and financial abuse. Every attack on the CFPB--and we have seen a lot of them, including this one, the CRA--is an attack on commonsense consumer protection. It is designed to benefit the wealthy and well-connected, like Elon Musk, at the expense of everyday Americans. It takes away a protection to benefit Musk--already a multibillionaire--and xMoney and X, and it is at the expense of us, the everyday Americans.

I urge my colleagues today to vote against this attack on the CFPB and to vote no on S.J. Res. 28.

Again, it may seem complicated. Before I came to the floor today, I was meeting with some media executives--people extremely knowledgeable and financially astute--involved in major American corporations. I told them I was coming to the floor of the U.S. Senate to talk about the CFPB and the larger participant rule, and they looked at me as though I were from outer space.

Americans are unaware, and they will be unaware until xMoney starts hosting scams, frauds, bots, and they are cheated or defrauded. Then they

will wonder: Why is there no protection? ``Why aren't you doing something?'' they will say to us in the U.S. Senate. I hope they will hold accountable my Republican colleagues--anyone who supports this CRA--because it will dramatically reduce the enforcement power of the CFPB and anyone else to help protect consumers from those frauds and losses of money, which they need now more than ever.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, like a number of my colleagues who are here today, I want to support the Senate resolution affirming the rule of law and the legitimacy of judicial review, and I thank Senator Durbin for bringing it to the floor.

I am here with a lot of regret and sadness in a way. We should have pride in our uniquely just and democratic system that puts the rule of law above everything else. But my regret, my sadness, is that there was a time in this country when the other side of the aisle would have been speaking for this resolution as well and would have been not just accepting but advocating robustly, not just in rhetoric but in action that we reaffirm our allegiance to the rule of law and the legitimacy of courts scrutinizing what we do to make sure that we stay within the Constitution and the rule of law.

We are here because, in effect, that basic consensus and acceptance seems to be dissipating, perhaps even shredding.

The Founders were far from perfect, and one of their great virtues was to recognize their imperfection. So they devised a system that precluded anybody from being fully in power of everything. They lived under an autocracy--the monarchy--that sent English soldiers into their homes, allowed them to take people and property without any kind of approval; in effect, subjected them to a loss of liberty that they regarded as their fundamental rights as Englishmen.

In fact, our system of constitutional rule owes a lot to the English system, the Magna Carta. We all know the history from our law school days.

From my law school days, I remember well my professor expounding with great reverence this idea that, in our country, courts can override the excesses of a legislature or an executive. It is not a simple proposition. I will grant you, in a democracy, the idea of a U.S. Supreme Court, the highest Court in the land, appointed for life nine people--the number has varied--without any election, able to override the two popularly elected branches of government seems totally anomalous and undemocratic. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court, as a check, as an enforcer of that balance, has played a critical role throughout our history in enforcing our rights and preserving them. And at times, it has failed--Dred Scott, Korematsu. The U.S. Supreme Court is far from perfect too. But in our system, we are a government of people observing and enforcing the law.

In the days when I thought there would be no question that following court orders should be a basic tenet, certainly, for lawyers who are steeped in the culture of following the law--after all, what good is it to be debating in court before a judge if the losing party simply disregards the outcome?

So I come with sadness and regret because we face today a growing and more popularly accepted idea that those court orders need not be obeyed; that judicial review is not the acceptable tenet of our Constitution that it has been for centuries; and that, perhaps, maybe this President should not be bound by what the courts say.

That is so fundamentally dangerous to our democracy that we are here today simply to make a statement that this resolution affirming the rule of law and the legitimacy of judicial review is necessary at this moment.

I am not going to go into all of the history that Senator Klobuchar recited so well and eloquently or colleagues have done as well. We don't blindly follow the edicts or orders of individuals in this country, elected or not, but all of us in this Chamber, all of us who have served in the military, all of us who served in any public office for the public raise our right hand, and we swear an oath not to the President, not to the majority leader, not to any potentate or officeholder, we swear to the Constitution. That is an oath that we take to the Constitution and the laws of the United States, so help me God. That is the oath that requires us to obey the courts insofar as they articulate the laws and the Constitution.

Like the Founders and the Supreme Court, lower courts may be far from perfect too. That is why we have not just judicial review of executive and legislative branches but also within our judiciary review and appeals, not just once but twice, and within State court systems as well, and then from State courts to our Federal courts.

I want to just close by saying I spent most of my career as a lawyer going to court, trying cases, arguing before judges. I can tell you, some of those decisions were just dead wrong, just so wrong as to make my blood boil.

And whether it was for a client or for the United States of America, when I was a U.S. attorney and the decision went against me, for the people of the United States, or the people of Connecticut, when I was attorney general and the decision went against me, I was angry. But it never crossed my mind that I should just disobey. And the reason is that the larger good, the longer range public interest is served when those court orders are obeyed; and that, sometimes, whether it is Dred Scott or Korematsu, the appeal is to history, the appeal is to the future, to a moral conscience or a legislative

chain or someone sensing deep in their gut that an injustice has been done.

And that is the kind of system that has survived, these centuries, as the American experiment. We believe in the possibility of change and reform but not by disobeying a judiciary that serves ultimately to prevent autocracy, dictatorship, and tyranny.

One of the lessons of tyranny in the 20th century that Professor Tim Snyder cites in his book ``On Tyranny''--one of the first lessons of 20 lessons on tyranny in the 20th century--is do not obey in advance. Do not obey in advance. That is not to say we don't obey court orders. It is to say we do not obey in advance what a dictator tells us to do.

And when a dictator or a would-be tyrant says, ``Don't follow court decisions,'' we have an obligation to speak up and stand up. And that is what we are doing through this resolution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I greatly respect the representation made by my colleague and friend from Mississippi, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Senator Risch, our colleague, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee about timing.

I want to talk about timing because we have just passed the third year of this war. This moment is crucial.

Thank you to Senator Sanders, Senator Van Hollen, Senator Durbin-- soon we will hear from Senator Bennet. We have resolutions that support Ukraine at a critical moment in its history.

I have been there six times. I have come to know President Zelenskyy not only from meetings there, but in Paris, Munich, a number of times here in Washington, DC, and I will never forget my first meeting with him shortly after he was offered an escape. Do you remember what he said to President Biden when he offered a helicopter to exit the country: Don't send me a helicopter; send me ammunition--that courage and determination in the face of Russia coming within just a few miles of his bunker.

I visited him and I then went to Bucha where I saw the remnants of the Russian tanks that came within a 10-minute drive of killing him and taking Kyiv. I also saw the mass graves where women and children were buried after the Russians shot hundreds of them in the back of their head, committing those war crimes that became so despicable in the eyes of the world and resulted in criminal charges against Vladimir Putin. It is the reason why I have urged that we regard the Putin regime as a terrorist organization.

I recognize we are at a critical moment in these negotiations, as well as in Ukraine's 3-yearlong fight. Actually, it is well longer than 3 years because the invasion first occurred in 2014, not long after Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons on the assurance that the free world would come to its aid if its security was ever threatened.

It is that history that Volodymyr Zelenskyy tried to remind President Trump and Vice President Vance about last Friday--betrayal of agreements by Vladimir Putin. He is a thug. He understands force. He will assure the security of Ukraine only if force is guaranteed to meet another invasion if this one is stopped.

On these negotiations and the timing, Senator Van Hollen said it well. You don't have to be an expert on the art of the deal to know you go into negotiations from a position of strength. Strength never hurts; it only helps in a negotiation.

We are not dictating an outcome. We are not prescribing what the result of the negotiation should be. We are not telling the President or President Zelenskyy what their positions would be. We are saying to Ukraine: We have your back. We are going to be your backstop.

And at that meeting, which I attended along with the Senator from Mississippi and Senator Van Hollen on that bright, sunny Friday morning, President Zelenskyy was asking us to assure that he had a security backstop. Of course, his preference is to be in NATO--no secret there. But security, as I suggested to him, through some bilateral agreement might be an acceptable outcome.

We are not prescribing what that security should be, but only that Ukraine has support from the American people. That is the purpose of these resolutions. That support strengthens his position.

We are not saying a specific amount of military aid should be provided or a specific negotiating position should be dictated for anyone. But only that--and I read from my resolution--we reaffirm the support of the United States for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine in the face of the illegal invasion of its territory by the Russian Federation and the bonds of friendship and shared values between the people of the United States and allied fighting forces.

Now, by any measure of military success, Ukraine has done the impossible. I am not giving away classified information when I tell you that in the days right after the invasion, we were assured by our military that the Russians would be in Kyiv within weeks. They weren't. The only reason they weren't was because of the ingenuity and inventiveness and just plain guts and grit of the Ukrainian people.

Their success will go down as one of the most important feats of modern warfare in this century, and their accomplishments in the use of drones--an inventive use of drones--in their use of intelligence--our intelligence and their intelligence--in their success in the destruction of half or more of the Russian fleet in the Black Sea. They have developed techniques of warfare and platforms with our help that are absolutely remarkable.

On every one of those six trips--in fact, in every meeting that I have had with President Zelenskyy--he has begun by declaring his gratitude for the aid from the United States. On

March 3, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, which is their Parliament, expressed its ``profound gratitude to President Donald Trump, Congress, and the American people for their firm and consistent support of Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, as well as for the security assistance packages provided to Ukraine, which have helped stabilize the situation on the frontline.''

The people of Ukraine are beyond grateful. If you walk through the streets of Ukraine and you are identified as an American, people will come up to you and thank you. In the Ukrainian community here in the United States, supporters of Ukraine have been thanked again and again and again. I wear a pin--and have done so for some years--with the American and Ukrainian flags. I have a bracelet that has the Ukrainian colors. The people of Ukraine thank me for those insignias of my support.

We all know that Ukraine's fight is our fight and that our national security is at stake because Putin will keep going. If he swallows Ukraine, if he has dinner in Kyiv, he will want to have dinner in Finland and Sweden and Poland. They are NATO allies. We will be obligated to put troops on the ground. The soldiers of Ukraine are saving our soldiers from a fight where they will be in harm's way. They are bleeding and dying for our national security.

So, when we talk about timing, let's recognize that now is the moment to make clear that Ukraine must be as strong as possible for our security if it enters these negotiations.

Let me just finish with this thought: You know, I think it is difficult to describe what it is like to be in Ukraine in the midst of an air attack. On a couple of my visits, we were forced into bunkers when the sirens started. Obviously, we were never injured, and I want to avoid any misrepresentation. I never felt like I was going to be bombed right then and there. But if I had been there 365 days in a year and the apartment house next to me or my school or hospital were bombed and I came out of it and saw the bodies and realized how close I had come and how near death was--day after day after day, the Ukrainian people are living with this nightmare, not to mention the blackouts of electricity, the impacts of their quality of life, the loss of their loved ones, the injuries, and the maiming of young men, whom I have visited.

The Ukrainian people want peace. The Ukrainian people want peace more than any of us. They certainly want peace more than Vladimir Putin, who has no respect for the lives of his people or the Ukrainians. They have fought for 3 years to stay free, to stay independent, to stay sovereign, and they have fought for years before that. The history of their people is one of fighting for their independence. They will continue fighting as long as peace threatens their sovereign and free status. They believe in peace. They want Donald Trump to succeed in achieving peace. We should support them in their goals, in their quest for peace with freedom and sovereignty for their people.

I want to offer my resolution. So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 112, which was submitted earlier today; further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I want to make clear, first-- absolutely clear--that I deeply respect my colleague from Mississippi, my friend and fellow Member, the leader of the Armed Services Committee, for his commitment to Ukraine. There should be no question that Senator Wicker is committed to Ukraine's freedom and independence. I have traveled with him. I have worked with him. I sat with him just Friday. We have a difference of view. He has access to different facts that I don't. I am going on basic principles, and I must confess I can't cite Scripture for my position. But I think common sense tells me, although he has more knowledge about the negotiations, that supporting Ukraine at this moment--simply saying we have your back; we are your backstop; we are supporting you--can't help but aid their position.

But let me just say, what is most important about this conversation is that we will continue together on both sides of the aisle, in a bipartisan way, to support Ukraine. It isn't about their being less strong, at least in the case of Senator Wicker. I am absolutely sure, and I respect his views on this topic even though we differ, and I hope that this cause will continue to be bipartisan.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my military fellow Capt. Sean McSpirit be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this year.

Mr. President, tragically and totally unnecessarily, what we are seeing in real time is an assault on the veterans of America. It is an assault that is part of a campaign by Elon Musk, who has been empowered by President Trump supposedly to eliminate waste in our Federal Government.

Instead of eliminating waste, Elon Musk is laying waste to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and it is unfolding in real time, with real-life impacts on our veterans. Not only is he firing veterans at the VA--many of the 2,400 already terminated are veterans, one-third of them--but across Agencies in the U.S. Government, where 30,000 members of the Federal workforce have been indiscriminately terminated. Thirty percent of them are veterans as well.

Almost 50 percent of everybody in the Department of Defense who has been fired are veterans, and they may be probationary employees who have been promoted to positions where they are in probationary status because they have done such a great job. They are being fired.

Younger members of the Federal workforce--there for up to 2 years, the future of our civil service--they are firing, and so many of them are veterans who have worn the uniform, served and sacrificed, and want to continue to benefit the country with the skills and dedication they have demonstrated as members of our U.S. Armed Forces.

Public service has long been a preferred path for military-affiliated populations. Whether it is in our local police force or as emergency medical personnel, joining the Federal workforce has enabled them to continue serving our country while it offers competitive wages, benefits, and much needed stability for them as veterans and tremendous benefits for taxpayers.

Now what Elon Musk is doing--relying on his tech bros and his algorithms and his AI formulas--is to cut across the board, leaving those veterans as disposable trash or roadkill in his campaign to eliminate waste.

Well, let me tell you, Elon Musk, if you were serious about eliminating waste, you wouldn't have fired the inspectors general of these Agencies, who are the watchdogs. They have records of eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.

Exhibit A is Michael Missal, the inspector general of the VA, hired and appointed first by President Obama. He served under President Trump for 4 years and then under President Biden. He has ruffled feathers of Republican and Democrat administrations because he has uncovered waste and fraud in a very bipartisan way, and he regards his job as bipartisan. He would be the one to eliminate waste, not with a meat-ax but with a scalpel.

I wish my colleagues had been in the hearing today, the joint hearing of the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees, to hear Commander Al Lipphardt of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the VFW--a really heroic Vietnam veteran, injured there, with shrapnel in his arm. As he told us, the surgeon removed the shrapnel piece by piece; he didn't cut off his arm. That is the approach that we need, as he said, in eliminating waste--not cutting off arms or legs but removing the waste carefully, deliberately, cautiously.

Among the illegally terminated--and I should stress ``illegally terminated''--are 2,400 VA employees, many of them veterans themselves, members of the Guard or Reserves now, caregivers, military spouses. In the DOD, many of them--45 percent--are former veterans. The overall impact will be disastrous on the 640,000 veterans who are public servants.

Musk and Trump have already upended the lives of so many thousands of veterans who were casually discarded, illegally fired without notice or justification--all for cheap headlines. The impacts in real life are undeniable. Stories from newspapers, from broadcast media, from all kinds of outlets, tell the story of those real-life impacts.

I know my colleagues are hearing from their constituents about the mental health services that are delayed, about the surgeries that can't be provided, and about the Veterans Crisis Line, serving veterans who may be taking their own lives--all reduced. These real-life impacts are undeniable. We are talking about the people who make sure that veterans have transportation to those appointments, who assist with benefits claims, who ensure that the VA hospitals are maintained and that they are safe, who clean operating rooms and sterilize instruments in between procedures. It may not be the surgeon who is fired, but the surgeon who is walking into the operating room needs a staff and a team to assist him. He needs the housekeeping staff to make sure that it is clean. These people have dedicated their careers to serving veterans and their Nation, and all have been indiscriminately and illegally terminated.

These short headlines tell a story, and so does this visual from Springfield, MA:

Due to abrupt and unplanned staff shortages, we are not

able to greet you at this time. If you have a scheduled

appointment, your counselor will be out to get you at the

time of your appointment. If you are here for any other

reason, please call and leave a message, and a staff member

will return your call.

We apologize--

``We apologize''--

for any inconvenience and impact on your care.

Donald Trump and Elon Musk owe veterans an apology. Right now, Elon Musk is giving veterans the middle finger. Veterans won't stand for it.

So, Mr. President, I am introducing a resolution today and asking that we approve it to uphold the contract, to uphold the promise, to uphold the commitment we made to our veterans when they raised their right hands and promised to serve and sacrifice even at the risk of dying.

I am joined by Senators Hirono, Slotkin, Lujan, Murray, Durbin, Whitehouse, Warnock, Klobuchar, Shaheen, Kaine, Rosen, Cortez Masto, Alsobrooks, Kelly, Warren, Hassan, Schiff, Baldwin, Duckworth, Gallego, Peters, Van Hollen, Sanders, Booker, Wyden, Merkley, Warner, Smith, Padilla, Heinrich, Schatz, and Hickenlooper in this effort. I wish--I really wish--it were bipartisan because veterans' issues have been bipartisan. I have worked with veterans, including the chairman, whom I respect, Senator Moran, on these issues.

This resolution acknowledges that veterans, who make up less than 7 percent of Americans but approximately 30 percent of public service, have been really disrespected and disserved in just these weeks, with such destructive and repugnant effects on them, on the veterans they serve, and on American values. Our Nation and they deserve better.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 105, which is at the desk; further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, first, let me say I am hopeful that we can work together--if the chairman of the VA Committee is willing to do it--to try to arrive at language that calls for the rehiring of these veterans, rescinding the layoffs.

I must say that we are joined today by a number of guests of my colleagues as well as myself, veterans who have been terminated. They are with us today. They are going to be with us tonight at the address offered by President Trump.

I am more than happy to work on this resolution if there is a way to make it bipartisan, but the basic principle that we owe our veterans that contract and commitment and that we need to bring them back so that these kinds of consequences can be avoided I think is fundamental to the effort today.

We know that more than 50 patient appointments were canceled at a VA facility just this past week because they can't hire staff needed to care for those veterans.

We know that in the first round of terminations, Secretary Collins terminated nine Veterans Crisis Line employees. Then he hired some back, and then he fired more.

We know that a pregnant spouse of a disabled veteran who was hired under the military spouse appointing authority was terminated.

We know that a 25-year Marine Corps veteran with a 100-percent service-connected disability rating and 15 years of service was terminated.

We know that a VA researcher working on treatments for substance use disorders among veterans was terminated.

We know that the cyber security lead for the VA website--the digital hub that connects veterans with their benefits and holds sensitive, personal data--was terminated.

These kinds of impacts--and I have mentioned just a tiny fraction of all of them--are ongoing. They are real. They are urgent.

I am more than happy to work on the language of this resolution, but the goal is indisputable and unavoidable.

I am going to turn now to some of my colleagues who have joined me today. I thank them for doing so.

First, Senator Whitehouse, if I may yield to him.

Mr. President, we are going to be joined by others of my colleagues, but I want to follow Senator Whitehouse's very eloquent remarks by just making a couple of quick points.

You know, tonight, the President is going to speak to Members of both the House and the Senate, and he is going to make a lot of claims, many of them untethered in any way to the facts. But if he does nothing else, what I would like to see him do is show some respect for our veterans. He has called them suckers and losers. They have been called swamp creatures or deep-staters by members of this administration. Part of the mindset here that is responsible for these firings is that disrespect for our veterans.

Two of my sons are veterans--one, a Marine Corps first lieutenant who served in Afghanistan; another, a Navy SEAL. They value the VA.

Americans see in their real lives how the VA helps our veterans.

When the President speaks tonight, I want him to look at the guests whom we have brought--not only my guest, Michael Missal, the former inspector general of the VA, but also a U.S. Air Force veteran with more than 30 years of military service who retired from a lifetime of dedicated service to his country in November and immediately rededicated himself to serving his fellow veterans at the Department of Veterans Affairs. He started work on January 13. He was illegally terminated barely 1 month later. He is the soul breadwinner of his family. And Tony Ruiz, a disabled Army veteran--until he was illegally terminated, he worked at the VA Benefits Administration to assist veterans with their benefits claim. He was cut just 10 days before his probationary period ended. He was serving in his dream job.

These veterans and other courageous former members of our Armed Forces are going to be with us tonight, and they will be speaking out. They will be sharing their stories. They are not faceless bureaucrats. They are not suckers. They are not losers. They are hard-working public servants who have willingly sacrificed everything for this country, have been willing to give even their lives, and now have rededicated themselves to continue their service now that their military time is complete.

I want to yield to my colleague from Michigan, Senator Peters, who himself is a veteran and a great colleague and friend of ours.

Mr. President, I am going to close this colloquy by, first of all, thanking my colleagues who have come today, especially veterans like Senator Kelly, who served for decades, and Senator Peters and all the veterans who have joined in this resolution--Senators Gallego and others who have served this country--Senator Slotkin, Senator Peters, who was here, and others.

But we don't have to be veterans to appreciate what members of our military do for our country. My own service in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve pales in comparison to many of theirs and many who have appeared before the Veterans' Committee over these past 7, 10 days, many of them decrying these kinds of cuts. Again, these are real people, affected in real ways, unnecessarily harmed.

And these headlines speak volumes about how they have been hurt:

DOGE finds zero fraud, waste, or abuse, just new ways to

harm veterans.

Veterans fired in federal layoffs say they were ``stabbed

in the back.''

These are just a scattering of the kinds of real-life stories that bring us to the floor today.

I plead with the President: Please make this resolution unnecessary. Do the right thing. But if you don't, I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Join us from that other side of the aisle; join us in decrying these cuts, the freezes, the firings, the terminations. They are illegal and immoral.

And we will move forward. We will continue to fight because American values are at stake.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to follow my colleague and friend from Rhode Island and to join with the Senator from Virginia, Senator Kaine, in supporting S.J. Res. 10, which is a joint resolution to terminate President Trump's illegal Executive order declaring an energy emergency.

It is not only nature's rule that is being violated, as Senator Whitehouse just said so eloquently; it is also this Congress's rule. In effect, the President is flouting and defying this Congress--this independent, separate body of the U.S. Government--in the money that has already been appropriated for projects that will help avoid an energy emergency in the future and reduce the prices of energy for American families.

To the families of America, let's just be very clear. President Trump is illegally withholding appropriated funding for for projects in your communities and your neighborhoods, not only projects to increase energy efficiency but also to strengthen the electrical grid that brings electricity into your home and projects to build out America's clean energy infrastructure that will avoid pollution in your neighborhoods.

This funding freeze sweeps a range of programs having nothing to do with unleashing American energy, whatever President Trump thinks it is--we are talking about funding for clean drinking water projects that will enable better drinking water for your homes; brownfield remediation so that businesses can be developed in places that now are polluted; heating assistance for low-income households during the end of this winter--causing confusion and consternation across the country.

But make no mistake, if this funding is withheld, the projects and the needs and the challenges don't go away. There will still be a need to clean up those brownfields, to deliver through the electric grid, to make energy efficiency real in communities and neighborhoods, but you will pay. Your taxes will be increased at the State level and the local level, and those projects will become more expensive. So there is a double and triple whammy here. Increase the costs now and in the future for projects that are absolutely essential to the health as well as the energy efficiency of our country.

The Republicans say they are for an ``all of the above'' approach to energy, but then they turn around and they attack renewables. They say they are for cleaning up brownfields, but then they support this kind of Executive order that is illegal and also stymies or stops that brownfield remediation.

Like all of the actions by Executive order President Trump has taken in his first month of office, it isn't actually solving the problem; it is exacerbating it. It is lining the pockets of his billionaire buddies--in this case, oil and gas executives--at the expense of everyday Americans. If there is an energy emergency, it will be created by President Trump--it won't be solved by him--and congressional Republicans will be complicit in it.

There is also an effect on jobs. In fact, thousands of jobs are threatened by this Executive order. Repealing the Inflation Reduction Act by Executive edict threatens 400,000 new jobs that have been announced since August of 2022. Connecticut alone has around 50,000 workers in the clean energy sector. All of those jobs are at risk. They are threatened by President Trump's attack on the industry.

To my colleagues across the aisle, make no mistake, this is going to affect your constituents as well. Studies have found that a majority of clean energy jobs created during the first full year after the Inflation Reduction Act passed actually were in the South, in Republican States. Jobs in clean energy are not in one State or just blue States; they are across the country. Eight out of ten congressional districts that received the most funding under these laws were represented by Republicans.

It shouldn't be a partisan issue. It is, as we say all the time, an American issue. We stand ready to work with anyone who wants to lower costs for consumers and support domestic energy production by building on historic investments made by the Infrastructure Investment and JOBS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, but President Trump's order in no way helps; it simply harms that effort.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this resolution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to begin where my wonderful friend and colleague Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island ended in opposing the nomination of Kash Patel to be Director of the FBI.

I served as a U.S. attorney as well, and I know firsthand what an investigation and a prosecution can do to an individual's life even without a conviction. I used to tell my staff that the most important thing we decide to do is to start an investigation or bring charges because that person will be under a magnifying glass, having to defend himself even if no charges are brought and to defend himself even if there is no conviction, and the charges themselves can do irreparable harm to a person's reputation, his finances, his family, his life.

We entrust these positions, investigative and prosecutorial, to people who deserve the credibility and reliance that we give them. So the position of Director of the FBI or Attorney General of the United States or prosecutors and investigators who work for them are not ordinary positions. Even potentially in certain situations, they are more powerful than a member of the U.S. Cabinet in the impact they can have on individual lives.

For the ordinary nominee, any of the defects in character or experience or performance in past jobs would have been disqualifying. We live in a time that is not ordinary, and this nominee is not normal. I have never seen any nominee to a position of significant responsibility that has as many disqualifying factors in his or her background, but I think that one comment about him that strikes me whenever I read it is the full quote from former National Security Advisor John Bolton.

Part of that quote has been cited by previous speakers. I want to read the whole quote:

[Kash Patel's] conduct in Mr. Trump's first term and

thereafter indicates that as FBI director he would operate

according to [Secret Police Chief] Lavrenty Beria's reported

comment to Joseph Stalin: ``Show me the man, and I'll show

you the crime.''

Now, very few people remember Secret Police Chief Beria and the terror he caused in carrying out Joseph Stalin's edicts to destroy people's lives, to execute them, to eliminate their families but remember the mantra of Beria and Stalin: ``Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime''--make up the crime to fit the man, and we will eliminate him.

We are talking here about a nominee who has an enemies list. He calls it something different. He calls it ``Government Gangsters,'' and he is on a manhunt for them. ``Manhunt'' is his word. He can use different words, but the point here is he is on a mission to use the powers of this office, in Donald Trump's name, for political retribution against his enemies, against Trump's enemies, against MAGA's opponents. To use these institutions for political retribution is the height of irresponsibility. Even to hint at it ought to be disqualifying, and he has made it explicit in his past writings and his statements and speeches not just a couple of times. It is a theme that runs through his public comments; that eliminating enemies through the use of prosecution is not only acceptable but it is desirable.

The FBI is a very special Agency, with 38,000 civil servants, including 13,000 special agents who go after international and domestic terrorism, cybercriminal syndicates, foreign espionage, organized criminal enterprises, including drug cartels, child sexual exploitation, and human trafficking, and many other crimes that affect our lives and the lives of everyday Americans across the country.

All different backgrounds, races, and religions can be victims of crime that the FBI investigates. And the FBI agents put their lives on the line because pursuing these crimes often puts them at risk from bad guys who may not even know that they are shooting at an FBI agent, but it is somebody pursuing them; they may not know that an FBI agent is operating undercover, and they may be killing them. And so the FBI's work is a dangerous business, but it is for our good and our safety.

The American people deserve an FBI leader who is worthy of them. The American people deserve a Director of the FBI who will keep them safe and who will make that safety a priority.

But in recent weeks, the Trump administration has systematically weaponized and politicized both the FBI and the Department of Justice. On her very first day of office, Attorney General Bondi created a Weaponization Working Group--let me repeat that: Weaponization Working Group--and specifically named targets to be investigated: Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, Jack Smith. All of them have led legitimate prosecutions and lawsuits against President Trump.

There have been reports that prosecutors and FBI agents have been reassigned from drug trafficking to do immigration enforcement, from terrorism task forces to immigration enforcement. And the administration has issued allegedly unethical or illegal audits, causing many top prosecutors to bravely resign rather than betray their oaths of office. We are talking about men and women who love their jobs in the Department of Justice and do them well, and they have sacrificed those jobs because they were ordered to take action that was unethical or illegal, in their view.

We need--now more than ever--an FBI Director who is trustworthy and devoted to the ideals and values of the Department of Justice and the Constitution above all. Anyone taking one of those jobs raises their right hand and swears an oath to the Constitution--not to the President, not to the Attorney General, not to any other official; it is to the Constitution.

Kash Patel is not that person, not the person to have that immense responsibility, most especially at this moment. He lacks the judgment; he lacks the integrity; he lacks the character and competence to be FBI Director. Kash Patel's contempt for those agents who put their lives on the line has been clear. He has called them--the FBI--``one of the most cunning and powerful arms of the Deep State.''

And there are now highly credible whistleblower reports that he may have directed the purging of senior leaders at the FBI as well as potentially a mass firing of career FBI officials--those FBI officials who served professionally, with distinction, who put their lives on the line, purged as a result of Kash Patel involving himself, in fact, in those decisions even as, under oath, in response to my questions, he said:

All FBI employees will be protected against political

retribution. [All FBI employees will be protected against

political retribution.]

Well, we stood in front of the FBI headquarters this morning. In that very building, there are individuals who will be fired because they took assignments they didn't choose; they were assigned to criminal investigations that happened to involve Donald Trump--political retribution at its very height. And if he directed the purging of those FBI agents, contrary to the assurances he made to our committee at his nomination hearing, Kash Patel was certainly less than truthful with us.

I have not been without criticism of the FBI. None of us have been. No Agency is perfect. But I am also betting that members of the FBI would say there is room for improvement in this Agency.

Kash Patel would slash and trash the FBI, not improve it. He would engage in political retribution, not constructive reform. He would weaponize the FBI with that enemies list. He may not say it is an enemies list. He may call them government gangsters, but that manhunt would involve political retribution.

And he has conspiracy theories. He has trafficked in them. He said he agrees with a lot of what QAnon says. He engages in election denialism, refusing to say that President Biden won the 2020 election. He has even suggested that the FBI planned the January 6 attack on the Capitol. And he has glorified those rioters by calling them ``political prisoners'' and, in fact, aiding them in their defense--even the rioters who attacked and assaulted police officers and did them grave injury and in some instances contributed to their death.

He has joined them in song, producing the J6 Choir's recording, and he has refused to be honest when it really matters, pleading the Fifth Amendment in the case about Donald Trump's handling of classified documents and then denying us--or at least refusing to

cooperate in providing us with access to the testimony that he offered.

The litany of questionable comments and actions by this nominee shows he lacks the character and competence for this job. I have talked about roughly half a dozen various different facts in his background, statements, comments, actions that would be individually disqualifying. All together, they paint a picture of someone who has no proper role anywhere near a law enforcement agency, let alone Director of the FBI.

I am appalled that my Republican colleagues voted for him in committee unanimously on their side. I am appalled that so few may vote against him on the floor today. But I am absolutely sure of this one thing: This vote will haunt anyone who votes for him. They will rue the day they did it.

To my Republican colleagues, think about it. Think about what you will tell your constituents--more important, your family, and maybe your grandchildren--about why you picked and voted for this person who will so completely and utterly disgrace this office and do such great damage to our Nation's justice system.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in order to protect our veterans, who deserve full funding, I call up my amendment No. 659 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, this amendment very simply seeks to

protect full funding for the PACT Act. All of us--or most of us--voted for it. It was bipartisan. It was one of the most significant expansions of healthcare and benefits for toxic-exposed veterans in the VA's history.

Now it is threatened because the Trump administration is aggressively attempting to decimate the VA workforce. It has imposed a freeze, and it is cutting men and women employees who are integral to fulfilling our promise under the PACT Act.

We should be proud of it. We should preserve it. And if President Trump has no plans to erode the PACT Act, voting for this amendment should be easy for my Republican colleagues.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I come to the floor with sadness and anger because we are here to consider the nomination of a person who, very practically and unfortunately, is unworthy and unqualified and unprepared for this position.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., will, in fact, betray the trust and credibility of the office he has been nominated to fill. He has already shown that he lacks the trust in science and the adherence to the truth that is so important because this office is, fundamentally, about advocating for public health, informing the public, and speaking truth to the American people when there is so much misinformation and disinformation about what will keep Americans healthy and make them healthier.

And he threatens, literally, to make America sick. Whether it is ``Make America Sick Again'' or just ``Make America Sicker,'' the fact is he has supported conspiracy theories and distorted views of what is important in public health that threaten the American people.

The Nobel laureates, the healthcare professionals, the members of his own family--and, in a certain way, I would say, if you have any question about Mr. Kennedy's qualifications, you should listen to Caroline Kennedy and her very powerful comments on his nomination. The fact is that her comments are an indictment. They are literally a warning against his nomination, stating that he is ``addicted to attention and power'' and that he has already denigrated our healthcare system by championing beliefs that cost lives.

Ultimately, the confirmation process so far has confirmed what we already know: that as a source of information, advocacy, and truth, he is less than Americans deserve.

Americans deserve someone who believes in the Affordable Care Act and its premium tax credits that reduce healthcare costs for millions of Americans who otherwise would be left uninsured and unable to afford healthcare. Americans deserve a Secretary who will advance research into lifesaving medicines, treatments, and vaccination.

He is not that person.

Americans deserve a Secretary who will protect Medicaid, which provides healthcare to nearly 1 million Connecticut residents, including 350,000 children--at the very least, someone who knows the difference between Medicaid and Medicare.

He is not that person.

And Americans deserve a Secretary who will protect the sensitive health data of millions of people across the country. When the Department of Government Efficiency, which is an unregulated and potentially unsanctioned organization, gained access to millions of seniors' records at Medicare, Mr. Kennedy purposefully said nothing.

And, at the very least, we need someone who will stand up to President Trump when he spreads misinformation from the White House, someone who will stand up to him when he asks that his Secretary of Health and Human Services do something illegal or immoral. And, clearly, Mr. Kennedy is not that person.

There is a reason that he lacks support from all of these professional organizations and is actively opposed by them--by healthcare professionals, Nobel laureates, and his own family--and that is that he fails the basic test of what Americans deserve: a Secretary that believes in science and advances in modern medicine; a Secretary who won't profit off of the lies he tells about vaccines and science; a Secretary who will not instigate fears of lifesaving vaccinations, while, at the same time, ensuring that his own children are vaccinated and protected; a Secretary who will protect women and reproductive rights; and someone who knows the difference between Medicare and Medicaid.

The kind of leadership that is required from the Secretary of Health and Human Services has never been more important, and that truth- telling advocacy, informing of the public, is more vital than ever.

Now, HHS is a massive Department. The management challenges alone are fierce. He has no qualifications or experience that would justify his appointment.

He would oversee health insurance for millions of people through Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and the Affordable Care Act. He is responsible for promoting the economic and social well-being of children and families, combating the opioid epidemic, supporting people with disabilities, and strengthening the Nation's public health system and emergency response.

The HHS Secretary is responsible for advancing innovative medical research through the National Institutes of Health; the Food and Drug Administration, responsible for ensuring our food and drugs and medical devices are safe and effective; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which strengthens our public health system and responds to disease outbreaks.

This Agency is a sprawling, massive, challenging management task, and his nomination has spotlighted not only his lack of experience in management but also his long history of dangerous, delusional, and misguided beliefs that would be detrimental to the public and, in fact, a betrayal of public health.

The focus has been on Mr. Kennedy's views on vaccinations and his public denial of well-recognized science. His--

really--frightening views, which he has used to make money and have endangered the lives of countless children and families, ought to be disqualifying on their own. He admits to vaccinating his own children. Vaccines are safe and effective enough for his family but not others, it seems.

The fact is, vaccines are safe and effective. To be clear, over the last 50 years, vaccines have prevented 154 million deaths, including 146 million among children younger than 5 years old. They undergo exhaustive tests and trials and independent review to determine whether they are safe and effective, and they continue to undergo rigorous review even after approval.

This system works, but Mr. Kennedy has a long history of weakening and weaponizing parental instincts to protect their children and to spread disingenuous and life-threatening misinformation. These lies are attributable to his bad judgment as well as self-enrichment--exactly the opposite of what a Secretary of HHS should exemplify.

He has supported the dangerous, unproven lie that African Americans can use weaker vaccine schedules because Black people have stronger immune systems. This disgusting, appalling claim has been disavowed by the medical community and renounced by the authors of the studies that Mr. Kennedy has incorrectly cited in espousing these lies. But these lies exacerbate racism, and it is a weakness in our public health system that this racism may continue to exist. To exacerbate it threatens people's lives.

The anti-vaccine group he founded has maintained that the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine is linked to higher rates of autism in Black children--again, a flat-out lie, racialized comments that are intended to stoke fear in the public health system and exploit the very caution that many communities of color approach the healthcare system with. His lies will, again, exacerbate the clear disparities that exist in healthcare for different racial groups, and the inequity of those disparities is a glaring weakness in our current healthcare system.

But he will be spouting those kinds of disinformation--spouting on podcasts, espousing in the media as the highest ranking health official in our country. The notion that the public health of the Nation-- credibility, trust, truth-telling--would be put in the hands of this man is truly frightening.

Now, he has attempted to backtrack since his nomination. He is claiming he is not anti-vaccine. But when he was asked point-blank, under oath, during confirmation hearings, in effect, he ducked and dodged.

Some of my colleagues have claimed that Mr. Kennedy privately told them he will work with existing vaccine approvals and safety networks and that he won't undermine vaccines in his role overseeing them. In private, that is what he said. Why wouldn't he make these commitments during public confirmation hearings? Why couldn't he make them when he was under oath?

The threat is that he will do exactly the contrary.

The American people deserve more than back-door, private, confidential conversations and quiet promises about what the HHS Secretary will do. And the fact is, he has pushed these kinds of debunked theories linking childhood vaccinations to autism, claiming that COVID-19 vaccines were weaponized against specific ethnic and socioeconomic groups, and profiting off lawsuits against lifesaving vaccines that prevent deadly diseases like cervical cancer, measles, tetanus, and chickenpox.

There is no argument from me that there needs to be testing and review and clinical trials for vaccines to be proven safe and effective. But once those tests and trials and independent review take place and are judged to be sufficient to show a vaccine is safe and effective, undermining them is simply contrary to public health.

Now, Mr. Kennedy would also threaten reproductive care and reproductive freedom. During his 2024 Presidential campaign, he consistently downplayed the importance of reproductive health, claiming that abortion was ``just a little issue.''

Abortion was hardly ``a little issue'' for women across the country, especially women who have literally died or come close to death as a result of denial of this essential healthcare and freedom.

The Americans deserve a Secretary of Health and Human Services who respects women and who works against politicians telling women what they can do with their bodies and trusts women to make decisions about what is right for them.

The HHS Secretary, as a matter of fact, oversees the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, a Federal law that mandates that women who need emergency care are entitled to it, whether that emergency care be an abortion or some other treatment.

When he was asked if a woman bleeding out in an emergency room is entitled to emergency care under this law, Mr. Kennedy responded, ``I don't know.'' He should know. Whether sheer incompetence, utter confusion, or just an unwillingness to agree to uphold Federal laws protecting women, that comment and response alone should be disqualifying. It is dangerous, and confirming him in this position could be deadly to women who depend on that program.

He has refused to say that he will protect access to medication abortion. Instead, he has said he would reevaluate the drug. Now, this drug has been safely and effectively used by millions of women for decades. His response is code for making it harder to access or ban it altogether.

He won't commit to protecting women who need emergency medical care. He will not commit to keeping safe and effective abortion medication available. He will limit access to abortion services. His confirmation poses the danger of catastrophic consequences for women.

How can women trust him to protect their interests and safeguard their health? The women of America deserve better.

Mr. Kennedy has a long history of making baseless and damaging claims about the LGBTQ+ community, including the absurd lie that environmental chemical exposure somehow causes children to become gay or transgender. Boggles the mind. Incredibly dangerous to the health and safety of LGBTQ+ youth, but it is his stated belief or has been at various times in the past, and adding to those harmful ideas is his belief that HIV does not cause AIDS.

He has supported bans on gender-affirming healthcare for transgender individuals and spread misinformation about what gender-affirming care actually looks like in the real world. If he continues to spread this unscientific rhetoric as Secretary of HHS, he will cost people their lives.

Members of the LGBTQ community already experience significant health disparities, and Mr. Kennedy's false views on health, sexual orientation, and gender identity would make these disparities--like racial disparity--even worse.

To serve in this position, Mr. Kennedy need not be the world's greatest scientist or the most erudite professor or the most astute researcher, but he needs to have a respect for science and medical professionals. He lacks it.

He made it abundantly clear during his confirmation hearing that he has none of those qualities and, in fact, demonstrated an inadequate understanding of the very programs he is supposed to be administering if he is confirmed, like Medicare and Medicaid.

You know, we have reviewed a lot of nominees as Senators, and we know that they are prepared--they are extensively ``murder-boarded,'' as they say--asked questions in preparation.

You would expect that the nominee to be HHS Secretary would understand the difference between two of the most important and largest health insurance programs in the country that serve millions of Americans every day. He didn't.

The American people deserve better. His decisions, if he is confirmed, will have long-lasting impacts, and he lacks the expertise to lead this Agency and lead America as an advocate, as an informer, as a truth-teller.

Lest you think he will rely on good people who will help him in administering this Agency, he has pledged to fire hundreds of National Institutes of Health employees. He told the Food and Drug Administration workers to ``pack their bags.'' He would like to clear entire Departments of the Federal Government, including the nutrition department at the FDA. He is in

no way going to rely on career professionals who truly understand the policies behind the programs that he knows so little about.

Mr. Kennedy claims to support improving nutrition and combatting chronic diseases, and many of us support those programs to eliminate additives, for example, or provide better nutritional information, front-of-package labels showing nutritional content, and enabling Americans to be healthier by eating better and by being better informed. But instead of surrounding himself with experts, his potential top advisers include people who want to change or abolish the nutrition guidelines, like the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which will bolster industry profits, not health.

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans provides science-based advice on what to drink and eat to meet nutrient needs. They promote health. They reduce the risk of chronic disease. This dietary guidance is critically important because three in five adults live with chronic disease. Let me repeat. Three in five adults live with chronic disease that could be improved with better nutrition.

It informs all Federal nutrition programs, meaning that these dietary guidelines impact one in four Americans through programs like the National School Lunch Program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, and the Child and Adult Care Food Program. These programs follow those dietary guidelines because they are based on science. But Mr. Kennedy lacks respect for science. The fact that he espouses better nutrition isn't translated into real-world support for actions that benefit Americans. His opposition to those guidelines benefits the food industry.

Having a science denier surrounded by potentially lobbyists at the helm of this Agency is not going to make Americans healthy again; it is going to make them sicker. It is going to potentially sell them out for profit.

I am disappointed that we are here, as I said at the outset, to be considering someone who is so deeply unqualified and unprepared for a position that is an enormous potential opportunity to improve the health of America. His advocacy could spread the truth, could hold the food industry or pharmaceutical drug industry to higher standards to provide more medicine and treatments and cures at lower prices. He could support research through the NIH instead of advocating that it be cut. He could enable women to have reproductive care instead of dodging or diminishing its importance. He could help eliminate racism and bias against LBGTQ+ people in our healthcare system. There is so much opportunity squandered in this nomination.

I will vote no on Robert Kennedy, Jr. I urge my colleagues to heed the warnings from Americans much better qualified than I am to make this judgment--those Nobel laureates; the professional organizations; the healthcare experts; and, of course, his family, who knows him best--Caroline Kennedy, who spoke with such eloquence and insight. Her incisive and heartbreaking video should be watched by everyone who is about to vote on this nomination.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Protectors of Animals, a remarkable nonprofit organization dedicated to the advocacy and promotion of animal welfare.

Protectors of Animals is a no-kill animal shelter and rescue that was formed in 1975 in East Hartford, CT, to rescue abandoned, abused, and stray

cats and dogs. Today, the shelter stands as one of the oldest and most respected animal welfare organizations in the northeastern United States.

Protectors of Animals has grown into a truly exceptional organization, providing critical animal welfare support and services throughout Connecticut. From online resources for pet owners, to services including low-cost spay and neuter clinics, to the all- important adoption center, Protectors of Animals has truly advanced the cause of animal welfare.

I have been honored to be involved with Protectors of Animals for over 20 years. One of my personal priorities is to treat animals humanely, and I am a long-time advocate for the safeguarding of animals against abuse and neglect. That is why I have been so grateful for the support of Protectors of Animals over the years; they perform incredible advocacy work, and above all else, they truly care about the animals they serve.

I would like to extend my thanks to the dedicated staff, volunteers, and supporters of Protectors of Animals who have helped this august organization save thousands of animals and connect them with their forever home, enhancing the quality of life of so many Connecticut residents.

Protectors of Animals is celebrating their 50th anniversary on Saturday, February 15--50 years of incredibly important advocacy and services, and I am sure that there are many more to come. I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating Protectors of Animals and the remarkable work they do.

Mr. President, I am here to ask my colleagues to join me in a very simple truth: Tulsi Gabbard should not be the next Director of National Intelligence.

It is a simple, unequivocal truth, and it should be so clear to everyone because she is unprepared and unqualified for this role. She lacks the confidence and character, and that has been made crystal clear in the proceedings so far during her confirmation.

I urge my colleagues to consider not just her lack of preparedness but the existential threat her confirmation would pose within the intelligence community that she would have.

Since the Revolutionary War, our Nation's intelligence professionals have served out of the spotlight, never expecting recognition or adulation or award. They serve in some of the most demanding, dangerous posts, in harm's way and hostile environments, far from their families--in many cases, unable to speak to their friends and loved ones for long periods of time and unable to tell them where they are or what they are doing. Others serve in the Nation's most sensitive facilities here in Washington, DC, or elsewhere in this country. Many of them constitute the best mathematicians, the best linguists, the best analysts, and cryptographic minds in the world.

These silent sentinels choose to serve because they believe in the values and institutions that we should cherish and protect: democracy, integrity, the truth. We expect our intelligence professionals to live to the standards personified by one of Connecticut's greatest sons, Nathan Hale, whose dying regret was that he had but one life to give to his country. He served ably and instrumentally during the Revolutionary War. He came to be admired and adulated for his patriotism, his dedication, his willingness to give his life for his country.

That is the tradition of our Nation's intelligence community. They know they are going into some of the riskiest places on the planet. They do it for their country, and they keep it secret. I can't support Tulsi Gabbard to be in charge of them. I can't countenance allowing someone who is this risky to them and to our country having responsibility over their lives and their capacity to contribute to the intelligence that is critical to this country avoiding disasters.

What I have learned in this body is that, very often, the most important work of the intelligence community is to avoid disaster--a terrorist attack or other kinds of catastrophes--and the country never knows about it because it has been avoided. The history of these last 2\1/2\ decades, since 9/11, is we have avoided some of the greatest disasters that might have befallen us because of that intelligence community--their competence and their dedication.

Ms. Gabbard has given a part of her life to the Nation through uniformed service, and I respect her service in that role, but she has given another part of her life to our adversaries--in service to those who would see us become supplicants of ruthless, ruinous powers. Her integrity is, at best, suspect. Her judgment is flawed. Her moral compass is capricious. That is a nice way of putting it. For the last several years, she has made a career of antagonizing the very patriots who serve in the community she now wants to lead. Her disdain for the intelligence community undermines the public's trust in those very Agencies that often serve as our first line of defense and avoid those catastrophic attacks on this country or on our allies and partners and friends around the world. Those Agencies are not just our first line of defense; they are sometimes the line of defense against attacks.

Make no mistake, we are in an age of strife and conflict that demands leaders of principle and determination, leaders who are willing to counter the efforts of anyone who would seek to end all of our democratic and free people. A revanchist Russia is waging an illegal, murderous war against Ukraine. It is hell-bent on establishing itself as a disruptor in Europe for the foreseeable future--a disruptor of democracies. It is using disinformation through social media and tech for spreading lies and dividing democracy, bolstering far-right movements that threaten the fabric of our allies.

Democracy: It isn't just our Nation that is at risk; it is democracies around the world that are at risk from Russia. In the Indo- Pacific, the People's Republic of China is determined to defy the international norms that have maintained security in the region for 60 years. Iranian temerity in the Middle East throws the region potentially into an uncontained religious war, stained by sectarian zeal, and a potential use of nuclear weapons.

We must stop a nuclear-armed Iran at every potential cost, and we should be siding with our ally there--our great friend and partner, Israel--to stop a nuclear-armed Iran. We should support their effort to eradicate terrorism--Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis--proxies of Iran.

The axis of evil that we are seeing now--Russia, China, Iran--is moving against us. They are working together, and they are developing new methods to threaten the United States and our allies around the globe. They are potentially disastrous to our security and

our allies, and the intelligence community stands as a bulwark, seeking information sometimes at great cost, developing human sources of intelligence, using electronic surveillance--all of it depending on secrecy and trust.

The credibility of this Nation will crater if Tulsi Gabbard is confirmed. Ms. Gabbard's confirmation would be a self-inflicted wound.

I don't believe that conflict is unavoidable or inevitable, but we should not do our adversaries' work for them. Confirming Tulsi Gabbard puts in place someone who has been proven untrustworthy throughout her career, potentially an aide to Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, and others. They are waiting for this body to give her control of the intelligence community.

Putin's minions call Ms. Gabbard ``dyevuchka nasha''--``our little girl.'' I am probably mispronouncing the Russian, but I have got the English right--``our little girl.'' She has routinely parroted the Kremlin's talking points on the war in Ukraine, castigated NATO, and painted Vladimir Putin as a victim. That is exactly how Vladimir Putin wants to be depicted--and Mother Russia--to seek the reestablishment of the Russian Empire, including Ukraine, potentially Poland, and other Eastern European countries. That is his agenda, and Ms. Tulsi Gabbard, apparently, is sympathetic.

As my colleagues in the intelligence community noted, she went as far as meeting with President Bashar al-Assad and upending the Obama administration's efforts to isolate a vicious dictator. For years, she has been one of the most effective apologists for autocracy--exactly what we should be eschewing at this moment when autocracy poses such a threat around the world. Her comments on podcasts were shared millions of times by the Kremlin's media arm in Africa, South America, and Asia. She is a star but not in a good way. She is a star for our adversaries, our enemies, and others who mean us harm.

She is either complicit in Putin's machinations or completely unable to distinguish fact from fiction. Either one makes her unqualified for this highly sensitive and critically important role. We can't let her-- the proverbial fox--into the henhouse. We can't let her into a position that demands character, integrity, and sound judgment.

We can't let her be confirmed. I ask my colleagues to join with me in saying no to Tulsi Gabbard.

There are other confirmations that we have opposed. There are other individuals whom I have said are unqualified for positions of high trust in the President's Cabinet.

There is a general deference that should be paid to the President in choosing his team, but this position is one of the most critical in sensitivity and importance, demanding the highest trust and credibility. It should not be occupied by Tulsi Gabbard.

I ask my colleagues to join me in saying and voting no.

I yield the floor to my great colleague from the State of Massachusetts, Senator Warren.

Mr. President, I have the bad fortune and audacity to follow one of our greatest speakers, one of the Nation's greatest orators and a preacher. I know we all appreciate the old wisdom: Never follow a preacher.

I want to thank Reverend Warnock, my great colleague and friend, for that eloquent and powerful speech and particularly the ending of his speech, which evoked a time in our history that many would like to forget. A lot of Americans are forgetting. The world is trying to erase it from its memory. But it is a time evoked by Senator Warnock that couldn't be more relevant to this moment in America's history because we face a crisis in governance. It is a moral crisis, not just a political or legal crisis. It is a challenge to us, to our better angels, to our sense of mutual respect and caring, and, as he said so well, quoting Martin Luther King, that web of mutuality that binds us as a nation.

Ultimately, it isn't our wealth, the number of dollars we have in bank accounts, or the economic strength of our corporations. It isn't our might militarily. We have the strongest and best military in the world. It is our common values and our commitment to our faith and our family and to each other, respect for each other even when we differ.

When we come to this body, we all take an oath. I have taken that oath a number of times in my life--when I became a private in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, when I became a U.S. attorney in Connecticut, when I became a State legislator, and then when I became attorney general. Now, as a Senator, I raised my right hand, as did all of us, and we took an oath. It wasn't to a President; it wasn't to a government; it wasn't to a monarch; it was to the Constitution and the laws of this country.

The Constitution stands for something that binds us together, and it is at the core of this great experiment that we call America. The Constitution will be around, I hope--and I am knocking on wood--when these young pages become our age and stand here, perhaps, but it will be around only if we fight to sustain it. It doesn't happen by magic or by inaction; it happens because we come together and we say: Whatever else happens, whatever divides us, whatever natural disasters-- tornadoes, floods, hurricanes--befall our great country, we are going to stand together for the rule of law and for each other. We will come to each other's aid, and we will respect each other's rights.

A wonderful professor and friend of mine at Yale, Tim Snyder, wrote a little book, ``On Tyranny.'' That is the name of the book. It is ``On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century.'' The first lesson is, do not obey in advance, which is to say, do not anticipate what a dictator wants and accede to it in advance. Do not acquiesce. Do not obey in advance.

Today, we have to take a stand against a group of people who want to shred our Constitution. They want to light it on fire because they feel there is a higher good. They want to save money or they think we are in the midst of some religious movement or they simply want to get power.

Whatever their motive, and I don't pretend to fully understand it, they have unleashed on our government a group of DOGE technocrats--I use that word advisedly--young people, maybe older people, who think they can simply slash government spending, but more to the point, that they have a right to access information which Americans have been providing in trust to the Department of Treasury, the Labor Department, the Department of Education--private, confidential information about bank accounts, checks that are paid, and veterans' benefits.

That information is supposed to be held in trust, secretly, confidentially, and yet, right now, it is being scanned by Elon Musk and his crew. His henchmen are busy not just reading and

scanning that information but collecting it. That actually serves, potentially, many of Elon Musk's business interests, because on X, for example, he could profit mightily from knowing more information about people who might use Musk in Tesla or SpaceX. Who knows what he might do with that information? And some of his billionaire friends, some of the people who may be provided access to that information could profit even more.

Here is what I have done today as the ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. I have written to every one of Elon Musk's companies--SpaceX, Tesla, all of them, including his AI company--demanding information about the workings of that company that might benefit from access to that private information.

Now, remember, his access is as a citizen. I am not sure what his status is. The White House says he is a special government employee. He has no security clearance that would entitle him to take that information and use it for his own personal benefits. No security clearance could give him that right to profit from financial information that belongs to you, the taxpayers. It is your data.

And we have nothing that I have seen in writing from the President of the United States that gives him authority to seize and exploit that information. He certainly has nothing under law that would justify his monetizing after purloining that information, the use of it.

I think the American people have a right to know all about the workings of those companies that would be benefited from seizing and exploiting this information. I have written to those companies today, and I am very hopeful that they will explain to me what the facts are, because the American people deserve those facts.

In a sense, what you need to know about this administration and about DOGE and about Elon Musk is to follow the money. Now, he says he is following money that may be wasted or abused. I want to follow the money that will come to him and other billionaires in the government and others who may be made privy to this information and use it for personal benefit and who may profit from it. I want to follow their money, and I want to follow any of the money that comes to other officials in emoluments.

Now, ``emoluments'' is a term in the Constitution, and the reason it is in the Constitution is that our Founders most feared, in addition to tyranny, that leaders of this country--people in public office--would take benefits, gifts, cash from foreign governments. We were a struggling, small country at our very beginning. We were nascent in our weakness. And their fear was that leaders of that small, struggling country might be tempted by one of those big monarchies in Europe--that had the glittering palaces and jewels and riches and colonies around the world--that they could be bought. So they said: No gifts, no benefits--nothing from any foreign source. And they had a domestic emoluments clause, as well, that, in effect, prohibited foreign bribery and that kind of domestic misappropriation as well.

I want to know whether any of these officials in our government are benefiting in any way from advantages, benefits, payments from foreign governments, because we have become a global economy. We know that-- just to take one example that comes to mind--one of the President's relatives is planning developments--hotels--all around the world. The President has said he wants to make Gaza into a Middle Eastern riviera. Who is going to build the hotels? Who benefits? Who is going to be paid? We need the facts. So I believe we need to be watchful, vigilant, and wary. Follow the money.

We are here tonight before a vote on someone who is going to be following a lot of money. Russell Vought, if he were to be confirmed as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, would be in charge of all the money spent by the U.S. Government--or almost all of it.

I know most Americans have no clue as to what OMB does. OMB is the Office of Management and Budget, not to be confused with PMB, the Office of Policy, Management and Budget. In the State of Connecticut, we call a similar body the office of policy and management. I suspect that the Presiding Officer's State and all of our States have something equivalent to OMB or to PMB. It is kind of the brain central of the financial nervous system in the government. It controls the flow, the disbursement, and then also the projections for the future about what the government does. It administers the Federal budget, and it is the entity that actually gets that money out the door. After Congress appropriates it, it puts the money into use by portioning it out to various Federal Agencies and programs.

Mr. Vought is no stranger to the OMB because, for 4 years, in the first Trump administration, as both Acting Director and Director, he served that Agency. Unfortunately, for us and for him, his record there ought to be disqualifying. He slashed budgets. He obstructed oversight efforts. He repeatedly violated the law by withholding funding Congress had already appropriated--all of it harming American families, farmers, working people, communities, and in violation of the law.

The OMB Director is very powerful, but do you know? There is this thing--and I keep coming back to it--the Constitution, the Constitution of the United States, which says we have separate branches of government. The Congress is the one that has the power of the purse strings. It authorizes and appropriates money. The executive implements that budget. It executes--as the term ``executive'' implies--on that budget and many other laws. It enforces criminal laws. It implements other statutes. Of course, the judiciary calls them both in to account if they violate the Constitution.

The Congress actually believes maybe there ought to be an additional guarantee of its power to appropriate and the President to faithfully execute laws. So, in addition to the Constitution, it passed a statute known as the Impoundment Control Act, which says--you know, when the Constitution requires that money appropriated by Congress be spent faithfully by the executive branch, the Constitution really means it, and the Impoundment Control Act implements it by saying it must be spent in exactly that way. But in his first service in the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, Mr. Vought really didn't think it was his duty to follow the law and the Constitution, and so he impounded money.

Now, you would think: Well, maybe it was an error. Maybe, it was an oversight. Maybe, it was just, you know, kind of an innocent mistake.

But he came before us in a hearing at the Committee on Homeland Security, and I asked him specifically whether he would follow the law and the Impoundment Control Act. He said that the act was unconstitutional. His theory was that the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says; that the Framers didn't really think that the President had to spend money if he felt it was against the public interest; and that if his intention was good, he didn't have to follow the Constitution.

Well, the Supreme Court has affirmed and lower courts have followed that law again and again and again. So Mr. Vought thinks he is, in effect, above the Supreme Court, above the law, and above the norms that others in his position followed faithfully in executing appropriations bills.

I joined my Democratic colleagues in voting no on Mr. Vought's two previous nominations, and I join my Democratic colleagues in voting no on Mr. Vought's current nomination. In fact, Mr. Vought's record and views are so troubling, he has never received a Democratic vote--never.

I am here to tell you that, if confirmed again, Mr. Vought will be even worse than he was the first time around. He has had practice. He told this body that the one lesson he learned from his previous tenure was the need to act faster. During the confirmation process, he told us that he ``does not intend to do the job differently'' than he did the first time around, and he would apply his experience ``from day one.'' He said he would be acting and taking the helm of OMB at a time when President Trump has thrown that Agency and the country into chaos and confusion with his unconstitutional, illegal funding freeze.

With Mr. Vought in charge, there will be more of the same. He has already proven that he is willing to break the law on behalf of President Trump.

As I mentioned, one of his most concerning beliefs is that the executive branch--the President--in acting through OMB, has the authority to withhold funding that Congress has legally appropriated. Now, this point is fundamental because, if he believes the President doesn't agree with funding already enacted into law, he doesn't need to release that funding, and the President is above the law.

Let's be clear on appropriations bills. As the Presiding Officer and all of our colleagues know, budgets in the U.S. Government are the result of extensive negotiation, leading to compromise and agreements that are then put into writing and incorporated into drafts and then finally into the bills that are voted on in this Chamber and then approved in the House of Representatives. If they are approved, they go to the President of the United States, and he signs them into law. That is kind of high school civics; everybody should know it.

And it becomes a law. The President signs it. These funding withholding decisions that President Trump made during his first term, on the recommendation of Mr. Vought, were a violation of laws that a President--either he or a predecessor--signed. That is why I want to focus on the devastating effects of this wrongheaded, misguided philosophy and approach to law.

As a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, when I questioned him on this very topic, he was clear that he disagreed with it, which is his right to do. He can disagree with the Constitution. Nobody says you have to think the Constitution is perfect. But if you take that oath--it is that oath we all take--it is to follow the Constitution, so help me God.

When he fails to spend money appropriated by Congress, he will be violating that oath, and he has indicated he is ready, able, and willing to do it.

He is unqualified. He is unprepared. He lacks the character and confidence to be OMB Director.

These issues--I know they appear abstract, hypothetical, but they have real consequences for real people in their everyday lives.

As wildfires raged across California, I asked Mr. Vought if he would commit to releasing disaster relief funding promptly and fully-- disaster relief funding for the people of California but also for the people of North Carolina, Texas, Florida, and Connecticut. We had floods recently.

My colleagues and I came together in the closing days of the last session to overwhelmingly approve this funding: $110 billion, the disaster supplemental. That is $29 billion for FEMA--the Federal Emergency Management Agency--to help North Carolina to recover from Hurricane Helene, California to recover from wildfires, and my own State of Connecticut to recover from the devastating flooding that occurred last August. That is $21 billion to the Department of Agriculture to support farmers recovering from disasters, and billions of dollars for countless other programs, from small business loans, to fisheries assistance, to roads that have to be repaired, to other kinds of effects of disasters that are the result of the new normal--climate change. The people who are victims of it, who suffered financial losses or the loss of their homes, injury, are not to be blamed simply because they were in the wrong place or their house was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

There are things we can do now in rebuilding that make those homes more resilient, rebuild them in a different place where the risk is lower. But many lack the insurance because they were told they didn't need it by banks that gave them mortgages, because there had never been a storm of any real magnitude before that happened in Connecticut. They were victims of rains or floods or earthquakes or other natural disasters that were not their fault.

That is why we come together. We help people, as I mentioned earlier. We support each other. That is part of the fabric. That is not the legal fabric; it is the social and moral fabric.

But Mr. Vought told me that he was not ``going to get ahead of the policy process of the incoming administration.'' He never committed that he would release the disaster funding. He left himself an out. He might violate the law. And we now know, because of his testimony, that he will likely violate the law.

We also have his past experience to inform our judgment. Under Mr. Vought's past leadership, OMB delayed community development block grant disaster mitigation funding to Puerto Rico that Congress had provided for recovery from Hurricane Maria.

I visited Puerto Rico in the wake of Hurricane Maria. I saw the devastating destruction to that island--to roads and bridges, to electricity and utilities, to hospitals and clinics, to agricultural areas that were completely isolated, some of them. I flew over them by helicopter and saw the homes that had been leveled or rendered roofless and now isolated, people unable to find food and water without it being dropped from the air sometimes by FEMA. But he withheld the community development block grant disaster mitigation funding provided by Congress for recovery from Hurricane Maria.

The symbol, the visual symbol of that time became President Trump throwing rolls of paper napkins or towels at people in the crowd waiting for food and water. It became emblematic because Mr. Vought withheld that money.

My constituents and all Americans should not have to worry that when disaster next strikes, they may not receive the aid that they need and deserve and that should be forthcoming because of actions by Congress only because a single man, Russell Vought, has taken it on himself to make a decision that it should be withheld, as he did with Puerto Rico.

Natural disasters--all the more frequent and damaging because of climate change--don't discriminate between red States and blue States. Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Connecticut, Oklahoma, California--they have all suffered these natural disasters recently. It doesn't matter whether they are red or blue; they need and deserve help. No administration should withhold it.

Just as troubling is Mr. Vought's track record on Ukraine aid. This issue is especially close to my heart. I am wearing a pin at this very moment that has both the American and Ukraine flags. I wear it always. I have been to Ukraine six times since the beginning of the war. I believe fervently that their fight is our fight and that we have a moral obligation but also a self-interest in supporting them because Vladimir Putin will keep rolling. If he conquers Ukraine, he will keep going.

The first law, first lesson from ``20th century tyranny'': Do not obey in advance.

Tyranny starts abroad sometimes, but it comes for us. Vladimir Putin will come for others if he succeeds in Ukraine, and we will have an obligation under article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to put American soldiers and troops on the ground: airmen, sailors, marines--all of our military. So it is in our interest to stop him where he is right now.

During his first term, Mr. Vought was instrumental in delaying security assistance to Ukraine. We all remember--those who served in this Chamber during those years--that first impeachment of Donald Trump because of that withholding of money and the circumstances surrounding it.

In 2019, under Mr. Vought's leadership, OMB withheld $250 million appropriated to the Department of Defense for security assistance to Ukraine. The Government Accountability Office found that OMB's actions to withhold this funding violated the law. GAO also concluded that OMB's withholding of an additional $141.5 million appropriated to the State Department for Ukraine might be a violation of the law. That is the Government Accountability Office--nonpartisan, impartial, objective, and independent; violated the law by withholding that money. Ultimately, Congress had to pass another law to ensure that our allies in Ukraine receive the funding they needed.

When I asked Mr. Vought if he would release the remaining security assistance now that has been authorized and appropriated for Ukraine, Mr. Vought said that he, again, was not ``going to get ahead of the President on a foreign policy issue of the magnitude of the situation with regard to Ukraine.''

That is astonishing. That is a yes-or-no question. Will I obey the law? Yes.

But he ducked it. He dodged it. It is astonishing. Time and again, Congress has come together on a bipartisan basis and passed vitally needed security assistance to support our allies in Ukraine, and Mr. Vought could not commit to following the law and honoring that promised funding.

I was and remain astonished and aghast that someone in a position of such responsibility that we are considering Mr. Vought to have would, in effect, say: Well, maybe the President would be above the law, so I am going to wait and see whether he chooses to follow it.

Saying he is going to not get ahead of the President on a foreign policy issue--that is not a foreign policy issue; that is an integrity issue. That is whether or not the President is above the law and whether he will follow it.

Legal scholars at the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel and even the Supreme Court have all found again and again and again that the President doesn't have the authority to withhold congressionally appropriated funding, but here we have a nominee in Mr. Vought saying in effect the Supreme Court is entitled to their opinion, but he could still proceed.

It is baffling to me that this man is now before the Senate for a nomination to a post that is one of the most critical in our government at an unprecedented moment of crisis in our history.

I think my colleagues ought to be equally aghast--both Republicans and Democrats--because this issue of the Constitution--I keep coming back to the Constitution--is bigger than any of us here, bigger than Mr. Vought, even bigger than President Trump. It is what sustains us through constitutional crises, as we face right now.

It is bigger than this administration or any other. It is whether the law of the land should prevail, whether it is up for grabs depending on what the President thinks or what Mr. Vought recommends the President should think. It is about the power of the purse being usurped from Congress and put in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, special government employees like Elon Musk. The Constitution provides for nothing like it--nothing close to it. This issue goes to the foundation of our country.

Again, I know these issues seems esoteric and legalistic. I am a lawyer. I understand that making the law real for people is a challenge, and a lot of what I have said, even when it concerns natural disasters, might seem abstract.

But the person who appropriates the money--Congress--makes judgments about where it should go, who it should benefit: childcare; community health centers; the SNAP program, providing aid for the hungry; the military; new weapons platforms; our intelligence community; our national security; all the domestic needs; all of the challenges from abroad. They are not hypotheticals.

And we saw last week how real the threat is, how damaging the effect would be on every single American if Mr. Vought's views prevailed. Last week, the Trump administration swept the country into chaos and confusion. And all of us in this Chamber heard from our constituents loud and clear: What in God's name are you doing? You are disrupting the payrolls of community health centers that provide basic services to patients who need them, children who use them; childcare; Head Start; Medicare; Medicaid--the basic nuts and bolts of our government disrupted.

I know the President wants to be a change agent; he shouldn't be a chaos agent. Disruption shouldn't mean destruction of those basic services, but that is what a delay in funding could mean--or a suspension of financial support.

And that move wasn't approved by Congress. To be clear, it was against the law. They made the unconstitutional and unilateral decision to halt congressionally mandated funding, as a result of that order-- chaos and confusion--halted Federal payments to food bank programs, healthcare and nutrition assistance programs, Head Start and childcare programs, housing programs, energy assistance programs, and so much more we heard about.

And throughout the chaos, the administration was utterly unable to communicate to the public. First, there was a vague memo which claimed there were exceptions to the Trump funding freeze, but many of those programs like Medicaid and Head Start remained unable to access funding for extensive periods of time. A Federal court had to step in and halt the order and stop the chaos. And then, in another one-sentence memo, President Trump caved to the public outcry and allegedly rescinded the funding freeze entirely, 24 hours after it went into effect.

Of course, it didn't end there because, right after the funding freeze was supposedly halted, it was put back into place by a tweet. That is the way we govern these days, in the Trump administration, by a tweet from the White House.

Agencies and organizations on the ground were still in chaos solely because of President Trump's incompetence but also advice that he received from people like Mr. Vought who contended he was above the law and he could unilaterally freeze that funding.

But here is where things really get scary. Mr. Vought shares President Trump's ludicrous and unconstitutional views about the executive power over Federal funding; but he, unlike President Trump, is not incompetent. He knows what he is doing. He spent 4 years at OMB carrying out this agenda of withholding funding, and he is primed and ready to continue that mission with all of that experience behind him, as he put it, on day one.

Make no mistake, even though courts have intervened to halt Trump's Federal funding freeze, this fight is not over. It is not even the beginning of the end. It is not even the end of the beginning. We are in the first 2 weeks--or now maybe 3 weeks--of the Trump administration, and I am hearing from constituents that funding has yet to be unlocked, especially from the Inflation Reduction Act.

And even if all the Federal funding taps are turned back on, this administration is not done wreaking havoc in our communities. The President will try again. Only this time, if we let him, he will have Mr. Vought on his side, with all that experience, breaking the law at OMB on the President's behalf. It won't be a vague, several-line memo from OMB imposing the freeze; it will be a well-articulated set of falsehoods designed to confuse and obstruct but still order a freeze in funding.

Let me give you some examples from Connecticut about what the ramifications are in real life. Given the magnitude of the danger facing us, I want to take some time to highlight again the harms that result from a funding freeze.

I have spent the last couple of weeks--the last week particularly-- fielding concerns from constituents who are understandably worried and confused and scared about the devastating effects that the freeze has imposed on services they provide to people who need and deserve them.

Let me be clear that congressionally mandated aid this administration has illegally withheld helps families put food on the table and keep their homes heated in the winter. It helps our communities, and particularly farmers, recover from extreme natural disasters. It provides needed support for infrastructure updates in every State across the country.

To every American who is listening: It is your money that President Trump is playing games with. It is your taxpayer dollars that are owed back as investments in your communities. It is not Donald Trump's money. It is not Russell Vought's money. It is your money, taxpayer money.

Let's call the funding freeze what it is: theft. President Trump is stealing money from American taxpayers and citizens and threatening their ability to pay rent, heat homes, and much more. And that money, stolen by Donald Trump, will be used to finance tax cuts for billionaires and the ultrawealthy like himself.

Follow the money. Follow the money when it is illegally impounded to be used to finance tax cuts for the benefit of a tiny slice of the American public: the ultrawealthy, billionaires. There is nothing wrong with being a billionaire. We all can aspire to be a billionaire. It is the favoritism and discriminatory use and effect of our laws benefiting them at the illegal expense of everyday Americans whose taxpayer money has been stolen, grifted, thieved.

I have no doubt that every single one of my colleagues, even on the other

side of the aisle, who have remained silent or complicit have been inundated with requests for help from their constituents. And my Republican colleagues know well, red States and blue States receive funding from the Federal Government.

In fact, I saw a statistic in the New York Times that something like 80 percent of all the infrastructure money has gone to congressional districts represented by Republicans. Don't hold me to the 80 percent number, but that is approximately what it was--which is not to say they shouldn't receive that money. If they are entitled to it under the formula that Congress establishes based on need or other factors, it doesn't matter whether they are red or blue; the law ought to be executed fairly and faithfully, implemented properly.

But then to turn around and say, well, we should impound money that has been lawfully appropriated, affects them as well as the congressional districts represented by Democrats. It is not about Republican or Democrat.

Here are some real stories. During the chaos that overwhelmed Federal Agencies, community health centers were unable to access the Federal funding they rely on to provide critical health services. Many of them were weighing furloughs of their doctors, their nurses, their counselors, their essential providers.

A nonprofit in Connecticut that provides critical mental health services was terrified that they may not be able to pay their staff if the funding freeze continued.

I spoke to the head of the Alliance or Association of Community Health Centers. He told me about one in the northeastern part of the State that had to close its dental services. Medicaid payments are now seemingly back online, but this administration put 1 million Connecticut residents who rely on Medicaid and the Connecticut Children's Health Insurance Program at risk with these needless and reckless theatrics.

Childcare, similarly: Connecticut Head Start was unable to access payments. President Trump jeopardized childcare and early childhood education for 5,000 families in Connecticut.

Connecticut farmers, who just over a week ago were celebrating--and I was there with them--millions of dollars in much-needed disaster assistance from extreme weather events--they weren't sure whether they would ever see that money, or when. You know, farmers really can't wait a few months to plant the seeds or feed their livestock. There are seasons, there are days when obligations have to be met. And they deserved the aid that was coming to them, and they should not be forced to wait for it.

Millions of dollars to the hard-working farmers of Connecticut withheld potentially on that day. We still are unclear whether that freeze for that aid has been unequivocally lifted.

At the outset of the freeze, I spoke to the CEO of Connecticut Foodshare. He expressed to me his deep fears about the potential impact to food assistance like SNAP, the emergency food assistance program. Freezes to these funds could push hundreds of families into poverty and hunger.

Any more politically motivated funding games from the Trump administration would have potentially life-threatening impacts on survivors of domestic violence because they depend on VAWA--Violence Against Women Act--and the money that is appropriated under it for the domestic violence shelters, for the counseling, for the hotlines--all necessary to provide survivors with options rather than just stay in homes where they are victims of abuse. They are survivors if they can get away, and they deserve these services.

The operation of Connecticut's 24/7 domestic violence hotline could be severely impacted by another suspension. Court-based and community- based services for survivors and their children are also on the chopping block. This funding freeze was terrifying to these women and children and potentially tragic--not just for Connecticut but for the whole country--on domestic violence.

Housing: Connecticut organizations that rely on Federal funding from HUD to help families at risk of homelessness, also in jeopardy. Mr. President, 150,000 Connecticut residents depend on federally funded housing programs.

Even a temporary pause puts them at risk because, potentially, it puts them out of their homes. I heard from one organization that can provide permanent supportive housing to over 40 households in Waterbury and Meriden with the help of HUD funding. This housing is for people with disabilities and their families during this chaos and confusion.

They reported that the payment system for HUD was down, and they were unable to access these funds just days before the rent was due on the first of the month.

While the system now seems to be back online, that organization had to live through potentially tragic trauma, and the stress was debilitating for them, and the trauma has lasting effect. It increases the sense of insecurity for people who already feel an anxiety about their future.

The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP--we all know it because it heats the homes of people on days like this one--cold--here in the District of Columbia, a lot colder in Connecticut and the Northeast and in many of our States. And people need this critical program that provides energy assistance to low- income individuals and households. It was in jeopardy too; over 100,000 households in Connecticut that rely on heat were told: The money has stopped.

Again, it may be back online, but no one knows whether that is for sure because Russell Vought and Donald Trump think they may be above the law. Funding to support critical water infrastructure, brownfields mediation, and clean drinking water also frozen. That move threatened the health of communities everywhere. And I am still hearing from constituents that grants they received under the Inflation Reduction Act are continuing to be frozen.

The city of New Haven received over $10 million from EPA for two grants under the IRA that they say have been blocked, severely disrupting work. Recipients of EPA's Solar for All program, which enables households in low-income and disadvantaged communities to benefit from solar power, are similarly still frozen, including recipients in Connecticut. Make no mistake, the Trump funding freeze continues in effect today.

The courts need to block it, and then they will need to hold in contempt the officials who fail to obey it, whether it is Mr. Vought or the President of the United States, and lawyers will go to court to seek contempt motions to hold them in contempt.

Trump's funding freeze put the future of Connecticut and our Nation's roads and bridges and rail at risk. Amtrak's state of repair backlog for the Northeast corridor is tens of billions of dollars alone. It was estimated at $78.7 billion in 2023. This funding is critical for safety repairs along Amtrak rail lines.

Funding the Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project and the Gateway Hudson Tunnel replacement project, it will ensure rail passengers can safely enter and move through all of New England. And without this funding from the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail and the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Programs--just naming a few--all of these investments will be at risk because they are all connected. You can't stop work on one part of the line and expect the trains to magically go in the air over that break.

And transportation costs will escalate because construction costs will rise. The interruption itself could be devastating financially.

Last week, I was proud to join the mayor of New Haven and Representative Rosa DeLauro to announce that the city of New Haven was awarded $2 million under the Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program to study reuniting the city of New Haven, which was divided by Interstate 91. When that road was built, it split the city. It created a physical barrier. It isolated residents from social and economic opportunities that are critical to thrive. It destroyed city blocks and dozens of homes. And now this grant will help reunite neighborhoods, bring communities closer together, incentivize housing and other important assets.

But right before we made our announcement, DOT pulled down meetings it was supposed to have with grant

recipients because they didn't know whether the award would be granted. This funding freeze means that New Haven will no longer be able to identify ways to make roads safer or safeguard against disaster or encourage construction of new affordable homes and promote new businesses and more for its residents. Just one example of around $1 billion Federal funding--$1 billion--for Connecticut alone that is in jeopardy.

The longer the Trump administration's reckless agenda causes chaos and confusion, the clearer it will become that everyday Americans are suffering from this ill-conceived, wrongly implemented, reckless, and heartless program.

I talk about all these stories concerning my constituents, but every Member of this body could tell the same kinds of stories across our Nation. It bears repeating because the trauma and the hurt and the harm are to our neighbors and communities.

With Russell Vought as Director of OMB, if he is confirmed, he will have President Trump as his leader, who has apparently indicated he will follow recommendations that put him above the law. Russell Vought is the perfect person to help Donald Trump rob the American people--

--and carry out his agenda of theft. He has proven he is willing and able to break the law for President Trump in his first term, illegally withholding disaster aid--

--and security assistance, and he will do it again. I recommend that my colleagues say no to this nomination.

For our veterans, I vote no.

Mr. President, as my colleague Senator Schiff from California has just so powerfully stated, we are in the midst of a constitutional crisis--a crisis that would have been unimaginable just weeks ago, a crisis that involves a President disobeying the law.

Now, Presidents in the past have disobeyed the law. They have sought to test the boundaries of their power, and the courts have blocked them. But never has a President violated so many significant laws and the Constitution so rapidly, so repeatedly, that we are, as Senator Schiff said, lost in the chaos. And it falls to the arbiters of law-- our courts--but it is also incumbent on the enforcers of the law.

Any of us who have served in the Department of Justice--I was U.S. attorney for Connecticut for 4\1/2\ years--knows that the most important decisions that any prosecutor, any law enforcer makes is whether to uphold the rule of law and sometimes say no to an FBI agent who is too enthusiastic about a case and wants to indict someone who could not be convicted, a public official who is close personally or politically and has overstepped their powers or ethics. To be fair, independent, objective, to be completely impartial, and to uphold the rule of law is the first duty of anyone in the U.S. Department of Justice.

I have more than respect, I have reverence for the Department of Justice, and that is why I am so deeply disappointed that we are here tonight for the nomination of Pam Bondi.

The Attorney General of the United States of America is supposed to be the people's lawyer, not the President's. Donald Trump has said he wants the Attorney General to be his Roy Cohn, his fixer, his personal attorney.

Well, Ms. Bondi said she would be the people's lawyer, but that claim is betrayed by almost everything else she said and, most importantly, what she would not say.

Here is what she would not say. She would not say that she would say no to the President when he asked her to do something illegal or immoral. She dodged that question. She would not say that she was wrong for spreading lies about fraud and cheating in Pennsylvania during the 2020 election. She dodged that question, too. She would not say that President Biden won the 2020 election or that President Trump lost. She ducked it.

Now, the issue of whether President Trump asked his Attorney General to do something illegal or immoral is not a hypothetical. It is not abstruse or abstract. It is real. We know it is real because every one of his past Attorneys General ran afoul of Donald Trump because they would not do something illegal or immoral--our colleague Jeff Sessions, Bill Barr. No matter how good their intention, nobody can talk Donald Trump out of what he wants to do, and the law is no concern, nor is the lawyer. He will get lawyers to do whatever he wants, and Pam Bondi was reassuring--very reassuring--to one person--Donald Trump--when she dodged those questions because what he wants is a loyalist, a sycophant, an acolyte, and he wants a puppet to do his bidding.

The American people need a lawyer at this moment in history, at this point of constitutional crisis, who will truly speak truth to power. We use that phrase all the time, ``speak truth to power,'' but in this instance, it is the essence of what an Attorney General has to do at this moment in our history. And Donald Trump doesn't want to hear the truth. As much power as he has, he wants to hear an Attorney General tell him: Fine to go ahead. You have the green light.

If Pam Bondi thinks she won't face that same dilemma that Bill Barr and Jeff Sessions did and every other lawyer who has worked for Donald Trump has faced, she is either delusional or disingenuous--delusional or disingenuous. For me, both are disqualifying for this job. And she can't even pass that low bar of saying she could say no. Her answer is: Oh, well, he would never do anything like that. He is my friend.

As we are here tonight, the Trump Justice Department is reported to be preparing to purge hundreds or even thousands of FBI agents or other personnel in the Department of Justice for nothing more than doing their jobs. These agents were assigned to criminal cases involving Donald Trump. They didn't leap forward. They didn't volunteer. They were assigned, and, like FBI agents do, they took the assignment. Now they will pay a price in their careers unjustly, unfairly, and unwisely

because it will deter other FBI agents from doing their job when it comes to drug cases or terrorism cases.

We have heard also that assistant U.S. attorneys are being reassigned from drug cases and terrorism cases so that they can do immigration. We are hearing that career civil servants must be loyal to Donald Trump in this Department of Justice--well, to Donald Trump and to them.

We all know something fundamental in this body--that we swear an oath. The lowliest private in the U.S. Army or the Navy or the Marine Corps or the Air Force takes an oath. They raise their right hand, just as we do. Anybody in the Cabinet takes that oath, and they swear allegiance, but it isn't to the President, and it isn't to the government; it is to the Constitution. That is what is at risk here. That is what Pam Bondi cannot do in good conscience if she is confirmed because her allegiance will be to Donald Trump.

The purge of agents and the reassignment and retribution of others not only damages morale, the effectiveness of the Department of Justice, it undermines the rule of law.

The Attorney General--perhaps chief among Presidential appointees--is responsible for making good on the constitutional promise that no man or no woman is above the law, that we have no king in the United States. We are no longer a monarchy. We can no longer ask a billionaire to rummage through the files of the Department of Treasury that have information about the Presiding Officer and every one of us who serves in this body and almost every American because we all pay taxes; we all have Social Security; we get tax refunds. Veterans get disability benefits. Almost anything the U.S. Government does creates a record in the Treasury Department, and all that information is being read and scanned and now collected. That is the news of the day.

More bad news about Elon Musk. Who is going to stop Elon Musk when he is doing something illegal and immoral? It won't be Pam Bondi because she is Donald Trump's lawyer. That is a real and present danger for every one of us in this country.

After I was U.S. attorney in Connecticut--I was the attorney general of my State for 20 years. In that job, also, I took an oath to the Constitution of the United States as a State official, as well as to the constitution of the State of Connecticut. It isn't an abstract notion; it is what we all do. If she is confirmed, maybe Pam Bondi will be able to raise her right hand and recite after whoever is administering the oath, but it will not be an oath she is capable of keeping.

And so on this critically important vote for our country, I don't think there is a Cabinet officer more important at this moment in our history. I urge my colleagues to say no to this nomination.

I yield the floor.