Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand) is necessarily absent.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, last week, both the House and the Senate voted to pass what is known as a rescissions bill. That is a term which a lot of people aren't familiar with. What it basically means is that Congress appropriates money, the President signs that appropriations request into law, and it is the policy which is supposed to guide, under the Constitution, the President of the United States and the activity of the executive branch. This is the ordinary course of events.

However, there may come a time when a President decides that we don't need this expenditure, even though it has been approved and it is the law. He then goes through the rescinding of his decision to spend the money. It is called a rescissions bill. In this case, the Trump administration came to Congress and said: The $9 billion that you appropriated and directed me to spend, I don't want to spend. I want your permission not to spend it--$9 billion.

That is what we voted on and the House voted on last week. What was in this bill were primarily two major elements. One element was foreign aid, humanitarian assistance around the world paid for by the United States. The other element was public broadcasting--National Public Radio, for example. So $8 billion was taken out of foreign aid, and $1 billion was taken away from public broadcasting.

It was a close vote in the Senate. Two Republicans joined the Democrats in opposing it, but there were enough Republicans to support it. It barely passed the Senate and was sent back to the House. After some turmoil in the House, the decision was made also to pass the rescissions bill.

I thought this was a particularly important bill. As a Member of the Senate--I am honored to represent the State of Illinois--I have cast over 9,000 votes. The Presiding Officer from Utah is new to the Senate. It will take him

a few years to catch me, and I am sure he will. But of the 9,000 votes in that period of time, how many do you actually remember? A handful. This vote last week was one of those votes.

Why will I remember this? Because nongovernmental organizations, charities, and humanitarian aid groups around the world have told us that taking $8 billion out of foreign aid and humanitarian assistance is going to cost us in terms of lives. It will deny people food, clean water to drink, medicine, and the basics of life. In the poorest places on Earth, it will cost us lives.

The original bill eliminated a program called PEPFAR. PEPFAR was created by Republican President George W. Bush. He rallied our government--Democrats and Republicans--to lead a national and international effort to stop HIV/AIDS. For example, if a mother is pregnant again and had HIV, the transmission of that disease to the baby was, unfortunately, very common. We started finding ways to stop it from happening. It has been many years since George W. Bush was President, but we estimate that we have saved 25 million lives with this PEPFAR Program. I am a loyal Democrat and proud of it but was happy to vote with the Republicans and George W. Bush on that program. That program was going to be eliminated by this bill that was considered. It was taken out at the last minute. That is the type of thing that was at stake in that vote.

That decision by the Senate and the House, signed by President Trump over the weekend, is going to cost human lives in the poorest places on Earth. I think that is a tragedy. I have been to some of those places. I have made a point of going to see it and to see our programs.

I remember a dusty village in India where the children were gathered around for what they called lunch. American kids would not have touched what they were being given to eat. They were basically dough bowls. They were grains from the United States that were blended together. They ate these dough bowls gleefully, happily, anxiously. But before they took the first bite, they stopped and said a prayer, and I asked the local people who were leading this effort: What did they say in prayer? They said that they said thank to you the United States of America for the food that they were going to eat that day. They knew that was the case because it was printed on the bags as a gift to their people from America. Those programs are going to be eliminated now because of the vote last week.

But there was another part of it, too, that struck me as really painful. That was the decision to eliminate the Federal support for public broadcasting--National Public Radio and public television. I am a fan. I have been a fan for a long time so I will confess my prejudice.

But I am also from Downstate Illinois. That is the part of the State outside Chicago where the small towns and the rural areas are located. I know what public broadcasting means to those areas. I heard firsthand an example of what it means.

A lady named Heather Norman, who is with the public broadcasting coalition in Illinois, joined me at a press conference, on Friday, in front of the public radio station in the city of Chicago. I asked her to tell me and the press who had gathered an example of why public radio was different than the other radio stations and why it was important. She gave me a very classic example.

She works at the public radio station in Macomb, IL. Macomb is a Downstate community on the western side of our State--a more sparsely populated area than people visualize when they say Chicago, IL. Western Macomb, IL, has Western Illinois University. Thousands of students from all around the State and the area attend college there. A year ago, there was an active shooter in the community. They learned about it through the police notifying the radio station, and they started broadcasting to the people of Macomb to stay in their homes, to shelter in place. Don't go outside until we control the situation. Wait for the police's signal.

Well, there was a lot at stake. We have seen on a lot of our campuses and universities where deranged people take a gun and kill innocent students right and left, and we didn't want that to happen again. So the public broadcasting station, the NPR station, kept the broadcast going all day long to notify the people of Macomb and the McDonough County area of the danger, and they warned them to stay home.

You say: I will bet the other radio station did too. They didn't. Why didn't they do it? Because the four other radio stations are recordings. There is no live person at those radio stations--just equipment. So they are playing their music and whatever programs they wish, but they couldn't send out local news because there was no one there to send it. It was the public broadcasting station--the public radio station--that kept the people of Macomb and McDonough County safe. So, to say that you can eliminate that station, and it won't make any difference whether the warning is about an active shooter or about a tornado or a flood or a flash fire, public broadcasting is there on the scene, doing their job, day in and day out.

Now, what is going to happen with this decision by the Trump administration to eliminate Federal support for these stations? I don't know. I asked Heather. She said there are probably two stations in our State--at least two--that will go out of business. They depend so much on the help from Washington. That is a loss.

Whether you are conservative or liberal, MAGA or progressive-- whatever you want to call yourself--how could you want an America with less information and with fewer choices as the sources of that information?

The strength of our democracy is the fact that the American people have access to good, credible information and can make up their own minds. They don't want to be told. They make up their own minds. That is the key to the core of democracy, and we attacked it last week when we eliminated support for public broadcasting.

I don't know what is going to happen next. A lot of people have to think about this. I said to the people who govern public broadcasting and public television and public radio: You will have to think of a plan B because this President wants to put you out of business. You can't do what some law firms have done that he got mad at. He got mad at the law firms and threatened to cut off their Federal business. What did they do? They sued for peace immediately. They said: What can we do? Can we give you thousands and, maybe, hundreds of thousands of free legal services?

When that intimidation is in place, some of them turn to that as an alternative, but a public broadcasting station cannot do that and maintain its credibility. It can't go hat in hand and bent knee to this administration or to any administration and maintain its credibility when it comes to news.

So they have a terrible challenge that they face. I want to help them find a solution. I think America would be poorer and less free, and there would be less information available to people in our country if we allowed this to go forward.

Mr. President, on a separate issue, I want to say a word about some nominations that are pending before the Senate this week.

As the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I pay closer attention than some when it comes to the nominees who are suggested for Federal positions on the courts. These are positions that are lifetime positions. You take a person and state: We trust you with this responsibility and authority for as long as you live--for as long as you live. So it isn't a question of 2 years or 4 years and replacing someone if they aren't up to the job. We have got to look for people whom we can trust for the long haul.

The Senate will soon vote on the confirmations of Joshua Divine to serve as a judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri and Judge Cristian Stevens to serve for the Eastern District. I am concerned about these two nominees.

Mr. Divine is 34 years old. He received his law degree only 9 years ago. In addition to a lack of experience, Mr. Divine has taken some extreme positions on issues that are important to people across the United States, such as reproductive rights and ballot access.

Mr. Divine--if you can believe this, in this day and age, 2025--has argued in

favor of literacy tests at the ballot box. Let me say that again. He has argued in favor of literacy tests at the ballot box.

He states:

Individuals who aren't informed about issues and platforms

. . . have no business voting.

The fact that we are even considering his nomination under the circumstances is shocking.

Literacy tests have been tried in America. They are a racist relic from the Jim Crow era that we used to prevent immigrants and minorities from voting. It should not be controversial to say that no one who has argued for reviving racist Jim Crow laws belongs on the Federal bench, let alone for a lifetime.

Mr. Divine also referred to himself as a ``zealot'' for the anti- choice movement. Now, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, you would think that someone who is that blatant and open in declaring himself a zealot on the issue would trouble you. This has been on full display in his role as Missouri solicitor general.

Mr. Divine has challenged women's ability to access the abortion drug mifepristone and has undermined the decision of Missouri voters to codify abortion access in their State constitution.

Previously, Mr. Divine wrote:

Because we know a genetically unique human comes into

existence at fertilization, abortion should not be ethically

permitted.

I know that is the position of some voters whom I represent and even of some members of my family. I disagree.

Taken at face value, this statement suggests that Mr. Divine opposes access to in vitro fertilization, IVF. Well, I have some beautiful grandkids who were the product of these IVF procedures. It was the only way that they could come to this Earth, and thank God they did. To think that this man who is seeking this lifetime appointment to the bench would not even answer the question on IVF is troubling.

Joshua Divine is too inexperienced to serve as a district court judge, and his radical views, I think, disqualify him.

I am also troubled by the nomination of Cristian Stevens. Following his confirmation hearing, I asked Judge Stevens whether he denounced the January 6 insurrection on the Capitol.

For those who don't remember, that was a time when a mob forced Congress to shut down the procedure of counting the electoral votes in the 2020 election. As a result of that decision, they stormed the Capitol; came into this Chamber; videotaped themselves vaping while sitting in the chair of the Presiding Officer, going through the desks of Senators, tearing up the place, and, unfortunately, attacking a lot of innocent people.

I asked Cristian Stevens about the January 6 insurrection. He said the use of the word ``insurrection'' was a legal conclusion--a legal conclusion--and that it would be inappropriate for him to comment on it because it was a highly contested political issue.

Here is the cold, hard truth: The violent mob that ransacked the Capitol Complex in an attempted insurrection to stop the counting of the votes of that election led to the deaths of 5 police officers and injuries to more than 140 others. It triggered the largest prosecution in the history of the Department of Justice. Over 1,000 individuals were convicted and prosecuted for their activity that day.

The fact that this nominee couldn't acknowledge what happened that day and denounce the violence perpetrated against law enforcement is troubling. If you can't stand up for the men and women who keep us safe at this very moment in this building--who risk their lives for the Members, their staffs, and the visitors in the Capitol--you have no place in a lifetime position as a Federal judge.

I am also concerned about a law review article Judge Cristian Stevens wrote in defending the infamous 100-to-1 sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine.

I voted for it in the House of Representatives. Why? The idea was that crack cocaine was such a deadly and threatening narcotic that we were going to pass a sentencing provision that was really tough. Well, this was tough. It said, if you were convicted of possessing powder cocaine or an exact same amount of cocaine in crack form--in crystal form--you would be receiving a sentence for the crack cocaine that would be 100 times that of powder cocaine.

What happened as a result of it?

The result, I am sorry to say, didn't work. You would think, with that kind of sentencing hanging over you, people would think twice. It didn't work. As a result, more people were using crack cocaine after we passed the law, and the price on the street was going down instead of up. We filled the Federal prisons primarily with African Americans who had lengthy sentences--some of them over 20 years--for the simple sale of crack cocaine.

We decided that was wrong. I led the effort here on the Senate side. I am proud that I did. I was joined by Chuck Grassley, a Republican of Iowa, and Mike Lee, a Republican of Utah. We passed a bill called the FIRST STEP Act, and it was sent to President Trump, who signed it into law in his first term.

Now comes Cristian Stevens, Judge Stevens, wanting a seat on the Federal bench. I am concerned about a law review article he wrote that defended the 100-to-1 disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine.

He wrote:

There may be evidence to suggest that these kinds of

sentencing provisions are beneficial to black communities

hardest hit by the crack epidemic.

I am disappointed that Judge Stevens continues to stand by an article that defends crack-powder cocaine sentencing disparity--it was wrong then; it is wrong now--and he is certainly doing no one a favor by supporting that kind of penalty.

My Republican colleagues will likely vote for both of these nominees I have described--Mr. Divine and Judge Stevens on the Federal bench-- without hesitation, but the American people deserve judges who will protect their basic fundamental rights, demonstrate independence and integrity, and remain faithful to the Constitution and the rule of law. Neither of these nominees has proven that they embody these attributes.

I will vote against both of these nominees. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Maine (Mr. King), the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen), and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I wanted to check on the bill that we are considering today, H.R. 4. I just heard the Senator from Wyoming, my colleague and friend, talk about a lot of programs that are part of the Democratic alternative. This bill contains no reference whatsoever to the projects that he is mentioning. I don't know where they came from. They certainly are news to me.

But I do know what this bill does, and I know what it is going to mean to Wyoming and Illinois and Oklahoma and Washington and even the State of Hawaii. You see, National Public Radio and public broadcasting are opportunities for Americans to learn information that is critical to their lives and their futures and their businesses and their farms.

Do you know what the Republicans believe? Well, I can tell you. They want to eliminate the Federal assistance for this public broadcasting. That is what is in this bill.

I have a basic premise: I believe the American people are entitled to information, and they are entitled to be making the choice of their source of that information. Public broadcasting is one choice. It is one I respect and many of both political parties respect.

The notion that we are going to take what is a miniscule part of the Federal budget and punish the people who are involved in public broadcasting particularly hurts rural areas--rural areas that I represent in Illinois. Small towns and the part of our State that is limited in population count on public broadcasting not only for the news, not only for entertainment, but also for critical information when it comes to terrible emergency weather conditions. Is this something that we want to walk away from?

Just think. Just a few dayS ago, this body was voting for a Republican proposal called the Big Beautiful Bill, which was a betrayal of rural areas as well. I know because the administrators of hospitals in downstate Illinois have come to me personally in Washington to tell me what the elimination of Medicaid and the reduction of Medicaid coverage are going to mean. For many of these hospitals, more than half of the patients are covered by Medicaid. More than half of the services that are rendered by the hospitals are paid for by Medicaid.

A cutback in funding for that program is going to hurt individuals. Eleven million individuals are going to lose their health insurance in the United States. Millions of others will see their health insurance become much more expensive--dramatically more expensive. Is that what the American people voted for in the last election? I think not.

Overwhelmingly, by a margin of 2 to 1, they reject this Republican strategy of cutting healthcare and cutting health insurance coverage in order to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in America. For goodness' sake, a $346,000 tax cut for Elon Musk? He won't even notice it. He is a multibillionaire. Yet they are risking health insurance for working families in rural areas to give Elon Musk a tax break. Give me a break. The American people believe that is unnecessary.

Do I believe working families deserve a tax cut? You bet. Would vote for it in a minute. But when you are making over $400,000 a year, I think, frankly, you are in a situation where you shouldn't be asking for a tax break at this point, and that is my position.

So that is one of the conditions that we face as we go into this bill.

Eliminating government support for public broadcasting and National Public Radio is a setback in terms of information and choice for American families to decide where they want their source of information.

But I do want to raise one other point that I think goes to the heart of our vote today on H.R. 4. The Senator from Wyoming, the Republican Senator, just called it wasteful Washington spending. Well, I don't believe this falls in the category of inefficiency, fraud and abuse, or waste.

Two weeks ago, the Republicans used budget reconciliation to take healthcare away and raise its cost for 17 million Americans. This week, they are moving forward on H.R. 4 in an effort to eliminate programs that Elon Musk decided he wanted to take a chain saw to.

Let's talk about Trump and Elon's first target: U.S. foreign assistance to the world's most vulnerable people. They have virtually ended USAID, which officially closed last week. What do they say about the program? Well, it is pretty explicit. Trump said these types of USAID programs are run by ``radical lunatics''--the exact words of the President of the United States, ``radical lunatics.'' Elon Musk--a great government authority--said ``a criminal organization'' that should ``die,'' USAID programs.

Let's talk about these programs. You see, despite many lies spread about U.S. foreign aid, such programs cost about 1 percent of the Federal budget--1 percent--and billions of these aid dollars flow back into the American economy. These programs have enjoyed broad bipartisan support, and they help make America stronger and more influential on the global stage.

Moreover, these kinds of deep cuts proposed in the current rescissions package threaten the long-term safety, stability, and leadership of our country as well as growing markets for American goods.

USAID programs stem threats that don't respect borders--pandemics, failed states, dictatorships, and displacements. Their clean water and sanitation programs have provided more than 70 million people with first-time sustainable access to clean water in the last decade-- programs that have a 6-to-1 return in dollars saved in health, economic, and educational terms.

My predecessor in the U.S. Senate and good friend was a man named Paul Simon from Illinois. Paul was a publisher of newspapers and an author who published many books. One of the last books he published before he passed away related to the availability of clean drinking water in the future of the 21st century. It was not a bestseller on the New York Times list, but it was certainly advice that should have been taken serious by all.

When I asked Paul Simon's family what kind of memorial he wanted for his service in the House and the Senate and public life, they said: He doesn't want any statue anywhere. Do something good in his name.

So I created the Paul Simon Water for the World Act. The Paul Simon Water for the World Act provided a limited amount of money by Federal standards to projects around developing nations that provided clean drinking water.

I remember going to Port-au-Prince in Haiti--one of the most war-torn and devastated countries in the world. I went to a local hospital in Port-au-Prince, and the woman who was the head of the hospital said that they had a terrible problem with a cholera epidemic but it was under control.

I said: What did you do?

She said: Well, we ended up building a purification unit and a cistern with clean drinking water and provided it to people so they wouldn't get sick from cholera.

I said: Where is it?

She showed me. It just looked like a sewer lid out in the back of the hospital.

I said: So where did you get the money to build it?

She said: It was something called Paul Simon's Water for the World.

I said: How much did it cost?

She said: Twenty thousand dollars.

That kind of small investment of $20,000 literally saved hundreds of lives in his name, and I was glad to do it. But it also spoke about the United States of America--that this country would take a small amount of money and make a dramatic difference in the lives of people around the world.

I remember going to a village in India. It was a dusty, little village. I can't remember the name of it. There were kids eating lunch. What they called ``lunch'' no American kid would even consider eating. It was a grain formula that had been gathered with water and made into--it looked like a dough ball, and these kids were eating this dough ball with a great amount of speed because they were so hungry.

I looked at the bag that was providing this grain for this basic lunch for these kids, and it said: This is a gift from the people of the United States of America.

I thought to myself, when they pause before they start eating to say a prayer of thanks, they thank the United States for caring enough to feed them that day.

Does that speak well of the United States? I think it does. It defines us, and it defines our values, and that is what is at stake in this bill. That is what we are voting on today--to cut and eliminate programs just like that that provide grain and foodstuffs around the world to the poorest people on Earth.

USAID programs stem threats that don't respect borders. Clean water and sanitations programs have provided more than 70 million people with first-time sustainable access to clean water in the last decade-- programs that have a 6-to-1 return in dollars saved.

Doctors Without Borders is an amazing organization. They have doctors in 70 different countries around the world. They provide medical care in conflict zones, natural disasters, and epidemics. They are already seeing that vital U.S.-funded programs that provide vaccinations and basic health, protection for those caught in war, and nutrition are being slashed.

The CEO of Doctors Without Borders, Avril Benoit, recently noted:

It is shocking to see the [United States] abandon its

leadership in advancing global health and humanitarian

efforts.

Then she went on to say:

U.S. assistance has been a lifeline for millions of people,

and yanking this support will lead to more preventable deaths

and untold suffering around the world.

That is what we are voting for on the floor of the Senate today. This isn't just some administrative battle that doesn't have human consequences. This is a matter of life and death for some of the poorest people on Earth. This is the reputation of the United States as to whether we care.

This is why American defense officials have even told us for generations that they support these programs. As they say, it is far cheaper than military intervention and wildly effective. Trump's own first-term Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis said that if we don't fund foreign aid, ``then I need to buy more bullets.''

So let's be clear what we are being asked to do today: rip funding away from historically bipartisan programs that keep the most vulnerable populations and fragile nations from slipping into chaos.

In addition to weakening our standing abroad, these proposed rescissions would hurt Americans here at home. I hope my colleagues will pause and think for a moment of what the consequences will be.

This publication was sent to me at my home in Springfield last week. It is from Doctors Without Borders. It goes through pages and pages of the programs that have been eliminated because of the Trump administration's decision that foreign aid is for suckers. This President believes it is. Some of the people voting today may believe it as well. I don't at all.

When it comes to malnutrition in Somalia, Doctors Without Borders reports that our cutback in funding has meant that patients are traveling as far as 120 miles for care because of the closure of facilities nearby.

The HIV program--I don't know what it will end up looking like, but originally it was proposed to eliminate the PEPFAR program. Now, I didn't have a long list of projects that I worked with President George W. Bush on, but PEPFAR was one of them. PEPFAR was a program that addressed the HIV/AIDS epidemic directly, and it saved lives. Some estimate it saved 25 million lives.

I want to salute President George W. Bush and all of those who supported it on both sides of the aisle. You see, sensible foreign aid used to be a bipartisan undertaking, and President Bush proved that over and over again.

I can go through the long list of projects around the world that Doctors Without Borders has noted are being cut back because of this decision, but I want to make this more direct and more personal.

This morning, one of my colleagues, Chris Coons of Delaware, who has been a leader in this field of foreign assistance, spoke to the Prayer Breakfast in the U.S. Senate. I am not going to quote him or try to. But I will tell you this, his message was clear that he believes as a man of faith, he has a responsibility, a responsibility that goes beyond his family, even beyond his country. He has a responsibility to his fellow man. He believes this decision by the Senate today will decide whether or not we as a nation share that sense of responsibility.

I believe it speaks well of the United States that we come together and take 1 percent of our budget and spend it for the poorest people on Earth. And that is why I believe it is critically important today that we defeat this effort to rescind this spending in H.R. 4.

Consequences of these rescissions will prove to be devastating here and across the globe. I urge my colleagues to stand up against the mindless cuts. Predictably, President Trump said:

It is important that all Republicans adhere to my

rescissions package bill.

Then he said:

Any Republican that votes to allow this monstrosity to

continue broadcasting--

Referring to PBS--

will not have my support or endorsement.

It is a political threat. There is no doubt about it. There is a risk for the Republicans who stand up for principle. The President has turned this vote away from a discussion on merits of the cuts--of which there are none--into a loyalty test, personally, because Donald Trump doesn't care about the impact of these cuts. He only cares about the bended knee, the craven Congressman, the servile Senator.

We need four Republicans today--four--to stand up and vote a matter of conscience. I hope they will join us to preserve the strategic bipartisan programs and vote no on this rescissions bill.

Please, today, to my colleagues on both sides, give a voice to the poorest children on Earth who survive only because of a caring nation called America. Our reputation in the world is at stake. Let's do the right thing.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand) and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Smith) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Smith) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, when the Senate considers the Rescissions Act of 2025, H.R. 4, it is my intention to make the following motion to recommit to the bill:

(1) A motion to recommit the bill H.R. 4 to the Committee

on Appropriations of the Senate with instructions to report

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

on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) remove any rescissions that may undermine the public

broadcasting infrastructure that supports the access of

communities to emergency alert systems.

Mr. President, Senator Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland supports the motion to recommit bill H.R. 4 to the Senate Committee on Appropriations to eliminate rescissions that would undermine the public broadcasting infrastructure that supports the access of communities to emergency alert systems. Senator Alsobrooks knows the role of public radio and television in ensuring communities have access to information and emergency alerts.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) is necessarily absent.

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

Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on the nomination of Whitney Hermandorfer, President Trump's nominee to serve as judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

In May, the President announced Ms. Hermandorfer was the very first judicial nominee of his second term. And now she is the President's first judicial nominee to come to the floor of the Senate.

The President has been clear that his primary concern is not about his judicial nominee's experience, competence, or integrity. This President is not focused on temperament, independence, or respect for the rule of law. He is focused on a nominee's perceived loyalty to him and his agenda and a willingness to rule in favor of him and his administration.

When we consider the President's priorities and Ms. Hermandorfer's record, it is easy to understand why the President nominated her to serve on the Sixth Circuit. At the Office of Tennessee Attorney General, Ms. Hermandorfer leads the Strategic Litigation Unit. Why is that significant? She is not just defending State laws in Tennessee. She has turned the Attorney General's Office to an advocacy arm for the Trump agenda.

She has argued in support of President Trump's unconstitutional Executive order that purports to end birthright citizenship. This Executive order has been blocked by every judge who has considered it. One judge--appointed by President Ronald Reagan, I might add--said:

I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't

remember another case where the question presented was as

clear as this one . . . This is a blatantly unconstitutional

order.

And yet Ms. Hermandorfer signed amicus briefs in support of the President's unlawful efforts to fire inspectors general and heads of independent Agencies.

Her record makes it clear that, if confirmed, she would continue to enable, rather than check, an administration that has repeatedly exceeded its authority.

Ms. Hermandorfer also refuses to acknowledge that President Trump lost the 2020 election. Let me repeat that: This nominee who seeks a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench, when asked the basic question as to whether Donald Trump won or lost the 2020 election, gave the stock answer. She refuses to acknowledge that Donald Trump lost. In response to this simple question: Did President Trump lose the 2020 election? All she could say was:

President Biden was certified as the winner of the 2020

presidential election and served as the 46th President of the

United States.

This is the standard response from this administration's nominees seeking positions on the Federal bench. It is an embarrassing genuflection before the Big Lie. The question of who won the 2020 election is not a matter of political opinion; it is a matter of historical fact. The overwhelming majority of my Republican colleagues have correctly recognized that reality, and we have a right to expect nominees to acknowledge such historic realities as well.

Both President Trump's nominees, including Ms. Hermandorfer, have been afraid to admit he lost the 2020 election. Why are they afraid of it? It is a fact. They are afraid because it will make him angry. He may dump their nominations because of the answer to that question.

The fact that she is willing to condone President Trump's false claims further demonstrates a level of partisanship and deference to this President that is unacceptable for someone seeking a lifetime position on the Federal bench.

And just in case her political leanings aren't clear enough for the record, Ms. Hermandorfer has strong ties to a range of rightwing organizations. They include the fabled Federalist Society and Teneo Network. Teneo Network is a new conservative group funded by Leonard Leo and his affiliated organizations. You may have heard the name Leonard Leo recently when President Trump called Mr. Leo a ``sleazebag.''

Membership in such organizations has been a litmus test for years for Republican nominees. It is the secret handshake, my friends. If you belong to the Federalist Society or now this Teneo Network, you are in. It means a nominee will use the Republican playbook for deciding important Federal cases. How does it work? You claim to be neutral, but, in fact, you contort history and overturn precedents to reach the Republicans' preferred outcome.

Ms. Hermandorfer followed this playbook to a tee in the Tennessee Attorney General's Office. She opposed LGBTQ rights and reproductive rights as well as environmental and anti-discrimination policies to protect the most vulnerable in America.

I believe we need judges on the bench who follow the law and the Constitution, not politicians in robes who rule in favor of the President and wealthy special interests.

Finally, I would like to note that Ms. Hermandorfer's academic record, although impressive, and legal record, although extreme, is short. She graduated from law school in 2015--has fewer than 10 years of legal experience. Outside of clerkships, she has only practiced law for 6 years, and she is seeking a lifetime appointment to the circuit court--one of the highest in the land. She has never served as sole or chief counsel in any case--any case--tried to verdict, judgment, or final decision.

That is a shocking lack of experience for someone nominated for a lifetime position. She will be watching trials for the first time as a judge. But, unfortunately, this kind of inexperience is common with President Trump's judicial nominees.

Make no mistake, experience is still important. Robust litigation experience ensures judicial nominees will be equipped to fulfill their duties. As an appellate judge, she is going to be standing in judgment of many trial courts. She has limited experience in that field.

Ms. Hermandorfer is the first judicial nominee we have considered this Congress. She won't be the last. In every instance, we must carefully examine the nominee's record as we consider them for a lifetime appointment. After carefully reviewing her record, I have

serious concerns. I think my colleagues, if they look at her honestly, will as well. I urge them to join me in opposing her nomination.

(Mrs. Britt assumed the Chair.)