Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) are necessarily absent.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) is necessarily absent.

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.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) are necessarily absent.

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, the greatest threat to American prosperity is not food aid to kids in Sudan or a diverse workforce; the greatest threat to our country is the abuse of power by a small group of people--an unelected group of people--who happen to have a billion dollars.

Our Founding Fathers created a government with checks and balances, but they didn't anticipate a U.S. Congress--now currently under Republican control--that would voluntarily give away its constitutional authority. That is where we find ourselves, as hospitals and medical researchers in blue and red States are in chaos over the Trump administration's attempt to usurp Congress's power of the purse.

When Senate Republicans abandon another constitutional responsibility of advice and consent for Cabinet officials, we are presented with such things as the bizarre nomination of Robert Kennedy, Jr., to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services.

It has been my honor to know members of the Kennedy family and particularly to serve with one of them, Teddy Kennedy. He used to sit right back there. He was an amazing man. He probably had more impact on the legislative agenda and the outcome of legislation than anybody I witnessed in the time I have been in the Senate. I counted him as a friend, and I still mourn his loss. But today we are considering a Kennedy that I don't believe is qualified to follow in his uncle's footsteps.

Health and Human Services is a life-and-death Department of government. Every day, Federal health officials decide whether to approve new medications after they have been proven--clinically tested and proven to be safe and effective. We count on the HHS to initiate recalls of contaminated food. We count on that same Agency to investigate new therapies for cancer clinical trials. We count on HHS to alert doctors about an emergency disease outbreak. Think about the gravity of those situations and how much is vested in the Secretary of that critical Department.

In any of these tasks--critical, often historic tasks--Robert Kennedy, Jr., would find himself unqualified, unfit, and dangerous to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.

Mr. Kennedy masquerades as a crusader for healthy foods and someone who just wants to--``I just want to ask some questions. I just want to study the science.''

America, the Senate, don't be fooled.

Mr. Kennedy has spent the past 30 years ignoring science and lying to parents about vaccines, all the while enriching himself by the doubt he has created.

He declared:

I see somebody on a hiking trail carrying a little baby and

I say to him, better not get that baby vaccinated.

Can you imagine that for a moment, that he would walk up to a person he didn't know and counsel them: Don't vaccinate your child.

Look at this quote. Does this sound like the kind of person you want to lead the premier health Agency of our Federal Government?

He states:

There's no vaccine that is safe and effective.

No vaccine safe and effective. And he wants to head the Health and Human Services Department?

The organization he founded sells newborn onesies that have printed on them ``Unvaccinated, Unafraid.'' Another one says ``No Vax, No Problem.'' To him, it is a novelty, a game that he can say these things about vaccines that literally have been proven over and over and over again to be safe and save lives.

During his confirmation hearing, Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a Senator, of course, and a medical doctor who has the distinguished record of service to poor people in his State, practically begged Robert Kennedy, Jr., to state unequivocally that the hepatitis B and measles vaccines do not cause autism. Kennedy couldn't bring himself to do it.

When confronted during his hearings with false statements he has made linking vaccines to autism, he feigned ignorance to decades of research findings and suggested he just needed to be shown the data. Well, that data has been around for decades.

Mr. Kennedy approaches this job with bias--a deadly, dangerous bias-- and he is unwilling to consider information that contradicts his preconceived conspiracies.

If Mr. Kennedy is confirmed, he won't be just speaking to one parent on a

hiking trail; he will be speaking to all American families from a podium with a U.S. Government seal on it. That is a terrifying prospect.

Since 1974, the measles vaccine has saved 94 million lives, and since its creation, the smallpox vaccine has saved 200 million lives--2 proven, successful vaccines, and we have to sell them to a man who wants to head the HHS and says that there is no vaccine that is safe and effective?

Measles is one of the most contagious pathogens on Earth. When I was a kid in the fifties going to school, it was common for kids to get measles. I had them. I stayed home from school a few days and usually got through it all after waiting at home for all those red spots to go away. Yet, with Mr. Kennedy's megaphone online, we are seeing the danger of conspiracy theories.

Last year, a record share of kindergartners across America had nonmedical exemption from vaccines. Right now, there is a measles outbreak tearing through Gaines County, TX. Seven kids are hospitalized--all unvaccinated. Gaines County has one of the highest rates in Texas of school-age children opting out of vaccines. Why are parents in that county in Texas and a few other counties forgoing lifesaving vaccines? Because of fraudsters like Mr. Kennedy.

What about polio? I know that issue personally. I see Senator King on the floor. He remembers it as well. Since 1955, the polio vaccine has prevented 20 million people from becoming paralyzed and saved 1\1/2\ million lives. Most Americans are lucky never to have ever experienced the fear of polio. I remember, as a kid, it scared the hell out of us. A kid could go to school healthy and be paralyzed at dinnertime.

A constituent of mine, Mary Ellen from Union County, wrote to me. Mary Ellen said:

When I was in kindergarten, my best friend disappeared for

weeks. When I asked about her, people shook their heads--

saying polio. When she returned, she couldn't walk without

heavy leg braces. . . . We could hear her cry and scream with

pain.

I remember that era--iron lungs, leg braces, paralysis, and worse.

Had Mr. Kennedy been our Nation's Health Secretary at that time, would American families have access today to lifesaving measles and polio vaccines? I am afraid the answer is clearly no. This isn't speculation; look at the record.

Mr. Kennedy and his associates have filed petitions with the Food and Drug Administration to remove the COVID, hepatitis B, and polio vaccines from the market.

In 2019, Mr. Kennedy flew to Samoa during a measles outbreak to question whether the vaccines themselves were causing the illness. As a result of that, 83 people died in Samoa.

When asked by Senator Warren, Mr. Kennedy said he would not do anything differently about that dangerous trip. Eighty-three people died as he spread those falsehoods about the vaccine.

Senator Cassidy aptly wondered:

Does a 70-year-old man who spent decades criticizing

vaccines and was financially vested in finding fault . . .

can he change his [attitude]?

Mr. President, I am sorry, but we know the answer.

Listen, I understand we have a great health system in this country, but I also understand it is flawed in many ways. I spent years in my Senate and House career to lower drug prices, rein in Big Pharma's influence, and stop Big Tobacco from peddling poison to our kids. But just because he might talk about the right problems doesn't mean Mr. Kennedy has the right solutions. In fact, over 2 days of hearings, he did not offer a single concrete idea on how to improve the delivery of primary care or preventive healthcare services.

It was clear Mr. Kennedy didn't understand the difference between Medicaid and Medicare. Mr. President, I will tell you, that is an issue that you take up in Congress 101.

Nobody believes Kennedy will stand up to President Trump or Elon Musk on medical research.

I understand the urge to shake things up, to address failures in our healthcare system, but Mr. Kennedy brings an unacceptable prejudice that will only cause harm and be dangerous to American families.

Neil Steinberg writes for the Chicago Sun-Times. He wrote that when you are claiming you want to ``study'' the issue where the science is settled, that is code for dismissing facts that don't serve your personal bias.

I fear there is a sense that being an outsider is qualification enough, but how far could Senate Republicans be willing to go if they pursue that dangerous path? Make no mistake, if the political tables were turned and it were Democrats proposing this man for this job, he wouldn't get a single Republican vote in the Senate. He would be decried as a pro-choice, anti-vax, uninformed, conspiracy theorist who trades on his family name to peddle dangerous misinformation that benefits him financially. And guess what. This nominee is all of those things. But because he was nominated by President Trump and has the MAGA seal of approval, my Republican colleagues can't wait to march down and support his nomination.

Many of them secretly, privately, quietly know better. Some of them are doctors or parents themselves who trusted doctors to vaccinate their kids or people who spent their lives trying to really improve our health system. They know Mr. Kennedy is not the right choice for the job, and they know our children will suffer the most if he becomes HHS Secretary. I hope they will find the courage to join me and reject his nomination.

Let me add this point that is related to this issue, and I will make it brief. On Friday, the Trump administration issued an illegal order to impose an arbitrary cap of 15 percent on ``indirect costs'' that the NIH pays to grantees for essential research expenses.

Without this funding for specialized equipment, data processing, safety materials, and the maintenance of labs, universities and hospitals nationwide will not be able to afford the technology that allows them to continue lifesaving research.

This is a critical moment in America's history. After the progress that we have made, after the leadership we have shown, are we going to, under this new President, turn our backs on medical research? God forbid. If you go through the misfortune of a terrible diagnosis for yourself or someone you love, you pray that you can then ask the doctor: Is there anything--a new medicine, a new cure, a new surgical procedure? And you are hoping that medical researchers lead that answer to yes that one moment in your life.

In 2017--the last time President Trump attempted to cut NIH funding-- the now-House Appropriations Committee chair, Tom Cole of Oklahoma, called the proposal ``arbitrary, unreasonable, and ultimately destructive of the research enterprise.'' Chairman Cole understood that cutting funding means clinical trials will be delayed, new breakthroughs in cures will be put off, and promising researchers will get discouraged and leave the field.

A constituent and doctor from Palos Heights, IL, wrote to me:

I care about this issue because I know new research on

immunology kept my stage-4-cancer-patient wife alive for 10

years, enough to see our youngest son graduate from high

school.

This sudden, indiscriminate cut to medical research violates Federal law, which blocks NIH from deviating from its current indirect cost policy.

Thankfully, my attorney general in Illinois, Kwame Raoul, and 21 other States filed a Federal lawsuit to temporarily halt this senseless cut.

Remember, tweets from Elon Musk forced a bipartisan pediatric cancer research bill to be cut from a government spending bill just a few weeks ago. Now Mr. Musk is at it again; only this time, he is targeting cancer, Alzheimer's, and diabetes. If Elon Musk were to get sick, I will bet the richest man in the world would find the doctor he wanted. I am sure he would. For the rest of us, for the parents facing a devastating diagnosis of someone we love, this is a cruel political decision.

A University of Chicago researcher put it this way:

This attack on the very structure of . . . academic

research . . . is threatening a system that every other

country in the world has tried to reproduce. . . . It seems

spiteful and targeted at those of us who just want to

contribute to a better society.

Mr. President, I don't know that this will continue to be a problem and challenge, but I promise you this: As long as I have the power to stand and speak out in favor of the National Institutes of Health, I am going to do it.

This country is a great country. It has greatness that includes medical research--maybe the best in the world.

Why in the world would we give up on that? And why would we choose someone so bizarre to head up the Health and Human Services Agency and trust with him life-or-death decisions? It is a bad choice.

I will be voting to oppose Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and doing everything in my power to restore the spending for medical research in America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I listened to my colleague and friend from Wyoming, and I am struggling to understand his point of view. He announced at one point that the Republicans were in the majority in the House and Senate. Well, that is a fact. I know it. The Presiding Officer does as well. So to say that you are in the majority suggests that you are in charge, and it also suggests that if there is going to be a budget for the U.S. Government, which we need next month, the majority party in both the House and the Senate has that responsibility to come forward with a budget. That is a simple fact of life. It is a fact of political life.

To blame the minority for no budget is to ignore the obvious: The majority of votes in the House and the Senate belong to the Republican Party. If there is going to be a budget, it is fair to assume that they would have to lead in that effort. I look forward to seeing that leadership. We have seen precious little of it so far.

Mr. President, on a completely separate note, I realize that the President made these statements during the course of his campaign, but it still came as something of a shock when, on the first day of his Presidency, Donald Trump decided to issue a blanket pardon for those who had been convicted of the January 6 riot that took place in this building.

For those of us who were physically present, it is a moment we will never forget. The Vice President of the United States was sitting in the Presiding Officer's chair, presiding over the U.S. Senate as we addressed the constitutional responsibility of counting the electoral votes.

It was roughly 10 minutes after 2 in the afternoon when someone came along in a suit, walked up to the Vice President of the United States, grabbed him by the arm, and pulled him off of the chair. Those of us who were here wondered what was going on. While we could hear the demonstrators outside, we didn't understand why the Vice President was being removed from this Chamber.

A member of the Capitol Police then walked up to where the Presiding Officer is sitting and announced that this was going to be a safe room; yes, there were demonstrators outside, even some in the building, but stay here; the Senate Chamber will be a safe room; and be prepared for others to come into this safe room to avoid any conflict with the demonstrators.

That instruction lasted for about 10 minutes, and then the same officer came up and stood before us and said: Change of plans. Everybody evacuate this room as quickly as possible.

We all headed out that door, going to another building on Capitol Hill that we thought might be safer, away from the demonstrators.

Think about that--the Capitol of the United States of America, taken over by demonstrators; the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives stopped in the progress of doing their constitutional responsibility of counting the electoral votes.

We have seen the videotapes--oh, there are plenty of them--that show these mob demonstrators breaking the windows to get into the Capitol Building, knocking down the doors, and then beating up on the police officers.

When the Presiding Officer and I came to work this morning, there were men and women--some in uniform, others in plainclothes--standing in the corridors of this building. Their responsibility is to keep us safe and to keep those who visit this Capitol safe. They are prepared-- many of them have to be prepared--to risk their lives to do it.

To think what they went through on January 6 is outrageous. They were beaten up by these mobsters, these thugs, these demonstrators, who were egged on by the President of the United States to come up and go wild in the U.S. Capitol. Oh, they went wild, spraying bear spray into the faces of individual policemen, beating up on them with poles and pieces of furniture.

Yes, it was a pretty wild occasion, and it was a criminal occasion. It led to the most extensive criminal prosecution in the history of our country. Some 1,600 people were prosecuted for their conduct on January 6. And I will tell you, as someone who witnessed that and went through that experience, they deserved it. It just strikes me as outrageous.

If you heard on the news this afternoon that the Houses of Parliament in London had been invaded by a mob that had beaten down the doors of the House of Commons and took control of it, you would have said: That is impossible. That doesn't happen in a civilized country like England.

Well, it certainly shouldn't happen in the United States, and it did. I witnessed it.

Then came the President of the United States on his first day in office, and what did he do? He decided that every single person arrested for a crime related to January 6 should be released with a full and unconditional pardon. And that is what he did.

I asked my staff: Let's keep track of these people, see what happened to them. In the 3 weeks that have passed since the President made that decision, there are some interesting stories, sad stories.

Emily Hernandez pleaded guilty to entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds in relation to her actions in the Capitol on January 6. Ms. Hernandez was seen holding a stolen, broken nameplate of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She served 30 days in Federal prison and was released. Days after being pardoned by President Trump-- days after being pardoned by President Trump--she was sentenced to 10 years in prison for a 2022 deadly drunk-driving crash in Missouri during which she collided with a couple--Victoria and Ryan Wilson--who had just left dinner, celebrating their 15th wedding anniversary. Victoria died in the crash, and Ryan sustained serious injuries.

Then there is Daniel Ball. Daniel Ball was arrested for throwing ``an explosive device'' that detonated on at least 25 officers and forcefully shoving police at the Capitol on January 6. Daniel Ball was in possession of a gun and ammunition as he came into the Capitol, which was illegal considering his criminal background. The Department of Justice dismissed Ball's charges following President Trump's pardon.

I have a long list here, and I am not going to read them all, but there is one in particular, released with a full pardon by President Trump for the January 6 crimes he committed. Guy Reffitt, the first defendant to stand trial on charges related to the January 6 Capitol insurrection, was sentenced to 87 months in prison for bringing a firearm into the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Reffitt's 19-year-old son Jackson turned him into law enforcement after the attack. Jackson also indicated that Reffitt had threatened to shoot him and his sister Peyton if they reported him to authorities.

After receiving a pardon from President Trump, Guy Reffitt attended Kash Patel's Senate Judiciary Committee nomination hearing. Kash Patel is President Trump's nominee to be the Director and head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Reffitt attended that committee nomination, and here is what he posted on social media afterward.

Remember: a man who is released after he was granted a full pardon, after he was convicted of bringing a firearm into the Capitol on January 6, 2021--certainly not a casual tourist by any means.

Here is what he said on social media:

Present and in support of Kash Patel as the leftist commies

continue to spew lies, misinformation, and disinformation. My

man, clean house Kash.

So it certainly seems like he learned his lesson, right? He served time in jail and was released with pardon by the President. He is at it again, defying the authorities, defying anyone who disagrees with him politically--full, unconditional pardon from Donald Trump.

The reason I wanted to make a note of Mr. Reffitt's history is that it is apropos of what I want to speak to this morning.

Mr. President, do you remember where you were on September 11? Most Americans do. I do. I was right outside that door. I was in a meeting at 9 in the morning. And as we had the meeting, we looked down the Mall. We were watching a little television set, and we saw these planes flying into skyscrapers in New York.

Nobody could quite understand what was going on. First, we thought it was an accident, as most people probably felt the same way. Then, when the second plane hit, we knew there was more.

Then, there came a moment when somebody said: Look down the Mall.

We looked down the Mall and saw black smoke billowing across the Mall here in Washington from the Pentagon, because a plane had crashed into the Pentagon.

And there was this moment where people didn't know which way to turn, where to get answers, what was going on. Someone came racing into the room and said: Evacuate the Capitol Building. Another plane is coming directed toward this building.

We all raced out down the steps and stood on the lawn outside, didn't know which way to turn, had no idea what was going on.

Tourists were coming up to me because I had a suit and tie on and saying: Where are we supposed to go?

I told them where the Metro stations were and pointed in several directions.

That is a day you won't forget.

Most of us, I am sure, felt at that point that we had to figure out what happened first and to stop it from ever happening again.

So where did we turn? First, we turned to law enforcement, for obvious reasons. That is who you call--9-1-1--to see if they can give you any information, give you any advice, keep you safe.

But also in this town, you think: We hope our intelligence Agencies, the ones that collect information, know who those people were so we can stop them from ever doing this again.

Those intelligence Agencies are critical, not just for the security of this country but the survival of this country.

In the wake of September 11, the most historic terrorist attack in our Nation's history, we learned the hard way that Agencies within the intelligence community need to be good, effective, and coordinate what they are doing. So we embarked on several

projects--and one that I was a small part of--in rewriting the laws creating intelligence Agencies and making sure that each of our intelligence Agencies, as good as they are, speak to one another.

It seems so obvious. They need to coordinate. But they had what they called smokestacks where they kept their information to themselves and didn't share it with other Agencies. Well, that changed. It changed the whole attitude towards intelligence and coordinating information.

We created the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It oversees 18 different intelligence Agencies that span the CIA, Defense Department, State Department, Energy Department, and others. It is now essential to modern safety in America. Yet the President, Donald Trump, has selected a person to run this critical Agency, coordinating 18 different intelligence Agencies, who has little or no experience leading this critical American security apparatus. Her name is Tulsi Gabbard.

During President Trump's first term, he made clear of his fondness for certain leaders in the world that were controversial, such as Viktor Orban of Hungary, Vladimir Putin of Russia, and Kim Jong Un of North Korea. So he ends up picking a person to run his intelligence network who shares a similarly terrible judgment on critical leaders.

Tulsi Gabbard, a former Congresswoman, is infamous for spending time with despots and autocratic leaders of the world, including Vladimir Putin of Russia and Bashar al-Assad of Syria, and traitors to the United States like Edward Snowden.

Her fondness for these oppressive, anti-democratic regimes does not go unreciprocated. They know her, they like her, and they say quite a few things about her. Let me show you one of these posters.

Hosts of Russian state media have cheered her nomination. Russia is cheering her nomination as Director of National Intelligence because it will ``dismantle America.'' Some on Russian state channels have even referred to her affectionately as their ``girlfriend.'' Russian state TV also called her a Russian ``comrade'' in Trump's emerging Cabinet. A pro-Putin propagandist, Vladimir Solovyov, once called Gabbard ``our friend.'' Later, when asked if she was ``some sort of Russian agent?'' he replied, of course, ``yes.''

What is going on here? This woman wants to head up the intelligence Agencies, and she is being cheered on by the Russians?

In a glowing profile in a Russian state newspaper, it said of Tulsi Gabbard, ``The C.I.A. and F.B.I. are trembling,'' noting that Ukrainians consider her ``an agent of the Russian state.''

Imagine that--the person tapped to head America's intelligence community being called a puppet of an adversary's country by that very same country. It seems too ridiculous to be true, but I am sorry to say that it is.

To merely join America's intelligence community, never mind lead it, candidates have to go through a vigorous background check and earn a security clearance. I will just tell you that based on what she has done since serving in Congress, she could not pass a routine security clearance. If Tulsi Gabbard were applying for an entry-level position, her relationship with Russia alone would disqualify her for the job. Why, then, would we trust our entire intelligence network to the No. 1 friend of our No. 1 enemy? Why, then, would we want to put that sort of person in charge?

Given the examples that abound of Tulsi Gabbard proving publicly, shamelessly, and carelessly her sympathies for nations that undermine U.S. interests and security, that is unexplainable and irresponsible.

Perhaps this is summed up best by one of her people who worked with her for years. Here is what he had to say, according to The Atlantic magazine:

She was willing to do or say whatever. It was [like] she

had [absolutely] no moral compass.

And to head up all of our intelligence Agencies? It is as controversial as choosing Kash Patel to head up our Federal Bureau of Investigation--no experience which qualifies him, nor does she have any experience either.

You see, our allies depend on us as much as we depend on them for security and to share critical intelligence. Now they are looking at us in disbelief that we would let someone like Tulsi Gabbard, with such an appalling record, anywhere near the leadership of the intelligence community.

Intelligence professionals from Canada and the United Kingdom-- members of the critical Five Eyes intelligence alliance along with the United States, Australia, and New Zealand--have expressed concern about even working with her if she is in charge. In order to keep Americans safe throughout the world, we need to have the trust of our allies and their cooperation.

This position she is aspiring to at DNI does not just impact the collection of intelligence; it also impacts the action taken on it. Because of this, I have great concern about the impact Tulsi Gabbard's confirmation would have on our support of Ukraine in defending itself against Russia.

Since Russia's full-scale invasion, Gabbard has taken Russia's side many times, claiming, in reference to Ukraine and Russia, ``Russia had legitimate security concerns.'' The words of Tulsi Gabbard. And then she blames NATO, our alliance--one of the most significant security alliances in the world.

Let me be clear. Supporting democracies has not historically been a partisan matter. For example, contrast Tulsi Gabbard's nonsense with former President Ronald Reagan's clear-eyed understanding of the danger of the communist Russia empire.

Nearly 40 years ago, Ronald Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin and famously challenged the Soviet Union to ``tear down this wall.'' Reagan understood the true nature and threat of the Russians.

We have all seen the horrific costs of Russia's war in Ukraine and increasing attacks on NATO allies. Is there a deal to be made to end this war? Perhaps. Doing so must be with the best intelligence available, a clear eye about who we are negotiating with and for, and long-term guarantees of the security of Ukraine, of Europe, and the transatlantic alliance.

One would think any American President navigating such difficult waters would want a top official to serve as the head of National Intelligence. Tulsi Gabbard fails that test. She would not be qualified for an entry-level position within the intelligence community and is certainly not qualified to lead it, period.

Some of the President's Cabinet nominees are hard to imagine because they are so unqualified, but for the position of Director of National Intelligence, putting someone unqualified in charge is not funny at all; it is life-or-death dangerous.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following detailees in the Senate Judiciary Committee be granted floor privileges for

the remainder of the 119th Congress: Allison Kent and Dorothea Lay.

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

Madam President, last week, Pam Bondi was sworn in as the highest law enforcement officer in the United States of America. She is now the U.S. Attorney General. Unfortunately, as many of us feared, Attorney General Bondi took immediate steps to undermine the integrity of the Department of Justice.

President Trump, after Bondi was confirmed, even said:

I know I'm supposed to say she's going to be totally

impartial with respect to Democrats. . . . I'm not sure if

there's a possibility of totally.

On day one in office, Attorney General Bondi created a so-called Weaponization Working Group--a task force to investigate ``the activities of all departments and agencies exercising civil or criminal enforcement authority over the last four years.'' Bondi said that she would ``investigate the investigators'' and ``prosecute the prosecutors,'' and now she is doing exactly that to seek ``retribution'' against political enemies, real and perceived, that President Trump has repeatedly threatened.

I wish I could say I am surprised by Attorney General Bondi's actions, but last week, I stood at this very spot sounding the alarm just before her confirmation vote. The writing was on the wall. Attorney General Bondi has made it clear that her foremost loyalty is to one person--President Trump--and she kept her promise on day one after being sworn into office by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court.

Bondi's directive is only one step in misusing the powers of government to carry out President Trump's retribution against those he perceives to be his enemies, and the list is long. Even before Attorney General Bondi was confirmed, the Trump administration purged dozens of senior career law enforcement officials at the Department of Justice and the FBI. Many of these senior officials are reportedly being reassigned to immigration cases for which they have little or no expertise.

Last week, FBI law enforcement personnel across the country had little over 48 hours to answer a survey about their work on any case related to the January 6 attack on the Capitol, including whether they handled arrests, led operations, testified in trials, and more.

Consider this for a moment. I don't know if you were here, Madam President, on that day, but those of us who were will never forget it. An insurrectionist mob left a rally for President Trump and came to Capitol Hill, crashed down the doors and windows, invaded the Capitol, and started beating up on the Capitol Hill Police. The net result: Four policemen died and 140 were seriously injured.

They took control of the U.S. Senate Chamber and the House Chamber and went through their antics, posing for pictures sitting in the chair you are sitting in. They went through my desk and other desks too. It was their day, these so-called tourists, so-called political prisoners.

I have said on the floor before and I have thought about this many times. If we were told that in the House of Parliament in London, a mob had a beaten down the wooden door and taken control of the House of Commons, what would have been the reaction in the United States? First, incredulous: That can't happen. England is a powerful nation. It has a rich history. A mob took over Parliament?

That is exactly what happened on January 6. A mob took over the Congress of the United States, invaded the Capitol Building like the British in the War of 1812, and forced control at the expense of a lot of people who were prepared to die to defend us that day.

That was a horrible incident. It is a horrible chapter in American history. Now the Trump administration is setting out to erase that history.

The Soviet revisionists would look at this with some pride, to think that politicians in America are engaging in the same historical rewrite that they did for so many decades. This rewrite is to erase January 6 as a reality, to whitewash it, to describe it as something that isn't. How they will ever overcome the hours and hours of videotapes which verify exactly what happened that day, I don't know, but they are going to start by cleansing the ranks of those in law enforcement who had anything to do with the 1,600 criminal defendants who were charged because of that day. Apparently, they wanted disclosure of the names of all those who took the assignment given to them at the Department of Justice or the FBI to investigate that crime of January 6. At the FBI, at least six FBI

Executive Assistant Directors have been removed, including those who oversaw the National Security Branch, the Intelligence Branch, and the Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch. The Trump administration has also removed the Special Agents in Charge of at least four major field offices and the Assistant Director of the Washington Field Office.

The Acting Attorney General has also issued a memo firing a dozen career Department of Justice prosecutors.

She is quoted as saying:

Given your significant role in prosecuting the President, I

do not believe that the leadership of the Department can

trust you in implementing the President's agenda faithfully.

The Bureau's acting leaders are career FBI public servants who have reportedly resisted the push from Trump administration officials to punish FBI agents who were simply doing the work that was assigned to them to investigate the January 6 attack. If I am not mistaken, it was the largest criminal prosecution in history, and to think that many of the Assistant Attorneys General and members of the FBI had some role in its pursuit is no surprise whatsoever.

So now the Trump administration wants these people to be outed-- publicly disclosed--with names and addresses. This weekend, the Bureau turned over the personnel details of thousands of FBI personnel. Thankfully, a temporary court order was issued on Friday that is keeping the Department of Justice from revealing those names.

Is there any danger to these women and men who swore allegiance to the United States and its Constitution and pursued the official duties of the Department of Justice? Why, of course, there is. The previous head of the FBI told us that the situation is grim when it comes to domestic terrorism in the United States. So is he suggesting that, perhaps, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers can't wait to get this list the Trump administration has produced--a list of those who did their duty under the Constitution and pursued these cases on the January 6 outrage? I am afraid that is a fact.

That temporary court order is the only thing between these White nationalist-extremist groups and the men and women who dedicated their lives to law enforcement in this country. That is where we have come to in just a few short days of the new Trump administration.

Tomorrow, FBI probationary agents and personnel stationed around the world are required to submit justifications for their continued employment. This could lead to the firing of up to 3,000 law enforcement officials. Don't tell me you want to fight crime. Don't tell me you want to stop narcotics and then dismiss 3,000 FBI and Department of Justice officials. These mass layoffs, forced retirements, and involuntary reassignments of experienced Department of Justice and FBI officials represent an outright attack on public safety by President Trump.

America will be less safe because of this political charade that is going on in the Department of Justice. These mass layoffs of these experienced people mean that your family, your town, your neighborhood will be less safe. The purge is already leading to widespread disruption and delay in prosecutions, investigations, and sensitive operations. The Joint Terrorism Task Forces have been asked to focus on President Trump's immigration-related initiatives, which means valuable resources and personnel will be shifted away from State and local and Federal partners fighting foreign and domestic terrorism.

As America faces a heightened threat landscape, these removals and reassignments are crippling not only to the Justice Department and the FBI but to the 93 U.S. Attorney's Offices and the 55 FBI field offices across the country. The loss of potentially thousands of Federal law enforcement jobs will put a burden on local field offices; slow ongoing casework; increase the unemployment rates nationwide in law enforcement; and harm local economies.

President Trump may claim to back the blue--he may pose with men and women of law enforcement--but, apparently, he is only interested in doing so when it is politically convenient and consistent with his political agenda.

Before Ms. Bondi's confirmation, my concerns about how she would lead the Department were based on her history as President Trump's personal lawyer, but the leadership of Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, is no longer hypothetical. Her directives and actions are now impacting a lot of innocent people and a lot of good Americans who have dedicated their lives to public service and law enforcement. We need to work together on a bipartisan basis to push back against these attacks on the Department of Justice and the FBI to protect the national security of the United States.