Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues from Kansas, and Senator Warner, I believe, will be here in a few minutes to support the resolution described by Senator Moran. This is personal to me in two ways. Obviously, as the Senator from Virginia, many of the victims on the American Airlines flight and two of the three soldiers who were killed in the military helicopter flight deployed from Fort Belvoir in Virginia were Virginians, and so our community has been very touched by this.

I was at a vigil on the riverbank in Alexandria last night with members of the community, the first responder community, local officials, and others who feel this wound very deeply.

And so that is the first personal connection that I have to this tragic event. But I also rise as a kid who grew up in Kansas. And my mother grew up in a town--actually, went to the same high school as Senator Marshall. It is not far from Wichita, the airport from which the flight departed.

So as I read the stories of the 67 who died, the Virginians and the Kansans, they were stories that seemed very familiar to me.

It is hard to find words to sum up the many feelings that I have and that others have, and I said last night at the vigil that I attended that when words fail and you can't find the words, usually there are words of ancient wisdom that do the trick, and I used a phrase from Psalms 90 that I love: Teach us how short our lives are so that we may become wise.

There were a lot of youngsters on that flight, but we are all young in the sense of our lives are short. And the psalmist who wrote those words was trying to make a point: All of our lives are brief. All of our lives are temporal. All of our lives are mortal. And in that realization, there can be the beginning of wisdom.

And one of the most powerful bits of wisdom that we gain from that knowledge is the realization that we have to bind together. In good times, yes, but especially in bad times, we have to join in community to help those who are suffering.

I have been very, very pleased to see the reaction, just as my colleague in Kansas has seen, the volunteers in Northern Virginia, the Red Cross volunteers who have been out day after day, the first responders who did a difficult job in the middle of the night in frigid temperatures in an ice-strewn river to conduct, first, search and rescue and then, ultimately, recovery missions.

I see people coming together, as we often do, in times of tragedy. And that is heartening, if you can take anything heartening from a situation so drastic.

So I strongly support the resolution, and I support, with my colleagues, the notion that we have to learn from this. The National Transportation Safety Board is doing a study. Their study will make recommendations about how we can reduce the chance that this will ever happen again.

Thank goodness air accidents of this kind are not common in the country. And yet this tragedy has to energize us to learn the lessons of it and make improvements so that we reduce the chance this will ever happen again.

And I am very devoted, in the memory of those who lost their lives, to that mission.

I yield the floor.

I vote no to the man who wants to traumatize the Federal workforce.

Madam President, I rise to talk a little bit about what I am hearing from constituents in the Commonwealth, in the last week, and then, in particular, to direct a message to Federal employees. There are about 140,000 people who live in Virginia who work for the Federal Government.

It was a week ago yesterday--Monday morning--when I was attending a fairly standard annual celebration by the Fredericksburg Chamber of Commerce and the local United Way to open up seasonal tax preparation. It is called the VITA Program: Volunteers in Tax Assistance. Organizations all around the country train volunteers to help low- and moderate-income people do their taxes, and it was just the kickoff of this 21st annual event in the Fredericksburg area to help folks. And it was an opportunity to thank volunteers and to see those early-bird tax filers who were there the first day to try to get their taxes done.

Someone came up to me and told me that they were a veteran and that they had tried to log onto the VA portal that day to get a medical appointment and were shut out of the portal. Someone else heard the person telling me that story. The Fredericksburg area, about 50 miles south of DC, is very heavily populated with veterans. Others started to share their experience.

It just so happens that we have just constructed, at the cost of $370 million, a new veterans clinic in Fredericksburg that is scheduled to open on February 28. Someone heard this discussion and said: Oh, we hear the grand opening is going to be delayed because of a Federal hiring freeze imposed by this administration.

That conversation at this otherwise good-news event started what has become a cascade of concerns that I have heard expressed by Virginians: Head Start programs not getting their monthly funding; universities that are midstream on Federal research projects being told that a funding freeze would prohibit them from drawing down dollars, thus jeopardizing the jobs of the researchers; numerous Federal employees who have been told that they are being reclassified from professional civil service to political appointee, where their future depends upon their loyalty to a person rather than their service of their fellow Americans.

I was at church on Sunday. I go to a church that has a high percentage of Congolese refugees who are here under humanitarian visas or refugee status. Many of them are worried about the possibility of deportations because they happen to live in families where there might be mixed status: some citizens, some green card holders, some refugees, others who are not documented. A Sunday school teacher at my church came up and told me that, at the Saturday religious instruction program that he holds at a nearby Catholic school, because there are a number of Latino immigrant families in that program, the attendance is down because families and kids are worried about ICE raids and deportations.

Yesterday, I had two interactions with Virginians, one with local government officials and NGO CEOs--folks running domestic violence shelters, homeless programs, free clinics, et cetera--in the Richmond area, where I live, and then a second meeting with the Virginia School Boards Association--elected school board members

from all around the Commonwealth of Virginia--that was taking place in Alexandria, VA. And, in each instance, I heard again and again the story of fear, confusion: Are our funds being cut off? Can we say anything about it? We are set up in such a way that we have served underserved populations. Are we allowed to do that now?

And, finally, Madam President, this morning, I came into work and I had an email from one of the largest federally qualified health centers in Virginia, located in the Hampton Roads--1.6 million people in the southeast portion of our State; Virginia Beach, Norfolk, Hampton, Portsmouth, Chesapeake, these communities--and they said: Look, we are the healthcare safety net of first resort for a lot of low- and moderate-income people, and we have done this for years, and we receive Federal funding. In fact, Federal funding for most of our FQHCs is about 20 to 25 percent of their budget.

They tend to get paid the last day of the month. Yesterday was the 3rd of February. They indicated they had not received their January payment and, when they were reaching out to determine whether they would receive the January payment--or the February payment, for that matter--they wouldn't even be given the courtesy of an answer.

There is grave, grave concern about the numerous efforts that this administration has taken with respect to Federal employees and with respect to the funding freeze. The funding freeze that was announced last week was partially retracted by the administration. It has been partially and temporarily enjoined in now multiple court cases. But as the email from this morning indicated, organizations that should be receiving funds, if the funding freeze is in fact enjoined, are still not receiving them.

Obviously, we have got a lot of work to do to get to the bottom of this. The administration has not shared with any of us what their plans are. The analogy that I have used is it is like somebody has taken a jigsaw puzzle and dumped the pieces upside down on a table in front of me. All I am seeing is the cardboard backside. I don't have the box with the picture on it.

Every time I talk to a constituent, a Federal employee, somebody who works at a domestic violence shelter, a mayor, I can turn over a piece of the puzzle based upon what they are telling me, and as I turn it over, I can start to assemble what is in fact happening. And we need to do more to assemble it.

I just want to pledge to Virginians: I will be doing all I can to make sure you are protected.

But what I want to do now is read a letter that I have written and that I am posting today on my website and disseminating publicly, specifically to Federal workers. It is a letter that tries to honor them and give them a pep talk and also direct them to resources that they can access in case they are concerned.

And, once again, Madam President, 140,000 of these workers live in my Commonwealth.

Dear Federal Workers:

As you are all too aware, we are in a dark time. The Trump

administration has made plain that it wants to kick you

around--by blocking your ability to administer federal

resources, censuring your free speech, locking you out of

your workplaces, demonizing you in the press, and sending you

ominous, and at times threatening, messages. These actions

are shameful and harmful not only to you, but to Americans

across the country that you serve.

But especially in the darkest of times, we must stay

focused on finding our guiding lights. I hope you will let

the call to service that you answered when you first swore

your oaths as federal employees serve as that light.

My advice to you today is simple, even if it's not easy:

Don't give up. Keep serving everyday folks.

You are here because of your expertise. You are here

because of your patriotism. You are here because you know the

value in dedicating your life to serving your fellow

Americans.

America needs you--that has never been clearer than in the

wake of [the administration's] Federal funding freeze last

week. I heard from folks in every corner of Virginia about

the invaluable support they receive from Federal workers like

you.

Across the country, Americans are counting on you to

deliver crucial services--from inspecting our food to make

sure it's safe, to protecting our national security. From

administering Social Security benefits, to staffing air

traffic control towers, to supporting our allies around the

world and keeping the influence of China, Iran, and Russia at

bay.

I know it has been--and will continue to be--tough. Donald

Trump and his cronies are determined to do anything they can

to knock you off course. They've even dangled a phony buyout

in your face. But make no mistake: that buyout is a trap.

Donald Trump has no authority to offer you a resignation

buyout. Don't trust a guy with a long history of stiffing

contractors by taking him up on a sham deal that he won't

follow through on.

You aren't alone. I'm going to be here with you, every day,

working alongside you in service.

I want to share with you some specific ways in which I want

to be a resource to you. On my website, kaine.senate.gov, I

am collecting stories from federal workers about what you are

experiencing. Under no circumstances will I publicly share

any information you send me without your consent. You can

also choose to submit your [information] anonymously if you

prefer.

I will also be updating my webpage with information that

may be helpful to you, including summaries of your rights,

recourse you can seek if you believe you are being illegally

terminated, and answers to other frequently asked questions

my office is receiving.

Please know, that I'm going to do everything I can to stand

up for you--just like you're standing up for [and serving]

the American people. Thank you for [all that you do].

With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise briefly to just draw my colleagues' attention to two items that, although seemingly unconnected, happened last week that I think are deeply connected.

On Inauguration Day, January 20, President Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border of the United States. I just want to read two sentences from that declaration, January 20, 2025:

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have tragically died

from drug overdoses because of the illicit narcotics that

have flowed across the southern border.

I think 100 people in this Chamber would acknowledge that to be true.

The second sentence in the same order:

As Commander in Chief, I have no more solemn duty than to

protect the American people.

I think 100 people in this Chamber would agree that is the most solemn duty of the Commander in Chief.

Those two sentences are why I was so surprised at an action the President took the next day, January 21, 2025: the pardon of drug kingpin Ross Ulbricht.

I want to read a summary of the crimes for which Mr. Ulbricht was imprisoned and raise the question of why the President, who had expressed concern about drug running and said that his top goal was to protect the American people, would choose to do this on the second day of his Presidency.

Mr. Ulbricht launched Silk Road in 2011 and turned it into

one of the most popular outposts of the so-called Dark Web, a

hidden corner of the internet that people can access only

through a special browser. Silk Road facilitated over 1.5

million transactions, generating more than $200 million in

revenue from the sale of heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine and

other drugs.

Two hundred million dollars.

Users transacted anonymously with Bitcoin, then a nascent

cryptocurrency, and could post Amazon-style product ratings.

In 2013, the F.B.I. arrested Mr. Ulbricht at a San

Francisco library and charged him with running Silk Road. In

court, prosecutors presented evidence that Mr. Ulbricht had

also solicited the murders of people he considered threats to

his business, though he was never tried on murder-for-hire

charges and there was no indication that any killings took

place.

At least six deaths were attributed to drugs bought on Silk

Road, prosecutors said in court. A federal judge in the

Southern District of New York, where the case was tried,

called Mr. Ulbricht ``the kingpin of a worldwide digital

drug-trafficking enterprise'' whose actions were ``terribly

destructive to our social fabric.'' In 2015, he received a

life sentence for drug distribution, money laundering and

other charges, and was eventually moved to a federal prison

in Arizona.

That account is from one of the many news articles describing the prosecution of Mr. Ulbricht and the pardon that was issued by President Trump on January 21.

I just want to raise the obvious question: If illicit narcotics trafficking is sufficient to declare a national emergency, then why, 1 day later, was it a justifiable, appropriate, laudable use of Presidential power to give a pardon to somebody who had set up an online, global, digital drug trafficking network that had generated $200 million in revenue, 1.5 million transactions of sales of illicit drugs, 6 overdose deaths of individuals, and other challenges?

One of the problems with the surplus of Executive orders in the first few days is that sometimes the sheer number can cause you to lose sight of some of what is happening. And I would assert that the pardon of Mr. Ulbricht undercuts the legitimacy of the claim

that what President Trump is worried about is drug trafficking because if drug trafficking is bad, it is not only bad at the southern border; it is bad when somebody sets up an online drug trafficking market generating $200 million in revenue from illicit drugs and leading to overdose deaths of individuals.

This is an action that is water under the bridge. There is nothing that can be done about it now. But if the only thing that can be done is to put it on the public record so that people can be aware that less than 24 hours after this emergency declaration, this drug trafficker was pardoned, I feel like that is an important thing that needs to be made visible to the American public.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise together with my colleagues to speak in opposition to the President's action pardoning those who attacked this Capitol on January 6, 2021.

I was here that day. I shared that day with these colleagues, and we all have memories of it--memories that we never would have imagined and hope never to repeat.

But I am not going to talk about my experiences of the day. I am going to talk about a friend, a Virginian, Howie Liebengood, a Capitol Police officer who spent his career protecting this building and who died as a result of that day.

And the fact that President Trump would pardon the people who attacked this Capitol, leading to Howie Liebengood's death, is a deep, deep stain on President Trump and, frankly, a stain on this body if we casually tolerate it.

Howie Liebengood is a Virginian who grew up in this building. His father was the Sergeant at Arms of the U.S. Senate and, prior to assuming that role, worked in other roles in the Senate. And Howie and his two siblings grew up coming to the Capitol and treating it like it was sort of their playground and their yard--running through the halls, meeting Senators, hearing their dad tell stories about what it was like to serve this article I branch as a patriotic American public servant.

When Howie came of age, he started a career that he enjoyed and worked together with his father for a number of years as a NASCAR driver, and he worked on the NASCAR circuit, kind of working his way up from minor league races to more significant races. But after a number of years of doing that--look, he was a child of the U.S. Senate. He was a child of this Capitol, and he decided that he would enter the training program to be a Capitol Police officer.

And he told his siblings--by this time, his father had passed. He told his siblings: I think my dad would be very, very proud of me.

Howie went through the academy and became a Capitol Police officer, and I came to know him, as I suspect many of my colleagues did, because he usually was staffing the Delaware door at the corner of Delaware and Constitution right here, the Delaware door into the Russell Building. And this is a door that--I know Senator Murray's office is right close to that door. It may be the closest office to that door, and mine is close as well.

We would come in in the morning, and Howie Liebengood would be there to greet us, to ask us a question about the procedural vote from the night before or what was on today. As much as he was a friend of mine, he was even more of a friend of my staff. My staff loved interacting with Howie. And he eventually served as a Capitol Police officer for 15 years.

He was here on January 6 when his beloved Capitol was attacked. And as devastating as that attack was for many of us, for Howie--who had made this place his whole life, who had really been raised in these halls--that attack was very devastating. In the aftermath of the attack, those working on the Capitol Police were put on extended hours, little sleep. Would there be more attacks? Where was this going? What would happen? It was a time of fear and anxiety and confusion.

And a few days later--within 3 days after that attack of January 6-- Howie went to his home in Virginia. His wife Serena asked if he was doing OK. She could tell he was under enormous stress. And he said he just needed to sleep.

And Howie went upstairs and, using his own service revolver, ended his life.

Howie Liebengood would be alive today--Howie Liebengood would be alive today if President Trump hadn't urged people to gather to do something wild in Washington, DC, on January 6, 2021, and then urged those gathering to go up and raise hell at the Capitol. My friend would be alive if President Trump had not done what he did.

I have waited in vain, not naively, but with a hope that there might be some--some--sign of remorse over what happened, for the pain suffered by Serena Liebengood and Howie's siblings and family members, for other law enforcement officers, all of whom lived in Virginia, who lost their lives as a result of that day. Dozens of others were injured.

And I have waited for years to see if there might be some semblance of remorse shown by the President who inspired that attack, for the damage and pain and loss of life and injury that he has caused, and I have seen not a shred of it.

But these pardons are the ultimate injustice, are the ultimate injury. The family is still suffering. For them, it is salt in an unhealed wound and an injury that will never heal.

And so I join with my colleagues, in Howie's memory, in support of Serena, in support of Howie's family, to stand on this floor and deplore as strongly as I can--and words aren't sufficient to really explain how I feel about this, but I stand here to deplore as strongly as I can the pardons of these lawbreakers who gathered for a particular time, at a particular moment, in a particular place to conduct violence in the cause of a particular result: the overturning of the peaceful transfer of power.

And as I sit down, Mr. President, I will just say this: I lived in a military dictatorship in 1980 and 1981 in Honduras when the military ran everything. I know what authoritarianism is. I didn't live there for years like my Honduran friends, but I experienced it. I was very naive. I was 22 years old when I lived there, and I saw what it is like to have a society run by somebody who believes they are all-powerful, who can change any rule, who can foment violence, who can make sure that those who commit violence escape with impunity. I know what this is like, and we are in danger of moving into the same kind of authoritarian behavior when we casually pardon and excuse those who perpetrate violence to overturn our democracy. That is a big concept, but it all comes down to the effect that it has on individual people like my friend Howie Liebengood.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am honored to be with my colleagues on the floor to talk about the actions that have become very manifest in Virginia today because of the President's Executive orders, particularly the recent order pausing Federal funding--grant funding, program funding.

I want to thank my colleagues for being here on the floor to talk about this and share just in the last 24 hours what Virginians are saying and what Virginians are asking and what Virginians are worried about. Then I want to make one point about my Federal workforce and an offer the President made to them at the end of the day and then finally raise a question of what President Trump is afraid of.

President Trump has two Republican Houses. If he wants to do something to shrink the size of government, if he wants to do something to reduce spending here or there, we have a March 14

budget deadline, and he has two Republican Houses, and there is a way to do this--unless you are afraid that your Republican majorities don't want to go as far as you do in cutting Medicaid and cutting Medicare and endangering Social Security and hurting kids and hurting veterans and hurting families.

Let me talk about the orders of the day and then the Federal workforce and finish with this question: What is President Trump afraid of?

I started to hear from Virginians about this Federal funding pause yesterday. I was at an event in Fredericksburg to kick off tax season. The local United Way and chamber of commerce were initiating something they have done for 21 years in a row--volunteer tax assistance for low- and middle-income folks. It is a classic community program. A lot of volunteers help everyday folks figure out how to file their taxes and make sure they can get benefits they are entitled to.

As I was at this kickoff, people came up to me and said: Hey, I am a veteran. I am trying to get an appointment at a VA hospital or clinic, but the VA portal is closed to me. What is going on?

What is going on? This was the leading edge of this chaos.

Someone else came to me at this kind of good-news event about volunteer tax assistance and said: The Federal Government has paid to build a VA clinic in Fredericksburg--state-of-the-art, right on Interstate 95, visible to all, scheduled to open in February. We are still being told that the grand opening is going to happen, but now those working there are saying they are under a hiring freeze. We spent tens of millions of dollars to build this facility that looks great, but we are under a hiring freeze. Can we even hire people to serve the veterans in this region?

This was how it started.

From then to today, let me tell you other calls of anguish we have received in our office. Two childcare centers, one in the Williamsburg area and one in Appalachia, far, far away in southwest Virginia: We think our funding is being cut off. We think we may not have enough to pay staff. We also think parents who are receiving some childcare funding--that may get cut off. So neither they can afford childcare, nor can we afford to maintain the employment of these hard-working childcare workers in childcare centers.

Universities reached out to me today: We are doing cutting-edge medical research. We have contracts that are ongoing right now, and we are about to send a bill to the Federal Government because we do the work and then we submit bills. We are not sure it is going to be paid. What do we do--lay off the researchers and not get the research done? What should we do, Senator?

There is an organization in Virginia called the Virginia Health Care Foundation. What they do is they help low-income people and seniors apply for Medicaid, apply for Affordable Care Act subsidies. They have a contract with CMS to help them hire eight staffers--they call them navigators--who work around the State helping low-income people access programs to which they are entitled, for which they have paid taxes.

They received a note suggesting that that grant to hire these navigators to help everyday people was going to expire and they couldn't get any Federal funding after 5 today. They heard this late yesterday. So they did what any good organization would do. They reached out this morning to the CMS to say ``Please give us the payment right now, before 5 o'clock today,'' and what they got back from CMS was ``Sorry, our website is down. We just decided that today will be the day that we will just spend time repairing our website, and it will be open again soon''--open again soon but after the 5 o'clock deadline.

You don't have to be a genius to figure this out. Hurting people getting health insurance. Hurting people trying to get Medicaid benefits. Hurting childcare centers. Hurting veterans trying to get appointments. Hurting a VA clinic we spent tens of millions of dollars to build by threatening, through a hiring freeze, the ability of this place to open.

That is just a little snapshot. There was an earlier order freezing foreign assistance funding. A whole lot of nonprofits, church-based nonprofits like World Vision and other organizations that do foreign assistance work around the world--humanitarian aid in Ukraine, for example--they were told they don't get funding anymore. The only foreign assistance we will give, according to the Trump Executive order, is military armaments transfers to two countries in world: Egypt and Israel. No humanitarian aid. No transfer of military assistance to other nations.

This is all on the say-so of a President trying to overturn existing appropriations bills that have been passed by a bipartisan Congress.

If I heard these stories in 1 day and my colleagues have heard these stories in 1 day, I know what I am going to hear tomorrow. I know what I am going to hear through the weekend. This is going to build like an avalanche, and it is not just Democratic Senators who are hearing these stories.

We have to respect the law and congressional appropriations.

I ask anyone hearing who is concerned about this: If you are in Virginia, call my office. If you are not in Virginia, call your Congress man or woman, call your Senator and tell them the President is not above the law, the President must follow the law, and it is Congress--Democrats and Republicans--that has to ensure that the President follows the law.

Second, I want to talk about Federal employees. The Federal employees received an interesting email at the end of the day today. I happen to have some fellows assigned to me who are not Senate employees, but they are executive branch employees, as most of us have, working in my office. They received an email from the administration that said: If you tender your resignation by next Friday, we will guarantee you payment through the end of September whether or not you show up for work.

So tender your resignation and then, boy, it is just going to be a gravy train. You are just going to get paid for 7 months without working.

The President has no authority to make that offer. There is no budget line item to pay people who are not showing up for work. This is a guy who made this promise to contractors again and again and again when he was a private business guy: Oh, come work for me at my casino. Come work for me in a hotel. We are going to do a handshake. We are going to do a contract.

The contractor does the work and then finds out they get stiffed.

So my message to Federal employees who received this is, yeah, the President has tried to terrorize you for about a week and then gives you a little sweetheart offer: If you resign in the next week, we are just going to pay you for doing nothing for the next 7 months.

Don't be fooled. He has tricked hundreds of people with that offer. If you accept that offer and resign, he will stiff you just like he stiffed the contractors. He doesn't have any authority to do this.

Do not be fooled by this guy. You were here before he was here, and you will be here after he was here. Show up for work. Be diligent. Serve Americans every day. Make their lives better. Answer their phone calls. Give them an answer. Track down their constituent's calls. Don't be fooled by a fake offer that, because he has terrorized you in the last week, it would be easy to just resign now and get a check for 7 months because I can tell you, that promise is worth nothing. And you will regret it just like these contractors regretted it who did work for this guy while he was a businessman.

Finally and lastly, I will say this: What is this move by the President to try to shrink the Federal workforce? Because we all know this: If he can persuade a bunch of people to resign, he will stiff them, and then he won't fill the position.

OK. That is one way to shrink the Federal workforce: If I can get away with not distributing money pursuant to a congressional appropriation, OK, that will shrink the Federal budget.

But wait a minute. Wait a minute. The President has two Republican Houses. We are supposed to come up with a budget deal by March 14. What is today? Is it, like, the 25th, 26th, 27th? Is it the 28th? Is today January 28? Do you think I am right? March 14 isn't very far away. We are supposed to come up with a budget deal by March 14, and the President is sitting in the captain's seat. He has got two Republican Houses. So if he wants to slash

Federal spending, if he wants to reduce the Federal workforce, if he wants to gut Medicaid, gut Medicare, gut Social Security, gut the SNAP program, gut low-income heating assistance, gut rental assistance, gut title I funding to our public schools, guess what? He has got two Republican Houses that he can persuade to do his bidding. He has been pretty good so far at persuading these two Houses to do his bidding.

So why didn't he do that? That would be the lawful way to accomplish that. If President Trump could convince the two Houses to slash all of these programs in a budget, that would be lawful and get an appropriations deal that cuts all of these programs the way he and Russell Vought and Project 2025 want to do it.

But that is not what he is doing. He is trying to do it on his own. Why? Why would President Trump, who has a clearly legal path ahead of him that he can exercise over the course of the next 6 weeks--it is not very long--to get a budget deal with two Republican Houses--why would President Trump, with two Republican Houses and 6 weeks to get a budget deal to do everything he wants--why would he not exercise that route but, instead, use an illegal route as an Executive to slash funding contrary to clear statute?

It is because he doesn't think that elected Republican Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate will go along with his radical plans. He doesn't think he can convince my GOP colleagues to take the ax to all of these programs and hurt the American people in the way he wants to.

Let's make President Trump do this the right way, not the wrong way. Let's put it on the shoulders of President Trump and the two Republican majorities. Do you want to slash this stuff? Fine. Have that debate on the floor of the Senate and on the floor of the House when we are doing the budget negotiation between now and March 14. Show the American public your homework. Show them who is going to get hurt. Show them that we are going to hurt everyday people at the expense of the big guys, who are getting a tax cut in the reconciliation bill later. Let's really have that debate right here in the full view of the American public with these spotlights on and the TV broadcasting it.

That is what this President is afraid of, and that is why he is using this illegal strategy to accomplish what he is afraid he can't accomplish in the article I branch.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to talk about the pending matter of the Pete Hegseth nomination to be Secretary of Defense.

Before I get into the bulk of my comments, I want to just state my own record in terms of votes for the Secretary of Defense as a member of the Armed Services Committee. This administration is the fourth Presidential administration I have been part of. I was elected with the second Obama administration, then served in the first Trump administration, then the Biden administration, and now a second Trump administration. As to my track record as an Armed Services Committee member and as a Member of this body, I voted for every Secretary of Defense nomination before the body.

In focusing on the Trump nominees, President Trump nominated General Mattis to be Secretary of Defense. I voted for him in committee. I voted for him on the floor, and he received a 98-to-1 vote with 1 abstention when he was before us in 2017. Secretary Mattis served during a portion of President Trump's term and then stepped down, and President Trump nominated Mark Esper, who had been the Secretary of the Army, to succeed General Mattis.

A Trump administration nominee paid me the honor of asking if I would introduce him before the Armed Services Committee, and I did. He is a Virginian. I had worked with Secretary Esper when he was the Army Secretary on military housing issues. He had been responsive and professional. So I said: Sure. You are President Trump's nominee, but I am going to introduce you before the committee.

Secretary Esper was approved in the committee--I think unanimously-- and the vote on the floor for Secretary Esper was 90-8-2.

I bring that up just to say it is not my desire or norm to stand on the floor and speak in opposition to a nominee for Secretary of Defense or to speak in opposition to a nominee by President Trump for Secretary of Defense.

I spoke the other day--probably 2 days ago--here about why I am opposing Pete Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense. What I want to focus on today is his claim. I know my colleagues have been on the floor all day long explaining their own reasons for their opposition to Pete Hegseth, but I want to just really drill down on what Pete Hegseth is saying about the allegations that folks are making against him.

This was pretty apparent in the committee hearing a week ago Tuesday, and it has been consistent since. It was most clear in a recitation that he had back and forth with Senator Kelly of Arizona.

Senator Kelly asked him: I am just going to ask you really simple questions. Here is an event that someone says you participated in; true or false?

Again and again and again, what Pete Hegseth said was ``anonymous smears.'' He didn't say ``false'' because if you say ``false'' to something that you have done, it could verge on perjury. He didn't say ``true'' because if you say ``true'' to these kinds of allegations, it could be disqualifying.

So it was a very interesting litany where, again and again and again, Senator Kelly said: Here is an event; true or false?

``Anonymous smears.''

``Anonymous smears'' was a very, very sophisticated way of not answering the question. Yet, even as I examined Pete Hegseth about marital infidelity and about a sexual assault allegation against him that led him to make a payout to the complainant, about allegations of spousal abuse, again and again, what he said was ``anonymous smears.''

So what I want to do during my time today, since I have already laid out sort of my bill of particulars about why I am not supporting his nomination, I want to focus on this: The claims that have been made against Pete Hegseth are not anonymous, and they are not smears. They are not anonymous, and they are not smears.

Let me start with ``not anonymous.''

To begin with, many of the claims are claims that have been admitted by Pete Hegseth. So let's start with the man himself. He has admitted serial infidelity in both of his first two marriages. He told me at the committee hearing that he took an oath of fidelity to his wife, but he admitted to serial infidelity. That is not an irrelevant factor when we are analyzing whether someone who takes an oath to become Secretary of Defense is able to carry out that oath.

Pete Hegseth admitted as recently as yesterday that he made a payout to somebody who charged him with a sexual assault. There was an incident in Monterey in September of 2017 that led to a criminal sexual assault complaint and a criminal investigation. It did not lead to criminal charges, but it did lead to a civil charge and a settlement and a payout and a nondisclosure agreement. He has admitted to all of that. He claims it was a consensual event, and the victim claims it was a sexual assault, but as to the fact of the interaction and the fact that it was both cheating on an existing wife and also on the mother of a newborn child, he has admitted to all of that. It is not an anonymous claim when Pete Hegseth has admitted to this.

Second, it is not anonymous what Pete Hegseth's mother wrote to him. Pete Hegseth was in the middle of a very contentious divorce from his second wife, Samantha, in 2018, and he received a most extraordinary email from his mother. This is not anonymous, and I want to read the email. It is an extraordinary bit of tough love from a mom to a son.

Son, I have tried to keep quiet about your character and

behavior, but after listening to the way you made Samantha

feel today, I cannot stay silent. And as a woman and your

mother I feel I must speak out.

You are an abuser of women--that is the ugly truth and I

have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats,

sleeps around, and uses women for his own power and ego. You

are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother, it

pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad,

sad truth.

I am not a saint, far from it, so don't throw that in my

face, but your abuse over the years to women (dishonesty,

sleeping around, betrayal, debasing, belittling) needs to be

called out.

Sam is a good mother and a good person (under the

circumstances that you created) and I know deep down you know

that. For you to try to label her as ``unstable'' for your

own advantage is despicable and abusive. Is there any sense

of decency left in you? She did not ask for or deserve any of

what has come to her by your hand. Neither did Meredith.

Meredith was the first wife.

I know you think this is one big competition and that we

have taken her side . . . bunk. . . . We are on the side of

good and that is not you. (Go ahead and call me self-

righteous, I don't care.) Don't you dare run to her and cry

foul that we shared with us. . . . That's what babies do.

It's time for someone--

Someone--

(I wish it was a strong man) to stand up to your abusive

behavior and call it out, especially against women.

We still love you, but we are broken by your behavior and

lack of character. I don't want to write emails like this and

never thought I would. If it damages our relationship

further, then so be it, but at least I have said my piece.

And yes, we are praying for you (and you don't deserve to

know how we are praying, so skip the snarky reply).

I don't want an answer to this . . . I don't want to debate

with you. You twist and abuse everything I say anyway. But .

. . on behalf of all the women (and I know it's many) you

have abused in some way, I say . . . get some help and take

an honest look at yourself . . . Mom.

This is not an anonymous smear. I know a little bit about a mother's love. I know a little bit about a mother's tough love. This is not an anonymous smear, but it is an extraordinary, painful, candid rebuke.

Why do I have this letter? This is not a letter that anyone in this body had. This is a letter that appeared in a newspaper about a month ago. The only people who would have had this email are family, the people closest in

the world to Pete Hegseth. No one else would have seen this. No one else would have had it. No one else could have read it on the floor of the Senate unless someone very close to Pete Hegseth--a member of his immediate family--decided years after it was written that a man nominated to be Secretary of Defense whose character had led his own mother to write this letter--that this is a fact that should be put before the public in analyzing the character and qualifications of this individual--not anonymous.

Pete Hegseth's former sister-in-law Danielle Hegseth, who had been married to his brother Nathaniel, submitted an affidavit that is in the Senate records, which is available to all of my colleagues, and all have read this affidavit or made a decision that they didn't want to read it, but it is available to all of us.

The affidavit that Danielle has written about the treatment that was referred to by his mother in this letter is completely consistent with what the mother says. The mother wrote this. It is now public. Danielle has signed an affidavit about it. It is now public, and it is completely consistent with what the mother said. Danielle Hegseth is not anonymous.

There is a whistleblower report that is available to all Senate Members. I read it 10 days ago. It is for Members only, but it is available to all hundred of us, and I hope all of my colleagues have read it. It would be a huge mistake to vote on this nomination not having read that whistleblower report.

What does the whistleblower report involve? It is anything but anonymous. It is a report that was generated years ago when Pete Hegseth was the leader of an organization called Concerned Veterans for America. It wasn't created for this hearing. It wasn't created because of a Secretary of Defense nomination. It was created by disgruntled employees in an organization that Pete Hegseth was leading. It is a seven-page, single-spaced whistleblower report.

Again, I have to say it is anything but anonymous. In fact, it mentions, by my count, 36 names of individuals connected with Concerned Veterans for America and multiple events of improper behavior by Pete Hegseth as the leader: being at work events impaired by alcohol, creating a toxic work culture that led to the sexual harassment of women employees, repeated instances of unprofessional behavior, and fiscal mismanagement of the organization.

I know that Pete Hegseth calls that ``anonymous smears.'' But when you read this 6-page document--and, again, I just want to say to any public watching this: The Senators in this body have all had access to it. So if you see somebody like Pete Hegseth saying it is an ``anonymous smear''--no, the Members of this body have all had access to Danielle Hegseth's affidavit, to Pete Hegseth's admissions, to the mother's letters, and to a whistleblower report with 36 names in it attesting to a variety of unprofessional behaviors. That document was provided to Mr. Hegseth and his attorney, and they submitted a response.

But by my read of the document, they could not get a single individual whose name is mentioned to challenge or retract any of the statements that are made in the document. This is anything but anonymous.

Again, all Members have seen this. All Members have had access to it. These are not anonymous claims. They are on-the-record claims by people very close to this man, including in a most unusual way, his own mother.

Now, I will acknowledge this: There are some who have come forward who are anonymous. I have to acknowledge that. They are anonymous because they are afraid.

I have had extensive conversations with a close personal friend of the second wife who has told me things that are directly supportive of the public materials contained in the mother's letter and in the Danielle Hegseth affidavit.

I don't know that he knows Danielle, but what he told me is completely consistent with Danielle Hegseth's allegations that Pete Hegseth was abusive to his second wife. But this individual is afraid to come forward and have his name mentioned because he believes that, if his name was mentioned, he would be subject to abuse and potentially violence.

I have spoken to a close friend of Jane Doe, the complainant in the sexual assault allegation and the sexual assault civil complaint and settlement, with direct knowledge of this. She has told me a number of things that confirm the public reporting about the sexual assault allegation, but she is afraid, for her own physical safety, to come forward.

And I have spoken to one of the individuals whose name is mentioned, among the 36 whose names are mentioned, in the whistleblower report, who participated in putting it together years ago, who was able to give some texture and context to this report that all Members have had access to. She expressed a willingness to speak to the FBI about it. She doesn't want to come forward publicly because she is afraid, but she expressed a willingness. Mr. President, get this: She expressed a willingness weeks ago to talk to the FBI about the whistleblower report, which they had.

And as of 2 hours ago, the FBI has not been in contact with a single individual whose name is mentioned in this whistleblower report.

Now, we already know that the FBI, in their initial investigation, did not reach out to either of the wives--wife one and wife two. They didn't reach out.

I haven't seen the FBI report. I am not allowed to see it. It is only accessible by our committee chair and ranking. But I asked Senator Reed: Was there any reference to it? Was there any evidence that either of the first wives were interviewed?

I mean, you had the letter from the mother. Why wouldn't you go talk to the wives about the behavior? The FBI didn't talk to the first or second wife. They had to go back and do an interview, after we brought that up that they hadn't even done it. They did a cursory interview about Mr. Hegseth's drinking but didn't ask him about the abuse allegations.

But as of 2 hours ago, the FBI still has not reached out to a single person whose name is contained as someone with knowledge about the whistleblower report and the activities of Mr. Hegseth when he was the CEO or the lead executive of Concerned Veterans for America.

I am saddened that a friend of wife two, that a friend of Jane Doe, that somebody who is a whistleblower is so physically afraid to come forward and say what they know because of fears of violence against them. That makes me sad. But I will stake my reputation on this: What they have told me is a direct match and an affirmation of the material contained in the public accounts from the mother, from Pete Hegseth's own admissions, from the sexual assault facts that we know, and from the Danielle Hegseth affidavit.

I have taken some time to go over this to show that the material that this body is considering is not anonymous, and now I want to turn to the second. It is not a smear.

The Pete Hegseth allegation seems to be that this is all created at the last minute to try to derail him from being Secretary of Defense, and, in that way, it is a smear. It wouldn't be further from the truth.

The sexual assault claim happened years ago. It was not created to try to stop Pete.

The whistleblower report was written more than a decade ago. It was not written to stop Pete Hegseth from being Secretary of Defense.

Pete Hegseth has admitted to serial infidelity years ago. Those allegations were not brought up to stop Pete Hegseth from being Secretary of Defense.

And, finally, this letter from Pete Hegseth's mother, it was sent years ago, and it wasn't sent to stop Pete Hegseth from being Secretary of Defense. It was sent, as his own mother has recently stated in media interviews, as a message of love. This painful, painful email was sent to her son as a message of love.

None of this material was a smear. None of this material was created once Pete Hegseth was nominated to be Secretary of Defense to try to stop him. This material has been around for many, many years and was created contemporaneously with abuse that he was visiting upon others because people were trying to stop him. They were trying to stop him as a message of love. They were praying for him. They

were encouraging him to look in the mirror and improve. Yet he says this is all a smear.

That is not the case. They are not smears. They are clear and consistent and contemporaneous reports of the behavior, judgment, impulse control, and character of this nominee for the most important Cabinet position that any President will forward to the U.S. Senate.

I am going to conclude and just say this: We can do better. As a nation, we can do better. As a U.S. Senate, we can do better. Supporters of President Trump can do better. Members of the military can do better. Veterans can do better. Blue Star families--I am one. My kid is a Marine reservist. We can do better.

We need to do better. We need to do better by our Active Duty. We need to do better by our Guard and Reserve. We need to do better by DOD civilians. We need to do better by military families. We need to do better by defense contractors. We need to do better by all who care about the important mission of the American military. And we can do better.

Mr. President, you and I both know this: There are so many good public officials who have aligned on the Republican side, who have supported President Trump, who have their own credentials.

In this body--I could name a bunch, but I am worried I would forget one and then get in trouble with one of the ones I don't name. But in this body, there are Senators who have served honorably in the military and are well qualified for the position of Secretary of Defense.

In the House, there are Members who are loyal to this President who have served honorably in the military and are qualified to be Secretary of Defense.

We have Governors, we have mayors, we have leaders of companies who have supported this President and are loyal to his agenda and could get a 90-8-2 vote, like Mark Esper did, or a 98-to-1 vote, like General Mattis did, and would be loyal to this President and carry out this President's agenda.

They are there. There are hundreds of them without the personal baggage of sexual assault claims that have been settled, of allegations of spousal abuse that have been testified to, of allegations of drunkenness on the job and fiscal mismanagement that are the subject of a very extensive report written by non-anonymous coworkers.

So as we near the vote for this most important position, my plea to my colleagues, as one who has supported every Secretary of Defense who has ever come before my committee--Democrat or Republican--is don't rush this and make a mistake.

No one in this room, should this break badly following the confirmation, could say: Well, I didn't know. I didn't know.

Everyone knows. Everyone has access to this material. Everyone knows the risk we would be undertaking in confirming Pete Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense. There will be no place--no shelter, no refuge--of ``Wow, I was unaware of this.''

But, more importantly than that, we all know people right in this Chamber who are qualified by background, who are qualified by credential, but, most importantly, who are qualified by character to undertake this most solemn responsibility.

Let's get this one right. Let's take the time and get this one right.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise as a member of the Armed Services Committee to discuss the nomination of Pete Hegseth to be our Nation's Secretary of Defense.

Let me make two preliminary comments.

First, my philosophy about voting on nominees is to give deference to the President who has been elected, who has a mandate that carries with it a mandate to assemble a leadership team in executive positions, and so I always begin, with any President, Democrat or Republican, with a beginning standpoint that they should be able to assemble a team unless there are significant challenges with a nominee.

Second, I do want to say that as part of the work I have done in examining this nominee, I did review his military record, and I express my respect for the military record. Pete Hegseth's service in the military, in my review of those Pentagon records, suggested that he served in a very honorable way, and I want to acknowledge that.

Yet I rise to oppose the nomination and urge my colleagues to oppose it or at least take the time to really understand the gravity of the behavioral challenges that have been demonstrated by Mr. Hegseth during his career. I have multiple problems with this nominee for this position, and this position, Secretary of Defense, is the position that I view and many Virginians view as the most important Cabinet post. Let me review the reasons for my opposition.

First, Mr. Hegseth's record is one of erratic, unprofessional, and troubling behavior.

Mr. Hegseth was married twice before he was married to his current wife, his third wife. In the first two marriages, there were allegations in both of serious and multiple infidelities. I asked him at the hearing, when he appeared before us, whether he took an oath of fidelity to his spouses, and of course he did, in the same way that a Secretary of Defense will take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, but the evidence that was before us, the public record that was before us, is very, very troubling.

In Mr. Hegseth's first marriage, there were public reports that he was unfaithful to his wife at least five different times with multiple other people. He never rebutted that, and because he wouldn't meet with members of the committee on the Democratic side, we didn't get a chance to talk about that in a closed setting, which would have been most important.

In his second marriage, he was married and, while married, fathered a child by a woman who would become his third wife in August of 2017. So he was still married to wife No. 2 and cheated on her with the woman who would bear his child and become wife No. 3. But in a very shocking way, to me, within 2 months after the birth of this child, he was at a Republican political event at a hotel in Monterey, CA, and he cheated on both his second wife and the mother of his newborn in an incident that led to a sexual assault criminal investigation.

This behavior--look, people are people, and people make mistakes, but a first marriage breaking up over serial infidelity and then a second marriage also bedeviled by serial infidelity is something that has to call up questions about an individual's judgment.

Mr. Hegseth has been the leader of two nonprofit organizations that are veterans service organizations. In one of the organizations, Concerned Veterans for America, during the time he was the CEO, an employee of the organization wrote a scathing report about Mr. Hegseth's creating a toxic work culture in this environment where impairment by alcohol was not only exhibited by him but tolerated in others and where there was a significant creation of a toxic work environment for women employees.

The committee members have had access to a report that was not done because he was nominated for Secretary of Defense; this was a report that was done by employees and given to the leaders of this organization at the time--now nearly 10 years ago--with about 35 names of employees and individuals in the organization with knowledge of the facts and recitation of event after event after event where people were treated unfairly. Women were made to feel that they were second class in the organization, and alcohol abuse was common at workplace events.

I referenced a sexual assault claim in Monterey, and I will call it an undisclosed sexual assault claim because Mr. Hegseth never told the Trump transition team about this event when he was being considered and vetted to be Secretary of Defense.

Again, he is married to wife 2. He has now fathered a child by a woman, being unfaithful in that wedding, and within 2 months after fathering a child, he goes to an event in Monterey, CA, gets a woman at the event into his hotel room, and has sex with her. She claims she was drugged and raped and filed a criminal complaint about it with local law enforcement within days after the event. He admits the event. He says it was consensual--not a sexual assault, rape, but consensual--but he acknowledges that it occurred.

What then happened is that the survivor went to local law enforcement and filed a sexual assault claim. The claim was investigated over a period of time. The prosecutor ultimately decided not to pursue criminal charges against Mr. Hegseth, but there was a civil claim as well that later led to a settlement with the victim, a payment of cash to the victim, and the entrance into a nondisclosure agreement with the victim.

None of this was disclosed to the Trump team as they were examining Mr. Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense. He didn't disclose the event. He didn't disclose the criminal sexual assault claim. He didn't disclose the fact of an investigation. He didn't disclose the civil claim. He didn't disclose the settlement. He didn't disclose the cash payment. He didn't disclose the nondisclosure agreement. He hid all of it from the Trump transition team.

When I asked him why, he didn't really have an answer, and I told him:

I know the reason why. You were worried that if you told them about this, they would not nominate you to be Secretary of Defense.

The relationship between a Secretary of Defense and a President is a very important relationship that demands complete candor. There is always some challenge. There is always something at the Pentagon that might be going wrong. Mr. Hegseth demonstrated at a very critical moment that he would not let the President-elect know about this fact because he wanted to advance himself and he worried that if he was candid, it would cause problems for him.

I don't want a Secretary of Defense who is unwilling to be candid with the Commander in Chief, and he has already demonstrated grave reason to doubt whether he will be candid by his refusing to disclose the reality of this sexual assault allegation in Monterey.

An affidavit was filed yesterday by one Danielle Hegseth, the former sister-in-law of the nominee, revealing publicly facts suggesting spousal abuse in Mr. Hegseth's second marriage. I don't know Danielle Hegseth. I haven't talked to her. I was not aware of that allegation. But it didn't surprise anyone on the committee who had reviewed the record. Why not? Because there are already facts in the record raising this very question. In fact, I asked Mr. Hegseth about it at the Armed Services Committee.

During his second divorce, his own mother wrote him a letter saying essentially: You are a serial abuser of women, including your own two wives, and you need to look in the mirror, get some help, and figure this out. His mother even used the phrase ``neither X nor Y''--the names of the first two wives--``deserved the treatment they have received at your hand.''

All of the committee members had access to that before the hearing-- all of them. What an extraordinary letter--your mother writing you a letter saying you are a serial abuser of women who needs to look in the mirror and get help and saying that the two wives that you have abused do not deserve the treatment they have received at your hand.

So the allegation from Danielle Hegseth yesterday in reporting her observations of Mr. Hegseth's behavior and in particular the abuse of her sister-in-law have to be given some credence by this committee, and we have to avoid a rush that we may regret.

I found it very unusual that when I asked Mr. Hegseth at the hearing if a sexual assault would be disqualifying to be Secretary of Defense, he would not agree with me; if spousal abuse would be disqualifying to be Secretary of Defense, he would not agree with me; if being impaired by alcohol while on the job would be disqualifying to be Secretary of Defense, he would not agree with me. These are not hard questions. They are clearly disqualifying behaviors, and the fact that he would not agree that they were disqualifying behaviors suggested to me, as I was watching that testimony, that they evinced a little bit of a guilty conscience. Why would I want to agree if I have concerns about my own behavior?

What has been Mr. Hegseth's response to allegations of infidelity, demonstrating poor judgment, the creation of a toxic work culture, alcohol impairment while at work, this undisclosed sexual assault claim, and the allegations of spousal abuse? What has his response been? His response has been twofold: complete denial--complete denial-- with the exception of acknowledging that, yes, he did cheat on his wife and the mother of a newborn child in Monterey, CA, in September 2017. He has denied everything else even though the record is replete with specific instances at specific times with specific individuals attesting to these behaviors.

His other defense is to claim that all of this--all of it--is an anonymous smear--an anonymous smear. Let me tell my colleagues: This is anything but anonymous. When your own mother writes you a letter saying you are a serial abuser of women, including your two wives, and they don't deserve the treatment they have received at your hand, that is not anonymous.

The report of the whistleblower at the Concerned Veterans for America organization a decade ago is anything but anonymous. The report listed--I counted them--incidents involving 36 named individuals who had been either participating in, victimized by, witnessing, or aware of the incidents described in the document.

This is not anonymous. Danielle Hegseth's public affidavit is not anonymous.

The one thing that I will acknowledge that is in the anonymous space is this: the number of individuals who have come forth and shared with me and other members of the committee their own firsthand knowledge of similar events but said you can't use my name because I am so afraid. I am afraid of what Mr. Hegseth would do. I am afraid of what the President might do.

I had someone say to me, when I said you needn't be afraid: That is easy for you to say. That is easy for you to say. If the building, the U.S. Capitol, where you work, could be attacked by people when it was well fortified and secure, what chance would I have if someone didn't like the fact that I publicly criticized this nominee?

So, yes, there are some who are speaking to us who are asking for anonymity and that, if they have asked for it, they should be provided it. But there are many who have spoken either directly via affidavit or in records that are available to all committee members and all Senators who are anything but anonymous.

I would urge my colleagues and not just the Armed Services Committee members to go and read the documents that are available to you. Before you cast your vote, set your feet in stone about a nominee, you should see these documents.

I want to go back to one point that I made that I think is telling, and that is Mr. Hegseth's refusal to disclose these facts to the Trump transition team. It is one thing to not disclose them to the committee; it is one thing to refuse to meet with the committee--I will get to that in a second--but when the President-elect, who is going to be the Commander in Chief, is vetting you for the most important Cabinet position in the United States and you know you have been charged with a sexual assault that led to a criminal investigation, a civil settlement, a cash payment, and nondisclosure agreement, and you choose not to reveal it to the President, in my view, that, in and of itself, should be disqualifying. The level of disrespect that that shows for the President-elect, in my view, should be disqualifying.

Let me conclude with a couple of other points. The main point is the pattern of behavior, which should make anyone wary to vote for Mr. Hegseth for Secretary of Defense. But there are a couple of other points I want to mention.

Mr. Hegseth, I think, sort of, set a very unfortunate precedent. I have been on the Armed Services Committee. I have sat side by side with my colleague Senator King on that committee since we came to the Senate in January of 2013. I have now participated in confirmation hearings for about five Secretaries of Defense, both Democratic and Republican nominees. Mr. Hegseth is the only one who refused to meet with Democratic members of the committee, save for the chairman, Jack Reed. He met with the Republican committee members. But all of us were trying to set meetings with him, as has been our norm, so that we could talk to him about these issues and ask him questions privately in our office. Some of these matters are, frankly, probably better for private discussion than public discussion. But he stiff-armed every one of us except for Jack Reed.

In some ways, maybe it is not a surprise. This is an individual who has written books and articles where he said Democrats are evil; Democrats are the adversary. But if you are nominated to be Secretary of Defense of the Pentagon, it is a nonpolitical military. It is a civilian military that should not be politicized. And if you begin the job by saying I needn't even sit down and pay the respective a meeting with Democratic Senators, what about Democrats who serve in the military or Independents or Libertarians, or people who don't share Mr. Hegseth's party affiliation?

What does it say to the men and women who work for our military when he wouldn't even pay the respect paid by every predecessor when they would meet with Senators of both parties before the hearing?

I was very disturbed the other day when we had a committee hearing to forward Mr. Hegseth's nomination, and the Republican majority asked for a waiver to forward it faster than rules allow. That waiver can be granted if the committee votes to do so. One of my colleagues, Senator Warner, said to the Republicans: Wait, you are asking us to waive normal rules. We don't want to waive normal rules to speed this along. He wouldn't even meet with us.

I thought that was a pretty compelling argument. I understand if Mr. Hegseth has no respect for the Senators in this body who are Democrats, that is one thing, but I would expect my Senate colleagues to have some respect for us.

I have served with members of this committee on the Republican side. Some have been there the entire 12 years I have been there. I didn't think they would tolerate a nominee stiff-arming me.

If there was a Democratic nominee for Secretary of Defense who refused to meet with Republican members of the committee, I would raise heck about that publicly in the committee and threaten to block the nominee until he met with the Republican members of the committee. I know Senator King would do the same thing.

Democrats would do the same thing. We would not tolerate a nominee stiff-arming one side of the dais and refusing to meet with us. We wouldn't tolerate it.

I was shocked that my Republican colleagues, in a closed meeting 2 days ago, demonstrated that they are just fine with that.

This is my favorite committee in the Senate. We work very cooperatively in a bipartisan way. And that my Republican colleagues are perfectly fine with us being disrespected because we happen to be Democrats, who our citizens elected us to serve in the U.S. Senate, is very, very shocking to me.

One other point that I want to bring up. I have revealed much material that is in the record and that other Senators can view for themselves. But I have to say, in looking at the investigation record, which was compiled largely by the FBI, it was very, very weak.

The FBI went out to do an investigation of Mr. Hegseth. The report was made available to the chair and the ranking member, not to the members of the committee. We haven't seen the report. But we have been able to ask questions of the chair and ranking about it.

The allegations that I have walked through, which are largely public record, the FBI didn't even interview the wives. Even after a mother's letter had said that you are a serial abuser of women, including your two wives, the FBI did not even go out and interview the wives.

Why not? I mean, was it an investigation or just like a box-checking exercise?

A number of us, when we heard that, we sort of raised hell about it; like, if you are going to do an investigation, talk to the people who know the nominee the best, then the two wives are people you ought to talk to.

We embarrassed the FBI. So after the fact, they went out and did a very cursory discussion with one of the wives. Again, I have not seen that material. I have not been allowed to see it. That should, itself, shock my colleagues and the public. But I have confirmed, in speaking about it with the ranking and chair, that the interview with the wife was very cursory and covered one set of topics but left many of the questions that I have raised here completely unanswered and unaddressed.

A nominee to be Secretary of Defense is going to have enormous power over the physical safety of Americans and over peace, war, and diplomacy in the world. Aren't we, as Senators, exercising our advice and consent role, entitled to a background investigation that is meaningful, that is searching, and that is comprehensive? Are we supposed to just be given some half work product and say: OK, that is great. Let's just rush to confirm somebody?

We shouldn't be confirming a person on an insufficient background check if they didn't have all of these acknowledged problems that are part of the public record. But when they are part of the public record, when the FBI finds out that, wow, you didn't tell the transition team about the sexual assault claim, the investigation should be thorough, not mediocre and cursory.

So I am going to conclude and just say this may not be the last time I appear on the floor to speak on this nomination, but, for now, my request of my colleagues is a simple one: Why rush? Why rush? Why would we rush to put through a nomination for a position of this importance that is frayed with so much baggage and so much evidence of glaring character and judgment errors?

Do we want to have egg on our face? Do we want to rush and have this blow up later? Do we want to rush and have other witnesses come out, as Danielle Hegseth did yesterday? Is that what the Senate's advice and consent process, mandated by the Constitution for a very important reason, has come to--a cursory investigation that doesn't get to the underlying facts, even when they are sitting right out there before us, and we are going to rush to confirm someone? For what reason?

So, as I sit down, I will just conclude with that question: Why rush this? Let's take the time. And when we cast a vote on confirmation, cast it with the confidence that we have complete information about the man who has been nominated to be our Secretary of Defense.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jermaine Jackson, Julia Burnell, Steven Ramdilal, and Tracy Fasolino, who are fellows in my office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of their assignments to my office.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues on the same topic to talk about the forthcoming debate that we will have about tax policies in this Chamber. Since coming to Congress--really before, when I was a mayor and Governor--I advocated for smart, simple pro-growth and pro- family tax reform. Taxes should be fair. They should be consistent. They should be predictable. And they should generate the revenue that America needs to fund Social Security, Medicare, education, roads, national security, and the other critical investments that matter to our constituents.

I repeat what some of my colleagues said. In 2017, during the first Trump administration, after the failed effort to take health insurance away from more than 20 million people and deprive all Americans of being protected from discrimination by insurance companies if they had preexisting conditions--and thank goodness that reconciliation effort failed when three Republicans joined Democrats to block that effort-- the Trump administration colleagues turned to the idea of tax reform.

Democrats were very willing to work on deficit-neutral, pro-growth tax reform. But instead, Republicans chose: We don't want to have a committee process. We don't want to include Democrats. We want to write a bill, and we will write a bill that will pass partisan tax cuts that will dramatically expand the deficit.

At this time--and I know my colleagues remember this--economists were saying that America's corporate tax rate of 35 percent was high compared to global averages. So there was some suggestion that what we should do is lower the corporate tax rate to put it more in tune with what other nations were charging. There is a little bit of an apples to oranges difficulty in doing that because other nations use a VAT tax that we don't use.

Most economists said if we wanted to make our corporate tax rate equivalent to other nations, we should try to lower the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to, like, 28 percent. And many of my businesses in Virginia were coming to me saying: We have to be more competitive. We have to have a corporate tax rate that matches up more with global norms. Cut the global tax rate to 28 percent.

Instead, even though companies were only asking for that reduction, our Republican colleagues plummeted and slashed the corporate tax rate not to 28 percent, not to 25 percent but to 21 percent. And they didn't even pay for it--didn't even pay for it. As Senator Murphy said, just racked up higher deficits.

There were a few individual tax cuts in this bill. If you look at the bill from 2017, it was mostly corporate tax cuts. There were a few, in that pie chart, individual tax cuts. But they were heavily tilted toward the wealthy, as my colleagues have described. Analysis at the time showed households in the top 1 percent would get an average tax cut of $60,000, while households in the bottom 60 percent averaged only $500 each.

The bill also left out our Nation's poorest children. Nearly 20 million children were left out of the full value of the child tax credit because it was not made refundable. Democrats demonstrated in the American Rescue Plan that when you expand the Child Tax Credit and allow it to be refundable, you could lead to a revolutionary drop in child poverty when it was in effect. But Republicans took a different route.

And on top of these inequities, that the bill was too heavily weighted toward corporations, too light toward individuals, and with individuals, too heavily weighted toward the wealthy

rather than lower and middle-income people, the Republican bill in 2017 did another thing that was entirely unjustified. The bill made the corporate tax cuts permanent and the individual tax cuts temporary. So big, permanent corporate tax cuts; tiny, temporary, heavily skewed individual tax cuts.

During the debate, I offered a simple amendment that virtually all my Democratic colleagues voted for. And we said: Hey, look, let's go ahead and reduce the corporate tax rate, but let's not reduce it to 21 percent. If we reduce it to 25 percent, which is a big reduction, we can make these individual tax cuts for everyday people permanent, so at least the individual tax cuts to everyday people would be permanent, like the corporate tax cuts. All of my Republican colleagues opposed it. The Senate was majority Republican so we were stuck with a bad bill.

And that brings us to today. Republicans are debating how to ram another $4.6 trillion tax cut through the Senate. I will remind my colleagues that when the Senate Republicans did this in 2017, they were really proud because they thought it would help them in the 2018 midterms. I think it was heavily driven by an electoral strategy. What they found is after about 90 days of talking about it, the American public was so mad that these tax cuts went to the wealthy rather than everyday people that they dropped it as a campaign issue to talk about other things and still lost badly in those midterms.

The proposed extensions are going to tilt toward the wealthy, as my colleagues indicated. But get this, the deficit effects that are likely to be felt in some of these distributional effects President Trump is proposing, why not mitigate those by jacking up tariffs? OK. So we are going to do tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, but we are also going to do tariffs. And whom will tariffs impact? President-elect Trump often says tariffs won't affect Americans; it will hurt China and Mexico. But once the election was over, he acknowledged that he can't guarantee American families won't be affected by costs of tariffs.

I am going to guarantee this. If President Trump moves forward with broad-based universal tariffs, and they are not defeated in this body, American families will suffer. American families will pay the cost. We know it because we have seen it before. Study after study shows American consumers bore the brunt of Trump's first trade war, and this time it will be even more. Projections suggest that the tariffs will impact American families to the tune of either between $2,500 and $4,000 per American household in additional costs. So $2,500 compared to this tiny, little tax benefit that everyday Americans will experience.

Talk about salt in a wound.

We are going to do a tax bill for the wealthiest when they don't need it, not do much for everyday people who do need it but put on the shoulders of those same people tariffs that are going to increase the cost of goods. Imagine coming out of COVID and other things and having this kind of burden put on your shoulders.

There is a better path. Let me give you an example. Democrats are going to work with Republicans to do tax reform that will be fair. Just last year, we saw bipartisan negotiations in the House and how those negotiations can lead to more balanced, more smart, better for the deficit, bipartisan priorities.

Our colleague Senator Wyden was able to reach a deal with House Chair Jason Smith on a bipartisan tax package that would have lifted children out of poverty--the child tax credit--that would have incentivized investment into research and development, good for companies who then innovate, and that is good for jobs.

And also the third piece of this tax bill that was bipartisan would have expanded our ability to build affordable housing. And it was fully paid for.

This bill got 357 votes in the House. We can't get that for a Mother's Day resolution in the House of Representatives. But then it died here in the Senate because Republicans didn't want to take the bill up because they wanted to wait to do a bill that would benefit the wealthiest.

I urge my colleagues: You made a mistake before in 2017 by going down a path that busted the deficit and made the American voters really mad. Don't go down that path again. Work with us to find a tax bill that will appropriately prioritize the needs of everyday American citizens and small businesses.

I yield the floor.

I would yield for a question from my colleague from New Jersey.

Mr. President, I will just direct it, and my answer is going to reveal my naivete because my corporate sector in Virginia--and my companies were like everybody's companies--were saying: Hey, drop that 35 percent rate to 28. I may have had one that said to 25, but they were basically saying: If you do it at 28, we are going to be equivalent to other nations.

When the bill was put on the table--and, remember, we got it with handwritten interlineations late in the evening when we didn't even have an ability to even decipher what some of the handwritten interlineations were, but we realized they had dropped it to 21 percent. I almost thought it was a typo. It was one of these handwritten things. I thought it was a typo because the companies were only asking for 28 percent. Then I looked further in this massive bill, and I realized that all the individual tax cuts were tiny, temporary, and expiring rather than being big and permanent.

So I went to my colleagues, and I said: Have I got a great idea for you. You can take all of these individual tax cuts, if you shave off some of the ones to the most wealthy, and you can make them permanent and still do what the corporations had wanted us to do by having a corporate tax rate equivalent to other nations.

I thought I was being helpful. I had a solution to a math problem that I thought they were going to like. Instead, what they said is, no, it has got to be 21 percent and these individuals are going to be weighted to the wealthy and they are going to be temporary.

I would be glad to yield.

I hope we can take this up in the Budget Committee. I have some Budget Committee colleagues who are here on the floor. Senator Whitehouse has been the lead Democrat on the Budget Committee for some time and is now at the helm of another committee. But Senator Merkley, who spoke passionately a couple of minutes ago, is now the lead Democrat on the Budget Committee. We need to take up the issue of these tax cuts as proposed and explore what the long-term consequences will be.

The consequence will be to bust the deficit. The consequence will be to put dollars in the hands of those who don't need them and take dollars out of the hands of those who do when you combine it with the tariff effect, but the consequence will also be significant on the national debt.

As Senator Murphy said during his comments, the national debt gets financed, and it gets financed in ways that ends up coming back. And who pays for it? Everyday folks. So you will have a compounding effect on everyday folks where they will not get tax relief. They may see their taxes increase. They will see their prices go up with this tariff blitz, and then they will end up being saddled with the consequences of debt.

We should take the time to do this right. We should take the time to do--again, I use the example of what the Finance Committee did last year on the R&D tax credit, the child tax credit, and the low-income housing tax credit. It is not that that bill was perfect, and it is not that it included everything that you might want to include, but it is an example of you don't have to jam this through with one party holding the pen and excluding the other party. You can do a tax bill that can get 357 votes in the House of Representatives on something that will be paid for, not increase the deficit, that will help businesses innovate, help children get a good start in life, and help people afford affordable housing. If you do it the right way, we will come up with a good plan, and I hope that we will.

I will yield for another question.

Precisely zero, even though that phrase that ``they will pay for themselves'' or that ``they have paid for themselves'' was used all the time, but no one would, under oath, say that that actually happened.

It reminds me of a great political maxim. I think it was Eugene McCarthy, a former Senator, who once said the issues candidate is the one who says the word ``issues'' the most times.

Just saying these cuts will pay for themselves is not the same as its being true. It wasn't true in the 2017 tax cuts, and we could never find any credible witness who would come and testify to that effect.

With that, I have other colleagues on the floor who are ready and raring to go, and I yield to them.

Mr. President, I spoke on the Senate floor on December 11 about birthright citizenship--the guarantee contained in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are deemed citizens.

I reviewed the legal history of this provision, the legal guarantee designed to erase the horrible legacy of slavery that had been embodied in the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision. It was a desire to correct that decision that led to the inclusion of this definition of citizenship in the 14th Amendment.

I also rebutted, during that speech, too, common misconceptions: first, that children born in the United States to parents from other countries are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States-- that has been ruled false by the Supreme Court since the late 1890s-- and, second, a claim often made by the President-elect that the United States is unique in the world in guaranteeing citizenship to all who are born within this country. Indeed, as I will discuss in a few minutes, the United States did, in fact, lead the way in guaranteeing birthright citizenship in the 1860s, but in doing so, it has led to a global movement that many other countries have decided to embrace.

I believe the constitutional basis for birthright citizenship is clear, and those challenging the notion are mounting an argument with no legal

basis. But, today, I want to move beyond the legal history and talk about the good that birthright citizenship brings to our Nation.

Children born in America to immigrant parents from all corners of the world and from all social conditions have been an enormous benefit to our country and, indeed, to my Commonwealth of Virginia. More than 47 million people living in the United States were born in another country, and another 16 million American children were born here to immigrant parents. Currently, more than 25 percent of all American children live in a household where at least one of their parents is an immigrant.

How has immigration affected American society? Let's use one example--crime. The statistics are compelling and longstanding that immigration does not increase crime. Instead, the evidence is strong that crime has decreased as immigration has increased. In 1980, immigrants made up 6.2 percent of the American population--45 years ago. By 2022, the percentage had more than doubled, with immigrants now making up nearly 14 percent of the American population.

What happened to crime during that period as the percentage of immigrants in the United States doubled? During this time, the crime rate in this country--as measured by crimes committed per 100,000 people--had fallen by 60 percent. So, again, as the portion of our population that is immigrant has more than doubled, the crime rate in our country has fallen by more than 60 percent.

A recent study conducted by scholars at Northwestern University pulled crime data from the United States going back 150 years, and during that 150-year period, they were able to reach a uniform conclusion that immigrants during this 150-year period have always been incarcerated at lower rates than native-born Americans.

Another recent study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice, within the DOJ, looked at all crimes committed in Texas from 2012 to 2018 and found that undocumented immigrants--the earlier statistics I have been giving are about immigrants generally, but this study in Texas found that undocumented immigrants are arrested at less than half of the rate of native-born U.S. citizens for violent crimes and drug crimes and at less than a quarter of the rate of native-born citizens for property crimes.

Immigration is a plus for the American economy. Immigrant households generated more than $236 billion in income in 2022 and paid nearly $66 billion in local, State, and Federal taxes. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that immigration flows to the United States that are projected would likely increase the American gross domestic product by nearly $9 trillion between now and 2034.

And I know, because of the background of the President, this next statistic will not surprise you: More than 45 percent of Fortune 500 companies in America were started by immigrants or by the children of immigrants. This is not just a relic of the past; it sticks to today. In 2023, 17 percent of new businesses that were started in America during that year were started by immigrants, and another 17 percent were started by the children of immigrants. Fully, 34 percent of new businesses in 2023 were started by immigrants or by the children of immigrants.

So it is clear to me--the great-grandson of seven Irish immigrants and a Scottish immigrant whose dad was Scottish and mother was Irish-- that, throughout our history, immigrants have tremendously benefited this Nation, and that is not something that is suddenly turning from a positive to a negative.

In Virginia, for example, when I was born, in 1958, about 1 out of 100 Virginians had been born in another country. Today, it is more like 1 out of 8, and that has coincided during my lifetime with Virginia moving from bottom quarter per capita income among American States to top quarter, and that movement has been significantly advanced by talented people from around the world deciding that they wanted to make Virginia their home.

Enough of the statistics. How about some stories? Children of immigrants have made powerful contributions to the very essence of America.

Where would American fashion be without people like Ralph Lauren, who just got a Presidential medal--born Ralph Lifshitz, in the Bronx, to parents who had emigrated from Poland?

Where would American politics be without people like Kamala Harris, born in California to parents who had emigrated from Jamaica and India; or Marco Rubio, born in Florida to parents who had emigrated from Cuba; or Nikki Haley, born in South Carolina to parents who had emigrated from the Punjab region of India; or General and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, born in New York to parents who had emigrated from Jamaica?

Where would American sports be without people like figure skater Michelle Kwan, born in California to parents who had emigrated from Hong Kong; or baseball legend Alex Rodriguez, born in Manhattan to parents who had emigrated from the Dominican Republic?

Where would American acting be without people like Renee Zellweger, born in Texas to parents who had emigrated from Switzerland and Norway; or Bruce Lee, born in California to parents who had emigrated from Hong Kong and Shanghai?

Where would American business be without people like ketchup magnate Henry Heinz, born in Pittsburgh to parents who had emigrated from Germany; or outdoor gear entrepreneur Eddie Bauer, born in Washington State to parents who had emigrated from Russia; or cosmetics titan Estee Lauder, born in Queens to parents who had emigrated from Hungary and Slovakia; or entertainment executive David Geffen, born in Brooklyn to parents who had emigrated from Mandatory Palestine?

Where would American music be without people like Frank Sinatra, born in New York to Italian immigrants; or George Gershwin, the child of Russian immigrants?

All of these Americans were born here to immigrant parents, some of whose immigration status was unclear at the time of their births and some of whose parents were clearly undocumented. And that is the point of birthright citizenship. When America is at its best, the status of our parents doesn't limit our ability to contribute to our community, and that is part of the genius of our Nation.

I believe birthright citizenship--put into our Constitution in the 1860s to rectify the sin of slavery and the egregious Dred Scott decision--has really been a blessing to our country, and it has actually inspired a global movement, especially among nations in the Americas, to guarantee citizenship to all born within their borders.

There are slightly more than three dozen nations in the world that guarantee birthright citizenship, predominantly in the Americas. And why did it catch hold in the Americas? We called ourselves the New World. That was a phrase we often kind of used for the United States and the Americas to contrast it with an old world--mostly nations in Europe--that tended to lock you in a social status based on who your parents were. That was a reality that was pretty common when the English arrived in Jamestown in 1607 or at Plymouth Rock in 1619.

As Europeans and others were coming to the United States before we declared our independence in 1776, it was fairly common for people to be locked into the status to which they were born, and that is why so many of our ancestors wanted to come to the United States--because they would not be locked into a social status based upon their parents' social status or have to look into a future where their own kids and grandkids and great-grandkids would be locked into a status. So the United States, in the 14th Amendment, decided to embrace a definitively new-world concept that, if you are born in this country, you are a U.S. citizen. It doesn't matter who your parents are, and you have the same opportunities and responsibilities as anyone born in this country. It is part of the genius of this country.

I could tell thousands of stories like the ones that I have shared. I plan to speak more on this topic in the months to come because I am going to vigorously defend the constitutional principle of American birthright citizenship against any who would try to dilute it or tear it down.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am glad to be here with my colleagues from Tennessee and Alabama to speak about this Mexican government's unfair, discriminatory treatment of Vulcan Materials and to encourage colleagues to support the Defending American Property Abroad Act.

Before I get into the details--and I see I am engendering an amazing response from the Gallery--I do want to say, I was a strong supporter of the USMCA. NAFTA was 20 years old. And any deal after 20 years, you would have learned what worked, what didn't, how to make it better. And I viewed USMCA as a significant achievement of the Trump administration, which I was glad to support. It got the overwhelming and bipartisan support of this body as well as the House.

I am very worried about incursions into this deal. We will have plenty of time to talk next year about one worry I have, which is the incoming administration's proposal to levy tariffs against Canada and Mexico. My thought is: Once you have a trade agreement that is a state- of-the-art trade agreement that has been voted for by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, that gives you an avenue of communication that you should be able to use with Canada and Mexico, and you shouldn't need to use tariffs against these trade partners. You should use the framework of the agreement to resolve disputes that you have.

But that is a matter for another day. Today, I want to talk about, in some detail, the matter that my friend and colleague Senator Hagerty raised,

which is the treatment of Vulcan Materials. And it is not just the treatment of Vulcan, but what it might say either about the Mexican government's treatment of American companies generally or, frankly, the American government's posture of either battling to protect American companies or standing by while they are mistreated.

Vulcan is headquartered in Alabama--I see colleagues from Alabama on the floor--but employs over a thousand people in Virginia, nearly 70 facilities in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Vulcan has been operating in the Yucatan Peninsula for more than 30 years.

Senator Hagerty and I came to the floor to talk about this matter a number of months ago in the hopes that we might be able to avert what the AMLO administration has done. But, nevertheless, even in a transition of government, Mexico has continued to ratchet up efforts to seize Vulcan's property in the Yucatan.

These actions against Vulcan were initiated, to be sure, by the Lopez Obrador administration. But with the inauguration of the new President Sheinbaum earlier in 2024, these efforts that would continue to degrade the rule of law in Mexico continue. They are chilling investor confidence. They are making Mexico a more challenging place for American firms to do business.

In August, I joined Senators Cardin, Risch, and Rubio in expressing our deep concern over proposed constitutional reforms in Mexico. Separate and apart from the matter of Vulcan, there is a larger context of actions in Mexico that should cause us some significant concerns. There is a judicial reform underway in Mexico promoted by the AMLO administration that was widely viewed by civil actors within Mexico, human rights and other organizations, as an effort to undermine the independence of the judiciary and make it harder for the Mexican judiciary to stand up against actions, illegal actions, by the Mexican government.

We strongly urged the AMLO administration in this bipartisan letter, as well as the incoming administration, to pursue only reforms that enhanced the professionalism and the independence of the judiciary; but, unfortunately, neither administration has heeded our call and, instead, moved forward on implementing reforms that weaken the independence of the Mexican judiciary.

Taken together, the direct bad-faith actions against Vulcan and the two administrations' insistence on degrading the independence of the Mexican judiciary are jeopardizing critical economic security interests of both of our nations.

Mexico is one of the top three trade partners of the United States, whether you measure by outgoing or incoming top three; and, certainly, it is the same in Virginia. Our two countries have a long history of friendship, and our cultural ties run deep.

The NAFTA, followed by USMCA, have integrated supply chains in the United States, Canada, and Mexico in a degree that I view as generally positive. We do share essential traditions of democracy, and they require consistent work to ensure strong and independent institutions.

Looking more closely at the USMCA in particular, my colleague talked about worries that rules are being renegotiated around the resolution of disputes that would make it harder for Vulcan and companies like Vulcan to seek assistance.

We have been in this Free Trade Agreement for three decades now. In exchange for preferential access to American markets, which has resulted in the intertwined supply chain that I described, Mexico has committed to uphold certain standards that American workers, consumers, companies, and investors expect. The standards were reinforced and strengthened in the USMCA in 2019. They include robust protection for workers, for the environment, and for companies operating abroad. And the standards not only protect Americans but promote economic growth in Mexico, helping address the root causes of migration and other challenges.

The protections for American investments, for instance, give certainty to other companies and investors looking to participate in helping grow and expand the Mexican economy.

Particularly as companies are looking to near-shore in the aftermath of COVID and looking to bring supply chains back to the United States and nations closer to the United States with which we have free-trade agreements, Mexico has been seen as a very attractive destination, but actions like those that are being taken against Vulcan now undermine that momentum. So in response to these actions, Senators Hagerty, Britt, Tuberville, Barrasso, Budd, and I introduced the Defending American Property Abroad Act earlier this year. The bill would make it clear that the United States does not condone discriminatory treatment against American companies, particularly with our free-trade agreement partners.

We understand, even if we don't accept the notion, that some American companies are put at great disadvantage in nations where there are not trade agreements, but where there are trade agreements--particularly like USMCA, which is going to be scheduled for a renegotiation and consideration in 2026--we should not condone mistreatment of American companies by our trade agreement partners.

The bill that we have introduced would reiterate that it is a bipartisan priority in Congress for the U.S. Government to work to uphold the USMCA's investment standards in the upcoming 6-year review of the trade agreement. It would work to deter Mexico and any country in our hemisphere from illegally seizing additional U.S. assets. We must make it clear that this behavior will not be tolerated.

I note for my colleague with some sense of dismay that I think I have some colleagues on my side of the aisle who don't like the notion that a disappointed company can seek relief against a regulation put in place by another country. They are concerned about whether that is a violation of sovereignty in some sense.

Yes, it is the case that the USMCA leaves wide latitude for the participating nations to adopt their own regulatory framework, but there should be no disagreement in this body that an effort to completely seize the property of an American company can never be justified as an appropriate regulatory action, and that is what is happening with Vulcan.

I would hope colleagues on both sides of the aisle, in thinking about companies in their own States, would realize that if this is allowed to happen with the United States turning a blind eye or shrugging their shoulders to it, you will see a lot more of it, and we need to stop this now.

I look forward to continuing to work to pass our bill next Congress. We must ensure that the future of the U.S.-Mexico relationship continues to be grounded in the rule of law.

I am the chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee. I care about this relationship. I want it to get stronger and stronger. I celebrate its successes. I celebrate Mexico's successes. But I don't hesitate to stand and challenge actions either by the Mexican Government or the inaction of the U.S. Government that pose risk to Americans and American companies.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in 2013, in my first year in the Senate, a 10-year-old child in Virginia, Loudoun County, named Gabriella Miller passed away from an inoperable brain tumor.

Nothing could be worse for a family. Her parents, Ellyn and Mark, and her brother suffered greatly in this. But as many do, in an amazing way, in a mysterious way, in a time of suffering, they turned their tragedy into a cause.

Shortly after I came to the Senate, Mark and Ellyn Miller came to see me and talk to me about their daughter Gabriella.

They asked me a question: Senator, what percentage of medical research in this country is devoted to pediatric conditions?

I thought, well, you know, pediatric--under age 18. Maybe it is 12 percent of the population. So I guessed 12 percent.

They said: Less than 1 percent.

Less than 1 percent of medical research funding in the NIH and other Agencies was devoted to pediatric conditions. There was kind of a--I don't know--it was a conventional wisdom of: No, we don't put research into that, but if we can research adult conditions, we can kind of apply it to pediatric conditions--which everyone here knows that is not the case. Many pediatric conditions are very different than adult conditions.

So I began to work with the Miller family on a bill to increase research at the NIH and other Federal Agencies for pediatric conditions, especially pediatric conditions of the kind that killed Gabriella Miller.

The following year, in 2014, I partnered with Virginia Congressman-- and then a Republican leader in the Senate--Eric Cantor and others to pass the Gabriella Miller Kids First Pediatric Research Program to fund NIH research on pediatric cancer, and the 10-year bill that we passed is up for reauthorization.

I partnered with Senator Jay Moran, my colleague from Kansas, to reauthorize it with the support of colleagues on both sides--numerous, numerous colleagues.

The Republican House has passed a version of this bill. The lead sponsor on the House side is Congresswoman Jennifer Wexton, who is retiring because she has been diagnosed with an aggressive form of supranuclear palsy, which is an advanced form of Parkinson's disease. My colleague Jennifer Wexton is no longer able to speak without an AI- assisted device, but in these last few days of her time in the House, she has made the passing of the reauthorization of the Gabriella Miller Act her chief priority.

The reauthorization was included in the health package in the bipartisan version of the CR bill that we negotiated with the House, but that package was left on the cutting room floor of the CR that was just passed in the House. Advocates of the bill, including Ellyn and Mark Miller and others who care about pediatric research, were bitterly disappointed.

I am going to vote for the CR when it comes over from the House, but if I am going to have to explain to advocates that I share their disappointment in the fact that this 10-year program, which has now produced more than $125 million in research into pediatric cancer, is going to be left on the floor, I have to at least make an effort here on the floor to authorize this program going forward.

The good news is, the bill that Representative Wexton has put in the House was authorized flat funding for another 5 years. I give credit to my colleagues on the Senate HELP Committee because the Gabriella Miller Act was reauthorized in the Senate for 10 years at an increasing level of funding, beginning at the current funding level of $12.5 million a year and escalating to $25 million over the course of 10 years.

But the time is late--no time to fool around. The bill that has passed not only in committee but was passed in the House of Representatives--5-year funding at its current level, $12.5 million a year, to continue to invest in research into children's cancer and pediatric conditions.

I respect my colleague's sincere commitment to responsible Federal budgeting. One of my colleagues, Senator Paul--I have worked with him to hopefully lift an objection that he had to this bill by agreeing to work with him to make sure that there are not other overlapping programs where we are spending money to do the same thing.

We have recently talked about other legislative initiatives that we will work on together, but my understanding as I stand here today is, with this commitment I have made to Senator Paul, he is dropping any objection to including this by unanimous consent.

I think, while it is not everything I hoped and it is not everything the Senate HELP Committee did in a bipartisan way, it would continue this important program.

Gabriella Miller, when she was diagnosed with brain cancer at age 10, didn't go quietly into the good night. I think that is a Dylan Thomas line. She instead said: I am going to raise every bit of money I can for cancer research.

In the last year of her life, she raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for cancer research on her own with little bake sales and fundraisers. The brain tumor that was in her brain was the size of a walnut, and she created a nonprofit foundation called the Smashing Walnuts Foundation.

The comments I make tonight and the effort I undertake with Representative Wexton truly are to honor her and to thank her parents for their advocacy. In particular, I want to thank her mother Ellyn Miller, who has been a force of nature in creating this program and keeping it going.

We need to keep it going. It is bipartisan, it is bicameral, and it is making groundbreaking research possible. I ask my colleagues to let it pass into law.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that as if in legislative session, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3391 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

I know of no further debate on the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleagues Senator Warner and Senator Van Hollen. We just had a press conference where Senator Cardin and Senator Hirono also came to speak about the importance of this issue.

As everybody knows--you learned this in civics in grade school-- officials in the United States swear loyalty not to the President but to the Constitution of the United States. Under the Constitution, Congress passes laws, and the President enforces them.

But from the beginning days of our country, the President can't do all the

enforcement and implementation on his or her own; it is too big a job for an individual. In a big and complex country, you need people whose whole job might be enforcing a particular law--say inspecting a meat- processing plant. You need people to make sure planes don't crash into each other at airports, people to prosecute anybody running a scam to cheat the elderly out of their life savings, people to bust tax cheats or catch somebody dumping toxic chemicals into a stream, in violation of the Clean Water Act.

Federal employees do all these things. They work to ensure that critical resources and services are provided in countless communities across America. They work to keep Social Security up and running, manage veterans' benefits, research medical diseases, and develop cures and vaccines.

Enforcing the law and running government requires people who are duty-bound to enforce the laws enacted by Congress and to obey the lawful orders of the President, all subject to the overriding duty to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. But we swear fealty to that Constitution, not to a person.

Early in the Republic, as my colleague indicated--Senator Van Hollen--the executive branch operated under what is known as the spoil system, as in the expression ``to the victor go the spoils.'' But there quickly arose an obvious problem: If the people who enforce American laws answer only to the President, then if you are on the President's team, they go easy on you, and if you are against the President, they bring Federal law down on you like a hammer. That is not the rule of law.

It took a century, from the founding of America until enactment of the Pendleton Act--and Senator Van Hollen talked about a tragedy that occurred at the foot of Capitol Hill, which was once a train station where President Garfield was assassinated in 1881. It took that tragedy to basically galvanize this growing awareness that our Federal employees should be hired based on merit, not political loyalty.

Since then--nearly 150 years--our Nation has recognized the value of a nonpartisan and merit-based system to carry out Federal Government functions. Having a dedicated civil service based on merit rather than political loyalties is in the best interest of everyone. It not only promotes professionalism and reduces cronyism, it also promotes stability.

We saw in the last Trump administration the track record of the political appointees. There was a revolving door in many of these positions. How many Secretaries of State? How many Secretaries of Defense? How many Secretaries of the Navy? When you are switching positions out, you get worse and worse quality of service. The professional civil service is not just about merit, it is also about stability.

Our civil service is tasked with protecting so many important values: national security, economic productivity, guiding public health, and so much more. There have been attempts in recent years to erode the independence of the Federal civil service, and that is why I am here on the floor, where I will in a minute request Senate passage of the Saving the Civil Service Act.

The bill upholds the merit system principles to ensure that the Federal Government is equipped with the most qualified and experienced individuals. Specifically, the Saving the Civil Service Act will prohibit the reclassification of Federal employees to schedules outside of the competitive civil service without congressional consent. If Congress agrees to this, that is one thing, but to do the reclassification over the objection of or without even consulting with Congress would be barred by this bill.

Over 2 million Federal employees work in all 50 States and U.S. territories.

There are 147,000 in Virginia.

In New Mexico, there are more than 22,000 Federal employees who work in critical areas such as nuclear research. Some of the most important research that has been done in the history of the United States was done in New Mexico by highly trained scientists, and that continues today.

In Missouri, which my colleague Senator Schmitt represents, Federal employment is more than 37,000, and many work for the VA, for the Treasury, for the Army, for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and for the Department of Homeland Security.

This shouldn't be a partisan bill. We don't have any need and never have had a need for Democratic meat inspectors or Republican air traffic controllers, Democratic VA nurses and Republican cancer researchers; we just want people who have expertise. These experts may have their personal political opinions, but as long as they are doing their jobs, they deserve protection from political retaliation.

To be clear, the President can govern as he or she sees fit within the bounds of statute. Many Federal laws have ambiguity. If there is too much ambiguity, we in Congress need to fix it. The President is empowered to use flexibility within the law as he sees fit, and career Federal employees have to follow those directives and implement the President's interpretation of the law falling within legal bounds. The President, additionally, has the ability to appoint 4,000 political appointees, some of whom must be confirmed by the Senate but many of whom don't even require Senate confirmation.

If a President tries to go outside the law, someone should be able to stand up and say, ``Mr. President, that is illegal, and you can't do it. Telling your boss ``That is illegal, and you can't do it'' is not disloyalty. That is patriotism. That is loyalty to the Constitution and to the law. Again, we all take the same oath. The oath is to the document, not the President.

Third and finally, my bill does not mean that we don't expect accountability from Federal workers. In any large organization, government agency, or large company, there is a potential for unnecessary bureaucracy to develop. In a large pool of people, there may be some bad apples not doing their job. Nothing in this bill protects Federal employees from accountability for their performance.

In fact, the National Federation for Federal Employees has testified before Congress on more than one occasion about the circumstances in which Federal employees have been terminated for cause. That demonstrates that while they exist to defend the rights of their members, they are not going to apologize for or shirk responsibility for bad behavior of employees whose performance merits termination.

I am all for solutions that increase accountability and efficiency. I am on the Foreign Relations Committee, and I followed with great interest the efforts of President Trump's first Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, and his team in 2017 in that space.

The rights of civil servants and the goals of an efficient, responsive Federal Government shouldn't be in competition, and I refuse to dismiss as naive the idea that Federal workers can have a range of personal political views but still serve faithfully and carry out the law and the faithful orders of the Commander in Chief.

I know this is possible because it is exactly what we ask of the American military--my oldest son is a marine--and the military delivers that in a significant way. Every servicemember is allowed to vote, but whoever is duly elected--that is whose lawful orders they follow.

The bill is about basic fairness. The American people should have high expectations of Federal workers and should know that the people enforcing American laws aren't going easy on someone just because they happen to be a friend of the President, Democratic or Republican.

Some will argue that this is necessary because the Federal Government is too big and inefficient. In fact, the Federal Government is smaller today than it was during its peak in the post-World War II years, with more than 3 million Federal employees at that time.

So I am looking forward to working on this and making sure that we uphold this value that has stood the test of time since 1883--a professional civil service, not one placed on political loyalty or cronyism.

With that, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 399 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, just a brief response.

My colleague from Missouri mentioned the fact that recent decisions of the Supreme Court have put more burden on the shoulders of Congress not to abdicate decision-making responsibility but to own it, and that is precisely what my bill would do. It would not block a President from trying to make reforms to the Federal civil service; it would just require that the President do so in consultation with the article I branch.

That article I branch, come January 3, is going to be two Republican Houses. I can't imagine why a Trump Presidency would be afraid of two Republican Houses. If any proposal with respect to the Federal civil service has merit, it would seem that the President should have some sense of confidence that he can convince the next Congress of the United States to go along with it. But if, in fact, he is worried about his ability to convince two Republican Houses to go along with plans with respect to the Federal Civil Service, I think that should tell us something.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.