Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today, following my colleague from Maine, to talk about S.J. Res. 37, which we believe will come up for a vote later this afternoon, possibly somewhere between 6 and 7 o'clock.

I am proud to have introduced this resolution a few weeks back, together with a group of bipartisan Senators, many of whom will take the floor this afternoon to speak about it.

Let me just first talk about the fact that this resolution is a little bit unusual in terms of Senate procedure. There are not many things that a single Senator can file and then be guaranteed a floor vote. In fact, there are only three or four such procedures. This resolution is filed pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which was the act used by Trump to declare the Canadian emergency that is the subject of my resolution.

The IEEPA statute is an old statute. It has been around for quite a while. I will just state, at the outset, that IEEPA, the act that the President has used to declare an emergency and impose tariffs, is an act that was designed to be used against adversaries. Congress wanted to give the President tools to deal with adversaries--nations that were enemies, cartels, rogue states, and dictators.

IEEPA was not designed to be used against allies. IEEPA says nothing about tariffs. It does not say that the President's actions against adversaries should include tariffs.

The administration's use of this Emergency Powers Act to go against an ally is pretty unusual. It is not unprecedented. The President did it in the first term when he imposed IEEPA tariffs against both Canada and the EU. But it is important to know that this is generally a statute that was designed to counter adversaries.

I stand here strongly in the belief that Canada is not an adversary; they are an ally. Canada is not the 51st State; they are a sovereign nation. And Canada is not an emergency for the United States.

Are there differences of opinion between the United States and Canada? Sure, there are. It just so happens, in the trade space, we have a state-of-the-art trade deal negotiated by President Trump and his team, the USMCA, which was adopted by nearly a 90-to-10 vote in this body, that gives us the ability, when we have differences with this friend and ally, Canada, to work them out.

And it is unfortunate, in my view, that instead of going through the USMCA, we are using an act designed to counter adversaries to impose these tariffs.

I want to talk about tariffs. I want to talk about the President's rationale for imposing the tariffs, and then I want to talk about the importance of this resolution and the many stakeholders outside this body who are supporting S.J. Res. 37.

First, on tariffs, President Trump's aides have basically admitted that this is a sales tax--a new sales tax. The tariff revenue will hit everyday people by making the cost of their goods go up.

This is a CNN headline from a couple of days ago: ``Trump aide says tariffs will raise $6 trillion''--that is a reference to Peter Navarro--``which would be the largest tax hike in US history.''

To be fair, this is the total tariff effect, not just the Canada effect--Canada, China, Mexico, and potentially other nations. But what we are likely to see today with the tariff announcement is that it will be the largest tax hike in U.S. history.

Many have been writing about the challenges of tariffs and this tax hike.

From CNBC:

Consumer confidence in where the economy is headed hits a

12-year low.

This was an economy that was extremely strong just 2 months ago, on President Trump's Inauguration Day. It was a very, very strong economy, not a perfect economy. But since that time, we have seen volatility in the stock market. We have seen growing inflation. We have seen reducing consumer confidence. We have seen some suggestions of slowing economic growth--even negative economic growth from some. And that is due, in large part, to the prospect of this national sales tax--tariffs to the degree of $6 trillion--but also somewhat to the chaos about whether and when and how they will be implemented.

Other economists have also written. A recent article in the Washington

Post talks about the stock markets' grim view of tariff shenanigans:

Markets have plummeted since Trump announced new levies on

Canada, Mexico, and China, erasing all gains since his

election.

The tariffs are still likely to be economically

destructive: They will snarl global supply chains, raise

costs to consumers and cause layoffs in industries that

depend on imported inputs like steel.

This means more than just the additional pain for consumers

whipsawed by inflation, higher prices on imports and, now,

the possibility of recession.

Tariff shenanigans are shaking up the American economy, creating huge anxiety and hurting consumers and businesses.

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal called the Trump tariff effort ``The Dumbest Trade War in History.''

The Wall Street Journal's point was a point I made earlier. Why use IEEPA, a statute designed to go after enemies, when we have a trade deal that President Trump negotiated with Canada and Mexico? None of this is supposed to happen under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement that Mr. Trump negotiated and signed in his first term.

Again, I give the President huge credit for this. I believe the USMCA vote in the first term got 89 votes in this Chamber. That is hard on anything, much less a trade deal--what an accomplishment.

But the USMCA created dispute resolution mechanisms that would make imposition of tariffs unnecessary.

The U.S. willingness to ignore its treaty obligations, even

with friends, won't make other countries eager to do deals.

Maybe Mr. Trump will claim victory and pull back if he wins

some token concessions. But if a North American trade war

persists, it will qualify as one of the dumbest in

history.

I have given you challenges in the global economy and in the American economy that are happening because of the trade war. Let me now get specific on Virginia. I heard my colleague from Maine talk about who is affected in Maine.

In Virginia, I have been traveling around the State, talking to Virginians, and they are very, very worried about these Canadian tariffs. They are not worried in the abstract. They saw them in 2017, 2018, 2019. They know what happens with tariffs.

It is an unusual group of businesses in that it is big, small, medium size--it is everybody.

I have a bakery in Northern Virginia, Mom's Apple Pie. They have three locations. The owner, April--I see some nods. There are people who are Mom's Apple Pie fans. It is a great small business bakery. Their operations are in Leesburg, Occoquan, and Purcellville.

I was meeting recently with the owner, and she said: You have to do something about these Canadian tariffs.

I said: April, you have three small bakeries. Tell me how the Canadian tariffs hit you.

She said: Pie tins. All our aluminum pie tins come from Canada.

If you raise the price of a pie tin by 25 percent, the price of a pie goes up a bit. Nobody has to buy apple pies. When the price goes up, a whole lot of people will decide they are not going to buy apple pies. This is a classic small business that is affected by Canadian tariffs.

Let's go to the largest businesses.

We are experts at ship and sub building in Virginia. We manufacture the most sophisticated items that are made on the planet Earth--nuclear carriers and nuclear subs. Thirty-five percent of the steel that goes into ships and subs made for our Navy, for our military, comes from Canada. Sixty-five percent of the aluminum steel comes from the United States, but 35 percent comes from Canada.

I serve with the Presiding Officer on the Armed Services Committee. We already are having a hard time producing ships and subs on time, on budget. Take aluminum and steel and ratchet them up by 20 percent, and it is going to get even harder to defend the Nation and produce the ships and subs that we need.

Like Senator Collins talking about her ag sector, ag and forestry is still the biggest industry in Virginia. People think of it as high- tech. No, ag and forestry is still No. 1, and it is my farmers and foresters that are most concerned about the Canadian tariffs because they saw what happened last time.

The first thing that happens, you put a tariff on Canadian exports. Potash, the ingredient in agriculture fertilizer--80 percent of potash comes as an import into the United States. So that immediately goes up by 25 percent, according to what the President has said he is going to do. That hurts farmers very, very badly.

Second, there has never been a one-sided trade war in the history of the world. When one party puts a tariff on, the other side retaliates. In the first Trump administration, the retaliation was heavily against the ag sector.

My soybean farmers that were exporting soybeans couldn't export to markets that they were previously able to. My apple farmers who export apples to Canada couldn't do it to the same degree, and their exports dropped and their revenues dropped. And this is already a low-margin business.

My distillers and wineries and breweries--many of which find an important part of their revenue might be 10 percent or 15 percent or 25 percent in export markets to the EU, to Canada, to Mexico--suddenly find that retaliatory tariffs price their products out of business.

I was with Dave Cuttino, the founder of Reservoir Distillery in Richmond, yesterday. He talked about the fact that, even before these tariffs have gone into effect, because President Trump announced them but then delayed them, there is an anger in the Canadian consumer: We don't want to buy American products if you are going to treat us this way.

He has been told by his distributors in the Alberta Province that there will be no American product put on any more shelves because: We are so furious at the way we are being treated in this.

Big Businesses, small businesses. Volvo Trucks is one of the largest manufacturers in Appalachian Virginia--in Dublin, VA. They manufacture all of the Volvo over-the-road trucks that you see anywhere in North America. They export significantly--significantly--to Canada and Mexico. They also import source materials from Canada and Mexico. The tariffs will increase the cost of their inputs, driving the price of their trucks up, making those trucks less competitive.

We have a lot of businesses in Virginia that have operations on both sides of the border. BWXT in Lynchburg is the Nation's premier producer of nuclear reactors for ships and subs, as well as nuclear reactors for other possibilities. They have operations in Canada, and they shift product back and forth across the line in ways where the tariffs will make it more expensive.

So the Virginia effect--and let's be clear, there is another one the Senator talked about: tourism. We rely on tourism in Virginia. We are a Top Ten tourism State, and we have a lot of Canadian tourists. In fact, Canadians are among the most frequent visitors to Virginia Beach. To our pristine, wonderful beachfront community, Canada tourism is strong. Canadian tourism to the United States--air reservations from Canadians coming to the United States are down by 75 percent because of the feeling that they are not being treated fairly. They are looking at the United States, an ally, and they are saying: Why us?

So there is an effect on the economy--the big picture--on the stock market, inflation, at the kitchen table, the cost of groceries. Building supplies come from Canada--a lot of lumber. Housing is already too expensive. A tariff on lumber coming in from Canada is just going to drive up the cost of any home renovation project or new home construction. There are tariffs on Canadian automobiles. A lot of the U.S.-plated automobiles are made--or at least products are significantly made--in Canada. Those prices will go up. So, from the kitchen table of a family to our Nation's larger shipbuilders, these tariff shenanigans pose a huge economic risk.

I go back to a point that was raised in the Wall Street Journal article: Why not use the USMCA? Why not use the USMCA? President Trump negotiated it. It was a success. It was something that succeeded in a bipartisan way. There have been discussions about whether, after 5 or 6 years, the USMCA should be renegotiated. I think that is fine. We renegotiated NAFTA. President Trump made it better. If 5 or 6 years of operating under USMCA has taught us ways it can be made better, that is fine, too, but when you establish a treaty with an ally that includes

a dispute resolution mechanism, why not use that mechanism instead of reaching for a statute that was designed to punish an adversary and putting massive sales taxes on goods that will make it harder for Americans to economically thrive?

So that does raise the question, If the USMCA is available and if there are differences of opinion on trade, why is the President imposing tariffs and using an emergency declaration rather than using the USMCA? I want to get to that next.

The President has said there is one reason he is doing this. There is one reason for the emergency, for labeling Canada through this use of emergency power as an ``adversary,'' and the reason is fentanyl-- fentanyl. No one in this Chamber and no one here now or any of the 100 Senators would dispute that fentanyl is a massive problem and, indeed, an emergency. The opioid overdose deaths in my State and in Alabama--in all States--heartbreaking; the stories of families who lost their loved ones--heartbreaking. I was in Roanoke earlier this morning with an ESPN reporter who was a gymnast and now works at ESPN, Lauren Keller. Lauren is from Roanoke, VA. She was in her freshman year at Rutgers when she got the call that her mother, at age 45, had died. Her dad called her. She went to the airport. She flew home. By the time she landed in Roanoke, her dad had died as well. Both overdosed on OxyContin, an opioid-based pain medication.

So is fentanyl a problem? Yes. Is it an emergency? Yes. Is substance use disorder generally an emergency? Yes, of course it is. That is why we passed the HALT Fentanyl Act just about 2 weeks ago in this Chamber--a big bipartisan vote. That is why we are putting budgetary resources into interdiction technology. That is why Senator Ernst and I got a provision in the Defense bill 2 years ago to require more cooperation between the U.S. and Mexican military on fentanyl interdiction.

It is an emergency, but fentanyl is not a Canadian emergency. Calling it a Canadian emergency and putting the same tariffs on Canadian products as we put on Mexican and Canadian products is an invented emergency, not a real emergency. And guess what. The Trump administration agrees with me on this. Even though the President has declared a Canadian fentanyl emergency, there is a Biblical statement, I think, about the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

One of the President's key intelligence advisers Tulsi Gabbard appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week, and she presented to the Intel Committee an annual assessment required of her office. It is called the ``Annual Threat Assessment.'' It looks at every threat that the United States is under globally. Who is threatening us militarily? Who is threatening us with fentanyl? Who is threatening us with cyber attacks? Who is threatening us with misinformation?

As she presented the report to the committee, one of my colleagues, Senator Heinrich of New Mexico, looked through the report and noticed that Canada wasn't in the report. Canada was not even mentioned as a threat in the Trump administration's first ``Annual Threat Assessment.'' There was even a section in the report specifically about fentanyl, and Canada wasn't mentioned.

So my colleague asked the DNI: I don't see Canada mentioned. Canada is not mentioned as a threat. It is not even mentioned as a threat in fentanyl.

And her testimony at the committee was: You are right. The fentanyl threat is a China and Mexico threat; it is not a Canada threat.

So is there a fentanyl emergency? Yes, there is. Should action be taken to stop it? Yes, there should. Might that action even include looking at tariffs against China for sending precursor chemicals into the United States or into Mexico to be manufactured into fentanyl? It is a fair question. I haven't challenged the China tariffs. Should Mexico be subject to some tough action, possibly including tariffs, because of their role in allowing so much fentanyl to come into the United States? It is a very fair question. That is why I haven't challenged the Mexico tariffs. But even the Trump administration, in their presentation to the Intel Committee, said that Canada was not a fentanyl threat.

This is an article from The Globe and Mail, which is the largest daily newspaper in Canada, published in Toronto from last week:

In the aftermath of Tulsi Gabbard's testimony, Canada not

mentioned in U.S. threat assessment summary of fentanyl

crisis.

There is a fentanyl emergency, but it is not Canada. So let's dig into this a little bit further.

In 2024, let me tell you how much fentanyl was seized at the southern border of the United States. It is slightly over 21,000 pounds of fentanyl--devastating, devastating. How about fentanyl seized coming from Canada into the United States--half of that? a quarter of that? a 10th of it? It is about \1/2\, 000th of it. The estimates have been-- although there is a new report that is just coming out, as I am speaking on the floor, from The Globe and Mail, saying even these estimates are high--21,000 pounds from Mexico and 43 pounds from Canada in the entire year of 2024.

The Toronto Globe and Mail is doing an assessment of the 43 pounds, and here is what they found: that the 43 pounds is an overstatement. The 43 pounds includes fentanyl interdicted in some northern cities like Spokane, WA, and those were put on the Canadian interdiction stat even though, when we have dug into it, what we have discovered is, even though Spokane is pretty far north, that fentanyl didn't come in from Canada; it came in from Mexico, and all the people who were arrested as the fentanyl was interdicted in these northern cities were connected to Mexican cartels.

So this gives some scale: 21,000 to 43 pounds, and the 43 pounds is dramatically overestimated. We think this actual number may be down in a very, very few pounds. It is not an emergency from Canada, and it is certainly not an emergency that would justify treating Canadian products with exactly the same tariff that we would levy on products from Mexico and from China.

I think that allies are really important, and I think it is wrong to call an ally an adversary. Here is an article that appeared in the AP a little bit ago that I just want to read into the Record: ``A beloved library that united the U.S. and Canada faces new border restrictions'' because of the President's emergency declaration. This appeared in the Associated Press on March 26, just last week. Let me just read this into the Record.

For Allyson Howell, her hometown library is more than just

a place to borrow a book; it's also a unique space where

different cultures from the U.S. and Canada have mingled and

developed ties for more than a century.

Howell and others fear that could change under a new

regulation implemented by President Donald Trump's

administration as tensions continue to rise between the two

countries.

The Haskell Free Library and Opera House straddles the line

between Howell's village of Derby Line, VT, and the town of

Stanstead, Quebec. The entrance to the imposing [brick-style]

and stone building is on the U.S. side, but an informal

agreement between the two countries has allowed Canadians to

enter [the library] without a passport.

Canadians cross the border on a sidewalk leading directly

to the library that is monitored by the [USCBP]. The nearest

border checkpoint is not within eyesight of the building.

Inside the library, there is a line on the floor marking

the international border, though residents of both countries

have been able to move freely among the stacks.

But since Tuesday, the only Canadian visitors able to enter

on the U.S. side have been cardholders and library [staff].

All others have had to use an emergency exit on the Canadian

side. Starting October 1, all Canadians will have to enter

from their side of the border or pass through a security

checkpoint on the U.S. side. It's a big change from the honor

system arrangement the two countries have always used, users

of the library said.

``This feels like . . . one more step of building this

chasm between these . . . nations,'' said Howell, who

described the library as ``really special'' and a ``real

symbol'' of international cooperation.

Derby Line is a village of . . . 700 people within the town

of Derby, located in the rural Northeast Kingdom section of

Vermont. Stanstead is a town of about 3,000 residents.

Like many rural border communities in the U.S. and Canada,

their economies and cultures are linked. But the ties have

become strained under [President] Trump, who has advanced

tariffs and tightened border protections in some communities

that [rely upon one another].

Why do this? Why do this?

Like President Trump, I think it is right to say, ``America first,'' but I don't want America alone. I don't want an America pushing aside its longstanding allies who have stood with us. Canada stood with us on 9/11. Canada has stood side by side with U.S. troops in every war we have been in. They have fought with our troops. They have bled with our troops. They have died with our troops in every war since the War of 1812. Yet we are going to treat them like an enemy, and we are going to make them go through an emergency exit through a library.

This calls up to my mind memories that I have of a South, when I was born, where a certain kind of people couldn't go in the same doors as other kinds of people. This is no way to treat an ally. This is no way to treat a friend.

As I conclude--I see other colleagues here, ready to speak--I am happy to say that the S.J. Res. 37 has picked up the support of a whole lot of people who I think are pretty important people outside this Chamber. This morning, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce weighed in, in support of S.J. Res. 37. I am going to read from the letter that they have sent to Senators:

[T]he tariffs being imposed on imports from Canada and

Mexico, America's two top trading partners, are inflicting

real harm on American workers, companies, and farmers.

Tariffs are taxes--paid by Americans--and they will quickly

increase prices at a time when many are struggling with the

cost of living. These import taxes are also harming U.S.

manufacturers and drawing retaliatory duties, worsening their

impact on our economy. [Further], these tariffs are at odds

with commitments the United States made in the landmark

USMCA, which was negotiated by the first Trump

administration.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports S.J. Res. 37, and they join a number of other organizations: the AFL-CIO. That is threading a needle when I get the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on the same page on a matter of such importance. We have the United Steelworkers; the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers; the National Retail Federation. Retailers don't want to see costs of products increase; North America's Building Trades Unions; Sheet Metal Workers; the U.S. Conference of Mayors; Foreign Policy for America; the National Taxpayers Union. Tariffs are a tax; and Advancing American Freedom, a think tank that was established by former Vice President Mike Pence. They all have weighed in to support S.J. Res. 37. Tariffs are a tax. Tariffs will hurt our families. Canada is not an enemy.

Let's act together to fight fentanyl. We can do that. We have done that. We have shown it with the HALT Fentanyl that we passed 2 weeks ago. Let's not label an ally as an enemy. Let's not impose punishing costs on American families at a time they can't afford it. Let's not hurt American small businesses. Let's not make our national security investments and ships and subs more expensive.

I earnestly request that colleagues support S.J. 37 when we vote on it later today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise for some concluding comments. I believe the vote will follow. I want to acknowledge my colleague from Idaho's comments about the northern border.

This is a bill that is fundamentally about tariffs. I acknowledge what my colleague said, that there are issues at the northern border, and I have colleagues who have shared that, and there are mechanisms for working out those issues.

And I would ask my colleagues if you are concerned about any issue on the northern border, do you think we will more likely be able to deal with it if we work hand in hand with Canada, or do you think the path to success is punitive actions against Canada?

I would argue plainly that the right way to deal with any issue at the border with Canada is to work with Canada, not wage a trade war against them.

This vote, though, is fundamentally about tariffs--the President's imposition of tariffs against Canada that will be a costly tax increase on American families.

If the President has concerns about trade issues with Canada, guess what: This President negotiated a signature trade deal, the USMCA, that got 89 bipartisan votes in this Chamber, and he has a negotiating process to find a resolution to any issue he cares about. The imposition of tariffs does nothing more than put a tax on American families.

What I would like to do--I did speak earlier today. But what I would like to do is just read quickly from many stakeholders who have weighed in, in support of S.J. Res. 37.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce:

Tariffs are taxes--paid by Americans--and they will quickly

increase prices at a time when many are struggling with the

cost of living.

[That is why] it is appropriate for Congress to exercise

its authority under IEEPA and pass SJ Res 37.

North American Building Trades:

The United States and Canada share far more than just a

border--we share a deep, enduring economic and workforce

partnership that has strengthened both nations. . . . That

partnership is enshrined in the United States-Mexico-Canada

Agreement (USMCA), a comprehensive trade agreement that

President Trump himself negotiated.

We shouldn't circumvent this agreement.

Sheet Metal Workers:

Tariff penalties aimed at Canada for non-trade objectives

have already caused harsh and unnecessary economic pain for

US workers and harm to our nation's construction and related

metal fabricating . . . businesses.

National Retail Federation:

U.S. retailers depend on Canada for a wide range of

consumer goods.

These operations are all now being significantly disrupted

because of the tariffs applied to Canada.

U.S. Conference of Mayors:

These actions are raising prices for consumers, disrupting

key industries such as construction and manufacturing. . . .

They also risk increasing already high housing costs, as . .

. lumber, steel, aluminum, and other critical building

materials will make housing . . . more expensive.

The AFL-CIO:

Imposing large, across the board tariffs on Canada aimed at

non-trade objectives will only cause unnecessary economic

pain for workers and businesses.

The International Association of Machinists:

These new tariffs on Canada, one of our closest allies . .

. are unjust and will have a lasting negative impact on

American and Canadian workers.

The National Taxpayers Union:

Canada is an important supplier of goods that strengthen

U.S. security, including

crude oil, natural gas, steel, and aluminum. Tariffs that

restrict our access to these supplies and increase their cost

will weaken our industrial base.

The Taxpayer Protection Alliance:

TPA enthusiastically supports [the effort] to overturn

President Trump's February 1, 2025, national emergency

declaration. This use of . . . IEEPA is fraught with issues.

The ensuing trade war will inevitably raise costs for

consumers.

United Steelworkers:

These new tariffs are misdirected, unsubstantiated by

facts, and harmful to the very workers we represent.

And, finally, Advancing American Freedom, the think tank formed by former Vice President Mike Pence:

Tariffs are a tax on American families and businesses. The

first Trump administration cut an excellent deal with Canada

with the USMCA. The president should not abandon this

agreement.

We have a chance to stand strong for our businesses and consumers, our foresters and farmers, our national defense industry and shipbuilders, against cost increases that will hurt people's pocketbooks, hurt American competitiveness, and hurt our national security.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes on S.J. Res. 37.

I will yield back all time on the resolution.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Well, thank you to my friend, Senator Booker, and to all who are gathered to watch this very, very important vigil. And the question that I am going to ask in slow motion to give you a chance to think of a response--

--is a question that was inspired by your colloquy with Senator Coons.

Your discussion, where you were doing some Bible quoting

back and forth. And as, you know, I am a big Bible reader. And the thing I thought about, and actually I thought about it during your talk since last night, is this part of the Gospel of Matthew where he is challenging people he thinks are hypocrites.

And he says to them: You can discern the faces of the sky, but you can't discern the signs of the times.

That is Matthew 16:2 and 3. You can discern the faces of the sky, but you cannot discern the signs of the time.

The way I viewed this vigil that you have been powerfully engaged upon is you are attempting to discern and explain the signs of the times to your colleagues and to our country, and that is very important that we do.

And I would like to ask you one question about the signs of the times economically to follow the discussion of what we are seeing, but then I want to ask you a question about the signs of the times more in the nature of our democracy.

So to begin, on the economy, you walked through how strong the economy was on the day this President was inaugurated, and 2 months later, the challenges of a volatile stock market, the challenges of rising prices, the challenges of declining consumer confidence, the challenges of predictions that there might be slow growth or even a recession.

We will have a vote on the Senate floor tomorrow about Canadian tariffs based on a resolution that I have introduced that we will have a vote on.

You talked at length about those tariffs and the effects that they have on Americans and others. As I have traveled around my Commonwealth, my farmers, my small businesses, they have seen it before. They saw it in Trump term one. They know how dangerous it will be. They don't want to pay more for groceries. They don't want to pay more for building supplies. Farmers don't want to pay more for fertilizers. My shipyards don't want to pay more for aluminum and steel. They were promised that they would pay less, not pay more.

They don't want to be part of a campaign to demonize a nation that has been a friend of the United States and stood side by side with us in every war since the War of 1812. They don't want to be part of a juvenile assertion by this President that that sovereign nation is the 51st State. They don't want to be part of a name-calling effort to call the prime minister of a sovereign nation Governor. They are trying to read the signs of the times.

Why is this administration that came in with such a strong economic hand doing so much so quickly to both hurt us economically, but also to tarnish a relationship that has stood the test of time with an ally?

The President often says that his goal is ``America First.'' We would all agree as Members of this body in ``America First,'' but we would all passionately disagree with ``America Alone.''

What is ``America Alone'' going to get us? What will we turn to, who will we turn to when the allies that we have spent decades building relationships with now feel pushed aside? Yesterday, China announced that they were going to be working with Japan and Korea on a free trade zone, possibly to respond to U.S. tariffs.

Other nations are having to engage in hedging behaviors because they thought we were friends and now they doubt that reality anymore.

And so as you look at the signs of these economic times--and then I will get to a second question about the signs of the times in our democracy--how are we to understand this? And more importantly, how are we best to rectify it?

How can we stand up for our families and reduce their burdens, not increase them? How can we stand shoulder to shoulder with linked arms with our allies to face off against adversaries? Reflect on the signs of the times and point us in the right direction, please?

Yes. Yes. And my citizens really remember because they suffered.

Yes, I do.

Yep.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

This is a question about the signs of the times in our democracy. We will celebrate 250 years of American democracy in 2026. And I want it to be a celebration, not a coronation, not a requiem, not a wake, but a celebration.

A week ago Sunday, 250 years ago, Patrick Henry stood on the floor of Henrico Parish, now known as St. John's Episcopal Church, on Church Hill in Richmond, at a moment of decision where people were challenged to understand the signs of the times, at a moment of tyranny. And he asked the immortal question.

And I almost view your vigil as asking the same question about where we would stand in such a moment, and there were different forks in the road--a phrase that has attained some meaning recently. And Patrick Henry said: ``As for me, give me liberty or give me death.''

You are giving a liberty speech, my colleague. You are giving a liberty speech as the Nation begins to think about 250 years of democracy.

The opposite of liberty, that which Henry was fighting against, was tyranny. It was tyranny. I am one that believes that we should mark anniversaries. We shouldn't just act steady

state, like this country was ordained and will just go on forever regardless. We are coming up on 250 years of American democracy, and there is a live question about its continued existence that this generation is grappling with.

Henry gave that speech at St. John's Church, and a few months later, on July 4, 1776, the United States declared its independence from England, and our history in this new chapter began. And at various points along the way--during the 1850s, say, or during the 1950s-- generation shifts like ours have had to grapple with the question of whether the experiment will continue or not.

Some of our national symbols have some unusual aspects to them that point to this experiment. We have a national anthem that ends with a question--not an assertion, not a declaration, but whether the flag will still stand over the home of the free and land of the brave, question mark.

The State flag that Virginia adopted on July 5, 1776, is a most unusual flag. It has a woman representing Roman virtue, standing astride a deposed tyrant whose crown is knocked off, who is holding a broken chain in his hand, and he is lying on the ground. It is one of only six State flags with a woman on it. It is the only State flag that features toplessness, which occasionally creates some raciness in schools as students ask about it.

But it is also the flag with the most unique State motto of any State. All States have mottos. Forty-nine States' mottos are positive. ``Hope,'' ``Eureka,'' ``Excelsior,'' ``Onward and Upward,'' ``Ad astra per aspera.'' Michigan has the most unusual positive motto in Latin, ``If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look around you.''

I wasn't looking for a peninsula, but I would rather it be pleasant than not.

Virginia's is the only flag and the only State with a motto that is not positive. It is a rebuke: ``Sic semper tyrannis.'' Thus be it always--thus be it ever--to tyrants. George Wythe, Thomas Jefferson's teacher, was in charge of designing the flag and chose that as the motto.

Think about the verb tense, right? It is the only one that is a rebuke, and it has stayed on our State seal and State flag since July 5, 1776. Many State flags have been changed in the last 20 years. Utah changed, Minnesota changed, Mississippi changed, and Georgia changed. Virginia has essentially not changed since 1776.

Neither the figure of virtue standing astride a deposed monarch or the motto, ``Sic semper tyrannis''--again, the verb tense, ``semper''-- always, ever. It is not in the current tense. No tyrants are down with tyrants. It is in the future tense: Thus be it always to tyrants. Thus be it ever to tyrants.

The Virginia flag that we pass by in Virginia every day without thinking about it--it is in every school, and we pass it by. It asks us two questions, 250 years later: Do we retain the ability to recognize tyranny? Do we retain the virtue to defeat it? Can we recognize tyranny? Can we retain the virtue to defeat it?

My friend, you are standing on the floor in the tradition of Patrick Henry, 250 years later. You are raising a question about liberty and our fidelity to it.

So my question to you would be, what gives you hope that the answer we will give to these questions, as Americans--as those commemorating a quarter millennium of American democracy--what gives you confidence that we will answer these questions in a way that will honor those who came before us?

Father Coughlin.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor and celebrate the remarkable leadership and dedication of Nathan Monell, who will retire as executive director of the National Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) this year. Nathan's tenure at the PTA has been defined by his steadfast commitment to advocating for the educational success and well-being of our Nation's children. His vision, expertise, and passion for family engagement have made a lasting impact on the lives of millions of children and families across the United States and beyond.

Since Nathan's appointment as executive director in 2015, the National PTA has flourished under his leadership. With more than 20,000 local units and over 3 million members, PTA is the oldest and largest volunteer child advocacy association in the country. Nathan's leadership has been instrumental in advancing family engagement and public policy, and his work has reinforced the PTA's mission of uniting parents, teachers, schools, and communities to ensure every child's potential is realized.

His lifelong commitment to empowering families and fostering educational equity is evident in his contributions to a wide range of initiatives, including youth and family services, mental health, foster care, HIV and substance abuse prevention, and education. He has led public policy efforts at the local, State, and Federal levels, forging partnerships with foundations and corporations to improve outcomes and advance equity in communities nationwide. Whether advocating for school funding, digital safety, or mental health, Nathan's tenacity has driven the organization to take bold actions that support the needs and concerns of parents, teachers, and students alike.

As Nathan prepares for retirement, I join the National PTA, his colleagues, and countless individuals whose lives he has touched in expressing our gratitude for his years of service. I know that his legacy will continue to inspire the next generation of leaders committed to making a difference in the lives of children and families. I wish him and his family the very best in the next chapter of his life.

Madam President, I can make it fast or slow.

I am joining all of my colleagues to advocate for this bill.

One-third of the Virginia population is a resident of the DC metro area and enjoys this Capital, and 150,000 Virginians come to work in DC every day. They want DC police and services to be well funded. Please support this bill. Thank you.

Vote on S.1077

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the House continuing resolution that will be before this body over the next couple of days, and I want to begin by talking about a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting that we had yesterday morning at 9:30 a.m.

So if we are all paying attention, the House acted on a continuing resolution on Tuesday night. The budget deadline is at the end of the day Friday. And it takes two Houses to do a budget, but what happened is when the House acted on their portion of it, they decided to leave town.

They thought it would just be great if they just left town before the budget was even done, and they sent us a ``continuing resolution'' that would be unprecedented because it would mean that the Government of the United States would have operated not under a traditional appropriations bill but, instead, under a CR for the entire year.

To those who don't do the Washington speak, what is the difference between a CR and a real appropriations budget? The way I describe it is this: If you are driving a vehicle, you want to drive by looking through the windshield, where you are going. That is what the budget does. You budget for the year ahead of you, based upon the facts on the ground, the realities in the world, the priorities that you have embraced, the challenges that you will face. That is what a budget is supposed to do.

When you operate under a continuing resolution, you are driving by looking in the rearview mirror. You are instead embracing decisions that were made a while ago and just saying: Well, we can't even reach an accord about going forward. So let's instead just--let's do what we did last month. Let's do what we did last year because we are unable to reach an agreement.

A continuing resolution has been somewhat normal for a couple of months. If we don't reach a budget deal by September 30, it is pretty normal that we do a CR through the end of the calendar year. But in every year that I have been here, Congress has been able to, at some point, find not the backward-looking CR but the forward-looking appropriations bill and put it in place so that we are spending money based on the priorities that are important right now.

What is pending before the Senate now is not that forward-looking budget. Instead, it is this vehicle that has come over from the House that would, for the first time, have us not budgeting based on the windshield but, instead, driving by what is in the rearview mirror.

We had an Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday, and it was a hearing that was called by the Readiness Subcommittee, on which I sit. Readiness looks at this very important metric: How ready are the different branches of the American military to fight tomorrow, if we need to?

And we have this hearing every year, and we usually invite to the hearing the vice service chiefs of each of the service branches--so instead of the service chief of the Navy, the deputy, Vice Admiral Kilby. We will invite the deputies of all the branches, and they come and talk to us about how they measure readiness and where we stand. And they were all before us, yesterday, in a hearing that was chaired by Alaska Senator Sullivan, with the ranking member, Hawaii Senator Hirono, and a number of others there at the hearing.

Now, remember, it had just been 12 hours before that the House had passed the continuing resolution, and so folks were aware of what was on the table in this hearing yesterday morning. And what did our military leadership say to us about the continuing resolution that we were going to be asked to vote on in the next day or so?

Well, let me just read a couple of quotes from the military leaders.

Admiral Kilby:

Consistent and predictable funding is foundational to our

improvement efforts. The Navy will need to make hard choices

this year if we are operating under a full-year continuing

resolution.

And so I asked him this question. I am just going to read the exchange that I had with him:

Admiral Kilby, I think you testified in your open testimony

that under a CR one-fifth of our ships will miss their

maintenance schedule, did I hear that right?

Admiral Kilby said:

Specifically eleven ships, those maintenance availabilities

are at risk.

I followed up:

OK, so we want to get to 80% ready on ships and subs, where

are we now?

Admiral Kilby said:

Depending on the day, around 67%.

I then said:

What will one-fifth of ships missing their maintenance

schedule under the CR, what will that do to our quest to get

to 80% readiness for ships and subs?

Admiral Kilby:

It'll certainly be a setback, we'll take a penalty there.

All of the other vice service chiefs said the same thing on behalf of the Marines and the Air Force and the Space Force and the Army: Operating under a full-year CR will hurt readiness, will hurt our national security.

This is what the Pentagon is telling us about the bill we are going to be voting on in the next day or so. But it wasn't just the military leaders who said that. The chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, Senator Sullivan, said: The CR--from a readiness standpoint, I think that none of this is helpful. He described the frequent use of CRs as ``a failure on the part of Congress.''

Then my friend and colleague who was the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Wicker--here is what he said about the bill we are going to vote on in the next couple of days:

I will say this about the fact that this is the first year-

long CR for the Department of Defense. . . . This is a shame

on our process and it is not in keeping with what the

Founders intended.

This is the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee's opinion about what a yearlong CR will do to our national security.

So why are we going to vote for it? Why are we taking it up and rushing to pass it? When our military leadership says it is a bad idea and when the chairman of the Armed Services Committee says it a bad idea, why would we contemplate it?

Well, Senator Sullivan sort of hinted at it when he said it is better than a shutdown. But those are not the options. This was a hearing Wednesday morning at 9:30 in the morning. The budget deadline is not until the end of the day Friday. We don't have to accept that it is either a security-damaging continuing resolution or a shutdown because we are the Senate of the United States.

There is an attitude among Senators here that because the House came up with a partisan bill and sent it to us and then decided to skip town Tuesday night, that we just have to go along. I thought the Senate was an independent branch of Congress. I thought the Senate was the greatest deliberative body in the world.

I don't think the Speaker of the House is the czar of the Senate, and when he sends us a continuing resolution 3 days before a budget deadline and then leaves town, I don't think the Senate of the United States is bound to follow his wishes. Instead, we should do our own jobs and do the right thing for the country.

If the Armed Services chair says that this hurts defense, then let's get it right. If the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee says that the CR hurts defense, then let's get it right.

The good news is that we have an opportunity to get it right. It is not completely clear as I stand on the floor, but it looks likely that there could be a vote today or tomorrow on an alternative that I will call the getting-it-right alternative.

What is the getting-it-right alternative? We would extend the current spending level for 30 days and then finish the budget. We would decide we don't want to drive looking in the rearview mirror; we want to drive looking in the windshield. We would get an appropriations deal that wouldn't hurt our readiness.

I am just talking about one priority. I could have other colleagues stand here and talk about how this CR hurts education priorities, health priorities, mental health priorities, transportation priorities, emergency response. We don't have to accept that, and frankly, to earn the label ``U.S. Senator,'' we shouldn't accept it. We should do the get-it-right alternative, and the get-it-right alternative, which has been proposed by Senator Murray and others, is to do a simple, 30-day extension of existing spending--no amendments, no adjustments, no anomalies, no quirks for 30 days--and then get an appropriations deal done that can pass this body and pass the House.

We can do it. We are very, very close. I am not on the Appropriations Committee, but in my discussions with appropriators, they say: We are extremely close; we can do this. We should.

So I will just urge my colleagues, as you contemplate a vote on this House CR that, in my view, does great damage to many priorities, you don't just have to go along with the House work product, especially when they show disrespect to the Senate by skipping town Tuesday night, thinking that they could jam us by doing so. You don't have to go along with the work product that even the chairman of the Armed Services Committee says hurts our national readiness. You don't have to go along with a work product when Pentagon officials who have made this their lives look at us and tell us this will hurt national security. There is a better strategy, and we should embrace it.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to begin a discussion that will take place, during today, about S.J. Res. 10, which is a resolution that my colleague Senator Heinrich and I have filed to challenge President Trump's day-one declaration of a U.S. energy emergency.

And you will hear from a number of our colleagues today, expressing the basic point that the declaration is a sham. There is, in fact, no emergency, but it has been declared so as to gut various environmental laws passed by Congress, still part of U.S. statutory law, in order to advantage certain kinds of energy--i.e., oil, gas, and coal--and punish other forms of energy--wind, solar, et cetera.

I am very, very happy to have the support of my colleague Senator Heinrich, who is the energy expert on the Democratic side in this body, and very, very happy to have so many colleagues who will be speaking on this matter today on the Senate floor.

President Trump took a number of actions on his first day in office, and many of them got a lot of attention. One that didn't get so much attention was his decision, on day one--on day one--to declare that the United States was in an energy emergency and, therefore, we needed to bypass environmental laws.

I want to dig into the sham nature of the emergency declaration and then explore why President Trump actually has done this, and, finally, conclude with a request to my colleagues that the article I branch should not just roll over and play dead when a President

declares an emergency that does not actually exist.

So let's first talk about the claim that President Trump has raised that the United States is in an energy emergency.

This is a chart that shows U.S. energy production from 1950 until essentially today. The chart goes through about 2023 and does not include the 2024 numbers. But I am proud to stand here and tell you, especially as one who has supported many of the policies that have led to this growth in American energy, that America is producing more energy today than at any point in the history of this Nation. America is the leader in the world in energy production, and for the last few years, we have been an energy surplus nation, producing more than we consume.

You will see that the chart includes different kinds of energy--oil, gas, coal, renewable--but the direction of the chart shows steady increase in production.

Let's go into the kinds of energy we are talking about here. In 2024, America produced more natural gas than at any time in the history of this country. In 2024, America produced more petroleum than at any time in the history of this country. And in 2024, America deployed more renewable energy than at any time in the history of this country. In fact, in 2024, more than 90 percent of the energy added to the Nation's energy grid was from renewable sources--wind, solar, and battery storage.

The United States, recently, in the past few years became--there may be a technical term for this, but I call it an energy surplus nation. We produce more than we consume. That moment happened in 2019, when our production started to outpace consumption. In every year since 2019, that surplus has grown, and the surplus in 2024 was at record levels. And it is a good thing to produce significantly more than we consume.

Why is it a good thing? Because we are able to sell energy to others, reducing our trade deficit.

I participated with Senators in lifting the ban on export of crude petroleum a few years ago, and that plus exports of liquid natural gas have helped us with our trade deficit. But more directly related to this moment in time, the export of American energy has also helped us help other nations that are reliant on energy from petrol dictators. The nations in Europe that had to rely on Vladimir Putin, nations in other parts of the world that have had to rely on Iran or Venezuela, now, increasingly, are able to access U.S. energy.

I was in Finland over the weekend, visiting Virginia Guard troops exercising with the Finnish Army. Finland is importing liquid natural gas from the United States and using it for their own energy needs and also for the energy needs of other European nations.

So where is the emergency? More oil than ever, more natural gas than ever, more renewables than ever, and a record surplus of production over consumption.

Where is the emergency? The emergency is not in the energy sector. The emergency is Donald Trump self-creating an emergency, because Donald Trump in other actions taken in the first week of his administration has gone full tilt to challenge energy projects that are creating jobs and lowering prices all across this country.

Donald Trump and his administration are attacking wind projects. They are attacking solar projects. They are attacking clean energy projects that aren't oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear. And by doing so, they are reducing supply and likely raising prices on American consumers.

There are a number of projects in Virginia, as an example, that have benefited from tax breaks that were included either in the Inflation Reduction Act, for clean energy projects, or the bipartisan infrastructure law, for rollout of electric vehicle charging, for example. President Trump's administration has attacked those projects, has put them on hold, and the Virginians who were intending to invest billions of dollars hiring people to build these projects are now uncertain about what they can do.

Why would a President declare an energy emergency and then attack homegrown clean energy projects in my State and elsewhere? And that is exactly what President Trump is doing.

Why would he do that? Well, we don't have to speculate about the answer. We know the answer.

In the summer of 2024, President Trump held a meeting at Mar-a-Lago with the CEOs of major oil and gas companies, and they reported upon the substance of that meeting. And here is a headline from the Guardian, and other publications carried the same news: ``Trump promised to scrap climate laws if U.S. oil bosses donated $1 billion'' to his campaign.

One of the oil executives at the meeting quoted Donald Trump saying: ``You'll get it on the first day.'' Oil and gas will get preferential treatment on the first day, with end runs around environmental laws passed by Congress that are still part of the statutes we take an oath to implement in our jobs. And, in fact, the oil and gas guys did get it on the first day.

What did the Trump fake energy emergency deliver to those he had promised to support? Here is what was delivered in the emergency order. The President said: There is an emergency, and so we need to bypass laws passed by Congress. We need to bypass the Clean Air Act. We need to bypass the Clean Water Act. We need to bypass the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act.

Because of this fake emergency that he has created out of thin air, we need to take all of these laws that Congress has passed--many of which have been in statute, like the Clean Water Act, for more than 50 years--and we need to give energy producers and transmitters the ability to bypass these laws in order to produce and transmit energy.

It is interesting, though. When you read the Executive order, it talks about energy production, but you have to go to the last section of the order to read what ``energy'' means. And President Trump is calling for a national emergency and bypassing all of these laws, if you want to produce using oil or gas or coal or nuclear or hydro, but not for wind, not for solar, not for clean battery storage. If your homegrown American low-cost energy is wind, solar, and battery storage, you don't get to bypass environmental laws. You have to comply with the letter of the law as Congress intends. We are only giving a break to the guys who supported Donald Trump, the fossil fuel industry.

Donald Trump is so willing to give away the farm to Big Oil and Gas that he even, in the first provision in the emergency order, said: We also need to bypass property rights. He encouraged Federal Agencies to make aggressive use of eminent domain to produce fossil fuel energy.

Those watching understand what this means. Eminent domain is the government taking the land from private property owners, and there is a set of rules in the Federal Code about when you can use eminent domain for energy projects, but Donald Trump has said: You know what, if you want to do oil, coal, and gas, you don't have to follow the rules. You can even take people's private property by bypassing the rules for oil, gas, and coal--but, of course, not for wind and solar, not for wind, solar, and battery, the clean energy that has been 95 percent of the power added to the grid just last year.

So we know what the game is. ``You'll get it on the first day,'' Big Oil, and they did. And Donald Trump is now giving them an E-ZPass lane to speed by clean energy projects that are lower cost and cleaner because he told them he would do it if they supported his campaign.

This is no emergency. It was declared for a corrupt purpose, and it is an unacceptable effort to undermine laws passed by the article I branch. And so I am on the floor with my colleague Senator Heinrich-- and I am going to yield to him in a second--to just ask Congress: Be Congress. Be the article I branch. If a President can just stand up and make up an emergency and then gut laws that Congress passed, what is to stop President Trump from making up another emergency and gutting other laws? What is to stop any President, Republican or Democrat, from fabricating a complete emergency and using it to gut laws that Congress has passed?

You know, if President Trump doesn't like the Clean Water Act--I happen to like it. I don't think it is perfect. But the Clean Water Act has

helped us to restore the James River in the city of Richmond, where I live, which won an international river prize a couple years ago as the most improved river in the United States. A river that was a sewer, that was closed off to fishing for 50 years, now has fishing, swimming, rafting, kayaking, bald eagles that had been extinct along the river because of chemicals now breeding in one of the most dense population of bald eagles in the United States. I like the Clean Water Act. I think it served a valuable purpose for 50-plus years, but maybe President Trump, who was elected, has decided that the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act or property rights protections have outlived their usefulness.

And if he has decided that these laws have outlived their usefulness, well, he has got two Republican Houses. He can introduce a bill to repeal the Clean Air Act or repeal the Clean Water Act. That would be the right way to do this, not invent a bogus fake emergency and unilaterally gut these laws.

But the President has got a problem. If he introduced the bill to repeal the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, not even Republicans--some Republicans would--but not even Republicans would support it. In two Republican Houses, he would have zero luck in repealing these laws that have protected the public health and the environment. So his attitude is, Wow, I could benefit my Big Oil cronies by repealing these laws, but that is a nonstarter in the article I branch. So why don't I kick the article I branch to the side, create a fake emergency, end-run them, and that is how I benefit my cronies.

Congress should stand up against this and vote for S.J. Res. 10 because it is the right policy, and we shouldn't gut these provisions, except by doing it in the course of ordinary legislative business, should that be the will of the appropriate majority of both bodies. That would be the way to do this.

So I am asking my colleagues to stand up and support S.J. Res. 10. This would be horrible policy. But more than a horrible policy on these laws, it would also set a horrible precedent, a precedent that a President of either party can invent a sham emergency and then grab away from Congress powers that Congress has under article I.

Let's not be sheep in this place. Let's not have this be the ``Silence of the Lambs,'' just doing whatever Donald Trump says he wants to do, with the article I branch not saying or mumbling a word, not willing to issue a peep, not showing a backbone, not showing a voice. We have got a backbone; we have got a voice; but more importantly, we took an oath to a Constitution that gives Congress certain powers. We should not let the President trample on those powers.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to conclude the debate. I believe the vote will follow these remarks.

I want to thank my colleagues. Seventeen Democrats appeared on the floor to speak on behalf of S.J. Res. 10. I needn't repeat the comments I made at the beginning. I will be very brief.

No. 1, there is no energy emergency. We have established the United States is producing more energy--more oil, more gas, more renewable energy--than at any time in the history of this country and that we are now a dramatic net-energy-surplus nation, as we are producing more and more energy than we consume every year. That surplus is great because we can export to develop both reducing the trade deficit and helping other nations wean themselves off their reliance on petrodictators.

Second, President Trump's energy emergency declaration is a sham. He ignores the facts of America's energy dominance in order to benefit Big Oil because he told them he would do that. Last summer, he said: If you support me for President and invest in me, I will give you rollbacks in environmental laws on day one of my administration.

And that is precisely what he did.

We can tell that that is what he is doing by reading the exact terms of the energy emergency, in which he sidelines critical environmental laws so long as you are producing oil and gas but not if you are producing wind and solar. If the President really wanted to accelerate energy, he would not leave out wind and solar. Instead, he is doing the bidding of Big Oil by trying to kneecap wind and solar in his energy emergency declaration.

But it is more than the words on a page in the declaration; it is also in his actions. I have many projects in Virginia that have announced with great fanfare--including announced by our Republican Governor--that have relied upon tax credits provided in the Inflation Reduction Act or other incentives in the bipartisan infrastructure law. These are projects all over Virginia--rural areas, urban areas-- creating big jobs to create clean energy that will bring prices down.

President Trump has undertaken a series of actions to put in jeopardy all of these projects in Virginia, to jeopardize the jobs and to jeopardize the energy that would be produced that would lower costs, and he has done the same thing in every State in this country. So we need to reject this energy emergency so that we can have a true energy innovation economy and bring prices down for everyday consumers.

I have listened to the comments of my Republican colleagues as they have argued against my S.J. Res. 10, and they have basically made two arguments.

The first is the argument that they don't believe renewable energy is reliable. So, for that reason, they justify the President's leaving out renewable energy sources in his energy emergency order. To the contrary, 94 percent of the power that was added to the American electricity grid in 2024 was wind, solar, and battery.

Colleagues may stand on the floor and mouth the words that renewable energy is not reliable, but let's look at what the market is doing. The market is investing in these energies because they are reliable, they are American, they are clean, and they are cheap. And I would venture to say that those investing in these sources are more expert about what is reliable and what is not than Members of this body, with all respect.

The second argument that is being made by my colleagues is that they support ``all of the above'' energy, and they use that to argue against S.J. Res. 10. My S.J. Res. 10 is about ``all of the above'' energy, and it is against the notion of leaving out wind, solar, and battery technologies that are driving our green energy economy.

The question is, If you are not opposing, really, because of reliability concerns and you are not really advocating for all of the above, what is the real source of the opposition?

The real source of the opposition is this: People do not want to stand up against Donald Trump. They don't want to stand up against a President who declares a fake emergency. They don't want to stand up against a President who is unplugging jobs in their States. They don't want to stand up against a President whose actions will lead to increased energy costs for consumers. They don't want to stand up to a President who is targeting and reversing investments that they even voted for when they voted for the bipartisan infrastructure law.

At some point, the question to my colleagues is, When will you stand up?

How much do prices have to go up on everyday Americans before you will stand up? How many jobs do you have to lose in your State before you are going to stand up? How many end runs of congressional statutes will you allow a President to take and be voiceless before you stand up?

That is what this is about.

I urge my colleagues to stand up for an American innovation energy economy. Don't let President Trump use a fake energy emergency to kneecap it.

With that, Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to grant floor privileges to Christopher Creech for today, February 26, 2025.

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

Mr. President, I rise to describe an amazing journey that I took this weekend that was a powerful journey connected to my Virginia National Guard and also to issues that are very, very prominent right now in the world.

We finished voting on the Senate floor a little bit before 5 a.m. on Friday, on the reconciliation bill, and, a few hours later, I went to Dulles Airport and flew to Finland, landed in Helsinki at about 1:30 on Saturday, went back to the airport at 1:30 on Monday--spent 48 hours on the ground with one of our newest NATO allies to work together with them on a number of issues.

The reason for the visit over the weekend was to see my Virginia National Guard. The Virginia Guard, as in most States, are active participants in the State Partnership Program that was established back in the 1990s, where a State's Guard unit connects with the military of an allied country and engages in joint training exercises. Once Finland decided to join NATO, Virginia--which already has a partner in the State Partnership Program--reached out and said to Finland: We would like to work together with you as well.

My Governor, Governor Youngkin, helped preside over the signing of this partnership program in 2024, and the Virginia Guard--about 50 members of the Guard--were engaged in the first training exercises in Finland.

As Governor of Virginia, I used to be the commander in chief of the Virginia Guard. I have been very close to them, and I wanted to go see my Virginians training in snowy birch forests in southern Finland this weekend, and I was able to do that.

My Guard unit is training with the Karelia Brigade, which is one of the three brigades of the Finnish Army. It has got a long history of very heroic service. And on Sunday, it was a delight to drive 2\1/2\ hours outside of Helsinki and visit with my 50 Virginians and to hear the Finnish Army brag about them: Your Guard are well-trained. They are great marksman, even shooting Finnish rifles, which are

different than the rifles they use every day and doing it in temperatures that are far colder than Virginians normally have to experience on training exercises.

In addition to my time with the Virginia Guard. I spent time in Finland with our own Embassy team; with representatives from EUCOM, the European Command of the U.S. Army; with the President of Finland, President Stubb, who is a pretty amazing guy, who attended Furman University on a golf scholarship and manages to drop the word ``y'all'' into a lot of sentences in a pretty thick Finnish accent. I spent time with the Foreign Minister and the Permanent Defense Secretary, and also visited the Helsinki Shipyard, which is about to start working in tandem with the United States and Canada to build icebreakers, which is something we desperately need.

So it was a great trip--too short but really powerful--and I returned last night having interacted with my Virginians and knowing a lot more.

There was a sobering element to it, too, and that is really why I wanted to come and speak. To be in Finland, a nation that had to fight two wars against Russia in the late 1930s, early 1940s, to maintain its independence, and to be there with those leaders on the third anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine was sobering and thought provoking.

Finland knows Russia and Russian leadership better than just about anybody because of these hundreds of miles of border between the two nations. And that memory of fighting two wars against Russia to maintain Finnish independence is still a very present-day and palpable memory for the Finns, even though those wars happened in the late 1930s and early 1940s.

And you can be sure that our friends, our allies, those we are training together with, had some pretty strong thoughts about Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the commemoration of the third anniversary. I was very disappointed and I think many were yesterday that the U.N. considered competing resolutions on the third anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

One was a Ukrainian resolution that talked about Russia as the invader, Russia as the instigator of the war. That resolution passed the General Assembly, but in a shocking move, the United States voted against it because of the language placing the blame for the war on Russia.

There had been previous resolutions after the invasion and on the second anniversary and the first anniversary saying that this war was started by Russia. The United States led those resolutions. But now the United States, through our President, through our Secretary of Defense, through the U.N.--we don't have a permanent U.N. Ambassador now-- through the U.N. representative at the U.N. was unwilling to sign on to and vote for a resolution that talked about Russia as being responsible for the war.

So we opposed the Ukrainian resolution. Who voted with us to oppose this resolution? Russia opposed, North Korea opposed, Nicaragua opposed, and another 15 nations opposed. About 60 nations abstained, including China. China wouldn't vote no. China abstained, and 90-plus nations voted yes. The resolution passed, but it passed with the United States unwilling to sign on to the proposition that Russia started this war and should not have done so.

There was also a U.S. resolution that was tendered to the U.N. General Assembly. That U.S. resolution did not mention anyone being responsible for the war but called for a cease-fire and peace, obviously. The U.S. resolution was subject to an amendment that was offered by the UK and other nations inserting the language that Russia was responsible for the war and should not have done so. That amendment passed, and because it passed, the United States ended up not even being willing to vote yes on its own resolution and instead abstained.

These Finnish colleagues who are friends and allies were pretty candid about their disappointment in the United States for not being willing to state a truth--that this war was instigated by Russia--and they deeply want to be partners with the United States on defense; hence their accession to NATO; hence their agreement to the State Partnership Program with Virginia. But they are puzzled with an American leadership--from the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the U.N.--that is unwilling to state that Russia started this war.

I came home last night. It was a long flight made too long because of a cancelation. I got back a little bit later than I originally planned. But I had a lot of time to think. What I thought about was basically this: We need to learn some lessons.

We need to remember the lessons of 1938. Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of England, went to Munich, thinking he could find an end to war and deliver what he called ``peace'' in our time. He negotiated with the German Government and came back to England and said: There is now peace in our time--which anyone in politics would love to be able to say. But we all know that Munich Agreement was a disaster. It was negotiated between England and Germany, but many of the other nations that were later invaded by Germany weren't there, and it wasn't a peace agreement, and they suffered.

But did England at least protect itself from suffering by signing a deal and proclaiming peace in our time? No. England was attacked as well after the Germans had attacked Belgium and France and Poland and other nations.

So an illusory ``peace in our time'' deal was just that--it was illusory. You can't appease a bully. They will bully you and others unless you stand up to them.

We could remember 1975. In 1975, the Helsinki Accords, right in the community where I was visiting, were signed--the Soviet Union was a signatory, along with the United States and Canada and European nations--to guarantee certain principles, including the guarantee of the inviolability of national sovereignty and that no nation should be able to invade the sovereignty of others. We need to remember that. We celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Helsinki Accords this summer. We need to remember those principles and who has violated them and who has not.

Let's remember 1995. In 1995, as an aftermath of the Helsinki Accords, we helped form the OSCE, the Organization for Security and Co- Operation in Europe. It is the one organization that includes all European nations, including Russia. NATO doesn't include them all; the OSCE does. The OSCE was committed to the principles of the Helsinki Accords protecting national sovereignty, and we need to remember who has violated those principles and who hasn't.

We should remember 2020, 5 years ago this week in 2020--the Doha accord. President Trump negotiated a ``peace'' accord with the Taliban--a peace accord with the Taliban. Afghanistan was not allowed to be at the table. The Government of Afghanistan that had been our partner, in whom we had invested hundreds of billions of dollars, was not allowed to be at the table. So, yes, there was a ``peace'' deal. There was peace in our time, but the peace proved to be illusory and catastrophic months later when the United States removed troops pursuant to the Doha accord.

The absence of inclusion of the Afghan Government led to a demoralization and a collapse. The inspector general that analyzed the end of our military participation in Afghanistan had plenty of blame to assign--blame to the Biden administration but also blame to a President, President Trump, who negotiated a deal without including the party that was most affected.

I thought of the Doha accord when I saw the news of negotiations in Riyadh between the United States and Russia to end the war in Ukraine and noticed Ukraine was not at the table. A peace deal about a nation's sovereignty where you are not allowing that nation to be at the table is doomed to failure.

We need to remember those lessons in connection with any discussion about the future of Ukraine.

Mr. President, you don't even need to completely remember history; just remember what your mom or dad told you. I know I had this call, and I think most people will remember this. You are getting bullied at school, and you go home and complain to your parents. What do your parents tell you about bullies? If you give in to them, they will keep bullying you and others. If

you stand up to them, they are more likely--not guaranteed but more likely to stop bullying.

The United States should have been willing yesterday in the U.N. to stand up to a bully. The United States should have been willing to say that this was an illegal war unjustly initiated by Russia. If you are unwilling to state a truth, you begin in a very weak position.

So my thought in coming home from visiting my own troops, who are sacrificing and risking to train for an action that they know they may one day be called on to support--else they wouldn't be conducting training in a snowy birch forest in southern Finland in February of 2025--they are there because they are willing to sacrifice. It takes sacrifice to protect democracy.

Our Nation is coming up on the 250th anniversary of our democracy-- and not only our democracy but our leadership role in democracies around the globe. The world needs us to continue to stand strong. Our friends like Finland are hoping and praying that we continue to stand strong. It is my belief that in the heart of the American people is a desire to continue to stand strong.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to follow my colleague from Connecticut to talk about the impending business before the Senate, the 2025 budget resolution.

My colleague talked about this discussion and the Republican proposal as a scam. I am going to use a slightly different term, but I bet we all know a ``Trojan horse''--a Trojan horse. We all know the story about the Battle of Troy when the invaders created this beautiful gift of a horse that they then gave to those in the besieged city, but it turned out it wasn't a gift. It was an agent of destruction, and that is what this budget deal is.

If the Republican majorities here and at the House cared about the budget, we would have an appropriations deal. There was an appropriations deal on the table to be taken at the end of the last calendar year, but after the election result, the Republican majority just decided, we don't want to negotiate with Democrats in the Senate. We will kick it into next year, and we will come up with a budget deal that we write.

We would have had an appropriations deal before the end of last year. We would have an appropriations deal by March 14. Instead, what Democrats are hearing is that the Republicans don't want to do the traditional appropriations budget. They want to do a continuing resolution, which would be very harmful.

If my Republican colleagues cared about the budget, they would complain about Elon Musk and Donald Trump unilaterally violating past appropriations deals that we all voted for and that the President signed. If they cared about the budget, that would matter to them because a deal is a deal, especially a deal that we voted on.

Instead, my Republican colleagues are quietly acquiescing to Head Start Programs closing, to community health clinics closing or reducing services, to veterans hospitals and clinics grappling with serious staff shortages.

Why would my colleagues quietly acquiesce to those kinds of violations of appropriations bills you voted for if you cared about the budget? This discussion is a Trojan horse. The advertised purposes of the bill that is pending before the Senate now are twofold: border security and defense.

Let me take defense first as a member of the Armed Services Committee. Do you need to use reconciliation to do defense spending? We not only do hundreds of billions of dollars a year in defense spending in a bipartisan way, but

twice in the last calendar year, we did supplemental appropriations to defense, once in April as part of a supplemental security deal and once at the end of calendar year 2024 as part of a continuing resolution.

We spent 850 billion, and we added to it twice with a bipartisan vote. You don't need reconciliation for that. You don't need reconciliation to find spending on border security. I have been here since 2013. We did a border security bill that was bipartisan that spent money in this Chamber. The House Republican majority killed it. In 2018, we did a bipartisan border deal in this body that spent tens of billions of dollars on border security. President Trump urged everyone to vote against it.

My colleague from Connecticut played a key role in a tough bipartisan border security deal just last year. President Trump said vote against it. All of those bills had significant budgetary resources to invest in border security. Donald Trump and House Republicans opposed them.

So if there is a track record of being able to do defense spending in a bipartisan way, border security spending in a bipartisan way, then why are we claiming--why are my Republican colleagues claiming that this reconciliation bill is about those two items? It is not what it is about. My colleagues have done a good job of explaining it.

This is about an effort to dramatically cut spending programs that support everyday Virginians and everyday Americans and then to take those dollars and use them to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and the biggest corporations, taking from people who rely upon community health clinics, rely upon Medicaid, rely upon student loans, taking those dollars and then using them to fund tax cuts for the wealthy.

My colleague from Connecticut talked in particular about the fixation that Republicans have had in slashing Medicaid. We saw it in 2017. The Republican priority during Donald Trump's first year was to kill the Affordable Care Act, but it went much further than just killing the Affordable Care Act.

Republicans made attack on the core of the Medicaid Program a key element, and that is why they ended up losing on the floor of the Senate in one of the most dramatic votes I have ever participated in. Medicaid is about our neighbors and parents in nursing homes.

Medicaid pays for more than half of the births in this country. The hospitals are reimbursed by Medicaid. Fifty percent of the Medicaid budget goes to children--I am sorry. Fifty percent of Medicaid recipients are children. Only 20 percent of the budget of Medicaid goes to kids, but 50 percent of the recipients.

When you go after Medicaid, you are going after folks with disabilities. You are going after our parents and grandparents in nursing homes. You are going against kids. You are going against low- income mothers delivering children in American hospitals.

The tax cuts for the wealthy are not necessarily part of the proposal that is before us in the Senate right now, but the House GOP has given away the game. The big beautiful bill that is being urged on both House and Senate Republicans by the Vice President and the President contains the tax cuts for the wealthy that my colleague Senator Murphy has described.

We need to have $4\1/2\ trillion in tax cuts, and just as was the case in 2017, they will go to folks at the top. In fact, almost half of the benefits of these tax cuts would go to the top 5 percent of taxpayers. That is the end result of the process of reconciliation that we are starting on today.

So I would just say: Let's be candid about what is going on here. We can't trick people. We can't convince people, oh, this is about border security and national defense. We have got a demonstrable bipartisan track record to be able to advance in those areas.

The people that are out there whom the GOP are trying to trick in this effort, they are the ones in communities that are complaining about Head Start Programs being closed. They are the ones that see health clinics reduced or clinics laid off. They are the ones that are getting punched because they are veterans.

The indiscriminate layoffs that are being pushed by the DOGE brothers and President Trump hit veterans. Thirty percent of the Federal workforce are veterans. It is only about 3 percent of the civilian workforce, but if you do mass and indiscriminate layoffs of Federal employees, whom do you hurt disproportionately? You are hurting people who have served this country and are entitled to respect and gratitude. They don't deserve to be treated, in Donald Trump's words, as losers in the way that they are being treated with these indiscriminate layoffs.

These are the people who are being affected thus far by these policies of the President. So that is what we are fighting about, and that is whom we are fighting for.

We are going to offer amendments during vote-arama to clarify what is going on to try to protect Medicaid and children's nutrition and other safety net programs, and we will battle to try to convince some Republicans to join us in those amendments.

But let's just be clear about what this is: It is a Trojan horse- effort to amass savings off the backs of everyday people to pour into tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans who don't need help. We need to resist it in every way we can. I look forward to joining my colleagues in doing so.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, I am joining with Senator Mark Warner to again introduce legislation to designate the General George C. Marshall House, also known as the Dodona Manor, in Leesburg, VA, as an affiliated area under the National Park Service. This same bill passed unanimously in the Senate at the end of the 118th Congress.

The legislation will be the final step in the yearslong effort to recognize the Dodona Manor as a unit of the National Park System. It will also promote the public appreciation of the significant historic contributions made by U.S. military leader and statesman George C. Marshall.

George C. Marshall was an American hero, playing a significant role in the Allied victory in World War II and serving as an architect of one of the most significant foreign policy initiatives in our country's history. He led a lifetime of public service, serving as Chief of Staff to the Army during America's entry into World War II, as Secretary of State, where he orchestrated the historic Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe following the war and provided counsel to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, and as Secretary of Defense after the onset of the Korean war. He acquired Dodona Manor while serving as the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army in 1941 and lived there until his death in 1959.

Today, the George C. Marshall House is dedicated to preserving and advancing General Marshall's life's work and legacy by hosting international exchanges, historical exhibits, and community events, and supporting educational programming based on General Marshall's desire to inspire future leaders. The legislation would bring greater resources, including technical assistance, accessibility improvements, and new programming, to this historical site and enable the Marshall House to improve and expand its work.

I am hopeful that this designation will provide new resources to preserve, honor, and celebrate General Marshall's legacy at this historic site, and I am pleased that companion legislation is also being introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by my colleague Representative Suhas Subramanyam.

Mr. President, today, I am joining with Senator Mark Warner to again introduce legislation to designate the General George C. Marshall House, also known as the Dodona Manor, in Leesburg, VA, as an affiliated area under the National Park Service. This same bill passed unanimously in the Senate at the end of the 118th Congress.

The legislation will be the final step in the yearslong effort to recognize the Dodona Manor as a unit of the National Park System. It will also promote the public appreciation of the significant historic contributions made by U.S. military leader and statesman George C. Marshall.

George C. Marshall was an American hero, playing a significant role in the Allied victory in World War II and serving as an architect of one of the most significant foreign policy initiatives in our country's history. He led a lifetime of public service, serving as Chief of Staff to the Army during America's entry into World War II, as Secretary of State, where he orchestrated the historic Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe following the war and provided counsel to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, and as Secretary of Defense after the onset of the Korean war. He acquired Dodona Manor while serving as the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army in 1941 and lived there until his death in 1959.

Today, the George C. Marshall House is dedicated to preserving and advancing General Marshall's life's work and legacy by hosting international exchanges, historical exhibits, and community events, and supporting educational programming based on General Marshall's desire to inspire future leaders. The legislation would bring greater resources, including technical assistance, accessibility improvements, and new programming, to this historical site and enable the Marshall House to improve and expand its work.

I am hopeful that this designation will provide new resources to preserve, honor, and celebrate General Marshall's legacy at this historic site, and I am pleased that companion legislation is also being introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by my colleague Representative Suhas Subramanyam.

Mr. President, I am so happy that I follow my colleague from Massachusetts. I will build upon some of the points that she has made, but we have served as colleagues together on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee during earlier terms of Congress, and you won't find a better champion for the health of the American public than Senator Warren.

I stand to continue the dialogue about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and his unfitness for the position to which he has been nominated, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and I will give you the punch line but then go into it in some detail.

I don't believe Mr. Kennedy can separate fact from fiction. I don't believe Mr. Kennedy can separate conspiracy from content. Now, you wouldn't want someone suffering from that challenge in any position of leadership at any level of government--local, State, or Federal. But this particular position, the Secretary of Health and Human Services-- one of the most important positions in the Nation as with respect to people's physical and mental health, is exactly the wrong kind of a position for someone who can't tell fact from fiction or content from conspiracy, because the American public needs to be able to rely on HHS and other critical Agencies for information that is not just about the state of their savings account or housing costs. This is about life and death. This is about life and death.

I want to talk about two elements of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.--my colleagues have been going into many of them--that lead me to the conclusion that here is a guy who can't separate fact from fiction or conspiracy from content.

The first was ably described by Senator Warren, and that is Mr. Kennedy's skepticism about vaccines. I know many of my colleagues trod this ground during speeches today, so I am not going to go into the breadth of his vaccine skepticism. I am going to talk about one vaccine in particular that is made in Virginia, Gardasil. I represent the Commonwealth of Virginia. There is a facility in Elkton, VA, in the Shenandoah Valley, near Harrisonburg, that makes Gardasil, the vaccine that has been effective--significantly effective--in preventing and reducing the incidence of cervical cancer.

Think about it for a minute. Vaccines do a lot of different things, but a vaccine that can prevent cancer is truly, truly revolutionary.

Cervical cancer and other associated cancers pose very significant challenges to men and women. In the early 2000s, the FDA approved a cervical cancer vaccine. There are a number of vaccine manufacturers, but one of the largest is Merck that manufactures Gardasil in Virginia. I visited the plant a couple of years back as a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. I went to the plant, and I talked to the workers and saw the pride that they have in being able to develop a product that has had such a significant impact around the world.

When I was Governor of Virginia, with two Republican houses, we acted to have a mandate around the Gardasil vaccination, around the cervical cancer vaccination. There are other cancer vaccine manufacturers as well. By making it mandatory, we enabled people to access it for free. We allowed any parent or student who didn't want to receive the vaccine to opt out with no excuse. But we have made it widely available in Virginia--we are one of three States to have done this--and it has had a tremendously positive benefit on folks' health.

So this is a relatively new vaccine. I mean, it started and got approval and began to be deployed significantly about 15 years ago; and even in 15 years, the results have been remarkable. And I want to just share with my colleagues and with the public some of the results between 15 and 20 years of the HPV cervical cancer vaccine. I will give you results from many countries and from many research institutions and hospitals to show you that this is not a question of significant medical controversy.

A publication that is one of the signature healthcare publications in England is called The Lancet, and there was an article in The Lancet in February of 2020, titled ``The Impact of HPV Vaccination and Cervical Screening on Cervical Cancer Elimination.'' This particular article summarized the study that looked at data from 78 countries. The researchers who examined this data were from England, China, France, Canada, and Switzerland.

Their research in analyzing the data of hundreds of thousands of patients in 78 countries concluded:

High HPV vaccination coverage of girls can lead to cervical

cancer elimination in

most low-income and lower middle-income countries by the end

of the century.

Fancy that--eliminating cancer with a vaccine. This was from the data from 78 countries.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, cdc.gov, has a section: the ``Impact of the HPV Vaccine'':

Among teen girls, infections with HPV types that cause most

HPV cancers and genital warts have dropped 88 percent

[because of the vaccine].

The American Society of Clinical Oncology, in 2024, published an article titled ``Effects of HPV vaccination on the development of HPV- related cancers.'' This is the American society for physicians who work in the clinical oncology area.

Here is the conclusion they reach:

Males vaccinated for HPV were at decreased odds for HPV-

related cancers. . . . Females vaccinated for HPV had lower

odds for cervical cancers and HPV-related cancers overall.

Let's go to Scotland. The Journal of the National Cancer Institute in Scotland last year published a study titled ``Invasive Cervical Cancer Incidence following bivalent HPV vaccination,'' studying the healthcare results of people following vaccination. This was just published last year. Let me read you the quote:

No cases of invasive cancer were recorded in women

immunized at 12 or 13 years of age irrespective of the number

of doses. Women vaccinated at 14 to 22 years of age and given

3 doses of bivalent vaccine showed a significant reduction in

incidence compared with . . . unvaccinated women.

Again, those first few words: ``No cases of invasive cancer were recorded in women'' who were vaccinated and studied in Scotland in this study that came out in 2024.

Another article in the Lancet looked not at 78 countries, but it looked at the effects of HPV vaccination programs in England. This article was published in 2021:

The HPV vaccination program [in the UK] has almost

successfully eliminated cervical cancer in women born since

September 1, 1995.

The elimination of cervical cancer, no cases of invasive cancer.

There was a study done in Australia in 2013 by BMC Medicine. The article was entitled ``Impact of a population-based HPV vaccination program on cervical abnormalities.'' This was still relatively early in the mass vaccination because Gardasil and any other HPV vaccinations weren't used until the mid-2000s--2007, 2008. Here is the conclusion reached about the Australians' experience:

Australia was one of the first countries to introduce a

publicly-funded national HPV vaccination program that

commenced in April 2007. . . . [It] significantly reduced

cervical abnormalities . . . within five years of

implementation, with the greatest vaccine effectiveness

observed [in] the youngest women.

The New England Journal of Medicine, which, in many ways, is the gold standard in the United States, published a study in 2020 about the effects of vaccination in Sweden:

Among Swedish girls and women 10 to 30 years old,

quadrivalent HPV vaccination was associated with a

substantially reduced risk of invasive cervical cancer at the

population level.

All right, those are the studies by the researchers in the journals, but I also wondered--you know, I am not a great scientist. I don't generally read medical journals. But what about our healthcare institutions that are just in the business of providing health advice to everyday Americans who are seeking information about their health?

I went to the website of the Mayo Clinic. Here is what mayoclinic.org says:

HPV vaccine: Who needs it, how it works.

They say on their website: ``Getting vaccinated against HPV helps prevent cancer in men and women''--period. No qualification, no waffling, no wobbling. That is the advice that the Mayo Clinic gives to its patients and to all who go to mayoclinic.org to seek health information.

The Cleveland Clinic, another internationally known healthcare provider, my.clevelandclinic.org in 2025, the website says as follows:

The HPV vaccine is an injection that prevents infections of

two types of human papillomavirus. The vaccine lowers your

risk of getting cervical cancer.

MD Anderson Hospital, another internationally known hospital based in Houston, TX--mdanderson.org. Here is what they say to their patients or others going to the website to seek advice:

All males and females--

All males and females--

ages 9-26 should get the HPV vaccine. It is a safe and

effective method of protection against HPV infection.

So what I have just done is read you a variety of conclusions from a variety of researchers and healthcare providers, from a variety of countries, all pointing to the effectiveness of HPV vaccinations to prevent HPV infections that lead to cancers and other serious medical conditions.

But what does Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., say? He has said that the vaccination is one of the most dangerous vaccines ever created. He has said that it is dangerous and defective.

On one of his website articles on his blog, he said:

It is inescapable that Gardasil kills girls.

The weight of medical evidence is that this is an effective tool to prevent cervical cancer. Robert F. Kennedy--with no medical training, with no scientific research background--claims otherwise. He cannot separate fact from fantasy, content from conspiracy.

Now, is that just because his brain doesn't wrap itself around facts, or is there something more serious? I needn't repeat at length what my colleague Senator Warren said, but she laid out the facts that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has a massive financial stake in lawsuits against the manufacturer of the HPV vaccine.

In fact, he disclosed it on his ethics form, that if there are recoveries against HPV manufacturers in lawsuits, he is entitled to 10 percent--10 percent--of the recovery in massive class-action lawsuits.

When we pressed him in the hearing, first he said he wasn't going to give up that 10-percent stake. But he eventually felt some pressure, and so he transferred it to his adult son. His family stands to gain significantly if these lawsuits hit.

As the Secretary of HHS, he would have the ability to have a huge influence on the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

Vaccine manufacturers get an immunity from civil suit until a case has gone through the vaccine compensation court. That was put in place many years ago because the number of vaccine manufacturers were in precipitous free fall. They were going out of business or stopping making vaccines because they were getting hit with big lawsuits. So there is a special court that focuses on any arguments against vaccines in these courts.

He would have significant ability to even remove immunity protection from the manufacturers of vaccines. And if you remove immunity protection, the value of lawsuits goes up, and the value of his family's 10 percent stake goes up.

This should cause everyone serious concern about putting someone in who stands, without any medical training, against the weight of medical evidence saying that vaccination against cervical cancer is a remarkable thing that should be done and that has been successful since the mid-2000s.

I am going to conclude in a minute because my able colleague from Colorado is here, but I want to raise one more issue. I want to raise one more issue.

This inability to tell the difference between fact and fiction and content and conspiracy would be dangerous enough if it was just about health information, if it was just about vaccines. That, in and of itself, should disqualify Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., from being the HHS Secretary. But this individual's inability to tell the difference between fact and fiction and between conspiracy and content is not limited just to health.

In July of 2024, when he was running for President of the United States, Robert F. Kennedy tweeted this:

My take on 9/11: It's hard to tell what is a conspiracy

theory and what isn't. But conspiracy theories flourish when

the government routinely lies to the public. As President, I

won't take sides on 9/11 or any of the other debates. But I

can promise is that I will open the files and usher in a new

era of transparency.

``I won't take sides on 9/11''--I represent the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Pentagon was attacked on 9/11. The World Trade Center in New York

was attacked on 9/11. A plane went down in a farm field in Pennsylvania on 9/11. A lot of Virginia families lost loved ones that day. I know people who were in the Pentagon on 9/11 who had to race through a burning building to go to the childcare center to make sure they could get their child out and that their child was safe. I don't take it very well when someone says they won't take sides about 9/11, when someone admits: ``It's hard to tell what is a conspiracy theory and what isn't.''

I asked Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: Is this a common problem for you? I mean, that is kind of a candid thing to admit: ``It's hard to tell what is a conspiracy theory and what isn't.''

No, it is not. It is not hard for Virginians to understand what happened on 9/11. They lost loved ones. They went to funerals. Their family members never came home. And then, in the aftermath of 9/11, we were in 20 years of war, where tens of thousands of Virginians were deployed to battle against al-Qaida, the perpetrators of 9/11, and many lost their lives then.

``I won't take sides on 9/11''--well, like, what side is there? What side is he talking about?

I mean, it is a bad thing. Does he think it is a good thing? It was an attack by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Does he think it was an inside job or something else?

And why would he even do this? This tweet is dated July 5, 2024. It was 23 years after 9/11--23 years after 9/11. For some reason, on July 5, he just says: Well, why don't I just share with people that I won't take sides on 9/11; that I still can't tell, 23 years later, what is a conspiracy theory and what isn't.

If you cannot tell what happened on 9/11, if you decide to just freelance an opinion 23 years later and tell the American public--and he was running for President at the time--I will not take sides on 9/ 11, you should not have been nominated for this position in the first place.

I am finding it very hard to believe that my colleagues in this body, whom I sat with on the Armed Services Committee, whom I sat with on the Foreign Relations Committee, who have invested their time and energy in making investments to battle terrorism around the world, to battle al- Qaida and other terrorist groups, the group that perpetrated the 9/11 attack--many of my colleagues served in the military and were deployed in the War on Terror in the aftermath of 9/11. They are now going to be OK with a guy who says he won't take sides on 9/11; who says he can't tell the difference between what is a conspiracy theory and what isn't?

This is a very, very dangerous vote that we will cast tomorrow. Of any position in the Federal Government that needs somebody who can tell the difference between fact and fiction, conspiracy and content, HHS Secretary is that position, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., so badly flunks the test of what is needed--careful, reasoned, information that people can count on--that I urge my colleagues, even if you voted in a committee, even if you voted on a procedural resolution to move this to the floor, stop now. You can still stop now. Don't hurt this country. Don't hurt the health of this country by putting someone in office who can't even understand what happened on 9/11.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to continue the discussion about Russell Vought, the President's nominee to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Before I do, I thought I would just share with my colleagues and all who are in the Chamber a vigil that I just attended.

There was a vigil at a riverfront park in Alexandria near the site where the flight went down a week ago, killing 67 people on the American Airlines flight and the Army helicopter that had deployed out of Fort Belvoir.

It was a simple, moving candlelight vigil that was organized by my friend Don Beyer in the House of Representatives. It was attended by a few hundred people, mostly residents of Alexandria and Arlington, nearby communities. There was a heavy representation of law enforcement there because the Alexandria Police and Fire Departments were very integral to the rescue and recovery operations that were ongoing.

It was somber. It was somber. You struggle for words at a time like that.

I couldn't think of any of my own that really were that enlightening, so I fell back on Psalm 90:

Teach us how short our lives are, so that we may become

wise.

Thinking about the children, the ice skaters and their friends and families who were killed, but, frankly, all of us have short lives, even the oldest of those who died that day. The mother who was celebrating her birthday, a wife who was on her way home whose husband was waiting for her in the airport, these coaches, folks who were in Wichita doing a pipefitter training program, and, frankly, all of the attendees--our lives are all short.

So what is the wisdom if you follow the logic in Psalm 90, ``Teach us how short our lives are, so that we may become wise''? What is the wisdom we are to gain if we understand our lives are short?

Well, the Psalm doesn't really say. The Psalm kind of leads us to conclude for ourselves what is the wisdom we are to gain out of such situations and out of the realization of the temporal nature of human life.

But what I said to people there is, if there is one bit of wisdom you should gain when you realize how mortal we all are, it is probably wisdom about the value of community, that we link arms and we support each other. Certainly, if we are celebrating positives, we ought to do that, but particularly when we are mourning and we are thinking about lives lost and lives and futures cut short, our wisdom should compel us to find solace and comfort in each other's company.

This vigil lasted about half an hour. We had candles. After Representative Beyer spoke and I spoke and the mayor of Alexandria, Alyia Gaskins, spoke, the chaplain of the Alexander Police Department gave a prayer, and the vigil was over. But we stayed. We stayed to visit each other and comfort one another.

I was struck because I was coming here to speak tonight. I met a guy from DHS who was involved in the recovery effort in frigid waters out on the Potomac. I met a key official from Fort Belvoir, where the three soldiers had deployed from in the training flight who were killed that night. I met other people who are part of the Federal family, you know, who work in air traffic control, who work in the FAA.

Alexandria is pretty close to the Pentagon. I met people who work at the Pentagon or whose family members do. I met some folks who weren't Federal employees, but they talked to me about--one woman talked about her son, who is a Federal employee currently stationed in Tennessee. I took that to mean a member of the armed services.

This was the random community that gathered to commemorate the 67 lost lives and comfort one another.

While we were there to focus on the tragic accident, most wanted to talk to me about their own fears for their careers and for their families and for others who are feeling confused and afraid right now because of actions that are being taken against Federal employees.

That brings me to Russell Vought. My colleagues have spoken on the floor about a particular statement of Mr. Vought's that I examined him about fairly aggressively during the Budget Committee hearing. In the course of a speech, he said: I want Federal employees to be traumatized. I want to put them in trauma. I want them to not want to come to work because they know that they are increasingly viewed as the villain.

Now, who talks like that? I mean, who talks like that? Is there a single manager or leader or organizational chief that we admire who believes that their mission, their happiness, their glee, their purpose is to make their workforce feel traumatized? No. We would never celebrate a leader of that kind. Yet that is precisely what Russell Vought said.

I asked him: Do you really mean that? Do you really want air traffic controllers to come to work traumatized?

Well, no, no, I didn't mean that.

Do you want people who inspect our food to come to work traumatized?

No, I didn't mean that.

Well, how about people at OMB? You ran it before, and you are running it again. A lot of folks might call OMB staffers--do you want them to come in to work traumatized?

No, I don't like that.

But that is what he said.

When he was not in front of the Senate Budget panel and he was speaking candidly--and there is a beautiful Biblical phrase that, I think, is from the Gospel of Luke that says: From the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks.

When he was speaking directly from the heart, what he said is, I want Federal employees to be traumatized.

What I want to do in my time on the floor tonight is talk a little bit about these Federal employees and what having a traumatized workforce means. Then, for a few minutes, I want to focus upon not the Federal workforce but on others who were affected by the Russell Vought strategy on the Federal budget.

This is what I have heard from Virginians just in the week since the funding pause order went into place, which I will agree was something that was masterminded by Russell Vought.

Federal employees: Yesterday, I decided, after hearing stories from Federal employees, to launch on the website a resource where Federal employees could share their stories if they chose to, with anonymity guaranteed, because so many are afraid.

Some will remember that I took to the floor yesterday, and I read an open letter to Federal employees. There are 140,000, give or take, in Virginia. I read an open letter, offering them a bit of a pep talk, encouraging them to keep doing what you are doing--serving your fellow Americans. Just do that. You signed up for the job to do that. Don't pay attention to all of these things and all of this trauma. I know that is such hard advice to give to somebody. Just keep serving your fellow Americans every day, and if you have a problem, call our office, and we will try to be helpful if we can. There is no guarantee that we will be able to avert this, but just do what you have a passion to do, and we will try to help you if we can.

But also, in delivering that letter to Federal employees, we launched a website in my office, and we encouraged people to share their stories. Within 3 hours, we had about 400 stories of Federal employees who had reached out and shared, and those stories keep coming in. Some are asking us to give them a call and probe further details. Some are giving us their names and the Agencies where they work, and some are too afraid to give us those.

What I thought I would do tonight is I would just take 18 of these stories from the Federal employees--that had just come in, in less than 24 hours--of the hundreds that have been submitted, and I just want to read some to you to tell you about who these people are who Mr. Vought believes need to be traumatized, who these people are that Mr. Vought wants to personally make feel as if they are the villains.

The first is a Federal employee who works at USAID:

After two extremely painful miscarriages, I am now 34-weeks

pregnant with my first child. Since my husband works as a

lawyer for the EPA, what should have been a joyful time in

our life now feels like a dystopian hellscape, and we are

very afraid for our future and our financial security. We are

just hoping to have health insurance at this point for when I

give birth, but . . . that feels uncertain. I swore an oath,

and [I] believe in the work that USAID does. I believe that

it makes America stronger, safer, and more prosperous [just]

as Secretary Rubio is calling for, and I will support the

Agency until they boot me from the system. God help us all.

She is 34-weeks pregnant after two extremely painful miscarriages and is just hoping that she will not lose her job and her health insurance.

The second story is of a Federal employee working for the National Science Foundation, headquartered in Virginia:

NSF funding supported my undergraduate summer research

experiences, my Ph.D. project, and my previous job. The

opportunity to give back and support the next generation of

U.S.-based scientists was a dream fulfilled, and I am

terrified that I will be fired as soon as Friday, with no

protections or severance. The fair compensation and flexible

schedule let's my spouse work as a teacher, and she is so

great at her job. But that will not pay [our] mortgage. We

simply never accounted for a scenario like this.

A third story from a Federal employee working at USAID:

I have worked for USAID for 12 years, including in Bosnia,

Rwanda, and now Washington . . . Our work is and has always

been

critical to advancing democracy, American interests, and the

prosperity, safety, and strength of Americans. We will

continue this work. The attack on USAID lacks intelligence

and foresight. China and Russia are filling the vacuum,

outspending the U.S. and deepening partnerships with our

allies, who feel abandoned. This is creating permanent damage

and undoing decades of progress in a few days. This does the

opposite of making America stronger, safer, and more

prosperous.

These are the direct words of Virginians who have shared their stories with me.

A fourth story is of a Federal employee working at the U.S. Department of Agriculture:

I'm a young person working in the federal government. I

graduated from college 4 years ago, and since then, I have

committed my time to serving the public and helping the

environment. I've served two AmeriCorps terms and worked two

seasonal federal jobs before finally landing a permanent

federal job last November. These last few weeks have been a

hell for us federal workers. I come to work with a pit in my

stomach. I am a probationary employee, so will probably be

the first to go during a RIF. They have left us in the dark

while constantly terrorizing us with threatening, passive-

aggressive messages, and half legal deals to resign. I fear

for my job, but I fear more for my country.

A Federal employee who works for the Department of Transportation:

I am frightened about my position. I'm a single-income

household, and [I] am convinced no one has my back. Congress

has been pretty much silent, and the news has gained very

little traction nationwide. We need people to tell the story

about what government workers do. Thank you for providing the

platform to connect. We are [only] in this to serve the

American public.

A Federal employee working for the Department of Defense:

It's hard to even know where to start. As soon as this

administration took office, it felt like federal workers were

under siege. They began with their flurry of executive

orders and memos. They put Elon Musk (whom no one elected,

who is not a Federal employee but yet has huge contracts

for other areas with the government) in charge of

``handling'' the potential mass layoffs of federal

workers. His fingerprints were all over these actions,

from insecure servers being jammed into OPM to poorly

crafted mass emails meant to stir chaos and bypass all

chains of command, to then bragging about it on social

media and insulting and belittling every one of the

millions of federal workers as ``unproductive,'' also

laughing at people in his giant social media platform who

mock us and call us stupid. No one knows what their job

security looks like. No one trusts anything these people

are saying to us, especially with these ``deferred

resignation'' mass emails. The entirety of OPM, once a

solid standard for human resources in the United States,

is now a total joke. Agencies are left scrambling because

they've been given zero guidance and have no serious

leadership coming from the administration. . . . All of

this is frightening, anxiety-inducing, depressing, and

wrong. It's so difficult to fight the misinformation

because, if you ``out'' yourself as a fed, you'll be piled

upon. . . . We're middle-class workers with burdens and

families and debt just like everyone else. We need our

jobs, and we will fight for them. I take my oath to the

Constitution seriously. . . . Please, anyone with power,

exercise [that power] and serve justice.

A Federal employee at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, headquartered in Alexandria:

I have served the American [public] for the last 10 years

at different positions at the USPTO. The USPTO's mission is

[actually] outlined in the Constitution: ``to promote the

progress of science and the useful arts.'' To that end, the

USPTO uses telework to attract and retain highly qualified

people. These people work hard [every day in and out] to

serve the American people. As a result, the United States has

been the beacon of innovation for much of the world. In fact,

so many inventors come to the U.S. to secure intellectual

property. Let me be clear: The people at the USPTO are

incredibly talented, hard-working people. They are not the

``opposing team'' or ``low productivity.'' The constant

harassment from the current administration underscores the

diligent efforts of over 14,000 people that keep this economy

moving forward.

Another story from a Federal employee working for the General Services Administration:

[Thanks] for the opportunity to share my story. The ongoing

threats of job losses due to a reduction in force have been

deeply demoralizing. As you know, federal employees already

earn, on average, 25 percent less than our private sector

counterparts . . . The disregard for union contracts is

deeply concerning and undermines the commitments made to the

workforce.

Many of my talented and hard-working colleagues have been

living in fear for weeks, facing uncertainty they [don't]

deserve. This unlawful [treatment] not only undermines their

dedication but also creates an environment of instability and

anxiety that no employee should have to endure.

Here is a story from a Virginia Federal employee working for the Department of Homeland Security, and this is a pretty common one:

My husband and I are both federal employees, and we are

both on probation.

Meaning they are relatively new employees.

We also have student loan debts and under the Public

Service Loan Forgiveness program.

If we lose our jobs because we are on probation, we will

lose the ability to have our payments to Public Service Loan

Forgiveness counted. We will not be able to pay for

childcare, and we will lose our apartment. Furthermore, the

[DC area] will be flooded with [fired] federal workers, and

we won't be able to find jobs easily. Our future is

[increasingly] bleak. Please [please] stop them.

Another employee working for the Department of Homeland Security:

I have worked for DHS for 15 years . . . I truly believe a

strong, healthy workforce of civilian servants is vital for a

strong, healthy America. Our government has a duty to protect

its citizens. This, to me, includes making sure people's

basic needs are met, be it healthcare, food, housing,

education. . . . The private sector [isn't] taking on this

obligation.

The federal government [isn't] profit-driven, which is

partly why our jobs are . . . secure. . . . My worth as an

employee is not tied up in how much product I sell. . . . My

worth depends on doing my best to improve the lives of the

American people.

A Federal employee who didn't feel comfortable even sharing the Agency that he or she works for:

[It is] impossible to get our . . . work done under these

conditions. It has been a constant assault on us federal

workers, who are all serving our country faithfully and to

the best of our abilities. I've served under different

administrations--Republican and Democrat--and [have] been

proud to do so. As a family, we are canceling our vacations

for the year, any unnecessary subscription or expense, and

tightening [our] belt because I don't know if I will have a

job by the end of the year. While I could be comfortably

making double my salary in the private sector, I chose the

federal service out of a sense of duty to my country and to

use my skills to better the lives of my fellow Americans. Now

it feels as if the federal government is not holding [its]

end of the bargain. The last 2 weeks have been a nightmare.

A Federal employee who works for the Defense Health Agency:

Senator Kaine, I am a DHA healthcare civilian worker. I

worked for 12 years for the Army at Keller Army Community

Hospital at the U.S. [Military Academy] in New York, and for

the last 4-plus years at the medical clinic on the Dahlgren

Base in Virginia--

Which is a little bit east of Fredericksburg.

I am so upset. Our local commander, my supervising

commander, and the lieutenant general heading DHA have all

emailed us since the famous HR/OPM ``Fork in the Road'' email

came out. They all said the same thing. They don't have any

information or clarification for us but will reach out to us

when they do. I check daily and, to date, no information.

Stop and think about that for a minute. This DHA employee received a ``Fork in the Road'' letter, drafted by Elon Musk. This is somebody who has worked for the DHA for many, many years.

The DHA employee reaches out to their own direct supervisor. ``We don't have any information for you. We can't clarify what this letter means.''

They reach out to the base commander. ``We don't have any information. We can't clarify what the letter means.''

He even reaches out to the very head--the lieutenant general, the head of the Defense Health Agency, asking: What does this mean?

``We don't have any information for you. We can't clarify what this letter means.''

Just imagine that. The entire chain of command in this Agency, responsible for providing healthcare to our troops, is unable to tell the medical professionals who are providing service to our Active-Duty military every day what this ``Fork in the Road'' letter even means. It is shocking.

I check daily and, to date, no information.

Another Federal employee who did not feel comfortable sharing the Agency where he or she works:

Since inauguration, times have been hell for us because

every day is loaded with uncertainty regarding the future

state of our contract work and our Federal counterparts we

work with daily. To this day, every work day is filled with

dread and anxiety. Our firm has begun cutting staff already

because there is simply no funding. This is also becoming the

norm across other areas within our company.

This, clearly, must be from an individual who works with a Federal contractor. I suspect probably with USAID.

It is unfortunate because many are new or young people just

trying to earn a living--

And starting off public service careers and now--

Getting stuck dealing with the mess everything is in now.

Here is another letter from a Federal contractor working for USAID:

I work as a USAID contractor. In the past week, I have

experienced near everyone in my company getting placed on

furlough. Beyond the fact that we are all working to make

international development more impactful, and the fact that

the US Company we have invested so much time in may never

come back from this, we are all without salary and uncertain

for the future. We are applying for jobs but acknowledge that

with so many also furloughed or terminated, there is

extremely [challenging] competition. Do we move away from

[our home in] DC? [Do we] leave the industry which we made

our careers, [so] that we could see making the world a better

place and the US a better place?

Here is a Federal employee working for a small independent Agency. Again, the employee didn't feel comfortable identifying it.

It has always been my dream to be a federal employee. Ever

since civics class in grade school, I saw what the government

and feds could do for people and realized I wanted to pour my

heart and soul into doing just that.

But the wind has been taken out of my sails. I am a

probationary employee, meaning my name is on the short list

to fire. I was hired under Schedule A--persons with

disabilities, so my name is on [that] list [too]. I feel like

I am being threatened by the very institutions that were

created to safeguard the principles of truth, compassion, and

respect . . .

I have lived my life placing others' needs . . . in front

of mine. Trying to practice what I preach, but I am being

forced to remove protected classes from our website, take

down reports on DEIA--

It is interesting. The Trump Executive order tried to kill DEI-- diversity, equity, inclusion--but in many of the documents that are being sent to Agencies, they are adding an ``A'' at the end. I never had seen that before, DEIA. What is the ``A''? ``Accessibility.'' Even though the Executive order signed by the President did not specifically attack accessibility programs for those with disabilities, the implementation documents that are going out from the administration are adding accessibility as a negative that needs to be rooted out of the Federal workplace. Could anybody be crueler than that?

Being forced to take down these reports on things, including accessibility, the writer says:

I feel as though there is blood on my hands [doing this].

It breaks my heart.

Finally, one last story, and then I will say a word about Federal funding to programs around Virginia, moving on from just sharing the stories of Federal employees.

This is another Federal employee who doesn't feel comfortable-- actually, not one less story. I have three more. This is from a Federal employee who doesn't feel comfortable revealing the Agency where he or she works.

Today, I woke up to an email saying we had a restraining

order, tied to Trump's [Executive orders], that would limit

how we'd disperse our grants. Since the EOs were [so] vaguely

defined to begin with, this could be a witch hunt for all

kinds of programs and grants we give out.

A Federal employee from an Agency:

I'm a senior human resource professional in the Department

of the Interior. I'm on daily calls with Departmental HR

leaders who receive direction from OPM. Today leadership

mentioned that their coordination was with DOGE ``employees''

rather than with actual OPM employees. These DOGE employees

have full access to our USA Staffing hiring system, which

includes personally identifiable information for ALL

applicants--

Not all employees, for all applicants--

To any position in the [Federal Government]. It is unclear

what kind of clearance these individuals have, if any, and

what authority they even have to access this system.

Finally, we are beginning to work on identifying employees

for transfer to Schedule F with short response times of less

than 90 days. STOPPING SCHEDULE F MUST BE YOUR TOP