Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am here to talk about a bill that is a matter of fundamental fairness to our veterans and most especially to our combat-injured veterans--a group that should evoke the sympathies and support of our Nation as no other. I am here to talk about the Major Richard Star Act. Many of my colleagues know about it because 76 Members of this body are cosponsors. That is a large number, but so far, it has not been sufficient to gain even a vote. So I am asking today that that support be turned into action. This bipartisan legislation will correct one of the deepest injustices impacting disabled veterans. It is labeled by stakeholders as the ``wounded veterans tax.'' The wounded veterans tax, as it stands now, causes more than 50,000 combat-injured veterans who were forced to retire to be barred from a full military pension that they earned or were promised. Let me explain. They are getting a dollar-for-dollar reduction of their military retirement pay from their VA disability benefits. The reduction, dollar-for-dollar, in their retirement pay is the result of their receiving those disability benefits for their combat injuries. They are entitled to each of the separate and distinct and different forms of compensation. They have earned both. They are different, separate, and distinct. But right now, under current law, they are deprived of the full benefits of their pension because they were injured in combat. Just to describe this injustice should make our stomachs turn with outrage. The Major Richard Star Act is really a commonsense bill. We use that word, ``commonsense,'' all the time in this Chamber, but in this instance, it seems particularly appropriate. It would right this longstanding injustice and finally provide these military retirees their full VA disability and Defense Department retirement benefits. This cause is not only common sense, it is rightfully bipartisan. It has received overwhelming support--those 76 cosponsors in this body but also 304 cosponsors in the House of Representatives--and it is the collectively top priority of the military and veterans services organization communities of the United States. Yet, year after year, this bill has stalled, and detractors have worked to deny a simple vote. Now, in public--critics have avoided taking a public position on the bill, and they have given lipservice to veterans and advocates requesting their support. What their real reasons are, I can't say. But the fact of the matter is that these veterans have been denied this simple justice. And let me speak to those critics. We can't balance the Federal budget on the backs of combat-injured retirees. Doing so reneges on our obligation. It is a sacred obligation to take care of veterans after their time in uniform. The bill doesn't create some great, new, overly generous benefit, but it would be enormously impactful and beneficial for each of those retirees who would be affected. The average is about $1,200 a month-- some more, maybe some a little bit less. At $1,200 a month--you can do the math--it is not a fortune, but it would make a difference in the lives of these combat-injured veterans. It simply ensures that the benefits we have promised and the benefits they have earned are the benefits that are now delivered--it is that simple--not clawed back, as happens now, from the heroes who have sustained those combat-related injuries. The veterans and heroes involved in these bills are similar to the namesake of the bill, MAJ Richard Star, a decorated war veteran and engineering officer in the Army. He suffered from lung cancer caused by burn pit exposure. We all know about Iraq and Afghanistan burn pit exposure. We passed the PACT Act to provide care and benefits for victims of those burn pits and exposure to other toxic chemicals. They led to his retirement and his death in 2021. He was 51 years old. Until his death, he was a dedicated advocate for his fellow veterans and combat-related disabilities. His wife Tonya Star walked these halls by his side. She died in 2024. She called my staff days before her passing, in tears because another Congress had ended, in 2024, without a vote on the Richard Star Act. Tonya knew the tremendous difference this legislation would make in the lives of caregivers and widows like her. It would make a difference also in the lives of veterans like Pat Murray of North Kingstown, RI. Pat is a Marine Corps veteran and a staunch veterans advocate. He recently welcomed a baby boy, and he was forced to move back to Rhode Island to be closer to his family because the injuries he sustained from an IED blast in Iraq made it difficult to care for the newborn. We need to be very clear. This act won't return his amputated leg. But it can provide him and his family with desperately needed financial certainty, which they deserve, they need, and they were promised. And it would also help veterans like retired MSgt Gabriel Peterson of Biloxi, MS. He was medically discharged as a result of reactive airway disease. He is on five different drugs. They help with his breathing. It is a struggle for him to live, and this act would ensure that he could provide for his family, even if he is no longer able to be employed. The stories are powerful, and they are persuasive. They depict the scope and impact of this act, if it were passed, in lifesaving and life-enhancing benefits, and what it will mean to the tens of thousands of veterans across this great Nation. In fact, these veterans and their families--think of their families-- deserve a lot better. They deserve elected officials who will stand up and deliver for them the benefits they were promised and the benefits they earned; and they need them and deserve them today. I am asking my colleagues to advance this legislation now. The principle of taking care of our veterans has never been Democrat or Republican. The Veterans' Affair Committee is supremely bipartisan. My hope is that tradition will continue, including today. So let's put politics aside. Let's put partisan differences aside and finally do the right thing and advance this important legislation for our Nation's veterans. And so notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1032, the Major Richard Star Act; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I want to respond very briefly to my colleague from Mississippi and my friend, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. We have worked together, as he does always, in a bipartisan way on armed services issues. So what I am about to say is not personal to him. In fact, I am willing to bet that it isn't his decision to object here. But I want to refute two points. No. 1, on double-dipping, let's be clear that these are two separate programs, and the right to payment under each of them is separately deserved. Not everyone who is entitled to retirement pay gets disability benefits. You have to be in that club that nobody wants to join of being combat injured. And it is a separate form of right that in no way involves double-dipping, as we commonly refer to it. The retirement pay is for years of service in the military. VA disability compensation is for the loss of future earnings due to service-connected injuries or illnesses. And I just want to make clear that this point is really about equity and fairness. Congress eliminated this option for nearly a million veterans who have served 20 years and have a 50-percent VA disability rating or higher. It has already dealt with one segment of this group. This unjust assessment ultimately ought to be eliminated for all the 430,000 veterans who had their military retirement pay clawed back because they are receiving VA disability benefits. But we are starting here or taking the next step with 50,000 of those 430,000 who, in fairness, should receive both, the retirement pay and disability benefits. And we are doing it because these 50,000 have combat-related injuries. And as to the total cost--again, not personal to my colleague from Mississippi--but the CBO told us that the Republican-supported tax cuts exploded the deficit by about $3.4 trillion. Let me repeat that: $3.4 trillion, in large part tax cuts to people who didn't need them. These veterans need these benefits. This cost is a minuscule fraction of those trillions. This country can afford to do right by these combat-injured veterans. The DOD Office of the Actuary has indicated it could implement the Richard Star Act in an ``actuarially sound manner.'' It is not too costly. It is financially sound. I regret that the Richard Star Act will not be passed today, but I have another measure that I would like to bring to the floor. And it is, with regret, that we are not providing unanimous consent to the bill itself. And I understand the points made by my colleague, but I would like to present a middle ground. Since we don't have unanimous consent for the Major Richard Star Act today, let's agree to a vote. Let's have a time agreement that would authorize the Senate to take a single up-or-down vote on passage of this bill before the end of the year. This time agreement doesn't guarantee passage. It simply guarantees a vote. One vote, that is all I am asking. Give us a vote on passage of the Major Richard Star bill, and it would be passage by a 60-vote margin, filibuster proof. If we get 60 votes, the bill passes. If not, it goes down. Let's do it before the end of the year. I happen to think that we ought to spend whatever time is necessary on this bill. But I understand that leadership is concerned about time. And so my proposal strips away all the time-consuming procedural stuff--I have another word for it--but it allows us to go forward expeditiously. One vote scheduled entirely at Majority Leader Thune's discretion, before the end of the year--it could start and finish in half an hour or 45 minutes. Surely, the Republican leadership can spare that short time, scheduled at their discretion, to give these combat-injured veterans a single vote on this bill before the end of the year. And so notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader but no later than December 31, 2025, the Committee on Armed Services be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1032; further, that there be up to 2 hours of debate on the bill, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the bill be considered read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, with 60 affirmative votes required for passage, all without further intervening action or debate and no amendments or motions in order to the bill prior to the vote on passage.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I respect the points that are being made by my friend from Mississippi. In fact, we share support for every one of those armed services measures that he had described, whether it is bolstering our nuclear force, providing for more drone protection, increasing well-deserved compensation for our military men and women, and it is the reason why he has led, and I have supported, the current National Defense Authorization Act that, hopefully, will be approved by this body within days. Where we differ is, I think, that I believe that the $9 billion or $10 billion that would go to ensure fundamental fairness to our military is there or a great nation should ensure it is there when we are talking about the trillions that we will spend on many other things, some of them very worthwhile, but, in my view, none more worthwhile than doing right by these veterans. It isn't double dipping. It isn't overly generous. It isn't going to break the bank, so to speak. To the Federal Government as a whole, with its trillions of dollars, it is a miniscule fraction; to those veterans, it is not only a matter of quality of life and sometimes survival, it is fundamental fairness. They were promised. They have earned it. They deserve it. They need it. They ought to have it. And this measure simply would assure a vote--a vote. We ought to face our responsibilities. Maybe my colleagues, even though 76 of them have cosponsored--that is three quarters of this body--maybe it would still fail for whatever reason. But I would like to take my chances. And I assure my colleague from Mississippi, who I think supports the basic goal from what he has said, that I will continue fighting and working for this measure to pass. I know there is deep and broad support in this body for it, and I look forward to a time when he and I will be on the floor together, both of us, supporting this measure in a vote. I am not giving up, and I am very hopeful that this cause will continue to be bipartisan.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, particularly in his remarks on the Executive order that Donald Trump issued on Inauguration Day to declare a nonexistent energy emergency. And I join him in support of S.J. Res. 71 to terminate that Executive order. Let's be very clear. The only real energy emergency that we have in this country is Donald Trump. Since that day of his inauguration, he has used that Executive order to actually create an emergency. This administration's actions are raising prices, killing jobs, and undermining America's global competitiveness. Now, we have a lot of evidence--and I will be mentioning some of it-- but the most recent is from the International Energy Agency, which has slashed its forecasts for renewable energy capacity growth in the United States this decade, citing the early phaseout of the Federal tax incentives and regulatory shifts under this administration. Mr. President, I ask that the Wall Street Journal article titled ``IEA Cuts U.S. Renewable Energy Growth Outlook on Trump Policies'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, it says: The West's energy watchdog now expects the [United States] to add nearly 250 gigawatts of new capacity by 2030--down almost 50% from last year's projections--as a result of fresh import restrictions, the suspension of new offshore wind leasing and a crackdown on permitting for onshore wind and solar projects on Federal land. So let us now turn to one of those onshore--or, in this case, offshore--energy projects: Revolution Wind, just one example of the reckless energy policies that the Trump administration has implemented. Let's be very clear. When President Trump came into office, America was producing more energy than at any point in our country's history. Last year, the United States added 49 gigawatts of new capacity to the grid, and 95 percent of that new capacity was solar, batteries, nuclear, and wind power. Yet this administration has launched an all-out assault on these lower cost, less polluting sources of energy. President Trump promised to lower energy prices for Americans ``in half.'' Now, across the country, electricity prices have jumped more than twice as fast as the overall cost of living. And part of that progress before Inauguration Day for Donald Trump and the emergency energy Executive order was Revolution Wind--now, 80 percent complete. It is an offshore wind project, off of the coast of both Connecticut and Rhode Island, which is why my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, mentioned it so prominently in his remarks. The fact is, Revolution Wind is fully permitted. The project was on track to deliver 704 megawatts of power beginning in 2026--that is next year--powering 350,000 homes, a project well underway before the Trumped-up energy emergency. Forty-five of the planned 65 wind turbines were already installed when the Trump administration, just months ago in late August, issued a stop work order, grinding this project to nearly a complete halt--men and women on the job in New London, offshore, onshore, stopped from going to work, out of jobs; investors, construction companies, supply chain suppliers, all of them grinding to a nearly complete halt. The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection has found that canceling Revolution Wind would cost taxpayers half a billion dollars a year. Let's be clear--half a billion dollars a year to Connecticut and Rhode Island ratepayers every year. The project has a 20-year contract at 9 cents per kilowatt an hour-- less than half of today's regional price. Connecticut families are already facing surging energy costs. Our electricity bills are among the highest in the Nation. Blocking Revolution Wind undermines efforts to make energy more affordable. It undercuts our work to lower prices for consumers, locking in higher bills for decades and impacting, as well, jobs. Revolution Wind is providing thousands of jobs in Connecticut and Rhode Island. More than a thousand local union workers have already logged more than 2 million hours on the project. The stop work order put hundreds of these workers on the sideline, and I was proud to stand with a number of them at the Connecticut State Pier to support the offshore wind industry. Let me thank them and thank the unions that were there. The unions were compelling and powerful, and they are representing their workers. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested into that State pier to support the offshore wind industry. So the Revolution Wind cancellation threatens our economy, jobs, and, most immediately, affordability for everyday Americans, most particularly in Connecticut and Rhode Island. But it is not just Connecticut that has benefitted from Revolution Wind. The supply chain for this project stretches across the country, in red States and blue States. The construction of the first American- made offshore wind vessel provided hundreds of jobs. Where? In Louisiana, Florida, and Mississippi. Steel for the project was sourced in Texas, Alabama, North Carolina, and West Virginia. Offshore wind components were sourced and manufactured in Kansas and South Carolina. Just as our military construction and manufacturing often is sourced throughout the United States, in this case, all of America is helping to build Revolution Wind. And what is most galling about the administration's actions on Revolution Wind is they defy logic. Eighty percent complete, all of it permitted, reviewed by the Department of Defense for national security, as well as every other Federal Agency that had anything to do with it, any say at all, approved. And yet in the eleventh hour, the administration swooped down with a stop work order, citing ``national security concerns.'' And that is it--national security concerns. Well, that phrase is not a pass for everything the Federal Government wants to do, and so I demanded to know what they were, to be provided with information in a classified briefing, if necessary. I demanded it in a letter. I have yet to receive a satisfactory response. In fact, those concerns collapse under even the slightest scrutiny. A Department of Defense letter, last year, confirmed, and I quote DOD here, ``construction of the Revolution Wind project . . . would not have adverse impacts to DOD missions.'' No adverse impacts. So the idea that somehow it might interfere with the movement of submarines from the Groton sub base or maybe testing of submarines by electric boat or some other national security or national defense need, no adverse impact to DOD mission. So these national security concerns, quite clearly and outrageously, were just a pretext, a flimsy excuse to continue this administration's all-out assault on offshore wind. The President said he doesn't like it. He has got something in for it. There is an animus. Who knows what the reason is. But, thankfully, there is the law. Yes, a Federal judge saw the administration's stop work order for what it was: [T]he height of arbitrary and capricious. Now, Federal judges do not often say that actions by the President of the United States are ``the height of arbitrary and capricious,'' nor do they lightly issue a preliminary injunction against that kind of stop work order, but this judge did. And it was based on the fact and the law, so work was allowed to resume on Revolution Wind. But let's be very clear, a lot of the harm was done. Work was stopped for almost a month, with workers sidelined and progress halted to the tune of millions and millions of dollars, not the way for the United States to do business, not the way for the United States of America to advance economic growth or provide jobs or, equally important, make energy more affordable. If this administration can derail a fully approved energy project, whether it is natural gas pipelines or offshore wind farms, why would any developer--why would anyone invest in the United States? The credibility of the United States as a place to do business craters when projects can be derailed by the personal whim of a President, lawlessly and recklessly, as was done here because this President doesn't like wind power. On the first day of the government shutdown, the Department of Energy canceled nearly $8 billion in clean energy funding for the whole country. It included $53 million for 12 projects in Connecticut supporting lower energy prices, grid reliability, and American energy independence. It was done in a way that was as illogical, chaotic, and likely illegal as canceling Revolution Wind was. Again, a self-inflicted wound in every way by this President, and that is why he is the energy emergency. He created it in just months, not even a year. He declared it on his first day in office when there was no energy emergency. He is denying funding for innovative, promising projects. He is stopping nearly complete offshore wind projects. He is creating chaos. It makes America weaker. And so I urge my colleagues to vote to end the Trump energy emergency and recommit to finding real solutions to lowering energy costs for consumers and supporting American energy. And I will just close with, again, referring to the Wall Street Journal's report of today on the International Energy Agency's conclusion about how our capacity for renewable energy will be cut by 50 percent as a result of Trump administration action. Despite these shifts, Beijing continues to dominate the global renewable landscape, accounting for nearly 60% of capacity growth. The country is on track to meet its 2035 solar and wind power targets five years ahead of schedule. And we wonder why we are in danger of losing competitive advantage to China, not because we lack the resources or the innovators or the workers. It is a failure of leadership, and it begins in the White House. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today we mark 2 years since the horrific attack in Israel on October 7, 2023. Two years ago, Israel was the victim of one of the most vicious, vile, terrible crimes in recent memory--maybe in all of history. Thousands of Hamas terrorists poured across the border and slaughtered more than 1,200 Israelis and abducted dozens more. So today we remember, as we must, all who lost their lives, and we remember the families who have lost their loved ones. And our hearts go out to them, as they did in those days immediately following that horror. We cannot forget the 48 hostages still enduring unimaginable suffering at the hands of Hamas, and we pray for their return. The wound of October 7 is still healing. It may never heal, but it is also a call to action and remembrance. In the days immediately following October 7, I traveled to Israel. I met with families of those hostages. I have spoken since then to members of the IDF and to Palestinians. The war has never been against Palestinians; it is against Hamas. And I have been so deeply moved by the strength and bravery of those hostage families as well as many others. I have family in Israel, so this war is personal, and in my visits to Israel, I have also visited other nations and met with leaders in the region. And today, I have more hope than ever that there is a narrow path to bringing those hostages home, to providing more humanitarian aid, and meeting the crisis in Gaza--a humanitarian crisis--as well as a permanent cease-fire, an end to Hamas's threat to Israel. Today, I stand in solidarity with Israel. I believe in Israel's right to self-defense against this kind of terror. We should commit ourselves to take advantage of this window of opportunity. I hope that the peace plan that is on the table will provide a path, as it should, to everyone who wants an end to the suffering and bloodshed and the humanitarian crisis that continues, a peace that guarantees the security of the Israeli people, an end to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and the end of Hamas, so that all may live free of fear and oppression. I hope that the memory of all who lost their lives on October 7 will be a blessing and that we will never forget them and honor them through action, honor them through the pursuit of peace and justice. I am proud to have visited as well with members of communities in this country that have stood with Israel, and I am hopeful that the bipartisan unity consistently shown by this body over decades will be continued. It needs to be strengthened. It has frayed, but bipartisanship has always characterized support for Israel. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will treat this day not only with the solemnity and seriousness that it deserves but also with a renewed commitment to make this cause bipartisan, the pursuit of peace, support of Israel, an end to the humanitarian crisis, and a lasting, stable solution for the Middle East. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, my thoughts tonight are with the millions of Americans who will bear the brunt of this shutdown: the families in the path of hurricanes who will go without the services of FEMA, the veterans who will lack many of the helping hands in the VA, the recipients of Social Security who will be unable to verify their cards or perhaps receive payments that they have been denied, and others--millions of other Americans--who unnecessarily will be hurt, perhaps people who depend on the social safety net that we have established and may be torn by this shutdown. And I am thinking about the millions of Americans--about 24 million in total, 139,000 in Connecticut alone--who will be notified that they can buy health insurance as a result of open enrollment, but what they lack in information is whether or not that health insurance will be affordable because they have no way of knowing whether it will extend beyond the end of the year, those subsidies that are so essential to their affording healthcare. And our Republican colleagues--we just heard the Senator from Kansas say there is no hurry. Well, Americans can't get sick on Donald Trump's timetable. When people are told there is no hurry, if you get sick, for medical care, that sounds cruel because it is cruel. And it is stupid. People who go without health insurance may lack the healthcare that can save costs of preventing more serious illness, and those costs eventually are borne by all of us. So this misguided denial of the certainty people need that healthcare insurance subsidies will be extended beyond the end of the year really affects all of us. Premiums are rising already for all of us by 18 percent this year alone because the healthiest people are deciding they are not going to buy health insurance, and insurance companies are predicting they will have to increase their costs to cover the sicker people who will buy the health insurance because they need it. But the simple fact is, nobody is invincible. All of us need healthcare. And the Affordable Care Act recognizes that healthcare in America, aspirationally, should be a human right. And our failure to provide it to those millions of Americans who will find healthcare insurance unaffordable is unacceptable, and that is why we are taking this stand and why America can't wait for Donald Trump to tell them that they are sick enough now to be given this subsidy, which they deserve. I am here to urge my Republican colleagues to stop rolling over for Donald Trump. Their constituents, as well as ours, are affected by this delay in providing affordable health insurance. For months we have been calling attention to the need to act now, and this shutdown was avoidable. The path to stopping it was available. And shortening it, assuming it will occur, is still a possibility, if we come together, if Republicans are willing to negotiate, if they come back to town. House Republicans are out of town. They are out of touch with reality. The way forward is simply bipartisan negotiations, coming together, reaching a solution, as is the way shutdowns have been avoided in the past. The fact is that Donald Trump's so-called Big Beautiful Bill-- actually a big, blatant betrayal--along with inaction and avoidance by Republicans, is already wreaking havoc on America. In Connecticut, health insurance rates for 2026 have increased by nearly 18 percent, the largest increase in the last 6 years. Without the subsidies, consumers with ACA coverage will see premium increases in the range of 75 percent. I have visited with hospitals, community health centers, physicians, and many more who have raised their deep concerns about the impending cuts in Medicaid. The budget bill Republicans passed in July is also threatening Medicaid coverage for 158,000 Connecticut residents. Anyone lucky enough to keep their coverage will see reduced benefits as the State struggles to make up the difference in lost Federal revenue. Americans and our healthcare system simply can't afford to be nickel- and-dimed like Republicans are forcing them to do. The ACA premium tax credits have protected millions of Americans from higher healthcare costs, they have reduced the number without healthcare insurance, and they have provided robust choices for consumers and provided stability for healthcare providers, particularly in rural areas, and there are rural areas affected in Connecticut. In addition to the impending cuts in Medicaid, Republicans are refusing to extend these subsidies. It is cruel. It is unnecessary. It is dumb. So I am here to advocate for the 139,000 Connecticut residents who depend on these credits and the 24 million Americans who are making decisions about healthcare insurance coverage right now at their kitchen tables, in their living rooms, in their homes. It should not be a partisan issue. At the end of the day, it is a choice: Do we choose a highly successful solution that has reduced healthcare costs for the whole Nation or do we allow the clock to run out and raise healthcare costs for families in every State in this country? That choice can still be made in the next 24 hours, in the next 2 days, to shorten and lessen the pain that will be felt by Americans. I choose to stand with working families. I will fight, and we are unified in our fight. As a matter of conscience and conviction, we will not be bullied. Donald Trump should know that we will stand strong for working families in America. They deserve healthcare. It is about saving healthcare and holding Donald Trump accountable to follow the law. When there is a budget, when it is passed by Congress and signed by the President, he cannot be allowed to simply ride roughshod over it and disregard it. It is the rule of law and healthcare that are at stake here. I will fight for it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow my colleague from Connecticut and to build on some of the arguments that he has made so well. We are here because our democracy is in crisis. It is not some potential catastrophe on the horizon that is distant or hypothetical. It is real. It is now because of the lawlessness and recklessness of this administration. And it is the result of a contempt for the law, for legal norms that, seemingly, is boundless. We have seen it in the Jimmy Kimmel episode where the FCC Chair said, in mobster-like language: They can do it the hard way or the easy way. ``You have a nice restaurant there. It would be a shame if anything happened to it.'' I prosecuted mob cases. That is the kind of language we see from organized crime. And it was shown in the indictment of James Comey, a document signed only by the U.S. attorney, not by any career official, and after only 14 members of the 23 people on that Grand Jury voted to do it on two of the counts, rejecting a third. All of this kind of procedure is so highly extraordinary. As a former prosecutor, it would be an embarrassment. But this administration is beyond shame when it comes to lawlessness. And we have seen it in immigration, in healthcare, in education, in the VA, where countless people have been illegally fired, some of them hired back. And that is why we are insisting that there be a guarantee that the President will follow the law when we pass a budget. It is not a hypothetical danger that he will disobey it. In fact, he has ordered rescissions, impoundments, clawbacks. If we pass a law, we have to be sure the President will follow it. Otherwise, there really isn't any point to this branch of government. And so I say to my Republican colleagues, as a matter of your self- respect, as a matter of protecting this institution, you should agree with us that there must be a guarantee that the rule of law will prevail. And I say to my constituents in Connecticut: We are going to stand up for you to save your healthcare because you can't wait to get sick. You don't choose to get sick on November 22 or January 3 when it is convenient for Donald Trump and the Republican majority. You need to know, when there is open enrollment on November 1, whether or not your insurance will be affordable for you. You need to know whether those subsidies will make it affordable for you because otherwise you won't be able to buy insurance through the ACA. In fact, 90 percent of all people in Connecticut who buy insurance through the ACA marketplace receive some kind of subsidy, and their insurance premiums will skyrocket by 75 percent if that subsidy is ended. They need to know now, when open enrollment starts, whether those subsidies will be there for them. And it will affect insurance premiums for everyone if we fail to extend those subsidies as part of this continuing resolution now. Why? Because healthier people who see their insurance premiums rise by 20 percent--right now, they are projected to rise at least 18 percent for everyone because that is the cost of this failure to extend the subsidies. The healthier people are going to say: I am not bothering. I won't need it. The sicker people may try to buy it, and the insurance companies will have to cover illnesses, more of them, with fewer premiums, and they will have to charge more to everyone to cover it. So this failure to do the right thing has impacts for everyone who seeks healthcare and tries to buy insurance to pay for it. The Republican proposal is an abject failure when it comes to ensuring that the American people don't pay more for healthcare. And I heard from constituents just over this past weekend as I went to the Durham Fair, as I went to the mum parade in Bristol, as I went to Norwalk and Stamford and Milford, all around the State, people asking me: What will happen to my health insurance? What will happen to my healthcare? Nothing is more important than health, and we are saving healthcare for the American people by insisting that this extension of government funding include a reversal of the cruel and stupid ``Big Blatant Betrayal''--it is not a Big Beautiful Bill, the ``Big Blatant Betrayal'' that failed to extend those healthcare subsidies--and insist that whatever bill that is passed be obeyed by the President. The ACA premium tax credits have protected millions of Americans from those higher healthcare costs, and they have reduced the numbers of Americans without health insurance coverage. They have provided robust choices for consumers and provided stability for healthcare providers, especially in rural areas. And I have heard from those providers who are as worried as their patients about what will happen to this program. What the Republicans are doing is cruel. It is unnecessary. There is a straightforward, simple solution. It should not be a partisan issue. Republicans know we have to extend those subsidies. Why not now? That is the mystery to the American people. And there will be no credit for a shutdown. The American people know that we are not seeking it. We hope to avoid it. It will be on Republicans who have refused to come to the table. House Republicans have refused even to come to town, come back to go into session, and they are having discussions, reportedly, about whether they can have fundraisers during the shutdown if there is one. So we need some wiser heads and stronger conscience to prevail, and I am hopeful there is still time to reach that kind of agreement. I choose to stand with working families, and I urge my Republicans to do the same.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the 150th anniversary of Community Partners in Action, one of Connecticut's foremost criminal justice organizations, and the invaluable work of its staff. Community Partners in Action was originally founded as the Prisoners' Friends' Society in Hartford, CT, in 1875, making Connecticut the fifth State to have an organization specifically dedicated to providing services for incarcerated individuals. Since then, CPA has become a leader in promoting accountability, dignity, and rehabilitation for individuals affected by the criminal justice system. CPA combines direct services, community action, and restorative justice advocacy to create holistic, sustainable solutions for incarcerated individuals and their communities. The direct assistance they provide is essential to countless individuals' ability to obtain a brighter future. These services include transitional housing, reentry and resettlement support, workforce development and coaching, and partnerships with mental health and addiction services. In addition, CPA has built and led coalitions of relevant nonprofits, city departments, State agencies, and other stakeholders to create integrated networks and programming for the individuals they serve. Community Partners in Action has truly set a gold standard for innovative leadership in reformative justice. The solutions they provide are both meaningful and authentic, meeting individuals where they are and tailoring programming to their specific needs. To this day, CPA continues to launch novel and effective projects, such as opening Greater Hartford and Waterbury Reentry Welcome Centers in 2018 and 2021, respectively, and opening additional residential locations for their REGIONS program in 2020. Community Partners in Action has a remarkable history of creating opportunities, inspiring change, and making a difference in Connecticut and beyond. The organization has become an invaluable resource throughout Connecticut. I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the crucial work that Community Partners in Action and its many staff perform and celebrating their 150th anniversary.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the centennial celebration of Albertus Magnus College and honor the hard work and dedication of its many faculty and other staff. Albertus Magnus College was founded in 1925 by the Dominican Sisters of Peace in the Prospect Hill neighborhood of New Haven, CT. Originally a women's college, the institution became coeducational in 1985. During this time, a series of construction projects significantly expanded the campus, including new classroom space and a new athletic center. In 1992 Albertus Magnus began offering its first graduate program, a master of arts in liberal studies. The college provides a holistic, liberal arts-based education that promotes both the attainment and practical application of knowledge. It is dedicated to providing learning opportunities that respond to the diverse needs of its students and the ethical challenges of society, cultivating an atmosphere of mutual respect and moral behavior. The college places great emphasis on lifelong learning, individual student development, and the advancement of moral and ethical leadership. Albertus Magnus has approximately 500 full-time traditional undergraduates and 1,000 adult undergraduate and graduate students. The college has significantly advanced the cause of educational equity and diversity; 5 in 10 of its undergraduates are first-generation college students, and over 9 in 10 are eligible for financial aid. The institution currently offers over 50 undergraduate majors, 12 master's degree programs, and 3 postgraduate certifications. Throughout its existence, Albertus Magnus College has promoted intellectual excellence, cultivated a tight-knit community, encouraged service for the common good, and advocated for the development of each student as a unique individual. The college's track record and commitment to its ideals is inspiring and sets a strong example for all educational institutions. Albertus Magnus remains a fixture of the New Haven community with the positive impacts of its educational experience extending worldwide. I hope my colleagues will join me in commemorating its centennial celebration and recognizing the invaluable work of its faculty and other staff.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the 100th annual Bethlehem Fair and recognize the steadfast stewardship of the Bethlehem Fair Society. Connecticut is known for its many fall fairs, a symbol of the State's strong agrarian roots. While recognized today for our exemplary manufacturing industry, agriculture remains an important, vital part of our economy. Every year, I attend many of these fairs--including the Bethlehem Fair--to meet with the people of Connecticut and demonstrate my deep appreciation for our farmers and crafters. The Bethlehem Fair was founded in 1924 by Paul L. Johnson and has grown to be a truly remarkable institution in the local community and indeed all of Connecticut. Located at the historic Bethlehem Fair Grounds, the fair has anything and everything a fairgoer could want. The fair has all the offerings of a classic farmer's market, from stands of local fruits, vegetables, and other agricultural products to exhibits of livestock that include beef and dairy cattle, poultry, goats and sheep, and even rabbits and cavies. The fair also has a packed schedule of events and competitions, including amusement rides, an antique tractor pull, competitions such as the Lumberjack Contest and the ``Ag-Olympics,'' and other entertainment such as art and photography shows, live music, and a vintage museum. Notably, the fair places a great importance on providing an educational experience. Youth from across the area flock to the fair to learn about farming and agriculture as both an occupation and a tradition and consider the future of farming. Building on this, the fair sponsors the Bethlehem Fair Scholarship Foundation, which each year awards over $20,000 in scholarships to graduates who plan to major in agri-business or home economics. Scholarships are awarded to students who have made outstanding contributions to their community, including through academic achievement, participation in school and community activities, and volunteering at the Bethlehem Fair. The Bethlehem Fair is an exceptional community-building event. It gives local businesses the opportunity for sponsorship and to market their products. It connects the people of Connecticut and gives them a place to share experiences and learn from each other. And it uniquely promotes a spirit of altruism and giving back. The Bethlehem Fair continues to be a landmark event in Connecticut, and I have no doubt that it will remain that way for many years to come. I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring the 100th annual Bethlehem Fair and the hard work for the Bethlehem Fair Society.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the American people have been treated to an extraordinary spectacle. It is the spectacle of a President of the United States trying to stonewall and stall the disclosure of a file from the U.S. Department of Justice that directly implicates him and others in places of power after boasting to the American people that he would reveal everything. He promised again and again and again that he would disclose all the files--not only of this investigation, but the JFK investigation and others--because the American people deserve transparency. They deserve disclosure. They deserve to know what is in the files of the Department of Justice when there are credible allegations that an investigation is incomplete and potential evidence concealed. And the American people are rightly asking now: What do they have to hide? Why are they concealing this information in the files of the Department of Justice? We are talking about documents, interviews, testimony that may mention the survivors and innocent people, and their names should be redacted and removed from any public disclosure so they are not victimized again by the public ignominy of having been victims. And if there is any ongoing investigation here that requires confidentiality, it can be held. I know from my days in the Department of Justice--I was the U.S. attorney for Connecticut--that this kind of disclosure is done not routinely, not commonly but in exactly this kind of instance when the credibility of the Department of Justice may be at stake, and people deserve to know the truth. And here, let's be very blunt. There are questions about whether this investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell was full and complete. There are names; some of them rich and powerful people. There are stories; some of them believable. There are places and locations. There is testimony that describes a situation that may be much broader than just these two individuals who have been prosecuted. And at the end of the day, we are talking here not about just legalities and about politics. We are talking about girls, the youngest victim--and some of them survivors. The President referred to them as beautiful women on the younger side, some of them. Well, some of them were actually not women; they were girls. This crime is about the most heinous kind of exploitation of women, predatory victimization of girls, in effect, trafficking them--which was Maxwell's specialty. And the President has said that they may have stolen some of them from his spa, as if they were chattel to be bought and sold. But that was the attitude that Epstein and Maxwell had toward them, and, sadly, that was the attitude that, perhaps, some of their aiders and abettors or coconspirators or simply enablers had as well. This action about disclosure is necessary now because the administration continues to stonewall and stall, concealing information and betraying its promise to the American people. And what is at stake here is not just the President's promises-- although they are absolutely clear when he said: President Trump says he will declassify the 9/11 Files, JFK Files, and Epstein Files. That is President Trump. What is at stake here is the credibility of our justice system. That is why an act of Congress is not only appropriate but necessary. And what is at stake here is also the victims. This crime involved money laundering. It involved financial illegality. It involved fraud against the government. It involved a range of crimes that may sound abstract, even technical. But at the end of the day, it was not a victimless crime. It was about exploiting girls, young women, girls--girls who were mercilessly and repeatedly subject to abuse and trafficking. Donald Trump has broken these promises, but he has also remained actively engaged in a coverup. That is why he sent his Deputy Attorney General to interview Maxwell for 2 days. Unprecedented, absolutely mind-boggling to send the Deputy Attorney General, who may then be a witness and potentially implicated in a coverup, to interview a vital witness. We don't know who was with him, but we have to believe there were notes or recordings. They ought to be disclosed as well. And we should require that the disclosure be immediate, as this legislation would require. That Deputy Attorney General also happens to be the President's personal lawyer, or he was in all his criminal prosecutions. That is unprecedented as well. The American people deserve an end to this stonewalling and stalling. And that is why, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged, and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2557; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague Senator Wyden.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in just a little while, later this afternoon, we will consider confirmation of Jeanine Pirro as U.S. attorney for the district of Washington, DC. Now, I have a particular feeling about appointments as U.S. attorney, having served as one in Connecticut and having seen how profoundly impactful it can be on the lives of everyday Americans. Obviously, it is a position that is integral to justice in the United States. It is the top Federal prosecutor in that district. In DC, it is the largest office in the whole country and probably one of the two or three most important because it has jurisdiction over all of the Federal Agencies, Federal employees, Federal issues that arise in this profoundly significant place. Like any prosecutor in the Federal system, it is a position of absolutely staggering importance and power. I learned as U.S. attorney that probably the most important decision I made was whether to bring an indictment; that is to say, whether to charge somebody with a crime. Most--almost all--were convicted. But convicted or not, speaking generally, somebody charged with a crime suffers damage for life-- financial harm, reputational impact, families often disrupted. And that is no reason to avoid bringing charges but only to make sure that someone who is making those final decisions is independent, objective, and nonpolitical in the way they go about the job. Jeanine Pirro is unqualified to be U.S. attorney. She is unfit for this role. She is simply a loyal political acolyte and sycophant of the President. Loyalty is the reason she has been nominated, not experience. She is not objective. She is not independent. In fact, she is essentially an entertainer. Nothing wrong with being an entertainer, but it is not a qualification for being U.S. attorney. In fact, on her show, she has made Islamophobic comments so offensive that FOX News temporarily suspended her from the air. She has promoted a wide variety of damaging, offensive conspiracy theories, including the thoroughly debunked allegation that some pro-choice States allow doctors to kill fully delivered, breathing babies. She was a key figure in promoting the entirely baseless claim that the 2020 election was stolen. Her public record essentially disqualifies her from serving as the chief Federal prosecutor. Her nomination is more serious and more profoundly important than just her particular place. It is, in a sense, a symbol of what President Trump is doing to the U.S. justice system. My Republican colleagues are simply not only willing to place her at the head of the largest U.S. Attorney's Office in the country, last week, they moved her nomination forward by a party-line vote. They rallied behind her, not in spite of her record but because of it--again, simply because she is loyal to the President. So the issue here is not only about her; it is about whether loyalty will qualify somebody for this kind of powerful position in the U.S. Department of Justice, which is supposed to be above politics, when she has demonstrated that, in fact, she would be totally unfit for any such office. How loyal is she? Well, she was individually discussed in the defamation lawsuit against FOX News for promoting 2020 election conspiracies. Her totally false comments were at the center of that defamation case. FOX News canceled an episode of her show after the 2020 election with a FOX executive producer, saying: ``I don't trust her to be responsible.'' A FOX producer called her a ``reckless maniac'' in an internal email. These were her colleagues, her coworkers, her producers. One of them asserted that ``she should never be on live television'' and described her draft of a monologue as ``rife w[ith] conspiracy theories.'' That defamation case ended in a settlement in which FOX News agreed to pay $787 million, in part, because of statements she made on the air. The history of peddling conspiracy theories on cable news should be fundamentally disqualifying for any prosecutor, let alone the head of the largest U.S. Attorney's Office. Her record should preclude her from receiving even an interview for an assistant U.S. attorney position. Instead, her loyalty at the expense of truth has won her a nomination for one of the most powerful Department of Justice positions in the whole country. And her specific record around the work of the very U.S. Attorney's Office she is now nominated to lead reveals how unqualified and unsuitable she is for this role. Here is the most important part of her background. Four and a half years ago, as we all know, rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol, contributing to the deaths of Capitol Police, injuring them severely, disrupting the vote-counting for President, and leaving devastation in their wake. The U.S. Attorney's Office for DC was primarily responsible for bringing the January 6 rioters to justice, with praise from both sides of the aisle for the diligent and dedicated work they did to make sure that justice was done. For years, those prosecutors worked alongside the FBI to investigate, to build cases, to bring prosecution against the rioters. They didn't choose those roles or assignment; they were chosen by the Department of Justice to do their duty and enforce the law. But on her radio show, Jeanine Pirro agreed with a guest who said the Department of Justice prosecutors handling the January 6 cases should be criminally prosecuted. She said: I absolutely agree with that. In her responses to this committee's questions, she failed to disavow this position. In fact, she failed to directly answer whether she believed Federal prosecutors assigned to work on the January 6 cases should, themselves, be prosecuted. In other words, she sided with the criminals. She criticized the prosecutors who now will be in the office that she has been nominated to lead. Her criticism of them was to side with the conspiracy theorists and the call-in guests to her show as Judge Pirro. Rather than condemning pardons for people who committed violence against law enforcement, she simply wrote: The decision to issue a pardon is a power that belongs to the President. That is what she answered when she was asked about pardons for January 6 rioters who had been convicted of violence against law enforcement. Again, she refused to answer key questions. And, unfortunately, the Judiciary Committee failed to bring her forward as a witness, despite our requests and demands that she be a witness in her nomination proceeding. That is really regrettable on the part of the Judiciary Committee and, I think, an avoidance of responsibility that we owe the American people to scrutinize somebody who plainly raises such profound questions of qualification, even if you prize loyalty to Donald Trump. This person who Donald Trump has nominated to be in this position of trust and responsibility, plainly is not just unfit but would disgrace this office and diminish the credibility of the entire Department of Justice. That is the more profound question here, whether someone so unqualified will be confirmed after no testimony, after inadequate consideration, after simply agreeing because she is loyal to the President. Rather than support the prosecution and conviction of people who assaulted law enforcement officers, she believes that the Federal prosecutors bringing those cases should, themselves, be investigated. The U.S. Attorney's Office that did those cases, the dedicated professionals who investigated them and the people of the District of Columbia--indeed, our Nation--deserve better. I oppose her nomination. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the Veterans Crisis Line is a critical--

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3432 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, this amendment seeks to protect the victims crisis hotline, a critical lifeline for veterans who may take their own lives from the kind of cuts that we have seen during these first 6 months of the Trump administration. Incredibly, the Trump administration fired the 24 crisis line employees without warning or cause. This staff coordinates the on-ground emergency response when veterans call and they feel they have no way to go on. It directly conflicted with the assurances we were given by Secretary Collins that he would not fire frontline employees, and veterans' benefits and care would remain untouched. Fortunately, we have bipartisan support for the Veterans Crisis Line, and I want to thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Moran, for his support on this measure. Now, the damage--some of it has already been done, as we have heard in our hearing of June 25. Firsthand witnesses told us about the confusion and chaos that has resulted. We need to invest the resources, now more than ever, and, in fact, more resources than we have devoted so far, more staff, and make sure that we keep faith with veterans when they are in crisis as a result of the service and sacrifice that we have asked of them. It is critical to their mission and ours, and I ask for my colleagues to support this measure. I believe that a voice vote will be appropriate.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, as we know, inspectors general in our Federal Agencies--and every Agency has one--have a really unique role in our Federal Government. They are responsible for rooting out waste and fraud, uncovering wrongdoing. They are supposed to be fearlessly independent advocates of integrity, completely nonpartisan, and above the political fray. And that is the role they have performed in our government: saving millions--perhaps billions--of dollars in taxpayer money, ending corruption at the highest levels, and performing a vital experience for our democracy. One of the very best of our inspectors general has been Mike Missal. He was responsible for recovering more than $37 billion during his tenure at the Veterans' Administration. He was the inspector general at the VA under both Republican and Democratic administrations, widely respected by both sides of the aisle. Republican colleagues have worked with him, I have, and so have my colleagues on this side of the aisle. He was performing with extraordinary excellence and integrity, until he was fired without any cause, without any reason, by President Trump. And he was not alone. In fact, the President illegally fired 18 inspectors general. I say ``illegally'' because they are protected by statute. They can't just be fired willy-nilly without cause. And that litigation will continue, but in the meantime, those 18 inspectors general have been deprived of the opportunity to save us money, end corruption, and protect the integrity of our democracy--18 of them, nonpartisan, independent public servants. Today, we consider Mike Missal's replacement, a woman named Cheryl Mason, who, unfortunately, is one of the most partisan and least independent of the nominees for inspector general positions that we have seen in recent years. We need now, more than ever, independent oversight in the VA. And so to my friends, to veterans of America who may be wondering why I am standing here urging a ``no'' vote on Cheryl Mason, just consider the role of inspector general in the VA for you as veterans. When you have a complaint about a VA facility--it has failed to give you appointments on time for care--if you have a complaint against some VA claims processor blowing you off, if you have a complaint about the system, about the failures to provide compensation and care, the inspector general is the one who vindicates justice for you. Ultimately, we have an oversight function here in the U.S. Congress. I am going to fight for you as your Senator, if you are from Connecticut--or anywhere else. There are lots of different points where oversight and advocacy can occur on your behalf. But the inspector general is inside the VA and has access to all of the documents, all of the information that are necessary to protect the integrity of this Agency. And that person should be fearlessly independent. As a matter of fact, Cheryl Mason served on President Trump's transition team, and then she has been, for the last 6 months, senior adviser to Secretary Doug Collins, who himself has been a partisan, who has dismantled the VA workforce, who has canceled contracts and endangered care and compensation from the VA. She was senior adviser when Secretary Collins illegally fired thousands of VA employees, a quarter or a third of them veterans. He fired them, and she was his senior adviser. As adviser, we have to presume she aided him in implementing policies that are expected to drive at least 30,000 public servants out of the VA by the end of the year, while refusing to fill 40,000 vacancies that have existed before he took that position. Those 30,000 who will be out of the VA by the end of the year include 1,720 registered nurses, 600 doctors, 1,150 medical support assistance, 200 police officers, 80 psychologists, and more than 1,000 claims examiners. Maybe we should be grateful the number isn't 83,000, which was his plan, and she was his senior adviser for that plan. She was a senior adviser when Secretary Collins began the process to cancel or end more than 1,600 contracts providing direct services to veterans or support for critical VA operation, including for suicide prevention and mental health treatment, cancer registry, and inspection of VA healthcare facilities. She was his senior adviser when Doug Collins wanted to end the veterans' suicide crisis line, which epitomized the cruelty and stupidity of those cuts in workforce, hiring freezes, ends in contract. And despite a formal request from myself and Senator Peters, the Republican chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs refused to hold a hearing on the Mason nomination. A hearing is customary for the nomination of inspectors general, particularly one this controversial. But we did have a hearing in the VA, and it was highly illuminating-- not for what we learned but for what she denied doing. Listen to her. She continually avoided giving committee members any specific information about her role in realigning the senior executives at the VA or her role in the firing or reorganization or her role in requiring employees to sign nondisclosure agreements or any of the substantive work she has been doing as a political appointee. She denied any role in the freezes, the firings, the elimination of contracts. I said to her: Well, what have you been doing? And we got no straight answer. She was evasive, and her evasiveness was illuminating. She refused to commit to conducting any investigation of employee terminations that were found illegal by the courts. She refused to condemn President Trump's illegal firing of her predecessor and other inspectors general. She has a conflict of interest here. She served as a senior adviser for 6 months while policies were devised and implemented that now she will have to review as a supposedly independent inspector general. When you, my fellow veterans, have complaints, that is not the kind of advocate that you need. That is not the kind of investigator of corruption or waste that the country deserves, and that is not what we need from an inspector general in the VA. Veterans and taxpayers deserve an independent, nonpartisan inspector general who will conduct investigations free from interference and any collusion from the administration. Someone who is accountable and transparent, someone who comes forward candidly and forthrightly with the truth, not evading questions that are posed by Senators or the public. We simply cannot have faith that she is going to be the kind of inspector general that our veterans deserve and the country needs at this moment. We can't have faith that she will be unbiased in her judgment relating to President Trump or Secretary Collins. She is supposed to be judging them, but she is beholden to them, and she has been part and parcel of the policies and actions of this administration that have been so dangerous and damaging to the VA in these past months. Our veterans deserve better than a political loyalist who is going to be rubberstamping those policies. Her confirmation, in fact, will diminish the credibility of the office of inspector general at the VA and in other Agencies as well. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this nomination. We can do better. The country needs and deserves better. And maybe, most important, our veterans need and deserve better. I yield the floor. (Mrs. BLACKBURN assumed the Chair.)

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today, marks the 60th anniversary of the day that President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Social Security Amendments of 1965, establishing Medicare and Medicaid--cornerstones of American healthcare. These programs provide millions, including 1.5 million people in Connecticut, with access to comprehensive and affordable healthcare. Nothing is more important than our health. As the saying goes, if you don't have your health, you don't have anything; and if you don't have healthcare coverage, which for most Americans guarantees treatment, diagnoses, effective healthcare, you don't have your health. I am here--I wish I could say--to celebrate these vital programs, but, really, I am here to defend them, to defend them against deep and damaging cuts made by Senate Republicans and the Trump administration. Their budget decimates Medicaid benefits. It threatens rural and pediatric hospitals. It increases health insurance premiums for the majority of Americans. Let me repeat: It increases premiums paid by everyday Americans--the majority of our fellow citizens. Health insurers are already proposing a median premium increase of 15 percent in 2026. That will be the largest in 5 years, and that is just an estimate. You know, if you have had any experience with health insurers, that if they are estimating 15 percent, it could well, in fact, likely be higher. These cuts are not about eliminating fraud or waste in the Federal government; they are about delivering tax breaks to billionaires on the backs of working Americans. This bill is an absolute disgrace. The American people should hold every Member who voted for it accountable when they are next up for election. It is the biggest Medicaid cut in our history. Over 900,000 people in Connecticut rely on Medicaid for their health insurance coverage; 30 percent of them are children. In fact, in Connecticut, Medicaid covers 41 percent of births and 68 percent of people living in nursing homes. The majority of people in nursing homes, in other words, depend on Medicaid, and they could well be thrown out of those nursing homes. Under this bill, up to 158,000 people in Connecticut will lose Medicaid, and 53,000 will lose their ACA coverage. Even those who keep their health coverage will see reduced benefits and strained providers as the State struggles to make up the difference. People in Connecticut are lucky because there will be an effort to make up the difference, but many other States won't have that ability. Just to be clear, these cuts are going to have an impact on everyone because the Medicaid Program is a huge source of funding for all hospitals. All hospitals depend on Medicaid. Even if you are not there with Medicaid coverage, the quality of care that you will receive will suffer as a result of these cuts. So even if you have private health insurance, your nearest hospital could close. You may have to wait longer for an appointment to see a doctor. Your out-of-pocket costs may increase. Hospitals will attempt to recoup that lost funding on your back. They have no choice. They have to stay open, and they have to cover their costs. To make matters worse, my Republican colleagues refuse to extend the ACA enhanced premium tax credits. And 112,000 people in Connecticut rely on these credits to lower their monthly premiums. They are a lifesaver. They are a lifeline to health insurance coverage. Without the extension, 10,000 children are at risk of losing essential services, and 81 small business owners in the State will see their premiums skyrocket. Premiums will rise for small businesses as well as individuals. These numbers are staggering. They are stunning. But they fail to capture the human costs, the impact on everyday people who look out the window in the morning as they have their first cup of coffee or see their children at night for dinner as they come home and wonder what will happen in the event of a healthcare emergency--not even an emergency. What will happen in the event of the flu, COVID, or any of the other kinds of healthcare challenges that may arise? So the net result here in human terms is couples forgoing children, grandparents losing independence, people seeing preventable deaths, skipped checkups, burned out healthcare workers. That is the real cost, the human cost, the impact on people's state of mind, their level of anxiety, their ability to focus on work because of physical pain they may have because of illness but also anxiety about how that illness is going to be covered by health insurance. These cuts aren't just numbers. They are children, they are families, they are grandparents, people with disabilities, your neighbors, your friends, and probably you at some point. Republicans knew the consequences. There was no mystery here. They knew the data. They chose cruelty. These cuts are cruel, and they are stupid. They are dumb because we all know that preventing health emergencies, providing diagnoses, catching illnesses early, and providing care and treatment early, in the long run, saves money for all of us. It is unforgivable that they decided to turn their backs on millions of Americans, including their own constituents whose health and well- being is on the line. Since this bill passed, of course, some Republicans are trying to walk back their vote--buyer's remorse. They had mixed feelings at the time, perhaps. They are supporting tweets like repealing the Medicaid provider taxes or boosting rural hospital funds because they see that those rural hospitals in their own States are going to be closing. They know the impact of Medicaid cuts on hospitals in all areas and people in every part of their States. But those efforts are doomed to failure. They fall short. The rural healthcare fund doesn't come close to offsetting the losses rural providers will face from the cuts of Medicaid, just to give you one example. That is why I have joined Senator Wyden and Senator Schumer in introducing a bill that will repeal the health provisions in the ``Big Blatant Betrayal.'' It is not a Big Beautiful Bill; it is a ``Big Blatant Betrayal.'' This measure would extend the ACA premium tax credits. Again, Medicaid cuts are reprehensible and reckless. Cutting the ACA premium tax credits affects hundreds of thousands of people in Connecticut and millions around the country, everyday middle-class and working Americans who have to cover healthcare bills. I am going to keep fighting against any legislative efforts that put the interests and desires of billionaires over the needs of working and middle-class Americans. This ``Big Blatant Betrayal'' is, in fact, simply cruel and stupid, and I hope my Republicans colleagues will join us in these efforts to truly walk back and compensate for the disastrous impact, the devastating affect it will have on families and working people all across this great country. I am honored to yield to our distinguished leader.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to add my voice to others we have heard already expressing grave concern about President Trump's misguided, mistaken, harmful tariff regime. Actually, it dignifies what the President is doing on tariffs to call it a regime, which implies that there is a strategy and a conceptual consistency and constancy to it. Actually, it seems to be a flurry of announcements, some contradictory and inconsistent, about so-called trade deals. They vary from week-to-week, even day-to-day, with different countries--or the same country. President Trump calls them ``big wins.'' But these so- called victories benefit him alone, not the American people. Let's cut through the bluster and the propaganda. Tariffs are taxes. Tariffs are taxes. The American people are the ones who pay the taxes-- not Donald Trump, and, almost always, not the countries the tariffs are directed against. American families, particularly of lower and middle-income brackets will bear the brunt of these taxes. Whatever the rate, whether it is 15 percent, as the President has just announced against the European Union, or 20 percent against other countries, or 30 percent, these current tariff rates cause the American people to lose. In fact, as a result of these tariffs, the average U.S. household is set to lose $2,400 in annual income. That is not Richard Blumenthal giving you that figure; it is the Yale Budget Lab, the scientists and the economists there who have no ax to grind, Republican or Democrat. They are just doing their work economically. The costs of many consumer goods that Americans rely on are also set to rise. Here are just a few: Clothing prices, 37 percent; leather goods will rise by 39 percent; food prices will increase 3.4 percent, with fresh produce specifically rising by 6.9 percent; motor vehicles will rise by 12.3 percent, adding $6,000 to the price of the average new car. With these increases, Trump's tariff plan will burden the lowest earners in our economy more than three times the highest earners. Let me repeat that: lower earners three times the burden compared to higher earners. I have another key area of concern, and it has been baffling to me from the start of all this tariff talk: rising energy costs. Why would the President support a set of tariffs that raises our energy prices? So basic, especially in the highest use times in the year. Summer actually involves a higher use time than winter. My home State of Connecticut already has some of the highest electricity costs in the Nation, 39 percent above the national average or an extra thousand dollars a year. But the President's tariffs will exacerbate this situation by driving up the cost of fuel and critical grid equipment--transformers and circuit breakers. The recent projections have shown the tariffs could raise natural gas by 6.1 percent; oil by 2.3 percent; electricity prices by .7 percent. Those percentage points are real dollars in real people's pockets-- actually, dollars that will be taken from real people's pockets as a result of a senseless, reckless collection of taxes paid by American consumers. The cost of those utility increases will be paid by consumers. They will strain households in my State and across the Nation. As the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs committee, I am particularly interested in how these tariffs will affect our Nation's veterans. The President's reckless and destabilizing tariff regime will place incredible stress on our Nation's largest integrated health system, the Department of Veterans Affairs. Yes, it is our largest healthcare system. It serves 9 million veterans at more than 1300 facilities across the country. It is one of the essential public institutions. The Government Accountability Office found in fiscal year 2024, the VA spent $16.6 billion on medical services and an additional $15 billion for drugs and biologics, medical and service instruments, and other equipment and supplies. And yet the administration's tariffs threaten access, the cost increasing for critical medical supplies and medications. Many of them are imported. The VA will pay more for them. The recent deal with the EU levies a 15-percent tariff on all imports, including medicines, including pharmaceuticals. They represent the EU's largest single category of exports to the United States, and many go to our VA, where veterans ultimately will suffer the consequences of higher costs to the healthcare facilities that serve them. European drugmakers have already warned that these tariffs will disrupt supply chains, delay research, and limit access to medicine. Forcing price increases into the VA system undermines the care we owe to all who have served. Tariffs are already eroding job growth and reducing incomes. They are already felt in the supply chain. American businesses, especially our essential small businesses and those in the manufacturing sector, are already facing supply chain chaos. These businesses simply cannot easily absorb or offset the increased costs from tariffs on imported materials. I visited a grocery in Connecticut just a week ago, and the owner said to me that he was absorbing the increased costs of tariffs--the percentages on tomatoes, on other produce. But he can't do it for weeks on end. Eventually, he will have to pass them on to consumers. He made very clear to me that he is now stuck between two bad choices--either eat the tariff taxes and risk going under or pass along these costs to consumers. President Trump has repeatedly stated that he wants to restore American manufacturing, but his tariffs are actually making it harder, not easier, to build things in America. The costs of manufacturing here are rising, not declining. If he wants to reshore manufacturing, exactly the wrong way to do it is to disrupt the supply chain and increase the costs of what is necessary to build and make things in America. In short, this tariff disaster is a self-inflicted economic wound that is the product of a mindset placing a priority on vanity and vengeance--Donald Trump's vanity, because he thinks tariffs are the best thing in the world--he said he loves tariffs--and vengeance against countries that don't follow his preferences, like Brazil. Consumers are paying more, workers are losing jobs and salary, veterans are at risk, small businesses are getting squeezed. I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up to these deeply harmful tariffs. It is in the national interest that you do it. In fact, it affects our national security in a deeply harmful way, and I hope we can have bipartisan opposition to this kind of disastrous regime, which doesn't deserve the name ``regime.'' I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I rise, sadly and reluctantly, to oppose Richard Topping as the next VA Financial Officer, and I say ``sadly and reluctantly'' because the VA really needs leadership now at a time of mass firings, freezes on hiring, cuts, and the kinds of chaos that we are seeing at this great institution that serves our Nation's heroes. We need a really experienced, steady, principled financial leader. And, unfortunately, Richard Topping is not that person. He is not the kind of accountable and transparent leader that the American people and veterans across the country expect at the VA. When I questioned him at his nomination hearing--just to give you one example--about a government audit that found extreme errors in his judgment while he was CEO of a company called Cardinal, he blamed the Democrats; he blamed others for his own shortfalls. That is not leadership. That is not what our veterans identify as leadership. He has never been the chief financial officer of any company. He has never been CEO of a public company--that is to say, an institution responsible to shareholders or to the public--and he lacks essential qualifications in his educational background as well as in his experience. The VA's 2025 budget request is for $370 billion. It is second only to the Department of Defense. It needs someone who not only is loyal to President Trump--in fact, more than loyalty to President Trump--it needs someone with the objective qualifications and experience. His main qualification is, in fact, his fealty to Donald Trump. That is not the qualification that should count here. What we need is someone who will do the job with the excellence and integrity that veterans have a right and need to expect. I urge my colleagues to vote against this nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am here with a number of colleagues on probably one of the most important decisions we are going to make with respect to the future of justice in America: the nomination of Emil Bove to be a judge on the court of appeals for the Third Circuit, the second highest panel in our judiciary. And he is about as unfit and unqualified as any judicial nominee to come before this body in my 15 years here. And I say that with sadness as well as anger, as someone who still proudly would call myself a litigator, a trial lawyer, and a member of the Judiciary Committee, where I am proud to serve with my great colleague, the ranking member now, Senator Durbin. And he and others from that committee will come before us tonight. We are here not only on the merits of Mr. Bove but also because we were denied an opportunity in the committee to present fairly and fully our case against Mr. Bove based on the record, and we were denied an opportunity to elicit from the Department of Justice and the administration the facts that are necessary to evaluate his nomination. We were denied the opportunity to have a whistleblower come before the committee, a whistleblower who bravely came forward with facts showing how Mr. Bove suggested--indeed, urged--that lawful court orders be disobeyed; that the Department of Justice ought to tell the courts to eff themselves. We were denied access to an Office of Professional Responsibility investigation bearing on this nomination: an OPR inquiry into the failure of the team supervised by Mr. Bove to divulge to the defense exculpatory evidence, as they were obligated to do, during a prosecution when he was an assistant U.S. attorney. And Mr. Bove himself, in the hearing that we conducted, was evasive, obfuscating. He refused point-blank to answer relevant questions. One of my colleagues, Senator Whitehouse, who will be here tonight, characterized it as the ``deliberative process privilege.'' There is no deliberative process privilege, and Mr. Bove had no right to refuse to answer our questions about what he has done in his role during the first 6 months of this administration. The fact is, he has been involved in a pattern of lawlessness and recklessness, a violation of individual rights and liberties, a pattern of corruption unprecedented in the history of the U.S. Department of Justice. And he has been integral to it, participating actively in it. We have opposed other nominees because we disagree with their judicial philosophy. We have opposed them because they were out of the mainstream; they were ideologues with an ax to grind that was potentially detrimental to rights and liberties. Mr. Bove is in a different category. Yes, he is conservative. He is out of the mainstream. But he is corrupt. He is dangerous, vindictive, and revengeful in a way that this administration has made a pattern of doing. So I am here to urge my colleagues to stand with us and oppose this nomination. I know the strong dynamic--we have seen it again and again and again, no matter how many doubts my colleagues may have--to toe the line in thrall of President Trump or in fear of him. But the record here speaks powerfully--or it should--to our conscience and conviction. This nominee epitomizes the Trump demand for loyalty and fealty above all else to him, a sense that he has the power to do what no ordinary American can expect from judges or from prosecutors; that they will, in effect, rig the system in his favor, as Mr. Bove has done while representing, supposedly, the Department of Justice because he was-- like Pam Bondi and others who have taken senior positions--a lawyer, in fact, for President Trump, his personal lawyer, defending him against claims in his personal capacity before he took this role in the Department of Justice. A lot has been made of Mr. Bove's role in dismissing the case against Eric Adams, the mayor of New York. I am not going to go through all the details except to say that Danielle Sassoon refused to make the argument in favor of dismissing those charges in exchange for concessions on immigration policy. She said it was ``an improper offer of immigration enforcement assistance in exchange for a dismissal.'' The lead prosecutor on the Adams case resigned rather than take Mr. Bove's order, and he, too, said that it would be a violation of conscience and conviction and that anyone ``who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion'' should not do so. The judge indicates ``everything here smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions.'' He called Mr. Bove's position ``fundamentally incompatible with the basic promise of equal justice under law''--a quid pro quo deal. But Mr. Bove said it was fine. Even more disgracefully, he said a court cannot review, at all, a dismissal of this kind. This attitude toward the law alone should disqualify him, but he went further in a March meeting, according to the whistleblower. He said, essentially, that lawful court orders shouldn't be obeyed. That is the nominee for a judgeship saying that judges ought to be defied. He should not be under consideration for this lifetime appointment for these reasons and others that my colleagues who are coming to the floor tonight will describe in detail. The short-circuiting and straitjacketing of the consideration of Mr. Bove will be a stain on the U.S. Senate. And make no mistake, we will rue the day--my colleagues will--if they vote for this nominee. And we should not in any way turn a blind eye toward the other nominees that will be before us for the district court: Josh Divine, Maria Lanahan, Jordan Pratt--all nominated to serve as district court judges on the Federal bench. They have made careers of crusading against reproductive rights. Judge Pratt wrote an amicus brief supporting Florida's 15-week abortion ban. He called the procedure ``barbaric'' and ``one of the most severe invasions of personal rights imaginable.'' Judge Pratt went so far as to raise questions not put before the court by parties and invite the Florida attorney general to intervene and weigh in on these questions. He wrote an opinion holding unconstitutional a Florida law that allows minors to seek abortions without parental consent through judicial waivers. The case didn't require a court to rule on the law's constitutionality, but Judge Pratt took it upon himself to do so. And Mr. Divine led and Ms. Lanahan worked on Missouri's legal challenge against mifepristone. The science is clear: Mifepristone is safe. Yet Mr. Divine and Ms. Lanahan didn't hesitate--not at all--to challenge its approval. And their court filing cited two research studies, mere weeks after he filed the complaint, that were retracted due to a lack of scientific rigor, problematic methodology, and undisclosed bias. Edward Artau, nominated for the Southern District of Florida--the ethical lapses on his part were undeniable when he failed to recognize the obvious conflict and recuse himself from his involvement in a case involving the President at a time when he potentially was under consideration for a nomination. These nominations are unqualified. They have revealed themselves to be incapable to meet basic standards of ethical conduct, judicial independence, and, if confirmed, they would extend the administration, in its reach into the courts, in effect, cosigning the President's most destructive and dangerous impulses, regardless of legality. I urge my colleagues to join us in opposing these nominees. Mr. Bove should not be before this body, and I hope my colleagues will recognize the importance of standing strong and speaking out and voting against his nomination and the others that have been made. Mr. President, I yield to the senior Senator from Illinois, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, our great colleague.