Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I have the bad fortune and audacity to follow one of our greatest speakers, one of the Nation's greatest orators and a preacher. I know we all appreciate the old wisdom: Never follow a preacher. I want to thank Reverend Warnock, my great colleague and friend, for that eloquent and powerful speech and particularly the ending of his speech, which evoked a time in our history that many would like to forget. A lot of Americans are forgetting. The world is trying to erase it from its memory. But it is a time evoked by Senator Warnock that couldn't be more relevant to this moment in America's history because we face a crisis in governance. It is a moral crisis, not just a political or legal crisis. It is a challenge to us, to our better angels, to our sense of mutual respect and caring, and, as he said so well, quoting Martin Luther King, that web of mutuality that binds us as a nation. Ultimately, it isn't our wealth, the number of dollars we have in bank accounts, or the economic strength of our corporations. It isn't our might militarily. We have the strongest and best military in the world. It is our common values and our commitment to our faith and our family and to each other, respect for each other even when we differ. When we come to this body, we all take an oath. I have taken that oath a number of times in my life--when I became a private in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, when I became a U.S. attorney in Connecticut, when I became a State legislator, and then when I became attorney general. Now, as a Senator, I raised my right hand, as did all of us, and we took an oath. It wasn't to a President; it wasn't to a government; it wasn't to a monarch; it was to the Constitution and the laws of this country. The Constitution stands for something that binds us together, and it is at the core of this great experiment that we call America. The Constitution will be around, I hope--and I am knocking on wood--when these young pages become our age and stand here, perhaps, but it will be around only if we fight to sustain it. It doesn't happen by magic or by inaction; it happens because we come together and we say: Whatever else happens, whatever divides us, whatever natural disasters-- tornadoes, floods, hurricanes--befall our great country, we are going to stand together for the rule of law and for each other. We will come to each other's aid, and we will respect each other's rights. A wonderful professor and friend of mine at Yale, Tim Snyder, wrote a little book, ``On Tyranny.'' That is the name of the book. It is ``On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century.'' The first lesson is, do not obey in advance, which is to say, do not anticipate what a dictator wants and accede to it in advance. Do not acquiesce. Do not obey in advance. Today, we have to take a stand against a group of people who want to shred our Constitution. They want to light it on fire because they feel there is a higher good. They want to save money or they think we are in the midst of some religious movement or they simply want to get power. Whatever their motive, and I don't pretend to fully understand it, they have unleashed on our government a group of DOGE technocrats--I use that word advisedly--young people, maybe older people, who think they can simply slash government spending, but more to the point, that they have a right to access information which Americans have been providing in trust to the Department of Treasury, the Labor Department, the Department of Education--private, confidential information about bank accounts, checks that are paid, and veterans' benefits. That information is supposed to be held in trust, secretly, confidentially, and yet, right now, it is being scanned by Elon Musk and his crew. His henchmen are busy not just reading and scanning that information but collecting it. That actually serves, potentially, many of Elon Musk's business interests, because on X, for example, he could profit mightily from knowing more information about people who might use Musk in Tesla or SpaceX. Who knows what he might do with that information? And some of his billionaire friends, some of the people who may be provided access to that information could profit even more. Here is what I have done today as the ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. I have written to every one of Elon Musk's companies--SpaceX, Tesla, all of them, including his AI company--demanding information about the workings of that company that might benefit from access to that private information. Now, remember, his access is as a citizen. I am not sure what his status is. The White House says he is a special government employee. He has no security clearance that would entitle him to take that information and use it for his own personal benefits. No security clearance could give him that right to profit from financial information that belongs to you, the taxpayers. It is your data. And we have nothing that I have seen in writing from the President of the United States that gives him authority to seize and exploit that information. He certainly has nothing under law that would justify his monetizing after purloining that information, the use of it. I think the American people have a right to know all about the workings of those companies that would be benefited from seizing and exploiting this information. I have written to those companies today, and I am very hopeful that they will explain to me what the facts are, because the American people deserve those facts. In a sense, what you need to know about this administration and about DOGE and about Elon Musk is to follow the money. Now, he says he is following money that may be wasted or abused. I want to follow the money that will come to him and other billionaires in the government and others who may be made privy to this information and use it for personal benefit and who may profit from it. I want to follow their money, and I want to follow any of the money that comes to other officials in emoluments. Now, ``emoluments'' is a term in the Constitution, and the reason it is in the Constitution is that our Founders most feared, in addition to tyranny, that leaders of this country--people in public office--would take benefits, gifts, cash from foreign governments. We were a struggling, small country at our very beginning. We were nascent in our weakness. And their fear was that leaders of that small, struggling country might be tempted by one of those big monarchies in Europe--that had the glittering palaces and jewels and riches and colonies around the world--that they could be bought. So they said: No gifts, no benefits--nothing from any foreign source. And they had a domestic emoluments clause, as well, that, in effect, prohibited foreign bribery and that kind of domestic misappropriation as well. I want to know whether any of these officials in our government are benefiting in any way from advantages, benefits, payments from foreign governments, because we have become a global economy. We know that-- just to take one example that comes to mind--one of the President's relatives is planning developments--hotels--all around the world. The President has said he wants to make Gaza into a Middle Eastern riviera. Who is going to build the hotels? Who benefits? Who is going to be paid? We need the facts. So I believe we need to be watchful, vigilant, and wary. Follow the money. We are here tonight before a vote on someone who is going to be following a lot of money. Russell Vought, if he were to be confirmed as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, would be in charge of all the money spent by the U.S. Government--or almost all of it. I know most Americans have no clue as to what OMB does. OMB is the Office of Management and Budget, not to be confused with PMB, the Office of Policy, Management and Budget. In the State of Connecticut, we call a similar body the office of policy and management. I suspect that the Presiding Officer's State and all of our States have something equivalent to OMB or to PMB. It is kind of the brain central of the financial nervous system in the government. It controls the flow, the disbursement, and then also the projections for the future about what the government does. It administers the Federal budget, and it is the entity that actually gets that money out the door. After Congress appropriates it, it puts the money into use by portioning it out to various Federal Agencies and programs. Mr. Vought is no stranger to the OMB because, for 4 years, in the first Trump administration, as both Acting Director and Director, he served that Agency. Unfortunately, for us and for him, his record there ought to be disqualifying. He slashed budgets. He obstructed oversight efforts. He repeatedly violated the law by withholding funding Congress had already appropriated--all of it harming American families, farmers, working people, communities, and in violation of the law. The OMB Director is very powerful, but do you know? There is this thing--and I keep coming back to it--the Constitution, the Constitution of the United States, which says we have separate branches of government. The Congress is the one that has the power of the purse strings. It authorizes and appropriates money. The executive implements that budget. It executes--as the term ``executive'' implies--on that budget and many other laws. It enforces criminal laws. It implements other statutes. Of course, the judiciary calls them both in to account if they violate the Constitution. The Congress actually believes maybe there ought to be an additional guarantee of its power to appropriate and the President to faithfully execute laws. So, in addition to the Constitution, it passed a statute known as the Impoundment Control Act, which says--you know, when the Constitution requires that money appropriated by Congress be spent faithfully by the executive branch, the Constitution really means it, and the Impoundment Control Act implements it by saying it must be spent in exactly that way. But in his first service in the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, Mr. Vought really didn't think it was his duty to follow the law and the Constitution, and so he impounded money. Now, you would think: Well, maybe it was an error. Maybe, it was an oversight. Maybe, it was just, you know, kind of an innocent mistake. But he came before us in a hearing at the Committee on Homeland Security, and I asked him specifically whether he would follow the law and the Impoundment Control Act. He said that the act was unconstitutional. His theory was that the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says; that the Framers didn't really think that the President had to spend money if he felt it was against the public interest; and that if his intention was good, he didn't have to follow the Constitution. Well, the Supreme Court has affirmed and lower courts have followed that law again and again and again. So Mr. Vought thinks he is, in effect, above the Supreme Court, above the law, and above the norms that others in his position followed faithfully in executing appropriations bills. I joined my Democratic colleagues in voting no on Mr. Vought's two previous nominations, and I join my Democratic colleagues in voting no on Mr. Vought's current nomination. In fact, Mr. Vought's record and views are so troubling, he has never received a Democratic vote--never. I am here to tell you that, if confirmed again, Mr. Vought will be even worse than he was the first time around. He has had practice. He told this body that the one lesson he learned from his previous tenure was the need to act faster. During the confirmation process, he told us that he ``does not intend to do the job differently'' than he did the first time around, and he would apply his experience ``from day one.'' He said he would be acting and taking the helm of OMB at a time when President Trump has thrown that Agency and the country into chaos and confusion with his unconstitutional, illegal funding freeze. With Mr. Vought in charge, there will be more of the same. He has already proven that he is willing to break the law on behalf of President Trump. As I mentioned, one of his most concerning beliefs is that the executive branch--the President--in acting through OMB, has the authority to withhold funding that Congress has legally appropriated. Now, this point is fundamental because, if he believes the President doesn't agree with funding already enacted into law, he doesn't need to release that funding, and the President is above the law. Let's be clear on appropriations bills. As the Presiding Officer and all of our colleagues know, budgets in the U.S. Government are the result of extensive negotiation, leading to compromise and agreements that are then put into writing and incorporated into drafts and then finally into the bills that are voted on in this Chamber and then approved in the House of Representatives. If they are approved, they go to the President of the United States, and he signs them into law. That is kind of high school civics; everybody should know it. And it becomes a law. The President signs it. These funding withholding decisions that President Trump made during his first term, on the recommendation of Mr. Vought, were a violation of laws that a President--either he or a predecessor--signed. That is why I want to focus on the devastating effects of this wrongheaded, misguided philosophy and approach to law. As a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, when I questioned him on this very topic, he was clear that he disagreed with it, which is his right to do. He can disagree with the Constitution. Nobody says you have to think the Constitution is perfect. But if you take that oath--it is that oath we all take--it is to follow the Constitution, so help me God. When he fails to spend money appropriated by Congress, he will be violating that oath, and he has indicated he is ready, able, and willing to do it. He is unqualified. He is unprepared. He lacks the character and confidence to be OMB Director. These issues--I know they appear abstract, hypothetical, but they have real consequences for real people in their everyday lives. As wildfires raged across California, I asked Mr. Vought if he would commit to releasing disaster relief funding promptly and fully-- disaster relief funding for the people of California but also for the people of North Carolina, Texas, Florida, and Connecticut. We had floods recently. My colleagues and I came together in the closing days of the last session to overwhelmingly approve this funding: $110 billion, the disaster supplemental. That is $29 billion for FEMA--the Federal Emergency Management Agency--to help North Carolina to recover from Hurricane Helene, California to recover from wildfires, and my own State of Connecticut to recover from the devastating flooding that occurred last August. That is $21 billion to the Department of Agriculture to support farmers recovering from disasters, and billions of dollars for countless other programs, from small business loans, to fisheries assistance, to roads that have to be repaired, to other kinds of effects of disasters that are the result of the new normal--climate change. The people who are victims of it, who suffered financial losses or the loss of their homes, injury, are not to be blamed simply because they were in the wrong place or their house was in the wrong place at the wrong time. There are things we can do now in rebuilding that make those homes more resilient, rebuild them in a different place where the risk is lower. But many lack the insurance because they were told they didn't need it by banks that gave them mortgages, because there had never been a storm of any real magnitude before that happened in Connecticut. They were victims of rains or floods or earthquakes or other natural disasters that were not their fault. That is why we come together. We help people, as I mentioned earlier. We support each other. That is part of the fabric. That is not the legal fabric; it is the social and moral fabric. But Mr. Vought told me that he was not ``going to get ahead of the policy process of the incoming administration.'' He never committed that he would release the disaster funding. He left himself an out. He might violate the law. And we now know, because of his testimony, that he will likely violate the law. We also have his past experience to inform our judgment. Under Mr. Vought's past leadership, OMB delayed community development block grant disaster mitigation funding to Puerto Rico that Congress had provided for recovery from Hurricane Maria. I visited Puerto Rico in the wake of Hurricane Maria. I saw the devastating destruction to that island--to roads and bridges, to electricity and utilities, to hospitals and clinics, to agricultural areas that were completely isolated, some of them. I flew over them by helicopter and saw the homes that had been leveled or rendered roofless and now isolated, people unable to find food and water without it being dropped from the air sometimes by FEMA. But he withheld the community development block grant disaster mitigation funding provided by Congress for recovery from Hurricane Maria. The symbol, the visual symbol of that time became President Trump throwing rolls of paper napkins or towels at people in the crowd waiting for food and water. It became emblematic because Mr. Vought withheld that money. My constituents and all Americans should not have to worry that when disaster next strikes, they may not receive the aid that they need and deserve and that should be forthcoming because of actions by Congress only because a single man, Russell Vought, has taken it on himself to make a decision that it should be withheld, as he did with Puerto Rico. Natural disasters--all the more frequent and damaging because of climate change--don't discriminate between red States and blue States. Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Connecticut, Oklahoma, California--they have all suffered these natural disasters recently. It doesn't matter whether they are red or blue; they need and deserve help. No administration should withhold it. Just as troubling is Mr. Vought's track record on Ukraine aid. This issue is especially close to my heart. I am wearing a pin at this very moment that has both the American and Ukraine flags. I wear it always. I have been to Ukraine six times since the beginning of the war. I believe fervently that their fight is our fight and that we have a moral obligation but also a self-interest in supporting them because Vladimir Putin will keep rolling. If he conquers Ukraine, he will keep going. The first law, first lesson from ``20th century tyranny'': Do not obey in advance. Tyranny starts abroad sometimes, but it comes for us. Vladimir Putin will come for others if he succeeds in Ukraine, and we will have an obligation under article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to put American soldiers and troops on the ground: airmen, sailors, marines--all of our military. So it is in our interest to stop him where he is right now. During his first term, Mr. Vought was instrumental in delaying security assistance to Ukraine. We all remember--those who served in this Chamber during those years--that first impeachment of Donald Trump because of that withholding of money and the circumstances surrounding it. In 2019, under Mr. Vought's leadership, OMB withheld $250 million appropriated to the Department of Defense for security assistance to Ukraine. The Government Accountability Office found that OMB's actions to withhold this funding violated the law. GAO also concluded that OMB's withholding of an additional $141.5 million appropriated to the State Department for Ukraine might be a violation of the law. That is the Government Accountability Office--nonpartisan, impartial, objective, and independent; violated the law by withholding that money. Ultimately, Congress had to pass another law to ensure that our allies in Ukraine receive the funding they needed. When I asked Mr. Vought if he would release the remaining security assistance now that has been authorized and appropriated for Ukraine, Mr. Vought said that he, again, was not ``going to get ahead of the President on a foreign policy issue of the magnitude of the situation with regard to Ukraine.'' That is astonishing. That is a yes-or-no question. Will I obey the law? Yes. But he ducked it. He dodged it. It is astonishing. Time and again, Congress has come together on a bipartisan basis and passed vitally needed security assistance to support our allies in Ukraine, and Mr. Vought could not commit to following the law and honoring that promised funding. I was and remain astonished and aghast that someone in a position of such responsibility that we are considering Mr. Vought to have would, in effect, say: Well, maybe the President would be above the law, so I am going to wait and see whether he chooses to follow it. Saying he is going to not get ahead of the President on a foreign policy issue--that is not a foreign policy issue; that is an integrity issue. That is whether or not the President is above the law and whether he will follow it. Legal scholars at the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel and even the Supreme Court have all found again and again and again that the President doesn't have the authority to withhold congressionally appropriated funding, but here we have a nominee in Mr. Vought saying in effect the Supreme Court is entitled to their opinion, but he could still proceed. It is baffling to me that this man is now before the Senate for a nomination to a post that is one of the most critical in our government at an unprecedented moment of crisis in our history. I think my colleagues ought to be equally aghast--both Republicans and Democrats--because this issue of the Constitution--I keep coming back to the Constitution--is bigger than any of us here, bigger than Mr. Vought, even bigger than President Trump. It is what sustains us through constitutional crises, as we face right now. It is bigger than this administration or any other. It is whether the law of the land should prevail, whether it is up for grabs depending on what the President thinks or what Mr. Vought recommends the President should think. It is about the power of the purse being usurped from Congress and put in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, special government employees like Elon Musk. The Constitution provides for nothing like it--nothing close to it. This issue goes to the foundation of our country. Again, I know these issues seems esoteric and legalistic. I am a lawyer. I understand that making the law real for people is a challenge, and a lot of what I have said, even when it concerns natural disasters, might seem abstract. But the person who appropriates the money--Congress--makes judgments about where it should go, who it should benefit: childcare; community health centers; the SNAP program, providing aid for the hungry; the military; new weapons platforms; our intelligence community; our national security; all the domestic needs; all of the challenges from abroad. They are not hypotheticals. And we saw last week how real the threat is, how damaging the effect would be on every single American if Mr. Vought's views prevailed. Last week, the Trump administration swept the country into chaos and confusion. And all of us in this Chamber heard from our constituents loud and clear: What in God's name are you doing? You are disrupting the payrolls of community health centers that provide basic services to patients who need them, children who use them; childcare; Head Start; Medicare; Medicaid--the basic nuts and bolts of our government disrupted. I know the President wants to be a change agent; he shouldn't be a chaos agent. Disruption shouldn't mean destruction of those basic services, but that is what a delay in funding could mean--or a suspension of financial support. And that move wasn't approved by Congress. To be clear, it was against the law. They made the unconstitutional and unilateral decision to halt congressionally mandated funding, as a result of that order-- chaos and confusion--halted Federal payments to food bank programs, healthcare and nutrition assistance programs, Head Start and childcare programs, housing programs, energy assistance programs, and so much more we heard about. And throughout the chaos, the administration was utterly unable to communicate to the public. First, there was a vague memo which claimed there were exceptions to the Trump funding freeze, but many of those programs like Medicaid and Head Start remained unable to access funding for extensive periods of time. A Federal court had to step in and halt the order and stop the chaos. And then, in another one-sentence memo, President Trump caved to the public outcry and allegedly rescinded the funding freeze entirely, 24 hours after it went into effect. Of course, it didn't end there because, right after the funding freeze was supposedly halted, it was put back into place by a tweet. That is the way we govern these days, in the Trump administration, by a tweet from the White House. Agencies and organizations on the ground were still in chaos solely because of President Trump's incompetence but also advice that he received from people like Mr. Vought who contended he was above the law and he could unilaterally freeze that funding. But here is where things really get scary. Mr. Vought shares President Trump's ludicrous and unconstitutional views about the executive power over Federal funding; but he, unlike President Trump, is not incompetent. He knows what he is doing. He spent 4 years at OMB carrying out this agenda of withholding funding, and he is primed and ready to continue that mission with all of that experience behind him, as he put it, on day one. Make no mistake, even though courts have intervened to halt Trump's Federal funding freeze, this fight is not over. It is not even the beginning of the end. It is not even the end of the beginning. We are in the first 2 weeks--or now maybe 3 weeks--of the Trump administration, and I am hearing from constituents that funding has yet to be unlocked, especially from the Inflation Reduction Act. And even if all the Federal funding taps are turned back on, this administration is not done wreaking havoc in our communities. The President will try again. Only this time, if we let him, he will have Mr. Vought on his side, with all that experience, breaking the law at OMB on the President's behalf. It won't be a vague, several-line memo from OMB imposing the freeze; it will be a well-articulated set of falsehoods designed to confuse and obstruct but still order a freeze in funding. Let me give you some examples from Connecticut about what the ramifications are in real life. Given the magnitude of the danger facing us, I want to take some time to highlight again the harms that result from a funding freeze. I have spent the last couple of weeks--the last week particularly-- fielding concerns from constituents who are understandably worried and confused and scared about the devastating effects that the freeze has imposed on services they provide to people who need and deserve them. Let me be clear that congressionally mandated aid this administration has illegally withheld helps families put food on the table and keep their homes heated in the winter. It helps our communities, and particularly farmers, recover from extreme natural disasters. It provides needed support for infrastructure updates in every State across the country. To every American who is listening: It is your money that President Trump is playing games with. It is your taxpayer dollars that are owed back as investments in your communities. It is not Donald Trump's money. It is not Russell Vought's money. It is your money, taxpayer money. Let's call the funding freeze what it is: theft. President Trump is stealing money from American taxpayers and citizens and threatening their ability to pay rent, heat homes, and much more. And that money, stolen by Donald Trump, will be used to finance tax cuts for billionaires and the ultrawealthy like himself. Follow the money. Follow the money when it is illegally impounded to be used to finance tax cuts for the benefit of a tiny slice of the American public: the ultrawealthy, billionaires. There is nothing wrong with being a billionaire. We all can aspire to be a billionaire. It is the favoritism and discriminatory use and effect of our laws benefiting them at the illegal expense of everyday Americans whose taxpayer money has been stolen, grifted, thieved. I have no doubt that every single one of my colleagues, even on the other side of the aisle, who have remained silent or complicit have been inundated with requests for help from their constituents. And my Republican colleagues know well, red States and blue States receive funding from the Federal Government. In fact, I saw a statistic in the New York Times that something like 80 percent of all the infrastructure money has gone to congressional districts represented by Republicans. Don't hold me to the 80 percent number, but that is approximately what it was--which is not to say they shouldn't receive that money. If they are entitled to it under the formula that Congress establishes based on need or other factors, it doesn't matter whether they are red or blue; the law ought to be executed fairly and faithfully, implemented properly. But then to turn around and say, well, we should impound money that has been lawfully appropriated, affects them as well as the congressional districts represented by Democrats. It is not about Republican or Democrat. Here are some real stories. During the chaos that overwhelmed Federal Agencies, community health centers were unable to access the Federal funding they rely on to provide critical health services. Many of them were weighing furloughs of their doctors, their nurses, their counselors, their essential providers. A nonprofit in Connecticut that provides critical mental health services was terrified that they may not be able to pay their staff if the funding freeze continued. I spoke to the head of the Alliance or Association of Community Health Centers. He told me about one in the northeastern part of the State that had to close its dental services. Medicaid payments are now seemingly back online, but this administration put 1 million Connecticut residents who rely on Medicaid and the Connecticut Children's Health Insurance Program at risk with these needless and reckless theatrics. Childcare, similarly: Connecticut Head Start was unable to access payments. President Trump jeopardized childcare and early childhood education for 5,000 families in Connecticut. Connecticut farmers, who just over a week ago were celebrating--and I was there with them--millions of dollars in much-needed disaster assistance from extreme weather events--they weren't sure whether they would ever see that money, or when. You know, farmers really can't wait a few months to plant the seeds or feed their livestock. There are seasons, there are days when obligations have to be met. And they deserved the aid that was coming to them, and they should not be forced to wait for it. Millions of dollars to the hard-working farmers of Connecticut withheld potentially on that day. We still are unclear whether that freeze for that aid has been unequivocally lifted. At the outset of the freeze, I spoke to the CEO of Connecticut Foodshare. He expressed to me his deep fears about the potential impact to food assistance like SNAP, the emergency food assistance program. Freezes to these funds could push hundreds of families into poverty and hunger. Any more politically motivated funding games from the Trump administration would have potentially life-threatening impacts on survivors of domestic violence because they depend on VAWA--Violence Against Women Act--and the money that is appropriated under it for the domestic violence shelters, for the counseling, for the hotlines--all necessary to provide survivors with options rather than just stay in homes where they are victims of abuse. They are survivors if they can get away, and they deserve these services. The operation of Connecticut's 24/7 domestic violence hotline could be severely impacted by another suspension. Court-based and community- based services for survivors and their children are also on the chopping block. This funding freeze was terrifying to these women and children and potentially tragic--not just for Connecticut but for the whole country--on domestic violence. Housing: Connecticut organizations that rely on Federal funding from HUD to help families at risk of homelessness, also in jeopardy. Mr. President, 150,000 Connecticut residents depend on federally funded housing programs. Even a temporary pause puts them at risk because, potentially, it puts them out of their homes. I heard from one organization that can provide permanent supportive housing to over 40 households in Waterbury and Meriden with the help of HUD funding. This housing is for people with disabilities and their families during this chaos and confusion. They reported that the payment system for HUD was down, and they were unable to access these funds just days before the rent was due on the first of the month. While the system now seems to be back online, that organization had to live through potentially tragic trauma, and the stress was debilitating for them, and the trauma has lasting effect. It increases the sense of insecurity for people who already feel an anxiety about their future. The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP--we all know it because it heats the homes of people on days like this one--cold--here in the District of Columbia, a lot colder in Connecticut and the Northeast and in many of our States. And people need this critical program that provides energy assistance to low- income individuals and households. It was in jeopardy too; over 100,000 households in Connecticut that rely on heat were told: The money has stopped. Again, it may be back online, but no one knows whether that is for sure because Russell Vought and Donald Trump think they may be above the law. Funding to support critical water infrastructure, brownfields mediation, and clean drinking water also frozen. That move threatened the health of communities everywhere. And I am still hearing from constituents that grants they received under the Inflation Reduction Act are continuing to be frozen. The city of New Haven received over $10 million from EPA for two grants under the IRA that they say have been blocked, severely disrupting work. Recipients of EPA's Solar for All program, which enables households in low-income and disadvantaged communities to benefit from solar power, are similarly still frozen, including recipients in Connecticut. Make no mistake, the Trump funding freeze continues in effect today. The courts need to block it, and then they will need to hold in contempt the officials who fail to obey it, whether it is Mr. Vought or the President of the United States, and lawyers will go to court to seek contempt motions to hold them in contempt. Trump's funding freeze put the future of Connecticut and our Nation's roads and bridges and rail at risk. Amtrak's state of repair backlog for the Northeast corridor is tens of billions of dollars alone. It was estimated at $78.7 billion in 2023. This funding is critical for safety repairs along Amtrak rail lines. Funding the Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project and the Gateway Hudson Tunnel replacement project, it will ensure rail passengers can safely enter and move through all of New England. And without this funding from the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail and the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Programs--just naming a few--all of these investments will be at risk because they are all connected. You can't stop work on one part of the line and expect the trains to magically go in the air over that break. And transportation costs will escalate because construction costs will rise. The interruption itself could be devastating financially. Last week, I was proud to join the mayor of New Haven and Representative Rosa DeLauro to announce that the city of New Haven was awarded $2 million under the Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program to study reuniting the city of New Haven, which was divided by Interstate 91. When that road was built, it split the city. It created a physical barrier. It isolated residents from social and economic opportunities that are critical to thrive. It destroyed city blocks and dozens of homes. And now this grant will help reunite neighborhoods, bring communities closer together, incentivize housing and other important assets. But right before we made our announcement, DOT pulled down meetings it was supposed to have with grant recipients because they didn't know whether the award would be granted. This funding freeze means that New Haven will no longer be able to identify ways to make roads safer or safeguard against disaster or encourage construction of new affordable homes and promote new businesses and more for its residents. Just one example of around $1 billion Federal funding--$1 billion--for Connecticut alone that is in jeopardy. The longer the Trump administration's reckless agenda causes chaos and confusion, the clearer it will become that everyday Americans are suffering from this ill-conceived, wrongly implemented, reckless, and heartless program. I talk about all these stories concerning my constituents, but every Member of this body could tell the same kinds of stories across our Nation. It bears repeating because the trauma and the hurt and the harm are to our neighbors and communities. With Russell Vought as Director of OMB, if he is confirmed, he will have President Trump as his leader, who has apparently indicated he will follow recommendations that put him above the law. Russell Vought is the perfect person to help Donald Trump rob the American people--

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, as my colleague Senator Schiff from California has just so powerfully stated, we are in the midst of a constitutional crisis--a crisis that would have been unimaginable just weeks ago, a crisis that involves a President disobeying the law. Now, Presidents in the past have disobeyed the law. They have sought to test the boundaries of their power, and the courts have blocked them. But never has a President violated so many significant laws and the Constitution so rapidly, so repeatedly, that we are, as Senator Schiff said, lost in the chaos. And it falls to the arbiters of law-- our courts--but it is also incumbent on the enforcers of the law. Any of us who have served in the Department of Justice--I was U.S. attorney for Connecticut for 4\1/2\ years--knows that the most important decisions that any prosecutor, any law enforcer makes is whether to uphold the rule of law and sometimes say no to an FBI agent who is too enthusiastic about a case and wants to indict someone who could not be convicted, a public official who is close personally or politically and has overstepped their powers or ethics. To be fair, independent, objective, to be completely impartial, and to uphold the rule of law is the first duty of anyone in the U.S. Department of Justice. I have more than respect, I have reverence for the Department of Justice, and that is why I am so deeply disappointed that we are here tonight for the nomination of Pam Bondi. The Attorney General of the United States of America is supposed to be the people's lawyer, not the President's. Donald Trump has said he wants the Attorney General to be his Roy Cohn, his fixer, his personal attorney. Well, Ms. Bondi said she would be the people's lawyer, but that claim is betrayed by almost everything else she said and, most importantly, what she would not say. Here is what she would not say. She would not say that she would say no to the President when he asked her to do something illegal or immoral. She dodged that question. She would not say that she was wrong for spreading lies about fraud and cheating in Pennsylvania during the 2020 election. She dodged that question, too. She would not say that President Biden won the 2020 election or that President Trump lost. She ducked it. Now, the issue of whether President Trump asked his Attorney General to do something illegal or immoral is not a hypothetical. It is not abstruse or abstract. It is real. We know it is real because every one of his past Attorneys General ran afoul of Donald Trump because they would not do something illegal or immoral--our colleague Jeff Sessions, Bill Barr. No matter how good their intention, nobody can talk Donald Trump out of what he wants to do, and the law is no concern, nor is the lawyer. He will get lawyers to do whatever he wants, and Pam Bondi was reassuring--very reassuring--to one person--Donald Trump--when she dodged those questions because what he wants is a loyalist, a sycophant, an acolyte, and he wants a puppet to do his bidding. The American people need a lawyer at this moment in history, at this point of constitutional crisis, who will truly speak truth to power. We use that phrase all the time, ``speak truth to power,'' but in this instance, it is the essence of what an Attorney General has to do at this moment in our history. And Donald Trump doesn't want to hear the truth. As much power as he has, he wants to hear an Attorney General tell him: Fine to go ahead. You have the green light. If Pam Bondi thinks she won't face that same dilemma that Bill Barr and Jeff Sessions did and every other lawyer who has worked for Donald Trump has faced, she is either delusional or disingenuous--delusional or disingenuous. For me, both are disqualifying for this job. And she can't even pass that low bar of saying she could say no. Her answer is: Oh, well, he would never do anything like that. He is my friend. As we are here tonight, the Trump Justice Department is reported to be preparing to purge hundreds or even thousands of FBI agents or other personnel in the Department of Justice for nothing more than doing their jobs. These agents were assigned to criminal cases involving Donald Trump. They didn't leap forward. They didn't volunteer. They were assigned, and, like FBI agents do, they took the assignment. Now they will pay a price in their careers unjustly, unfairly, and unwisely because it will deter other FBI agents from doing their job when it comes to drug cases or terrorism cases. We have heard also that assistant U.S. attorneys are being reassigned from drug cases and terrorism cases so that they can do immigration. We are hearing that career civil servants must be loyal to Donald Trump in this Department of Justice--well, to Donald Trump and to them. We all know something fundamental in this body--that we swear an oath. The lowliest private in the U.S. Army or the Navy or the Marine Corps or the Air Force takes an oath. They raise their right hand, just as we do. Anybody in the Cabinet takes that oath, and they swear allegiance, but it isn't to the President, and it isn't to the government; it is to the Constitution. That is what is at risk here. That is what Pam Bondi cannot do in good conscience if she is confirmed because her allegiance will be to Donald Trump. The purge of agents and the reassignment and retribution of others not only damages morale, the effectiveness of the Department of Justice, it undermines the rule of law. The Attorney General--perhaps chief among Presidential appointees--is responsible for making good on the constitutional promise that no man or no woman is above the law, that we have no king in the United States. We are no longer a monarchy. We can no longer ask a billionaire to rummage through the files of the Department of Treasury that have information about the Presiding Officer and every one of us who serves in this body and almost every American because we all pay taxes; we all have Social Security; we get tax refunds. Veterans get disability benefits. Almost anything the U.S. Government does creates a record in the Treasury Department, and all that information is being read and scanned and now collected. That is the news of the day. More bad news about Elon Musk. Who is going to stop Elon Musk when he is doing something illegal and immoral? It won't be Pam Bondi because she is Donald Trump's lawyer. That is a real and present danger for every one of us in this country. After I was U.S. attorney in Connecticut--I was the attorney general of my State for 20 years. In that job, also, I took an oath to the Constitution of the United States as a State official, as well as to the constitution of the State of Connecticut. It isn't an abstract notion; it is what we all do. If she is confirmed, maybe Pam Bondi will be able to raise her right hand and recite after whoever is administering the oath, but it will not be an oath she is capable of keeping. And so on this critically important vote for our country, I don't think there is a Cabinet officer more important at this moment in our history. I urge my colleagues to say no to this nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I think it is fair to say that none of us expected a week ago to be here on the floor at this moment, talking about a massive, across-the-board freeze on Federal funding. I don't think either of us, on either side of the aisle, expected to be here on this topic. We are in no ordinary time. The chaos and confusion are extraordinary. And it is the result of one man: Donald Trump. It is part of a calculated strategy: confusion and chaos; a blizzard of illegal actions; a hiring freeze that violates the law; a firing of inspectors general that abridges the statute; a freeze on funding that crosses the line because it violates the Impoundment Control Act, which has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court despite Donald Trump's contention that it is unconstitutional; and it also violates the Constitution. It is a seizure of power--namely, the power of the purse--that Congress intended never to surrender. It was given by the Founders as a check on Presidential power. The checks and balances of our system operate to create a system that prevents tyranny. And, unfortunately, this country is veering and careening toward tyranny. So we are here to say we will not obey in advance. One of the lessons of ``Totalitarianism in the 20th Century,'' one of the ``Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century'' that Professor Tim Snyder has instructed us to take from that awful period in world history is: Do not obey in advance; do not yield what the tyrant wants in advance of his demanding it. Stand up, speak out, stop it. That is why we are here. And the American people rose up in the last 24 hours because of the chaos and confusion of this funding freeze they saw in their everyday lives. They saw it in the domestic shelters that were imperiled, in the homeless places that would go without funding, at the food banks, at the community health centers, at daycare places, in schools, in hospitals. In every place where everyday Americans depend on vital services for their ordinary lives, they were seeing their worlds upended. And the Trump administration responded to that outcry. They pulled back from the precipice of a total breakdown in order. They came back from the cliff. They walked back the illegal order to freeze that funding. But--make no mistake--they did it once, and they can do it again. In fact, after the one-line order that walked back that funding freeze, the President's Press Secretary said: Well, the funding freeze is still in effect. These whiplash reversals are themselves damaging the country. Organizations can't meet payrolls. They can't plan budgets. They can't assign their staff. They can't pay for the machines that do the road reconstruction and bridge repair. They can't run railroads when they don't know that Amtrak is going to be funded. And so the doubt, uncertainty, breeding anxiety and fear and anger are also damaging the country. They did it once, and they can do it again. And it looks like they already have, because the purpose here is theft. Let's call it what it is. Donald Trump is stealing from the community health centers and domestic violence shelters to finance tax cuts for billionaires. He is looting those kinds of public services so that there is money to pay for those tax cuts benefiting his billionaire friends and family. And Americans have to see that fact for what it is--the plain truth, unpleasant as it may be, unpalatable morally, and illegal under our Constitution. He doesn't have the power to just stop spending under an appropriation bill passed by Congress and signed by the President. It may not have been signed by this President, but that fact makes no difference. It is the law. That spending appropriation is the law of the land. The President has no right to seize the power of the purse under the Constitution and violate that law. Now, if the order had remained in effect, as it was originally intended, it almost certainly would have been enjoined by the courts. I certainly hope so. The initial administrative stay indicates the court was certainly concerned about it, and the combination of irreparable harm and likely prevailing on the merits, I think would have led that court in the District of Columbia to hold that a temporary injunction at least was appropriate. But the fact is we then may have a President who disobeys a court order. We are in uncharted territory. It is truly a crisis for our democracy. And I want to thank the American people for that outcry that led to the reversal but also to alert the American people that we are far from done. And I want to appeal to my Republican colleagues. In fact, I want to appeal to Republicans in Connecticut, people who think of themselves as a member or a supporter of the Republican Party and Republican candidates. This fight is yours, too, because those domestic shelters and community health centers and all the facilities, all the groups, all the individuals affected by this massive funding freeze, they are in red States as well as blue States. The block grants that are suspended, they are in red States and in blue States. The firefighter equipment that will be held back--red States as well as blue States. The subsidies for housing and the benefits and care for veterans--red States and blue States. This fight is yours, not just ours on this side of the aisle. And my Republican colleagues, I am absolutely sure, are hearing from their constituents about how difficult and daunting these last 24 hours have been after the announcement of this freeze because I know I have fielded calls from all across the State of Connecticut--from those food bank programs, health and nutrition assistance programs, Head Start and childcare programs, housing programs, veterans programs, energy assistance programs, and many more. And it has impacts beyond what you would think are obvious. Just Monday, I met with farmers who suffered from flooding and hailstorms earlier this year--last year. And under the end-of-session continuing resolution that we passed, disaster relief was provided across the country for farmers and for others. And those farmers celebrated, along with us, Members of the congressional delegation, the fact that they were receiving millions of dollars to help them recover from the floods. Well, now that money is uncertain--when it will arrive and even whether it will be available. Connecticut Head Start was unable to access payments. President Trump's order jeopardized childcare and early childhood education for 5,000 families. Domestic violence shelters, survivors with nowhere else to go, were forced to return to their homes where there were abusers. This funding freeze has terrifying and likely implications not just for Connecticut but all over the country. And in the midst of winter, the LIHEAP program, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, a critical program that provides energy assistance to low-income individuals and households, is also in jeopardy. One hundred thousand households in Connecticut rely on LIHEAP to meet their home energy needs. Uncertainty about this Federal funding leaves them more vulnerable than ever. Like my colleagues, I could go on. But my colleagues are joining us on the floor, and I just want to end on this note. I mentioned that this funding freeze is part of a calculated strategy to steal from the domestic violence shelters and childcare and Head Start and all the other services funded under these programs and make that money available for tax cuts to the billionaire friends and family of Donald Trump. But what is also part of the strategy is a blizzard of orders, a deluge of illegalities, one of them being the firing of inspectors general. And if there is one thing we need right now in our Federal Government, it is transparency; it is the watchdogs who demand accountability and stop waste and fraud and abuse. Firing inspectors general, the independent watchdogs and bulwarks against corruption, is a profoundly important sign of where this President wants to take the country. The Veterans' Inspector General, Mike Missal, has recovered billions of dollars for the VA. Firing him and eliminating his independent oversight is a betrayal of trust to our veterans, as well as a violation of law, because none of these inspectors general was fired with the requisite 30-day notice to Congress and with a statement of reasons and rationale that is required under the law. If the President is really committed to finding waste in government, why is he firing the watchdogs who are the ones who root it out? And today's or earlier this week's firing makes clear that the President is lacking in that commitment. We are here because we are determined to fight, and we are determined also to continue to support the American people in this outcry against lawlessness and recklessness that so imperils hard-working, everyday Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, on January 6, many of us stood right here toward the beginning of the day. In fact, most of us can remember, almost minute by minute, what occurred as we learned that the Capitol was under attack. It was under attack, not just metaphorically. It was actually under physical attack on that day by rioters who bore pipes and baseball bats and, yes, firearms and physically battered this place. And they threatened every one of us who was here. They did more than threaten the police officers who defended the Capitol on that day. They actually assaulted those police officers. They attacked them brutally--sometimes with their own shields or with arms that they brought with them. They gave lasting, severe injuries to a number of them and, in some instances, contributed to their deaths. The mob violently attacked those police officers--punching them, kicking them, choking them, pepper-spraying them, plunging stun guns into their necks, beating them with all kinds of weapons, including flag poles, hockey sticks, as well as those baseball bats. Many of us have heard Capitol Police officers recount their feelings on that day--terror, fear, guilt. They thought they would die. They even thought that that would be their last day, and some phoned their families to tell them as much. These brave officers suffer from severe and lasting injuries and trauma. Five died in the aftermath. All experienced some form of very severe pain and trauma. Nearly 600 rioters were charged with assaulting law enforcement officers, and 170 of them were charged with using a deadly weapon or a dangerous weapon to commit the assault. True, they were not charged with killing anyone, but those charges against them were serious and severe. They were convicted by juries of everyday Americans who were instructed properly as to the law by judges who were simply following those statutes on the books, and they convicted those defendants, insurrectionists, rioters in proceedings that have been reaffirmed on appeal, where there were appeals, or where there were guilty pleas and an acknowledgment of responsibility from some. Now, with clearly callous regard for the justice system, for those juries, for the prosecutors, for the judges, for the rule of law, the President has gifted them--gifted them--``full, complete, and unconditional'' pardons--``full, complete, and unconditional'' pardons--even after those proceedings of lawfully convicting them. Shame on him. These sickening pardons are the ultimate show of disrespect for our police officers and a clear endorsement of political violence. His actions normalize political violence. They condone it--maybe even encourage it--because, from now on, those kinds of rioters who disrupt the lawful and peaceful transition of power or any other functioning of our government can at least hope for and, under this President, maybe expect that they will never be held accountable. These pardons are a betrayal not only of these officers--the Capitol Police--on that day, who defended and protected us and who literally were willing to lay down their lives for our democracy, but these abuses of pardons show that it is past time for Congress to enact reform and implement restraints on the pardon power. America elects Presidents, not Kings with unfettered power. The pardon power was lifted--taken from England--by the Founders, who saw the practice in the monarchy at that time. It was one of the only powers--maybe unique among powers--in its being totally unchecked. We need accountability and transparency, starting with this resolution--transparency and accountability, starting here. But we also need the measure that I propose, the Pardon Transparency and Accountability Act, which will impose some guardrails and safeguards: a statement by the President explaining why he is doing a specific pardon, because it is supposed to be an individualized judgment; then a justice impact statement that gives the victim of that crime or any related offense the opportunity to be heard and state a position; the prosecutors an opportunity to state a view; and a disclosure as to what lobby--maybe even campaign contributions--have been involved. Ultimately--and I know we are speaking to history here--there needs to be a change in the Constitution, an amendment, that, in effect, shares that pardon power with other branches of government. It may be that pardons are appropriate whether as an exercise of mercy or ultimate justice or a recognition of rehabilitation for whatever reason. Maybe we need the pardon power, but it should not be unchecked and absolute in the President. We are limited as to what we can do in reform because it is in the Constitution. What we can do without a constitutional amendment by statute is simply to require some explanation, a justice impact statement, fuller disclosure, and more transparency and accountability in the limited ways that the Constitution permits, but we need to begin with this resolution today-- right away. I urge my Republican colleagues who were protected on that awesomely terrible day and who now are silent--they are silent in the face of these sickening pardons--to join us. Come with us in condemning the violence that occurred and stand with the officers--the police, the law enforcement. Stand with the blue, and condemn the violence of that day. Stand with the officers who put their lives on the line and who suffered injury, maiming, and some deaths in the aftermath. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleagues here on the floor tonight, but we all wish we weren't here. We should not be here. We are here because the Trump administration, last night, swept the country into chaos. We are here because it is a break-the-glass moment for our democracy. The unconstitutional and unilateral decision to halt congressionally mandated funding is against the law. It is against the Constitution. It is against the Impoundment Control Act. That is the reason why a judge, this afternoon, ordered that it be stopped--but only temporarily, until February 3. And then we are in uncharted waters. This action is totally unprecedented on this scale and scope. Let's call it what it is. It is theft. President Trump is stealing money from people's pockets and pocketbooks and wallets, threatening their ability to pay rent, heat homes. It is imperiling programs around my State and the country that provide shelter for the homeless, suicide prevention for veterans, healthcare for people who are uninsured. The list is endless. That is not hyperbole. And just in the last 24 hours since this news broke, Connecticut organizations are already feeling the impact, and they are contacting me, reaching out in fear and worry. I have been fielding concerns from constituents who are already seeing the impact in doctors demoralized and food insecurity workers dispirited. Some community health centers were unable to access Federal funding this morning, and many of them are weighing furloughs and cuts to essential services. One nonprofit, in Groton, that provides critical mental health services to children doesn't know if they are going to have the Federal funding necessary to pay their staff. Connecticut Head Start will be operating on a deficit as of February 7 if they can't access Federal funding, putting the entire program at risk. Amtrak's ``state of good repair'' backlog for the Northeast corridor is tens of billions of dollars alone, estimated at $78.7 billion in 2023. This funding is critical for safety concerns, reliability, repairs along the Amtrak rail lines--funding like the Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project and the Gateway Hudson Tunnel Replacement Project that will ensure passenger rail safety throughout New England. This freeze on funding threatens all of those projects. It imperils the Federal-State partnership for intercity passenger rail and consolidated rail infrastructure. I know that this kind of blizzard of terms seems abstract and hypothetical to a lot of people, but it is real to contractors who need to meet their payroll and pay for gas for their machines and trucks. This kind of draconian dictatorial measure imperils a hundred thousand households in Connecticut that rely on LIHEAP to meet their home energy needs. Uncertainty about Federal funding leaves these vulnerable families unsure of whether they are going to be able to heat their homes right now in the middle of winter. It has a trickle-down effect on organizations that don't benefit from Federal dollars. Just one example, a Connecticut program that provides supplemental energy assistance for households that don't qualify for LIHEAP expressed concern that they are going to face an unsustainable deluge of demand if Federal funding is halted. I was in Connecticut just yesterday--it seems like an age ago-- announcing a Reconnecting Communities Pilot Grant Program in New Haven. I joined the mayor of New Haven and Representative Rosa DeLauro to announce that New Haven was awarded $2 million to reconnect neighborhoods--an exciting and inspiring project to bring communities together, increase housing and social and economic opportunities. Now, residents of New Haven will be kept in waiting. I was with Connecticut farmers. Just yesterday, we were celebrating millions of dollars in disaster assistance for extreme weather events. Now, they may not see it for months, maybe never. That is disaster resulting from flooding and hail storms. They were counting on this disaster recovery aid. Now, they may be deprived of it. Connecticut Foodshare, we just talked to them today as well. They are anxiously waiting to learn more about the potential impacts to halting food assistance, maybe through SNAP, the Emergency Food Assistance Program. They are unsure. The President has failed to clarify whether it will apply to SNAP. But, clearly, the effect, psychologically, creating chaos and confusion, is itself a severe deprivation. Museums, many of which run successful education programs critical to our students' success, they are halting services. Even a temporary pause can have a significant impact on education. And for all of these organizations and many others, the effect is not only in dollars and cents; it is in demoralizing people who are dedicating their lives to public service. They are working in federally supported community health centers, making less money, working longer hours, doing residencies as young doctors. And what is the expression of appreciation? It is telling them: We are stopping. We are halting. We are ending the funding. It is profoundly disrespectful to those programs that often operate as a safety net, whether it is for healthcare or hunger or education. It is profoundly destructive to the fabric of our society in the greatest Nation in the history on Earth. So it is theft. It is not a victimless crime. It is illegal. It won't be punishable in a court, but my hope is the American public will rise up. They need to be the voice of conscience and conviction in this country and say to my Republican colleagues: This isn't a red or blue issue. This is about people. It is about everyday Americans who will be severely harmed and their children who will bear, perhaps, unfortunately and tragically, lasting scars emotionally and maybe physically from this destructive impact on their lives. I regret that we are here today. I am proud to be with my colleagues. I wish we were joined on the other side of the aisle, but I believe that they will hear, on the Republican side, despite their silence tonight, voices that are loud and clear to them, from the American people, that this kind of halt--a dictatorial, illegal stop--in Federal funding should violate the conscience of our Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, we are in the midst of considering Peter Hegseth to be the next Secretary of Defense. I don't think there is a more important office in this country, having power and responsibility for 3.4 million Americans, most of them in uniform, many of them civilians, all of them potentially putting their lives in harm's way. The President's choice to lead the Department of Defense is not only one of the most significant he will make but is also probably the most unqualified nominee for this position of immense authority and responsibility in recent history. It is clear that his history of mismanagement--he drove two veterans organizations into the ground financially--makes him patently incapable of the powerfully challenging management task that he will have as Secretary of Defense. This sprawling enterprise has to be directed and guided by someone who has had some significant management responsibility in the past. I hesitate to say how much because the standard and the bar have always been extremely high under both Republican and Democratic administrations, including President Trump's first term when he appointed General Mattis. I voted for General Mattis. He was obviously a Republican nominee, but he had the experience--not just in combat but also at the Pentagon. Now, I know the President wants to be a disrupter and a change agent. The Pentagon may be in need of some change and disruption, but not chaos, not financial mismanagement such as characterized Pete Hegseth's service as the head of Vets for Freedom and then Concerned Veterans for America. What can be said about his service in those two organizations is that year after year, he spent more than he raised. He had deficits year after year--not by a little bit, by hundreds of thousands of dollars. So at the end of his service at Vets for Freedom, the board did an intervention. They had a forensic study done, which showed that there were tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid debt, and they, in fact, ousted him. He then went to Concerned Veterans for America and same pattern, roughly the same financial failings--deficits year after year, significant in their number and total amount. There again, he left under a cloud, with a nondisclosure agreement, so we don't have, necessarily, the full story. Just as a management issue, this nomination is fundamentally flawed. He left those two separate organizations smoldering in ruins after just a few years as their executive director. We have documents from whistleblowers that detail a toxic workplace environment at those organizations. It was rife with alcohol abuse and sexual harassment under his leadership. Former employees have detailed that Mr. Hegseth routinely used organization funds to pursue personal pleasures, usually involving alcohol and women. His underlings referred to them as ``party girls.'' These veterans service organizations ran fiscal surpluses before Mr. Hegseth's tenure, and upon his exit, their budgets were really in flames. In one case, the organization simply ceased to exist. Vets for Freedom was absorbed by another organization. He testified that he is proud of the work he did while he was at Vets for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America, but he made a career of advocating for policies that would, in effect, contract and even defund the Veterans' Administration and harm servicemembers, veterans, and their families. For years, he lambasted veterans who pursued disability compensation, and he advocated for for-profit colleges that make their living preying on servicemembers and veterans. These organizations and the policies he advocated could potentially have done grave harm to our veterans. During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Hegseth also refused to answer questions regarding the use of Active-Duty military within the borders of the United States. One of the President's own former Secretaries of Defense stated unequivocally that ``the option to use active-duty forces in law enforcement's role should be only used as a matter of last resort and only in the most urgent and dire of situations.'' Yet the President is apparently laying down plans to use the Active-Duty military to conduct mass deportations and to quell civil unrest. Americans don't want the military, our men and women on Active Duty, raiding restaurants and farms, looking for individuals who have overstayed their visas. If the President is unwilling to invest in ICE, it should not be the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, our Active- Duty men and women going into homes, workplaces, schools, churches, hospitals, and in effect performing the raids--the law enforcement duty--that really are specifically prohibited by statute. Pete Hegseth will be behind these policies. Many of them he has already endorsed. Most of them, unfortunately, were not delved into in any depth in his hearing because so much of it was on the sexual improprieties and alcohol abuse and other personal issues that would be disqualifying. Let's make no mistake. There is a lot of focus on this latest affidavit. There is significant information--not anonymous smears, significant information-- in that affidavit, but there was already enough on the record, in fact, acknowledged during that hearing by Mr. Hegseth himself, as to information that would be disqualifying if he as a major were up for promotion, if he as a corporal were up for promotion to a sergeant; facts about marital infidelity--open, blatant, matter of public record--that would be disqualifying to him within the military and in fact might even subject him to discipline within the military; other reported instances of drunkenness, of misconduct, all of it in the public record acknowledged by him--at least as to the marital infidelity. So the focus on those personal aspects of his background took time. And by the way, we had very limited amounts of time because we were not permitted a second round of questioning. We were not given access to the FBI background report. We were not given, in fact, the benefit of a full FBI background investigation--an adequate one--because there were gaps, as shown by the affidavit, as to who was interviewed, and that is in part why that affidavit is important, because it shows that there were, in fact, gaps in the FBI's investigation. The American people don't want the National Guard or our military reserves or their Active Duty, their own neighbors, on the streets of Des Moines, Cleveland, Hartford, Montgomery--places where they call home--checking their papers, conducting surveillance operations that could sweep vast amounts of their private data. That is our military going into our workplaces and our homes collecting information. The Founders of this Nation never envisioned our military as a police force, and neither did Congress. That is why we have the Insurrection Act and other measures that forbid that kind of intrusion. In fact, it was that kind of invasion of their homes by the British military that caused them to adopt many of our constitutional guarantees against the use of the military for those kinds of purposes. Mr. Hegseth declined to state his opposition to such deployments when asked during his hearing. What he said, and I take him at his word, is that he will heed the President's direction as Commander in Chief. The reason he was chosen for this job obviously is not his experience as a manager; it is not his bona fides as a leader of major organizations; it is his loyalty to the President, to Donald Trump. And more than loyalty, it is fealty. It is that acquiescence, obedience, obsequiousness, blind loyalty that would lead him to take that order and, in turn, order American troops into people's homes. There is no question that beyond what could happen in America on our soil, his confirmation would also present enormous problems for our allies and partners in the Middle East. I have been working with the senior Senator from South Carolina for some years to encourage the normalization of relations between the State of Israel and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is an enterprise and an effort that I think has occupied many of us in this Chamber. We have visited the region together. And one of our objectives, in fact, is a treaty or agreement that would bind us closer together--Israel, Saudi Arabia, America, perhaps the UAE--as part of normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and the regional nations and Israel. Suffice it to say that the recent cease-fire announcement between Israel and Hamas is a historic shift in regional politics. I believe that Mr. Hegseth's personal beliefs would diminish our support of the peace process or derail it entirely because of comments he has made about Islam and Muslim nations. Those comments were explored in some detail in his testimony. My concern is there have been numerous reports in addition to his own words that appear to convey a hostility on his part--if not outright antagonism--toward Islam and Muslims. A former employee of Concerned Veterans for America alleges that he shouted racist and Islamophobic chants during an official tour in Ohio, well-publicized and well-known, in the region where Muslim Nation and Islam are predominant. In his book ``American Crusade,'' he expressed concern about Muslim birthrights and said the present moment for Christians is like the time of the Crusades and that Christians must arm themselves metaphorically, intellectually, and physically. Our fight is not with guns. Yet. [Not with guns. Yet.] Well, we are not in a time where we need a crusader in the old- fashioned sense of that word and who says that Christians must arm themselves metaphorically, intellectually, physically--physically--for a fight that may be coming. We are trying to engage those nations in a common purpose toward normalization, peace and stability, an expansion of the Abraham Accords. People in Israel are hoping that progress can be made, that there can be a successful effort to build on the Abraham Accords. The current cease-fire agreement is the result of both the Trump administration and the Biden administration coming together--the two teams, Brett McGurk and Envoy Witkoff--making sure that peace was the objective, not antagonism or hostility. Ambassador Witkoff, I don't think, would want a Secretary of Defense talking about a crusade against Muslim nations. I don't think that a more problematic and concerning nominee has been put before this body, and I urge my Republican colleagues to review what Senator Murkowski and Senator Collins said when they announced that they were going to oppose this nomination, as they did earlier today. Senator Murkowski said: I have met with him and carefully reviewed his writings, various reports, and other pertinent materials. I closely followed his hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee and gathered substantial feedback from organizations, veterans, and Alaskans. After thorough evaluation, I must conclude that I cannot in good conscience support his nomination for Secretary of Defense. She went onto talk about some of the allegations that have been made against Mr. Hegseth: Although he has recently revised his statements on women in combat since being nominated, I remain concerned about the message that confirming Mr. Hegseth sends to women currently serving and those aspiring to join. Women have served our nation with distinction, overcoming immense obstacles to excel in combat and leadership roles, and they deserve to know that their leader honors and values their commitment to our nation. Now, the reason for that comment by Senator Murkowski was statements made by Mr. Hegseth 30 days before his hearing about the lack of value in women serving in the military and the inability, lack of capacity of women to serve in combat. He reversed himself, what one of my colleagues called ``nomination conversion'' and modified his previous remarks. But he couldn't tell you what caused him to have a different opinion. And in the course of that hearing, he truly revealed that he continues to have that view of women, which is a problem for recruiting women. They are now 18 percent of our military force. And more than just recruiting women, retaining women, especially when the scourge of sexual assault continues to be so problematic in the military. We fought it for years. A number of us on the Armed Services Committee have supported measures that would provide for more effective prosecution through a system of investigation outside the chain of command. We adopted those reforms, and military leaders have joined us in seeking to combat sexual assault and harassment. And here we have someone who has been accused, very credibly and plausibly, not just in this affidavit but by others, and the record is replete with them. There are accusations. There are no convictions here. Mr. Hegseth denies them. But, again, simply what he acknowledges having done would disqualify him from a role of command in the military. And that background and record can't help but discourage women from joining and staying in the military. Senator Murkowski goes onto say: While the allegations of sexual assault and excessive drinking do nothing to quiet my concerns, the past behaviors Mr. Hegseth has admitted to, including infidelity on multiple occasions, demonstrate a lack of judgment that is unbecoming of someone who would lead our Armed Forces. These behaviors starkly contrast the values and discipline expected of servicemembers. Men and women in uniform are held accountable for such actions, and they deserve leaders who uphold these same standards. Mr. Hegseth complained in our hearing that the military was lowering its standards for the men and women who serve in uniform. The only standards being lowered here are the standards for the Secretary of Defense if Mr. Hegseth is confirmed. President Trump is, in effect, dumbing down the Department of Defense, and it threatens to do great damage to that powerfully important institution. Senator Murkowski goes onto say: Above all, I believe that character is the defining trait required of the Secretary of Defense, and must be prioritized without compromise. The leader of the Department of Defense must demonstrate and model the standards of behavior and character we expect of all servicemembers, and Mr. Hegseth's nomination to the role poses significant concerns that I cannot overlook. Given the global security environment we're operating in, it is critical that we confirm a Secretary of Defense, however, I regret that I am unable to support Mr. Hegseth. What a powerfully damning statement. Not damning, necessarily, Mr. Hegseth as a human being. I respect his service. I said at the hearing that I was grateful and respectful of his service to our Nation, including leading troops in combat and advocating for veterans. But these concerns about his personal background and about his lack of experience negate that respect for his service as a Secretary of Defense--as a Secretary of Defense. We are not choosing him to be a colonel to be promoted. We are choosing him to lead the entire U.S. military, to make decisions that will be a matter of life and death. I was moved, as well, by the statements made by our colleague Senator Collins very much along the same lines. And I want to repeat some of what she said, again, in the hope that our colleagues will listen to both of them. She said, as an expert, if I may say, on the global challenges that this country faces now: [T]he Secretary is going to be facing a number of incredibly complex problems that are going to require highly skilled management ability. I am concerned that Mr. Hegseth does not have the management experience and background that he will need in order to tackle these difficulties. I am also concerned about multiple statements, including some in the months just before he was nominated, that Mr. Hegseth made about women serving in the military. He and I had a candid conversation in December about his past statements and apparently evolving views. I am not convinced that his position on women serving in combat roles has changed. That is, in some ways, the nub of the problem: what he has said, how he has failed in past management positions, how he lacks that credibility as a manager and a leader. Senator Collins continues: Women compromise nearly 18 percent of our Active-Duty military. They continue to make critical and valuable contributions to our national defense. I have long advocated that women who wish to serve in and can meet the rigorous standards of combat roles should be able to do so, and numerous women have proved they can accomplish this difficult feat. Currently, thousands of women are serving in combat roles, and many others serve in noncombat functions. Their service is essential to the success of our military. Mr. Hegseth also appears to lack a sufficient appreciation for some of the policies that the military is required to follow because they are codified in the laws of the United States of America. While I understand his point on the importance of up-to-date and workable rules of engagement, our prohibitions against torture come from American laws and treaties ratified by the United States, including the Geneva Conventions. Therefore, I will vote against the nomination. Mr. Hegseth has demeaned and dismissed the importance of the Geneva Conventions. In fact, he has berated the lawyers in the Department of Defense who set standards and guidelines for what can be done. I will never forget talking to our former colleague--our great colleague, a friend and mentor to me--John McCain, about why he opposed torture and waterboarding--that kind of physical abuse--and why he believed that these laws have to be followed by our military, not just as a matter of humanity but as effective military strategy. Torturing to gain information often produces false information, but it also reduces the quality of our military performance. Yet Mr. Hegseth seems to dismiss those ideas about the Geneva Conventions, about standards for military conduct, as categorically as he does many other of the standards that should apply. I hope my colleagues will listen to Senator Murkowski and Senator Collins because, in their statements, they say more effectively than I am in this lengthier talk on the floor how important a vote against Mr. Hegseth is to the future of our national defense. Much has been written about him. I urge my colleagues to review an article that appeared in The New Yorker--``Pete Hegseth's Secret History''--by Jane Mayer, which talks about some of these instances, not anonymous smears, as he said so many of them were, but a sourced and substantiated account of the kinds of misconduct that were detailed in a whistleblower report and other documents--again, not an anonymous smear but specific and explicit facts that were claimed. You don't have eyewitness proof in sworn testimony before the Armed Services Committee, but this report is powerful in what it shows. I hope that my colleagues, in the hours that we have left before we will vote again on Mr. Hegseth's nomination, will reconsider, perhaps, their vote earlier today; that they will recognize they will be responsible if things go wrong, and we hope to God always that nothing goes wrong, especially all of us who have family members who have served--mine in the U.S. Marine Corps. My oldest son is a combat veteran, and my second son, Michael, is a Navy SEAL. The responsibility of the Secretary of Defense to order men and women into harm's way is a truly awesome responsibility. Mr. Hegseth is not the person to have that responsibility, and I hope my colleagues will recognize that fact and vote against his nomination. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues on the floor today in opposition to the Born-Alive Abortion Survivor Protection Act. If you are wondering whether that title to a legislation makes sense, the answer is, no, it does not. This legislation is simply a blatant attempt to interfere with evidence-based patient care and medical practices while enshrining lies about abortion care. My Republican colleagues spent the last 4 years calling Democrats alarmists. But here they are aggressively pursuing legislation that would persecute providers for doing their jobs and making a tragic situation for families even worse. Medical professionals are and have always been required by law to provide infants high-quality care from the moment they are born. There is absolutely no evidence that this law is being broken. To suggest otherwise is deeply offensive and dangerous. For any family-- all of us know families, if they are not our own--learning their child will be stillborn or not survive beyond birth is a profound loss, deeply grief-stricken. This legislation would deepen that loss. It would remove any control a woman may have over her pregnancy and force the family to endure unnecessary and unethical medical overreach at the hands of politicians--that is right, at the hands of politicians, not medical personnel. The bill would force physicians to provide invasive and hopeless measures, which are both medically and ethically inappropriate in these situations. That is why the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists strongly oppose this legislative effort. Let's listen to the doctors, the scientists, the professionals, rather than trying to ``message bill'' an anti-scientific, anti-medical science stand. We have seen now how overturning Roe has emboldened Republicans across the United States and in this very Chamber to make policy based on their own personal beliefs instead of evidence-based practices. This legislation is just another opportunity for Republicans to stand on their soapbox and lie to the American people. It also creates fear and apprehension on the part of people across the country. These policies actively harm families. Pretending otherwise is a slap in the face to those who voted for all of us and you, in particular. Let me close by invoking the spirit of Cecile Richards, after losing her just yesterday. She was a giant. She modeled guts and grit and public service, showing courage and fortitude beyond words as a champion of women's reproductive freedom. I will always remember her smile, her fierce determination, her endless energy. They will be with me always, and they inspire me to say today to my Republican colleagues: Please leave alone the women who deserve doctor's care and that care alone, not our interference. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the life and contributions of one of the Senate's truly outstanding staff persons: Elise J. Bean. Elise, who worked for almost 30 years for Senator Carl Levin on various subcommittees of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, died on January 14 at the age of 68. She started in the Senate as an attorney/investigator on the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management and ended as staff director of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI), leaving when Senator Levin retired. Having chaired PSI in the 118th Congress, I am personally grateful that this historic subcommittee continues to benefit from the powerful and enduring legacy that Elise left. Anyone who knew Elise would tell you that there was no one like her. She was an institution of congressional oversight. During nearly three decades in the Senate, Elise drove some of the Chamber's most significant investigations and, thereafter, was a force behind the Levin Center for Oversight and Democracy for a decade. There, she relentlessly promoted bipartisan, fact-based oversight. Elise embraced the notion that Congress is not only capable of high- quality oversight and, in doing so, would turn the tide of history toward fairness and equality. In the days when Elise ran the PSI staff from its basement office in Dirksen, she led by example, spending long hours at her massive wooden desk, with tall stacks of reports and research lining the perimeter and posterboard hearing exhibits leaning on the walls. She was an irrepressible advocate for better financial policies by exposing wrongdoing, corruption, money laundering, tax avoidance, and all manner of form-over-substance abuses. She got there by way of the facts, hard work, and bipartisanship. PSI's reports were heavy tomes, accompanied by additional volumes of documentary evidence. She was undeterred in seeking the truth, such as when she worked every day through the DC Snowpacalypse of 2009-2010 in PSI's offices interviewing witnesses, lest PSI's ongoing financial crisis inquiry fall behind. For her many investigative and other achievements, she has been honored on a global scale--by the Washingtonian, the National Law Journal, the International Tax Review, and more. In her 2018 book, ``Financial Exposure,'' Elise joked about regularly drinking Manhattans with Republican colleagues--which was true--but her across-the-aisle attitude was real. Elise invited bipartisan involvement in every stage of PSI's investigations, leading to a final product that was often bipartisan. Her work paved the way for passage of bipartisan legislation, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the CARD Act of 2009, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and corporate transparency reforms, to name just a few. ``Well, why not?'' Elise would often say. She was not cowed by power or distracted by really anything. She would teach you, too, as she did for hundreds of law clerks and staff, if you were willing to work-- seriously work. And for people who wanted to be in public service, she made good on the promise of doing something important to contribute to the common good by being a constructive teacher and mentor. She also taught classes, published studies and a book, and started a law journal. Through the Levin Center, she hosted oversight boot camps for the next generation of staffers and was a regular lifeline for advice. Elise was generous not just in her work, but also in her sense of fun and warmth for so many people in her circle. Elise threw parties for any reason at all--to recognize staff milestones, a holiday, a Friday, or because the azaleas blooming in spring were lovely. She was devoted to her family, including her husband Paul and her sons Jacob and Joey, and delighted in getting to know the families of her staff and friends. She looked for the good in people, in our government, and created more good in the world. Those who knew her will cherish and strive to continue her legacy.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills, en bloc: Calendar No. 276, S. 1088; Calendar No. 297, S. 1059; Calendar No. 301, S. 432; Calendar No. 303, S. 608; Calendar No. 611, S. 4129; and Calendar No. 645, S. 5136.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment, where applicable, be agreed to; the Blumenthal substitute amendment to S. 5136, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to; the bills as amended, if amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, en bloc.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I am going to say a few words, and then others who have supported these bills, such as Senator Cornyn, Senator Hoeven, and Senator Welch, will speak to others as well. The bill that I am very gratified and grateful that this body has now approved is S. 5136, the Plum Island Preservation Study Act, with the amendment that we just approved as well. Very simply, I have been working on this issue for a long time. Plum Island has been there for a long time. Indigenous people treasure Plum Island; 800 acres with plant and animal species; thriving seal populations; species that now are endangered, like the piping plover and the roseate tern; and over the years, two significant locations: Fort Terry and the Plum Island Lighthouse. It was a treasure then, and it is a treasure now. I haven't been working on it for as long as, obviously, it has been regarded as a treasure, but over the years that I have worked on it now--more than a decade--with Majority Leader Schumer, Senator Gillibrand, and Senator Murphy, as well as State and local stakeholders and countless advocates, we have come to the realization that we need to preserve Plum Island. Those 800 acres are in the midst of one of the most densely populated areas in the United States, and Plum Island is a home to those really valuable species of wildlife and habitat, an ecosystem that really supports wildlife up and down the east coast, for example, when populations of birds come there to rest and nest. We are not going to make 500 acres--let alone 800 acres--of important ecological habitat in the middle of Long Island Sound if it is lost, and it has been threatened with loss because it had served as a site for a research facility, biological research, classified mostly--I have visited it--and that research facility is going to be moved to Kansas. The question has been, What happens now to Plum Island? The possibility of commercial development or residential buildings has been there from time to time. The requirement existed that Plum Island be sold when the research facility moved. In 2020, Congress successfully repealed the requirement to sell Plum Island and prevented a private developer from coming to develop it and destroy the really enormous ecological and environmental value that it provides. But stopping this sale was not enough. I have continued to push for a permanent preservation outcome for Plum Island, ensuring that the island is protected for generations to come. Earlier this year, I was proud to introduce a pair of bills that would require our Federal Agencies to work internally and help determine the future of the island. Both of these bills passed out of committee with bipartisan support, and there is bipartisan support for this measure, as there should be, because it is about our environmental future and the preservation of open space and a rare resource for the Nation. Passage of today's legislation marks a monumental stride towards conserving Plum Island. This measure will require the U.S. Department of the Interior to determine how to designate Plum Island as a unit of the Department of the Interior and how to preserve it for the use of people for generations to come and protect it from development, to conserve it for people to use recreationally, to make sure that it is available for wildlife that can be studied and observed and enjoyed by the people of Connecticut, New York, and all around the country. I have worked closely with the Department of the Interior on how this study should be done, and I want to thank the Department for its input on the language in this legislation. The study is crucial as a first step, but, obviously, equally more important, in fact, is the outcome, and it needs to be done before the end of this decade. It must be completed before Plum Island's transition is done. I want to thank my colleagues again--Senator Schumer, who has been totally dedicated to this cause, Senator Gillibrand, and Senator Murphy--for their cosponsorship for this bill. It will have a lasting and historic effect because it enables Plum Island to become part of our Federal resource protection ecosystem through the Department of the Interior. I urge that this study be conducted quickly, expeditiously, thoroughly, and within less than 5 years. Certainly, it is doable in a couple of years, and I would urge that the Department of the Interior address it right away. I thank my colleagues for joining me in support of this bill. I yield to the senior Senator from Texas.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I had hoped we would be joined by Senator Hoeven, but I just want to commend him for another of the measures we have just approved by unanimous consent. I am a cosponsor with him of the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library Museum Artifacts Act. This measure is enormously important to preserve the artifacts and other memorabilia of one of our Presidents-- one of our great Presidents--Theodore Roosevelt. I have been to that part of the country--the Badlands--and visited that part of the country, and I think this measure will be a fitting, educational resource. It will be a destination. Now, I think that a lot of people may wonder, why there? Well, Theodore Roosevelt's connection to the Badlands and the Dakotas is well known, and making it a destination will draw more Americans to appreciate that part of our great Nation, which is so beautiful. I want to commend the private contributors. This library museum will be the result of many private donations and contributions led by a team of one of my constituents Charlie Melcher, and it will be a real tribute not only to Theodore Roosevelt but to America's commitment to its history, its living history, and making it living history for so many young people, families, and others, who will appreciate Theodore Roosevelt's legacy to this Nation. I see we have been joined by my colleague from Vermont, and I am happy to yield to him.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, thank you for giving us this opportunity, and, again, I thank my colleagues for approving all of these unanimous consents on behalf of land and resources that have such great value, like Plum Island, a national treasure. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I say to Senator Brown: I have my pin. I am taking your desk. I am going to get your office. And I wouldn't mind having your hair and your eloquence. (Laughter.) For me, Sherrod Brown--and for many of our colleagues--has always been a role model, a friend, a voice for people who are often unseen, and also a real example of integrity. When you talk to Sherrod Brown, you may not agree with him, but you know what he says is what he believes. You know, we live in a day where politicians are often distrusted and demeaned, maybe as never before, but what you have done for me and for my family is to give politics a good name, to make sure that people understand that the word ``politician'' is not a four-letter word; it is something I am proud to say--I am a politician because I try to be like Sherrod Brown. You know, that kind of politician doesn't always win. It is just a fact of life that people often take stands; they espouse causes; they champion people or issues that may not be popular at that moment. But they are vindicated by history. I have been proud to stand with you, Sherrod, for some of those causes, and I know they will be vindicated by history. As I told your staff--some of them--in that office, the Sherrod Brown office, we are going to have a conference room named after you. It is a trivial thing to do, but it will remind us that we will be asking ourselves at moments, tough moments, moments of crisis: What would Sherrod do? What would he think? What would he say? I will continue to value you as a friend and as a role model. Thank you, Sherrod, for all you have done for all of us. Godspeed.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, let me begin by expressing my profound thanks to Senator Blackburn for her leadership as a champion of the Kids Online Safety Act. We have worked together over these years--yes, it has been years-- through the hearings, the drafting, the redrafting, the revisions on the redraft. Tirelessly, she has been a partner--and a true bipartisan partner--as have been Senator Schumer and Senator Thune, Senator McConnell and Senator Cruz. I want to give my thanks to colleagues on both sides of the aisle for bringing us to this truly momentous and historic point in advocating for the Kids Online Safety Act. I am grateful to them and to Chair McMorris Rodgers on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Representatives Bilirakis and Casar, and to all who have joined us from the tech community, including supportive companies like Microsoft and Pinterest. Their leaders have endorsed this legislation. I express my appreciation as well to Elon Musk and Linda Yaccarino. Over the weekend, we negotiated a redraft that clarifies what we have said all along: This bill is about product design. It is about protecting kids from toxic content driven at them by products designed specifically to addict them, to take them down dark rabbit holes, to drive toxic content about bullying and eating disorders, self-harm, even suicide--a scourge that every parent in the United States recognizes must be stopped and stopped now--not next session or the session afterward--because children are dying. They are literally in peril every day, as we know, because we are parents, we are grandparents, we are public officials who visited schools where young people, elementary school students, tell us about how their companions, their friends, their family members are harmed day in and day out and resort to suicide because no one is protecting them. We are saying the Kids Online Safety Act will give you protection. It will give you tools and safeguards so you can take back your online lives and so that the bullies can't follow you, literally, into your bedroom at night. They are not confined to the schoolyard anymore but free to follow kids wherever they go because they are in jeopardy everywhere. What we clarified is that there is no censorship in this bill. There is no content moderation. There is no blocking of specific content. It is about choice--giving young people choice and their parents safeguards, tools to protect their children, and imposing a duty of care, which other producers of any kind of product know they have. They have a duty of care to stop harm when they know or should know it is going to cause physical or emotional harm to people they should protect. We are now one step away. We are so close to the Kids Online Safety Act becoming law. This measure passed in this body 91 to 3. How many measures pass the U.S. Senate these days by 91 to 3? Major steps forward in legislation passing with that kind of bipartisan support is virtually unheard of. And today, in the House of Representatives--let me just be very blunt--it will pass by the same overwhelming bipartisan majority if it is given a vote. Let them vote. Let them do their job. I call on the House leadership to simply enable the democratic process to move forward. We based this legislation on the kind of process that is the ideal here. We started with a recognition that the United States of America faces a mental health crisis. We can all give speeches. We can all recite the rhetoric about the mental health crisis in America that afflicts teens and preteens--a dramatic increase in anxiety, depression, eating disorders, and suicide. We can all agree--we do all agree--that social media is exacerbating and, indeed, fueling that mental health crisis in America. Senator Blackburn and I have worked over years through hearings to demonstrate that kids' online safety is an idea whose time has come now. We heard from young people and parents across the country who have shared their experiences. They have come forward. They are our strongest supporters and advocates. We received documents from whistleblowers demonstrating that Facebook--now known as Meta--consciously knew its products were harming people, and they continued because it made money. They knew that they were attracting more eyeballs for longer periods of time and, therefore, more advertisers collecting more data. It is all about the money. They decided to put profits ahead of young people. And that is not from us; it is from their own documents that we can draw those conclusions. We brought in the Big Tech executives, and we grilled them on their appalling business practices. They said to us: Yeah, we know regulation is necessary. And they repeated it as a mantra when we had hearings: Regulation is important, just not that regulation. Let me just say, bluntly, I challenge Meta, Facebook, and Google to support this legislation as Microsoft and Pinterest and now Elon Musk have done. Don't tell us it is a censorship measure. Don't tell us you are defending the First Amendment or free expression. Listen to Elon Musk, the champion of First Amendment free expression among tech executives, who now supports this bill because the arguments that you have given to us about censorship and free expression, the money that you have spent to fight this legislation, the armies of lawyers and lobbyists that still you use against us, simply cannot overcome the voices and faces of young people who have been harmed. I want you to meet some of them. You know, there is a saying that every good story has a villain, a victim, and a hero. Our heroes are the young people and parents who have come forward to watch this moment. The world is watching us in the U.S. Congress at this moment. And the victims are young people and parents--parents who suffered losses of their children. Some of them are with us here today in spirit to demonstrate the cost of congressional delay and inaction, the cost that every parent should fear and feel today. That is what happened to Mason Edens, who is here in this picture. Mason loved football and loved making other people smile. He wanted to serve his country when he grew up. He talked about becoming a police officer. In 2022, Mason experienced his first heartbreak. Quickly after, Microsoft's algorithms inundated him with messages promoting self-harm. He even sought help on TikTok. But instead of providing that help, TikTok sent him more suicidal messages. He was trapped in a rabbit hole. Depressed, having lost control, in November of 2022, Mason--this young man--took his own life at the age of 16. I have four children. They are a lot older than 16 now, but every one of us knows a 16-year-old. We know how vulnerable young people are at that age. TikTok is delighted to addict kids at all costs. What happened to Mason is a consequence of their business model. It is not some random occurrence. It is the direct result of a business model that is unconscionable. And his death was preventable. He is just one of a dozens of deaths and horrific harms that we know happened while Congress waited--we waited and we waited--to pass the Kids Online Safety Act. Another one of those victims is T'Saya Yapuncich. T'Saya was a Native American girl, young woman. Her name means eagle woman, one with Earth, and little huntress. Her parents did what they could to set rules around her use of social media, but they didn't know that TikTok and Snapchat began to connect T'Saya with sexual predators. They exploited her trust. By age 11, T'Saya was experiencing self-harm and suicidal ideation--again, fueled by social media. No matter what help her parents tried to get her, T'Saya sank deeper into depression. This Saturday, T'Saya would have reached 16 years old. Instead, she took her life last March--again, one of a dozen, like Jesse Harrington. Jesse is here. He wanted to be a firefighter when he grew up. He wanted to save lives. He didn't get his first phone until last Christmas, at age 15. That is a pretty late age to be getting a phone these days. He became addicted, unable to sleep, unable to look away from endless scrolling, unable to look away from the nudges of Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok. And he began having trouble in school, getting into conflicts with others. Now, that part of the story, I think, occurs thousands and millions of times in America today--the distraction, unable to look away, the addictive impact. On October 29 of this year, Jesse took his life. That part of the story, fortunately, is not common to as many children. But for Jesse, it was the end. Police found his device open and streaming when they arrived. Mason, T'Saya, and Jesse were all horrific experiences. They didn't need to happen. They were preventable. We have examples and examples. I could spend the rest of the day into tomorrow with more specific examples: suicide, self-harm, bullying, eating disorders, fentanyl poisoning, sexual exploitation. All of it happens right now, right here in America, in realtime, to our young people. That is not the message we want to send to America as a Congress. Senator Blackburn and I have addressed every single issue that Big Tech has thrown in our way. There are no excuses for delay. Anybody saying, ``Let's wait until next session so we can get it really right,'' that is saying they are OK with more kids dying. They are, in effect, with all due respect, playing political games with those lives that are at risk today in realtime in America--more families shattered, like Mason, T'Saya, Jesse. When I say shattered, I mean shattered. I want to finish by quoting another mom, someone who has been a fierce advocate for this legislation. I have come to know her from this fight. I greatly respect her and admire her courage and strength: Deb Schmill. Deb told me, and I am quoting: Letting it go to the next legislature means children are going to die. It means another year of children dying. And who wants to be accountable for that? We can't wait another year. We need this now. Now, we can't bring back her daughter Becca, a beautiful young woman, or Mason or T'Saya or Jesse, but we can prevent other families from suffering the worse loss imaginable. We have it within reach to do it. Passing the Kids Online Safety Act is not some convenient step we can take to make people feel good. It is real action. We don't often, here in this body, have an opportunity to save lives, to save futures, to save young people. We have that opportunity now. I challenge the House of Representatives to do the right thing. Pass the Kids Online Safety Act. I yield the floor. Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, at 5:15 today, I ask the Chair to execute the order of November 20 with respect to the Wise nomination.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, actions speak louder than words. Actions always speak louder than words. For all their words, our Republican colleagues have acted today in a way that will speak for years and longer. It will speak to Lisa, a constituent of mine in Connecticut. I ask my Republican colleagues to listen to Lisa and what she shared with me after the Alabama Supreme Court ruling and before she and her husband became parents to a healthy, happy baby girl as a result of IVF. She said: If a woman is willing to go through the physical, emotional, and financial toll of IVF treatment to bring a new life into the world, you had better believe she is going to love that baby more than anything one can imagine. And we need more love like that in the world. For Lisa, that Alabama Supreme Court ruling banning IVF treatment was ``heartbreaking and infuriating.'' Families like Lisa's wouldn't exist if it weren't for IVF. I ask my Republican colleagues to listen to Kim and Tina, who were married in 2013 and immediately knew they wanted to start a family in Connecticut. As a gay couple, they needed to rely on reproductive technology, and they were forced to meet standards that their straight friends never encountered. And IVF worked for them. They are now proud parents to twins whom they call ``the greatest gifts of our lives.'' Interested in politics and government, trumpets and sailing, they are gifts to their community, their friends, and their school. Listening to parents who have gone through the heartbreak and pain of infertility and who have found this miracle of IVF--it is not limited to Kim and Tina and Lisa; it is all of America who knows these stories in their own lives. Every American knows a couple that has tried year after year, and finally, if they are really lucky and can afford it, discovers the miracle of IVF. Very simply, every one of those families, every American ought to have access to that miracle of life. Yet our Republican colleagues, even though their own constituents would tell them, if they were listening, about the reasons why IVF should be protected, have acted today, despite their words and their rhetoric, to block IVF protection. This scientific miracle is so immensely important, it ought to be nonpolitical, nonpartisan, noncontroversial. There ought to be unanimity. And this vote is the second one. I believe in second chances. If we had wanted to be strictly political about this bill, we could have said: Well, no second chance here; we are going to take you on that first vote, because that would be the one politically advantageous. We gave them a second chance to get right on IVF, and they refused. I am angry. I am disgusted. Most important, I am sad because this vote was an opportunity to tell American families: We are with you. We stand with you. We know how physically painful IVF is. We know how emotionally painful infertility can be. We know how great families want to build greater families with children who will serve our country, make it greater. The callousness and cowardice of our Republican colleagues speak louder than words, and this vote will haunt them. It will haunt at the very least their consciences--or it should. We have the courage to stand with the American families who need and deserve IVF. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, as all of us know and the Nation today commemorates, 23 years ago we experienced the unthinkable. Our Nation went through an unspeakable, massive terrorist attack on our own soil for the first time in our history. The attacks on September 11 reshaped the world as we know it even today and changed our country to its core. Nearly 3,000 innocent lives were lost, and countless more were forever impacted as families and loved ones carry their memory. Thousands survived the attacks, but they were forever changed as well--physically, emotionally, and in many other ways. No matter how many years go by, the survivors and victims of the September 11 attacks and their families will always be in our hearts. And many of them live in Connecticut, and we remember them and their loved ones today. As all of us know, this unimaginable loss shook our Nation to its core, and now, more than two decades later, we remain committed to honoring the survivors and the fallen. We remember the people we lost, but we should also remember the survivors; the loved ones of the fallen; the first responders, who continue to bear the wounds of that day and the successive days; the veterans, who bear the visible and invisible wounds of war because the ripple effects of that attack on September 11 continue to haunt us. And we should remember not just the horror of that day but also the heroism, because in the days and weeks afterward as well as on that day, that heroism helped to bring us together as a nation as never before or since. We were as one in those days. And all of us have memories--especially in Connecticut and other States impacted directly in our losses--of the vigils, the conversations, and the acts of kindness and generosity, most of them totally unrecorded and many of them now perhaps unremembered. But in remembering the great heroes whom we lost, in their honor, we should also remember the loved ones who survived them. That is the reason that we have the Victim Compensation Fund, and that is the reason that we are fighting for justice, for them, so that their rights are vindicated. Whether it is in court or through diplomatic channels, they deserve justice against all who were complicit in the unspeakable, horrific acts of that day, all who supported them and who enabled them. That is the reason why, in Congress, I have helped to lead efforts to keep the courthouse doors open to their legal action, along with a bipartisan group that, in fact, overrode the veto of a President on JASTA. So, justice for the loved ones. And the wounds of that day will never completely heal because we suffered losses that we will never forget--our friends who lost lives. In Connecticut, we gather every year in one of our most beautiful parks, Sherwood Island in Westport, where there is a memorial. Every year, many of those loved ones come for a ceremony that is both solemn and exquisitely beautiful, and every year we lay flowers at that memorial as part of our remembering. But we also know that on that day, first responders rushed toward danger. They ran into burning buildings. And many of the firemen and police from Connecticut spent weeks breathing in toxic chemicals from burning jet fuel and concrete filled with asbestos that has led thousands of them to develop chronic medical conditions that require ongoing medical treatment and consistent monitoring for the delayed onset of illnesses such as cancer. That is why, in 2010, Congress created the World Trade Center Health Program to provide healthcare services with no out-of-pocket costs-- none--to those directly impacted. This program treats first responders and survivors for many chronic illnesses and respiratory diseases, including asthma, sinusitis, obstructive pulmonary disease, and other kinds of health issues directly associated with the 9/11 attacks that continue to grow and evolve. Over the years, there have been efforts to cut funding for this crucial program. To be clear, let us resolve on this day that defunding the World Trade Center Health Program would be an unforgivable betrayal of the thousands of individuals who risked their lives in the 9/11 attack. I will continue fighting against any attempt to strip even one first responder or survivor of the healthcare they deserve. In Connecticut, as of June 2024, 1,365 individuals were enrolled in this program. They deserve that we continue this support, and that is also why I am proud to join my colleagues in introducing the 9/11 Responder and Survivor Health Funding Correction Act. It ensures that the World Trade Center Health Program receives permanent and mandatory funding while updating the outdated funding formula to prevent a shortfall that would put survivors and first responders at risk of losing access to healthcare. We cannot afford, in terms of conscience and conviction, this betrayal of our solemn obligation to those first responders and their families--and likewise to veterans--thousands of them--who now bear the invisible wounds of war, from PTS to the cancer or hypertension or other kinds of medical conditions resulting from their exposure to the poisons and toxic chemicals in burn pits and elsewhere during their fight for our Nation in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to keep faith with them. The PACT Act should be fully funded, robustly supported by Congress, and never abandoned. I will continue to fight to support the PACT Act but also to support outreach so that more veterans are aware of these benefits and the care that is offered by the Veterans Administration--the screening that can help save them from diseases that will be less severe if they are stopped earlier. Again, cancer is one of the great enemies. We vow again today: Never forget. Those two words are probably repeated on this day, year after year, more often than any other time: Never forget. But never forgetting is more than just words. It is a commitment to honor the memories of the fallen with action--the fallen on 9/11, the fallen who died afterward from diseases that resulted from 9/11, the fallen among our veterans who gave their lives or now suffer medical conditions resulting from their service. We will never forget in action as well as in words--in deed, as well as in rhetoric. That has to be the promise that we keep today. I yield the floor.

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, I come here today to talk briefly on the Kids Online Safety Act before the milestone, historic vote that we will take at about noon today. For years--in fact, for decades--Congress has discussed and debated the need for reform and safeguards on the internet. We have held dozens of hearings, brought Mark Zuckerberg and every other Big Tech CEO to our committees, and there has been broad agreement: Something needs to be done. We need rules, safeguards. Despite countless polls showing public bipartisan demand for legislation, nothing has happened, nothing. Senator Blackburn and I began working on our subcommittee when we held legislative investigations on kids' online safety. Throughout that process, we began to meet with parents who have lost their children because of social media's harms from bullying, fentanyl, sex exploitation, and other horrific harms. As a parent of four children and Senator Blackburn also as a parent, we felt deeply the grief, but we admired the grit and the grace of those parents who came to us and demanded action. I am haunted by one of the moms who said to us early on, I think speaking on behalf of so many of them and us: When will you stop them from killing people? When will you stop them from killing our children? Voting today, the U.S. Senate is finally taking action on Big Tech. At its core, the Kids Online Safety Act is a simple, straightforward measure. It gives young people and parents the tools and safeguards to take back control over their online lives. It gives them that measure of power. It empowers them. It enables them to make choices about what they want to see and hear on the internet rather than the algorithms that drive content--often repetitive, addictive content--about bullying and eating disorders that contributes to the destruction of their lives. There are three key principles in this legislation: accountability, safeguards, and transparency. First, social media platforms will be bound by a duty of care, legally required to exercise reasonable care to prevent their products from causing self-harm, suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse, and other harmful impacts. The duty of care is flexible because we wanted to keep up with the changes in technology and to be able to be fairly applied to companies with widely different sizes, business models, and products. We recognize the obligations on Instagram or YouTube should be different from those for a startup and that social media platforms are different from video games. Second, social media platforms will have to provide young people safeguards and set them to the strongest settings by default. Finally, social media companies will no longer be able to hide harm. This legislation will require yearly independent audits and access to data. Researchers, Congress, and parents all will be able to hold those companies truly accountable. Importantly, this bill stops Big Tech from avoiding their legal obligations to protect children. We do that through the knowledge standard in the bill. The bill ensures that if Meta or Google know or should know that a user is a teen or a child, they need to provide them the safeguards under this legislation. Where the platforms have information indicating that they are kids, they need to act and protect them--no more sticking their heads in the sand, no more excuses, no more platitudes that disguise inaction and irresponsibility. In short, we want kids to have more of the good that comes from the internet without the bad. There are a lot of positives. Kids experience it, but there is some really scary, toxic stuff that kids also experience. And they have told us again and again and again they want to make choices. They don't want the algorithms to do it for them. That is why we have empowered them to make those choices. We are not blocking or censoring content for them. We are simply creating an environment that is safe by design. At its core, this bill is a product design bill. All my career, I have tried to protect consumers against defective products that are designed to make more money and more profits at the risk or expense of injury to people. Whether it is cigarettes that are designed to kill the customer through nicotine addiction or car manufacturers that have been required to make their products safer by design through seatbelts and airbags or toys with small parts that endanger children who can choke on those parts unless there is sufficient warning to parents or caregivers, this society steps forward to make products safer, putting people, and particularly children, over products. That is what we are requiring social media to do. We can no longer rely on the Big Tech companies to say to us: Trust us. They have betrayed that trust, and Congress has an obligation to act. Over the past 3 years, we have worked exhaustively to improve this bill. We have sought feedback. We have made changes. We have revised and crafted new provisions. We have robustly debated the issues with anyone and everyone who had concerns. I am immensely grateful to Senator Blackburn, who has been incomparably important as a partner, as a cowriter and drafter of this legislation, as an advocate because we share this common goal. Whatever our differences on other issues, this goal has been paramount for both of us over these past 3-plus years. I want to also thank Senators Schumer and McConnell for scheduling this vote and Chair Cantwell and Ranking Member Cruz for their leadership and support for this bill in the Commerce Committee. The Kids Online Safety Act now has 72 cosponsors--nearly three-quarters of the membership of this Chamber. That is unheard of for an important, substantive piece of legislation that takes on the most powerful companies in the world. Looking ahead, I am confident that we can build on this momentum--it is powerful momentum, but we need to build on it--and we can swiftly pass the Kids Online Safety Act in the House and enact it into law this fall as kids come back to school. Legislators will be returning from their home districts having heard from those parents and children, just as we have heard here, about the dangers and destruction coming from the internet. Senator Blackburn and I have spoken with the House leadership several times, and I believe we have strong support and a clear path forward. Through this long process, our leaders--indeed, our loadstar--has been those parents and young people. They are in the Gallery today for the vote, and across the country, they are watching. Our Nation is watching because the parents of this Nation--not just the advocates and activists who came here to meet with Senators before now and, soon, Congresspeople, but all of the parents of this Nation who have a stake in the safety of our children--are demanding this change. They are demanding the Kids Online Safety Act because they know firsthand the heartbreak and loss that social media can cause. We can't bring back the lives of their loved ones, but we can save others. These parents are heroes: spending countless hours living through the pain, telling and retelling their stories, bringing tears to our eyes, as the majority leader, Senator Schumer, has said so eloquently. He has felt that pain through them, through their eyes and through their hearts, and I particularly want to thank Senator Schumer for keeping his word and giving this bill a vote, keeping not only his word but keeping faith with those parents. Congress owes them, and I am honored to fight alongside them. Today the Senate will show that it understands we are in the midst of a mental health crisis in this country, particularly for our young people, that is aggravated and exacerbated by Big Tech. And the reason is, very simply, a business model that, in effect, relies on repetitive addictive features driving toxic content at kids. They want back control over their online lives. Parents are asking for tools and safeguards that give them a measure of control. Clearly, the need is so deeply and widely felt in this country, and the Senate today shows that it values the lives of young people over the political influence and the profits of Big Tech. The armies of lawyers and lobbyists that it has been able to muster, the false pretenses of ``Sure, we want regulation but not that regulation,'' will finally be defeated. It is a historic day. It is time to vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have listened to my colleague from Kentucky, and in the interest of time, I think the very simple answer and the reason for my objection is: Read the bill. Read the bill. If you read the bill, you will see, for example, there is no empowering of attorneys general to enforce this measure; there is no vagueness in these provisions. They were crafted narrowly to target specific evils--real evils--that destroy lives. And if he thinks that this bill, as he has termed it, is ``crazy'' and ``bizarre,'' he should tell the parents and the young people who have come to us over these past years--to Senator Blackburn and myself--with harrowing stories of the destructive harm to their children's lives, and young people telling us about those harms to their own lives. The principle of this bill is very simple: It does not empower those unelected bureaucrats--which, again, unfortunately, our colleague from Kentucky has misread. It empowers young people and parents. It gives them choices. It enables them to take back control over their own lives. It enables the strongest settings of safety by default. It requires companies to disable product features that are destructive. It gives young people and parents tools to opt out, to choose not to be a part of algorithm recommendations that fuel destructive mental health harms. It gives them safeguards to shield themselves against online predators and options to protect their own information. Young people and parents deserve these kinds of choices to make on their own. That is the principle of the bill. And so this mischaracterization is regrettable, but I know that my colleagues are going to see through it--they are going to see that this bill is very specific, not vague; narrowly targeted, not broad--to protect children and give parents and kids choices that enable them to take back control over their own lives. And let me just say, there is no censorship in this bill--none, zero. It is about product design, much as it would be about a car that is unsafe and is required to have seatbelts and airbags. We wouldn't credit an argument by a car manufacturer that somehow it is a First Amendment right of expression to eliminate those car seats and airbags that protect lives. It would be ludicrous. It would be laughable, and so are these objections that have been made by my colleague from Kentucky. I am proud of the work that we have done on a bipartisan basis over these years. This bill is the result of bipartisan, careful, methodical, time-consuming work by Senator Blackburn and myself listening to those parents and young people but also--and let me be very blunt here--listening to the Big Tech companies. They have come to us, and they have said, in effect: Trust us. Trust us. We will take care of it. We have seen this movie before. We know how it ends: No action. ``Trust us'' is no longer tolerable, and one reason it is no longer tolerable is we have looked under the hood. We have seen how the car works. We have seen it from their own documents, their own files, their own written product designs. And we have seen their business model, which is repetitive, toxic stuff driven at kids and more eyeballs meaning more advertisers, meaning more dollars if those kids are online for longer periods of time without the choices that we are giving them to disconnect. We are no longer going to trust Big Tech to do the job. We are determined that we will make this product safer by empowering young people and their parents and creating a duty of care--not vague, not overbroad, but carefully crafted--to make sure that these companies have to prevent the kind of harms that they know are happening. We know they are happening because the documents show it, and their own evidence, in effect, proves it. And we are not going to trust them anymore to comply with the law; we are going to require audits and transparency, access to the black box algorithms so that they are held accountable. This bill is a major step toward online safety for children, and I am hopeful that my colleagues will, in fact, see through the inaccuracies in the arguments that have just been made here and that they will join Senator Blackburn and me, as 70 have done in cosponsoring this measure, to say it is time for online safety. I yield to my colleague from Tennessee, Senator Blackburn, who has been a steadfast and invaluable partner in this effort.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I just want to add--and I thank Senator Blackburn for her excellent summary and argument--about this reference to social speech: We are dealing here with social media companies. This proposed rule of construction, in effect, would destroy the bill. That is the intent here, and we are not going to let it happen. I object.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I have six requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Monday, July 29; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that following the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Neumann nomination; further, that at 5:30 p.m., the Senate vote on confirmation of the Landy nomination as provided under the order of July 23, 2024, and that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Lankford on this historic day.