Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive, and I ask for the yeas and nays. Vote on Motion

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to our Republican colleagues' budget proposal. This plan is all about giving tax cuts to billionaires and then finding the money to pay for it. Let's make that really clear. This week, they are moving forward in both the House and the Senate with their plans. While the plans are different, the destination is the same. The results of this--when you look at the details of the House bill, of the Senate bill; when you look at the undermining of the Affordable Care Act, which has given healthcare to so many people, and you look at the undermining in the House proposal of the prescription drug negotiations for Medicare, which is so key; when you look at what would happen to rural hospitals, what would happen with nutrition for kids and veterans; infrastructure projects, our subject right now--all to find this over $2 trillion for tax cuts for the wealthy. It is no wonder that two-thirds of Americans--and this is in a number of public polls--think the President isn't focused enough on lowering costs, and no wonder they believe by a 13-point margin that these policies will actually increase inflation. Costs are high. Americans are struggling to make ends meet. They actually thought that this administration would come in and do something about it. And my concern, which you will hear from me and from many of my colleagues, is that this budget proposal will only make things worse. Over the last few years, our workers and businesses have created millions of good-paying jobs. Just a few years ago, we came together to pass the bipartisan infrastructure law, which has made historic investments in our roads, ports, bridges, high-speed internet, and more. I remember how proud we were, those of us who worked on this legislation, that we had such strong bipartisan support for this bill. But, unfortunately, these proposals from the Senate and the House would undo this progress, particularly when it comes to broadband. In 2025, we can't talk about infrastructure without talking about broadband. High-speed internet is necessary for everything from education to healthcare, to finding jobs, not to mention keeping in touch with family members. I have a number of small businesses that, when they don't have high- speed broadband, they actually have to go into town to a McDonald's parking lot to contact their customers because, in this modern day, you cannot do business even in the smallest of towns without having high- speed internet. Right now, more than 20 million Americans are left out because they still don't have a reliable internet connection at home. As cochair of the bipartisan Senate Broadband Caucus and the author of the original bill that got included in the bipartisan infrastructure law, I have always believed that if they can have high-speed internet in a country like Iceland, a country with active volcanoes that are spewing lava, maybe--just maybe--we can get it in every corner in our own country. That is why we fought to make sure the bipartisan infrastructure law included historic funding to deliver high-speed internet. That funding is there. It is going out. It has been going out. It will go out in the future. I would love if it had just all happened in 1 year, but that funding is going out. But that progress is going to be ground to a halt if this money instead goes to tax cuts for the wealthy. Slashing funding for infrastructure and high-speed internet is only the beginning. The budget also threatens healthcare for over 8 million seniors and more than 31 million kids. On top of that, it would force rural hospitals to shut their doors, and it would threaten the future of Medicare drug price negotiations, which I noted earlier. Even the first 10 drugs under our bill, the first 10 drugs alone--and no one has disputed this--because of the 60-percent decrease after the negotiations with the pharma companies, 70-percent decrease, on those 10 drugs would save seniors, in out-of-pocket, $1.5 billion in just 10 years. Pharma got a sweetheart deal 20-some years ago. I wasn't here when that happened, but it is time to change it. We did. The first 10 drugs came out. Now this administration has been handed the torch to handle the 15 drugs that need to be next negotiated. After that, they pick 15 more, and hopefully these are all blockbuster drugs. But if this is undermined, as happened in the House bill, in a sop to pharmaceutical companies--if this is undermined, so much money will be left on the table and go to the rich people instead of the consumers who need those less expensive drugs. We should not be paying twice as much as other industrialized nations for pharmaceuticals in this country where so much taxpayer money already went into research and development. Unfortunately, under our budget that we are getting proposed here by Republicans in the Senate and the House, seniors won't be the only ones forced to rely on food banks. Republicans are planning to make sweeping cuts to programs that millions of Americans rely on for nutritious food. Addressing hunger shouldn't be a red issue or a blue issue; it should be an American issue. In fact, this body has often worked across the aisle to improve nutrition programs. While grocery prices continue to increase, seniors, children, and veterans should not be left hungry to pay for tax cuts for billionaires. This is making it harder and harder for Americans to put dinner on the table. In fact, we found out that due to Elon Musk's activities, I guess, several avian flu experts--people working on the frontline--were accidentally fired. While the prices of eggs have been going up sky- high, these people were removed from their jobs. They are now fast- tracking a rehiring of these employees, saying that it was an accidental mistake. We really can't afford accidental mistakes for watching the nuclear stockpile or trying to solve this problem of avian flu anymore. We have to actually help people instead of increasing their costs or their risk when it comes to safety. The budget slashes funding that Americans across the country rely on to pay their mortgages and makes it harder--the House bill--for them to afford flood insurance. This will make life harder, not to mention more expensive, for the Minnesotans whose homes were flooded over the summer, for people in Kentucky who are facing deadly flooding as we speak, and countless other Americans. These proposals--cuts to housing, healthcare, infrastructure--have one important thing in common: None of it is going to lower the costs for the American people. It is going to increase their costs--all to give trillions of dollars of tax cuts to the wealthy. I have no problem bringing the costs down for people making under $400,000 a year, which is the vast majority of my constituents. I have no problem with keeping those tax cuts in place. But that is not what we are talking about when we look at this major, major overreach and expansion. I don't remember Republicans campaigning on higher costs and higher debt, but that is exactly what is going to happen if these budgets pass. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today alongside Senator Schumer and Senator Cortez Masto and so many others who have come to the floor today in opposition to the President's nomination of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is the top health official in our country and is in charge of everything from preventing disease outbreaks to making sure our kids are healthy and have a good start in life. Americans need and deserve a Secretary who is guided by facts and science in decision making. After all, this is someone who will be in charge of overseeing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's critical efforts to fight disease outbreaks; the Food and Drug Administration's work to ensure the safety of the medications Americans rely on and the food on our grocery shelves; the National Institutes of Health's ground breaking, lifesaving medical research; the Administration for Community Living's support for older adults and people living with disabilities, as well as their families and caregivers; and the Administration for Children and Families' work to oversee the foster care system and child adoption programs--something I care deeply about as a cochair of the adoption caucus for the U.S. Senate; as well as work to prevent human trafficking. Through these efforts and more, the Department of Health and Human Services directly touches more lives, actually, than any other Cabinet Agency. The building that houses the Department is named for Minnesota's ``Happy Warrior,'' Vice President Hubert Humphrey, former U.S. Senator for the State of Minnesota. He was a champion for expanding access to healthcare, grew up in South Dakota, grew up at a drugstore, went on to get his degree at Minnesota and eventually became a U.S. Senator, always fighting for those--in his words--``in the shadows of life.'' Inscribed in the entrance hall of that building are words from Humphrey's final speech in 1977: The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick-- As well as, of course, those with disabilities. That is the test for this Agency that is housed in the building with those words from the former Senator from my State, whose desk I actually have. I open it up, and I see his name, ``Hubert H. Humphrey'' carved into that desk. You need someone as a Secretary of this Department that believes deeply in those words and believes in them with all the modern science and every tool we have to keep people healthy. Robert Kennedy, Jr., does not pass that test. Among the HHS Secretary's most important duties is ensuring American medical research remains on the cutting edge. Yet Mr. Kennedy's record reveals a consistent pattern of dismissing, distorting, and devaluing the very research that is critical to HHS's mission. Among other things, the Secretary oversees the National Institutes of Health, which, for more than a century, has been a driving force behind such groundbreaking discoveries as blood tests to detect HIV and hepatitis, the use of lithium to manage bipolar disorder, and the HPV vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. This administration has already displayed open hostility to medical research. Over the weekend, we learned that the administration intends to defund and derail lifesaving medical research. Let's be clear about what is happening here. They are looking for money everywhere: Head Start program, firefighter grants. They are looking for money over at NIH with that lifesaving research. Why? Because the Republicans, led by Donald Trump, are about to reveal over $2 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy. We know because that was a campaign promise. And in the process, they are extinguishing hope for so many Americans looking for treatments and cures. That is why they are looking to cancel cancer trials and Head Start, to give tax cuts to their buddies. Americans are already feeling the pain from this. I have constituents writing to me afraid and afraid for loved ones. I heard from one constituent over the weekend whose niece is fighting a very aggressive cancer but has been seeing results from an NIH-funded clinical trial. The niece has three small children at home while battling this disease. And without this trial, she doesn't know what else her physicians could do for her. I have also heard from a constituent whose daughter got treatment at the NIH last year. She said it ``was a great experience, with great doctors and services,'' but she can't imagine how patients enrolled in NIH studies for life-threatening conditions are feeling right now. Another constituent told me one of her kids is living with a rare cancer, and the administration's directive to suspend NIH funding threatens the prognosis. Simply put-- This constituent wrote-- this administration's policy will lead to many unnecessary deaths. Everyone knows someone in their life who has benefited from that medical research. For me, this is personal. I am standing here today because of one of the types of research that is on the chopping block, that is research on breast cancer. As many of our colleagues know, following a routine mammogram in February of 2021, I learned that I had stage IA breast cancer. I am lucky I only had stage IA. I still remember what it felt like to walk in here about 15 minutes after finding out what the tests had shown, and I had to walk in here like everything was fine and vote. But then after that, I got treatment at the Mayo Clinic. All I had to have was a lumpectomy and radiation--I never even had to go through chemo--and I was in remission. And when it popped up again, the same thing: lumpectomy, radiation, no chemo. That would have never happened 50 years ago. That would have never happened 25 years ago. That was because of research. There are many in this Chamber, who either themselves or who have loved ones who have had cancer who have gotten through it successfully because of the research that occurred years and years back because our Nation decided we want to be in the lead. We are not going to be a follower. We are going to be in the lead when it comes to lifesaving research. We are going to do it in our great universities and medical institutions all over this country, and we are going to make sure that we put the funding into that research. Not just Democrats said this--no, quite the contrary. All of these moves to invest in NIH and to understand how that research just can't occur in one place with a famous name but has to occur all over the country--that was bipartisan work, under Presidents that have been both Democratic and Republican. And we have built that research, and we are now on the cusp of finding out not just ways to make this easier to deal with and easier treatments and to go into remission, but ways to eradicate this once and for all. We are on the cusp of that with the mapping of the human genome and with all the information that we have gotten out of that. We have seen what this has done for America. It has put us in the lead. Studies have shown that every dollar in NIH funding spurs almost $2.50 in economic activity. NIH funding supports hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country and pumps more than $92 billion into our economy. This includes generating $1.7 billion of economic activity and supporting over 2,500 businesses and nearly 8,000 jobs in my State alone. I have heard from a number of constituents who are researchers, who solve things--scientists, entrepreneurs, a microbiology lab technician. One is worried that blocking Federal research funding will put their research on hold and prevent her from employing lab personnel. This administration's reckless freeze on NIH funding is a threat to not just jobs but to those lifesaving cures. It will extinguish hopes. It will extinguish what will be lives that will come after that and after that. It will set back American innovation and put us at a competitive disadvantage with countries like China. And this is just the beginning of the assault on healthcare. So it will be the HHS Secretary's job to push back against these attacks. I haven't seen that happen--not with this nominee. Mr. Kennedy has demonstrated open hostility to science. At an event in Arizona, days before the President nominated him, Mr. Kennedy said that ``600 people are going to''--this is his quote-- ``walk into offices at NIH and 600 people are going to leave.'' On top of his desire to deprive our government of the great work done every day by the men and women who keep Americans healthy, Mr. Kennedy has expressed his intent to roll back the Agency's focus on combating infectious diseases and remove funding that improves our understanding of how, why, and where diseases are spreading. Don't take my word for this, if you want; just take his. These are quotes. I'm going to say to NIH scientists-- He said-- we're going to give infectious disease a break for about eight years. That is his plan for overseeing the NIH: give infectious disease a break. Well, Mr. President, measles doesn't take a break. Tuberculosis doesn't take a break. Polio doesn't take a break. And the reason we have largely eliminated those diseases in this country is because medical research can never take a break. Unfortunately, Mr. Kennedy's animosity toward the NIH does not come to us in a vacuum. He has long been a vocal opponent of medical research. When influential voices promote the idea that data-backed, evidence-based research is unreliable, it breaks down trust in medicine and public health science as a whole. To place Mr. Kennedy atop our Nation's largest public health Agency is to provide this voice of constantly questioning science and telling parents they shouldn't get their kids vaccinated--it gives that voice a megaphone. People are welcome to their opinion. Certainly, they are in this Chamber and walking down the street. That is fine. This is America. But it is giving this voice that is not based in science a megaphone. For generations, America has led the way on medical research and global health. Our Nation's scientists gave the world penicillin, anesthesia, the pacemaker, and more. Mr. Kennedy's nomination puts decades worth of scientific advancement at risk--so much so, in fact, that the Wall Street Journal editorial board, not exactly a bastion of liberalism, called it ``a threat to American medical innovation.'' Of course, Mr. Kennedy's opposition to science is hardly a secret. Over the years, he has repeatedly chosen to ignore scientific evidence in favor of conspiracy theories, most notably those involving vaccines. Let me be absolutely clear on this: Vaccines are among the greatest achievement of modern science, and the evidence supporting their safety is overwhelming. Vaccines have saved 154 million lives over the last half century. That is about six lives every minute. And each life saved gains an average of 66 years of health. In spite of that, Mr. Kennedy has long promoted baseless theories about vaccines, including, most notably, during the pandemic. During a period in our Nation and world history when trust in science was more important than ever, Mr. Kennedy, instead, chose to stir up doubts about lifesaving vaccines. Mr. Kennedy actively sought to halt the rollout of the vaccines just 6 months after President Trump--the same President who has now nominated him to oversee healthcare in our country--declared the vaccines a miracle. That is from President Trump. You all remember those days when we were trying to get the vaccines out as soon as possible. In May 2021, Mr. Kennedy filed a petition with the FDA demanding that the Agency end authorization for the vaccines and avoid approving any future COVID vaccine. Mr. Kennedy's denial of basic science goes beyond his opinions on vaccines. He has, on numerous occasions, spread misinformation about the origins of diseases, claiming without evidence that humans, rather than bacteria or viruses, cause infectious diseases. For example, he has claimed that Lyme disease, which is spread by ticks--a big deal in Minnesota--he claims it was created by the U.S. military in a lab on Long Island in the 1950s. The fact is that the bacteria that causes Lyme disease has been around for at least 60,000 years, and the ticks that spread the disease have been around for at least 99 million years. I also want to bring attention to Mr. Kennedy's denial of avian flu-- key for me on the Agriculture Committee. Last year, Mr. Kennedy said the World Health Organization ``fabricated the 2006 bird flu outbreak, which of course never happened.'' This is what he said. Now, my State is the largest producer of turkeys, and Minnesota turkey farmers will tell you that avian flu isn't fabricated; it is all too real. I remember hugging a turkey producer who had just had to eradicate all of his birds. He was so proud of the operation he had. He was a small turkey producer. Just like that, because of the avian flu, he had to eradicate and kill those birds. I have heard from one constituent who teaches farm business management at a rural Minnesota community college. Several of his students are turkey farmers, and they have seen firsthand the devastating impact of that bird flu virus when it comes in: A turkey dies. They know it is trouble. They get it tested. They know it is going to go to the whole flock and beyond, and they have to take immediate action. Part of the result of that is, of course, higher prices at the grocery store. When my constituent met with his students to complete their 2025 cash flow projections, he said: It was devastating to see the results, and I have great concerns that this virus may cause bankruptcy for turkey farmers. We all know that those young farmers are not alone. For 3 years now, poultry farmers in my State and across the country have been fighting a new outbreak of avian flu, which has affected 156 million birds and counting. Following the 2015 avian flu outbreak, our colleague Senator Cornyn and I worked to establish an animal vaccine bank and disease response program as part of the 2018 farm bill. This has given farmers and public health agencies critical resources for containing outbreaks, but it is clear we need to be doing more, not less. That is why I am working with Senator Boozman. I hope we can pass a farm bill and really upgrade our work when it comes to avian flu. But to do all that and the potential of having vaccines here for various animals, we are going to need people in the government that believe in science. Placing Mr. Kennedy in charge of public health in our country could unravel that progress and more. He has already said he didn't believe in the avian flu, that it was somehow manufactured. What more evidence do you need, I say to my colleagues across the aisle? Facts are the foundation of medical science, and our next HHS Secretary must commit to making decisions based on facts, not personal beliefs. I also have concerns that Mr. Kennedy will be a rubberstamp for the administration's plans to undo the progress that we have made on bringing down the sky-high costs of prescription drugs. For decades, Big Pharma companies had a sweetheart deal written into law that allowed them to charge our seniors whatever they wanted for lifesaving prescription drugs. That was unacceptable, and, along with my colleagues, we successfully led the legislation to end it. Taking on the big drug companies wasn't easy. I did for years and years and years. They had three lobbyists for every Member of Congress and spent hundreds of millions of dollars--I am sure many watching tonight have seen those ads--trying to stop us. That was a great deal that got written into law. I don't know how they got it, but they got it. Then we said: Wait a minute. Why are these drugs in other industrialized nations half the price of the drugs that we have in America, especially when we paid for a lot of the research with our taxpayer money? Then we found out, well, for the biggest drug-buying group in the country for prescription drugs--our seniors--they get locked-in profits on that, not like the VA, where they can actually negotiate for our brave veterans. But when it comes to all the seniors, no negotiation was allowed. The power of over 50 million American seniors negotiating, that is a pretty strong bloc. And our constituents finally said: Enough is enough--major issues when people were running for office. And together, we ended Big Pharma's sweetheart deal--Democrats only--in the Inflation Reduction Act and gave Medicare the power to negotiate better prices for prescription drugs. So what was the result of that? Well, already, the last administration negotiated the first 10 drugs--blockbuster drugs: Eliquis, Xarelto, Januvia, Jardiance. The negotiated prices that they negotiated with Big Pharma--because if Big Pharma didn't negotiate with them, they were then not going to be able to sell their drugs through Medicare. Do you know what prices they got? Big Pharma is still suing. They have lost every single lawsuit saying that we, in this body, didn't have the power--didn't have the power--to stop the sweetheart deal that Congress had given them. Of course, we had the power. But do you know what happened with those negotiated prices for seniors? They went down on those--just the first 10 blockbuster drugs-- 60, 70 percent. And no one has questioned the statistic that in 1 year, when this takes effect--in about a year--9 million seniors across the country, in 1 year--just 1 year--will save $1.5 billion in out-of-pocket costs. That is ``b,'' billion. That is not all we did, because the next drugs are coming down the pike for negotiations--I will mention that in a minute--and the next ones after that and the next ones after that. The torch has been passed on to this administration. It is their turn to negotiate and get those 60 percent, 70 percent, 80 percent reductions like Secretary Becerra and the Biden administration were able to get because they were organized, because they knew what they were doing, and they stood tall and they negotiated those prices after we passed the law. What else did we do? The legislation passed under the last administration capped monthly insulin costs for seniors at $35, capped total out-of-pocket drug costs for seniors at $2,000 a year, starting this year. And these savings are just the beginning. Last month, the previous administration announced the next 15 drugs Medicare must negotiate. These are more blockbusters: diabetes and weight loss drugs like Ozempic, Rybelsus, Wegovy, which 2.3 million Medicare Part D enrollees take, including thousands of seniors in my State. For these seniors, getting those lower prices--you know how much those drugs cost right now--makes a huge difference. Finally, seniors in America--and, by the way, it helps nonseniors as well. We already see the insulin prices lowered by the companies. Even though the law--I would have liked to pass a law for nonseniors. Our colleagues wouldn't join us in doing that. But the market worked, and they are also getting that $35-per-month cap. Think about what these next drugs will mean, though. Minnesotans like Brian--Brian has been paying more than a hundred bucks a month for Breo Ellipta, one of the asthma medications covered in last month's announcement for the drugs of the Trump administration--it is now on their plate to negotiate. Brian has been taking that for 20 years. After all that, $24,000 spent on just one medication, think about if that was reduced 60 to 70 percent. That is what they could do if they have the right HHS Secretary. Judith pays $1,100 a month for Otezla, an arthritis drug also covered in last month's announcement. That is two-thirds of her Social Security check. Relief could be on the way for Judith, for Brian, and for millions of seniors like them, but only if this administration follows the law and commits to continuing Medicare drug price negotiation. This task, of course, doesn't fall to the Veterans Secretary, doesn't fall to the Commerce Secretary; it is the HHS Secretary. And I know I speak for many of my colleagues when I say I have serious doubts about this nominee when it comes to this. Why? Well, to discuss Mr. Kennedy's testimony before the Finance Committee last week and his responses to questions submitted in writing, he could even have clarified it in writing. What did he say? Our colleague Senator Cortez Masto, who just spoke, pointed out that the President, our Republican colleagues, and Big Pharma wanted to repeal the law we passed--that is the Inflation Reduction Act--that contains the Medicare negotiation. She asked Mr. Kennedy if he would commit to following the law and negotiate a good deal for our seniors. This is his response: President Trump has asked me to end the chronic disease epidemic and make Americans healthy again. Oh, come on. It is a very straightforward question. Congress passed a law. The former President signed it into law. It is the law that you have to follow, and the law says you have to negotiate these drug prices--not to mention that your Attorney General is going to have to defend the lawsuits that Big Pharma is bringing to try to upend the law that they are losing left and right, and you sure better continue the track record of the Biden administration and win those cases. So when Catherine Cortez Masto received this answer, which was a nonanswer, in fact, he actually said something that makes you think, is he really going to follow the law and negotiate a good deal for our seniors? So she asked him to clarify his comments. His response: President Trump asked me to end that. End what? I don't know. That is not leadership. He should have known all about the prescription drug program and Medicare Part D. He is taking over a major Agency that does this work for 50 million seniors under Medicare--50 million seniors. Out-of-pocket savings of $1.5 billion in just 1 year on only the first 10 drugs, and then there are going to be 15 more and 15 more and 15 more. This is not the answer of someone who is prepared to stand up and lower drug prices; that is the answer of someone who will do whatever the President asks him to do, no questions asked. Mr. Kennedy was also given the chance to provide clarity by answering our colleagues' questions in writing. Yet he refused to give clear answers to the vast majority of the questions. When asked if he would refrain from making policy changes that would raise drug costs for seniors with cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, or chronic kidney disease, Mr. Kennedy refused to answer. He also refused to provide a clear answer when asked if he supported policies that hold Big Pharma companies accountable for price gouging. From the person nominated to shape health policy in our country for the next 4 years, we need someone who will commit to bringing down drug costs. This is particularly important after the actions the administration has taken in the last few weeks. On his first day in office, the President signed an Executive order that cut Affordable Care Act enrollment periods short and reversed policies that make it affordable for parents to add their kids to their health insurance. He is also making it harder for 24 million people to keep coverage year to year by revoking automatic reenrollment in affordable healthcare plans. The Affordable Care Act is the law of the land whether the President likes it or not, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services must follow the law because, guess what, also, the American people like this law. But when Mr. Kennedy was asked about the Affordable Care Act, he attacked it, saying ``Americans don't like it'' instead of promising to uphold the law. The President's efforts to overturn the ACA are only the beginning. He is also taking away new initiatives that lower prescription drug prices, including one that offers seniors a flat $2 copay for drugs that treat common chronic conditions. In less than a month, this administration has made clear that it intends to do Big Pharma's bidding instead of sticking to commonsense policies that have brought down healthcare costs. Reversing them won't bring down prices; it will raise them. We have problems with healthcare access, costs, and the like, so we need someone at the HHS who is actually going to work with us to take this down. Whether it is the denial of care for way too many patients under insurance policies or whether it is the expense of these prescription drugs, where still more work needs to be done on patents and some of the reforms on a bipartisan basis that we have gotten out of Judiciary, we need an HHS Secretary that supports reform, and by reform, I mean bringing down prices. If you have been able to keep your healthcare coverage year to year through the Affordable Care Act, then this nominee will not fight for you. If you are a young adult who has been able to stay on their parents' healthcare until you are 26, don't look at this nominee to fight for you. If you are a senior shelling out thousands of dollars a month because of that sweetheart deal I just mentioned, he is not going to fight for you. He wouldn't even answer the question on whether he was going to keep negotiating. None of this that he has talked about in these hearings, from my perspective, whether it is a rubberstamp for withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization, whether it is upending the work of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, whether it is what I have just spoken about tonight about not believing in vaccines or not carrying on the work of negotiating prescription drugs, none of this will bring down healthcare costs. None of this will make Americans healthier. President Eisenhower, who established the Agency that is now HHS-- President Eisenhower, a trusted Republican President--said in his 1954 State of the Union Address that the Department ``symbolized the government's permanent concern with the human problems of our citizens.'' The person at the helm of this Department must above all share that concern that President Eisenhower put out there so clearly. He must prioritize the well-being of his fellow Americans, must be guided by facts and science, not politics or personal opinions. That is why 17,000 doctors have sounded the alarm about Mr. Kennedy's nomination. It is why more than 700 public health experts called his nomination ``dangerous.'' It is why, for the first time in living memory, more than 70 Nobel Prize winners across the fields of medicine, chemistry, physics, and economics came together in public opposition to this Cabinet pick. I believe in listening to experts. I trust doctors. I trust public health researchers. I trust Nobel Prize winners. That is why, on behalf of every senior who relies on medications to live and age with dignity, every child who deserves the promise of a future free from preventable diseases, and every American whose health and safety depend on sound scientific guidance, I will be voting no on his nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do what they know is the right thing and vote no as well. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. For kids in cancer trials of Minnesota, I vote no.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Jeff Hilborn, who is retiring after a long and distinguished career in radio broadcasting. For more than 30 years, anyone who has tuned in to a radio station in the Brainerd Lakes area has benefited from Jeff's behind-the-scenes work, even if they have never heard his voice. Jeff is proud of his North Dakota roots, but after he moved to Brainerd, Minnesota became his home. He started out at KLIZ-FM-The Power Loon, and for years, he has managed Hubbard Broadcasting's entire six radio station group that also includes WJJY-FM, KBLB-FM, KULO-FM, KVBR-AM, and KLIZ-AM. Jeff is known for his integrity, for being candid and kind. Under his leadership, WJJY-FM won five National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) Crystal Radio Awards for community service, earning the station the NAB Crystal Heritage Award next month. Jeff is an enthusiastic supporter of Hubbard's annual Radiothon to End Child Abuse, raising over a million dollars for Morrison, Cass, Aitkin, and Crow Wing Counties. Jeff's contributions to the community go beyond the radio. He served on the board of directors for the Brainerd Sports Boosters and the Sunrise Sertoma Club. He was a committee member for the Brainerd Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce Destination Downtown initiative and served on the boards of directors for the Minnesota Broadcasters Association and Randall State Bank, and as a council member for First Lutheran Church. So today, I celebrate Jeff Hilborn's long career and contributions to Brainerd Lakes. Jeff, we have been lucky to have you enlivening the airwaves in Minnesota for so many years. Our State and country are better because of you. I wish you all the best.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, along with my colleague from California and so many others tonight, I rise in opposition to the President's nomination of Russell Vought to lead the Office of Management and Budget. My colleagues and I are here--it is now shortly before midnight--to go through the night to make this case because this nominee has already demonstrated exactly how dangerous he would be if confirmed. We know that from the last time he worked in the Office of Management and Budget, and we know it because of his work in the last few years. And despite not even being in the office yet, he has already, through his work on Project 2025, driven a reckless budget decision that created immediate chaos and uncertainty across the country. The duty of the Office of Management and Budget Director is to assist the President of the United States in faithfully executing the laws passed by Congress. Notably, this does not include singlehandedly turning off Federal funding. It was just a few weeks ago that Donald Trump was inaugurated. And that day, as chair of the yearlong Inaugural Committee, I made the point that there are three branches of government. Otherwise, we would have had the inauguration--as in some countries--in a Presidential palace or in some gilded executive office building. In fact, that inauguration was in the Capitol for a reason, and that is because in our country we have three branches of government--three equal branches of government. And article I of the Constitution makes it clear that the Congress makes decisions about funding--the Congress. And in this case, on a bipartisan basis, year after year after year-- and it is not easy, and it can be a mess to the end, but we come together, Democrats and Republicans, and make a decision about funding. And it is the job of the executive branch--in addition, of course, to the President of the United States, signing off on this--but the executive branch then implements it. But in this case, things are backward and upside down when the Office of Management and Budget comes in with a plan that had actually been devised by this nominee to freeze the funds. Millions of Americans awoke to find that vital Federal funding had been frozen--not by Congress, not by a confirmed official in an administration, but by an unelected adviser acting from the shadows. And, yes, it was chaos--big surprise. People lost access to essential services. Agencies scrambled to interpret conflicting statements. It was in, and 24 hours later, it was rescinded. And then the Press Secretary to the President of the United States put out a post that--no, no, no--all the funds were still frozen. Even the administration itself had to walk back its decision after a Federal judge ruled it unconstitutional, this whole mess that hurt regular people. And I still wake up every day and say to myself: Has Donald Trump brought down costs for housing or childcare? Has he created more housing or childcare that a number of people who voted for him thought they were going to get? Has he brought down the cost of prescription drugs? Instead, what do we see? We see this chaos. This wasn't an accident. It wasn't even a decision made by an official with legal authority. Let's be clear about exactly what happened. Russell Vought was not in the administration. He is before the Senate right now. That is why we are here tonight. He was not in the administration, but his fingerprints were all over this scheme. According to reports, he was a driving force behind the administration's decision to freeze Federal funding. Stephen Miller, someone very close to Donald Trump, even publicly credited Vought with coming up with the idea. It was Vought's plan that led the administration to take an action that hurt millions of Americans. Now, I have heard from constituent after constituent, terrified about: Is this Federal funding freeze, that clearly the administration wanted to do and then a court stepped in--and it is only temporarily paused. But I have heard from my constituents because, for some of them, their funding is still in trouble. Others don't know what is going to happen next. So here are some Minnesotans, regular people, and what they had to say following the decision to unilaterally, unconstitutionally cut off support that families across the country rely on. One wrote to me saying: The late-night decisions, the freezing of Federal funds already appropriated by Congress from an undisclosed group of entities is outrageous, illegal, and gross mismanagement. It is the throwing of the lives of your constituents into fear and chaos. She continued: The administration is offering conflicting information and no real answers as to what is going on. Even more money will need to be spent. This is going to be challenged in court. It is going to be a mess instead of just working it out. What a waste. That is right. There is a budget coming up. There are decisions to be made about taxes. There is time to debate this and decide, even if I don't agree with what the President wants to do. But there is a very clear way that this should happen, and this is for the upcoming budget. But instead, they want to make a big scene; they want to hurt a lot of people. That is what happened. Another constituent wrote in, concerned about her client, someone who works in the area of mental health, and she talked about how her clients rely on some of this funding. She said: Executive branch interference with this funding not only creates massive economic harms but also directly violates the Constitution's delegation of spending powers to Congress. I will say, there is a silver lining here. Regular people are actually looking at the Constitution. They are saying: How can this happen? How can someone--an unelected billionaire--come in and try to get data? How can you just stop funding in the middle of one day, with one single memo from someone who is not even elected? So they are like: Hmm, maybe I should go look at the Constitution. What does it say in article I? What is my role in this as a citizen in electing people? Another Minnesotan wrote: I am a parent of a pediatric cancer survivor, and our family relied on the Katie Beckett Program to survive before we moved to Minnesota. This program runs through State Medicaid-- She explained-- and it affords all families whose children have life- threatening diagnoses financial assistance as a secondary coverage, regardless of income, while they make their way through treatment and while recovering from the significant impacts of these treatments. She asks: Without access to this, what will happen to these kids? But then again, acting in this way does seem to be a pattern, and people are figuring it out. And believe me, there are a number of people in my State who voted for Donald Trump and voted for me. OK? And why did they vote for Donald Trump? Well, they wanted change. They were worried about their costs. They thought: OK, maybe he is going to do what he says he is going to do. Maybe, he is actually going to do something and work with people to try to bring costs down. And now they are seeing this chaos, in my mind, which we will be leading to, which we have already seen with the firing of the inspector general--just corruption, these constitutional grabs at power-- unconstitutional. One constituent who teaches a class on cancer research at the University of Minnesota wrote about this research funding. Our State has a lot of research, between Mayo and the University of Minnesota-- cutting-edge research. She says: The students I am teaching are dependent on National Institutes of Health support. The patients I am seeing are helped by the National Institutes of Health-funded clinical trials, our cancer center trial organization and the core facilities at the U of M that help conduct these trials. Cancer patients on clinical trials may die because of pausing of Federal support for these trials. Another cancer patient: Please do everything you can to restore National Cancer Institute funding immediately. I am in treatment for four different cancers. It is the fifth time. Why would you stop the funding? It is even impossible to contemplate. They are referring, of course, to this memo that was sent out with the blessing of the Trump administration, under their administration, sat out there for 24 hours, and then gets repealed. But then the White House says: No, no, no. We still want to freeze all the funding. And then a Federal judge has to come in. But, of course, that is only temporary. A different Minnesotan worried about her niece, who is being treated for triple-negative breast cancer in an NIH-funded trial: To have the funding cut off could have deadly consequences for my niece. She wrote: This is her second round with this very aggressive cancer, and she is getting results from the clinical trial. She has three small children at home and is fighting as hard as she can, but without this trial, I am not sure what her physicians would do. Someone else from my State: The havoc that the administration is causing with the ``on again off again'' freezing of Federal aid and the freeze on the work of essential public health agencies like the NIH and the CDC will have devastating consequences for our economy and citizens if allowed to stand. She continued: I know you will do your best to protect and stand up for Congress's constitutional rights. Again, my constituents--I do see this as a silver lining--are looking at what is the role of Congress? What did our Founding Fathers want? What is the role of the courts? Can the Executive just stand in there and do anything he wants? And, of course, the answer is no, which is why you have seen litigation, which is why I have urged my constituents to write emails to me with these stories because, actually, we will create a record of exactly what is going on as these court cases continue in States all over the country, because, right now, we have an administration, a President, that took the oath to follow the Constitution, to support and defend the Constitution, but doesn't seem to be reading it. So she writes this: I know you will do your best to protect and stand up for Congress's constitutional rights. My family and I appreciate the work you do as our Senator, and I like that you work across the aisle. She says: During this critical time, however, we urge you to do everything you can to be in Congress to thwart these illegal acts. The extraconstitutional games need to stop, and the rule of law must stand. The President is not a king and cannot be treated as one. Another constituent, like many others, is worried about what this freeze will mean for seniors. As you know, our adult day center relies on Federal funding to provide essential services to seniors in our community-- specifically, title III caregiver respite. These funds support a wide range of programs, including healthcare, social activities, nutritional support, all of which are crucial for the well-being of our participants. The sudden pause in Federal funding has put these vital services at risk, and we are worried about the impact on our seniors. She continued: Many of our participants depend on our center for daily care and support, and any disruption in our services could have severe consequences for their health and quality of life. We are particularly concerned about the lack of clarity regarding which programs will be affected and the timeline for resolving this issue. She concluded: We urge you to advocate on our behalf and work with your colleagues to ensure that Federal funding for programs supporting seniors is restored as quickly as possible. Our seniors deserve stability and continuity in their care. More on seniors from another woman: My next-door neighbor is 81 years old. She has to get injections into both of her eyes every 13 weeks. Without the injections, she will go blind. Good Day Foundation has helped pay for the injections. As of yesterday, they are broke. My neighbor had to pay $1,028 out of pocket yesterday. She is on a fixed income. How can Good Day Foundation get their funding back? My friend can't afford these shots. Another constituent, a senior herself, wrote: I am 73 years old, and I live in housing that is covered by a voucher. I eat with SNAP funds. I am disabled and dependent on my CADI waiver to keep myself going. I can't be homeless at my age. Another Minnesota senior: I am currently enrolled in the Senior Community Service Employment Program through National Able Network. National Able is a nonprofit organization that helps job seekers learn new skills and connect with area employers to fill their job openings. Each year, they help hundreds of seniors like me get a job, and I want to make sure this program continues. I know age discrimination and not having the necessary skills have been a problem for me in getting a job in the past. He went on to say: The funding freeze would stop the payments that this program needs to operate, and that would negatively impact me and the organization I am training with. The wages I earn while in training help me pay for bills that I otherwise wouldn't be able to afford. And, you know, this is part of a pattern. When the President ran for office this time, he talked about bringing healthcare costs down. He told us how beautiful it would be. Yet what do we see when they come into office? One of the first Executive orders--different than this funding freeze--was stopping one of the key programs, a pilot for generic drugs at $2 a pop, to try to encourage more generic drugs. And when the nominee for HHS Secretary was before our Senate committees, he would not commit to actually implementing the prescription drug negotiation bill that I had spent years trying to get passed. And we finally passed it. We finally ended the sweetheart deal that Big Pharma had because of congressional action that locked them into high prices and high profits at the expense of regular people, where Americans were paying, in many cases, twice as much as people in other countries. It is part of the reasons why there were bus trips from Minnesota to Canada to get less expensive drugs. My colleagues here all know that bringing down the cost of prescription drugs has always been a top priority, because in the United States of America, no one should be forced to choose between filling their prescriptions or filling their grocery cart. Taking on these big drug companies was not easy, they had three lobbyists--and still have three lobbyists--for every Member of Congress and spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to stop us. AARP with us in the fight; so many seniors with us in the fight. What they didn't have was the power of 50 million American seniors who came together to say: Enough is enough. We passed our bill. There is a $35 cap on insulin per month, which the companies now, because of competitive pressures, have had to offer to nonseniors. There is a $2,000 cap for Medicare for people that are paying for services, a $2,000 cap on prescription drugs, and then we have the first 10 drugs that have been negotiated with the prices taking effect in a bit over a year. Those first 10 drugs are done, but this administration--as the torch was handed over by the American people--this new administration is going to have to implement it. What was the result of the drug negotiations in the last administration? They picked the first 10 drugs, and they picked blockbusters. I would have done a lot more than 10, but that was the compromise that had been reached. What are the first 10 drugs? They are drugs like Eliquis and Xarelto and Jardiance and Januvia--blockbuster drugs. The negotiated prices for those drugs, the Pharma companies agreed, even though they were suing in court--and still are and losing every single case they have brought to question the underpinnings of this bill. Republican-appointed judges, Democratic-appointed judges said: No, Congress has the right to make that change. Those 10 drugs, the prices down 60, 70 percent--and this is my favorite number--it is going to save 9 million seniors in one year in out-of-pocket $1.5 billion--$1.5 billion, with a B. That is not even counting what it saves for taxpayers. But now this program, this change in the law is in the hands of this new administration. This new administration is going to have to make sure those 10 drugs, with the negotiated prices, that that happens. But now the Biden administration, at the end of this year, as they were on schedule for 15 drugs--that is what our law that was passed in this Chamber says, 15 new drugs--they are going to have to now negotiate that with the Pharma companies. Well, that is going to go real well when they are already talking about getting rid of some of the other drug programs that take on pharma when their nominee for HHS won't even commit to doing it. And those drugs are blockbusters too: diabetes, weight loss drugs like Ozempic, Rybelsus, Wegovy, all those drugs, they are on the line for negotiation. Mr. President, 2.3 million Medicare part D enrollees take those drugs alone. In his confirmation hearings, as I noted, the President's Health and Human Service Secretary nominee Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., did not give a clear answer on whether or not he would uphold drug price negotiations. That is unacceptable. Make no mistake, these actions aren't going to lower costs. They are going to raise costs. And, instead, what do we see? The chaos and confusion of all of these reasons. So what else? Talked about healthcare; next on to education. Here is what a Minnesotan wrote me after the memo came out that was later rescinded, but then the White House said: No, no, no, we want to freeze all these funds. A Minnesotan wrote: I am reaching out as a constituent and a proud advocate for TRIO programs, which serve thousands of students across Minnesota and Wisconsin by providing academic, financial, and personal support. I am concerned about the recent directive from the Office of Management and Budget to temporarily pause all activities related to Federal financial assistance. He went on to say: This action could significantly impact TRIO programs' ability to serve low-income, first-generation students and students with disability who rely on our services. Please work with your colleagues in Congress to ensure that these programs continue. Another Minnesotan called the funding freeze ``extremely upsetting for me as I am someone who works in this field and spends my time working to help students, to help those less privileged than me.'' He said: One of those programs includes TRIO. Each summer I teach students, I help them, they are extremely bright, and they don't have enough support. ``I write to you,'' he says, ``as a frustrated citizen and instructor to air my grievances as I am no longer sure what to do or how to proceed.'' Yeah, I don't really blame him, because one bureaucrat can just write a memo with a plan that was laid out by Russell Vought, laid out by that guy, laid out and consistent with what was in Project 2025, and now we are actually debating him, putting him back in the Office of Management and Budget again. One, again, of the things that I am quite astounded by is how much American citizens are looking at the Constitution. Listen to this letter--all these in just the last few days: I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the White House's recent decision to unilaterally freeze congressionally approved Federal funding. So let's look at that sentence. Very clear this constituent understands that it is Congress--Democrats and Republicans--that agreed on the funding, that agreed on the funding amount, and that, unilaterally, this administration thinks they can just come in, they can just come in and take it away. That is not true. That is illegal. ``This action,'' the writer says, ``not only disrupts essential services and institutions that rely on Federal grants and loans but also represents a troubling overreach of Executive power that directly violates our Constitution. This practice is an abuse of power that must be met with swift congressional action.'' So that is why we asked our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to listen to this constituent from the State of Minnesota, who is not a constitutional law professor, but all you have to do is open up the Constitution, and this constituent is wondering, why won't everyone stand up and say: No, we are willing to work with you, Donald Trump, on efficiency measures, on making government work better, but we are willing to do it only if it is consistent with the Constitution. She continues: I urge you to take immediate steps to hold the administration accountable. I appreciate your leadership and look forward to your response on how you plan to address this pressing issue. Please stand firm in upholding the Constitution. A different Minnesotan: I am writing to you to express concern over the pause of Federal loans, grants, and foreign aid and ask you to take all possible action to block the confirmation of the nominated OMB Director Russell Vought. She continued: Russell Vought stated in his confirmation hearing that he would not guarantee that we would follow the laws. Now, they are even watching the confirmation hearings. I think this is good for democracy when people realize this is serious, that it is not just a campaign commercial; it is not just something you say at a rally; it is not just something you put on X. This is real. She says: Russell Vought stated in his confirmation hearing that he would not guarantee he would follow the law in expending funds Congress appropriated; and, in other words, he seems to believe he and the President have authority to selectively decide to make these pauses permanent, regardless of what Congress has appropriated. This is a grave violation of the constitutional authority granted to Congress and shows brazen disrespect for the American people's elected representative. I actually couldn't write it better, I like that, ``brazen disrespect.'' And what I want to see is people understanding that this is brazen disrespect. It is brazen disrespect of the people that work in the U.S. Senate and in the House. But, OK, put that aside--it is brazen disrespect of the people who sent us here. As I said on the day of Donald Trump's inauguration, in that beautiful Rotunda, when he brought that inauguration inside, that there was some pretty powerful people in that room. I think people saw the photos of the oligarchs and the like. But when it comes to the elected officials in that room--whether they are Representatives, Senators, or the President or the Vice President--their power actually didn't come from the people in that room. Their power comes from the people outside of that room. So when this constituent says that this was brazen disrespect in freezing the funds or devising this plan that Russell Vought had, she gets it, she gets it; this is brazen disrespect of our democracy, no matter what party you are in. She goes on to say: Please begin educating constituents on the severity of this issue. I am trying to do it tonight. Hopefully, some people are watching on C-SPAN. Please also tell them how they can reach out to their representatives in the White House to voice their disapproval. Most people do not understand the power and leverage that the Office of Management and Budget Director has. I think that is true. Most people don't understand it. That is why we are here tonight. They need to understand the direct impact these actions will have on day-to-day life for them and their neighbors and what their options are for making their voices heard. So this chaos and corruption and this just assault on our constitutional powers, we have been seeing this since day one. Chaos is up, corruption is up, and, yes, egg prices are up. Because none of this is going to help people with their bills. One great example of this when you look at everything that has been going and say how do I tie this together, we know it is distraction, talking about things that aren't really going to help people, one of the things that was also hard to understand, but is all connected when you connect the dots was the firing--the illegal firings--of the nonpartisan inspectors general. This was, remember--it was just about 10 days ago--the middle-of-the- night purge of government watchdogs, and it was a serious abuse of power. These are the people that are watching over the taxpayer money. These are the ones, no matter if the President is a Democrat or Republican, they go in, they look at what is going on in the Agency, they often discover things like fraud. They discover things like paybacks. They discover things like bribes, because they are looking at all the books, and they are not just people sitting inside the Agency. Those were the people who were purged; those were the people who were fired; those are the people who have been appointed during both Democratic and Republican administrations. What is it that Shakespeare said? The first thing you do is kill all the lawyers. Well, with this administration, the first thing they did was kill off the inspectors general. Congress passed the Inspector General Act in 1978 to establish independent, nonpartisan inspectors general in each Agency to investigate waste, fraud, and abuse, and prevent improper political influence and favoritism. Inspectors general also save taxpayer money. They investigate corruption--as I just mentioned--and waste under administrations, regardless of party. And studies have shown that for every dollar invested in Federal inspectors general, Americans saved approximately $13. That is what they discover; they discover problems. To protect inspectors general from political interference, Congress has passed safeguards into law, including specific requirements that must be followed if they are going to be removed from their positions by a President. The law, which can be found--I am doing this for my very informed constituents who have been writing the office. Now they can look at a new law. We care about the laws; that is what we are supposed to do here, we pass laws. The law, which can be found at title V, section 403(b), states: If an inspector general is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment, the President shall communicate in writing the substantive rationale, including detailed and case specific reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, including the appropriate congressional committees, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer. Congress wrote these requirements into law to provide inspectors general protection from political interference, to let Congress know what was going on. The President's decision, in which he just completely ignored these requirements and fired them in the middle of the night, is a violation of law. Firing these critical watchdogs, just like freezing the funding from an unnamed bureaucrat with a plan that was put in place from Russell Vought, just like as my colleagues have been talking about tonight, firing Justice Department officials or asking for a list of people who work at the FBI just because they were assigned to a certain case--this is not consistent with democracy. I am a former prosecutor. I always believed that my job was to do my job without fear or favor. No matter who we were prosecuting, no matter who was working with me, we followed the law. That is what has gone amok here. And that is why Americans are reading the Constitution. That is why they are calling this Senate so much that they shut the phone lines down the other day. That is why they are writing e-mails--and, by the way, the benefit of that is we also have a record of the harm that is being caused. More than ever, the responsibility will fall on Congress and the people that elect us to conduct oversight and to ensure that the people in our government are working for the American people--not their unelected billionaire friends. More, Federal aid, now foreign aid. Why would people in my State care about that? Well, we actually do a lot with the world around us. We have a number of businesses that do business all around the world. We have one of the highest rates of adoption from foreign countries. We have a number of refugees that have come to our State--Somali, Liberian, Hmong--that are a big part of the fabric of the State of Minnesota. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the Nation. We are a successful economy in our State, and a lot of that has to do with the fact that we didn't close down our doors, that we brought in people to work in the jobs, to work in the farms, to work in our manufacturing companies. So that is one of the reasons we care about the world around us, but there is another. My constituents actually see that if you just shut off foreign aid--as what is happening right now in our country--in the world around you, you are going to have a less secure America. You are going to create this huge opening for countries like Russia and China-- which have been expending money in developing nations--to come in and fill the void. One Minnesotan wrote: The freeze on U.S. foreign aid will prevent many vulnerable people from accessing critical resources, including clean water for infants, help for farmers, to feed their families, medications for kids. People will needlessly suffer and die. He continued: The freeze also risks irreparably damaging our country's reputation and credibility and gives opening to malign governments and terrorist groups. Further, it may increase irregular migration both in the Western Hemisphere and beyond. In short, a halt of programs will create instability, undermining the administration's important foreign policy goals to make the U.S. safer, stronger, and more prosperous. And I should say a number of leading Republicans in my State have come out very strongly against what is going on with USAID for two reasons: One, they care about the world around them--maybe three--two, they understand the impact it has on America; and, three, they figure if he is going to start cherry-picking one Agency and just decide to shut it down in violation of article I and all of these things I have talked about of Congress's right to have the decision of funding, if he can do that, what Agency is he going to pick next? He can just cherry- pick anything. Someone else said: I am deeply concerned that any cuts to U.S. foreign assistance programs that save lives, promote global stability, and keep Americans safe will be a bad thing. She continued: U.S. foreign assistance is not only the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. At less than 1 percent of the Federal budget, it is a cheap and effective tool for improving global stability, gaining U.S. allies, and reducing the need for more U.S. aid in the future. Without this support, millions of people will face devastating and, in some cases, deadly consequences. She is exactly right. Yet yesterday, as our colleagues know, the administration announced its intent to end USAID. The decision to abruptly end this when it counters extremism, fights diseases, and creates more markets for U.S. exports--my State, for instance, is the fourth biggest ag exporting State in the Nation--that decision was reckless, and it was dangerous, just like the decision to suddenly assess our allies--our allies--of Canada and Mexico, 25 percent on tariffs--25 percent tariffs. It is just not good for our economy. When I think about the importance of USAID, I always think about a story that former President Bill Clinton used to tell about how, at one point, he went to an African nation, and he toured some new factories that America had helped invest in, and they were making shirts, and he got a shirt, and he put that shirt in front of the closet so that every single time he opened the closet, he saw that shirt, and he thought, They don't hate us. They actually like us. They like our country. And when they grow, as we have seen around the world, they are going to want to do business with America. They are going to want to buy American goods. They are going to stand with us when we have foreign enemies that attack us. All that, just pluck all that out of there. That is exactly what the Trump administration is doing right now. When we turn our backs on our friends across the globe, they will look elsewhere for support when they need it, including countries like China and Russia. It isn't only about being there for countries in need. It is also about our national security. Then other constituents--of thousands and thousands and thousands of emails and calls that we have gotten in just the last few days--are concerned about what this is going to do for jobs. One Minnesotan wrote: I had a meeting with a nonprofit canceled this morning that is working on energy projects in southwest Minnesota. It was funded by a Department of Energy grant. At least half a dozen people will stop working on a project because of this. Due to the freeze on approvals, I could be laid off with thousands of other people I work with. A different constituent who runs another nonprofit was shocked: This grant was only a drop in the budget bucket, but this is just a tiny example of the ripple effect that this pause in funding will have throughout Minnesota where no doubt hundreds, if not thousands, rely on some funding. This pause will not harm us as an organization, but I can imagine how services will be impacted. Other Minnesotans fear that the freeze could upend their entire family's livelihood just to have this happen so suddenly. As of today, they write: My wife and I will both lose our jobs. I will be unable to make phone calls as a deaf person using the video relay phone systems. We will lose our house and be unable to care for our disabled son. It will also affect the hundreds of thousands of disabled people my small U.S. Department of Education grant serves. Another constituent, a reverend, wrote: We are a family that has a disabled son. He is 15 years old, a freshman in high school, and is active in the community. She continued: We urge all leaders to protect programs essential to individuals who are often excluded. We especially want people with Down's Syndrome, autism, or other developmental disabilities and their families to be recognized as valuable and important for their role in the world. So what this is, is chaos, and people are starting to think of, How will this work in my own family? Just today, we had a hearing of the Agriculture Committee. As you think about jobs and you think about the effect on people, we had the witnesses of the head of the National Farm Bureau and the head of the National Farmers Union there as our first witnesses. Both of them had submitted pretty pointed letters that completely set out the alarms on this administration's plan to put in these tariffs. And I am a fan of targeted tariffs. I think you can do it. I have seen it with steel dumping from China. I have seen that once we did that and fought back, we were able to keep the iron ore mines in northern Minnesota, and I have supported other tariffs as well. But that is not what this is. This is an across the board--across the board--tariff. The day after imposing these tariffs--again, more chaos just like we saw with the funding freeze--the administration decided to delay them. It created more uncertainty for Americans. But one thing is certain: These tariffs aren't going to lower the price of groceries, like the President promised in his campaign. They are going to raise the price of groceries. They are not going to lower the price of gas; they are going to raise it. They are not going to lower the price of housing; in fact, the Builders Association came out against them. They are going to raise it. Tariffs are taxes, and the new tariffs would be a tax increase on families of over $1,000 a year. Beyond the higher costs, these tariffs would threaten our critical trade partnerships with our neighbors, Canada and Mexico. The U.S.- Canada relationship is particularly important for my State. President Harry Truman once said Canada's relationship with the United States was ``compounded of one part proximity and nine parts good will and common sense.'' I couldn't agree more. Our two countries share the world's largest, longest land border, more than 5,500 miles; and almost 400,000 people and about $3 billion in goods and services cross it every day. Minnesota exports more goods to Canada--ranging from ag products to machinery to medical devices--than we sell to our second and third largest markets combined. Minnesota exports about $7 billion worth of goods to Canada each year, and overall, Canada imported over $354 billion in American goods in 2023 alone. That trade relationship with an ally--an ally that at one point on their Embassy draped their Embassy with banners that said ``friend, ally, partner''--that strengthens our economy and our national security, it supports our manufacturers, farmers, and ranchers. It creates jobs. But the administration's announcement unravels these ties. When you look at the groups that came out against the new tariffs within 24 hours of the announcement, you can see why the President had to scramble back and hit a pause. But again, damage done. Because if you are a business in another country and you think, I don't know if I am going to--there might be a tariff on that. If you are in Canada, you are like: Maybe I should get my next shipment from somewhere else because I don't know if I am going to be able to depend on the United States as a trading partner. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the tariffs will only raise prices for American families and upend supply chains. Then you have both the National Association of Manufacturers and the International Association of Machinists saying they will put American manufacturing jobs at risk. The American Farm Bureau, as just noted, warns that these tariffs threaten to deliver another blow to the finances of farm families. And the National Association of Home Builders said they would increase the cost of construction and consumers will end up paying in the form of higher home prices. So you have complaints from the workers' side; you have complaints from the business side, and you have complaints from the farm side. I would say you are in trouble. And it is not only these groups, which do represent thousands and thousands and thousands of businesses and workers; it is people right in this building. And it is not just the Democrats who are here speaking tonight about what this chaos is doing to American families. Senator McConnell put it pretty well when he talked today about this at the Agriculture hearing, but he said, ``It will be paid for by American consumers.'' He is absolutely right. Slapping new taxes on American families while planning more massive tax cuts for billionaires is not how you strengthen our economy. Lives and livelihoods are at stake. When I look at these constituent letters--and I literally have only read a fraction of them--I see that people are waking up. They are energized. They are starting to see that, you know, I don't feel like I have much control over my life, and maybe that is why I voted for change in this election--but I actually wanted it to happen. And the other thing they say is I actually wanted Democrats and Republicans to work across the aisle, like we do so much in this Senate. But what they didn't vote for, what they didn't vote for was chaos. What they didn't vote for was corruption. What they didn't vote for was an unelected billionaire deciding he is just going to come in and run the government. They actually said, OK, I want to tip the scales a little. I want to see what can happen. Someone else in there. And then they thought we were going to work it out. They thought we were going to work on how to make government more efficient. They thought we were going to work on how to get more housing with all these things that are incredible around my State with incentives for private entities to work to do things like expand childcare. Or a bunch of businesses get together, we can do some things to create more incentives to make that happen, to expand existing private childcare or this idea of creating more smaller childcare facilities so that they are all ones in a row, apartment after apartment, so that they can bring in kids in the smaller businesses. Or they thought maybe they are going to do something about consolidation, or maybe they are going to do something so my kids, when they look at the internet, they don't see pornography and they don't get fentanyl dealers online. But instead, what do they see? Well, I guess talk about Panama and Greenland and talk about all kinds of things that really aren't relevant to their lives. They want us to do things that are relevant to their lives, and they do not want some unelected guy to come in and make all these decisions for them. These Minnesotans are only some, but not all, of the lives that this administration is playing with. They deserve better. The people of this country deserve competence, not chaos. We have already seen what happens when Russell Vought's vision for the Office of Management and Budget is put into action. It leads to disorder. It leads to uncertainty. It leads to unconstitutional power grabs that hurt Americans. And that was even before he had the job because, you see, this was his plan from the very beginning. I implore my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to vote no on this nomination; to stand up as our constituents have asked us to stand up, whether they are Democrats or Republicans--no to chaos, no to corruption. Uphold the values of our Constitution. When you look at these nominees, fulfill your duties of advice and consent. Why rubberstamp every single one of these nominees? Why would you do that? Instead, look at what they plan to do. Are they truly qualified or do they actually have the interests of the Agency they are supposed to run and the interests of the American people at heart? Then make your decision. We cannot put someone in charge of the Office of Management and Budget--which, by the way, has now become a household word--an Agency that many people had never heard of in my State, but they are now writing letters in droves about the fact that they don't understand why an unelected bureaucrat could issue that memo and why we would put someone in place that devised this strategy, someone who has already demonstrated that he will abuse his power. Article I of our Constitution, which so many of my constituents are now reading up on, makes it clear that decisions about Federal funding belong to Congress, not the President, and certainly not the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Russell Vought has shown blatant disrespect for the Constitution and the American people. He is not the man for this job. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in mourning the 67 people who were killed in the tragic aircraft collision last night near Reagan National Airport. Among the victims, as reported in the news: a woman from my State, from Mahtomedi, MN--a wonderful town. It will be very hard to talk to her family; figure skaters we lost from the U.S. team and Russia who will never get to compete in the world championship; families flying in from Wichita to Washington, DC, who will never get to see our Nation's Capital; and three American soldiers, whose moms and dads will get the call that every parent dreads when their son or daughter signs up to serve our country. This was a horrific tragedy. While there is still so much more that we need to know about this crash, we know we must get to the bottom of what happened. My thoughts are with the victims' families and loved ones and the first responders who led the recovery operation last night and then, of course, are leading the operation today in the icy waters of the Potomac.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington and Senators Schumer and Durbin for bringing us together to condemn the pardons and what happened, but I also want to first express my dissatisfaction about what is happening with this administration in just the first week. It was only a week ago that we gathered in the Capitol Rotunda, and, as I said that day, there is a reason we have three branches of government under the Constitution. The first article is article I, which establishes the Congress and makes very clear our job to have people's backs. And what has happened with an order in the middle of the night--just a letter from a bureaucrat, in which one person can--what?--basically get ahead of the Constitution--I think we have gathered here today saying: No. This has real consequences for people's lives. I think about the mom who didn't know this morning if she could send her kid to childcare. I think about the teenager--and I was contacted about this--in a cancer study, hoping that it is going to save his life. I think about the woman in an abusive relationship who has nowhere to go because her local domestic violence shelter couldn't take her in. Our office heard today from a domestic violence organization in Minnesota that said it could not access critical funding. We think about the first responders and the firefighters all over our country. We think about what we saw them doing in Los Angeles over the past month. Grants that pay for their equipment, funding that pays for them to allow them to hire firefighters--this is not acceptable. It is not the executive branch's decision to make. It is Congress's job to direct funding through laws passed by both Chambers. In fact, the laws we are dealing with here clearly had bipartisan support. That is how they got in when we had one House that was Republican and one House that was Democratic. Now that switched, and they are both Republican. But the money and the funding were supported by both parties. The American people have sent us here to represent our constituents, and that is what we are doing. This chaos that we have seen today, with multiple groups and people not knowing what was happening, reminds me of the last Trump administration. We saw the same thing. January 6 Just a few days ago, the President issued blanket pardons for the insurrectionists who desecrated this very building on January 6, 2021. It is a shocking display of disrespect for the law enforcement heroes who defended our democracy. I will say, I have been critical of pardons from Presidents of both parties. I think we desperately need pardon reform. While it is the power of the President, when you look at what Governors do across the country, which actually have commissions set up that make recommendations on pardons, you could still have the power to pardon, but you could make recommendations and more thoroughly look at these cases on a case-by-case basis. So January 6 and the assault on our democracy, many of us were there. I was the one with Senator Blunt, the former Senator of Missouri. We were the leads on the Rules Committee, and we were the ones, at 3:30 in the morning, when everyone had gone home, that made that walk with Vice President Pence. It was just the three of us and three pairs of young women holding the mahogany boxes with the electoral ballots that one of the young pages had the wherewithal, and the Parliamentarian staff, to get out of the Chamber before it was invaded. In the morning, when we made that walk, it was a celebration--pomp and circumstance--everyone following behind us. And then that night, at 3:30 in the morning, we had officers with scratches on their faces, over 100 of them injured, and we made that walk over broken glass and by pillars spray-painted with racist vulgarities. We made that walk, and democracy prevailed. Part of that democracy was to make sure that those who violated the law, those who assaulted the police officers, those who had members of our staff--people always focus on the Members of Congress, but so many members of our staffs were hiding. My staff was hiding in the little kitchen downstairs, with knives in their hands, for 3 hours, behind a door. Two of them were in this little closet off the kitchen. That story was repeated throughout the Capitol. These were assaults. This was a violent mob that attacked our democracy and attacked brave men and women of the Capitol Police who were defending it. Over the last 4 years, I have led bipartisan hearings to examine the events and the security failures. I did that with Senator Blunt and Senator Portman and Senator Peters. We have worked. We have 103 recommendations that came out of the inspector general and dozens out of our committees, and Chief Manger has met the challenge--all 103 recommendations. We have increased morale. We have the fact that we have more police officers. We hired hundreds more. Then came the gut punch of these pardons--the gut punch to justice, the gut punch to these police officers. They were the heroes that day, not the criminals that stormed the Capitol because they didn't like the election result. To pardon these criminals, many of them convicted of very serious felonies, is to endorse political violence. It is a slap in the face of the men and women of law enforcement who showed true patriotism that day, and it is truly an affront to our democracy. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues. I want to thank Senator Murray for her leadership, but also Senator Smith, who has long led on this issue and has stood up time and time again for freedoms and reproductive freedom. Yesterday, as she noted, we lost Cecile Richards, who was a true force of nature who spent her career fighting for reproductive freedom. We lost her just 2 days before what would be the 52nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade. But we all know that our country is now well into its third year without the protections of Roe. In the years since the Supreme Court overturned half a century of precedent and stripped away a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions--going against 70, 80 percent of Americans who believe that this decision should be made by a woman, her family, her doctor, and not by politicians; who believe, as my colleagues just noted, that politicians should not be in the waiting room making the decisions for families--women are now at the mercy of a patchwork of State laws that are creating chaos when it comes to accessing reproductive care. So the solution is not the bill before us this week. The solution is not to take rare cases of the most tragic nature, as my colleagues have described. I am a former prosecutor. I know what murder is. Murder is murder, including murder of a baby. We are here talking about tragic cases where doctors have to make a decision in the moment with the family about how they are going to handle very, very tragic situations with a baby. Today, nearly 20 States have enacted some form of abortion restriction. The result, a third of women of reproductive age now live under extreme, dangerous bans. And in States across the country, women are being turned away from emergency rooms, forced to travel hundreds of miles for healthcare. So adding to that situation, this idea that we are going to start intervening in these rare, tragic cases would be a horrible result for so many women. I am thinking about the pregnant teenager in Texas who died after being denied care in three hospital visits. I am thinking about the young woman from Florida who was forced to miscarry in a bathroom due to her State's restrictions. By the time she finally got to a hospital, she had lost almost half the blood in her body. And we will never forget the heartbreaking story of the 10-year-old in Ohio who had to go to Indiana in order to get a legal abortion after she was raped. People said that story was a hoax. It wasn't a hoax; it was true. Doctors are being threatened with prosecution for doing their jobs, an issue that will only get worse if we pass the legislation that Republicans have brought to the floor. We already know that there have been repeated attempts to restrict mifepristone. Just last week, a judge allowed Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri to proceed with their lawsuit challenging FDA approval of the drug, which is safely used in 90 countries. This is our reality right now, but it doesn't have to be our future. I call on our colleagues to join us in codifying Roe v. Wade into law. And simply because someone may have different views--I know many people in my own family who may be pro-life, but they don't believe that their views for what they would do in their personal life would apply to other people--and certainly not people--women--who at the very end of a pregnancy, something they have been so looking forward to, having a baby, have to have the Federal Government intervene and tell the doctor that we can't do this or she can't do that. This isn't about politics. This isn't about red States and blue States. People across the country are on our side on this, and we ask our colleagues to vote with us and reject this bill. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the 60th Presidential inauguration. Today, President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect Vance will take their oaths of office, and we will witness the peaceful transfer of power at the heart of our democracy. (Applause.) For the past year, I have chaired the Inaugural Ceremony Committee, which includes the leadership of Congress from both parties. We thank the committee and Capitol staff and law enforcement, who worked so hard over the last year and especially the last 3 days. You have done a beautiful job, and you have shown grace under pressure. (Applause.) Our theme this year is ``Our Enduring Democracy.'' The presence of so many Presidents and Vice Presidents here today is truly a testament to that endurance. We welcome President Biden and Dr. Biden. We welcome Vice President Harris and Doug Emhoff, President Obama, President Clinton and Secretary Clinton, President Bush and Laura Bush, Vice President Pence, and Vice President Quayle and Marilyn Quayle. The Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are with us--all nine of them; I counted--and, of course, the Trump and Vance families. This ceremony marks what will soon be 250 years of our democracy. It is the moment when leaders, elevated by the will of the people, promised to be faithful to our Constitution, to cherish and defend it. It is the moment when they become--as we all should be--the guardians of our country. Through war and peace, through adversity and prosperity, we hold this inauguration every 4 years. And today, it falls on Martin Luther King Day--a further reminder that we must strive to uphold the values enshrined in our Constitution--the freedoms, the liberties, and as is inscribed on the entrance of the U.S. Supreme Court: ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' (Applause.) But what makes this moment more than a passing ceremony is all who are watching it across the country--the people of this Nation, the ordinary people doing extraordinary things. President Kennedy, who at one point worked as a Senator in this building and would often walk through this very Rotunda, once said: In a democracy, every citizen, regardless of interest in politics, ``holds office''; every one of us is in a position of responsibility. With that responsibility of citizenship comes an obligation not to seek out malice, as President Lincoln once reminded us, but to view others with the generosity of spirit, despite our differences. With that responsibility of leadership comes an obligation to stand our ground when we must and find common ground when we can. With everything swirling around us, the hot mess of division, it is on all of us--to quote an incredible songwriter, who just happened to be born in my State--to ensure that our Nation's democracy is our shelter from the storm. There is a reason this ceremony takes place at the Capitol. In other countries, it might be in a Presidential palace or a gilded executive office building. Here, it is traditionally held at the Capitol, the people's House. It is a fitting reminder of the system of checks and balances that is the very foundation of our government--three equal branches of government. That is how for nearly 250 years, our great American experiment, grounded in the rule of law, has endured. So as we inaugurate a new President and Vice President, let us remember that the power of those in this room comes from the people: the construction workers who build our country, the teachers and healthcare workers who nurture us, the troops defending our freedoms, and, yes, the firefighters in Los Angeles putting themselves on the line for us. (Applause.) Our democracy, strength, and grit must match theirs. May God bless our Nation. Thank you. (Applause.)

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise to mark the fact that Monday's joint session of Congress was the first time that Congress certified the results of a Presidential election with the much-needed and significant reforms in place to the Electoral Count Act that we enacted in 2022 with broad bipartisan support. Senators from both parties came together to enact these critical updates to address ambiguities in the law that those trying to subvert the will of the American people tried to exploit 4 years ago--and to ensure that nothing like the chaos of January 6, 2021, ever happens again. Importantly these reforms ensure the electoral votes for President accurately reflect each State's election results, including raising the threshold to challenge a State's electoral votes from just one Member of the House and one Member of the Senate to one-fifth of each Chamber and preventing State legislatures from appointing electoral slates against the will of the voters. The updated law also sets deadlines for States when certifying their election results in an effort to ensure that the peaceful transfer of power is carried out in line with the requirements set forth in the Constitution. Some have noted that while Kansas' electors met as required on December 17, 2024, and the certificate conveying Kansas' electoral votes was received by the Senate in line with the updated law, the State's certificate of ascertainment was inadvertently issued 1 day late on December 12 rather than December 11. Moving forward, it is important that States make all possible efforts to meet this deadline and the others set by the Electoral Count Reform Act to ensure the timely certification of Presidential election results and to support the administration of the peaceful transition of power that is the foundation of our democracy.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record updated ``Regulations for Recordings of Senate Floor Proceedings.''

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise from the back row--with some of my best friends back here--to honor, like everyone gathered here today, Bob Casey, who has served the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for 17 years here with honor, dignity, and, yes, joy. He served before he got here--as he noted, always a public servant--and he will serve after he leaves here. That we know for sure. So, yes, we were this great class of freshmen Senators together, and I do remember when Bob first led the Senate in the Pledge of Allegiance--is this not correct?--the day after we got sworn in. There was someone who was particularly rule-bound who worked here at the time. Bob finished. He thought he had done such a good job. He comes back to his seat.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I am really telling it. And she says to him: Do you know what, Senator? In the U.S. Senate, when we say the Pledge of Allegiance, we put our hand over our heart. He said: Well, that is what I did. She said: No, you were doing it like you were getting sworn in again. He went like this. (Laughter.)

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Then I remember our--what?

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. It was a true story. Thank you. That is one of my virtues. (Laughter.) I remember our first day of our first classified briefing. We had no idea what we were doing, and they said: Well, you just go right at this statue, left at this painting, right at this thing. The two of us are wandering through the halls of the Senate. We get completely lost; we are going to miss the classified briefing. And, all of a sudden, we see a group of Minnesotans coming over. They just stop, and they go: Look, it's Amy, and she has a guard. So, not missing a beat, your Senator, Bob Casey, goes all full Secret Service on us and plays the part. (Laughter.) We have been friends ever since, and I think so many people here see Bob as their friend. So many people in Pennsylvania see him that way. Terese and Bob were over with us last night and got to watch the video of his postelection day. One of his neighbors--just a man on the street--was interviewed and said: Well, yes. I have always been a Republican, but Bob is such a good neighbor; so I voted for him. I think that says a lot about Bob. You know, in 1977, Minnesota's ``happy warrior,'' Vice President Hubert Humphrey--and this is the ultimate compliment from Minnesotans-- said this: The moral test of government is how the government treats those who are in the dawn of life, how it treats those who are in the twilight of life, and how it treats those who are in the shadows of life. From the moment Bob Casey got to this place, he saw that as his job-- always looking out for people who didn't have a voice, always looking out for people who couldn't afford to hire a lobbyist, always looking out for people when no one else was listening. He did that. He looked out for seniors and people with disabilities with the ABLE Act. I have been with him when people have come up and told him that, because of Bob Casey and his leadership on that bill, when no one else was caring about it in the U.S. Senate, they have a savings, and they have a future life. He headed up the Aging Committee, looking out for the people in the twilight of their lives. He fought to bring down prescription drug costs. He stood up for kids on childcare when no one else was doing it, looking out for people in the dawn of their lives. He made adoption easier for Americans looking to start families. And that is barely scratching the surface. We have worked on 150 pieces of legislation together, but who is counting? And we are still friends. But what has made Bob truly a good friend is you can actually trust him. In an environment where you tell people things, and you tell them ``don't tell anyone,'' and the next day, it is either in the news or a colleague down the hallway is saying, ``Hey, I heard about this,'' not Bob. He keeps your trust. In that way, he has been to me like the brother I never had. His friends trust him. His family trusts him. The people of Pennsylvania trust him, and, I will add, maybe that has something to do with this incredible family of his: seven brothers and sisters, four daughters--that must have been a time growing up--and, of course, Terese. When you put all those names in the Record, I thought it was going to be your entire family, and it was going to take up the day's Record. (Laughter.) So we want to thank you, Bob, for everything you have done. We can't wait to hear what you do next. Thank you for your public service. Thank you for being a true public servant. Thank you. (Applause.)

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise today to honor the tremendous career of Susan Segal, the chief judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, who is retiring after over two decades in public service. Judge Segal has served on the Minnesota Court of Appeals since 2019 and as the chief judge since 2020. Judge Segal has also been a steadfast friend and mentor who has been a guiding force in my career. We got to know each other back when I was a summer associate at her firm. Susan--like her late mom Gloria--became an incredible mentor to me throughout my legal career, giving me advice on everything from handling tough cases to navigating the challenges of being a woman in law at the time. After I was elected to serve as Hennepin County Attorney, Susan joined my team as my chief deputy in charge of the civil division. No matter what case the civil division was handling at any given moment, I could always count on Susan for thoughtful, honest advice. Her devotion to following the facts and doing what is right brought her to the Minneapolis City Attorney's Office after we left the Hennepin County Attorney's Office following my election to the U.S. Senate. As city attorney, she fought for the people of Minneapolis on issues of public safety, victim support, and managed an office of over 100 dedicated public servants. She also managed the office's criminal division, which typically handled over 15,000 criminal prosecutions per year. And after decades of serving Minneapolis and Hennepin County, it was no surprise that Governor Walz appointed Susan to serve on the Minnesota Court of Appeals in 2019 and no surprise that she was elevated to chief judge just months after taking her seat on the bench. As chief judge, Susan has served our State with dignity, grace, and fairness, ruling on matters ranging from affordable housing to voting rights and ensuring that the voices of all who enter her courtroom are heard. I thank Judge Segal for her leadership, her friendship, and for being a true minister of justice. Susan, congratulations on your retirement.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, as another occupant of the back row, I just want to add my incredible thanks for not just his family but for Sherrod and what he stood for in this place. We are going to forever miss him. We are going to miss--right, Senator Casey--Chuck looking back at this row and glaring at us because Sherrod was talking. ``It is not us. It is not us.'' (Laughter.) I will forever cherish the note in my desk to Bob that says: Get him to be quiet now. They are going to throw us out. Sherrod, you have made trouble, but it is a whole lot of good trouble on behalf of the people of this country. I look up there at Connie, and I will forever love that story that I will not do justice to, but it is the story of when Connie was in an audience and Sherrod was speaking. And a guy she doesn't know turns to her and says: God, I hate that guy's voice. And she says: Yeah? And he says: Yeah. You know, it is a bit like fingernails on a blackboard. And Connie says: Really, you don't like that guy's voice? He says: Yeah. And she says: I like his voice. And he says: You like his voice? And she says: Yeah. You know when I really like it? She leans into the guy, the guy leans in, and Connie goes: I really like it when he wakes me up in the middle of the night and says in that gravelly voice: ``I love you, baby.'' (Laughter.) Your love of Connie and the two of you together is something that is such a model for all of us here. Her success, your success is part of this U.S. Senate story. And that pin you wear--that canary in the coal mine--this is not the last time we are all going to wear it. For me, it was not just about workers, which is about its glory, but it is also about what we have to confront in this place--the toxicity of this place sometimes--and that you, Sherrod--for us, you were that canary in the coal mine. You are the one reminding us why we are really here when, some days, you just can't believe that people are doing certain things or stopping certain good pieces of legislation for the people of this country. You are that person for us who stood up not just when the cameras were on but behind closed doors. You reminded us and reminded your staff to carry on, and they are going to take that torch with them and those pins with them every single place they go. So thank you for giving us that inspiration, Sherrod. Thank you for your work.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise today to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have been involved in work with the Rules Committee. I have led that committee as chair for the last 4 years and as ranking member before that. As we look ahead to the new Congress, I would like to thank our ranking member, Senator Fischer, for her partnership in the last 2 years and the opportunity to do important work with her. And I look forward to continuing our work together next month on the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies that I chair. I also want to express my gratitude to my friend, former Senator Blunt, for our work when we led the committee together and to congratulate our incoming chair, Leader McConnell, and Ranking Member Senator Padilla. In addition, I want to thank the Rules Committee members for their service, and I look forward to continuing to serve on the committee. And that would be Senator Schumer and Senator Warner; Merkley; Senator Padilla, of course; Senator Ossoff; Bennet; Welch; Senator Schiff, who just joined the committee in place of Senator Butler--we also thank her; Senator McConnell; Senator Cruz; Senator Capito; Senator Wicker; Senator Hyde-Smith; Senator Hagerty; and Senator Britt, as well as the staff who have supported our work, including my staff director who is here, Elizabeth Farrar, who has been with me for a very long time as my counsel and judiciary and leg director, has done incredible work. I also want to thank former staff director Lizzy Peluso and Lindsey Kerr and the other members of our Rules Committee staff, some of whom are here today, including Steve Spaulding, who has done excellent work on elections; Ben Driscoll; Counsel Kristin Mollet; Allison Hunn; Kulani Jalata; Khalil Lee; and our clerks, Cami Morrison and Kasie Jones, as well as the staff for Senator Fischer and the nonpartisan staff as well. The Rules Committee is a little different than some of the other committees, and if we have disagreements, we have tended to work them out. As Senator Blunt used to say: The chair and ranking member of the committee are kind of like the mayors of the Capitol, kind of getting involved in many issues regarding the building itself, regarding the personnel, regarding our Senators, and making sure that this place functions. And that means you don't want to have a lot of public brawls over how to fix things. We have managed to get a lot done and made a lot of changes that are really positive over the last few years. What may be our committee's lasting contribution to the Senate and the country will be on display next month when we convene to certify the results of the election in line with the significant reforms that we have made to the Electoral Count Act. Senator Blunt and I shepherded that bill through the Rules Committee and worked on the bill, along with, of course, Senator Collins and Senator Manchin. We got a bipartisan vote on our committee of 14 to 1 to significant changes to make sure that the will of the voters prevails and that, in fact, we don't have situations where one Senator or one House Member can block the electoral count or that claims can be made that a Vice President can overcome the will of the people and the like. That was an old law that needed to be changed; we changed it for generations to come. We also will see the changes as we see key security improvements that we have made, thanks in large part to Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger, someone who we installed after January 6, and as well as the men and women of the Capitol Police who stand in defense of the Capitol every single day. We also thank Sergeant At Arms General Karen Gibson for her good work. We had a final hearing of the Rules Committee last week involving Chief Manger. It was our eighth hearing on the Capitol Police, including two hearings that I held with the Homeland Security Committee--major, major joint hearings after January 6 in which our focus was on security failures and how they had to be fixed after January 6. We also had our first joint hearing of the Capitol Police Board with the House, with Representative Steil--first hearing since 1945. As the Chief testified at our hearing last week, the Capitol Police have made significant progress in the last 4 years. In that time, the Department has made necessary enhancements impacting all aspects of work, including implementing the bipartisan security report that came out of those major, major hearings that were televised in which we called the former Police Chief of the Capitol Police, the former Sergeant At Arms at the House and the Senate, and major leaders in the FBI and in Homeland Security to figure out what went wrong. On my mind is always the haunting voice of the officer on the police line that day that went over the police radio saying: Does anyone have a plan, does anyone have a plan; the horror story of 75 percent of the cops not having access to riot gear; that a number of their gears were actually locked on a bus that they couldn't access, with the insurrectionists sometimes having better gear than our police officers had. Senator Blunt and I then led legislation, which has passed, to allow the Capitol Police to request immediate assistance from the National Guard in an emergency. It was like a phone tree they had to go through that led to significant delays. That legislation has passed and allowed the Police Chief to do that. The bipartisan security report that Senators Blunt, Peters, Portman, and I put in the wake of our hearings, those changes have been made, and 103 recommendations from the Department inspector general have been implemented--all 103 recommendations. The way we know that is we had a hearing, and half were done. Then we had another hearing, and more were done. That is accountability. That is the bipartisan job of the U.S. Senate--to oversee these things and make sure they get done for the safety of our police officers, for the security of the people who work in this Capitol, and not just the Members but the court reporters and the people who are working in the cafeteria and the people who are keeping things clean around here. They need that protection. They were the ones hiding in closets. (Mr. WELCH assumed the Chair.) We also passed my bipartisan legislation with Senator Fischer to improve accountability and empower Congress to appoint and remove the Architect of the Capitol. We learned that day through hearings from the House of Representatives as well as our work in the Senate that the then-Architect of the Capitol didn't even come in that day. He said he was in his mobile van. That person has been terminated, but we found out in the course of all this that we didn't have the ability to terminate the Architect of the Capitol in the House and the Senate, so we passed the legislation that gave us the ownership of it. We hire this person on a bipartisan basis--with the Senate and the House, Republicans and Democrats--who supervises the work of thousands of employees in this Capitol, and we also have the right to terminate that person--not the President; us. As a result, we have our new Architect of the Capitol, Tom Austin, and he was supported with unanimous bipartisan and bicameral support. With the support of so many servicemembers, veterans, and military families, our committee passed a resolution that paved the way--I see the Presiding Officer, Senator Welch, was part of this--to pass a rule that paved the way for an eventually voluntary agreement so that more than 400 military promotions would move forward after months and months of delay. I thank my Republican colleagues that stood up on this floor to get those nominations through, as well as all the Democrats, and I thank the Democrats on the committee for working with me on this resolution so that we could pass it to change the rules, and that eventually put some pressure on to get this done. During my time in the committee, thanks to our great members, we have taken on a whole host of issues: reopening the buildings after the pandemic; reforming the outdated process of the reporting and handling of harassment claims on Capitol Hill, which was something I did with former-Senator Blunt as well as Senators Schumer and McConnell--they showed great leadership, all of them; making closed captioning available for all Senate committee hearings. We worked to ensure that the people we venerate in this Capitol more closely reflect the people of this country. It is not just about removing paintings and statues; it is about who you put up there so that when little kids come in, they see them and think, oh, that is someone who looks like me. We passed my legislation, with Senators Murkowski, Collins, and Sinema, for two statues of two former, trailblazing Supreme Court Justices--one appointed by a Democratic President and one by a Republican--Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Once those are completed, there will be 21 women finally represented in statues in the Capitol. Of the 209 statues in the Capitol, 192 are men--but, OK, I am not counting--but I changed this one statue at a time. We have added five of those statues of women just in the time I have been chair. We also dedicated the first rooms in the Senate wing of the Capitol-- this was sort of ironic. We had not one room in the Capitol named after a woman when I came in--not one; zero--when we had, in fact, many women leaders in the Congress. We dedicated those first rooms in the Senate wing in honor of women--I am talking about the Senate wing here--former Senators Barbara Mikulski and Margaret Chase Smith. Margaret Chase Smith was from Maine, and she was the first Republican on the Armed Services Committee and the first major candidate for President on the Republican side. The bust of Justice Taney, who authored the Dred Scott decision, was removed and will be replaced with one of Justice Thurgood Marshall-- that sounds like a pretty good trade to me--the first African American to serve on our Nation's High Court. When our restaurant workers unionized, we fought to make sure they had a fair contract. In one of my favorite moments--and this was one of my more fun things we worked on. I work on a lot of kind of detailed things which involve Senators telling me when there is too long of a line of visitors trying to come into the Capitol, sending me pictures, making sure we have people working at those gates, making sure Senators are able to get to and from, that they get offices they need, that they get their hideaways. Some of that isn't fun, but it is still important. But what was really fun was when Senator Blunt and I worked to update the rules so that Senator Duckworth, who was just presiding over the Senate, and everyone in her wake are able to bring their babies onto the Senate floor. Before that, we only allowed dogs onto the Senate floor. Senator Duckworth already had a toddler. She said that if there were late-night votes, she would have to bring her baby with her. The House already allowed for this. What I most remember from that time is that I had to use a Dr. Seuss rhyme, which I am not going to use, about how we had to get this done because she wasn't going to burp the baby in the house; she would be as quiet as a mouse. It was really long. I am not going to go into the whole thing, but it was quite effective. So out of that, after some of maybe the more senior Members of the Senate didn't want to change the rule and they didn't want to talk about breastfeeding and things like that--but none of that ever happened. We changed the rule. It is a good thing. I will never forget the first day Tammy Duckworth brought her little baby Maile Pearl--now not so little but at the time, all 6 pounds of her--here onto the floor, wheeling her in on her wheelchair, with all the reporters looking down and not really a dry eye in the house, and it was kind of an amazing moment. So things have changed in little ways one thing at a time. We have done important work, as I note, much of it behind the scenes to help so many of our colleagues with issues that impact their ability to do their work, regardless of party or ideology. We help to support repairs and updates to offices here in Washington. In their home States, we have implemented new security measures. We have made sure that constituents can be hosted and feel welcome in this place. We strived to make sure the security lines to get in the buildings were moving along--there was some transition after the pandemic--and we literally have worked to make sure the trains in the basement were running smoothly. I got a lot of texts from Members about that. As we look ahead to the new Congress, we have worked with the Secretary of the Senate, the Architect of the Capitol, and the Sergeant at Arms to welcome our newly elected colleagues on both sides of the aisle to the Senate and make sure they have what they need to run their offices on day one. We also have worked tirelessly to support the safety of those in the Capitol, which I mentioned, especially the Parliamentarian's office, which was really at risk--as I look at some of my favorite employees in the Senate--that day of January 6, and we take their input and try to make changes whenever we can with those concerns. We work to support the Agencies in the committee's jurisdiction here in our Nation's Capital. The Library of Congress has expanded public access to its digital collections, and its new David M. Rubenstein Treasures Gallery opened to the public earlier this year, featuring special items from the Library's collection, like a draft of the Gettysburg Address, handwritten by President Lincoln; President James Madison's crystal flute; and the original handwritten lyrics from ``The Sound of Music.'' I thought that was cool. We celebrated the arrival of the new pandas that will be ready to meet visitors at the National Zoo next month. I got to see them already. They are really cute. Since two new Smithsonian museums were established with bipartisan support after legislation passed the committee unanimously in 2020, we are at this moment working to get those locations nailed down. The locations have been chosen, and tens of millions of dollars have been raised for both the Women's Museum and the Latino Museum. We have 50 Republicans in the House of Representatives on the bill, on the joint bill, and we are doing everything we can to get this done at the end of the year. I really don't understand what people's issue is when this is not a money situation; this is a location situation. So they can raise even more money than they have already to build these museums. The Smithsonian is supportive of this. These will be very positive museums. People want to go see the Women's Museum, they want to see the Latino Museum, and this is our big opportunity to get this done on a bipartisan basis. Fundraising is now at--private fundraising--$68 million for each new museum. Directors have been hired and staff working to build the collections because of Congress. Congress gave them the authority to move forward. They have done it, and they have done it incredibly well and found locations that both Senator Blunt and I have signed off on. These two open sites on the National Mall will look even better to anyone who goes and looks at them and actually looks at it and thinks about it, and the Smithsonian Board of Regents has determined that. Our work to get the needed waivers to begin construction, as I noted, is ongoing, with over 100 cosponsors, evenly split between the parties, on the House bill, led by Representative Nicole Malliotakis of New York, a Republican, and Judy Chu of California. As we are nearing the end of this Congress, we have two major challenges--one, getting the two new museums the waivers so they can continue progressing. Our leaders on both sides will decide the fate of the Women's Museum. The four men who are leading our Congress in the Senate and the House will make this decision. Many women have been involved in pushing this issue so we can finally move forward on this, and we appreciate Senator Schumer's strong support for this. Through the past several years, we have not stopped fighting to protect our free and fair elections, the cornerstone of our democracy, which is our second challenge--to continue that work--supporting our State and local election workers on the frontlines, ensuring they have needed resources, and successfully urging the Election Assistance Commission to enable them to use funding to protect against threats. We held our first field hearing in 20 years in Georgia on the Freedom to Vote Act, which we are looking forward to reintroducing next year. I am very focused on artificial intelligence in our elections and bipartisan work. I have one bill with Senator Murkowski and another with Senator Hawley to take this on. In closing, I want to end my work on the Rules Committee with a story that Senator Blunt always loved to share with our colleagues. It is a story of a bust that he always had in his office called The Unknown Cleric, a statue, and it is a guy that looked very distinguished. Senator Blunt did a bunch of research, and he could never figure out who this guy was. It was over 100 years ago that they made this beautiful statue of him, and no one could figure who he was except that he is a cleric, because of his collar, so he called him The Unknown Cleric. At the time, they thought this man was so important, but today, as Senator Blunt likes to tell people who came to his office, whether they were Senators or school kids, today, no one even knows who he is. So what is the message we learn from that? That what we do here is more important than who we are. Most people aren't going to remember who we are 100 years from now--and I like to remind my colleagues of that--but they are going to remember when we do good things that help them, that help their kids, that help their grandkids. They are going to remember, when they walk into that Women's Museum or that Latino Museum, that someone back at this point had the foresight to think, OK, these are pretty important things in American history, and maybe we should honor them. Or maybe they are going to think 100 years from now, I am sure glad we still have our democracy because somewhere back there, they changed an old law and made sure that we reformed our election process or that we protected our democracy or we stood up for democracy, because what we do is more important than who we are. That is why this committee, which has been run on such a strong bipartisan basis over the last decades under both Democrat and Republican leadership, has been a big part of that. I look forward to working with our incoming Rules Committee chair, Leader McConnell, and ranking member, Senator Padilla. I know they are both well suited to do this work. I think maybe Senator McConnell knows a little bit about the Capitol and how it is run. I look forward to working with them. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, no one wants to follow that, but I just thought that I should say a few words, as a classmate coming in together--many of us sitting in this back row for so long--back, the class of 2006, 17 years. And I am going to miss Jon Tester. I am going to miss the bubble gum in his desk that I always steal. I am going to miss when his name shows up when he is calling, how it makes me smile because I know he is going to say something funny, no matter what is going on. And we are all going to miss him. So I remember Jon and I sitting kind of here--but I think we were over there--in one of our first speeches in the U.S. Senate, and Trent Lott--remember this?--was talking about ethics reform. Jon and I had run on ethics reform. And Trent Lott was saying: If this stuff passes, we are going to be left with nothing but our bathrobes in the Russell courtyard. That was exactly what he said. And Jon and I were sitting in the back. And at the time, they had us in trailers in the Russell courtyard. And I remember we looked at each other and said: Well, so what. It couldn't get any worse than where we are now. Like, that is what we are doing now. And that was the old days when to even get any of these ethics rules passed, it was really hard. And what Senator Booker was saying about you being brave and ahead of your time--from the moment you got here, you were ahead of your time about what this job meant. Then I remember Sharla. I am looking for her up there. Right up there; there she is. The very first official, big event I ever did with Jon, I was following him up on the podium. And I remember he got up there, and he said: You know what, I have been traveling all over the country, and I am going to win this race. This was 2006. I am going to win this race, I know I am; but right now, I haven't seen my wife Sharla for 3 weeks, and I have a beer sitting at the table, and I am going to just go back and sit with my wife and have that beer. Thank you. And he got a standing ovation for that speech. And it was just an example of Jon: to the point, all the time. My favorite note that I am going to save forever in my desk, it was during the impeachment hearing. Many of you remember Sherrod would always be kind of talking out of turn. But we would have a lot of mentions--I see our friends down there remembering this--of the Founding Fathers at the time. So I have a note that I wrote to Bob Casey that said: As it approaches midnight and we keep hearing about the Founding Fathers, I start to think that you look like a Founding Father, Bob. Your hair looks like a Founding Father. But Tester, not so much. We are going to miss your barber, wherever he is. And he is back in Montana, I am sure. But I remember some of Jon's first ads where he had his barber in those ads. And it just was him, and it is him now. And he looks exactly the same with his haircut as he did when he first started running. There has been a lot of talk about his incredible leadership, many things he has done, worked with us on competition issues, trying to make sure that we still have small farms in this country. And it means something. But for me, the most meaningful thing, Jon, was that PACT Act and how, when our veterans signed up to serve, there shouldn't be a waiting line, and when they come home to this country and they have a healthcare problem and they want to get in to get healthcare at the VA or they want to get coverage, there should never be a waiting line in the United States of America. Jon did that--Jon's leadership--working across the aisle, like he has done on so many other things. We are going to miss his Montana rural work ethic, his sense of humor, his 40-pound suitcases of meat that he butchered himself, and, yes, even his musical talents. Because in addition to us losing a tireless champion for Montana, we are also going to lose the Senate's only trumpet player and, certainly, the Senate's only seven-fingered trumpet player. So, Mr. President, I join my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to celebrate Jon Tester and to know he is not going to be far away--the flattop dirt farmer who went from Havre, MT, to the U.S. Senate and never forgot where he came from. Mr. President, I yield the floor. (Applause.)

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, as we saw Senator Peters' emotion about our dear friend, I saw that emotion well up in the eyes of so many of her staff, even before she started to speak, and I think that is because of the love that Debbie has engendered for so many years with this staff. And it is such a tribute to you, Debbie, that they came from all over the place to see you--from the past, from the present, from Michigan. So that is a lasting legacy. Another legacy I was thinking about is that incredible portrait in the Agriculture room--and I see Senator Smith, who sits in that room with me--of you surrounded by fruits and vegetables, as you should be. And it is the first portrait of any chair of the Agriculture Committee that is surrounded by fruits and vegetables, and that is a tribute to you because you got that done for America. I think about the persistence that Gary just spoke to, that persistence always with a smile, always with lipstick, always focused on getting things done. And that is something that I think, when a lot of us wake up and things are down, to remember that smile and how persistent you were to get those things done is something that will inspire all of us. And, as you mentioned, with Elissa Slotkin, this incredible new leader coming to the Senate, you made sure that your legacy carried on with her election. So we thank you for that. I have had the great privilege of watching you stand up firsthand in those Agriculture rooms and hearing rooms to stand up for nutrition like no one really has ever done before in a leadership position in that committee; how you have stood up for our farmers, yes, but also for the people that rely on getting that affordable food; your standing up for the autoworkers, I think, in the wayback zone, when you stood up at that horrible time for the industry and you were there for them; the investing in mental healthcare. You mentioned one of my favorite stories, and that story is, yes, rather hilarious because Debbie, I want you to picture, was one of the few, if not the only, women in the room, one of two--as the Presiding Officer knows, Debbie will be one phone call away to correct us on what we have to say; at any time, we know whom to call--one of two women in that room. And as the male Senator was saying, ``I don't know; I wouldn't need those benefits,'' it was Debbie who said, ``I bet your mother did.'' And the point of that story was actually more than just the moment and that she got those benefits in; it was also that she was one of the first women in such a leadership role. There are a few here today, including Senator Murray. We think back to Senator Mikulski and others. But Debbie carried on that mantle, and she did it so well in leadership in the Senate and through her work chairing the committee. But we all know that her work didn't end in this place. She also led on agriculture and other issues worldwide. I will never forget that she led the first all-women's trip to Africa, and we made stops in Senegal and Ethiopia and Tanzania. And in my closing story here, if you remember, Senator Stabenow, the woman in Ethiopia, the farmer. She had a little plot of--she was raising teff, and she was alone. Her husband had died, and she was raising a number of kids by herself. And she had become a leader on sanitation for the area, and she had this little graph up on the wall, provided by one of our foundations, that showed her hut in the middle with a star on it. And we were all asking these Senator-like questions about her crops and about her challenges of the walking 2 hours to fill the water every single day. And finally someone asked: What is your biggest challenge? And here is this woman in this little hut with only one solar panel, walking 2 hours every day, and she says: Challenges? And she points to this chart of her hut and says: I have no challenges. I am a leader. Debbie Stabenow is a leader, and she has gotten through a lot in the early days of women getting elected to these jobs. To be able to get here in the first place and then to be able to rise to where she is has been an incredible tribute to her perseverance, to her incredible staff, and to the people of Michigan. We thank you, Debbie. We know you are only going to be a phone call away. And for those of us on the Ag Committee, all we have to do is look up and see your smiling face among those fruits and vegetables. Thank you for your service. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I rise to honor Dave Kleis, the mayor of St. Cloud, MN, who is retiring on January 13, 2025, after more than 30 years of public service. St. Cloud has flourished with Dave at the helm. Under his leadership, the growing city has improved its infrastructure, made critical investments in higher education, and opened its 100th city park, all while keeping a balanced budget. St. Cloud has received national and international awards and recognition for its livability, including Most Livable City in the World, the Healthiest Hometown, and Top Ten Mississippi River Corridor Metro. And Dave himself has earned plenty of accolades, too. He was selected by the St. Cloud Times' readers as the most influential person of the last decade and is a recipient of the League of Minnesota Cities C.C. Ludwig Leadership Award. On top of that, he was recognized as one of Twin Cities Business' 100 People to Know. As a founding member and cochair of the Mississippi River Cities and Towns Initiative, Dave has also been committed to protecting and developing the Mississippi River, which flows through downtown St. Cloud. Dave made St. Cloud a better place by listening to residents and reaching them where they are, whether it is at his famous chili cookouts, through his weekly video messages, at his townhalls--all 1,000-plus of them--or even dressed up as Santa at the annual Christmas tree lighting. Not to mention, he is also a 9-year veteran of the U.S. Air Force and Air Force Reserve and a small business owner. For 11 years, he served in the Minnesota State Senate, where he continued to be a champion for working families and veterans. Simply put, Dave is a great leader because he is a great neighbor. As he has said, ``Love everybody, respect everyone, and it'll be just fine.'' St. Cloud and Minnesota are better because of him. Dave, thank you for your friendship and leadership, and congratulations on your retirement. You have earned it.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise today to honor Glen Stubbe, an incredible photojournalist who is leaving the Minnesota Star Tribune after 26 years. Through his lens, Glen has captured the lives and livelihoods of Minnesotans from all walks of life, each image telling a story words alone never could. As someone who has had the privilege of being on the other side of Glen's camera--at press conferences, the State fair, and everywhere in between--I can tell you that what Glen brings to his craft is more than just a keen eye for lighting, color, and perspective. What sets his work apart is his deep understanding of the people he photographs. A Glen Stubbe photo isn't simply a well-composed frame; it is a one- of-a-kind reflection of humanity. Over the course of his more than two decades at the Star Tribune, Glen has built a level of trust with his subjects that is rare at a time when journalists are too often met with skepticism. Whether he is covering farmers or firefighters, police officers or the President of the United States, he has always approached his subjects with respect. For hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans, that small print in the parentheses below a photo--``Glen Stubbe/Star Tribune''--is as much a part of our State's largest newspaper as the Vikings scores, the editorials, or even the newsprint itself. So today, I celebrate Glen Stubbe, a Minnesota institution; Glen Stubbe, the Star Tribune's own in-house historian with a camera; Glen Stubbe, a man for whom photojournalism is more than a profession--it is an art. Glen, your images are an immortal visual record of who Minnesotans are and what we have been. Our state and country are better because of you. I wish you all the best.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Judge Peter Cahill, a public servant, former colleague, and friend who is retiring after 17 years of service on the bench of Minnesota's Fourth Judicial District Court. Pete has spent decades serving our State. After getting his law degree from the University of Minnesota, he worked for 2 years as an assistant public defender. And prior to his appointment to the bench, he served as a prosecutor in the Hennepin County Attorney's Office. I had the privilege of working with Pete for 8 years when I served as county attorney, where I witnessed firsthand his dedication to the rule of law. During most of that time, he served as my chief deputy. By the end of my second term, Pete and I understood each other so well that he almost always knew what I could think about a certain set of facts, and I could predict the same of him. But Pete never just told me what I wanted to hear; he was too honest and strong-minded to be a ``yes man.'' I learned an important lesson from Pete: Make the right decision under the law and the facts, and then find a way to explain it to the public. Don't ever make the wrong decision just because it is easier to explain. With Pete's devotion to doing what is right--even when it is not easy--it was no surprise when Governor Tim Pawlenty appointed him to the Fourth District Court. On the bench, Judge Cahill applied his even- handed judgment to every case over which he presided. Quoting Seneca, Pete has said: ``Wherever there is a human being, there is an opportunity for kindness.'' And whichever way he has ruled, he has presided with dignity, grace, and, yes, kindness. He has ensured that every litigant, every defendant, and every victim's voice is heard. His unflappable devotion to the law was on full display when he presided over the 2021 trial of Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd. That case received international news coverage, but Judge Cahill didn't let that cloud his judgment. His ruling, as always, was based on the law and the facts. For that decision and countless others, he will be remembered in the history books as a beacon of fairness, a guardian of the rule of law, and a true minister of justice. Pete, thank you for all you have done to keep our Nation's sacred promise of ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Minnesota is better because of you. I wish you all the best in your retirement.