Mark Kelly

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to the following members of my staff: Sami Hollinshead and Julia Wascher.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, we made a sacred promise to our veterans that after their service, they would get the care and support that they earned. That promise did not come with an expiration date. And as a combat veteran myself, I take this responsibility personally on behalf of Arizona's more than 500,000 veterans and veterans across the country. But with these mass firings of staff at the VA, President Trump and Elon Musk are breaking that promise. In the last month, thousands of VA employees, people who care for our Nation's veterans, were fired with no warning, no phone call, no meeting--just an email telling them that they no longer had a job, that they were no longer wanted. These aren't just nameless, faceless bureaucrats; these are Americans who signed up to serve our country by taking care of veterans. They deserve to be treated with respect. These are the people on the frontlines of veterans' care and services, and they were fired without even a thought. We can all agree that the VA can do a better job, but aimlessly firing thousands of people will do nothing to help speed up veterans' healthcare--nothing. It will just make accessing care more difficult. Secretary Collins and the VA claim that these were ``non-mission critical'' jobs. Well, that is simply not true. In Arizona, we have seen VA workers and the families who rely on the VA impacted in a real way--like Brandy and David, who shared their story with Arizona's Family News and are both veterans themselves who became loan specialists to help fellow veterans navigate financial hardships and avoid homelessness. Before they were fired, each of them was handling 1,500 cases. Each of those cases represents one veteran who needs help. How much longer will it take veterans in need to get answers? Another Arizona family reached out to my office, afraid to speak out publicly because of fear of retaliation. The husband is a doctor at the Tucson VA. He treats patients with lung disease. But last week he got an email--not a meeting, no conversation--just an email telling him to resign. Is that who Secretary Collins calls ``non-mission critical''? His wife now fears that her job could be next. They have two young kids, and now they are being forced to rethink everything because this administration--this administration--kicked them to the curb. Donald Trump claims to care about veterans but then turns around and fires the very people whose job it is to ensure that veterans get the care that they need, the care that they earned from serving our Nation, for keeping us safe. These are real people. These terminations, they are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; they are real people who execute a mission serving veterans. And these layoffs--these layoffs are going to mean longer wait times for appointments, fewer options for mental health care, fewer options for pain management, more delays in processing benefits. Is this really where Elon Musk and Donald Trump want to save a buck? Off the backs of veterans who have risked everything for us? This is not how the United States should treat our veterans. That is why I stand here today as a veteran myself, with Senator Blumenthal and our colleagues, to support this resolution. Let's get the folks back to work serving our veterans. The work they do is mission critical. Veterans in Arizona and across the country are counting on them, and they are counting on us. I yield the floor.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I want to state the obvious: The United States has real energy needs. We have to produce enough reliable energy to make utility bills affordable for families and to bring online the advanced manufacturing and data centers that are powering our economy and will power our economy into the future. We are seeing this in Arizona. The demand for energy keeps going up. It is going up rather quickly. Now, here is the good news: The United States is producing more energy than ever before. We are using everything at our disposal. We are finally bringing the manufacturing of solar panels and batteries and wind turbines back to America. Now, that creates great-paying jobs across the country, jobs that you can actually raise a family on, jobs that are in places like Arizona and Oklahoma, Colorado and Texas. We are investing to develop new technologies to produce even more energy. Now, for years, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have raised very legitimate concerns about the need to reform our permitting processes to cut redtape and unleash American manufacturing. Well, Mr. President, here is the bad news: President Trump is now throwing redtape around our energy production, which will raise utility bills and send American manufacturing back overseas. One of his first actions as President--one of the first things he did--was to block approvals of new wind projects on Federal land and then freeze loans and freeze grants for clean energy projects. He is making permitting harder or impossible. That is the opposite of what my Republican colleagues--your colleagues--wanted done. Now, he also wants to change the definition of energy to only include fossil fuels. Mr. President, it is 2025. We all need to live in the real world. More than 90 percent--get this: 90 percent--of new energy production connected to the grid last year was renewable energy. And it takes 3 or 4 years just to build a natural gas powerplant. There is no good reason to block wind projects, to block solar projects that, by the way, are already underway to bring more energy to American homes and businesses. President Trump, what he is doing is he is trying to pick winners and losers. When it comes to energy, he wants to decide, and the winners are fossil fuel companies and China. And the losers, Mr. President--the losers--that is everybody else. That is you. That is your family. That is your business. And families especially--families--are going to face higher utility bills. And manufacturers, they are going to lose the support that they were relying on. And workers are just going to see their jobs go back overseas. You think China doesn't want to make more of this stuff and sell it to us? Of course, they do. They will be happy to do that, and we will pay the price. They would love to see President Trump drive clean energy manufacturers that are in America out of business. China would want us to cancel our manufacturing plants and cancel these energy projects. We should not let this happen. We have got an opportunity this week to turn this around. So I am going to be voting for Senator Kaine and Senator Heinrich's effort so that we can focus on our energy future. Now, fortunately, there is so much that we agree on: the need to modernize our power grid, to bring manufacturing back to America, to create jobs and reduce our reliance on imports, and to develop the energy technologies of the future right here in the United States of America, not in another country, not in China. And all of this supports American jobs, and, at the same time, it keeps utility bills low for American families. Now, some of it will require us to cut some redtape and make things more predictable and efficient for utilities and for energy producers. Me and many of my colleagues, we have shown that we are willing to work on these reforms on a bipartisan basis. So let's do it. And Mr. President--not you, but the President of the United States-- let's reverse the shortsighted targeted attacks on our energy supply. If we do that, I know that we can work together and continue to expand the amount of energy this country has at its disposal and bring down the prices for American families and American businesses. I yield the floor.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 984 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, since we now know that $10 million did not meet the threshold, we are debating who in this country is so rich that they don't need a tax cut. That one didn't pass. So here is my proposal: Can we at least agree among all of us that no one making more than $100 million per year should get a tax cut? The median income in this country is about $80,000 per year, and it would take 1,245 years for someone making the median income in America to earn $100 million. That is about 15 lifetimes. Does somebody that rich need a tax cut? I don't think so. Vote yes if you agree.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, the folks in my State are working hard but finding it tough to get ahead. Now, let's just look at the price of eggs. The Hickman's Family Farms is one of the top egg producers in the country, and they are the biggest in our State. They have millions of birds producing millions and millions of eggs that feed the State of Arizona and the country. Like so many of the other egg producers, they are getting decimated by bird flu. They have had to put down a lot of their hens--more than a million--because of this disease. The story is the same with egg producers across the country, and this is having a serious impact on family budgets. The Safeway down the road from my house in Tucson is now charging $9.49 a dozen for eggs, and I can't remember ever seeing it this high. Some grocery stores are rationing eggs, only allowing customers to buy one or two cartons at a time. If you go to the Waffle House, you are paying a surcharge for each egg that you buy. Now, who has ever heard of such a thing? Now, what I want to know is, where are Donald Trump and Elon Musk? Well, a few days ago, they accidentally fired a bunch of people at the Department of Agriculture whose job it is to stop this outbreak. The next question you may ask is: Why? Why would they do this? Why are Elon Musk and Donald Trump slashing and cutting so recklessly that they would fire the people working to stop bird flu? Well, Mr. President, it is because of what is in front of us here in the Senate this week. They want to take the next steps toward a big tax giveaway for rich people, but they have to find some ways to pay for it. It is wrapped up in all this budget bureaucracy stuff, but here is the crux of it: making health coverage and food more expensive for working families--that is what is going to happen. Slashing essential government functions and services that keep Americans safe, cutting investments in high-speed internet and energy manufacturing that creates jobs, and at the same time, exploding our national debt--all of this is so that the richest people and corporations in America can pay less taxes. Now, I am all for finding efficiencies in our budget and cutting bureaucracy. That is a smart thing to do. We need to get rid of the waste. We need to call out abuse. We need to root out fraud. We need a tax system that is fair and that makes sense, one that gives hard- working people a chance to get ahead, that spurs innovation. But that is not what this is. This is a handout for rich people paid for by you, the American taxpayer--paid for by your families and your children. The richest of the rich billionaires, Elon Musk, is gutting the everyday programs that he doesn't agree with, and he is keeping the ones that cut checks to his businesses through big government contracts--all of this to pay for the tax cuts for him, for his companies, and for his billionaire friends. We know this because we have seen this before. Last time around, in 2017, President Trump signed a similar tax giveaway. He made the corporate tax rate so low that it is now lower than the rate for a married couple making about $100,000 a year. Does that seem fair? It doesn't to me. And that is before you count the tax loopholes that corporations get and that your families do not. Did those corporate CEOs pass those savings along to their workers? Of course, they didn't. They used it to enrich themselves and their shareholders, and it was all to benefit the richest people, people who didn't actually need any help. But, Mr. President, don't take my word for this. Here is the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. This is a quote: As this debate unfolds, policymakers and the public should understand that the 2017 Trump tax law was skewed to the rich. I go on: Households with incomes in the top 1 percent will receive an average tax cut of more than $60,000 in 2025, compared to an average tax cut of less than $500 for households in the bottom 60 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center. As a share of after-tax income, tax cuts at the top--for both households in the top 1 percent and the top 5 percent-- are more than triple-- Three times--three times-- the total value of the tax cuts received for people with incomes in the bottom 60 percent. Trump administration officials claimed their centerpiece corporate tax rate cut would ``very conservatively'' lead to a $4,000 boost in household income. [However,] new research shows that workers who earned less than $114,000 on average in 2016 saw ``no change in earnings'' from the corporate tax rate cut, while top executive salaries increased sharply. What this means, Mr. President, is that the rich got richer, and everybody else, they got left behind. That is just wrong. It also made it even tougher for hard-working families to get ahead. Now, President Trump wants to do this all over again. Here is what an analyst from the same center, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, testified to Congress about his new plan: Permanently extending the tax cuts would benefit households in the top 1 percent more than twice as much as those in the bottom 60 percent as a share of their incomes--providing a roughly $41,000 annual tax cut for the top 1 percent compared to $500 for households in the bottom 60 percent, on average-- at a cost of around $300 billion per year. Again, if you are in the top 1 percent, you are going to get $4,000, and all those people in the bottom 60 percent, what are they going to get? 500 bucks. That is it. Extend tax cuts for rich people and create new loopholes, and do it all by going after the kind of things that create great-paying jobs, that help working families, and that move our economy into the future. We all understand that our economy is changing fast. We need the industries of the future to be based here in the United States, creating great-paying jobs that you can actually raise a family on, reducing our reliance on supply chains that cross an ocean. We have seen the benefit of that in Arizona, where we are a hub for everything from microchips to batteries. I have spoken to workers who were stuck, who didn't know how to jump- start their career, who didn't know how to find that next job. They found opportunities, in some cases to enter an apprenticeship or skills program and get a good-paying job, the kind of job that you could actually raise a family on that does not require a 4-year degree. Mr. President, I know in West Virginia there are so many folks that are looking for these opportunities. They are in my State. I know they are in yours. These are the folks that make things like solar panels and batteries and microchips that power our country, that power our economy. And these folks that get these jobs, they have pride that they are building these things here in the United States of America. I will never forget about speaking to one woman whom I met on a Zoom call about jobs and about opportunity. She had trouble finding a job for over a year. She had three kids. She was having so much trouble supporting her kids, and then she found an email in her spam folder, of all places, and it encouraged her to apply for this thing called the Quick Start program at Estrella Mountain Community College. And in this program, she was going to learn how to be a microchip, semiconductor manufacturing technician. Now, it was in her spam folder. So she was a little hesitant. But she called the phone number. She took a chance. She applied to this program, and she got in. It was a 2-week program, and, at the end of it, she had a guarantee that she would get an interview with a semiconductor manufacturer. Well, she did that interview. She got the job at Intel, and this job has changed not only her life but the life of her kids. Now, Mr. President, that is a story that is being repeated over and over again in my State, in the semiconductor industry, and I am sure in West Virginia, where people are benefiting from these opportunities that we have created, not just in one industry but in multiple industries. Mr. President, this could all come to a screeching halt if Elon Musk and Donald Trump use it to pay for their tax cuts for rich people. Just today, President Trump slashed staff that are making the CHIPS programs a success, and that is going to slow us down, and it is going to give China a chance to catch up. We don't want that to happen. This is a national security issue for this country. We want to see the next generation of microchips developed, tested, and produced here in America, not in China. Trump and Musk's actions make that harder. And they have set their sights on the very incentives that are making this happen, especially when it comes to clean energy manufacturing. And what is that going to do, Mr. President? Well, here is what it is going to do. It is going to ship these jobs back overseas to other countries. China and other countries are more than happy to fill this vacuum, and they will flood the market with cheap solar panels and cheap batteries. Mr. President, who does that hurt? It hurts working Americans who depend on these jobs to support their families. And that is not just in Arizona or in blue States or blue cities. This will hurt communities in every corner of our country. For example, listen to this. This is about Oklahoma. This is an article from this morning, and it is about something the Governor-- Governor Stitt--said about his State. In the article it says: [Governor Stitt] has spearheaded a clean energy manufacturing boom in his State that has complimented Oklahoma's large oil and gas industry and a growing wind power sector that provides 40 percent of its electricity. But some of Trump's moves could undermine that progress, including his halt on leasing, permitting and approvals of wind projects, along with his effort to claw back funds from the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure [bill]. [Governor] Stitt also said he doesn't-- He does not-- support Trump's call to repeal IRA clean energy tax credits that have drawn investments to GOP-led States like Oklahoma since companies have based their investments on these incentives. He said he plans to discuss Trump's wind and IRA policies in conversations this week with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who is expected to attend the Republican governors meeting. This article went on. It continued and it said: That was a deal that was cut. This is what Stitt said. Governor Stitt said that of the IRA tax credits. He said: Congress has got to opine on this, but a deal is a deal, and you can't back out of some of those things. So here you have a Republican Governor in the State of Oklahoma who is worried about clean energy jobs in his State being slashed--all of this so that President Trump can pay for tax cuts for rich people. It is that simple, and it is not going to end here. We are talking about trillions of dollars in tax cuts--trillions. We have seen, over the past few weeks, that Elon Musk and Donald Trump are ready to put a halt to infrastructure projects. Here is how that has played out on the Hopi Nation in Arizona. This is reporting from just last week: Timothy Nuvangyaoma, [he is] the chair of the Hopi Tribe in Arizona. [They] had applied for and received some $90 million in Federal funding for solar power projects, battery installations and microgrids, [that he] hoped [would] support . . . finally bringing power to the 30 percent of homes on the Hopi Nation that are not served by a local utility. This is from the article: He predicted on-site clean power would end blackouts in some areas that led to food spoiling and medical equipment blinking offline. Now, President Donald Trump's broad funding freeze covering some of the Biden administration's clean energy spending has thrown tribal projects into limbo. As of Thursday morning, funding for the Hopi Tribe that had been approved remains suspended. Two awards--$4 million for a solar powered microgrid to run wells and pump water and $4 million for a battery project--had not been finalized before Trump's inauguration, meaning it's possible that they could be rescinded. Also from this article, Mr. President, it says: ``We have real lives at stake. The funding freeze is truly having an impact on living, breathing individuals,'' [the Chairman] said in an interview. And he said--and this is a quote: I can't even think of a strong enough word, this is so important for us. We had part of a solution come our way, and now it's [been] taken away. The chairman said--he went on, and he said, ``We have real lives at stake,'' but to Elon Musk and President Trump, that pales in comparison to cutting taxes for rich people. Mr. President, we have always had highway projects in Arizona face uncertainty. But this week, they fired a tenth of the Forest Service workforce and froze hiring just ahead of what might be another devastating fire season. Firefighters--wildfire firefighters--got laid off. And there are Colorado River water conservation projects that have had their funding frozen right now. And this is no small thing. The Colorado River is a crucial water source for the American Southwest, supporting millions of people, vast agricultural lands, and industries across seven States. But the impact is even broader than that. If you eat lettuce in the winter, chances are it came from Yuma, AZ, from a farm that uses water from the Colorado River. We have been facing a severe long-term drought that has drained reservoirs along the river, with Lake Mead and Lake Powell falling to dangerously low levels. So there has been a series of agreements to keep more water in the reservoirs; that is going to buy us some time. And during that time, Tribes, cities, farmers can invest in infrastructure that makes them more water efficient. But after Elon Musk and Donald Trump froze these programs, there is incredible uncertainty. This is a system that depends on trust, and they just pulled the rug out from Arizona farmers, from Arizona businesses, from Arizona Tribes, from Arizona communities. It is a rug pull, and that puts the entire river system at risk. And for what? To pay for tax giveaways for rich people. What else will they set their sights on? Well, Elon Musk and President Trump also froze funding for high-speed internet expansion. This is a bipartisan investment to bring internet access to every corner of our country. An internet connection is essential to nearly everything today from taking a class to booking a doctor's appointment to staying in touch with the news or your family. And you shouldn't need to live in a big city or in a suburb to have reliable internet, and expanding broadband creates great-paying local jobs. Gutting American manufacturing and infrastructure to pay for tax giveaways for rich people and big corporations, it does not make our country better off. It just helps rich people get richer. It is pretty simple math. But it also kills jobs for hard-working Americans in the industries of the future, like clean energy. And it also invites China to take those jobs back, take jobs from Americans who are just trying to get by. It doesn't help American families pay their grocery bills. What the President is doing, what Elon Musk is doing, it is just wrong. We should be focused on the things that matter, lowering prices for people and solving real problems. Helping rich people get richer, that is not a real problem. When I am at home in Arizona, you know what folks want us to be working on here? Cost of groceries, cost of healthcare, better-paying jobs, safer communities, better schools. What you did not hear on that list was making sure rich people have more money in their pockets. I doubt a single person in my State would tell me that cutting taxes for the wealthy and big corporations should be at the top of the list. It should not be on the top of the Senate's list either. I yield the floor.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I really care about science. I spent my career as an engineer, as a Navy pilot and a test pilot, and as an astronaut--three jobs where facts matter, where you make decisions based on science, not superstition, because when you are launching off of an aircraft carrier or orbiting the Earth at 17,500 miles per hour, there is no room for conspiracy theories; you have to deal in reality. In my career, relying on science literally meant the difference between life and death. The same is true for the person who is responsible for our Nation's health. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is responsible for making sure that the best science guides our healthcare, from developing lifesaving medicines to preventing deadly diseases. This job requires a commitment to science, facts, and to public health, but the nominee before us today, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has spent much of his career doing the exact opposite--rejecting science, spreading conspiracy theories, and putting public health at risk. That is not someone that I want in charge of keeping Arizonans healthy. That would be his job, by the way--responding to disease outbreaks, approving new medicines and treatments, overseeing healthcare coverage for millions of Arizonans and millions of Americans. So this isn't just some bureaucratic decision that we are about to make; this is about whether the next HHS Secretary will protect public health or undermine it with dangerous misinformation. Let's be clear about Mr. Kennedy's record. This is not someone who is simply asking questions about vaccines. Healthy skepticism is one thing, and I always told my space shuttle crew members to tell me when they thought I was wrong, to constantly question the way we were doing things. We should be doing the same thing here in the Senate. But what Mr. Kennedy has engaged in goes far beyond that--far beyond that. Even when presented with definitive science, he has doubled down on conspiracy theories because, for him, that is what paid the bills. He was the chairman of the most well-funded anti-vaccine organization in the country. The group he led has spread false claims that vaccines cause autism, that vaccines cause cancer, and that they cause autoimmune disease. This organization has filed lawsuits to block children from getting vaccinated. What happens when people believe that? We get outbreaks of disease that we thought was long gone in the rearview mirror. In America Samoa, he spread misinformation about vaccines during a measles outbreak that killed 83 people. Instead of helping families get lifesaving care, Mr. Kennedy sowed fear and doubt, and then he had the audacity to question whether measles was really the cause of those 83 deaths. In Texas, right now--right now, today--there is a measles outbreak. It is in a county that has low vaccination rates. So far, all of the cases are in unvaccinated people. Now, we know exactly what causes these outbreaks. It is not science; it is misinformation. It is people like Mr. Kennedy telling parents they can't trust their doctors. I am thinking about this nomination not as a Senator but as a father and a grandparent. I know how much Arizona families care about their kids' health. All they want us to do is do what is right for their family and for their kids. And I know what it means to trust doctors, to trust medicine, to trust science. I want my granddaughter Sage to grow up in a world that is safer and healthier than the one before her, where we don't have to worry about diseases that we already know how to prevent. I think about my daughter, her mom, who, like any first-time parent, is doing everything she possibly can to make the best decisions for her child, and that is already hard enough. The last thing parents need is one more loud voice--especially one in a position of authority--pushing conspiracy theories that make it harder to know what is true. It is bad for kids across Arizona and across the country. When he spreads these conspiracy theories about vaccines and autism, it has cascading effects. Senator Hassan made this point, I think, better than anybody else could. Just last week or the week before, after speaking about her son, who has cerebral palsy, Senator Hassan said: The problem with this witness' response on the autism cause and the relationship to vaccines is because he's relitigating and churning settled science. So we can't go forward and find out what the cause of autism is and treat these kids and help these families. She continued. She went on and said: Sometimes science is wrong . . . but we make progress, and we build on the work, and we become more successful. But when you continue to sow doubt about settled science, it makes it impossible for us to move forward . . . and it freezes us in place. So, you see, the job of HHS Secretary isn't about chasing conspiracy theories; it is about making sure families get the best care possible based on the best science available so we can make progress and live healthy lives. Folks, here is what makes this even worse--like, a lot worse: Mr. Kennedy--get this--Mr. Kennedy vaccinated his own kids while telling other parents not to. His own cousin, Ambassador Caroline Kennedy, called him a predator for what he has done. That is not leadership, folks; that is hypocrisy. Here is what Ambassador Kennedy wrote: Bobby prays on the desperation of parents of sick children--vaccinating his own children while building a following by hypocritically discouraging other parents from vaccinating theirs. She went on: Even before he fills this job, his constant denigration of our health care system and the conspiratorial half-truths he has told about vaccines, including in connection with Samoa's deadly 2019 measles outbreak, have cost lives. She continued: And now we know that Bobby's crusade against vaccination has benefited him in other ways, too. His ethics report makes clear that he will keep his financial stake in a lawsuit against [the] HPV vaccine. In other words-- This is Ambassador Kennedy's words. In other words, he is willing to enrich himself by denying access to a vaccine that can prevent almost all forms of cervical cancer and which has been safely administered to millions of boys and girls. That was a quote from his own cousin. The Senate cannot ignore this massive conflict of interest. Mr. Kennedy has personally made millions of dollars from lawsuits attacking vaccines, including the HPV vaccine, which prevents cervical cancer. And, if confirmed, he would oversee the FDA, the very Agency that regulates the vaccines that he is suing over. That is a direct financial incentive to undermine vaccines, even if it puts people's lives at risk. And he wouldn't commit to removing himself from this equation. And it is not just vaccines. Mr. Kennedy has made a career of embracing conspiracy theories over facts. He claims--it would be funny in another context. But Mr. Kennedy--get this--claims Wi-Fi and 5G cause cancer. He thinks the COVID vaccine is part of a government plot. He suggested that vaccines are a holocaust. But, of course, when he was confronted about that, he said he didn't recall saying it. He believes that the people who are running our vaccine programs should be in jail. And when asked about 9/11, one of the most defining moments in our Nation's history, he refused to say who was responsible. And his response? He said: It's hard to tell what's a conspiracy theory and what isn't. Well, Mr. President, we cannot put somebody in charge of our Nation's healthcare who doesn't know how to separate fact from fiction. No one in the Senate should be comfortable with that. But the dangerous misinformation doesn't stop with vaccines. Mr. Kennedy claimed that anti-depressants, not guns, are to blame for school shootings. Let's be clear, folks. There is zero--zero--evidence to support that--none. What we do know and what the data tells us is that in every other developed country, they also have anti-depressants. What they don't have is America's level of gun violence. The difference is not mental health treatment. It is easy access to guns for kids, for criminals, and for dangerous people who shouldn't have them. Mr. President, my family and I have lived with the consequences of gun violence. My wife Gabby Giffords was nearly killed by a gunman when meeting with her constituents outside a grocery store in 2011. Six people died; 12 were injured. You won't find anyone at that grocery store who believes that an excess of mental health treatment was responsible for that tragedy--not one. Gabby and I have sat in living rooms of parents who have lost their children in mass shootings, and we have fought for real, commonsense gun safety laws that can save lives. Just like Senator Hassan, I will not stand here and let conspiracy theories distract from real solutions. And this is the core of the problem. Mr. Kennedy treats healthcare like it is a conspiracy theory. Mr. Kennedy is not the person who should be running the Department of Health and Human Services. It is very clear. If Mr. Kennedy was simply a private citizen saying these things, that would be one thing. It would still be a problem, by the way. But this is someone who wants to be in charge of all of our healthcare. And if his dangerous views weren't enough, he doesn't even understand the weight of the job he is applying for. In his confirmation hearing, he didn't know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid. He didn't understand the different parts of Medicare and what they provide for seniors. He didn't know what a community health center was. He couldn't articulate a basic managing plan for HHS's $2 trillion budget. He wouldn't answer as to whether he will negotiate for lower drug prices for seniors. And that means, if you are a senior, with him in charge you might see higher drug prices. Mr. Kennedy does not have a medical degree, and he has no experience--zero experience--in healthcare policy. So this isn't just about bad ideas; it is about dangerous ideas and the fact that he is completely unprepared to do this job. We also learned at his confirmation hearing that Mr. Kennedy won't make decisions based on science, data, and facts or what is best for our public health. Instead, he will do whatever President Trump tells him to do. Over and over again, when asked about his policies, he didn't give answers based on what he believes is right. He said: President Trump has not told me what his policy is. On reproductive health: Trump has told me to look into it, but I don't know what his policy is. This is a nominee who traffics in conspiracies, who doesn't know much about the Agency he is nominated to lead, and who has said he will just do whatever he is told which, considering what we heard all along, that President Trump has a ``concept'' of a healthcare plan--it is not a real plan. But we still don't know what that is. Now, that, to me, feels like a big problem. Mr. President, we need an HHS Secretary who will lead with facts, not fear; who will lower the price of prescription drugs or fight to do that; and fight to reduce healthcare costs and not to go along with efforts to take health insurance away from kids and people with disabilities; who will build trust in our healthcare system, not undermine it. Mr. Kennedy has built a career out of rejecting science, spreading misinformation, and profited off of fear. He has compared vaccine scientists to Nazis. He has refused to say if 9/11 was a conspiracy theory. And when it comes to leading this Nation's healthcare system, he has no plan, no knowledge, and no independence; and he says he will do whatever President Trump tells him to do. So my colleagues, we all have to ask ourselves: Are we really willing to put the health of American families in his hands; are we? I know my answer, and I urge everyone in this Chamber to think very hard about theirs. Mr. President, I yield 30 minutes of postcloture debate time to the Democratic leader.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, today the Senate is deciding whether COL Tulsi Gabbard should be the person who, each day, makes the call on which intelligence gets in front of the President of the United States. That is what the Director of National Intelligence does. They sift through the intelligence collected and analyzed by all of our intelligence Agencies, from the CIA to the NSA, and decide what to brief the President on. This includes information about terrorists planning attacks here in the United States or on our servicemembers abroad. It includes evidence of adversaries backing cyber attacks. Often, the intelligence is incomplete, or there are pieces that contradict one another. It is this person's job to cut through the noise and present the President with what he needs to know. There can't be any spin. There can't be a finger on the scale to get him to do one thing or not do another. It requires impeccable judgment and sound decision making. Everything we have learned about Colonel Gabbard during her confirmation process suggests that she is not the person for this job. It is that simple. Now, I went into this process with an open mind. Colonel Gabbard and I, we had a long meeting in my office. She responded to a number of written follow-up questions that my colleagues and I had for her. And I was able to ask her questions in an open and closed hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee. And after each of those steps, I became more and more concerned. Colonel Gabbard is often dismissive and has been, at times, outright hostile towards our intelligence community and the tools that it uses to protect this country. Now, I have a tremendous amount of respect for Colonel Gabbard's service to this Nation, and I do think that healthy skepticism is a good thing. It is something that I always valued in my crew members at NASA, and I value it today in the Senate. But that is not what we have seen from Colonel Gabbard. She has a track record of embracing overblown, flimsy claims that confirm her own viewpoint while easily dismissing the thorough assessments and the methods of our own intelligence community. That is not the person that we should want in this job. Now, let's start here with her record on Edward Snowden. Edward Snowden was a government contractor who stole and then leaked highly classified information from the National Security Agency in 2013. Snowden could have used whistleblower protections to securely and legally share concerns that he had about the legality of certain surveillance programs, but he didn't do that. Instead, he stole millions of documents--most of which didn't pertain to the programs that he had raised concerns about--and then he leaked them, without caring about what would the lasting damage be to our national security. After the Department of Justice revealed charges against him for committing espionage, Snowden fled to Russia, where he was welcomed with open arms. Edward Snowden exposed our government's secrets to the world, including to our adversaries. He put intelligence operatives and servicemembers around the world at risk, at great risk. And he made all of us less safe, and that is true even today. He should be in prison for betraying our country. COL Tulsi Gabbard wanted him to be pardoned. She introduced legislation calling on the Federal Government to drop all charges against Snowden and, unsurprisingly, it failed to gain support. This was in September of 2020, after he had been in Russia for nearly 7 years, and after the House Intelligence Committee had released a bipartisan report to the public detailing about how he had broken the law and made our country less safe. This came after that. And she publicly lobbied President Trump to pardon Snowden during his first term. He didn't. And on October 6 of 2020, Gabbard called Snowden a brave whistleblower. Two weeks later, Vladimir Putin gave Snowden permanent residency in Russia. This should, obviously, be a great concern to anyone considering her for this job, and it is clear that Colonel Gabbard knew it would be an issue in her confirmation hearing. She knew that. So she came prepared with a well-practiced answer, and she used it, word for word, over and over again. Vice Chairman Warner's first question was whether she thinks Edward Snowden is brave. She said that Edward Snowden broke the law, but that he released information that led to reforms. She didn't mention the harm he did to our national security. He followed up. She started with the same answer. And on and on it went. Next, with Senator King. Then Senator Young asked if she agreed with the House Intelligence Committee report that Snowden caused damage to national security. She repeated the same answer she had given just before. At least eight times, by my count, as I sat there in the hearing room, she gave the same answer word for word. But the real moment of truth came when Senator Lankford of Oklahoma asked her what he himself has publicly said was a softball question, and the question was: Is Edward Snowden a traitor? It really should have been pretty easy. If you believe Edward Snowden broke the law and the law he broke is the Espionage Act, it is pretty clear that is exactly what he is. He is a traitor. She wouldn't answer. Senator Bennet gave her another opportunity. She didn't take it. Now, Colonel Gabbard came into our confirmation hearing with a plan to give the same nonanswer over and over about Edward Snowden, and she was counting on that being enough to skate by. It wasn't for me. And I still can't understand. To this day, I still can't figure it out, why she will not call this guy a traitor. Colonel Gabbard would be leading the men and women of our intelligence Agencies whose work and lives Edward Snowden put at risk. I ask my Republican colleagues: How can we entrust this responsibility with someone who wanted to free Edward Snowden and still, to this day, cannot say whether or not he is a traitor? For a lot of nominees, that would be a way big enough issue to prevent them from getting this job. That is pretty clear. But so, too, would her hostility toward FISA 702, one of the most important intelligence collection tools that we have. This is the program that enables us to monitor the communications of foreign actors outside of the United States. It has stopped terror attacks. It has protected American troops serving abroad. About 60 percent of the President's brief every single day is derived from intelligence that is gathered from this program, the very brief that Colonel Gabbard would be responsible for compiling every single day. Without it, we would be exposed. We would be less able to detect and prevent terror attacks or other attacks against the American people. But that is exactly what Colonel Gabbard tried to do. She voted against reauthorizing this program in 2018. And in 2020, she introduced legislation to repeal it--all of it. Not just the piece--the piece of it that Congress was debating how to reform, she wanted to just get rid of the whole thing, all of it. And when she advocated for doing away with the program, she made false statements about how it works and how it impacts American citizens. This should be a concern for anyone being considered for this job. Because while the Senate Intelligence Committee has a range of views on how this program should work, none of us on the committee, on either side of the aisle, has any interest in getting rid of it because we know how important it is, how critical it is to the safety of all of us. In fact, we came together with others in Congress to deliver reforms that further protect our civil liberties as Americans while retaining the tools our President needs to stay ahead of threats. Once again, Colonel Gabbard knew that this would be an issue with her confirmation. And, again, she bet that she could just say as little as possible to just get by. That is why, in a written response to the committee, she said: My prior concerns about FISA were based on insufficient protections for civil liberties . . . Significant FISA reforms have been enacted since my time in Congress to address these issues. Sounds reasonable. Well, here is the problem. Just last year, she was on a podcast trashing those very reforms she is now saying back up her position on FISA. She said: This legislation that was just passed recently expanded those authorities . . . in some other ways, it took an already bad problem and made it many, many times worse. So which is it? Did these reforms fix the issues she had with FISA, as she said in her written response? Or did they make the problem worse, as she said on the podcast? It can't be both. Colonel Gabbard was asked about this inconsistency during her confirmation hearing, and she couldn't answer for it. In fact, she couldn't answer for what these reforms are and how they address her concerns or don't. And, folks, this is not trivial. The Director of National Intelligence works with the Attorney General to assess compliance with the law and improve internal procedures that decide how the intelligence community will collect, use, and store foreign intelligence to combat threats like terrorism while ensuring Americans' constitutional rights are protected. That means Colonel Gabbard would be responsible for implementing these reforms and advising Congress on their effectiveness. Finally, as we are all aware--well, all of us in the Senate, we are aware--this program is up for reauthorization in just over a year. President Trump has been all over the map on this program, but as recently as last year, he told Congress to kill FISA. The next Director of National Intelligence is going to play a critical role in advising the President and making recommendations to Congress about this program, FISA. Do we really trust that Colonel Gabbard will fight to protect this program, given her track record on this? I know I don't. That, too, should be disqualifying for this job. But the last example of Colonel Gabbard's hostility toward the intelligence community is the one that should give everyone the most concern. It is for me. As I said earlier, the primary responsibility of this job is to coordinate across 18 intelligence organizations and sift through intelligence, make some sense of it, and decide what to take to the President of the United States. In her confirmation hearing, I asked Colonel Gabbard: What does a good process look like? And her answer to this question--it was fine. She said: Build a strong team, welcome dissenting voices, and make sure the truth is reported. That is great. But then we got into a real-life example when she had sought out the intel, claimed to be reporting the truth, and then got it wrong. That is where, for me, it was obvious she is not the right fit for this job. Colonel Gabbard accepts the conclusion that former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his own people, except for two incidents. She has publicly disputed the confident conclusion of our intelligence community and international experts that Assad used chemical weapons in Khan Shaykhun in 2017 and in Douma, both in Syria, in 2018. She authored a report--this was put on her campaign website-- questioning whether these attacks were staged by anti-Assad groups, despite the repeated determinations that this was yet another incident of him murdering his own citizens. You might be asking yourself: Why? Why did Colonel Gabbard go to such great lengths to sow doubt about these two attacks, knowing that it would have to be useful to Assad's goals? Why did she doubt our intelligence community's conclusion in these two cases, but not the others? Well, I asked her, and here is how that answer began. This is a quote from Colonel Gabbard: These two cases are being looked at to be used as a pretext for major military movement. And another--my fear was a repeat of the deployment of another half million soldiers like we saw in Iraq towards what was the Obama administration's goals, which was regime change in Syria. Setting aside that Obama didn't deploy a half million soldiers to Syria, here is the problem. By her own admission, Colonel Gabbard's doubts about U.S. intelligence in these two situations began with her disagreements about how the intelligence was going to be used. She didn't want the United States and our allies to strike Syria as punishment for these chemical weapons attacks. So instead of making a strong argument on the policy, she tried to question whether the attacks happened in the first place. Colonel Gabbard also invoked the Iraq war. She is right. We needed to learn important lessons from the lead-up to the invasion. The biggest lesson was to carefully follow the intelligence where it actually leads, rather than bending it to fit the outcome that you want, which is exactly what Colonel Gabbard did in this case. It is that simple, folks, and it is also that dangerous, especially for someone in this job. If she has already disputed intelligence because of how it would be used, would she do it again in this position--the position of the Director of National Intelligence? She is the person deciding what the President would see. Would she withhold information or would she seek out confirmation without regard for whom it came from or that her viewpoint was correct? Because that is what she did in this case--the report she authored questioning whether these attacks were staged relied on a professor without expertise in chemical weapons. His theories in this case were deeply flawed and have been widely debunked by experts. I asked Colonel Gabbard if she was aware that this professor had appeared on Russian propaganda news stations. She said she had no idea. To produce his findings, this professor relied on an Australian chemistry student with a history of defending the Assad regime. I asked her if she was aware of that. She said she was not--not at the time-- but since she has been made aware. Here is what that tells me: Colonel Gabbard was unwilling to even examine, let alone weigh, the biases and shortcomings of the sources she was seeking out and elevating. She embraced these people and their half-baked theories because they confirmed what she wanted to be true-- that Assad didn't gas his own people in these two cases. She wanted it to be true so badly that, 5 years later, she says that she was still unaware of the facts of their background--facts that me and my staff found with some rather routine searching of public information. It was not hard. And she trusted and further publicized their claims without verification, despite our government making clear that Assad and Russia would attempt to raise these sorts of questions and theories to distract America and our allies. Mr. President, if that is not a redflag, I don't know what is. Still, 5 years later, Colonel Gabbard came before the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee and repeated all of this as if it weren't in contention. She continues to apply less skepticism toward these sources and narratives than the assessments of American intelligence operatives, professionals who have a ton of experience at this and whom she is nominated to lead--all because they support her point of view: The United States should not have struck Syria in retaliation for their use of chemical weapons. That is why she believed the people online. Now, that kind of reverse engineering to try to steer a policy outcome is dangerous in a job like this. Mr. President, the next couple of years are going to be challenging for our national security. I think we all agree upon that. We face threats that grow more complicated each and every day. And our intelligence community, they are the best in the world. They are really good at gathering intelligence of all kinds. The hardest part is sifting through that information and making some sense of what it all means, making determinations. That is what this job is all about. And everything we have seen from Colonel Gabbard throughout this process suggests that she is the wrong person for this job. She lifted up Edward Snowden as a hero and is unwilling to call him a traitor. She tried to get rid of one of the most important intelligence collection tools that we have and has contradicted herself when answering for it. And most central to this role, she has displayed poor judgment and poor decision making when assessing intelligence, especially when it comes to chemical weapons use in Syria. Each of these--each one of them on their own--should be disqualifying for holding this job. Taken together, they paint a picture of someone who is especially ill-suited and unprepared to take on this responsibility. I know that these concerns are shared by my Republican colleagues. So let's be honest about it. Let's say no to the political pressure. And let's put our national security first, and let's vote no on this nominee. I yield the floor.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. On behalf of Head Start and Arizona, I vote no.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I will bet a lot of folks watching tonight cannot believe that we are here, talking about the Office of Management and Budget. The Office of Management and Budget--there is nothing more bureaucratic sounding in this whole city, and that says something. It is not an office Arizonans should really have to think about, let alone see their Senators debate for hours. Think of this: Think of this office as our government's financial planner. They keep track of spending for everything from veterans' benefits to disaster relief for communities. When Flagstaff gets hit by flooding or North Scottsdale gets hit by a major wildfire, this is the office that signs off on Federal relief. Every single Federal Agency must go through the Office of Management and Budget to access the dollars that Congress writes into law for the work they do for the American people. When it is working right, this is the office that helps build the Federal budget and then makes sure it gets executed according to the law, but that is the problem. Under this administration, it is not working right, and it is not following the law. We saw this a week ago when this office tried to illegally freeze all Federal grants. In the most reckless, incompetent action we have seen yet from this administration, they issued a two-page memo--two pages-- that said: Federal agencies must temporarily pause all activities related to the obligation or disbursement of all federal financial assistance. This effort is now temporarily blocked by the courts, but it created a mess all over the country, and it still isn't fixed. We had Head Start Programs in Arizona that nearly had to lay off staff and turn families away because they didn't get the payments they were promised. I had Arizona community health centers in my office today that just had a frozen payment come through, but it was more than a week late. Are there places where we need to make Federal spending more efficient and effective? Of course there are, and I am willing to get together with anyone who wants to make our government work better, who wants to save taxpayer dollars, and who wants to improve people's lives. But that is not what the Trump administration is trying to do here because their endgame is not efficiency; it is not being more responsible with taxpayer dollars. The endgame of all of this is giving rich people another massive tax break on the backs of hard-working Americans. The endgame of all of this--and, folks, we have heard a lot about this from Elon Musk over the last few weeks, about unelected, unaccountable Federal bureaucrats. Elon Musk is himself a billionaire and an unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat who is illegally shutting down Federal Agencies that make Americans safer and more prosperous. Today, we are debating someone whose very reason for getting picked for this job is that he wants to break the law and be an unaccountable bureaucrat. We know this because Russell Vought has had this job before. When he was picked for this the last time, he told Congress he would follow the law. He said he wouldn't delay or refuse to spend money that was appropriated by Congress. He said he would follow a law that was passed by Republicans and Democrats in 1974 in response to Richard Nixon trying to abuse the powers of his office. He said he would follow that law. He lied. He held up critical funds to support Ukraine. This was in 2019, before Russia invaded Ukraine. An independent government watchdog found that this broke the law. Then again, after Hurricanes Irma and Maria ravaged Puerto Rico and Congress passed aid to help communities recover, Vought broke the law again by blocking the funds. Congress passed them again, but do you know what he did? Russell Vought blocked those funds once again. This is what an unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat looks like-- Russell Vought. Agree with these programs or disagree with them--Congress, Republicans and Democrats, voted for them. If folks don't like it, they can vote out their Members of Congress. That is what accountability means. It is not up to this guy to decide. But now it is very clear what he believes because after he left this job the last time, he went a step further. He has said plainly that the law he broke was unconstitutional and that the next time he gets in there, he doesn't think he has to follow it. He wrote about this in his playbook, Project 2025. Do you remember that? Now, I evaluate each and every nominee based on whether they have the experience and are committed to doing the job. Nothing disqualifies someone faster, in my mind, then when they say ahead of time that they plan to break the law. He has said that. That means he will try to singlehandedly gut the programs he and President Trump disagree with. But what are they? Well, he spelled it out himself in budgets he has written. He wants to cut housing support by 43 percent, including completely eliminating the largest source of housing assistance for Arizonans, and that is going to put working families on the streets. He wants to end the expansion of Medicaid that has extended coverage to 600,000 Arizonans through a program called AHCCCS. That means more Arizonans without health insurance and unable to get the care they need. Also on the list are student loans, food assistance, and so much more. Russell Vought wants to make it harder to afford a place to live, harder to afford health insurance, harder to afford college, and harder to afford to put food on your table. For anybody listening, do any of those things matter to you? If he gets this job, there won't be any debate on the Senate floor about these cuts. We won't be able to have a conversation about how to make housing assistance more effective for working families. There won't be bipartisan hearings about where we can cut waste and fraud out of programs to save money and focus where it is needed. Nope. He is just going to try to stop funding these things on his own. He said he would do that. He said he is going to break the law. He has told everybody that. That is why President Trump picked him for the job in the first place because, remember, none of this is about efficiency. None of this is about looking out for everyday Americans. This is about billionaires paving the way to get another tax cut for themselves and for their corporations and to do so on the backs of you, hard-working Americans. Folks, we have been here before. The first time around, President Trump signed a tax giveaway that he said was going to grow the economy and help working people, but that is not what happened. In the years since that tax bill was passed, we have seen a massive transfer of wealth to the richest Americans. That is part of the reason why Elon Musk is now worth more than $400 billion. More big profitable corporations are now paying nothing in Federal income tax. Zero. The plan is to double down on tax breaks for the rich while, behind closed doors, unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats like Russell Vought and Elon Musk, they gut programs that help working families. I couldn't think of a more backward way for the Federal Government to operate. We are supposed to be here to make government work for the American people. And I will sit down with anybody to make that happen. But the plan seems to be to break the Federal Government in order to help rich people, and I can't get on board with that. I want to yield the balance of my postcloture debate time on the Vought nomination to Senator Merkley.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, Arizona is a couple thousand miles away from here, and as folks know, we are a bit unique in the sense that we do not observe daylight savings time. What that means is that we are either 2 or 3 hours behind DC depending on the time of year. Right now, it is 2 hours. So usually when things start happening here in Washington that affect my State, me and my staff will hear from concerned Arizonans a little later in the morning, usually closer to 12 noon. That wasn't the case on Tuesday because that is the day that we all woke up to a vague, reckless memo from the Trump administration that said they would freeze all Federal grant funding. The memo was short. It was just two pages. It said: Federal agencies must temporarily pause all activities related to the obligation or disbursement of all federal financial assistance. There was no list of programs it would impact and programs it wouldn't--no details. It was just a broad, unconstitutional mandate that pretty clearly intended to just grind everything to a halt. The calls and texts to me and my staff started immediately. As early as 6:30 a.m. Arizona time, my Southern Arizona director was hearing from a nonprofit concerned about what this meant to them. Ten minutes later, my Northern Arizona director got a text from a county supervisor, asking what this meant for their county's Federal grants that had already been awarded. On and on this went for the rest of the day. I would like to take some time to read through some of the examples of the concern and the real-life issues this created in my State. When I spoke to Governor Hobbs, early in the morning, the State's portals for Medicaid and Head Start were both down. They ended up being down for the better part of the day. She said that they were concerned immediately about how this would impact providers and families and parents and workers. She was also concerned about department of public safety programs. At that point, the State had more questions than answers because of the recklessness of this order. The Hopi Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program, which provides housing vouchers and assistance for veterans, faced uncertainty because its funding fell under Federal rental assistance programs. The Flagstaff Housing Authority had similar concerns about how landlords would get paid next month under the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. One landlord told us that they rent out a few units to low-income families and were worried that they wouldn't receive their payments, leaving them and their tenants in a horrible situation. Just yesterday, Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego joined the Maricopa Association of Governments to conduct the annual HUD Point-in-Time Count, which is funded by Continuum of Care dollars. This data is vital to Arizona's work to address homelessness, and a Federal freeze keeps homeless assistance grants from helping Arizonans. We heard from colleges across the State, where students were being told that their Pell grants could be frozen. A member of my veterans advisory committee told me that it had created chaos bordering on hysteria among veteran college students who had multiple programs that supported their education and that could be frozen. From the Arizona Food Bank Association, we heard immediate fears that families relying on SNAP--that is food stamps--on those benefits, could face disruption, putting food security for thousands of Arizonans at risk. What that means is that kids will not get to eat. In Mohave County, officials were concerned that Federal support through the Community Development Block Grant Program, which funds housing and economic opportunities for low-income communities, would no longer be available. Several community health centers said a stop on Federal funds would necessitate layoffs. Organizations were looking at having to shut down programs that treat miners--coal miners--with black lung and suicide prevention programs and substance abuse services. What this means is layoffs for counselors who treat folks who are suicidal--layoffs. The Arizona Department of Transportation told us that vital infrastructure projects are now in limbo. Funding for the I-40 interchanges in Window Rock and Lupton, which serve Tribal communities, they have been frozen. The U.S. 93 corridor improvements in Wickenburg, meant to modernize and expand a major highway, they are now stalled. And safety improvements for high-risk railroad crossings in Gilbert and Yuma are no longer moving forward, putting drivers at risk. The Arizona Water Infrastructure Finance Authority has raised concerns about the future of clean drinking water State revolving funds, which provide essential loans and grants to communities to ensure that their drinking water is safe. Without access to these funds, projects aimed at improving water systems, including projects already partway through construction in rural and Tribal areas, could be delayed indefinitely. Cities and water users called to express concern that they would not be compensated for water savings that they are undertaking as part of the agreement to protect the Colorado River. Coconino County was concerned about funds they were planning to advance projects that protect communities from floods and wildfires. Not even our State and local law enforcement was spared from this chaos. I heard from Arizona's attorney general, Kris Mayes, about how the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program was impacted. This is a critical program, by the way, that funds our law enforcement's frontline efforts with the Federal Government to combat the fentanyl crisis and battle the Mexican drug cartels. This program that the administration tried to freeze helps fund the positions of over 700 law enforcement officers who are in the fight against drugs in Arizona. Multiply that times 50 across the country. At a time when we need to do as much as we can to combat the drug crisis, this administration attempted to freeze critical funding for my State's counterdrug efforts. Jennifer, in Tucson, a small business owner, provides training for Tribal health programs. She told us that her invoices can't be paid due to the Federal freeze. As an independent contractor, what that means is this isn't just an inconvenience; it would be devastating for her family and many others like her. Julie, in Sun City, works at a seniors center and has seen firsthand how Federal funding supports Arizona's elderly, helping them afford food and access to mental health services. It helps them afford and get some one-on-one support. She watched seniors panic as uncertainty grows over whether those resources will still be there next month. Kathy in Tucson, a mother of three daughters with disabilities, woke up to frantic messages from other parents who rely on Medicaid-funded support programs for their children. She described a wave of fear as families tried to log into the State portal, only to find it down, leaving them unsure whether the critical care their children needed will continue. In Apache Junction, Janice's husband is in a memory care unit, and Medicaid covers most of his room and board. If these payments had stopped, she didn't know how she could afford his care. And Michelle in Glendale, a 69-year-old diabetic, is struggling to survive on only $1,259 a month. If Medicaid was disrupted, she will be forced to choose between food and lifesaving medication. Christine in Flagstaff wrote to me about her brother-in-law who is currently fighting for his life in the hospital as part of a clinical trial funded by NIH. If that funding is pulled, so is his treatment, and he may die. Christine in Flagstaff--another Christine, also from Flagstaff--a disabled veteran, told us she simply can't afford increased VA copays if her benefits are impacted. Collin in Tempe, who runs a science startup, was notified that his NSF grant payments are paused, meaning that he can't pay his employees. What that means is he will have to lay them off. These are real jobs that affect real people. These jobs are in groundbreaking research projects that are now needlessly put in jeopardy. That is not an exhaustive list of the outreach that only my office received and the consequences in Arizona. I could go on for hours. On top of this, I understand that most counties, cities, and major organizations in Arizona held emergency meetings to try to understand how their operations would be impacted and what could they do about it. This administration tossed them into chaos. These aren't folks who think about things as Republicans or Democrats. These are folks who provide real services to real people in Arizona. They wake up every day to serve people, to solve problems. And it is not easy, not even on the best of days. But Tuesday, Tuesday wasn't the best of days; it was the worst. And for most of them, today hasn't been great either. I had the leaders of a couple of Arizona Head Start programs in my office here just today--earlier today. They were already scheduled to be there. One of these Head Start Program managers runs Head Start. She said she had a payment that they were owed, and they weren't able to access it, and it has been delayed. They receive these payments every 3 days, and they cannot hold major cash reserves. This program serves 500 Arizona families. They were not going to be able to make payroll. She made a plan to lay people off on Tuesday. She told me that it was based on their cash flow; that they probably should have laid these people off already. But they were able to call on some emergency reserves with the help of their board. But if the payments are delayed much further, these people who work for her will not have jobs. That means it doesn't only affect them--they are out of a job-- but there are 500 Arizona families who suddenly don't have childcare or the additional services that Head Start provides to parents and families. We hope it doesn't come to that. Thankfully, their attempts to freeze funding have been blocked by a court. But this had real consequences in Arizona to a lot of people. And that is multiplied across the country. Our Head Start leaders are in DC for a national conference right now, and they said every person here is dealing with the same issue. They are in a panic mode trying to keep their employees on the payroll, and their doors open so they can continue to serve families. Head Start is probably one of the best investments that our country makes. It helps kids get ahead. It provides parenting training. It helps working parents with childcare so they can earn a paycheck. The recklessness and the incompetence of the Trump administration threw that program into utter chaos in just a day. And I don't believe this is over. We need clear guidance, and we need strong leadership. This administration hasn't provided that, and it is hurting Arizonans. I thought last week, when the President pardoned criminals who beat up cops, would be the worst thing that he would do this month. Now I am not so sure. This needs to be fixed, and the President--the President on Pennsylvania Avenue--should take steps to ensure that he doesn't make mistakes like this again. I yield the floor.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I stand before you today as the son of two police officers. Growing up in our family, service always came first. My mom was actually the first woman to become a police officer in our hometown of West Orange, NJ. Before that, she was working as a secretary and a waitress, often at the same time. Her becoming a cop meant more money for our family. It literally changed our lives. One day, my mom was seriously injured in the line of duty. When on patrol, she got a call about a burglary at a department store. She rushed to that store to help. The criminal attacked her--attacked her pretty badly. She was injured, and her injuries forced her to retire. It ended her career. Now, that was a risk that she took for our community as a police officer. These are the same risks we see officers make every single day across our country--in all 50 States, all the Territories, and here in Washington, DC. Our New Jersey community and her union, they had her back. The very idea of her attacker being let off the hook would have been outrageous. It would have been shocking. And it is almost impossible to imagine because it simply would have never happened. Yet that is exactly what did happen when the President, Donald Trump, pardoned hundreds of criminals who violently assaulted Capitol Police officers and DC Police officers on January 6. That was his priority on day one of his Presidency. It wasn't to lower the price of gas or groceries or housing; it was to let violent criminals off the hook for storming this building and attacking the police, leaving many of them bleeding and bruised or worse--in some cases much, much worse. Now, how does this line up with backing the blue? I don't get it. These pardons are an insult to every man and woman, like my parents, who served and served our country in law enforcement. President Trump is sending a message that violence against cops is OK when it is done for him. That is a message that all of us must reject unequivocally. I yield the floor.

Mr. KELLY

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

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I am concerned that soon the U.S. Senate might confirm the most unprepared nominee to lead the Department of Defense that has ever been put forward. I look at every nominee based on whether they are qualified and committed to do the job. It is how I evaluated nominees from the last President, and it is how I am evaluating nominees from this President. And I approach each person with an open mind. It is our responsibility to make sure the folks we consider are ready to do these jobs for the American people. But this one, the Secretary of Defense, it is especially important. Outside of the Presidency, it might be the biggest job in the country. It is almost impossible to imagine the scale of it. You have about 3 million people working for you. You are the civilian leader at the top of a massive operation that includes every single soldier, sailor, guardian, airman, marine, and civilian contractor and employee. These folks are spread out across hundreds of military installations in dozens of countries. So it is basically the toughest management job in the world. You are also responsible for overseeing a budget that exceeds $850 billion every single year, so it is one of the most complicated budget- management jobs in the world as well. You are overseeing some of the most complicated weapons systems and defense programs that exist. Some of these are multibillion-dollar projects that happen over the course of years to develop, test, and field. It is also one of the most demanding policy and program implementation jobs. Now, not every Secretary of Defense nominee checks the box for each of those qualifications. It is impossible for us to expect that. The job is too big. But what is clear to me at the end of this process is that Mr. Hegseth does not check any of the boxes. I appreciate his service in the U.S. Army and his service to this country, especially in combat, but that is not a requirement for this role. During his career in the Guard and Reserve, Mr. Hegseth did not rise to a command position where he would learn the management, joint forces operations, logistics, and other skills that are relevant to fill this job. In his civilian roles, he has led two veterans organizations, neither of which were larger than about 50 people. And he spent 7 years as a TV host. Normally, this would be the end of the conversation. Normally, it would be clear to every single person in this Chamber that this is not someone ready to do this job. Now, I understand that the case for his nomination is in part because he is an outsider--I get that--that he can shake things up. I am not opposed to that. The Pentagon needs to be leaner. It needs to move more quickly and be willing to lose things that aren't working and adopt things that will work. Having someone who isn't beholden to the current way of doing things--that is exciting. My concern is not that Mr. Hegseth is going to succeed in whipping the Pentagon into shape; my concern is that he would fail. Given his lack of experience, it is much more likely that the bureaucracy is going to crush Mr. Hegseth than he is going to crush the bureaucracy. It is not just that Mr. Hegseth is unprepared for this role; the experience he does have is riddled with serious issues that should concern us all. During his time leading two veterans organizations, he was accused of financial mismanagement. In 2009, after just about 2 years leading a group called Vets for Freedom, it has been reported that forensic accountants found that the organization had about $1,000 in the bank, more than $400,000 in unpaid bills, and $75,000 in credit card debt. Mr. Hegseth wants to get the Pentagon to finally pass an audit. Yet the much smaller--much smaller-- organization he led could not do the same. During his time leading Concerned Veterans for America, the organization was forced to reach a financial settlement with a female employee who accused a male colleague of trying to sexually assault her. The woman was reportedly ostracized and faced reprisals in the workplace after that settlement. For a Department that is working to address sexual assault and harassment, what would it say to confirm someone who has already fostered environments where these are an issue? It has also been reported that he frequently abused alcohol, getting drunk in front of his staff and in public. I want to remind folks of some of these incidents: Memorial Day 2014; CVA event in Virginia Beach. Hegseth needed to be carried out of the event. Summer 2014 in Cleveland. Drunk in public with the CVA team. November 2014; ``Get Out the Vote'' event in North Carolina. Hegseth got drunk with three young female staff members. CVA had instituted a no-alcohol policy at its events in October--this was 1 month later--but Mr. Hegseth and another manager lifted the policy. In December 2014, at the CVA Christmas party at the Grand Hyatt in this city, Washington, DC, Hegseth was ``noticeably intoxicated and had to be carried up to his room.'' Another time, a CVA staffer stated that Hegseth ``passed out'' in the back of a party bus. On May 29, 2015, a now-former CVA employee sent a complaint letter to management that Hegseth was chanting ``Kill All Muslims'' at a bar in Cuyahoga Falls, OH, in ``a drunk and violent manner.'' While at FOX News, in October 2017, following his dinner speech at the California Federation of Republican Women's 40th Biennial Convention in Monterey, CA, Hegseth was reportedly engaged in a loud argument by the pool and was ``very intoxicated.'' FOX News employees have reported that after a St. Patrick's Day segment on St. Patrick's Day, after being on TV, Hegseth drank several beers that had been sitting out for hours. These employees also noted that the segment finished before 10 a.m. and they were shocked at Hegseth's behavior. One current and two former FOX News employees told NBC News that they felt that they had to ``babysit'' Hegseth to mitigate the effects of his drinking. This is a quote: ``We'd have to call him to make sure he didn't oversleep because we knew he'd be out partying the night before.'' Two FOX employees--current or former--said that on more than a dozen occasions during Hegseth's time as a cohost on ``Fox & Friends Weekend,'' which began in 2017, they smelled alcohol on him before he went on air. That was in the morning. Those same two people, plus another, said that during his time there, he appeared on television after they heard him talk about being hungover as he was getting ready or on set. In the fall of 2024, one FOX employee said they heard him complain about being hungover. In November 2024, one FOX employee said they smelled alcohol on him as recently as this past November, 3 months ago. During his confirmation hearing, I gave Mr. Hegseth the opportunity to answer for a number of these incidents. I asked him point blank: Are these true or false? He had the opportunity to say ``These things did not happen'' or to explain how he is prepared to account for them and how he won't repeat this concerning behavior as Secretary of Defense. He wouldn't answer, with one notable exception. I asked him about reports that in 2014 he was drunk at a strip club with staff in Louisiana. He replied to me: Absolutely not. He specifically denied that incident. He was prepared to say that one--but only that one--didn't happen, but the rest of these incidents, well, he would not deny them. Instead, he called them ``anonymous smears.'' Well, first of all, they are not all anonymous. The committee has had access to sworn affidavits from individuals who witnessed this behavior firsthand. This confirmation process was rushed. The FBI background check, which the entire committee was never given access to, was clearly inadequate and had to be updated multiple times. And despite repeated efforts, Mr. Hegseth has refused to meet with me and many others on the committee in private to discuss these concerns further. But beyond all of that, it defies belief that this behavior does not represent a pattern. The incidents listed earlier stretch out across a decade. These are individuals who worked with him across three different organizations, and in each place, these people witnessed him abuse alcohol. It is obvious to anyone willing to see it that this is a pattern. Let's be clear. These are not smears. If Mr. Hegseth were a private citizen, these issues with alcohol would only be a concern for those around him. But when you are nominated to be Secretary of Defense, it is a concern for all of us, each and every American. This is not a job where you clock in at the beginning of the day and clock out at the end of the day. You have to be able to move seamlessly between advising the President on matters of national security, sitting with foreign leaders to hammer out agreements, and discussing complex weapons systems with your staff. And that might just be in the afternoon. Some of these things might happen on a plane across an ocean on a weeklong trip or during a phone call that comes late at night, with quick decisions that affect the lives of our servicemembers. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Robert McNamara was briefed at midnight about the first photographs from U-2 spy planes showing the likelihood of Soviet ballistic missile sites in Cuba. The same has likely happened when North Korea has tested ballistic missiles that could threaten Guam or our allies. This is a demanding job for anyone. It is a concerning job for someone with Mr. Hegseth's track record. So as the Senate moves towards a final confirmation vote on this nominee, Mr. Hegseth, here is what I want to ask my colleagues: Are you sure? Are you sure that you trust him with this job? Are you sure there isn't another individual the President could choose who could pursue the same goals but is better prepared to do this job? Are you sure it is worth the risk to our servicemembers, to our national security, and to your families? I know I am not. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, this bipartisan bill, H.R. 1607, the pumped hydro storage bill, is about delivering affordable and reliable energy to our growing State by expanding hydropower storage. The way it does that is pretty simple. It clarifies the Bureau of Reclamation's jurisdiction with respect to the future development of pumped storage along the Salt River in Arizona, and it expands an existing withdrawal south of the river from 1 to 2 miles, allowing the Salt River Project to explore developing sites identified in a 2014 Bureau of Reclamation study. This could ultimately bring upwards of 2,000 megawatts of energy storage capacity to the State of Arizona, providing clean energy and improving grid reliability as the demand for energy grows in the coming years. Representatives Schweikert and Stanton introduced this bill in the House, and it passed the Chamber last year by a vote of 384 to 1. I appreciate the work of my colleagues on the Energy and National Resources Committee to ensure that our bill received a hearing and a markup. I yield the floor.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask the Chair to execute the order of November 20 with respect to the Murphy nomination.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to my following interns and fellows for today: Alberto Arevalo, Clara Munguia, Autumn Thatcher, Keiko Tani, Lars Eckerstrom, Mia Adams, and Elliana Rainey.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to my following interns and fellows for today: McKinley Paltzik, Marlo Hicks, Athena Shao, Drake Fineberg, Brooke Davis, Victoria Favela, George Porteous, Channing Kehoe, Prescott Smidt, Megan Wagner, Connor McLaughlin, and Kiri Wagstaff.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4581, which was received from the House.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 713.

Mr. KELLY. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions: S. Res. 727 and S. Res. 728.

Mr. KELLY. I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.