Elizabeth Warren

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. In my 24 seconds, I would like to say we all know what this is about. You are starting the process for a budget, and we just want to know the basic principle. Is there anyone so rich that Republicans think they shouldn't get a tax cut? And my view is, let's just start the bidding at $10 million. Is that rich enough to say they are not going to get a tax giveaway from the Republicans?

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I want to say thanks to the Senator from Minnesota for her leadership on this point. I know that great research institutions in Minnesota that count on her support are out there fighting, thanks to Donald Trump, as they are in Massachusetts--and people all around this country who rely on those research institutions, who are looking for those cures, for those better treatments, for those opportunities in their lives that, right now, Donald Trump and his co- President Elon Musk seem to want to cut off. So we will stay in this fight. We will indeed. I am here today because Americans didn't vote to bring back measles. Americans didn't vote to bring back polio. Americans didn't vote to bring back dangerous diseases that we thought we had wiped out decades ago. Americans didn't vote to get rid of critical vaccines that we know--based on science--we know save lives. But that is what Robert Kennedy, Jr.'s vision would mean for Americans. That is the vision that Donald Trump will empower him to carry out. Kennedy not only worked to undercut vaccines at home and abroad; he has made a lot of money doing it. In fact, Kennedy has made millions off of peddling harmful conspiracy theories that hurt real people. He opposed the lifesaving COVID vaccine just 6 months into the pandemic, and he set himself up so that he and his family could make millions more from putting Americans' health at risk. One thing is very clear: We cannot trust Robert Kennedy to make healthcare decisions that will affect every person in this country. Right now, millions of Americans are sitting down for dinner with their kids, and I hope we just think for a minute about what RFK, Jr.'s plans would mean for them. Will their teeth decay because Kennedy took fluoride out of the water based on some conspiracy theory? Will they have to worry about getting measles at school because Kennedy is spreading anti-vax conspiracies on government letterhead? Will parents have to risk their kids getting polio and maybe dying by sending them to daycare because Kennedy used his HHS rules to open the door to a flood of bogus lawsuits that force manufacturers to pull the vaccines? Look, here is the thing: Robert Kennedy has spent years on an anti- vaccine crusade, spreading baseless conspiracy theories under the guise of protecting children. So we don't need to guess the level of harm he will cause. His past already tells us everything we need to know. In July 2018, two children died immediately after receiving a measles vaccine that nurses had incorrectly mixed with a muscle relaxant. Within weeks, the Samoan Health Ministry publicly confirmed the nursing error and charged the nurses with manslaughter. Nevertheless, leading anti-vaccine groups--including Kennedy's own organization, Children's Health Defense--exploited public fears to question the reports and spread baseless claims. On August 5, 2018, Kennedy's organization, Children's Health Defense, posted on Facebook--and I will quote the post: Were these once-healthy children the only two to receive MMR that day? If not, why were they the only ones to die? Research needs to determine susceptibility so that no child is ever injured. Del Bigtree, Kennedy's partner and former campaign manager, also released a video linking the tragedy to false claims about measles and telling his followers to ``share it with everyone you know. This is how we are changing the world.'' Now, amidst public distrust and a paused vaccine program in Samoa, the vaccination rates plummeted. About 10 months later, once the Samoan Government had finally stood up against the disinformation and resumed the vaccine program, Kennedy visited the island to meet with the Prime Minister. Later, recognizing the blowback that comes with how much went wrong when a conspiracy theory cost people their lives, Kennedy has since denied that his visit had anything to do with vaccines and said that anything suggesting otherwise was ``an industry propaganda trope''--in other words, totally false--``an industry propaganda trope.'' Kennedy lied. A blog post that Kennedy himself wrote in 2021 admits that he went to Samoa to meet with the Prime Minister, who wanted to discuss the possibility of ``measur[ing] health outcomes following the `natural experiment' created by the nation's respite from vaccines.'' Think about what that means. Another way to say it is that Kennedy was interested in taking advantage of how the vaccination rate had plummeted--caused by misinformation--so that they could conduct uncontrolled trials on whether unvaccinated kids were healthier than vaccinated kids, a conspiracy theory that he had widely spread. You see, at the time, one of his traveling partners was working on a similar study with two anti-vaccine activists, which was ultimately retracted, following an investigation that ``raised several methodological issues and confirmed that the conclusions were not supported by strong scientific data.'' Now there is no surprise here. The Prime Minister of Samoa declined Kennedy's outrageous proposal. He didn't want his country to be Kennedy's guinea pig. He didn't want unvaccinated children to be studied to see what happened to them when measles or other diseases broke out. But that didn't stop Kennedy from spreading his message. On this trip to Samoa, he met with various anti-vaccine influencers, one of whom said the meeting was ``profoundly monumental for the movement.'' A few months after Kennedy left, in October 2019, the vaccination rate in Samoa hit a historic low of 31 percent, down from 74 percent the prior year. And, no surprise, a massive measles outbreak erupted. So here is Kennedy telling us now: No, no, he had nothing--nothing-- to do with this. His trip to Samoa had nothing to do with the measles vaccine, and calling any claim ``industry propaganda trope,'' and yet he himself posted a blog about meeting with the Prime Minister and talking about a study to measure health outcomes following a natural experiment of studying children, some with no vaccination and some that were vaccinated. And the anti-vax groups he met with talked about how profoundly important it is. Then Mr. Kennedy leaves. Vaccination rates drop down to 31 percent. The measles outbreak was truly tragic. In total, more than 70 children died, right up until a door-to-door vaccination campaign brought the disaster to an end. As HHS Secretary, Kennedy would be responsible for whether we keep our children vaccinated or subject them to, in his word, the same ``natural experiment'' that he was interested in testing in Samoa. Is that really what we want for our kids? Is that what we want for our elderly parents? That is a living nightmare, and it could truly be our reality with Kennedy heading up the Department of Health and Human Services. And all the while that this is going on, while Kennedy is promoting this anti-vax theory, he and his family are profiting off the plan. Now, I have been sounding the alarm about Kennedy since the minute Donald Trump announced that he would nominate him for HHS Secretary. It is not just that he is unqualified; his long history of promoting anti- science conspiracy theories make him disqualified. This is a man who claimed ``there is no vaccine that is safe and effective''--``no vaccine.'' He said that the polio vaccine ``killed many, many more people than polio ever did.'' Now, Kennedy came to our committee and said: Don't worry. He swears he is not anti-vaccine. But he has spent years on an anti-vaccine crusade, spreading baseless conspiracy theories under the guise of protecting children, and making millions of dollars in the process. And when, in Senate hearings, he was confronted with his own words, he simply denied saying them. He denied saying them, despite the videotapes, the transcripts, the blog posts, and the people who heard them. Kennedy thinks he knows what he needs to say to try to get the job that will put him in charge of our vaccine program. So he says he didn't say exactly what he said. Kennedy's actions speak louder than his latest words. And time and time again, Kennedy has shown us who he is: an anti-science conspiracy peddler who is willing to gamble with American lives. We know who he is. We need to pay attention. Let's do a quick count of some of the ways that, as HHS Secretary, Kennedy could make the anti-vaccine lawsuits and his own payouts even bigger. What could Kennedy do? Well, as Secretary of HHS, he could publish his anti-vaccine conspiracies, but this time on U.S. Government letterhead, something that might impress a jury in a subsequent trial. He could appoint people to the CDC vaccine panel who share his anti-vax views and let them do his dirty work. He could tell the CDC vaccine panel to remove a particular vaccine from the vaccination schedule. He could remove vaccines from a special compensation program, which ``would open up manufacturers to mass torts'' lawsuits. He could make more injuries eligible for compensation, even if there is no causal evidence. He could change vaccine court processes to make it easier to bring junk lawsuits that could get vaccines pulled from the market. He could turn over FDA to his friends at the law firm, and they could use it however benefits their lawsuits. In short, as HHS Secretary, Kennedy would have the power to make healthcare decisions that would affect millions of Americans--working Americans, kids, seniors--on everything from vaccines to abortion to lifesaving drugs. Kennedy would have the capacity as head of HHS to make it easier to sue vaccine manufacturers. And in an area where the profit margins on vaccines are quite modest, if those lawsuits mount up, vaccines could simply disappear from the market all together. Manufacturers could decide: You know, it is just not worth the lawsuits. We will go produce other drugs. Those kinds of decisions are critically important, and the consequences are grave. For many Americans, they may be the difference between life and death, and they could change lives forever. So while you and your family are forced to deal with the grave consequences of Kennedy's conspiracy-driven healthcare decisions, Kennedy could set himself up to make millions of dollars off his anti- vaccine crusade, just like he has been doing for decades. Remember, the very first ethics agreement that Kennedy submitted to us on the Senate Finance Committee, he said that even while he served as Secretary of HHS, he planned to keep a financial stake in ongoing litigation, including vaccine-related litigation. That means that from the jump, Kennedy's plan was to keep making money off the backs of lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers, some of which directly related to the very products he would have the power to regulate as Secretary of HHS. So there he is. He has the power to regulate these drugs. He has the power to make life a little better or a little worse for the vaccine manufacturers. He has the power to make it more likely that lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers would succeed. And his initial plan was-- even while he sat there as Secretary of HHS, he was going to keep on making money from that. This was a damning conflict of interest, so we called it out. Kennedy told us, OK, OK, he would submit an updated ethics agreement. Sounds good. What was his update? Well, he said that instead of personally keeping the millions that he would make off these ongoing lawsuits, he would hand that money directly to his son. Later, he confirmed that the son he is handing his interests off to is the one who works at Wisner Baum, the same law firm that Kennedy has maintained this very lucrative arrangement with over the years, so far netting him a reported $2.5 million just in the last few years. Kennedy has made clear that he can use his tools as HHS Secretary to open up the door for more anti-vax litigation and, once he is through as Secretary of HHS, go right back to Wisner Baum and cash in on the new flood of cases that Kennedy himself has unleashed. So that is Kennedy's idea of fixing an ethics issue. Beyond that, Kennedy has flip-flopped countless times in his answers to the Finance Committee. He is untrustworthy. He has made so many contradictory statements that it has come to the point that it is hard to believe anything he says is true. For example, Kennedy originally said he was not an attorney of record in any of these vaccine-related lawsuits, but we did a little homework, and we found at least five cases related to the vaccine litigation that hadn't been disclosed where Kennedy appears to be the attorney of record. That is important because what it means is that Kennedy is a lot closer to these cases than he is revealing--cases that he and his family will be able to make bank off even as he serves as Secretary at the HHS. The importance of this litigation cannot be overstated. Just 20 years ago, we watched vaccine makers pull their product off the market because they didn't have protection from these kinds of lawsuits. The consequence of Kennedy's ability to make those lawsuits easier is also the ability to shut down access and manufacturing for vaccines for every one of us, and I think that is a terrible mistake. Kennedy claims that he is taking on Big Pharma, but that is the lie he is peddling to hide his conflicts. I pressed him on real ways to take on the industry, including using march-in on Big Pharma's patents when they use taxpayer funds to bring drugs to market and then turn around and jack up prices on hard-working Americans and by having the government negotiate prices directly with Big Pharma on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries. But Kennedy, after talking a big game about taking on Big Pharma, said no, he doesn't support march-in rights and, no, he didn't want to commit to defending Medicare price negotiations--two proven methods to take on the drug industry and put money back into Americans' pockets. So whose side is he on? Well, one thing is for sure: RFK, Jr., is on the side of his own bottom line. He has also refused to share a list of cases that he stands to benefit from. I told you he said, nope, he was not attorney of record on any cases. We dug around, and we found five. How many more are there? Well, here is what Kennedy said when we said: Just give us a list of the cases that you are participating in so we can take a look at the possible conflicts. His answer: The list is so long and the conflicts so clear that evidently it would be more damning than what we already know. Kennedy's list of ethics issues and financial issues are a mile long, and there is still too much that he refuses to reveal. Think about this. He has already told us enough about his conflicts, about how he plans to keep making money even while he is Secretary of HHS. He revealed all that right up front. He said: Yes, I am going to make money while I am Secretary of HHS. Yet, on basic questions like ``Can you just give us a list of the cases you participated in?'' he says ``No, I can't do that,'' which really makes you ask, what on Earth is he hiding? He is dodging questions from the Senate, he is contradicting himself, and he keeps changing his answers in order to muddy the waters and really make it hard to understand what is going on. Look, no one is fooled here. Kennedy has said he will ``slam shut the revolving door'' between government Agencies and the companies they regulate, but what he won't agree to is to cut off his own family's steady stream of money flowing in from lawsuits that he personally can directly affect while he is Secretary of HHS. Kennedy knows that these conflicts are serious, and that is why he scrambled to update his ethics agreement and hand off his interests to his son in a desperate attempt to ``fix'' things. But that simply isn't good enough when millions of Americans' lives are hanging in the balance. Don't take it just from me; take it from the Wall Street Journal editorial board. They wrote: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pledged during his confirmation hearing . . . to root out corruption between industry and government. Yet the man who wants to be the nation's Secretary of Health and Human Services refused to rule out personally making money from lawsuits against drug makers. This ought to be disqualifying. The Wall Street Journal: ``This ought to be disqualifying.'' It is simple: If Kennedy wants to prove he was serious about ``slamming shut the revolving door'' between industry and people making money from their positions in government, I laid out a list of commitments he should make immediately. Senator Wyden, the ranking member on the Finance Committee, and I wrote: 1. If confirmed as Secretary, you will recuse yourself from all vaccine-related communications and decisions. Given the breadth of your involvement in vaccine litigation, such a recusal would help ensure that you and your family do not benefit financially from official government actions that you will oversee and control. Such recusal will also ensure vaccine-related policymaking and communications are not inappropriately skewed by your personal views at the expense of scientific evidence. That was part 1 that we want. 2. If confirmed as Secretary, you will recuse yourself from all matters related to HHS-regulated entities that are involved in cases or litigation that you or your family have an interest in. This will help ensure, for example, that you could not leverage your position as Secretary by conditioning a company's request regarding an unrelated manner (e.g., an FDA approval) on such company agreeing to settle an anti- vaccination case in which you or your family have a financial interest. 3. If confirmed as Secretary, you will not litigate cases involving vaccines, represent parties in VICP-related cases, or have a financial interest in such litigation or cases for at least 4 years after leaving office. As Secretary, you would be in a position to influence future anti-vaccine cases and litigation in ways that would benefit you personally after leaving HHS. For example, you could direct the CDC to remove a vaccine from the vaccine schedule, change vaccine labeling requirements, or make procedures in special vaccine court more advantageous for plaintiffs. Then, if you leave HHS and immediately return to litigating against vaccine makers, you would stand to profit from rules you helped reshape. This commitment would further mitigate the appearance of a conflict of interest while you are in office. These commitments will help ensure that you do not have a direct or indirect financial incentive to interfere with HHS's vaccine proceedings or other matters involving the manufacturer of Gardasil or any other HHS-regulated entity. In other words, Senator Wyden and I laid out a path where he truly could avoid the conflicts of interest. If he wants to serve his country and not his own pocketbook, we have shown him a way that he can do this. Senator Kaine and I followed up on this and wrote to Kennedy: At your Senate confirmation hearing, you pledged to ``remove the financial conflicts of interests in [HHS] agencies.'' Continuing with our letter: You should start by mitigating your own conflicts of interests, including by (1) relinquishing your direct and indirect financial interests in matters over which you will have power at HHS; (2) recusing yourself from matters involving your former clients, former employers, or entities in which you have a financial interest; and (3) for at least four years after you leave office, committing to not lobbying HHS, litigating cases against pharmaceutical companies and manufacturers, or joining the industries or entities that you interact with at HHS. In other words, we showed you another way that you can get this done. Look, this is just common sense. I would hope that my Republican colleagues would agree that our HHS nominee should not have ongoing, lucrative agreements that enable his immediate family to line their pockets while he influences healthcare decisions that impact millions of Americans. It is not just attacks on vaccines that we have to worry about from the Trump administration. In the middle of the night last Friday, Donald Trump announced deep cuts to the National Institutes of Health funding, which powers the lifesaving research and medical breakthroughs at universities and medical institutions across the country, especially in my home State of Massachusetts. These Trump cuts will stop research that is working to help cure diseases, it will force people who are working now to lose good jobs, and it will literally threaten people's lives. As head of HHS, Kennedy would oversee the National Institutes of Health, and he would green-light Trump's plan to gut the Agency. He has made no commitments to protect the critical, lifesaving research that NIH funds, and maybe that should be no surprise given his years of attacking basic scientific facts. Listen to what experts have had to say about what these cuts will mean for families across America: People are not able to do their work if there isn't an infrastructure. This will have a huge impact on health research in this country. We're all reeling. This would decimate medical research. This is a surefire way to cripple lifesaving research and innovation. America's competitors will relish this self- inflicted wound. As one expert said: If you're a cancer patient in a clinical trial, it is not a theoretical undertaking, it is treatment. For so many rare diseases and illnesses where research is already underfunded, like childhood cancer, researchers have said: If it's not federal funding, there's nowhere else to go-- that's a real impact on the short [term] and [the] long term. I don't know how you make that up. These funding cuts are putting scientists in a position where they have to default on the promises they made--promises they made to people to join their studies, promises they made to other researchers to join them, promises they made to build up the labs and to build up the work that would make a difference in our world. When the NIH and the NSF put out their solicitations, they are asking for critical scientific research to be done on behalf of the American people. That research cures diseases and saves lives. The institutions that apply for these solicitations are saying enthusiastically: Yes, we can do that. Yes, we share that dream. Yes, we believe that we can make a better product, that we can make a better medicine, that we can make a better treatment for people who are suffering, and we want to be part of that. And now here we are in chaos and confusion, and the U.S. Government is trying to break that contract. Americans will suffer because of it. This is Trump's plan for Americans' health, and Kennedy will be a rubberstamp for whatever Donald Trump wants to do. Let's talk just a little bit more about that COVID vaccine. Do you remember how, in the dead of the pandemic, hundreds of millions of Americans were counting on that vaccine as the light at the end of the tunnel; how, when we were shut away from our friends and family and trying to keep ourselves and our communities safe, that vaccine allowed us to come together again; how that vaccine saved countless more lives that otherwise would have been lost to COVID? Well, just make sure you know: Kennedy tried to stop you and your family from having access to the COVID vaccine. I will just read a little portion of one of the articles from last month on this: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., President-elect Donald J. Trump's choice to lead the nation's health agencies, formally asked the Food and Drug Administration to revoke the authorization of all-- All-- COVID vaccines during a deadly phase of the pandemic when thousands of Americans were still dying every week. Mr. Kennedy filed a petition with the FDA in May 2021, demanding that officials rescind authorization for the shots and refrain from approving any COVID vaccine in the interim. Just 6 months earlier, Mr. Trump had declared the COVID vaccines a miracle. At the time Mr. Kennedy filed the petition, half of American adults were receiving their shots. Schools were starting to reopen, and churches were filling. Estimates have begun to show that the rapid roll-out of COVID vaccines have already saved 140,000 lives in the United States. The petition was filed on behalf of the nonprofit that Mr. Kennedy founded and led, Children's Health Defense, which we talked about earlier. It claimed the risks of vaccines outweighed the benefits and that the vaccines weren't necessary because good treatments were available, including ivermectin and--I just can't believe this-- hydroxychloroquine, which had already been deemed ineffective against the virus. The petition received little notice when it was filed. Mr. Kennedy was then on the fringes of the public health establishment, and the Agency denied it within months. Public health experts told about the filing said it was truly shocking. You know, I want to underscore this one because Mr. Kennedy is saying now--not only is he saying he is not an anti-vaxxer; he is saying he wants you to still be able to vaccinate your children if you want to do that. Yet look at Mr. Kennedy's own actions. Mr. Kennedy tried to stop all of us--everyone in America--from getting access to the COVID vaccine. He cites junk science. It was already known to be junk science at the time that he cites it. He cites junk science in order to say, not just that he doesn't want to take the vaccine or not just that he doesn't want to give it to his kids, but he didn't want anybody in America to be able to get that. So that is the man that the Republicans will be voting on to decide whether or not he makes healthcare policy in the United States--someone who is continuing to line his own pocket with lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers and someone who has tried to stop at least one vaccine from being distributed to anyone anywhere in America. Look, when Kennedy says he doesn't believe in vaccines, which he has said many times, believe him. When his attempt at fixing his ethics issue is passing his stake to his son, believe him. When he says he will do whatever Donald Trump wants on abortion, believe him. Don't say: No one will let him go that far, because they will let him go that far. Republicans voting for Kennedy know exactly who they are voting for-- someone who spreads baseless conspiracy theories, someone who profits off making our kids sicker, someone who will do whatever Donald Trump tells him to do, whether it is cutting off cancer research funding or banning abortion medication. Let us be very clear: When it comes to your health and your well- being and the health and well-being of your friends, your family, your community, Kennedy is disqualified, dangerous, and cannot be given the power to make critical healthcare decisions. I urge my colleagues to vote no on his nomination. I see that Senator Kaine is here. Senator Kaine has been a tireless partner in the fight to help protect the Nation's healthcare system, and I appreciate his being here tonight.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Madam President, I thank Senator Blumenthal for his unrelenting work to help protect our Nation and in raising this issue around Tulsi Gabbard as a nominee to be the Director of National Intelligence. I appreciate his work here, and I am proud to be able to follow him in this effort. I am here today because Tulsi Gabbard's nomination is a national security threat. We are being confronted with a vote that could put all of us at risk. Look, everybody in the Senate understands the threat that Tulsi Gabbard poses, but I want to make sure that everyone understands the job she would have. Why do we even have a Director of National Intelligence? The short answer is to prevent another 9/11. The Director of National Intelligence position was born in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on New York that caused the Twin Towers to crash to the ground, that collapsed part of the Pentagon, that led to the deaths of 40 brave passengers on Flight 93. These terrorist attacks together killed almost 3,000 people, and they affected millions of family members, coworkers, neighbors, and people in every State in our country and around the world. Soon after the attacks, we asked the most obvious questions: How did this happen? Why didn't we see this coming? Why weren't we able to head it off? It rapidly became clear that our Nation had major intelligence failures. We were gathering intelligence abroad and here at home, but we were not effectively integrating and coordinating foreign, military, and domestic intelligence, and the result of that failure was catastrophic. That is where the DNI Director comes in. The Director of National Intelligence is the keystone that holds together our intelligence community. This is the person who coordinates across Agencies to make sure that each component of our intelligence system is talking with every other, to make sure that what happened on 9/11 doesn't happen again. This person is the principal adviser to the President on any national security-related intelligence. The Director of National Intelligence is central to how we make decisions about where our military should be deployed, is central to how we identify our greatest national security threats, and is central to knowing what our enemy is going to do next--all of that. Tulsi Gabbard is aggressively unqualified for this job, and making her the Director of National Intelligence will increase the risk of a national security crisis. For starters, she has no experience in the intelligence community, and she has never served as a national security official in the executive branch. Tulsi Gabbard is also disqualified to be Director of National Intelligence--not just unqualified but actually disqualified. Her disqualifications mean she should be kept far, far away from any part of our government intelligence system. The problems with Tulsi Gabbard are many. She is an apologist for Vladimir Putin, routinely spreading Russian misinformation and Russian talking points about both Ukraine and Syria. She rejected our own U.S. intelligence that Assad used chemical weapons against Syrian civilians, and she went to Syria to meet with Assad and with a Syrian cleric who had threatened to activate a network of suicide bombers within the United States and Europe. So let me say this as clearly as I can: Tulsi Gabbard would be the No. 1 person in charge of all of our Nation's secrets--all of them: all of our intelligence, every piece of secret information that we gather from around the world and every secret that our allies around the world might share with us. She would know all of it, and she would have access to all of it, and she would be the one who would fit it all together. Then she would be one of the people responsible for advising the President on when and where to use our military. I am deeply concerned about Tulsi Gabbard's track record and whether she can be trusted with our secrets, but I am not the only one who is worried. With the history that Tulsi Gabbard has, can we reasonably expect other nations to trust us with the secret information they gather? Even if Gabbard behaved admirably as DNI, the United States would likely have less access to sensitive information because our allies just wouldn't want to take a chance on her, just wouldn't want to take a chance that information they gathered and passed along--information that could put their own operatives at risk, for example--would not want to take the chance that they would pass that information along to the United States, that Tulsi Gabbard would see it, and then who knows where it goes. I am concerned that other countries would say, because they don't want to take a chance on her, that it would further undercut national security if Tulsi Gabbard were confirmed as DNI. What I am saying tonight is not breaking news. There is nothing here that hasn't been said before. Concerns about Tulsi Gabbard have been circulating on Capitol Hill for years. Every single Senator--Democrat, Republican, or Independent--knows that they are putting our national security at risk if they support Tulsi Gabbard's confirmation to head our Nation's intelligence coordination. Every single Senator--Republican, Democrat, Independent-- knows the threat that Tulsi Gabbard poses. Every single Senator-- Republican, Democrat, or Independent--knows that Tulsi Gabbard could be handing our secrets over to our staunchest adversaries. The risks our Nation faces are rising by the hour. Tulsi Gabbard at DNI. Pete Hegseth at DOD. And it isn't just confirmed Cabinet appointees who are putting our Nation at risk; just look at what is going on with Elon Musk and his team of DOGE minions at Treasury. In order for this handful of programmers to gain access to our over $6 trillion payment system, we don't know what safeguards those hackers pulled down. We don't know what gates they opened. And they have apparently tried to get access to sensitive information at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and they have gained access to Medicare and Medicaid records--which, by the way, is another $1.5 trillion in payments every year. They seem to be rushing to access more large datasets across the U.S. Government every day. When Musk's team got into our Federal databases, were the gates opened for hackers from China, from North Korea, from Iran, from Russia? What criminal gangs and black hat hackers now have access to our personal data? I never thought we would get to this moment. My colleagues in the Senate, despite our differences, have always taken national security seriously, but at a moment when they are faced with a choice between endangering our country or bending a knee to Donald Trump, too many Republican Senators are too afraid of billionaires and Trump in their own party to do what they know is right. I want to take some time to underscore just how dangerous Tulsi Gabbard will be to our national security. Let's start with Tulsi Gabbard's ties to Russia. These connections are laid out nicely in the New York Times article ``How Tulsi Gabbard Became a Favorite of Russia's State Media.'' In 2017, when she was still a Democratic member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard traveled to Syria and met the country's authoritarian president, Bashar al-Assad. She also accused the United States of supporting terrorists there. The day after Vladimir [V.] Putin began a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Ms. Gabbard blamed the United States and NATO for provoking the war by ignoring Russia's security concerns. She has since suggested that the United States covertly worked with Ukraine on dangerous biological pathogens and was culpable for the bombing of the Nord Stream gas pipeline from Russia to Germany in September 2022. European prosecutors and U.S. officials say that sabotage was carried out by Ukrainian operatives. According to analysts and former officials, Ms. Gabbard seems to simply share the Kremlin's geopolitical views, especially when it comes to the exercise of American military power. Let me just say that again. According to analysts and former officials, Ms. Gabbard seems to simply share the Kremlin's geopolitical views, especially when it comes to the exercise of American military power. Back to the story. In Russia, the reaction to her potential appointment has been gleeful, even if Mr. Putin's government remains wary of American policies, even under a second Trump administration. ``The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. are trembling'' . . . Pravda, a Russian newspaper, wrote on Friday in a glowing profile of Ms. Gabbard, noting, positively, that Ukrainians consider her ``an agent of the Russian state.'' Rossiya-1, a state television channel, called her a Russian ``comrade'' in Mr. Trump's emerging cabinet. Russian media has emphasized Ms. Gabbard's desire to improve relations with Moscow, according to FilterLabs, a firm that analyzes social media, state-run news organizations and other internet postings to track public sentiment in Russia. ``Gabbard fits an overall pattern of Trump breaking with much of the post-Cold War consensus,'' said Jonathan Teubner, the chief executive of FilterLabs. ``She is, for Russia, the one that perhaps most perfectly embodies the changes they were hoping for from the U.S.'' In other words, Tulsi Gabbard is Russia's dream come true. Mr. Trump's critics called the choice a dangerous one that would undermine national security and that signaled a deference to Mr. Putin's world view. ``Nominating Gabbard for director of national intelligence is the way to Putin's heart, and it tells the world that America under Trump will be the Kremlin's ally rather than an adversary,'' Ruth Ghiat, a professor of history at New York University and author of ``Strongmen,'' a 2020 book about authoritarian leaders, wrote on Friday. ``And so we would have a national security official who would potentially compromise our national security.'' Let me say that again: ``And so we would have a national security official who would potentially compromise our national security.'' ``This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if Biden Admin/NATO had simply acknowledged Russia's legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine's becoming a member of NATO, which would mean US/NATO forces right on Russia's border,'' Gabbard wrote on Twitter, now known as X, when the war began in February 2022. A month later, she posted a video on the platform saying the United States was operating 25 to 30 biological research labs in Ukraine. She accused the Biden administration of covering them up and said they could release dangerous pathogens, although she stopped short of claiming the labs were making biological weapons, as Russia has falsely claimed. Ms. Gabbard's remarks were quickly called out by Republican Members of Congress, including Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois and Senator Mitt Romney of Utah. Her willingness to criticize the Biden administration made her, like other prominent critics of the government, a favorite source of anti-American content on Russia's state television networks. Vladimir Solovyov, a popular talk show host, called her ``our girlfriend'' in a segment in 2022. The program included an interview Ms. Gabbard did with Tucker Carlson, in which she claimed that Mr. Biden's goal was to end Mr. Putin's control of the Russian Government, according to Julia Davis, the creator of the Russian Media Monitor, which tracks Kremlin propaganda. Her appearances were regularly picked up by Russia's state media, including the international network RT, which promoted her critiques and lauded her with headlines such as ``Tulsi Gabbard dares to challenge Washington's war machine'' and ``Biden wants regime change in Russia--ex-congresswoman.'' By this year, Ms. Gabbard's politics converged with Mr. Trump's. In October, she joined the Republican Party and hit the campaign trail on his behalf, extolling him as a peacemaker. ``A vote for Donald Trump is a vote for a man who wants to end wars, not start them,'' she said at Mr. Trump's rally at Madison Square Garden shortly before Election Day, ``and who has demonstrated already that he has the courage and strength to stand up and fight for peace.'' That is the end of the article. Ah, Tulsi Gabbard--beloved by Russian press, touted in Russian press, an attacker of American's military. Or take key sections from this letter that William Webster--the only person to lead both the FBI and the CIA--sent to me. He was appointed by President Jimmy Carter, remained Director under President Ronald Reagan, and Reagan tapped him to be the head of the CIA. I will quote directly from the letter: Dear Senator Warren, I had the honor of serving as Director of both the FBI and CIA, organizations vital to safeguarding our Nation. Their effectiveness depends on operating with complete independence from political influence--a principle essential to maintaining public trust and national security. History has shown us the dangers of compromising this independence. When leaders of these organizations become too closely aligned with political figures, public confidence erodes and our nation's security is jeopardized. This underscores the necessity for these institutions to serve the American people, not the political agendas of the executive or legislative branches. Congresswoman Gabbard's profound lack of intelligence experience and the daunting task of overseeing 18 disparate intelligence agencies, further highlight the need for seasoned leadership. Effective management of our intelligence community requires unparalleled expertise to navigate the complexities of global threats and to maintain the trust of allied nations. Without that trust, our ability to safeguard sensitive secrets and collaborate internationally is severely diminished. As someone who transitioned from the FBI to the CIA, I can attest to the steep learning curve even for a seasoned professional. This is no time in world history for a novice in the field to learn this role. Every President deserves appointees they trust, but the selection process must prioritize competence and independence to uphold the rule of law. As you consider these and future nominations, I urge you to weigh the critical importance of nonpartisan leadership and experience. The safety of the American people--and your own families--depends on it. Trust in our intelligence and law enforcement agencies is also crucial for our international partners. Without that trust, we cannot be effective in guarding sensitive secrets or collaborating to address shared threats. Thank you for your careful consideration of these pivotal appointments. Sincerely, William Webster, Former director of the CIA and FBI. That is the end of his letter. I just want to say how grateful I am both for William Webster's outstanding public service and commitment to our Nation and for his willingness to stand up now and call out the threats posed by Tulsi Gabbard's nomination to DNI. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists echoes these concerns in a piece they published this week entitled ``Tulsi Gabbard as U.S. intelligence chief would undermine efforts against the spread of chemical and biological weapons.'' Gabbard's confirmation would undermine one of the signature foreign policy accomplishments of President Donald Trump's first term: countering the threat posed by chemical weapons. Following a sarin attack on the Syrian city of Khan Sheikhoun on April 4, 2017, the Trump Administration launched a cruise missile strike against an airbase that U.S. intelligence determined Assad's forces had used to launch the chemical assault. After intelligence agencies determined that Syrian helicopters had conducted a chlorine gas attack on Douma on April 7, 2018, Trump authorized another missile strike, this time along with the United Kingdom and France, against Syrian chemical weapons facilities. Both strikes were effective at deterring further Syrian use of chemical weapons. After April 2017 the Syrian air force did not use sarin and after April 2018 Syrian helicopters stopped dropping chlorine barrel bombs. Gabbard, however, has repeatedly claimed, including at her confirmation hearing, that the chemical attacks against Khan Sheikhoun and Douma were staged by anti-Assad groups to provoke a Western military intervention. In 2019, Gabbard, then a Democratic presidential candidate, accused Trump of launching the strikes based on flawed intelligence: ``Rather than waiting for evidence, Trump acted on impulse and emotion, relying on social media posts and unverified sources originating from within territory held by al Qaeda. In March 2021, Gabbard repeated her unfounded allegation that there is no evidence supporting the Syrian government's responsibility for conducting the ``alleged'' chemical attack on Douma. She accused the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, (OPCW), which administers the global treaty banning chemical weapons and investigated the attack, of a cover-up and claimed that Trump's missile strikes on Syria were ``unconstitutional.'' Gabbard's claims about false-flag attacks, however, ignores intelligence put forward by the Trump Administration and France, an investigation by the United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism, and multiple investigations by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. These national and international investigations based their conclusions on a compelling combination of signals intelligence, eyewitness testimony, photographs, videos, chemical forensic analyses, medical records, analyses of munitions fragments, satellite imagery, and information provided by third parties. For Gabbard to accuse opposition groups, [who were] the victims of Syria's chemical atrocities, of attacking themselves with chlorine and sarin is a grotesque perversion of the truth. And yet she continues it. Instead of relying on reputable sources, Gabbard has repeated Russian and Syrian disinformation and discredited conspiracy theories to call into question the quality of US intelligence, Trump's judgment, and the credibility of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. In March 2021, Gabbard signed a ``statement of concern'' about the organization's investigation of the Douma attack that echoed Russian propaganda and was promoted by a group linked to Wikileaks. Gabbard has made her claims about the Syrian chemical attacks despite warnings from the US intelligence community that these types of allegations are a common feature of the Kremlin's disinformation campaigns. Her reliance on these dubious sources demonstrates a dangerously poor lack of judgment for someone seeking the highest-ranking position in the intelligence community. Gabbard's deeply flawed position on Syria's use of chemical weapons is still highly relevant today. With the fall of the Assad regime last December, the issue of how to secure and destroy Syria's remaining chemical weapons is back on the international agenda. How can Gabbard be trusted to oversee intelligence on this topic if she refuses to believe that Syria used chemical weapons after it joined the Chemical Weapons Convention, CWC, that treaty banning chemical weapons, in 2013? Will she provide Trump with intelligence that undermines her own strongly held position on this issue or will she twist intelligence to fit her [own] worldview? And there is more at stake than just the threat posed by Syria's remaining chemical weapons. Between 2017 and 2020, the Trump Administration found Russia in violation of both the chemical weapons treaty and the Biological Weapons Convention, which bans biological weapons. Trump imposed two rounds of sanctions on Russia for using the Novichok nerve agent to poison a Russian defector. In August 2020, Trump blacklisted three Russian institutes responsible for developing chemical and biological weapons. Since then, the United States has accused Russia of using the chemical weapon chloropicrin, and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has confirmed Russia's use of riot control agents on the battlefield in Ukraine, both of which are violations of the chemical weapons treaty. There are also disturbing signs that Russia is modernizing its biological weapons program by building a new maximum containment laboratory in a military facility. To divert attention from its own chemical and biological weapons, Russia has made a series of unfounded and debunked allegations that the United States and Ukraine are developing and using these weapons. Gabbard came perilously close to endorsing these claims in 2022 and she did embrace other elements of Russian (and Chinese) disinformation about the allegedly nefarious and dangerous activities of US-supported public health labs in Ukraine, including labs built during Donald Trump's first term. How can Gabbard be trusted to advise the president on issues related to the verification of Russia's compliance with chemical and biological arms control? Based on this track record, it is difficult to see how Gabbard can be relied upon to provide the quality of intelligence and national security advice needed by the commander in chief during these perilous times. For the Senate to confirm Gabbard would be national security malpractice. And that is the end of the piece. I am looking to see who else is going to be here. Just finish up? OK. Just wanted to make sure, because I know what is happening here. In a relay race, it is always important to know if you have to hand off the baton. Look, I will conclude with this: National security officials and experts in intelligence are begging the Senate to exercise their constitutional duty and vote no on Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence. We are being asked to vote for someone whose loyalty to this country has been questioned repeatedly and has raised alarms for our allies across the globe. It would be a dangerous mistake to give Tulsi Gabbard access to all of our secrets, and an even greater mistake to trust Tulsi Gabbard to protect this country. I urge all of my colleagues to vote no. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I would like to start by thanking Senator Murray for her extraordinary leadership. She has been a stalwart in the Senate for many, many years and now is the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and knows firsthand the importance of the process by which we make a law in the United States. And that includes that we pass those laws in Congress. We fund them in Congress. It is signed by the President of the United States. And people across this Nation can know, through that process, those are what the laws are. If you don't like those laws, then elect different people who will come up with different versions of the law. But everyone--Democrat or Republican--sticks to the same version, and that is: A law is a law. The President of the United States or his co-President, Elon Musk, do not have the right simply to go back on the laws and say: Oh, we pick that one, that one, and that one to enforce--and that one, no; that one, no; and, maybe, that one, half time. That is not how the process works. Senator Murray has been the leading voice in fighting back against this, and I want to say how much I appreciate all that she has done. I want to talk for just a minute about Project 2025. During the 2024 election, the American people became familiar with this Republican document called Project 2025. The document laid out Republican plans to reshape our country if they gained control. Now, Americans, a little at a time, got a chance to see the plan. People started to read it, and they were shocked. In no time, people from across the political spectrum--not just Democrats; Democrats, Republicans, Independents--made clear how much they hated Project 2025 and that they wanted no part of it. So what was in Project 2025 that made it so widely hated across the political spectrum? A few things: firing civil servants, weaponizing the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigations, unleashing force onto protesters and targeting political opponents, restricting abortion nationwide, ripping retirement and healthcare benefits from seniors, dismantling public education, and--biggest and best--funding tax cuts for the rich by raising taxes on America's middle class. I want to be clear, it is a big document. Those are just the top lines. So Donald Trump's response was to swear over and over and over again that he had nothing to do with those plans; he didn't know about them, didn't endorse them, didn't want anything to do with them. Here are some of the things that Donald Trump said about Project 2025 back in 2024: I know nothing about Project 2025. I have nothing to do with Project 2025. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. And my personal favorite: They've been told officially, legally, in every way, that we have nothing to do with Project 2025. So think about that. During the 2024 election, Donald Trump claimed he didn't know anything about Project 2025. But he lied. Shortly after the election, he nominated one of the chief architects of Project 2025 in a key role with the government. Donald Trump has named the lead architect of Project 2025, Russ Vought, to oversee the Federal Government's entire budget office. That is right. Listen to this one. He is putting the head writer of the plans that you had only read about in nightmares in a key government position. Russ Vought wrote Project 2025, and now, Donald Trump is rewarding him by inviting him into the government in order to carry out the Republican blueprint to make our government force people to live in the image that Russ Vought and other extremist Republicans approve of. And he plans to rework our economy to benefit the wealthiest among us and make everybody else pay for it. Here are just a few of the things that Russ Vought has called for. Russ Vought has called on Congress to outlaw medication abortion nationwide, restricting women's reproductive rights, even in States that protect abortion. Russ Vought has encouraged discrimination against transgender people in the workplace and in healthcare. In his first stint as OMB Director, Russ Vought decried the use of Federal funding for diversity and equity training in a letter to Federal Agencies. The Project 2025 playbook calls for eliminating almost every civil rights office in the Federal Government. And Russ Vought has said he intends to put Federal workers ``in trauma'' and destroy the merit- based system for civil servants so that he can fill the government with rightwing extremists. I am going to pause here for a minute to see if Senator Gillibrand wants to speak.

Ms. WARREN. Let's keep in mind, Russ Vought has called for outlawing abortion--medication abortion--nationwide. It doesn't matter whether or not you live in a State that says, no, we are going to protect abortion. Russ Vought wants to find a way to make sure it is shut down everywhere. He wants to encourage discrimination against transgender people. He thinks that getting rid of civil rights is the way to go for the American Government. And he says he wants to put Federal workers in trauma and destroy the merit-based system for civil servants so he can fill up our government with rightwing extremists. Now, we are already seeing firsthand the devastating effects of Russ Vought's plan for America. Russ Vought was the puppet master behind the funding shutdown that threw this country into chaos last week. I saw this in Massachusetts. Parents didn't know if their toddlers' daycare would be open. Seniors didn't know if the hot meals they were expecting from Meals on Wheels would grind to a halt. No one knew if the nursing homes funded by Medicaid would be able to pay their workers. That was just the tip of the iceberg for Russ Vought. If he is confirmed, you can absolutely bet on Russ Vought pulling out the rug from working people over and over and over again. Quite frankly, we don't know where he will stop. This is where they have started. Three weeks in, and this is where they have started. Will Russ Vought, Elon Musk, and Donald Trump stop when they have ripped abortion rights away from every single woman in America? Will they stop when he has abolished the Department of Education and fired 180,000 teachers from their jobs? Will he stop when he has privatized Medicare and when seniors can't afford to go see the doctor? Will he stop when he is done stealing from middle-class families in order to fund tax breaks for the wealthiest households? By the way, that is in his blueprint, too--tax hikes for the middle class and tax breaks for the rich. Will he stop when he crashes the economy? Take it from me, with these kinds of plans, crashing the economy is no longer a stretch. Russ Vought's Project 2025 proposals will lead to higher inflation, higher interest rates, and weaker economic growth. Project 2025 would seriously threaten another recession. Look, already, families all across this country are feeling the pressure from high grocery prices while Donald Trump and his administration just turn their backs on working families. American families cannot afford for Russ Vought to be in charge. We don't know how far Russ Vought's extremism will go, but we can't afford to wait and find out. Americans voted for each and every one of us right here in the U.S. Senate to fight for them, and they do not expect us to roll over and play dead. It is our sworn duty to stop dangerous people like Russ Vought before he destroys our freedom, our economy, and the stability of every working family in this Nation. So I urge every Senator to vote no on his nomination. I also want to take this chance to share some of the stories I have been hearing from my constituents, the people of Massachusetts. The impacts of Donald Trump's and Russ Vought's policies are affecting people in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and all across this country. I am here to fight for the people of Massachusetts, and I am here to share their stories. I want to start with a message I received from a family childcare center that cares for hundreds of children each day so that moms have the opportunity to succeed in their careers. Here is how the message goes: Our community of early educators and families is on edge. We work with a very diverse population, and the rumors and threats related to immigration activities are having an impact. We have begun having families question removing their children from much needed and valuable early education programs because they are scared to separate from one another or even to go outside. Ninety-nine percent of the families we are working with are receiving a subsidy for their care. So, with current funding through the Department of Early Education and Care, I believe it breaks down to approximately 60 percent federal and 40 percent state funds. We have also historically been recipients of CDBG funds to support our training program, which would only be possible with Federal support. So think about that. When Russ Vought and Donald Trump and Elon Musk just decide to start shutting programs down, we have childcare centers that are writing in, saying, in effect, they are not going to have the money to keep the doors open for the children and the mommas whom they serve. This is from a small business owner in Lynnfield. Sadaf owns a small business that works to innovate new lab equipment to improve cancer and prenatal screenings. She gets money from the National Institutes of Health. This is exactly the kind of person we want to see doing work right here in the United States. Here is what she writes: My small business . . . is currently partially funded through an NIH-NHGRI grant. Today, the grant is frozen, and we are unable to access any funds. If this freeze lasts more than a month, we will have to lay off hard-working employees and shut our doors. Think about that. Here is someone who has built a small business around doing more effective cancer screenings and prenatal screenings, and she has been recognized by the National Institutes of Health as someone who is doing the kind of cutting-edge research and delivering the kind of services we need. Because Russ Vought, Donald Trump, and Elon Musk say, ``No. We are just going to freeze funding here,'' the consequence is, she says: I am at risk of having to lay off employees and close my business. I have heard this from many of my constituents. Another in Worcester runs a small nonprofit to help communities vulnerable to the climate crisis. They have $1.5 million in contracts that they now can't access, and soon they are going to have to lay off employees. The impact of holding this money up is real. It is felt in our communities. It is felt household by household by household when people can't get to the money they need so that they can issue the paychecks and keep people working. Why and how is that making America any better off? Take this story from the Boston Globe, entitled ``'Am I going to lose my husband?': The real price of Trump's budget freeze.'' The freeze is harming real people. One of them is James, a Virginia resident who told his story to the editorial board but asked that his last name not be used because he fears retaliation. Eight years ago, when James was 32, after years of health problems, he was diagnosed with neuroendocrine tumors (formerly called Carcinoid cancer), with accompanying severe Carcinoid syndrome. Tumors were in his intestines and liver, with nodules on his lungs. A doctor gave him 3 to 6 months to live. Standard treatment for these tumors is shots with one of two drugs-- And I am going to do my best to pronounce them-- octreotide or lanreotide. The first couple of months after his diagnosis, James spent a total of around $10,000 on shots and scans, [and that was in addition to his] insurance coverage. So this is someone with health insurance. He was working in a toy shop and studying graphic design, and the medical care [completely] drained his savings. Then James entered a National Institutes of Health research trial. Because James was unusually young to get Carcinoid syndrome, NIH researchers wanted to study how he reacted to the disease and treatments. For the next 8 years, NIH provided and paid for his shots, scans, surgeries, medications, and procedures. ``All I had to do was be a guinea pig,'' James said. As of December, he was getting a shot of lanreotide, which can cost thousands of dollars. He was getting the shot every 3 weeks to keep his tumors from growing. ``If I were to lose the medication, they'd likely ramp up, become more aggressive, and potentially spread to other organs. It could be a death sentence,'' James said. The disruptions started when it became clear Donald Trump might win the Presidential election. In October and November, NIH began recommending that if patients could get some medications--anti-nausea medicine or painkillers--from other doctors, they should, because the federal agency feared budget cuts. In December, after Trump's election, James said his doctor told him NIH could no longer provide lanreotide. But he was still part of the research protocol, so he would get yearly scans, and the NIH would conduct and pay for any necessary surgeries. In other words, they wanted to continue to be able to study him. In December, James started experiencing aphasia and memory loss, and a scan found spots in his brain. He's still undergoing diagnostic tests. NIH had a treatment protocol prepared for if the cancer did spread to his brain. Once Trump took office in January, however, James was told the research was frozen indefinitely, and he won't be getting any NIH care until that changes. James is continuing treatment with a Medicare insurance plan provided by Kaiser Permanente, and he qualified for a financial assistance grant through May. But he worries the Trump administration will end that financial assistance. James receives disability payments, and his wife is a teacher, so they can't afford high out-of-pocket payments. ``When I heard about this, I thought, `Am I going to lose my husband? Is he going to die?''' his wife, Becki, said. Make no mistake, these are not one-off stories. Families everywhere, all across the country, in red States and blue States, are feeling the impacts of these policies--everyone. Now, maybe you knew about this, maybe you didn't, but Trump is trying to keep you in the dark on some of these things while he distracts by renaming the Gulf of Mexico or dreaming about Canada as the 51st State. In just his first couple of weeks in office, Donald Trump has gone on a rampage against working people, signing hundreds of Executive orders-- rolling the clock back on progress and reinstating harmful and unpopular policies from his first term. He signed many of these Executive orders in the middle of the night because he and his administration didn't want people to know about them. So I just want to remind everybody, for all of those pictures of Donald Trump signing while everybody looked on and everybody smiled or with Donald Trump holding up an Executive order that he signed very proudly, those are not all of the Executive orders. There were a lot of his Executive orders that got signed late at night and then were just pushed out. Here are some of the Executive orders that the American people may not know about, and they are right in lockstep with Project 2025: In one Executive order, Donald Trump called for a Federal Government hiring freeze. Project 2025 proposed implementing a ``hiring freeze for career officials.'' So Trump does the Executive order exactly to what Project 2025 was proposing. Here is Donald Trump's Executive order: I hereby order a freeze on the hiring of Federal civilian employees to be applied throughout the executive branch. There it is--Project 2025 and Donald Trump's Executive order. Another Executive order: He withdrew from the Paris Climate Accords. So let's start with Project 2025. It proposed that the ``next conservative administration should withdraw the U.S. from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement.'' Here is Donald Trump's Executive order that was signed late at night: The United States Ambassador to the United Nations shall immediately submit formal written notification of the United States' withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Project 2025 calls for it; Donald Trump delivers. He paused the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure law, which is fighting the climate crisis and helping cities and towns across America to upgrade their roads and bridges. Project 2025 called to repeal ``massive spending bills like the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Inflation Reduction Act, which established new programs and are providing hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to renewable energy developers, their investors, and special interests, and support the rescinding of all funds not already spent by these programs.'' In other words, Project 2025 is saying: Shut it down. Shut it down. Here is Donald Trump's Executive order: All agencies shall immediately pause the disbursement of funds appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 . . . or the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. So there we are. Project 2025 calls for it; Donald Trump delivers with an Executive order. The fact that he cannot legally do that doesn't seem to have slowed him down at all. In fact, Project 2025 talks about repealing those laws. That means you come to Congress, and then Congress votes on it-- the House and the Senate. And only if you get majorities in the House and Senate do you send it over to the President of the United States to sign it into law. Donald Trump isn't doing it. Republicans are in charge of the House. Republicans are in charge of the Senate. But instead of saying we are going to amend the law that has already gone through the process and been signed in and the money has all been appropriated for it, nope-- instead--Donald Trump says, with a middle-of-the-night Executive order, I am just going to say: Stop spending money. That is impoundment, and it is clearly unlawful. He is in violation of the law. Now, on abortion, Trump reinstated and expanded the global gag rule-- a heartless rule that makes women and girls across the world less safe by cutting funding for health centers that may provide abortion. Planned Parenthood gave us an idea of just how bad this is. Here is their quote on this: Also known as the Mexico City policy, the global gag rule prevents foreign organizations that receive certain U.S. assistance from providing, counseling, referring, or advocating for legal abortion in their country--even with their own money and [their own] resources. The global gag rule blocks health care access, disrupts coalitions and stifles local advocacy efforts, and undermines reproductive rights worldwide. [By the way,] it is also deeply unpopular with the American people. In fact, here is what Alexis McGill Johnson, who is President and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America said: President Trump is kicking off his second term exactly as anticipated: attacking sexual and reproductive health care. The global gag rule not only disrupts the delivery of health services in areas of the world that are most in need; it also rolls back progress in countries that have fought to advance access to health care and human rights. Elected officials should not be interfering in personal medical decisions, in this country or anywhere else in the world. We must reverse and end the global gag rule permanently, full stop. But Donald Trump just signed that Executive order in the middle of the night, and women--particularly poor women--all around the world will pay the price. Here is more of what Donald Trump did to try to turn back the clock on women's bodies. This one comes from POLITICO: President Trump's campaign-trail promise to leave abortion regulation to the states lasted just a few days into his presidency. He issued executive orders . . . that revive some anti- abortion policies from his first administration--including restrictions on federal funding for family planning and other health programs abroad that discuss abortion as an option or provide referrals for the procedure. So the President signed the Executive orders hours after addressing the annual anti-abortion March for Life in a prerecorded video. A 2022 study by the National Academy of Sciences estimated that Trump's anti-abortion restrictions on foreign aid led to 108,000 deaths of women and children in poor countries over the 4 years of his first administration. How does that happen? Well, it is because that Executive order from the first time around slashed funding for groups like the nonprofit MSI Reproductive Choices, which operates clinics that provide contraception and testing for sexually transmitted infections with U.S. funds, and it uses separate revenues to fund and provide abortions. MSI said, ahead of the policy being reinstated, that it wouldn't abide by it. This will lead to the organization losing $14 million in U.S. Agency for International Development funding, an MSI spokesperson said. The organization estimates the financial loss could result in an additional 2.4 million unintended pregnancies because the organization would have to stop providing contraception in several countries. I am at a complete loss to explain how the United States is better off if more unintended pregnancies happen in poor countries and how we explain that, the last time around, when Trump did this, it resulted in 108,000 deaths of women and children in poor countries, and that we are headed straight into the same plan again. Another study by Stanford University researchers found that the narrower version of the Mexico City policy that several GOP Presidents enacted prior to Trump caused the number of abortions to increase across Sub-Saharan Africa because so many women lost access to contraception. Let me say that once again. For everyone who thinks that abortion should not occur, understand the consequence of the Trump Executive order, and that is that it increases the number of abortions across Sub-Saharan Africa because women lose their access to contraption. Abortion rights advocates have also argued that the policy is overbroad because it imposes restrictions in countries where abortion is legal. One day earlier, in another move that thrilled abortion opponents, Trump issued pardons for roughly two dozen people convicted of forcibly entering and blocking access to abortion clinics. In fact, this has been an important part of the Trump Executive order stream in this area. The idea that the Federal laws that protect women who are walking from where they have parked their car to an abortion clinic and also a place where they may get contraception, where they may get a mammogram, where they may get other health screenings, not to be interfered with; that they get a chance to walk without having people scream in their faces and spit on them, that has been taken away by the President of the United States. He has said: Move in a little closer. Bear down harder on those women. And, still, the anti-abortion groups that helped Trump win reelection are looking beyond these actions and are pushing for more from the new administration. For example, what are they asking for now? Well, they want to look at a ban on telehealth prescriptions and mail delivery of abortion pills. They want to do rules forcing States to provide more detailed information on all abortions within their borders, so they can see more about who is getting what treatments, and repeal of the Biden administration rules that expanded abortion access for some military members and veterans. It is all happening out in plain view. Let us be clear: This is and always has been about controlling women's bodies. Donald Trump packed the Supreme Court with anti- abortion extremists to get Roe overturned, and he bragged about it afterward. This is the latest in Trump's yearslong crusade against women's reproductive rights. And understand this: We will fight back. As you probably have already seen in the news, Elon Musk has taken control of the government's critical payment systems, which include sensitive personal information for millions of Americans. This is the system that makes sure that your grandpa gets his Social Security check. This is the system that makes sure that your mom's doctor gets the Medicare payment to cover her medical appointment. And this is the system that makes sure that you get the tax refund that you are owed. Now it has been taken over by Elon Musk. Every organization--from your State government that uses Federal money on that bridge project to your local Head Start that takes care of little kids while their mommies and daddies go to work--is now at the mercy of Elon Musk. Maybe you get paid, but, then again, maybe you don't. Elon just grabbed the controls of that whole payment system, demanding the power to turn it on for his friends and turn it off for anyone he declares he doesn't like--one guy deciding who gets paid and who doesn't. It is not the law, but it is the reality. There is a second problem here. It is not just payments from the Federal Government that are now in Elon's control. Elon and his handful of friends now have access to your personal financial information, anything that is in the system. Your payment history, your Social Security number, your address, your bank account numbers--Elon now has the power to suck out all that information for his own use. And, now, whether it is to boost his personal finances or to expand his political power, it is all up to Elon. Understand, in a world in which data is power, Elon has just increased his power. There is a third kind of problem here. In order for this handful of programmers to gain access to our $6 trillion payment system, we don't know what kind of safeguards were pulled down. Are the gates wide open now for hackers from China, from North Korea, from Iran, from Russia? Heck, who knows what black-hat hackers all around the world are finding out right now about each and every one of us, copying that information, and storing it for their own future criminal uses. How many back doors are being installed right now in the system that is truly the financial guts of our economy--the one that makes sure that the payments go out? All of that information is now at risk. This week, I wrote to the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, Scott Bessent, with extreme concern following this reporting. Here is what I said: I write regarding a disturbing report that--in one of your first acts after [you were confirmed] as Treasury Secretary-- you have given Elon Musk and his surrogates ``full access'' to the federal government's critical payment systems, which includes the sensitive personal information of millions of Americans. It is extraordinarily dangerous to meddle with the critical systems that process trillions of dollars of transactions each year, are essential to preventing a default on federal debt, and that ensure that tens of millions of Americans receive their Social Security checks, tax refunds, and Medicare benefits. I am also alarmed by reports that you personally sidelined the key official responsible for managing the extraordinary measures the Department of the Treasury is taking to avoid a default on U.S. debt, risking missteps that could result in a global financial meltdown that costs trillions of dollars and millions of jobs. I am writing to seek answers about your role in this security and management failure and about how you intend to protect the integrity of the federal government's financial operations after handing over the systems to Mr. Musk's team. According to public reports, even before President Trump's inauguration, Mr. Musk's surrogates began demanding access to the sensitive payment systems that the federal government uses to disburse trillions of dollars every year. The public depends on the integrity of those systems, which control the flow of over $6 trillion in payments to American families, businesses, and other recipients each year--with millions relying on them for Social Security checks and Medicare benefits, federal salaries, government contract payments, grants, and tax refunds this filing season. In just one year, for example, the Department's Bureau of Fiscal Service disbursed nearly 1.3 billion payments totaling $5.4 trillion. It also collected nearly $5.5 trillion in federal revenue. Given the highly sensitive nature of the information in these systems, control over them is typically limited to a small number of career officials. The Musk team's unprecedented demand for total access to the system reportedly caused serious concern at the Department, particularly given that ``the system has historically been closely held because it includes sensitive personal information'' on millions of Americans and sends out virtually every federal payment--including payments that are critical for the economy and national security. I just want to say off to the side, the Presiding Officer and I were both in a Banking hearing this morning, and one of the questions that Democrats put to our bankers who were present is, Would you let someone come in and see the personal banking records of your customers? And the bankers, of course, said no, there is no way they would permit that. Yet the Secretary of the Treasury opened the door and said Elon Musk and his designees could come in and look at anything they wanted to look at. Controlling the system could allow the Trump administration to ``unilaterally''--and illegally--cut off payments for millions of Americans, putting at risk the financial security of families and businesses based on political favoritism or the whims of Mr. Musk and those on his team who have [managed to work] their way inside. It could also give them access to millions of Americans' personal and financial information that is protected by law. We would shut down a bank that did what the Secretary of the Treasury did in letting Elon Musk come in and root around in the personal financial information of Americans all across this country. The Washington Post reported that the Department's top career official, David Lebryk--who had served in nonpolitical roles in the Department for decades-- Served Republicans, served Democrats-- including as Fiscal Assistant Secretary since 2014--resisted political pressure to cave to the Musk surrogates. The demands of those outsiders were especially concerning because Mr. Musk and the Trump Administration have tried to control spending in alarming and potentially unlawful ways--including through the chaotic announcement of a federal funding freeze last week that caused widespread harm and confusion. Mr. Musk was reportedly trying ``to deploy his engineers to find ways to turn off the flow of money from the Treasury Department to things that Mr. Trump wants to defund.'' In other words, a small group of insiders would suddenly be in a position to make decisions about whether to hold up payments to individual families or businesses--with absolutely no transparency or accountability. But rather than protecting the integrity and function of the payment system, [our Secretary of the Treasury] reportedly bent to pressure from the White House, suggested putting Mr. Lebryk on leave, and ultimately forced him out. This astonishing mismanagement--turning over the federal government's entire payment system and sidelining the most senior career official responsible for managing it--also puts the country at greater risk of defaulting on our debt, which could trigger a global financial crisis. The Fiscal Assistant Secretary was ``the government staffer perhaps most responsible for figuring out how the United States should handle the alarming prospect of running out of money, making him a pivotal, if lesser-known, player in [a] debt ceiling standoff.'' The Fiscal Assistant Secretary is responsible for assessing when the country will exhaust its funds and ensuring that Congress has that information, for ``coordinating and determining how much money the Treasury needs to borrow to finance the government,'' and for ``manag[ing] the `extraordinary measures' '' that the Department uses to ``delay a default for as long as possible.'' The Fiscal Assistant Secretary--unlike the amateurs [that the Secretary of the Treasury has] empowered [when he forced them] out--was well-prepared to manage these kinds of crises. He had ``moved through positions that gave him deep exposure to the plumbing of federal financing'' and was a ``scrupulously apolitical'' civil servant who was ``not angling for a political promotion.'' That expertise is particularly critical at this moment, when the Department is already taking extraordinary measures to avoid a default that ``would precipitate another financial crisis and threaten jobs and savings of everyday Americans.'' I sent this letter to Secretary of the Treasury, and I said: I am alarmed that as one of your first acts as Secretary, you appear to have handed over a highly sensitive system responsible for millions of Americans' private data--and a key function of government--to an unelected billionaire and an unknown number of his unqualified flunkies. The American people deserve answers about your role in this mismanagement, which threatens the privacy and economic security of every American. It is no surprise that working families are paying the price for Donald Trump and Russ Vought's reckless actions. Just look at who is running the government: Donald Trump, billionaire; Elon Musk, billionaire; Scott Bessent, billionaire; Linda McMahon, billionaire; Howard Lutnick, billionaire; Charles Kushner, billionaire. And the list goes on. The total net worth of the billionaires in the Trump administration is at least $382.2 billion. That is more than the GDP of 172 different countries. Elon Musk, first buddy and head of the Department of Government Efficiency, himself is worth $410 billion. He is $150 billion richer than he was on election day. Linda McMahon, Secretary of the Department of Education, is worth $3.2 billion. Howard Lutnick, nominated for the Secretary of the Department of Commerce, is worth more than $1.5 billion but likely more. Kelly Loeffler, head of the Small Business Administration, is worth $1.1 billion. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., nominated for Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, is estimated to be worth about $15 million. And he has refused to give up a lucrative arrangement with a law firm that will enable his family to make millions off vaccine-related lawsuits, even while he is heading up HHS. Steven Witkoff, Envoy to the Middle East, is worth a billion. Jared Isaacman, NASA Administrator, is worth $2 billion. Take this piece from CNN: Elon Musk plowed at least $260 million into efforts to send Donald Trump back to the White House, new filings show--a massive infusion that makes him one of the largest single political underwriters of a presidential campaign and underscores the outsized influence of the world's wealthiest person in this year's election. Thursday's filings with the Federal Election Commission show that the Tesla and SpaceX executive gave a total of $238 million to a super PAC that he founded this year, America PAC, which worked to turn out voters on Trump's behalf in key states. But he also was the financial backer of other groups that cropped up in the final days of the election to support Trump, including one that spent millions on advertising to defend [Trump's] record on abortion. It had sought to link Trump's views on abortion to those of the late Supreme Court Justice and liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg. These people have no shame. Musk, through a trust that bears his name, donated $20.5 million to the group, named RBG PAC, on October 24, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission. He was the sole donor to the group, which was formed in mid-October. The donation's timing meant that Musk's involvement was not disclosed until-- After the election, after the inauguration, not until last-- Thursday's post-election filings with the federal regulators. Ginsburg's granddaughter, Clara Spera, publicly denounced the ads--which sought to neutralize abortion as a liability for Trump in the campaign--as misleading and an ``affront'' to Ginsburg's legacy as a staunch defender of abortion rights. So true. According to the new filings, Musk also donated $3 million to the MAHA Alliance, a super PAC that ran stark ads in key swing states urging supporters of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to back Trump in the closing stretch of the campaign. Kennedy himself had ended his independent campaign over the summer and endorsed Trump. MAHA stands for ``Make America Healthy Again,'' Kennedy's spin on Trump's MAGA catchphrase. Trump has now tapped Kennedy, one of the nation's most prominent anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists, to oversee the Health and Human Services Department. Trump has selected other big donors for roles in his incoming administration. Howard Lutnick, the Cantor Fitzgerald investment bank chief whom Trump has tapped to head the Commerce Department, made a nearly $3 million ``in-kind'' donation of stock on October 21 to a pro-Trump super PAC, MAGA Inc., according to the organization's filings Thursday night. That's on top of the $6 million that Lutnick previously donated to the super PAC over the course of the election cycle. Other Trump supporters who have landed spots in his administration also donated to MAGA Inc. They include Linda McMahon, the former wrestling company executive tapped to serve as Education secretary. She donated more than $20 million to the Trump-aligned super PAC this cycle. McMahon and Lutnick also served as co-chairs of Trump's transition operation. Other Trump picks who have made seven-figure donations to MAGA Inc. include former Georgia Sen. Kelly Loeffler, his choice to lead the Small Business Administration; Scott Bessent, whom Trump has selected as Treasury secretary; and two of his choices for plum diplomatic posts in Europe, Arkansas investor Warren Stephens and Charles Kushner, the father-in-law of Trump's daughter, Ivanka. And look, don't get me wrong, if you made a fortune because you had a great idea and you built a terrific business, good for you. But I guarantee that any great fortune in America was built, at least in part, using workers that all of us helped pay to educate; built, at least in part, by getting your goods to market on roads and bridges that all of us helped to pay to build; built, at least in part, protected by police and firefighters that all of us help pay the salaries for. And now, instead of creating a system that will help the next guy or gal that comes along build something, these guys want to pull up the ladder. They poured money into the 2024 election, and now, they expect a return on their investment at the expense of everyone else. The Trump strategy is to flood the zone, partly so we don't see each of the horrible orders and pay attention to them, but partly to demoralize us. Trump and his Republican friends hope that we will be demoralized. They hope that we will give up, curl in a little ball, and let them do whatever they want to do. I get it. It is tough right now, but it is important that we get back up and fight, and that is exactly what I am doing. I am challenging Elon Musk on his Department of Government Efficiency efforts to take away help for seniors who are living in nursing homes and little kids who are hoping for their daycare. I am asking questions of every nominee and pointing out to other Senators and to the public where they pose a real danger to the American people. Look at the fight over Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. He is a credibly accused rapist who has been falling down drunk at work events, and he has run not one but two nonprofits directly into the ground. Nonetheless, Republican Senators stood beside him. He made it through his confirmation, but it wasn't a freebie. Some Republicans broke ranks, and everyone in the country who was paying attention got to see up close and personal just how far the Republicans were willing to go to cower in front of Donald Trump. Those are the fights we must keep fighting. We will not roll over and play dead. This is not business as usual. The No. 1 thing people can do right now is speak out. Speak out on social media about every one of these things. Talk about the threats these people pose. Speak out about what Donald Trump is doing. In the middle of the night last Friday, Donald Trump issued a batch of Executive orders turning back the clock decades on women's reproductive rights. If people talk about that, then that is how we will begin to rebuild a movement to push out the Trump vision of America, in which billionaires are on top and everyone else is left in the dirt--and women don't get to make their own health decisions. I have only got 24 hours a day, but I plan to spend as many of them as humanly possible fighting back against Trump, Musk, and the billionaires who have taken over our country to promote themselves at the expense of everyone else. It is up to us. I am not lying down and playing dead, and I hope nobody else does either. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. On behalf of community health centers across Massachusetts, Warren votes no.

Ms. WARREN

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

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to Scott Bessent to be the next Secretary of the Treasury and in support of tens of millions of working families who need a government on their side. The Treasury Secretary is one of the President's top economic advisers. He has the power to lower costs for hard-working people or to give billionaires another break. Now, Mr. Bessent has a long history as an investment manager, helping rich clients get even richer. In fact, helping rich people get richer has been a very profitable business for him. Mr. Bessent is now a billionaire himself. He owns not one but two multimillion-dollar mansions, including one in the Bahamas, and he has hundreds of millions of dollars in investments. Now, he spent a lot of money, but he saved money in one area: He hasn't paid the taxes he owes. According to an analysis from congressional tax experts, Mr. Bessent has refused to pay $2 million in taxes that he owed on his hedge fund earnings, just in the past 3 years. And Mr. Bessent has no demonstrated track record of fighting to make life better or more affordable for working people. So, let's start with some of Trump's economic plans that Mr. Bessent would be in charge of advancing. Right now, Republicans in the White House and in Congress are working through their plans to extend tax breaks for billionaires and giant corporations, paid for in part with major cuts to healthcare. In plain English, Republicans are hoping you won't notice major budget cuts for nursing homes that take care of your grandpa or the cuts in school lunches for poor kids. Move grandpa out of the nursing home and let the little kids go hungry in order to make sure that a tiny handful of billionaires get a few more truckloads of cash from Uncle Sam. There is a truth no one can escape: Someone has to pay to run this country. Folks like Scott Bessent think the burden should be just a little heavier on working people because billionaires like him are smarter than everyone else. One place or the other, someone has to pay. So during his hearing, I asked Mr. Bessent about those cuts for billionaires. I asked if there were any billionaires already rich enough that they didn't need another tax cut. And Mr. Bessent said, well, that it was unwise to single out anyone--not even billionaires. You wouldn't want to single out a billionaire like Jeff Bezos, who pays a lower tax rate than a Boston public school teacher? You wouldn't want to single out a billionaire like Mark Zuckerberg, whose company Meta paid a tax rate of just 11.5 percent in 2023, despite making nearly $40 billion in profits? You wouldn't want to single out a billionaire like Elon Musk, who is more focused on flying to Mars than making life better for working families here on Earth? Those billionaires had better seats at Donald Trump's inauguration than Trump's own Cabinet members. Those billionaires dominate the American economy, and Republicans plan to give them more tax breaks. This is the payout for Trump's ``rich as hell donors,'' and Mr. Bessent is another billionaire ready to do the hard work of cutting taxes for every billionaire in America, himself included. The top economic issue today is: How do we lower costs for families and build an economy that works, not just for the wealthy and the well connected, but an economy that works for everyone? I am hammering out plans to make it a little easier for families to be able to pay their bills, to buy a home, and to build some financial security. Trump's tax breaks for billionaires is the same old Republican playbook of trickle-down economics: Help the rich get richer, and leave everyone else behind. But that is not the Trump administration's only bad economic idea. Mr. Bessent has been an advocate for deregulating Wall Street and letting big banks load up on risk. Deregulate Wall Street--yes, a lot of people remember how that approach brought our economy to its knees back in 2008. People who remember include the millions of people who lost their homes, the millions who lost their jobs, and the millions who lost their savings. And now, once again, President Trump wants to run the same economic play, and Mr. Bessent is the guy he has picked to do it. We don't need less oversight of giant banks and Wall Street movers and shakers. Risk is building in the system. The too-big-to-fail banks are quietly taking on riskier investments. The shadowy private credit market has loaded up on highly leveraged loans. And after waves of catastrophic losses, the insurance industry is facing a reckoning that even climate change deniers can't ignore. Without significant changes, another financial crash is coming. As we learned, those big crashes fall hardest on hard-working people who are just trying to make a living. A billionaire willing to roll along on deregulation poses a threat to the economic well-being of every American, and a billionaire who supports more tax cuts for every single billionaire in America is not someone who is watching out for hard- working families. For me, this is simple. I am ready to work together with President Trump's team wherever we agree to help working families. But I am also ready to fight like hell when Republicans pursue economic policies that load up the risk in our financial system or tax policies that mostly benefit billionaires. I will vote no on Mr. Bessent to be the next Secretary of the Treasury, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to reject Pete Hegseth as the next Secretary of Defense. Pete Hegseth is the most unqualified nominee for Secretary of Defense in our Nation's history. At his confirmation hearing, Pete Hegseth bobbed and weaved to avoid answering just basic questions about his record, but what Hegseth failed to account for is that his entire record is damning. I would like my Senate colleagues, people who are seriously considering voting to confirm Pete Hegseth, to think long and hard about this decision. We need a Secretary of Defense who will be ready at 2 in the morning to give life-or-death national security advice to the President. Would you trust Pete Hegseth, who has allegedly been so drunk at work events that he passed out on a bus and urinated in front of the hotel where his colleagues were staying, to answer that call? We need a Secretary of Defense who will help us root out the problem of sexual assault in the military. Would you trust Pete Hegseth, who has been credibly accused of raping a woman and buying her silence, to protect victims of sexual assault? We need a Secretary of Defense who will be able to manage the Nation's largest Federal Agency, one that oversees almost 3.4 million people and a budget of nearly $850 billion a year. Would you trust Pete Hegseth, who drove a small veterans nonprofit to the brink of bankruptcy, to manage billions of our tax dollars? The list of glaring disqualifications goes on and on. Hegseth supports requiring every senior military officer to pass a political litmus test. This politicization of the military is a slap in the face to leaders who have served their country honorably for decades. But the point is that Pete Hegseth is not just unqualified for the role; he is a walking national security threat. We need a Secretary of Defense who will help our country meet its recruiting goals--something we are already struggling with. Pete Hegseth has said that women in the military ``shouldn't be in combat at all.'' Mr. President, 300,000 women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11. Pete Hegseth has now insulted every one of them. That is not how a leader of the military will inspire people to join our cause. When people are responsible for our national defense, we ask something extraordinary of them. We ask them to put their lives on the line. All three of my brothers served in the military. My oldest brother was career military. So I know how important that service is and how important it is that we pick the right person to lead our men and women in uniform. Pete Hegseth claims that our brave women in the military are somehow lowering our standards, but it is his lack of qualifications, his lack of character, and his lack of judgment that lower the standards for Secretary of Defense. We need a Secretary of Defense whom we can rely on to keep all of us safe. Frankly, it is hard to imagine a worse choice than Pete Hegseth. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Madam President, I rise today to share a few words in honor of the 90th birthday of a dear friend Linda Kaufman. As she celebrates this impressive milestone, I extend my best wishes to Anne and her family for a happy celebration. Ms. Kaufman was born in January of 1935 in Massachusetts. She attended Smith College and worked as a teacher for 40 years, 32 of those years spent teaching history at Buckingham Browne and Nichols School in Cambridge. She has also served as reader, table leader, and member of the test development committee for the Advanced Placement European History Examination of the College Board. Linda never stopped teaching and learning history; after retiring, she took many online courses at Harvard and mentored former students, always staying up to date with their many accomplishments. Ms. Kaufman is married to her best friend Andrew Kaufman, a professor at Harvard Law School. Together, they raised four children; Anne, David, Daniel, and Elizabeth. Outside of teaching, Linda was active in her community in Cambridge, dedicating free time to helping individuals prepare for the American citizenship exam and spending time with her grandchildren. Linda Kaufman is a true lifelong learner and public servant. I am incredibly pleased to honor this momentous event in Linda's life and wish her joy in the years to come.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Madam President, I rise today in support of my bill, the Truth and Healing Commission on Indian Boarding School Policies Act. If voted into law, this bill would begin the process of delivering long overdue justice to stolen Native children and to their communities. The Indian Boarding School system was one of the most devastating Federal creations in American history. The scale was truly staggering. For over a century, the United States forced hundreds of thousands of children out of their homes and into over 500 ``boarding schools.'' These boarding schools were not unlike prisons. At least 408 schools were federally funded. They were scattered across 37 States, including Alaska and Hawaii. By the 1920s, 83 percent of school-age indigenous children were in boarding schools--imagine, four out of every five Native children taken from their families, some never to be seen again. The process was a waking nightmare. Armed officers were sent onto reservations to rip children as young as 4 from their families. Mothers and fathers who resisted could be severely punished. Once at boarding school, kids were stripped of their heritage. Their hair was cut off, their clothing was burned, and they were given new names. Children who tried to practice even remnants of their Native cultures could be starved, whipped, and put in solitary confinement. Many children were farmed out to nearby properties for forced labor. Some were deployed to fight in war. Some were sexually abused. Conditions at the boarding schools were deadly. Dormitories were overcrowded so that diseases spread easily. Documentation shows that hundreds of children died in these schools. It is estimated that the actual number of deaths was in the thousands or possibly even the tens of thousands. So far, 53 mass graves have been uncovered. Some are unmarked. Many children's remains were never returned to their families. The boarding schools' motto was ``Kill the Indian, and save the man.'' This approach was part of a larger effort. By isolating children from their families and their cultures, it was possible to break down the fabric of Tribal nations and take land more easily. Decision makers calculated that it was ``cheaper to educate our wards than to make war on them.'' Congress funded the majority of these schools, often using funds held in trust accounts that were legally designated for the benefit of Tribal nations. Congress paid for the schools and then authorized law enforcement to take Indian children from their homes and their Tribes. It now comes to this Congress to do everything we can to begin to heal the damage that this body inflicted. Make no mistake, the harms of the Indian boarding schools live on today. In my time working on this bill, I have heard countless harrowing stories from survivors and from their families. There isn't an indigenous community in this country that hasn't been affected. Survivors have faced chronic medical issues and psychological trauma. They have struggled to reconnect with their loved ones, their language, and their cultures. We cannot rectify that past until we face it head- on. There is still so much that we don't know about these boarding schools. We don't know how many children died in boarding school custody. We don't know the full spectrum of the violence that occurred. We don't know all of the ways the schools affect survivors and descendants to this day. My bill would establish a Truth and Healing Commission to find those answers. The Commission would formally investigate the Indian boarding schools to determine what happened and the lasting impact these schools have on survivors, their families, and their Tribal communities. The Commission would hold hearings and convenings for victims to speak about their experiences, some for the very first time. The Commission would have the authority to use subpoena power to gather witness testimony and to review documentation. The Commission would be charged with making recommendations about how the history of the Indian boarding schools should inform Federal policy today. It would address how the Federal Government should acknowledge its role in this systematic attempt to eradicate indigenous cultures and how to take that history into account when developing new Federal policies and budgets. One last note. The boarding school policy ended just before 1970. Most of those affected have passed away, but there are remaining survivors in their sixties, seventies, and beyond. Every day that goes by, these survivors grow older, and their chance to tell their stories moves further away. These people have been harmed enough. Their wounds go deep, and they deserve a chance to stand before the U.S. Government and tell their stories in their lifetimes. I urge my colleagues not to delay adoption of this bill. Our actions cannot make up for the harms that Congress inflicted, but by moving now, we can at least offer some token of care to those survivors who offered themselves up as living witnesses of a cruel chapter in American history. Make no mistake, this work will be painful, but it will make us a stronger Nation. By telling the truth, we can give communities a better chance to heal, and we can begin to repair the U.S. Government's relationship with Tribal nations. This bill has broad support. It is bipartisan. It is supported by boarding school survivors, and 32 Members of Congress have cosponsored the bill. I urge my colleagues now to pass this bill. We should delay no longer. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, on rollcall vote 192, I voted yea. It was my intention to vote nay. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote, because it will not affect the outcome.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, on rollcall vote 193, I voted yea. It was my intention to vote nay. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote because it will not affect the outcome.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize my friend and my former colleague, Rich Cordray. Rich's career demonstrates public service at its very best. Nearly 14 years ago, I picked up the phone and made one of the smartest phone calls I have ever made. It was to Rich Cordray. I asked him to take a chance on me to join me in starting a new Federal Agency. That just-getting-started Agency turned out to be the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Rich was finishing up his term as attorney general for the State of Ohio. As AG, he had earned a strong reputation for being the kind of public servant who looks out for the little guy. He was in multiple battles, and he led major lawsuits against both Bank of America and AIG. Protecting consumers seemed to be in his blood, so it was a natural fit for Rich to take charge of the enforcement arm of the CFPB. Establishing the CFPB was a huge task. Critics said the new consumer Agency was a pipe dream. Republicans said that it would never get through Congress. Armies of lobbyists poured millions of dollars into opposing it. But none of that fazed Rich at all. He always stayed level, calm, and absolutely determined. He did the work needed to bring that Agency to life because that is just who he is. Rich's courage and determination paid off. On July 18, 2011--a day I will never forget--I stood beside President Obama in the Rose Garden as he announced Rich Cordray as his nominee to be the first official Director of the CFPB. President Obama told me two things about Rich: He said he liked Rich, and he said he thought Rich would be a good leader. I agreed. I just knew that Rich would be terrific, and we were both right. As CFPB Director, Rich forced the biggest financial institutions in this country to return billions of dollars to the consumers they cheated, and through his work, he proved that government could work not just for the millionaires and billionaires but for ordinary people. One of the ways he did it was by having what I call the perfect balance of nerve and skill. I will share just one story. Rich has never been shy about taking on the biggest financial institutions in this country. In the early days, he investigated Capital One for misleading customers about their cost of ``free'' add-ons to their credit cards. These ``free'' services actually cost customers a total of about $140 million. So what did Rich do? He put in the work, fought back the armies of lobbyists and lawyers, and forced Capital One to send the hidden fees back to every single customer they had cheated. The best part--the customers didn't have to wade through reams of paperwork or stay on hold for hours. Rich set up the system so that the checks came automatically in the mail. He set the standard for what it means to protect consumers. But that is not all. On top of getting hard-working Americans their money back, Rich and his team got Capital One to pay an additional $25 million fine. It takes a special kind of leader to get that done. At every turn, Rich Cordray has been fearless. Thanks to Rich, the CFPB has become the watchdog that so many of us fought for, and his legacy is felt each and every day as the CFPB continues to put money back into the pockets of working people. Since it got off the ground, the CFPB has now returned over $20 billion and helped more than 205 million consumers. I will say that again--$20 billion returned and 205 million consumers helped. That would not have happened without Rich Cordray. That record of public service is awe-inspiring. Nobody would have blamed Rich if he had said: OK, I am tired, and I am ready to throw in the towel. But that is not Rich. After his work at the CFPB, he asked: What more can I do? And for the past 3 years, he has led the Office of Federal Student Aid at the Department of Education--a powerfully important and often thankless gig. Since joining the Department of Education, Rich has changed millions of lives for the better, and, again, that is not an exaggeration. His North Star was always clear. He worked day in and day out to protect working people who are getting crushed by student loan debt. Rich stood up to the student loan servicers who were cheating Americans, and, like he did with the big banks, he held these guys accountable. For years, servicers failed borrowers over and over and over but faced no consequences as they raked in hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. Rich reversed the Trump-era guidance that stopped States from protecting their own residents against abusive servicer behavior. He implemented new accountability standards for servicers, and he backed that by hard data on customer service and performance. When those servicers didn't meet those standards, Rich wasn't afraid to hit them with penalties and push out the bad servicers. Rich was committed to ending the days of lousy service and big profits for the loan servicers. One of the most important ways that Rich changed the lives of Americans all across this country was by overseeing the Biden administration's efforts to cancel student debt. With Rich Cordray's help, President Biden has canceled more student loan debt than any President in the history of this country. Nearly 5 million people have seen their student loans canceled, and the administration has a plan to cancel debt for 30 million Americans in total. Rich Cordray led the way in fixing the broken debt-cancelation programs and making them work for hard-working Americans. I will give you just one example on this. Before President Biden took office, only 7,000 people in total, everywhere in the United States, had gotten relief through the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program--7,000 total. Today, the laws are the same, but with Rich at the helm, nearly 1 million public servants have had their debt wiped out. For working people in this country, for mommas and daddies, for firefighters and nurses, for DMV workers down the street and the teacher at your local elementary school, this debt cancelation has been absolutely life-changing. On a personal note, I am beyond proud of Rich. Rich is one of the most effective and honest public servants I have ever met. He has talent and dedication. But what makes him so special is that Rich has always centered everyday Americans in his work. From serving as a State rep back in Ohio, to becoming their first ever solicitor general, to taking office as the State's treasurer and then its attorney general, Rich proved each and every day to the people of Ohio that their government could work for them. When he came to Washington, he always made sure that people all across America knew he was working for them. Whenever he traveled, wherever people reached out to him, Rich would listen. He would sit down with people, hear their stories, hear how they were cheated by a big bank or on a student loan, and then he would set about making things right. Rich, the American people owe you a great debt for your work on their behalf. When our country needed you, you answered the call. You are a true example of public service and one of the most fearless leaders I have ever known. It is an honor to know you and an even higher honor to call you a friend. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today because reproductive freedom is under attack. In 2022, Donald Trump's far-right Supreme Court took away the constitutional right to an abortion, completing the Republican Party's decades-long plan to overturn Roe. In some States, the Court's decision revived abortion bans that had lain dormant since the 1800s. In other States, the decision triggered new abortion restrictions prewritten to go into effect the very day that Roe v. Wade was overturned. The results have been horrific. But here is the thing the Republican Party missed: From Kansas to Ohio, to California, reproductive rights are popular. Americans overwhelmingly support the right to an abortion, the right to IVF, and the right to contraception. In fact, these rights are so popular that Republicans want you to believe they support them, but their actions speak for themselves. First, Republicans said they wouldn't overturn Roe v. Wade. Donald Trump and his extremist Supreme Court did, and Trump is still bragging about it. Now, over 20 States have banned or severely restricted abortion access, passed laws criminalizing doctors who perform abortions, or threatened access to pregnancy care, miscarriage care, fertility assistance, and more. Then Republicans claimed they wouldn't go after IVF. Just this year, Alabama's Supreme Court virtually outlawed IVF in the State, and just a few weeks later, my colleagues in the Republican Party blocked Federal legislation that would protect access to this care. Now, the Republican Party is saying they won't go after contraception. Well, that makes sense since 92 percent of Americans support birth control. But, guess what, Republicans now have contraception in their sights, and they are even trying to redefine what constitutes contraception. Sure, they support contraception--ah, but not an IUD; or they are all for contraception--hmm, but not Plan B. Contraception is a must, except Republicans in Congress have a bill, the ``Life at Conception Act,'' that would give an embryo so-called personhood rights, which would outlaw abortion, outlaw IVF, and, yes, outlaw some forms of contraception. That bill has the majority support of the Republican caucus, including Speaker of the House Mike Johnson. On top of that, Republicans blocked Democrats from passing this very same bill to protect the right to contraception last year. But tomorrow, every Senator will have to say where they stand, proving that no matter what Republicans say about wanting to support contraception, when it comes down to it, they won't. Tomorrow's vote should be a turning point. It is time we take these Republican lawmakers at their word. Millions of people across this country are already experiencing a new form of hell thanks to Donald Trump and the extremist Supreme Court that overturned Roe, and Black, Brown, and low-income communities are feeling a disproportionate impact. So, now, as Donald Trump continues to push for a nationwide abortion ban and says he is ``looking at'' contraception, Democrats are standing up and fighting back. Already, President Biden and Vice President Harris have taken a series of steps to strengthen access to affordable, high-quality contraception and adequate access to reproductive healthcare more generally. Tomorrow, I will be joining my Democratic colleagues, led by my partner Senator Markey and by Senator Hirono and Senator Duckworth, in voting for the Right to Contraception Act. Birth control is safe, effective, and an important part of reproductive healthcare. It is time that we fight back against the Republican war against reproductive freedom. It is time we codify the right to contraception into law. I am furious that millions of women have lost fundamental rights. I am furious that their freedom to make their own decisions has been taken away by a small number of extremists. I am alarmed by what the extremist Supreme Court and congressional Republicans are prepared to do to unravel a future of protection for women under a Republican Presidency. This is about the right to make decisions about our own bodies and our own futures. It is all on the line, and we need these protections written into law. That is what tomorrow's vote is about. I don't want to hear from Republicans who say they support contraception but can't make it the law of the land. If they really support contraception, then they will vote yes on the bill that comes up tomorrow. If not, actions speak louder than words. They will demonstrate that it is not only going after abortion, it is not only going after IVF, it is also all about going after contraception. These are the decisions women should make for themselves. They should have the freedom to do that. These are not the decisions that should be made by extremist Republican lawmakers. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

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

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, we are about to hold a vote under the Congressional Review Act. The CRA was passed in 1994 to give Congress a 6-month window of 60 legislative days to review an Agency rule and, if Congress doesn't like that rule, 60 days to overturn it. However, our vote today is not a vote on a notice and comment rule. In fact, our vote today is on something that doesn't even have the force of law. Our vote today is on a Staff Accounting Bulletin issued by the SEC back in the spring of 2022. Now, the SEC has issued these bulletins--they are called SABs--for nearly 50 years without anyone ever suggesting that they were subject to the CRA. The CRA has a time limit for a reason--so that settled law is settled law, something that everyone can count on--and the CRA is limited to Agency rules so that a single Member of Congress can't tie up Agencies and Congress with expedited procedures under the CRA by raking over the details of every Agency action. Today's vote--coming more than 2 years after the SEC wrote the bulletin and applying to a staff bulletin rather than a rule--is far outside the scope of the CRA. We should not be holding this vote. All by itself, that is a good enough reason to vote no, but let's talk about the substance of this SAB for just a minute. The fairness of our markets depends on transparency. Investors in pension funds and 401(k)s and workers who are trying to save for retirement all have a right to know what they are investing in. The Securities and Exchange Commission is the guardian of those financial disclosures that give investors information about a company's business plan, about its leadership, and about the risks that it faces in the market. So to help public companies disclose information about their businesses in a consistent way, from one business to another to another so that investors can make comparisons, the SEC issues Staff Accounting Bulletins--these SABs--to clarify guidance about emerging issues in the accounting industry: how to tell people about this business. SAB No. 121 was published to provide accounting guidance to companies that hold customers' digital assets. It says that, because of some of the unique technological and legal risks associated with digital assets, public companies that safeguard cryptoassets for their customers should make the risks associated with holding those assets visible to investors. One way that this risk shows up is that if a company safeguards property for someone--if just an ordinary company is holding property for someone, like stocks or bonds or jewelry--the company bears the risk that the property could be stolen. That is why companies that hold property for others carry insurance, and it is why they have really big safes. But if the company safeguards crypto, there is a special risk that is not there with other kinds of property. Crypto can get hacked. In fact, there have been some pretty major crypto hacks in which assets just vanish. The risk isn't theoretical; it is real--FTX, $600 million-- poof; Binance, $586 million--poof; Ronin Network, $625 million--poof; and Poly Network, $611 million--poof--all in just the last 3 years. We have seen multiple hacks of crypto platforms. The unique risks of crypto can create liabilities that seriously impact a company's financial condition. SAB 121 simply clarifies how companies should account for those risks in their financial disclosures. That is all it is doing. Now, there is a second kind of problem with crypto, and that is, if a company safeguards property for someone--stocks, bonds, jewelry, like we talked about earlier--if the company doing the safeguarding goes bankrupt, the true owner of the stocks or the bonds or the jewelry can get their property back, but if the company that goes bankrupt is holding crypto, the peculiarities of crypto ownership and possession mean that the creditors of the bankrupt company could keep the crypto. The true owner may just be out of luck. Once again, SAB 121 simply clarifies how companies should make clear those risks in their disclosures. So let's talk for just a minute about what SAB 121 doesn't do. It doesn't bring customers' cryptoassets onto a crypto platform's balance sheet or make the platform the owner of a customer's digital assets. Instead, SAB 121 requires the disclosure of what other substantive laws, including bankruptcy laws, are already doing. This effort to reverse the SEC's accounting guidance would deprive investors of accurate information on the risks of holding cryptoassets and corrode public trust in our financial system and our institutions. The vote today is about ensuring that the SEC is able to issue guidance that will help companies of all sizes produce strong, consistent, timely, and meaningful accounting disclosures. It is about protecting critical informational tools that investors and companies have relied on for half a century, and it is about maintaining the integrity of our markets, which rely on a clear, consistent accounting rule book. Democrats should stand with President Biden against this effort to attack the SEC's authority. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Before I get to the substance, let me remind my colleague, I think, of something we have discussed a lot. Any amendment added to this bill at the moment is the equivalent of killing the bill. Many have said: If we go past midnight tonight, it doesn't really matter. Already, telecom companies--a number--have contacted the Department of Justice saying: If this bill expires--as it will at midnight--they will stop complying with 702, one of the most critical components of our intelligence backbone. The specifics of this amendment are opposed by every law enforcement agency in America. It also is opposed by a number of Jewish community groups, including B'nai B'rith and the Anti-defamation League. I would agree with the Senator from Kentucky: We ought to have a debate about data brokers. But 702 is not the place to have it. As a matter of fact, the House decided not to include this in their discussion of 702. If we pass this amendment, the only people who are going to be taken out from purchasing data will be law enforcement--not foreign companies, not foreign governments, or others.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today in pursuit of peace in the Middle East. After nearly 5 months of war in Gaza, the human suffering must end. Just today, Americans woke up to the news that Israeli troops had opened fire on Palestinians desperate for humanitarian aid, killing dozens and adding to the more than 30,000 people in Gaza who have been killed during this conflict. Hamas's October 7 terrorist attack on Israel took more than a thousand lives. Israel, like every nation, has the right to defend itself and the right to prevent another terrorist attack like this one from ever occurring again. Other rights are important as well. The people who live in the Middle East deserve a lasting peace and deserve to live their lives with dignity and self-determination. For decades, the United States Government has supported a two-state solution to guarantee those rights for both Israelis and Palestinians-- two states for two people. For years, I have spoken out against the diminishing prospects for a two-state solution. For years, Palestinians have been poorly served by their leaders, both in the West Bank and in Gaza. For years, even before October 7, Hamas's governance of Gaza was a major impediment to peace. And also for years, I have believed that Israel's long-term strategic interests were endangered by Prime Minister Netanyahu's leadership. Since October 7, it has only gotten worse. Prime Minister Netanyahu and his rightwing war cabinet have created a massive humanitarian disaster, pushing the region even further away from a two-state solution. Indiscriminate bombings in Gaza have killed tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians, wiping out entire families and leaving thousands of children orphaned. Nearly 2 million people have been displaced, and 45 percent of the residential buildings in Gaza have been destroyed. The Israeli Government's refusal to allow adequate humanitarian aid into Gaza has left hundreds of thousands of people on the brink of starvation. And still, more than 100 hostages are held by Hamas. The Israeli Government's top priority should have been to bring those hostages home, but, instead, Prime Minister Netanyahu focused on revenge. He publicly invoked the plight of hostages to justify indiscriminate bombing that thwarts the negotiations that would bring them home. This is a betrayal of the families whose loved ones are still held hostage by Hamas. Netanyahu's opposition to a two-state solution is fierce and longstanding. For decades, he has undercut Palestinian independence. He has deliberately propped up Hamas to try to keep the Palestinian people divided. He approved Qatar's payments to Hamas--payments that may have been used for Hamas's military operations. He expanded settlements in the West Bank, turning the region into a patchwork of disconnected parts that undermine Palestinian hopes for a united homeland. The result has been a vicious cycle of violence. That is why, for years, I have advocated that U.S. military aid should help Israel and Palestine move toward peace, not subsidize policies that move peace further out of reach. Today, Netanyahu is doubling down on his opposition to peace. The Prime Minister has openly and directly rejected U.S. policy. He has promised he will not compromise and he will hold fast to his rejection of a Palestinian State. Under his leadership, the Knesset has backed him to the hilt. The Prime Minister has also tried to pressure Egypt and other countries in the region to accept Gazan war refugees, raising the specter that his government is working toward permanently expelling Palestinians from their homes. He has insisted that Israel and Israel alone must control the entire area of the Jordan River, leaving no room for a Palestinian State. And the fallout from his bombing campaigns is not limited to Gaza. He has given cover for Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other terrorist groups to expand the conflict. The bottom line is clear: Netanyahu's leadership in this war has been a moral and strategic failure that is in direct opposition to American policy and American values. Netanyahu cannot bomb his way to the return of the hostages. Netanyahu cannot bomb his way to security in the region. Netanyahu cannot bomb his way to peace. The only path to protect Israel's long-term security and to ensure that Palestinians have equal rights, equal freedom, and the self- determination they deserve is a two-state solution--two states for two peoples. This has been the stated policy of the U.S. Government dating back decades, and if this far-right Israeli Government does not share that goal, then it is our responsibility to make clear that the Netanyahu government does not get a blank check for U.S. aid. That is why I have been fighting to condition aid to Israel and protect civilians in Gaza. Over the last few months, I have called for Israel to prevent harm to civilians and for accountability when U.S. weapons are used to target refugee camps and safe zones. I have challenged the administration's decision to bypass Congress in approving arms transfers to Israel. I have worked with my colleagues, led by Senator Van Hollen, on an amendment to condition aid to Israel. Earlier this month, President Biden delivered a critical step, issuing a national security memorandum that makes clear that any country that receives aid from the United States must follow international law, including Israel. This is a good policy, but enforcement is crucial. Oversight of its implementation is necessary to ensure that it is a meaningful step and not just lip service. Netanyahu has made clear he plans to launch a military offensive in Rafah, where more than a million Palestinians with nowhere safe to go are currently taking refuge. The administration has warned that expanding operations to Rafah would be a ``disaster'' that the U.S. Government does not support. Meanwhile, humanitarian aid remains strangled and hunger and disease are sweeping Gaza. Netanyahu is on dangerous ground. Every day that he continues, more innocent civilians in Gaza suffer and are killed, and thousands more Americans say ``enough'' and call on our government to end U.S. aid for such actions. President Biden has indicated that we are on the verge of a cease- fire that would free the hostages and would allow desperately needed humanitarian aid in. I hope that is true, and it is a meaningful step toward an enduring peace. But until then, the United States has a responsibility to ensure that our weapons aren't used to target innocent children and families in Gaza. We also have a responsibility to ensure that our support is used to advance long-term peace and stability in the region. We recognize that it takes two parties to negotiate a meaningful peace, and we should also urge the allies of the Palestinians to do the same. All nations should push in the same direction: Condition aid, return the hostages, resume the cease-fire, and advance peace through a two-state solution. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Madam President, just now, my friend and colleague Senator Tammy Duckworth, a longtime champion for IVF and a longtime champion for families, put forward an important bill that would ensure that families have access to the services they need to have a baby, including IVF. Since then, Republicans have blocked this bill to protect IVF. Now, remember that for all their talk about supporting IVF, when it came down to it right here in this Chamber, Republicans blocked IVF protection. Republican opposition to IVF is terrifying. It makes me furious. But it should not surprise anyone. Donald Trump set the stage for the attacks on reproductive rights when he stacked the Supreme Court with ultraconservative Justices and overturned Roe v. Wade. Since then, Republicans have banned or severely restricted abortion in 24 States. They are trying to ban medication abortion nationwide. Now in Alabama, these extremists have virtually outlawed IVF, fertility care that gives people a chance to start a family. This has always been about conservative politicians controlling women's bodies. This has been Donald Trump and the Republicans' plan all along. And the opposition to Senator Duckworth's proposal today shows that Republicans are doubling down against reproductive freedom. They are coming for medication abortion, they are coming for birth control, and they are even coming for prenatal care. Make no mistake-- we will fight them every step of the way. I want to talk for just a minute about the people who are affected by these extremist policies: families in Alabama who have been wanting and praying that IVF can help them have a baby; women who have injected themselves with medication for weeks or months or even years; people who have spent their entire life savings trying to start a family, only now to see their hopes go down the drain; LGBTQ families who have spent years taking on every obstacle just for the chance to have a baby of their own, and for some, this was the last chance. Now Republicans like Donald Trump and those in this Chamber might try to backtrack, might try to say that they are working to protect IVF, but it is all talk. Senate Republicans' actions today speak louder than any empty promises they make. Americans can tell when Republican politicians try to talk out of both sides of their mouths. The American people want reproductive freedom. The American people support parents and those desperately trying to become parents. So here is what comes next. Democrats have made clear that we stand with President Biden, with Vice President Harris, and with the millions of families affected by these heartless policies. We stand to protect reproductive rights for people all across this country. Together, we will fight for every person to have access to a safe abortion. We will fight for every family to have access to the services needed to have a baby. And we won't stop fighting until we secure the Congress that we need to protect reproductive freedom for everyone in this country. I am proud to be a cosponsor of Senator Duckworth's bill, and together we are going to get this done. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Northeastern University, on the occasion of its 125th anniversary. Northeastern University began as the Boston YMCA Evening Institute for Young Men in 1898, established to meet the industry's emergent need for skilled workers in the vocational trades. Today, Northeastern is a global research university and a recognized leader in experiential lifelong learning that integrates real-world experience with education, research, and innovation. Launched over a century ago, Northeastern's signature cooperative education--co-op--model now spans every continent and more than 3,500 employer partners where students work, study, and research. With an R1 Carnegie classification, the university's research enterprise, focused broadly on the domains of health, security, and sustainability, as well as cutting-edge fields like artificial intelligence and robotics, wireless technology, and the life sciences, has quintupled during the past 15 years and pushed the bounds of scientific discovery. Since 2011, Northeastern has embarked on an ambitious expansion across the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Today, Northeastern's global university system comprises 13 sites, making it the only U.S. research university with comprehensive campuses on both coasts and a leader in preparing graduates with global experience. The university's success extends beyond learning and discovery to intercollegiate athletics, as reflected, most recently, by the Huskies' sweep of the 2023 men's and women's Beanpot ice hockey tournaments for a record sixth time. Northeastern counts a long and proud tradition of partnership with the Nation's armed forces that includes a U.S. Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps--ROTC--unit, extensive collaboration in defense and homeland security research, and a nationally recognized student veterans organization dedicated to helping returning veterans transition to higher education and achieve professional career success. On the 125th anniversary of its founding, the university's investments in entrepreneurship, women's empowerment, civic engagement, public art, and sustainability have made an extraordinary contribution to the economic and social fabric of the city of Boston, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the United States, and the world. They are a credit to the nearly 300,000 Northeastern alums living, working, and making a difference in communities around the globe. On the occasion of this milestone, I am proud to recognize Northeastern University.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Madam President, I want to start by saying a very special thank-you to Senator Butler for calling us here today. Today should have been the 51st anniversary of Roe v. Wade; instead, too many people can't get the medical care they need when they need it, where they need it. Students who are desperate for help get the runaround. Poor women face impossible hurdles. Children who have survived rape and become pregnant are frightened and confused. Fertility clinics are abandoning services, and families who hoped for a baby face excruciating heartache when a pregnancy goes wrong and doctors are barred from helping. At every turn, we see a new form of hell brought to us by an extremist Supreme Court and a powerful band of Republican lawmakers determined to obliterate reproductive freedom across the country. To every person watching these events unfold and feeling hurt, I see you, I am with you, and I grieve alongside you. But I do more than grieve, more than complain; I fight back, and I am asking you to fight back too because, right now, this is our moment to act and, if we don't, we might not get another opportunity for a long, long time. Roe wasn't overturned by some accident. We are here because Republican extremists have been waging a decades-long war to take down Roe. They have poured billions of dark money into our politics to chip away at our rights. They handpicked judges with proven anti-abortion records. They took over State and local governments. They built an anti-Roe coalition right here in Congress. And the very second--the very second--that the Supreme Court gave them the green light, they jumped into action enacting the most severe restrictions possible on abortion access. The result: Over the last year and a half, over 20 States have banned or severely restricted abortion access; passed laws criminalizing doctors who perform abortions; or threatened access to pregnancy care, miscarriage care, fertility assistance, and more. Well-organized and well-funded extremists have brought lawsuits to further restrict access, hoping to undermine access in States that are firmly pro-choice. The result has been cruel and frightening. Some people have given in to despair, but I don't see it that way. To me, the end of Roe marked a new era in the movement for abortion rights. Yes, an era that has been harrowing for people across the country, but also one that marks the end of a plan Republicans hatched 40 years ago to reverse Roe and the beginning of a new chapter. And in this new chapter, we are leading the way. Together, we have made clear that an overwhelming majority of Americans support reproductive freedom and individuals' rights to make decisions about their own bodies. Across this country, millions of Americans have come together and said they are with us. Not just in places like California and New York, but in Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, and Ohio. The Biden-Harris administration has stepped up to vigorously protect reproductive freedom from defending medication abortion from baseless lawsuits to preserving access to care for servicemembers and veterans to strengthening protection for patients' sensitive health information. Republicans know that the majority of Americans oppose overturning Roe, but they aren't letting up. Instead, overturning Roe is not enough for them; they want more. They have introduced legislation to ban abortion nationwide, and if they can't pass it through Congress, they will use a Republican President to dust off a 19th century anti- obscenity law, instead, to try to get the job done. We cannot let that happen. We have the energy; we have the numbers; and we know what we need to do. President Biden has called on Congress to act. We need to pass the Women's Health Protection Act to protect our human rights and to roll back the extreme abortion bills that radical rightwing legislatures have enacted across this country, and we need to get in the fight right now to secure the Congress that we need to get this job done. This won't be easy, but important fights never are. I know our strength; I have seen it in the millions of people marching in the streets for abortion rights. I have seen it in the thousands of calls made to Congressional offices. I have seen it in the resolve of people standing up for Kate Cox in Texas and Brittany Watts in Ohio. And that is how I know that even when it gets hard, we will persist. From this moment on, what happens is up to us. Together we have the power to restore Roe and to protect our right to make our own decisions about our own bodies and our own futures. I am in this fight all the way. The stakes are too high not to be. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today to ask the Senate to confirm Ron Keohane to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. In this role, Mr. Keohane will be the principal adviser to the Secretary of Defense on all matters relating to the civilian and military personnel policies. He is extremely well-qualified for this role, previously serving as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family Policy. We need someone with Mr. Keohane's sense of experience to oversee and develop policies to support our servicemembers and their families, as well as to oversee our DOD schools. Strong leadership is also essential to address our military recruiting crisis. I recently held a hearing in my subcommittee, which the Senator from North Carolina attended, that identified a long list of areas where our military services can continue to step up to inspire more young people to serve. They need someone like Mr. Keohane to make sure that the services actually follow through. No one is disputing Mr. Keohane's qualifications. The Senate Armed Services Committee voted unanimously to advance his nomination. The only reason that Mr. Keohane's nomination has not already been approved is because the Senator from North Carolina is willing to play politics with our national defense. As we all know by now, the Senator from North Carolina disagrees with the Department of Defense's policy to help members of the military and their families access healthcare, specifically reproductive healthcare. Republican Senators claim they wanted a vote on DOD's policy on abortion; but just this week, they lost a vote to move forward toward overturning that policy. So if they can't get it on a straight-up vote, they are now blocking Mr. Keohane out of spite. Last week, after months of undermining our national security, the Senator from Alabama backed down with nothing to show for his nearly yearlong blockade of promotions for hundreds of senior military officials--nothing to show, that is, except for the long-term damage he inflicted on our military personnel, on their families, and on our military readiness. So now the Senator from North Carolina is stopping well-qualified nominees. He has no specific objection to this nominee. In fact, the Senator serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee that unanimously advanced Mr. Keohane's nomination. But the Senator from North Carolina now blocks the confirmation of Mr. Keohane. We need leaders at the Department of Defense. Blocking these confirmations is corrosive to our national security. Our Nation cannot continue to hold key national security officials hostage. We must put the safety and well-being of our servicemembers first. Our greatest strength as a nation is our people, and we need a confirmed leader like Mr. Keohane to make sure that our servicemembers have everything they need to succeed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 109, Ronald T. Keohane, of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; and that, if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I think what the Senator from North Carolina has just said is he doesn't like the abortion policy that the Department of Defense has adopted. He is right. It is a new policy. It is a policy that was made necessary because an extremist Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade with the Dobbs opinion and forced the military to have to decide how to deal with access to healthcare, access to abortions for people who were now involuntarily stationed in States where that care was no longer available. The Senator, and all of the Republicans, were offered a vote on the Department of Defense's policy. And we voted just this week on a measure that would move toward that vote. And it failed. In other words, the Republicans who oppose this policy simply don't have the votes. So instead of yielding to the will of the majority and letting this policy go through without a problem, instead, they play politics with the people who are trying to serve our Nation. That Mr. Keohane gets caught in this--someone who is willing to serve our Nation and, most importantly, right now, to help our servicemembers live their best opportunities in the military at a time when we are having recruiting challenges, is just putting politics ahead of the defense of the United States; it is putting politics ahead of our servicemembers and putting politics ahead of our servicemembers' families. I think this is fundamentally wrong. They had a vote; they lost; they don't like it; and they are holding Mr. Keohane just out of spite. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.