-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is not unusual in this job of ours in the U.S. Senate to run into a reporter in the hallway. It happens all the time. They are trying to write a story, and they want to ask a question or two to get a quote, possibly, for the story.

Today, I came out of one of our hearing rooms on the Committee on Agriculture, and one of the more prominent reporters for one of the cable news networks said to me: Can you give me a reaction to the suggestion by President Trump, yesterday, that, somehow or another, the United States of America is going to take over control of the Gaza Strip and develop it?

Well, I had read that in the morning papers, that assertion, and all I could say to him was, If you follow his suggestion to let Canada become the 51st State; that we take over the Panama Canal--if necessary, by force--that somehow or another we come into ownership of Greenland, then the notion of developing hotels on the ocean on the Gaza Strip is just one of the Trump suggestions we are dealing with.

For those who argue, ``Well, the American people voted for it,'' were they voting for those things?

The point I am trying to make was made earlier by Senator Schumer. There are efforts afoot that go way beyond the issues of this last Presidential campaign, where the American people, I believe, said: We want a change. We are going to vote in the majority for Donald Trump because we want to see a better lifestyle for ourselves and our kids. Those things make sense to me, and I will tell you, in my life, as I reflect on things that have happened to me, there were times when the government played a very important role in my life.

I recall when my father passed away when I was in high school. There was a Social Security Disability assistance check that helped me go to college. Then, of course, there was something called the National Defense Education Act, where I could borrow money from the Federal Government. That had to be paid back, but I could borrow the money to pay for my school expenses.

Had the government not been there in those two instances, I am not sure if I could have completed college or where I would be today. I didn't start off with a litmus test of whether I love the government or don't. I needed a helping hand, and there was a program created by this government, by this Senate, that came to my rescue.

What we are discussing now is the nomination of Russell Vought. I don't know the man personally, but I have read plenty of what his philosophy consists of. I believe he is being offered one of the most powerful jobs that most Americans don't even know--the Office of Management and Budget. One of the essential powers of the Senate, under our Constitution, is advice and consent, which means the Founding Fathers said the President can pick his team, but the Senate has to approve that team. It has to advise and consent when it comes to that person. The constitutional authority gives the Senate the power to review and approve Presidential nominations and, with it, the responsibility to ask hard questions.

Well, that has been the case, in the last several weeks, as the nominees for the President's Cabinet have all come forward to be reviewed by Members of the Senate. Our Nation's Founders viewed this as a check on the power of the President, ensuring that the country's most important leadership posts are filled by truly trustworthy, qualified, law-abiding Americans. I take that responsibility seriously.

I probably, as I reflected on running for the Senate, did not reflect on how many times I would be called to judge a person as part of my job. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee--the ranking member at this point--I have had to review the resumes and interview literally hundreds--sometimes thousands--of applicants for lifetime positions with the Federal Government. When I reflect on it, it is an awesome responsibility, but you have to project as to what that person will do once they have the power of office, and that is what we are doing today.

I join with my colleagues in opposing the nomination of Russell Vought to be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. He has been nominated by President Trump to run this Agency. It is the largest office within the executive branch of the government. Its job is to oversee Federal Agencies and administer the Federal budget.

Now, most of the time when we are called on to evaluate nominations, we do our best to take a look and review the nominee's qualifications and experience. We meet with the candidates--I have done that today several times with several nominees--and ask them questions to determine their fitness for the roles. Sometimes, you can tell this is the first time they have ever really, seriously, considered serving in government in their lives. We try to imagine what they will do with that power. But for Mr. Vought, there is no need for imagination. He already served as Director of OMB during the last half of President Trump's first term in office, and I believe he proved who he was in that period of time.

When he served as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget during President Trump's first term, Mr. Vought illegally refused to release hundreds of millions of dollars in security assistance to Ukraine, and he delayed $20 billion of disaster aid for Puerto Rico. If that sounds like a lot of power, it is. There was literally a question as to whether Ukraine would survive the invasion of Vladimir Putin. Our government had committed to helping, but Mr. Vought decided, in his capacity as the head of OMB, to withhold the funds, and there was a serious question as to whether Ukraine--in fighting for its life--would survive. The $20 billion in disaster aid for Puerto Rico after the hurricanes that struck and that did such great damage to that nation was a life-and-death proposition, and he decided that he would withhold these funds.

When he left that role, Mr. Vought went on to become a key architect of what has been referred to many, many times as Project 2025--a policy proposal written by a conservative think tank, outlining a sweeping, extreme vision of America's future. Project 2025 included policies to consolidate power in the executive branch and to undermine critical services the Federal Government provides to American families. If that sounds familiar, perhaps you are following the President's ongoing attempts to freeze Federal funds legally appropriated by Congress. That is no coincidence. Mr. Vought is the MAGA puppet master in this administration, and, 2 weeks ago, we saw it at its worst.

I see Senator Murray of Washington is here on the floor. She is our Democratic leader when it comes to Appropriations. I sit on that committee and respect her judgment. I am sure she remembers, as I do, when the word came out that there was a pronouncement from OMB that they were going to put a freeze on Federal spending. It didn't sound real to think that they would stop spending across the board. They made a few exceptions--but to stop spending in so many areas?

Then the phone started ringing from the State of Illinois. They started calling Senator Duckworth's office and my own office, and we were telling people exactly what was involved.

This involves programs like Head Start. Head Start is a critical program that began in the 1960s. It is for kids who are prekindergarten to spend a day under supervision in a learning experience and in a socialization experience that can make all the difference in their lives. For their parents, it is a great opportunity.

Last Friday, I visited one of these Head Start facilities in the city of Chicago. It is known as El Valor. It is remarkable. Seeing those kids and the experiences they are going through is heartwarming. These kids are from working families. They are not from families who have a lot of wealth. But they have an opportunity in Head Start to have a good, clean, positive classroom experience that prepares them for school and prepares them for life.

One of the parents made a point of coming in and telling me his story. He talked about what a transformation it was that took place in his little boy when he became part of this Head Start Program.

I have such positive feelings about that because I can't think of a better investment of my tax dollars and anybody's tax dollars than in making sure those kids--that next generation--have a fighting chance, and Head Start gives them that chance.

Well, when OMB announced the freeze, some of the first agencies that felt it were the Head Start Programs. They started realizing they couldn't keep their doors open because they don't have a lot money to turn to if they didn't get the regular infusion of Federal funds that had been guaranteed to them over the years. Some of them actually thought ``Maybe we could last a day or two without that Federal funding,'' but most of them realized they couldn't last at all without it.

So why in the world would OMB turn to a program like Head Start and say: That is where we want to freeze Federal spending. For goodness' sake, I will be the first to admit that there is waste in our government. There is waste in corporations. There is waste in many directions. But to start with kids, struggling kids from working families, and to say: We are going to cut off their program--that is your first priority for cuts?

Meals on Wheels. What is Meals on Wheels? Well, it is something most people with an elderly parent or grandparent know full well. It is that one time each day when someone knocks on the door and brings literally a hot meal to someone who is living alone usually and has to depend on that--not just for food but for socialization and that friendly smile once a day that they just dream of and live for. To cut that program, along with Head Start--come on. But that is what I learned. I learned that this freeze from OMB that started with the Trump administration involved Meals on Wheels.

It isn't just these programs that touch my heart and I hope touch yours; we had calls from medical researchers, from hospitals across the city of Chicago. And I am proud of those hospitals. We have some of the best in the world. They do key research, critical research--cancer, heart disease, and so many other things. They work with the National Institutes of Health, the premier medical research Agency in the world.

Well, it turns out that when the OMB of President Trump wanted to start turning out the lights, they decided to do it on medical research as well. What were they thinking?

If you have ever been in a terrible moment in your life where someone you love is seriously ill and you are wondering if they can survive, one of the first things you are going to ask that doctor: Is there a medicine? Is there a process? Is there a surgery? Is there some breakthrough that maybe can save the life of somebody I love?

That is one of the first questions you ask when you face that awful moment.

So what did this OMB decide to do under President Trump? They decided to cut off funding for medical research. These are researchers who literally said: We were told at 5 o'clock to go home. That means walking away from an experiment which I have been working on for a long time and losing all the progress I have made.

Really? That is your priority? I don't think the American people thought that was what they were voting for when they voted for Donald Trump in this last election.

Mr. Vought has made his beliefs perfectly clear. He believes the President can refuse to spend money that Congress has appropriated for the American people despite this being in direct violation of the law. The law is known as the Impoundment Control Act.

Some have naively claimed that Project 2025 is nothing but a thought and an expert. It is clear that since the President took office, it has been a blueprint for a radical rewrite of the principle of the balance of power in our Constitution.

It is no surprise that as a key author of Project 2025, Mr. Vought continues to lead that charge. Knowing this as we do, placing him in charge of OMB would be irresponsible--you saw what they did initially with the freeze just a few weeks ago--and it would entirely undermine the role of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the U.S. Senate itself.

What I find disappointing and discouraging is that so many of my Republican friends who worked so hard to be elected to this Chamber are willing to give away our constitutional rights and our constitutional authority. This idea of impoundment gives away the power of Congress to appropriate.

This latest attempt to put a sweeping freeze on Federal funds is far from the first time Mr. Vought has broken the law and undermined Congress's power of the purse that is set forth in the Constitution. It is clear from Mr. Vought's comments and actions that he has contempt for Congress as a coequal branch of government.

It is appalling that so many of my Republican Senate friends voted to advance his nomination as he actively attempts to strip Congress of our congressional authority.

We are not opposing Mr. Vought solely because he poses a threat to our ability to do our jobs in Congress. Mr. Vought has made it clear that he is targeting working families across the country.

Both in his previous tenure as OMB Director and in policy proposals, Mr. Vought has proposed budget cuts that slash the social safety net resources for tax cuts for the wealthy.

It is being reported today that representatives of Elon Musk's so- called Department of Government Efficiency are now inside the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, where they have gained access to key payment and contracting systems.

I know Elon Musk. I have met him on two or three occasions one on one. We had conversations. I respect him in many respects for achievements with his car, as well as with SpaceX and solar energy projects. He has done some remarkable things, making him the wealthiest person in the world.

Having said that, I don't believe he has any qualification to sit here in judgment of our government and its future. He has been given an outsized role in the Trump administration although he has no authority from the American people. He hasn't been elected to a damn thing, but he has currently won over the heart of the President and is making decisions which affect people's lives every day.

Each representative of DOGE--the Department of Government Efficiency, which isn't even a Department--is looking at the systems technology in Medicare and Medicaid, as well as the spending that flows through them. That means every hospital, every senior in a nursing home, and every child with a serious health condition is at the mercy of what Elon Musk's minions consider to be worthwhile spending.

The Director of OMB should manage funds that serve everyday Americans, not billionaires.

Moreover, Mr. Vought clearly intends to politicize the Federal workforce. While serving as OMB Director during President Trump's first term, he was the architect of ``schedule F,'' a plan which would allow the President to fire nonpartisan civil servants and replace them with partisan loyalists.

On January 20, President Trump signed an Executive order reviving schedule F--another move right out of Mr. Vought's Project 2025 playbook--effectively stripping thousands of career civil servants of job protections.

Mr. Vought has called civil servants ``villains,'' and he has advocated for their mass termination. But more than 70 percent of the Federal workforce serves in national security roles. His plan--Vought's plan--would jeopardize American security.

To my Republican colleagues, for the sake of the institution in which we work for, the constituents we were elected to serve, and the constitutional foundations of our Nation, please don't vote for Mr. Vought.

Maya Angelo once said:

When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.

Well, from his tenure running OMB to his authorship of Project 2025, Mr. Vought has shown us exactly who he is and what he believes. He is a man with little respect for the Constitution and limited understanding of the plight of real working Americans. Giving Mr. Vought the reins of OMB is an invitation to a policy battle at the expense of our Constitution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source