-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I have the bad fortune and audacity to follow one of our greatest speakers, one of the Nation's greatest orators and a preacher. I know we all appreciate the old wisdom: Never follow a preacher.

I want to thank Reverend Warnock, my great colleague and friend, for that eloquent and powerful speech and particularly the ending of his speech, which evoked a time in our history that many would like to forget. A lot of Americans are forgetting. The world is trying to erase it from its memory. But it is a time evoked by Senator Warnock that couldn't be more relevant to this moment in America's history because we face a crisis in governance. It is a moral crisis, not just a political or legal crisis. It is a challenge to us, to our better angels, to our sense of mutual respect and caring, and, as he said so well, quoting Martin Luther King, that web of mutuality that binds us as a nation.

Ultimately, it isn't our wealth, the number of dollars we have in bank accounts, or the economic strength of our corporations. It isn't our might militarily. We have the strongest and best military in the world. It is our common values and our commitment to our faith and our family and to each other, respect for each other even when we differ.

When we come to this body, we all take an oath. I have taken that oath a number of times in my life--when I became a private in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, when I became a U.S. attorney in Connecticut, when I became a State legislator, and then when I became attorney general. Now, as a Senator, I raised my right hand, as did all of us, and we took an oath. It wasn't to a President; it wasn't to a government; it wasn't to a monarch; it was to the Constitution and the laws of this country.

The Constitution stands for something that binds us together, and it is at the core of this great experiment that we call America. The Constitution will be around, I hope--and I am knocking on wood--when these young pages become our age and stand here, perhaps, but it will be around only if we fight to sustain it. It doesn't happen by magic or by inaction; it happens because we come together and we say: Whatever else happens, whatever divides us, whatever natural disasters-- tornadoes, floods, hurricanes--befall our great country, we are going to stand together for the rule of law and for each other. We will come to each other's aid, and we will respect each other's rights.

A wonderful professor and friend of mine at Yale, Tim Snyder, wrote a little book, ``On Tyranny.'' That is the name of the book. It is ``On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century.'' The first lesson is, do not obey in advance, which is to say, do not anticipate what a dictator wants and accede to it in advance. Do not acquiesce. Do not obey in advance.

Today, we have to take a stand against a group of people who want to shred our Constitution. They want to light it on fire because they feel there is a higher good. They want to save money or they think we are in the midst of some religious movement or they simply want to get power.

Whatever their motive, and I don't pretend to fully understand it, they have unleashed on our government a group of DOGE technocrats--I use that word advisedly--young people, maybe older people, who think they can simply slash government spending, but more to the point, that they have a right to access information which Americans have been providing in trust to the Department of Treasury, the Labor Department, the Department of Education--private, confidential information about bank accounts, checks that are paid, and veterans' benefits.

That information is supposed to be held in trust, secretly, confidentially, and yet, right now, it is being scanned by Elon Musk and his crew. His henchmen are busy not just reading and scanning that information but collecting it. That actually serves, potentially, many of Elon Musk's business interests, because on X, for example, he could profit mightily from knowing more information about people who might use Musk in Tesla or SpaceX. Who knows what he might do with that information? And some of his billionaire friends, some of the people who may be provided access to that information could profit even more.

Here is what I have done today as the ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. I have written to every one of Elon Musk's companies--SpaceX, Tesla, all of them, including his AI company--demanding information about the workings of that company that might benefit from access to that private information.

Now, remember, his access is as a citizen. I am not sure what his status is. The White House says he is a special government employee. He has no security clearance that would entitle him to take that information and use it for his own personal benefits. No security clearance could give him that right to profit from financial information that belongs to you, the taxpayers. It is your data.

And we have nothing that I have seen in writing from the President of the United States that gives him authority to seize and exploit that information. He certainly has nothing under law that would justify his monetizing after purloining that information, the use of it.

I think the American people have a right to know all about the workings of those companies that would be benefited from seizing and exploiting this information. I have written to those companies today, and I am very hopeful that they will explain to me what the facts are, because the American people deserve those facts.

In a sense, what you need to know about this administration and about DOGE and about Elon Musk is to follow the money. Now, he says he is following money that may be wasted or abused. I want to follow the money that will come to him and other billionaires in the government and others who may be made privy to this information and use it for personal benefit and who may profit from it. I want to follow their money, and I want to follow any of the money that comes to other officials in emoluments.

Now, ``emoluments'' is a term in the Constitution, and the reason it is in the Constitution is that our Founders most feared, in addition to tyranny, that leaders of this country--people in public office--would take benefits, gifts, cash from foreign governments. We were a struggling, small country at our very beginning. We were nascent in our weakness. And their fear was that leaders of that small, struggling country might be tempted by one of those big monarchies in Europe--that had the glittering palaces and jewels and riches and colonies around the world--that they could be bought. So they said: No gifts, no benefits--nothing from any foreign source. And they had a domestic emoluments clause, as well, that, in effect, prohibited foreign bribery and that kind of domestic misappropriation as well.

I want to know whether any of these officials in our government are benefiting in any way from advantages, benefits, payments from foreign governments, because we have become a global economy. We know that-- just to take one example that comes to mind--one of the President's relatives is planning developments--hotels--all around the world. The President has said he wants to make Gaza into a Middle Eastern riviera. Who is going to build the hotels? Who benefits? Who is going to be paid? We need the facts. So I believe we need to be watchful, vigilant, and wary. Follow the money.

We are here tonight before a vote on someone who is going to be following a lot of money. Russell Vought, if he were to be confirmed as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, would be in charge of all the money spent by the U.S. Government--or almost all of it.

I know most Americans have no clue as to what OMB does. OMB is the Office of Management and Budget, not to be confused with PMB, the Office of Policy, Management and Budget. In the State of Connecticut, we call a similar body the office of policy and management. I suspect that the Presiding Officer's State and all of our States have something equivalent to OMB or to PMB. It is kind of the brain central of the financial nervous system in the government. It controls the flow, the disbursement, and then also the projections for the future about what the government does. It administers the Federal budget, and it is the entity that actually gets that money out the door. After Congress appropriates it, it puts the money into use by portioning it out to various Federal Agencies and programs.

Mr. Vought is no stranger to the OMB because, for 4 years, in the first Trump administration, as both Acting Director and Director, he served that Agency. Unfortunately, for us and for him, his record there ought to be disqualifying. He slashed budgets. He obstructed oversight efforts. He repeatedly violated the law by withholding funding Congress had already appropriated--all of it harming American families, farmers, working people, communities, and in violation of the law.

The OMB Director is very powerful, but do you know? There is this thing--and I keep coming back to it--the Constitution, the Constitution of the United States, which says we have separate branches of government. The Congress is the one that has the power of the purse strings. It authorizes and appropriates money. The executive implements that budget. It executes--as the term ``executive'' implies--on that budget and many other laws. It enforces criminal laws. It implements other statutes. Of course, the judiciary calls them both in to account if they violate the Constitution.

The Congress actually believes maybe there ought to be an additional guarantee of its power to appropriate and the President to faithfully execute laws. So, in addition to the Constitution, it passed a statute known as the Impoundment Control Act, which says--you know, when the Constitution requires that money appropriated by Congress be spent faithfully by the executive branch, the Constitution really means it, and the Impoundment Control Act implements it by saying it must be spent in exactly that way. But in his first service in the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, Mr. Vought really didn't think it was his duty to follow the law and the Constitution, and so he impounded money.

Now, you would think: Well, maybe it was an error. Maybe, it was an oversight. Maybe, it was just, you know, kind of an innocent mistake.

But he came before us in a hearing at the Committee on Homeland Security, and I asked him specifically whether he would follow the law and the Impoundment Control Act. He said that the act was unconstitutional. His theory was that the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says; that the Framers didn't really think that the President had to spend money if he felt it was against the public interest; and that if his intention was good, he didn't have to follow the Constitution.

Well, the Supreme Court has affirmed and lower courts have followed that law again and again and again. So Mr. Vought thinks he is, in effect, above the Supreme Court, above the law, and above the norms that others in his position followed faithfully in executing appropriations bills.

I joined my Democratic colleagues in voting no on Mr. Vought's two previous nominations, and I join my Democratic colleagues in voting no on Mr. Vought's current nomination. In fact, Mr. Vought's record and views are so troubling, he has never received a Democratic vote--never.

I am here to tell you that, if confirmed again, Mr. Vought will be even worse than he was the first time around. He has had practice. He told this body that the one lesson he learned from his previous tenure was the need to act faster. During the confirmation process, he told us that he ``does not intend to do the job differently'' than he did the first time around, and he would apply his experience ``from day one.'' He said he would be acting and taking the helm of OMB at a time when President Trump has thrown that Agency and the country into chaos and confusion with his unconstitutional, illegal funding freeze.

With Mr. Vought in charge, there will be more of the same. He has already proven that he is willing to break the law on behalf of President Trump.

As I mentioned, one of his most concerning beliefs is that the executive branch--the President--in acting through OMB, has the authority to withhold funding that Congress has legally appropriated. Now, this point is fundamental because, if he believes the President doesn't agree with funding already enacted into law, he doesn't need to release that funding, and the President is above the law.

Let's be clear on appropriations bills. As the Presiding Officer and all of our colleagues know, budgets in the U.S. Government are the result of extensive negotiation, leading to compromise and agreements that are then put into writing and incorporated into drafts and then finally into the bills that are voted on in this Chamber and then approved in the House of Representatives. If they are approved, they go to the President of the United States, and he signs them into law. That is kind of high school civics; everybody should know it.

And it becomes a law. The President signs it. These funding withholding decisions that President Trump made during his first term, on the recommendation of Mr. Vought, were a violation of laws that a President--either he or a predecessor--signed. That is why I want to focus on the devastating effects of this wrongheaded, misguided philosophy and approach to law.

As a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, when I questioned him on this very topic, he was clear that he disagreed with it, which is his right to do. He can disagree with the Constitution. Nobody says you have to think the Constitution is perfect. But if you take that oath--it is that oath we all take--it is to follow the Constitution, so help me God.

When he fails to spend money appropriated by Congress, he will be violating that oath, and he has indicated he is ready, able, and willing to do it.

He is unqualified. He is unprepared. He lacks the character and confidence to be OMB Director.

These issues--I know they appear abstract, hypothetical, but they have real consequences for real people in their everyday lives.

As wildfires raged across California, I asked Mr. Vought if he would commit to releasing disaster relief funding promptly and fully-- disaster relief funding for the people of California but also for the people of North Carolina, Texas, Florida, and Connecticut. We had floods recently.

My colleagues and I came together in the closing days of the last session to overwhelmingly approve this funding: $110 billion, the disaster supplemental. That is $29 billion for FEMA--the Federal Emergency Management Agency--to help North Carolina to recover from Hurricane Helene, California to recover from wildfires, and my own State of Connecticut to recover from the devastating flooding that occurred last August. That is $21 billion to the Department of Agriculture to support farmers recovering from disasters, and billions of dollars for countless other programs, from small business loans, to fisheries assistance, to roads that have to be repaired, to other kinds of effects of disasters that are the result of the new normal--climate change. The people who are victims of it, who suffered financial losses or the loss of their homes, injury, are not to be blamed simply because they were in the wrong place or their house was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

There are things we can do now in rebuilding that make those homes more resilient, rebuild them in a different place where the risk is lower. But many lack the insurance because they were told they didn't need it by banks that gave them mortgages, because there had never been a storm of any real magnitude before that happened in Connecticut. They were victims of rains or floods or earthquakes or other natural disasters that were not their fault.

That is why we come together. We help people, as I mentioned earlier. We support each other. That is part of the fabric. That is not the legal fabric; it is the social and moral fabric.

But Mr. Vought told me that he was not ``going to get ahead of the policy process of the incoming administration.'' He never committed that he would release the disaster funding. He left himself an out. He might violate the law. And we now know, because of his testimony, that he will likely violate the law.

We also have his past experience to inform our judgment. Under Mr. Vought's past leadership, OMB delayed community development block grant disaster mitigation funding to Puerto Rico that Congress had provided for recovery from Hurricane Maria.

I visited Puerto Rico in the wake of Hurricane Maria. I saw the devastating destruction to that island--to roads and bridges, to electricity and utilities, to hospitals and clinics, to agricultural areas that were completely isolated, some of them. I flew over them by helicopter and saw the homes that had been leveled or rendered roofless and now isolated, people unable to find food and water without it being dropped from the air sometimes by FEMA. But he withheld the community development block grant disaster mitigation funding provided by Congress for recovery from Hurricane Maria.

The symbol, the visual symbol of that time became President Trump throwing rolls of paper napkins or towels at people in the crowd waiting for food and water. It became emblematic because Mr. Vought withheld that money.

My constituents and all Americans should not have to worry that when disaster next strikes, they may not receive the aid that they need and deserve and that should be forthcoming because of actions by Congress only because a single man, Russell Vought, has taken it on himself to make a decision that it should be withheld, as he did with Puerto Rico.

Natural disasters--all the more frequent and damaging because of climate change--don't discriminate between red States and blue States. Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Connecticut, Oklahoma, California--they have all suffered these natural disasters recently. It doesn't matter whether they are red or blue; they need and deserve help. No administration should withhold it.

Just as troubling is Mr. Vought's track record on Ukraine aid. This issue is especially close to my heart. I am wearing a pin at this very moment that has both the American and Ukraine flags. I wear it always. I have been to Ukraine six times since the beginning of the war. I believe fervently that their fight is our fight and that we have a moral obligation but also a self-interest in supporting them because Vladimir Putin will keep rolling. If he conquers Ukraine, he will keep going.

The first law, first lesson from ``20th century tyranny'': Do not obey in advance.

Tyranny starts abroad sometimes, but it comes for us. Vladimir Putin will come for others if he succeeds in Ukraine, and we will have an obligation under article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to put American soldiers and troops on the ground: airmen, sailors, marines--all of our military. So it is in our interest to stop him where he is right now.

During his first term, Mr. Vought was instrumental in delaying security assistance to Ukraine. We all remember--those who served in this Chamber during those years--that first impeachment of Donald Trump because of that withholding of money and the circumstances surrounding it.

In 2019, under Mr. Vought's leadership, OMB withheld $250 million appropriated to the Department of Defense for security assistance to Ukraine. The Government Accountability Office found that OMB's actions to withhold this funding violated the law. GAO also concluded that OMB's withholding of an additional $141.5 million appropriated to the State Department for Ukraine might be a violation of the law. That is the Government Accountability Office--nonpartisan, impartial, objective, and independent; violated the law by withholding that money. Ultimately, Congress had to pass another law to ensure that our allies in Ukraine receive the funding they needed.

When I asked Mr. Vought if he would release the remaining security assistance now that has been authorized and appropriated for Ukraine, Mr. Vought said that he, again, was not ``going to get ahead of the President on a foreign policy issue of the magnitude of the situation with regard to Ukraine.''

That is astonishing. That is a yes-or-no question. Will I obey the law? Yes. But he ducked it. He dodged it. It is astonishing. Time and again, Congress has come together on a bipartisan basis and passed vitally needed security assistance to support our allies in Ukraine, and Mr. Vought could not commit to following the law and honoring that promised funding.

I was and remain astonished and aghast that someone in a position of such responsibility that we are considering Mr. Vought to have would, in effect, say: Well, maybe the President would be above the law, so I am going to wait and see whether he chooses to follow it.

Saying he is going to not get ahead of the President on a foreign policy issue--that is not a foreign policy issue; that is an integrity issue. That is whether or not the President is above the law and whether he will follow it.

Legal scholars at the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel and even the Supreme Court have all found again and again and again that the President doesn't have the authority to withhold congressionally appropriated funding, but here we have a nominee in Mr. Vought saying in effect the Supreme Court is entitled to their opinion, but he could still proceed.

It is baffling to me that this man is now before the Senate for a nomination to a post that is one of the most critical in our government at an unprecedented moment of crisis in our history.

I think my colleagues ought to be equally aghast--both Republicans and Democrats--because this issue of the Constitution--I keep coming back to the Constitution--is bigger than any of us here, bigger than Mr. Vought, even bigger than President Trump. It is what sustains us through constitutional crises, as we face right now.

It is bigger than this administration or any other. It is whether the law of the land should prevail, whether it is up for grabs depending on what the President thinks or what Mr. Vought recommends the President should think. It is about the power of the purse being usurped from Congress and put in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, special government employees like Elon Musk. The Constitution provides for nothing like it--nothing close to it. This issue goes to the foundation of our country.

Again, I know these issues seems esoteric and legalistic. I am a lawyer. I understand that making the law real for people is a challenge, and a lot of what I have said, even when it concerns natural disasters, might seem abstract.

But the person who appropriates the money--Congress--makes judgments about where it should go, who it should benefit: childcare; community health centers; the SNAP program, providing aid for the hungry; the military; new weapons platforms; our intelligence community; our national security; all the domestic needs; all of the challenges from abroad. They are not hypotheticals.

And we saw last week how real the threat is, how damaging the effect would be on every single American if Mr. Vought's views prevailed. Last week, the Trump administration swept the country into chaos and confusion. And all of us in this Chamber heard from our constituents loud and clear: What in God's name are you doing? You are disrupting the payrolls of community health centers that provide basic services to patients who need them, children who use them; childcare; Head Start; Medicare; Medicaid--the basic nuts and bolts of our government disrupted.

I know the President wants to be a change agent; he shouldn't be a chaos agent. Disruption shouldn't mean destruction of those basic services, but that is what a delay in funding could mean--or a suspension of financial support.

And that move wasn't approved by Congress. To be clear, it was against the law. They made the unconstitutional and unilateral decision to halt congressionally mandated funding, as a result of that order-- chaos and confusion--halted Federal payments to food bank programs, healthcare and nutrition assistance programs, Head Start and childcare programs, housing programs, energy assistance programs, and so much more we heard about.

And throughout the chaos, the administration was utterly unable to communicate to the public. First, there was a vague memo which claimed there were exceptions to the Trump funding freeze, but many of those programs like Medicaid and Head Start remained unable to access funding for extensive periods of time. A Federal court had to step in and halt the order and stop the chaos. And then, in another one-sentence memo, President Trump caved to the public outcry and allegedly rescinded the funding freeze entirely, 24 hours after it went into effect.

Of course, it didn't end there because, right after the funding freeze was supposedly halted, it was put back into place by a tweet. That is the way we govern these days, in the Trump administration, by a tweet from the White House.

Agencies and organizations on the ground were still in chaos solely because of President Trump's incompetence but also advice that he received from people like Mr. Vought who contended he was above the law and he could unilaterally freeze that funding.

But here is where things really get scary. Mr. Vought shares President Trump's ludicrous and unconstitutional views about the executive power over Federal funding; but he, unlike President Trump, is not incompetent. He knows what he is doing. He spent 4 years at OMB carrying out this agenda of withholding funding, and he is primed and ready to continue that mission with all of that experience behind him, as he put it, on day one.

Make no mistake, even though courts have intervened to halt Trump's Federal funding freeze, this fight is not over. It is not even the beginning of the end. It is not even the end of the beginning. We are in the first 2 weeks--or now maybe 3 weeks--of the Trump administration, and I am hearing from constituents that funding has yet to be unlocked, especially from the Inflation Reduction Act.

And even if all the Federal funding taps are turned back on, this administration is not done wreaking havoc in our communities. The President will try again. Only this time, if we let him, he will have Mr. Vought on his side, with all that experience, breaking the law at OMB on the President's behalf. It won't be a vague, several-line memo from OMB imposing the freeze; it will be a well-articulated set of falsehoods designed to confuse and obstruct but still order a freeze in funding.

Let me give you some examples from Connecticut about what the ramifications are in real life. Given the magnitude of the danger facing us, I want to take some time to highlight again the harms that result from a funding freeze.

I have spent the last couple of weeks--the last week particularly-- fielding concerns from constituents who are understandably worried and confused and scared about the devastating effects that the freeze has imposed on services they provide to people who need and deserve them.

Let me be clear that congressionally mandated aid this administration has illegally withheld helps families put food on the table and keep their homes heated in the winter. It helps our communities, and particularly farmers, recover from extreme natural disasters. It provides needed support for infrastructure updates in every State across the country.

To every American who is listening: It is your money that President Trump is playing games with. It is your taxpayer dollars that are owed back as investments in your communities. It is not Donald Trump's money. It is not Russell Vought's money. It is your money, taxpayer money.

Let's call the funding freeze what it is: theft. President Trump is stealing money from American taxpayers and citizens and threatening their ability to pay rent, heat homes, and much more. And that money, stolen by Donald Trump, will be used to finance tax cuts for billionaires and the ultrawealthy like himself.

Follow the money. Follow the money when it is illegally impounded to be used to finance tax cuts for the benefit of a tiny slice of the American public: the ultrawealthy, billionaires. There is nothing wrong with being a billionaire. We all can aspire to be a billionaire. It is the favoritism and discriminatory use and effect of our laws benefiting them at the illegal expense of everyday Americans whose taxpayer money has been stolen, grifted, thieved.

I have no doubt that every single one of my colleagues, even on the other side of the aisle, who have remained silent or complicit have been inundated with requests for help from their constituents. And my Republican colleagues know well, red States and blue States receive funding from the Federal Government.

In fact, I saw a statistic in the New York Times that something like 80 percent of all the infrastructure money has gone to congressional districts represented by Republicans. Don't hold me to the 80 percent number, but that is approximately what it was--which is not to say they shouldn't receive that money. If they are entitled to it under the formula that Congress establishes based on need or other factors, it doesn't matter whether they are red or blue; the law ought to be executed fairly and faithfully, implemented properly.

But then to turn around and say, well, we should impound money that has been lawfully appropriated, affects them as well as the congressional districts represented by Democrats. It is not about Republican or Democrat.

Here are some real stories. During the chaos that overwhelmed Federal Agencies, community health centers were unable to access the Federal funding they rely on to provide critical health services. Many of them were weighing furloughs of their doctors, their nurses, their counselors, their essential providers.

A nonprofit in Connecticut that provides critical mental health services was terrified that they may not be able to pay their staff if the funding freeze continued.

I spoke to the head of the Alliance or Association of Community Health Centers. He told me about one in the northeastern part of the State that had to close its dental services. Medicaid payments are now seemingly back online, but this administration put 1 million Connecticut residents who rely on Medicaid and the Connecticut Children's Health Insurance Program at risk with these needless and reckless theatrics.

Childcare, similarly: Connecticut Head Start was unable to access payments. President Trump jeopardized childcare and early childhood education for 5,000 families in Connecticut.

Connecticut farmers, who just over a week ago were celebrating--and I was there with them--millions of dollars in much-needed disaster assistance from extreme weather events--they weren't sure whether they would ever see that money, or when. You know, farmers really can't wait a few months to plant the seeds or feed their livestock. There are seasons, there are days when obligations have to be met. And they deserved the aid that was coming to them, and they should not be forced to wait for it.

Millions of dollars to the hard-working farmers of Connecticut withheld potentially on that day. We still are unclear whether that freeze for that aid has been unequivocally lifted.

At the outset of the freeze, I spoke to the CEO of Connecticut Foodshare. He expressed to me his deep fears about the potential impact to food assistance like SNAP, the emergency food assistance program. Freezes to these funds could push hundreds of families into poverty and hunger.

Any more politically motivated funding games from the Trump administration would have potentially life-threatening impacts on survivors of domestic violence because they depend on VAWA--Violence Against Women Act--and the money that is appropriated under it for the domestic violence shelters, for the counseling, for the hotlines--all necessary to provide survivors with options rather than just stay in homes where they are victims of abuse. They are survivors if they can get away, and they deserve these services.

The operation of Connecticut's 24/7 domestic violence hotline could be severely impacted by another suspension. Court-based and community- based services for survivors and their children are also on the chopping block. This funding freeze was terrifying to these women and children and potentially tragic--not just for Connecticut but for the whole country--on domestic violence.

Housing: Connecticut organizations that rely on Federal funding from HUD to help families at risk of homelessness, also in jeopardy. Mr. President, 150,000 Connecticut residents depend on federally funded housing programs.

Even a temporary pause puts them at risk because, potentially, it puts them out of their homes. I heard from one organization that can provide permanent supportive housing to over 40 households in Waterbury and Meriden with the help of HUD funding. This housing is for people with disabilities and their families during this chaos and confusion.

They reported that the payment system for HUD was down, and they were unable to access these funds just days before the rent was due on the first of the month.

While the system now seems to be back online, that organization had to live through potentially tragic trauma, and the stress was debilitating for them, and the trauma has lasting effect. It increases the sense of insecurity for people who already feel an anxiety about their future.

The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP--we all know it because it heats the homes of people on days like this one--cold--here in the District of Columbia, a lot colder in Connecticut and the Northeast and in many of our States. And people need this critical program that provides energy assistance to low- income individuals and households. It was in jeopardy too; over 100,000 households in Connecticut that rely on heat were told: The money has stopped.

Again, it may be back online, but no one knows whether that is for sure because Russell Vought and Donald Trump think they may be above the law. Funding to support critical water infrastructure, brownfields mediation, and clean drinking water also frozen. That move threatened the health of communities everywhere. And I am still hearing from constituents that grants they received under the Inflation Reduction Act are continuing to be frozen.

The city of New Haven received over $10 million from EPA for two grants under the IRA that they say have been blocked, severely disrupting work. Recipients of EPA's Solar for All program, which enables households in low-income and disadvantaged communities to benefit from solar power, are similarly still frozen, including recipients in Connecticut. Make no mistake, the Trump funding freeze continues in effect today.

The courts need to block it, and then they will need to hold in contempt the officials who fail to obey it, whether it is Mr. Vought or the President of the United States, and lawyers will go to court to seek contempt motions to hold them in contempt.

Trump's funding freeze put the future of Connecticut and our Nation's roads and bridges and rail at risk. Amtrak's state of repair backlog for the Northeast corridor is tens of billions of dollars alone. It was estimated at $78.7 billion in 2023. This funding is critical for safety repairs along Amtrak rail lines.

Funding the Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project and the Gateway Hudson Tunnel replacement project, it will ensure rail passengers can safely enter and move through all of New England. And without this funding from the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail and the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Programs--just naming a few--all of these investments will be at risk because they are all connected. You can't stop work on one part of the line and expect the trains to magically go in the air over that break.

And transportation costs will escalate because construction costs will rise. The interruption itself could be devastating financially.

Last week, I was proud to join the mayor of New Haven and Representative Rosa DeLauro to announce that the city of New Haven was awarded $2 million under the Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program to study reuniting the city of New Haven, which was divided by Interstate 91. When that road was built, it split the city. It created a physical barrier. It isolated residents from social and economic opportunities that are critical to thrive. It destroyed city blocks and dozens of homes. And now this grant will help reunite neighborhoods, bring communities closer together, incentivize housing and other important assets.

But right before we made our announcement, DOT pulled down meetings it was supposed to have with grant recipients because they didn't know whether the award would be granted. This funding freeze means that New Haven will no longer be able to identify ways to make roads safer or safeguard against disaster or encourage construction of new affordable homes and promote new businesses and more for its residents. Just one example of around $1 billion Federal funding--$1 billion--for Connecticut alone that is in jeopardy.

The longer the Trump administration's reckless agenda causes chaos and confusion, the clearer it will become that everyday Americans are suffering from this ill-conceived, wrongly implemented, reckless, and heartless program.

I talk about all these stories concerning my constituents, but every Member of this body could tell the same kinds of stories across our Nation. It bears repeating because the trauma and the hurt and the harm are to our neighbors and communities.

With Russell Vought as Director of OMB, if he is confirmed, he will have President Trump as his leader, who has apparently indicated he will follow recommendations that put him above the law. Russell Vought is the perfect person to help Donald Trump rob the American people--

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENTHAL.--and carry out his agenda of theft. He has proven he is willing and able to break the law for President Trump in his first term, illegally withholding disaster aid--

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENTHAL.--and security assistance, and he will do it again. I recommend that my colleagues say no to this nomination.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source