[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 5, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S746-S750]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Nomination of Russell Vought
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, as we gather here on the Senate floor,
over at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Elon Musk--the richest
person in the world, not elected by a single American--has gained
access to the U.S. payment system--payments that go to about $2
trillion worth a year.
He has gained access to the personal information of millions and
millions of Americans--Social Security numbers, bank accounts, and all
sorts of sensitive information that we do not want to be shared. It
compromises people's privacy. That kind of scenario is playing out
across the Federal Government. Elon Musk and his so-called DOGE boys
are in many other Departments, and every day that we wake up, we hear
about another one.
One Department that we know they are in is the Department of State
and, specifically, USAID. What we are witnessing here is the result of
the most corrupt bargain in American history because Elon Musk spent
over $280 million to elect Donald Trump, and Donald Trump has handed
the keys of the U.S. Government over to Elon Musk. Damage is being done
every day, and it is hurting the American people and the interests of
the American people.
I want to focus for now on the situation at the Agency for
International Development, which has been a critical piece of our
overall national security and foreign policy strategy. AID has enjoyed
bipartisan support in this body for its work for decades, and I want to
thank the great patriots--the men and women who work for AID--for the
important work they are doing for our country as we speak.
But when President Trump turned the keys to the government over to
Elon Musk, Elon Musk began dismantling the Agency for International
Development.
Here is what he said in recent tweets about his plan to destroy
USAID:
We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper.
Could have gone to some great parties. Did that instead.
He said--this is Elon Musk:
USAID is a criminal organization. Time for it to die.
I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would be surprised
to know that they have been supporting a criminal organization all of
these years by voting to support the Agency for International
Development.
Let's make no mistake that his effort to dismantle AID is a gift to
our adversaries. It is a gift to China. It is a gift to Russia and
others who want to do us harm around the world. In fact, one of Putin's
cronies immediately posted on X, ``Smart move by Elon Musk,'' referring
to dismantling AID.
So this is not ``America First.'' This is ``America in Retreat,'' and
it has nothing to do with government efficiency and everything to do
with aiding and abetting our adversaries. In fact--and I think the
Presiding Officer knows this--when you talk to our military leaders,
they will tell you that our investment in AID is an important component
of our overall foreign policy and national security strategy.
We spend about 50 percent of our discretionary budget on defense--
actually, a little more than half of our discretionary budget on
defense. We spend about 2 percent on AID. In fact, if you look at our
overall budget, it is 0.6 percent for AID.
Now, having a strong military is important. We all agree. But in
addition to demonstrating the power of our military, we have always
worked to also demonstrate the power of our example, trying to work
with people around the world, to provide a little bit more opportunity,
a little bit more stability, and, yes, help stop diseases from
spreading around the world.
Poverty and violence and disease--they spread like fire. And if your
neighbor's house is on fire, you don't build a wall; you go for water.
When you have an outbreak of disease in one part of the world, like
we saw with Ebola in Africa, by helping stop the spread of disease--of
course, we help people in other parts of the world, but we also save
American lives when we prevent diseases from spreading elsewhere.
If the world doesn't trust America to help--and, believe me, at this
moment, they are doubting us--they will turn to China and Russia, and
those adversaries will be itching to fill the vacuum.
Elon Musk's crusade against USAID is not only a security risk; it is
also a purge of dedicated public servants who have committed their
lives in service to the values our country holds dear.
Thousands of AID employees have now been furloughed, many fired, and
direct hires are being put on administrative leave. There is absolutely
chaos in the AID system. As Elon Musk said, he wants it to die, and
that is what he is trying to accomplish.
Those men and women who serve our country as part of AID are being
ordered to come home immediately. Thousands of our AID staff overseas
were called back with just a few days' notice. Their kids are being
pulled out of school in countries overseas. Many of them don't have
homes to come back to at this moment. They could be homeless upon their
return. They are being ripped out of their lives where they are doing
that important work for our country.
USAID has more than 13,000 total employees worldwide. On Monday
night, the email was sent out to all staff and then subsequently posted
on USAID's website--you can go and look at it right now--telling all of
them that they will be ``placed on administrative leave globally''--
``placed on administrative leave globally.'' This is absolutely cruel
and an unnecessary infliction of punishment on Americans and others who
have been our partners in this effort, in supporting humanitarian
causes and advancing U.S. priorities around the world.
I am hearing from many of these USAID employees. What is really
inspiring at the same time that it is heartbreaking is that they are
not worried about themselves, but they are worried about the impact and
cost and harm that will be done to the people they are trying to help
in places around the world.
What is happening here is just plain illegal. Secretary Rubio said he
wanted to give a waiver for all essential lifesaving treatment. He said
that on Wednesday, but the New York Times uncovered that no money has
actually gone out. Money is still missing, and people are still in
danger of imminent death. Even if the money got out the door, who is
going to service it when everybody has been put on administrative
leave, fired, or otherwise told not to show up to work?
I went down to the AID building on Monday when I heard what was
happening, when I heard that Elon Musk told everybody not to come in to
work. I literally went up to the doors and asked if we could come in to
talk to employees who might still be there. We were denied access. The
folks there were told and instructed not to allow Members of Congress
to get into the building.
Presidents are not kings, and you don't get to pick and choose what
part of the law you decide to apply. And Elon Musk doesn't get to shut
down the USAID operation legally. He may be a dictator at Tesla, and he
may be playing one here in Washington, DC,
[[Page S747]]
but he doesn't get to shred the law of the land.
That is why I am expecting that in the coming days, just like we saw
judges in Rhode Island and here in the District of Columbia issue
temporary restraining orders on President Trump's efforts to freeze
important Federal funds going to communities all over our country, that
that same argument will be used with respect to this illegal action and
takeover of USAID.
I want to close with this, because you would think that all of us,
regardless of party, would want to stand up for the law; that we
wouldn't want Elon Musk to be able to shred it unilaterally. We got
this letter from Secretary Rubio a few days ago. Clearly, he is playing
catchup here. Clearly, he is not in control of AID even though it says
that he is now taking control of the operations at USAID.
Here is what the letter says:
This letter provides notice and advises you of our intent
to initiate consultations with you regarding the manner in
which foreign aid is distributed around the world through the
United States Agency for International Development.
``Consultations.'' He really should talk to Elon Musk, who is
tweeting out that he is putting AID in the wood chipper and that he is
killing AID.
All of us are prepared to sit down for a conversation about how we
can reform AID, if we want to better integrate it into our overall
foreign policy operations. That is a matter for Congress to deliberate
on in consultation with the State Department. But Secretary Rubio sent
this down after the doors had been closed on AID. This is just a
coverup for the fact that he wasn't controlling what was going on.
I think as Members of the Senate we have an obligation, if we care at
all about our lawmaking duties and care at all about whether or not,
when we appropriate funds for AID, they are actually spent as we
indicated--we all have an interest in making sure that this process
operates in a legal way. What Elon Musk is doing is flat-out illegal,
and if our colleagues won't join together on a bipartisan basis to do
it, the courts are stepping in. But the courts shouldn't have to do our
job.
So I appeal to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if you care
about the Constitution and if you care about article I, you should be
rising up when Elon Musk is talking about putting AID through the wood
chipper and saying it should die.
I will be back a little later on the floor to talk about Russ
Vought's place and the role he plays in this operation, but for now, I
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, when I was growing up, I thought about
foreign aid as helping people in foreign countries who needed food or
shelter, who were struggling because their country was having a civil
war and they had been cut off from having clean water, enough food for
their families, or someplace for shelter. I think that is what most
Americans think foreign aid is; that we want to help people around the
world because the United States is blessed. God has given us more than
he has given most nations, and we need to respond in ways that are
helpful to our fellow man.
But today, I hear my colleagues blaming a guy named Elon Musk for
doing away with foreign aid. If anybody is to blame, it is us; it is
the Congress of the United States for taking our eyes off the mission
of our country to provide aid to those around the world who need it.
Millions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted on leftwing pet
projects that don't benefit us here at home, that actively work against
our interests and do not help those in need around the world.
I believe that American taxpayer dollars should be spent making lives
better for Americans and better for those around the world who have far
less than we have.
I have been talking about our national debt since I was first elected
to Congress in 2009. At that time, our national debt was just turning
over from $9 trillion to $10 trillion. I was apoplectic. How can we let
our national debt get over $9 trillion?
Today, our national debt is $36 trillion. That is absolutely
inconceivable. It is inconceivable to the American people. It is
certainly inconceivable to the people in my State. They want answers.
They want to know, where is all this money going? That is why they
elected Donald Trump.
They didn't like seeing people come into our country illegally. They
didn't like seeing inflation make their lives harder, make their family
pay $1,000 to $1,500 more per month with no change in their lifestyle.
Inflation is eating away at the lives of American people. They are
working harder than ever, and our dollar is going less far.
So now we are talking about Elon Musk being to blame. I am proud that
President Trump chose to include Elon Musk in his administration
because President Trump is already getting results--the kind of results
that the Congress has turned a blind eye toward.
We all know that Washington is addicted to spending, and it isn't
getting any better. For too long, my colleagues have had meltdowns
anytime somebody suggests we should cut spending. But I had always
thought that we all agreed we need to take a look at some of the
Federal programs into which we are pouring taxpayer money.
Well, thanks to President Trump, we finally have the opportunity to
get started assessing what we are spending money on, and what we are
finding in some instances is, it is not very pretty.
This week, we learned just how much USAID has been weaponized by the
far left. They are pouring millions of taxpayer dollars into liberal
programs and causes, and I will bet some of these, even my colleagues
on the left have no idea about.
This is wildly out of keeping with stated American interests for how
we will spend taxpayer dollars abroad.
Here are some of the ways the last administration has wasted your
money: more than $4.5 million to ``combat disinformation'' in
Kazakhstan--and just whose disinformation is it; I think that is
probably in the eye of the beholder--$20 million for a new Sesame
Street show in Iraq; $25 million for Deloitte to promote ``green
transportation'' in the country of Georgia; nearly $8 million to teach
Sri Lankan journalists how to avoid ``binary-gendered language''--
binary-gendered language in Sri Lanka; you have got to be kidding me--
$5 million to EcoHealth Alliance, one of the key NGOs, nongovernment
organizations, funding bat virus research at the Wuhan lab; $20 million
for a group related, by the way, to a key player in the Russiagate
impeachment hoax; $1.5 million to ``rebuild'' the Cuban media
ecosystem; $1.5 million on DEI programs in Serbia--diversity, equity,
and inclusion programs in Serbia.
Mr. President, I could probably go on for another hour.
President Trump isn't just talking about cleaning up the waste and
abuse of your taxpayer dollars; his administration is doing something
about it. These bureaucrats are accountable. They must be accountable.
They have to be accountable to us, to Congress, to the American people,
and President Trump is holding them accountable.
Because of DOGE, which is led by Elon Musk, the Trump administration
is taking action where we wouldn't. Congress wouldn't uncover the
waste, fraud, and abuse that are going on in our foreign aid programs.
Thanks to DOGE, the Trump administration has already terminated some
36 contracts, saving taxpayers more than $165 million. The
administration has canceled underutilized leases, saving taxpayers
close to $50 million. That is after 2 weeks in office. This is just the
first step toward reclaiming control of our government and our budget.
I would think my colleagues from all over the country--both parties--
would be pleased that we are uncovering waste, fraud, and abuse. That
is why the American people elected Donald Trump. President Trump and
Elon Musk are threatening to turn off the DC spigot that has flowed
taxpayer money into far-left organizations and causes.
Now, I want to respond to some of the claims from my friends across
the aisle calling this a constitutional crisis.
I am grateful that Democrats realize that we are the article I branch
and we control the power of the purse. I am also happy to hear that
most of us want to get rid of waste, fraud, and abuse. That is why I
ask my colleagues to join us now. Regardless of party, regardless of
State, join us now. We have
[[Page S748]]
a funding bill coming up and reconciliation. Let's work together and do
our job: rooting out government waste and making real cuts during our
appropriations process.
I am serious about this because the fiscal crisis before us could not
be more serious. No nation has lasted very long when their debt
exceeded 100 percent of GDP, but that is where we are. That is where we
are today. It is time to act. We must clean up this debt-and-spending
crisis. Our fiscal future is on an unsustainable path and a scary path,
and everybody says that, including the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
He says it is unsustainable.
With higher interest costs on our record debt, we are in trouble. In
2024, the interest on the national debt was over $880 billion. That is
more than we spend on defense or Medicaid. That number will only
increase. Projections put interest payments on the national debt at
more than $13 trillion over the next decade. That is $13 trillion that
isn't going to further our interests to help with foreign aid. It is
not going to help our children. It is a debt burden on this entire
Nation.
Rooting out wasteful spending should not be controversial. Every
taxpayer should want their tax dollars to be spent wisely and on things
that make our country stronger, our goals more closely held to heart
around the world. But that hasn't been the case.
What has been the response of some in the minority party regarding
the disclosure of this wasteful spending? Instead of joining in a
bipartisan effort to get our fiscal house in order, we are seeing
protests. We are seeing Elon Musk demonized. It is starting to look
like blaming Elon Musk is trying to change the subject, trying to blame
Elon Musk for shining a light on Congress's wasteful spending. I am
sorry to see it because it is beyond time to get serious about our
national finances.
The people of Wyoming are grateful. I hear it when I go home. I see
it in their eyes. People will come up to me in the feed store, in the
grocery store, and say they are grateful to President Trump for
creating DOGE; they are grateful to the patriots working hard at DOGE
to identify waste, fraud, and abuse in these programs and to start the
process of cutting reckless spending.
So speaking on behalf of the people of Wyoming, I want to say thank
you. Thank you, President Trump. Thank you for bringing in a group of
people to help us shine a light on how we can make America better in
just the way that the American people yearned for, wanted, expect, and
celebrate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, earlier today, I stood before this Chamber
to voice my concerns about Russell Vought, President Trump's nominee to
lead the Office of Management and Budget.
Russell Vought is an extremist, and allowing him to hold this
position, a position that oversees the entire Federal budget, would be
nothing short of disaster.
As one of the authors of Project 2025, Mr. Vought has made his
extreme policy agenda very clear, and one of the key pieces of the
Project 2025 agenda is illegally dismantling USAID.
As we all know, the U.S. Agency for International Development, or
USAID, has long been a cornerstone of America's foreign policy and
national security. This Agency has long enjoyed bipartisan support and
works tirelessly to promote peace, security, and development around the
world, all for less than 1 percent of our budget. By preventing
conflicts that could threaten the United States, responding to the
spread of deadly pandemics, strengthening democracies, and improving
economies so we have new trade partners, USAID plays a critical role in
advancing America's interests abroad.
Through its programs, USAID has fostered strong partnerships with
nations around the globe, and these partnerships have proven time and
time again to be essential in maintaining our national security and,
frankly, ensuring a safer, more prosperous world.
Unfortunately, President Trump's recent illegal attempt to eliminate
USAID without the approval of Congress while simultaneously freezing
almost all foreign assistance--well, to say it is deeply concerning is
an understatement. These moves undermine key components of our Nation's
foreign policy, and we can't afford to allow the reckless shuttering of
USAID to take place. The consequences of such actions would be grave.
Our national security depends on our support of diplomacy, our
support of defense, and our support of development around the world,
and abandoning these priorities would have dangerous and long-term
implications.
At this moment, when America needs to demonstrate strength on the
global stage, we are opening the doors for our adversaries like
Vladimir Putin, the Chinese Communist Party, and even violent
extremists to step in and seize the opportunity to advance their own
interests--well, at whose expense? At our expense. At your expense. And
as Russia and China have shown time and time and again, they are ready
and waiting to fill the vacuum left by strong American leadership.
So let me be clear. Donald Trump's attempt to eliminate USAID doesn't
make us stronger, doesn't make us safer, doesn't put America first. In
fact, it puts America last by forcing us to retreat from the world
stage. It puts America last, and we simply can't allow this to happen.
That is why I am committed, alongside my colleagues, to stopping this
reckless and illegal attempt to get rid of USAID. Our global leadership
is not just a matter of pride; it is a matter of our own security. As
we face the challenges of a changing world, it is more important than
ever before that the United States remain at the forefront of
international development and humanitarian assistance, and this isn't
possible without USAID.
I can't say this strongly enough. We cannot afford to retreat into
isolation. We cannot afford to let adversaries fill the void that we
will leave behind. So we must fight to protect the work of USAID and
make sure that U.S. influence remains strong, that the U.S. commitment
to global peace and security endures, and that America's leadership
continues to shine brightly on the world stage. Our Nation will be
stronger and more secure by doing so.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. KING. Mr. President, we all began our careers here with the
following words:
I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic.
When each of us arrived here in the Senate, we took this oath to
support and defend the Constitution, as it says, against all enemies,
foreign and domestic.
I think it is interesting that the Framers could see that there might
be domestic enemies to the Constitution. Our oath was not to the
Republican Party, not to the Democratic Party, not to Joe Biden, not to
Donald Trump, but our oath was to defend the Constitution, and right
now--right now, literally at this moment--that Constitution is under
the most direct and consequential assault in our Nation's history--an
assault not on a particular provision but on the essential structure of
the document itself.
It is hard to grasp what is happening because of all the events that
are swirling around us over the last several weeks. It is happening so
fast, coming from so many different quarters and so many different
actors, it is hard to get a picture of what is really happening
fundamentally.
But this is an assault, and how we respond to it will define our
life's work, our place in history, and the future of our country. None
of us will ever face a greater challenge.
Before we get to the challenge, however, I think it is important to
ask why we have a Constitution in the first place, and why ours has, so
far, stood the test of time.
The answer to the first question, why have a Constitution in the
first place, is contained in the preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union--
There is No. 1--
establish Justice--
No. 2--
insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
[[Page S749]]
These are the basic purposes. If you want to know what the
Constitution is for, there it is. There is the list. ``Insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defence.'' Insure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
But there is a paradox at the heart of the creation of any
government, whether it is here or anywhere else on earth and anywhere
else in history. There is a paradox built in, because the essence of
creating government is to give it power, give it our power in order to
look after us, in order to provide for the common defense, to insure
domestic tranquility, to provide justice to our people. In other words,
we are giving our power to this separate entity.
But we have to do so with the realization that the power that is
being given has the potential to be abused. In other words, how do we
give power to this entity, this government, and ensure that the
government itself doesn't use that power to abuse us as citizens?
This is a question at the heart of all political discussions
throughout history. The Romans even had a question that captured it.
The question was ``Quis Custodiet, ipsos custodes?''
It means ``Who will guard the guardians? Who will guard those who we
have given power to guard us?'' It is a fundamental question that has
confronted every society and every government throughout history.
Madison put it this way--and, by the way, he used a gender-specific
term; I suspect if he were writing it today, it would be more broadly
phrased. But here is what Madison said:
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If
angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal
controls on government would be necessary. In framing a
government which is to be administered by men over men, the
great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the
government to control the governed.
That is the function.
And in the next place oblige it to control itself.
Our Framers understood this; they were deep students of history and
also human nature. And they had just won a lengthy and brutal war
against the abuses inherent in concentrated governmental power--George
III.
The universal principle of human nature they understood was this:
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
That is a universal principle all over the world throughout history.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
So how did they answer the question? How did they answer the
question: Who will guard the guardians?
They answered it by building into the basic structure of our
government two essential safeguards. One was regular elections; in
other words, returning the control of the government to the people on
regular, scheduled elections. By the way, this is what we learned in
sixth grade, checks and balances.
But the other piece that is built into our system that is the other
essential safeguard is the deliberate division of power between the
branches and levels of government.
This is important. The cumbersomeness, the slowness, the clumsiness
is built into our system. The Framers were so fearful of concentrated
power that they designed a system that would be hard to operate, and
the heart of it was the separation of power between various parts of
the government.
The whole idea, the whole idea was that no part of the government, no
one person, no one institution had or could ever have a monopoly on
power. Why? Because it is dangerous. History and human nature tells us
that.
This division of power, as annoying and inefficient as it can be,
particularly to the Executive--I know because I used to be a Governor--
is an essential feature of the system, not a bug. It is an essential,
basic feature of the system designed to protect our freedoms.
Now, this contrasts with the normal structure of a private business,
where authority is purposely concentrated, allowing swift and sometimes
arbitrary action. But a private business does not have the Army, and
the President of the United States is not the CEO of America. Power is
shared, principally between the President and this body, this Congress,
both Houses.
In fact, this herky-jerky structure of checks and balances, vetoes,
two Houses, jurisdiction left to the States, the war power divided
between the President and the Congress--this unwieldy structure is the
whole idea. No one has or should ever have all the power.
So the concern I am raising today isn't some academic exercise or
manifestation of political jealousy or abstract institutional loyalty,
it is the guts of the system designed to protect us from the
inevitable--and I mean inevitable--abuse of an authoritarian state. The
inevitable abuse of an authoritarian state. It is the guts of our
protection. In fact, this clumsy system is the mainspring of our
freedom.
And, by the way, it has worked so far--so far--and distinguishes us
from the historical norm. We have to understand, we are an anomaly in
history. The historical norm is pharaohs, kings, dictators, emperors,
presidents for life. But the fact that we are such an anomaly, and we
have seen in our lifetimes other governments, other systems based upon
ours slip into authoritarianism and dictatorship, tells us how fragile
what we have is.
What we have in this country is an anomaly in history and it is
fragile and it needs to be--must be--protected from generation to
generation. This makes this moment all the more urgent and portentous.
Now, the nominee before us today is one of the ringleaders of this
assault, one of the ringleaders of the assault on our Constitution. He
believes in a Presidency of virtually unlimited powers--he has written
extensively about this--and explicitly rejects, for example, the
exclusive power of Congress to authorize and appropriate funds for the
operation of the government.
He espouses the discredited and illegal theory that the President has
the power to selectively impound funds appropriated by Congress,
thereby rendering the famous power of the purse a nullity.
This is what I am talking about. I am not talking about the
specifics, and I will touch on AID and other issues, but what I am
really worried about are the implications--the structural implications
for our freedom and our government of what is happening here.
We have to keep our eye on the big picture, not all the confusion and
smoke that is going on over the last couple of weeks.
Mr. Vought is one of the principle authors of the infamous Project
2025, which the President strangely hadn't heard of during the campaign
but now seems to be the essential guideline for his Presidency. Project
2025 is nothing less than a blueprint for shredding the Constitution
and the transition of our country to authoritarian rule. He is the last
person who should be put in a job at the heart of the operation of our
government.
Again, this isn't about politics; this isn't about policy; this isn't
about Republican versus Democrat. This is about tampering with the
structure of our government, which will, ultimately, undermine its
ability to protect the freedom of our citizens. If our defense of the
Constitution is gone, there is nothing left to us.
Sir Thomas More said: I expected you to betray me, Richard, but for
Wales?
We should not betray the Constitution for a temporary expedient
because we don't like this or that Agency.
Now, I want to speak to my Republican colleagues. It is your
constitutional prerogative to confirm this nominee and any others. I do
not question that right, only its wisdom. And this nominee is a place
to say no to the undermining and destruction of our constitutional
system.
But don't stand aside in the midst of these confirmations, ill-
considered foreign policy pronouncements, flood of Executive orders--
none of which, by the way, will do anything about the price of eggs,
the cost of housing, or the availability of childcare. Don't get caught
up in all of that and ignore the steady and not-so-slow usurpation of
congressional authority and fundamental alteration of the Framers'
scheme.
My colleague who preceded me, speaking from the Republican side of
the aisle, bemoaned Congress's lack of oversight and praised Elon Musk
for doing what Congress should have done. Maybe she is right and
Congress should have done it, and we should do it, but not give away
that power, which will
[[Page S750]]
never come back. Once this door is open, it is going to be very
difficult to close it again--no matter who the President is. No matter
who is in charge.
To my colleagues, are there no redlines? Are there no limits?
Just in the past 10 days, we have seen the literal destruction of a
statutorily--I emphasize that word--statutorily established and funded
Federal Agency by people ostensibly working for the President under
vague authority, no transparency, and, certainly, no guidance from the
Congress.
Did they come to the Foreign Relations Committee and say: What do you
think about AID? Are there parts of it we should work with? Are there
parts that can be reformed? No, there was zero.
This small group--and we don't know who they are. But this small
group--apparently, it is reported, is in their twenties--have no
experience with government, no experience with foreign aid, no
experience with the operation of the U.S. Government, but they are
making, basically, policy decisions and constitutional decisions.
The Constitution does not give to the President or his designee the
power to extinguish a statutorily established Agency.
I can think of no greater violation of the strictures of the
Constitution or the usurpation of the power of this body. None. I can
think of none. Shouldn't this be a redline?
And by the way, I find it especially galling to read the sneering
comment from the richest man in the world:
We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the chipper.
Describing an action that will literally take food from the mouths of
starving children. Forget redlines, do we have no decency? And then
there is an Executive order freezing funding, again selectively, for
programs the administration doesn't like or understand.
I mentioned I was a former Governor. I would have loved to have had
this power, but it is a fundamental violation of the whole idea of the
Constitution, the separation of powers. To say to the Executive, you
can pick and choose which laws you like, which funding programs you
like, the level of funding, you can impound if you don't want to spend
it. Richard Nixon tried to do that. He was rebuffed by the Congress,
who passed a specific statute: no impoundments.
In addition to the chaos, the uncertainty, and the demonstrable
damage which my colleagues have been outlining all day brilliantly,
there is nothing theoretical about cutting off funding to a rural
health clinic, for example, or support for small farmers, or grants to
your fire department.
But getting away from those specifics--and it is easy to get pulled
into those, and my office is hearing calls every day; we can hardly
handle the volume.
This--again, to underline--is a frontal assault of our power, your
power, the power to decide where public funds should be spent.
Isn't this an obvious redline? Isn't this an obvious limit?
Or, finally, and I have just sort of picked a few examples, but my
final example is the power seemingly assumed by DOGE to burrow into the
Treasury's payment system, the Office of Personnel Management, and now
CMS for undefined purposes, zero oversight, and it raises questions up
to and including threats to national security.
Do these people have clearance? Are the doors closed? Are they going
to leave open doors into these? What are the opportunities for our
adversaries to hack into the systems? We are already under
unprecedented cyber attacks, and we are opening doors.
Although it is impossible to determine what they are taking--
remember, there is no transparency or oversight--access to Social
Security numbers seems to be in the mix, all the government's personnel
files, personal financial data, potentially everyone's tax returns and
medical records. That can't be good. That can't be good. That is data
that should be protected with the highest level of security and
consideration of Americans' privacy.
And we don't know who these people are. We don't know what they are
taking out with them. We don't know whether they are walking out with
laptops or thumb drives. We don't know whether they are leaving back
doors into the system. There is literally no oversight.
The government of the United States is not a private company. It is
fundamentally at odds with how this system is supposed to work.
Shouldn't this be an easy redline?
In short, we are experiencing in realtime exactly what the Framers
most feared. When you clear away the smoke, clear away the DOGE, the
Executive orders, foreign policy pronouncements, more fundamentally,
what is happening is the shredding of the constitutional structure
itself. And we have a profound responsibility, and it seems to be based
on that pesky oath that we all took, to stop it--to stop it.
If the Republican Members want to appoint Mr. Vought, OK, that is
fine--it is not fine. It is terrible, but that is their right. But stop
what is going on in terms of altering how our government is supposed to
fundamentally function to protect our people.
The power of the majority is with you, my Republican colleagues.
Together--together--we have the power to right the balance, to reclaim
the authority we thought was inherent in our jobs and, in the process,
save our country.
In a prior time of crisis, Abraham Lincoln came here, December 2,
1862, when he defined the stakes for all of us.
Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this
Congress and this administration--
This could have been written yesterday.
We of this Congress and this administration, will be
remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance,
or insignificance, can spare one or another of us.
We will be written down through history. We will be lit through
history ``in honor or dishonor to the latest generation.''
And I would suggest that the redline should be the Constitution of
the United States.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.