[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 5, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S767-S779]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Nomination of Russell Vought
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose Russell Vought's
nomination to be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
As the ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs Committee, I have worked hard and across the aisle to
strengthen our Federal Government's effectiveness in providing services
that Americans rely on every day, to improve transparency in the way
government operates, and to make sure taxpayer dollars are always used
efficiently.
These are some of the most fundamental roles the Federal Government
plays in the daily lives of Americans, and we are duty-bound to ensure
that they continue. But if Russell Vought is confirmed to lead the
Office of Management and Budget, I am concerned that he will throw
these principles out the window and wreak havoc on the services that
Americans count on from the Federal Government every day.
Although it may not be the most well-known Agency, the Office of
Management and Budget, or OMB, is a critical office in the Executive
Office of the President, with significant responsibilities ranging from
developing and executing the budget approved by Congress to improving
Agency performance and reviewing regulations.
The actions carried out at OMB affect the daily lives of millions of
Americans, and this little-known Agency controls nearly every action
that other Federal Agencies take, directing Agency policies as well as
controlling their budgets.
OMB is charged with allocating Federal resources that Congress
appropriates to Agencies that protect our national security, help
communities
[[Page S768]]
recover from natural disasters, and provide vital services like Social
Security, Medicare, and veterans services. This funding helps hire
police officers and firefighters. It helps provide families with
heating assistance in the cold winter months. It helps towns and cities
upgrade their roads and bridges.
OMB's work matters to every American, and we cannot confirm someone
to lead this Office who will not act in the best interest of every
American.
As the great American poet Dr. Maya Angelou once said, when people
show you who they are, you should believe them the first time.
Russell Vought has repeatedly shown us and told us who he is. He is
someone who has and will continue to willfully break the laws passed by
Congress, at the direction of the President, to fundamentally alter how
the Federal Government works for the American people. Vought's abject
disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law and his willingness
to pick which Americans are winners and losers under the Trump
administration completely disqualify him from serving in this important
role.
I want to start by revisiting the illegal and dangerous actions that
Russ Vought took when he served as OMB Director during the first Trump
administration.
During his previous tenure in leading the Office of Management and
Budget, Vought brazenly and willfully flouted the laws passed by
Congress that direct how Federal resources should be spent. On multiple
occasions, Vought refused to disburse funds that Congress passed on a
bipartisan basis to address serious national security concerns and to
protect the safety of our country. For example, Vought directed the OMB
to withhold vital security assistance to Ukraine--assistance that
Congress directed to be spent with bipartisan backing. This action put
our country's security at risk by extorting Ukraine--a very valuable
ally fighting to stop Putin's illegal actions.
This extortion wasn't to help advance some official U.S. foreign
policy or perhaps support our Nation's standing and security around the
world, no. It was an action intended to help President Trump
politically as he tried to discredit Joe Biden during the 2020
Presidential election. And you don't have to take my word for it; the
Government Accountability Office investigated and confirmed that this
was a violation of the law.
On top of that, Vought willfully delayed sending vital disaster
relief to Puerto Rico as communities were struggling to recover from
the devastations of Hurricanes Maria and Irma. Again, Congress passed a
law to provide this funding--funding that was desperately needed to
help recover from these destructive hurricanes. Then again, Congress
passed a law specifically requiring the funds to be disbursed on time
to people in desperate need. Mr. Vought delayed it. He delayed those
funds. He broke the law, and he prolonged the suffering and the
recovery of the communities that needed immediate help.
In 2021, the inspector general for the Department of Housing and
Urban Development confirmed that Vought's refusal to send hurricane
relief assistance was an inappropriate action and that it caused real
harms for the people of Puerto Rico.
The inspector general's report stated:
Brian Montgomery, the former Deputy Secretary and Acting
Secretary of HUD, recalled telling former OMB Director Vought
that OMB's actions were tantamount to holding disaster relief
funds hostage.
When asked what he meant by the ``hostage'' statement, Montgomery
told the OIG that these demands slowed down the fund of aid that was
desperately needed by people in a very desperate situation.
The report also concluded that this violation of the law caused
serious delays in getting assistance to victims.
In addition to this devastating delay, the Office of Inspector
General also detailed how Vought and OMB, under his leadership,
stonewalled and failed to cooperate with their independent oversight
investigation.
Again and again, when Russell Vought ran OMB, he ignored laws passed
by Congress that directed how taxpayer money should be spent and
failed--failed--to cooperate with the independent oversight
investigation of his illegal actions.
A 2020 investigation by the Government Accountability Office found
that under Mr. Vought's leadership, OMB broke the law eight more times
by directing certain Federal Agencies to continue to operate during the
2018 shutdown--eight more times breaking the law. Mr. Vought is on the
record.
When he pressed him about these actions during the confirmation
hearing, Vought said:
We had a different view of the law. In the shutdown, there
was a lot of precedent. We found that these aren't legal
decisions. Every time you have a different play call, GAO
will look at that. There will be different views between the
executive branch and the legislative branch.
A different view of the law?
While Mr. Vought casts this as just a difference of opinion, what he
is really saying--let's be clear--is that he does not need to follow
the law. He thinks that he is above the law. Each of these violations
underscores his consistent obstruction of oversight and a troubling
tendency to prioritize political agendas over following the law, which
endangers the safety and the welfare of our citizens.
I have said it multiple times today, but I will repeat it: Russell
Vought has shown us who he is. We have a duty and an obligation to take
him at his word and believe him.
His repeated violations of the law have far-reaching implications. We
are a nation that was built on the rule of law. When leaders and
officials break the law with absolute impunity, then the guardrails
have fallen off, and our democracy is deeply broken. Mr. Vought's
actions have undercut transparent oversight and have caused the most
foundational, fundamental tenet of democratic governance--the rule of
law--to crumble.
He didn't stop after his time at OMB was up. In the years since,
Russell Vought has been hard at work memorializing his playbook to
break the law and give the President unilateral power as part of
Project 2025. He literally wrote the Project 2025 chapter on the
executive Office of the President and how to use the OMB to consolidate
even more power with the executive branch.
In his Project 2025 chapter, where he spells out as plain as day how
he plans to violate the law again if he is confirmed, he wrote that he
will recruit staff who are ``creative and fearless in his or her
ability to challenge legal precedent.'' Mr. Vought is saying loud and
he is saying it clear: If we confirm him as the Director of OMB, he
will use every tool that he has to say what the law is. He--he--gets to
decide, not Congress, not the Constitution, and not the courts. That is
wrong, and it goes against everything our Founders believed when they
wrote our Constitution and created a unique system of checks and
balances.
Every Member of the Senate and every Federal employee swears an oath
to uphold the Constitution of the United States as they execute their
duties. I swore that oath when I joined the U.S. Navy Reserve and again
as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives and finally here in
the U.S. Senate. The Constitution gives Congress the power to determine
how Federal resources are to be spent.
Article I of the Constitution specifically gives Congress the power
of the purse. This is not some gray area. This is not unsettled law.
This is written in our Nation's most critical founding document.
The Constitution also requires that the President faithfully execute
the laws that Congress passes--again, faithfully execute, not that the
laws should be executed to the President's or Russell Vought's liking
or be aligned with the President's policy priorities or campaign
promises, but as Congress wrote them.
I would hope that any official confirmed and who swears an oath to
uphold the Constitution will do so, but unfortunately, as I laid out
previously, Russell Vought has a long history of breaking these very
laws the Constitution instructs him to actually uphold.
We already ran through several key examples of how Mr. Vought
routinely broke the law, but I would like to do a little deeper dive
into the history of these laws and why Congress thought it was
necessary to pass them in the first place.
During the Nixon administration--an administration that routinely
[[Page S769]]
stretched the law to strengthen Presidential powers--the President also
attempted to use impoundment. In 1970, President Nixon began making
deep cuts to programs that communities all across America depended upon
to keep families healthy, to keep them fed, educated, and safe.
In moments throughout our history, Congress gave the President the
specific and limited ability to not spend the full amount of that
appropriation. President Nixon, however, took the idea of refusing to
spend appropriations to a whole new and disastrous level. Nixon sought
to reshape domestic spending and undermine lawful congressional
appropriations by broadly withholding Federal funding for a wide
variety of programs that communities all across America depended upon--
programs like food assistance, safe drinking water, childcare funding,
and programs to promote economic opportunity.
President Nixon just didn't curtail select projects or limit
additional funds to larger programs; his administration tried to use
impoundment to terminate whole programs that he opposed--programs that
thousands of communities depended upon and that Congress legally
funded.
In 1970 and 1971, Nixon made deep cuts to the education, housing, and
social services programs. In 1973, Nixon withheld more than $400
million from the Federal food stamp program that prevented millions of
children and families from living in hunger. Then Nixon tried to
withhold $8 billion appropriated for water reclamation, which is used
to recycle water for safe drinking, farm irrigation, and restoring
local environments.
President Nixon tried to paint his efforts to withhold Federal
funding as a way to check inflation when, in fact, this was an attempt
to unilaterally reshape government without taking into consideration
the priorities and the needs of American communities that are
represented by their Members of Congress. That is why--that is why--
Congress came together to take up and pass the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
I think this is an interesting point: As President Nixon was doing
this, these laws passed unanimously in the U.S. Congress. All
Republicans and all Democrats in the Senate passed them unanimously.
Apparently, that was at a time when Republican Members of the Senate
had a backbone to stand up to a President who was acting illegally. And
even in the House, it was almost unanimous. Apparently, Republican
Members of the House had a backbone then to stand up to a President who
acted illegally.
The law says that, as a general principle, the President may not
refuse to spend funds that Congress has appropriated. The Impoundment
Control Act also specifies that the President may request that Congress
rescind appropriated funds, but the law makes it clear that if both the
House and Senate do not approve a rescission request, Agencies must
disburse those funds within 45 days. The President cannot unilaterally
decide to withhold funds that Congress has appropriated.
Congress has clearly spoken on how and when the President can propose
lawful rescissions. The Impoundment Control Act is the law of the land,
and it provides a transparent and democratic process to rescind funds--
procedures that reinforce core constitutional principles of the
congressional power of the purse.
In case after case, Federal courts, including the Supreme Court of
this country, have found that the President has no unilateral power to
cancel appropriations--again because Congress, not the President, holds
the power of the purse.
Even conservative judicial figures who you might expect would support
broader Executive powers, especially at this trying moment in our
Nation's history, have rejected the concept of inherit Presidential
impoundment.
In the 1998 Supreme Court case of Clinton v. City of New York,
Justice Scalia wrote:
President Nixon, the Mahatma Gandhi of all impounders,
asserted at a press conference in 1973 that his
``constitutional right'' to impound appropriated funds was
``absolutely clear.'' Our decision two years later in Train
v. City of New York, proved him wrong.
In a 2013 case before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Justice
Kavanaugh recognized that ``a President sometimes has policy reasons
(as distinct from constitutional reasons) for wanting to spend less
than the full amount appropriated by Congress for a particular project
or program. But in those circumstances''--
You have got to hear this from Justice Kavanaugh--
``But in those circumstances, even the President does not
have unilateral authority to refuse to spend the funds.''
These rulings and opinions further solidify the argument that such a
power does not exist within our constitutional framework. Over and
over, courts and legal scholars have been clear: The President has no
constitutional impoundment power.
Again, in 1998, in Clinton v. New York, the Supreme Court struck down
a law that allowed the President to unilaterally cancel appropriations,
further reinforcing the principle that the President does not have that
power.
In 1973 and 1974, in the cases of National Council of Community
Mental Health Centers v. Weinberger and Louisiana v. Weinberger,
Federal district courts, again, explicitly rejected arguments that the
President has the constitutional power to refuse to release grant
funding.
The fact is that these decisions emphasize that the President of the
United States has a duty and an obligation to execute the laws as
passed by Congress, which includes spending appropriated funds.
This well-established legal precedent highlights that Vought's
persistent push for impoundment undermines the democratic process by
disregarding the will of Congress, the representative body of the
American people.
And despite all of this settled law, throughout Vought's confirmation
hearing, he doubled down on these plans, professing his decision to
continue down the path of his first term by continuing to disregard the
rule of law.
I asked Mr. Vought during the confirmation process if he was familiar
with these decisions that prohibit impoundment. His response was wholly
inadequate when he stated the following:
I won't get into Supreme Court decisions regarding
impoundment. We think the law on the books is
unconstitutional.
By advocating for the President's refusal to spend appropriated funds
and refusing to tell the committee whether there are any limits to this
supposed power, Vought seeks to concentrate power within the executive
branch at the expense of Congress and the American people.
Confirming Mr. Vought will erode our Nation's checks and balances and
undermines the Constitution we all swore an oath to protect and to
defend.
His actions disregard both the letter and the spirit of the law,
which is why he is wholly unqualified to serve in a position requiring
enormous public trust--a position that will literally be in position to
make life-and-death decisions for millions of Americans.
Given his record of undermining democratic processes, eroding the
system of checks and balances, and time spent violating the
Constitution of the United States, we simply cannot trust him in this
role.
And now, even before he is confirmed by the Senate, the Trump
administration has begun to implement Russell Vought's playbook--the
playbook he has openly talked about and wrote about in Project 2025.
Last week, OMB implemented his playbook by withholding money to
communities, families, businesses, and organizations when it froze all
new and existing Federal grants and loans.
These actions have resulted in chaos and confusion. And every Member
of this Chamber--every Member of this Chamber--has heard from thousands
of their constituents who are afraid the resources they are counting on
will not be delivered.
These actions not only break the law and wreak chaos and anxiety
amongst our constituents, but they also inflict very, very real harm on
families in Michigan and all across our country.
In my home State of Michigan, communities and organizations received
$31 billion in Federal grants and loans last year, and the freeze has
had immediate--immediate--negative impacts.
I heard from a mayor who needs the grant funding they were awarded to
pay for police, for firefighters, and public safety personnel; who is
worried he
[[Page S770]]
won't be able to pay first responders because of the freeze.
I heard from small businesses who are afraid they won't be able to
make payroll because of the freeze.
I have heard from dozens of communities who fear they will have to
put their shovels down on construction projects to improve our roads
and our bridges, improve street safety, and address chronic flooding
issues because of the freeze.
I have heard from Michiganders who are counting on heating assistance
during these cold winter months, who are unsure if they are going to be
able to pay their energy bills.
I have heard educators who have raised concerns that the freeze would
disrupt funding at nearly 17 Head Start centers across Michigan that
serve our youngest children.
I heard from veterans who faced disruptions, confusion, and anxiety
over critical services.
I have heard from colleges and universities that count on funding to
make advances in research, ranging from preventing Alzheimer's disease
and dementia, to protecting our Great Lakes.
I have heard from communities who are concerned about how the freeze
will affect funding for Homeland Security missions and law enforcement.
Almost immediately, two different judges--one in Rhode Island and one
in Washington, DC--put in place temporary restraining orders to start
to undo the freeze and deliver needed funding to these organizations
and people. But despite this, some funds continue to be held up, and
OMB and the Department of Justice continue to insist that they can
block funding going to these communities.
This is not what hard-working families across our Nation want and
certainly not what they need. Our constituents need to know that the
Federal Government can keep its word and stand by its promises.
Americans should feel confident that the services government provides
are efficient and they are reliable and that they can count on them to
be delivered.
If we confirm Russell Vought to be just another one of President
Trump's cronies, the American people will pay the price. Once he is
back at OMB, he will only supercharge the Trump administration's effort
to unlawfully cancel programs that Congress has authorized on a
bipartisan basis and that Americans are counting on.
It is not a stretch to say that Russell Vought would do everything he
could to give President Trump even more power, especially when it comes
to controlling the Federal budget. If the President wants to block
funding to blue States, Russ Vought will do it. If the President wants
to defund firefighters, Russ Vought will do it. If the President wants
to cancel Medicaid benefits, Russ Vought will do it. If the President
wants to deny victims of a disaster assistance that they desperately
need, Russ Vought--we have already seen--will do it.
Russ Vought's record on breaking the law and sowing chaos across
government is, quite frankly, frightening. If he is confirmed, he will
quite literally be in a position to alter the future of our Nation--and
not in a good way.
But he will also be charged with managing the Federal workforce. And
his record on that front--well, it is just as abysmal.
When he was at OMB before, Mr. Vought pushed to replace nearly 50,000
nonpartisan career professional civil servants with appointees--
political appointees--whose only qualification was that they had
political loyalty to the President--no other qualifications, just
political. The old spoil system of the last two centuries back again.
He attempted to remove qualified employees who have years of
knowledge and experience. And if he had succeeded, he would have posed
a grave threat to our national security.
More than 70 percent of the Federal workforce serves at Agencies that
are critical to our national defense and to our national security.
Other Federal employees work day in and day out to respond to
emergencies and to ensure that Americans can get key services, like
Social Security checks and veterans' healthcare.
Mr. Vought called these hard-working, dedicated public servants
``villains.'' He called them ``villains.'' There is no question Mr.
Vought has no respect for the professional, hard-working civil servants
who work tirelessly each and every day to support the American people.
President Trump took action on day one of his administration to
remove qualified, nonpartisan Federal workers and replace them with his
cronies by issuing an Executive order.
Under this directive, the President's political appointees can
reclassify traditional nonpartisan career civil servants into schedule
policy/career positions that are functionally at-will.
All hiring, retention, and firing decisions for schedule policy/
career positions would be at the pleasure of the President's political
leadership rather than the individual's qualifications or job
performance.
Under Vought's authority as OMB Director during Trump's first term,
OMB recommended that anywhere from 68 to 88 percent of its own
workforce would be reclassified into this schedule F. And while
describing this conversion with OMB staff that he had just reclassified
into schedule F positions, he recalls saying of those employees:
We don't believe in these laws that give these protections
that we think made you less good at your job of serving a
particular president.
All that mattered was ``serving a particular President.''
Vought doesn't believe in civil service law. I believe in those laws,
and they are the laws of the land. Congress passed those laws so civil
servants are better at their job of serving the American people, rather
than their job of serving at the political pleasure of a President.
Civil servants, not the President or his political cronies, are the
ones who issue Social Security checks, provide care for our veterans,
facilitate loans for small businesses, and safeguard our homeland from
security threats.
President Trump took another step last week to remove qualified civil
servants when he offered more than 2 million Federal employees deferred
resignation offers through a ``Fork in the Road'' email. He may have
pitched it to Federal workers as a buyout, but it is likely another
illegal plan to scare expert employees into leaving voluntarily out of
fear that they would otherwise be fired or retaliated against by the
President so he can make way to install his cronies at all levels of
the Federal Government.
If this continues to happen, Agencies will lose vast institutional
knowledge, and civil servants will lose trust in their colleagues.
Whistleblowers will be afraid to come forward to report waste, fraud,
and abuse. Taxpayers will foot the bill for government mistakes or
corruption among political leaders. Foreign adversaries will take
advantage of our unstable government workforce.
In all of these roles, we want to trust the employees who have the
right skills, experience, and are informed with accurate, reliable, and
complete information. Russell Vought is at the forefront of this effort
to politicize our civil workforce.
As I bring my remarks to a close, I just want to underscore that Russ
Vought's previous tenure as OMB Director and his contributions to
proposals like Project 2025 have demonstrated clearly that he is not
merely someone with differing policies views but someone who
fundamentally disregards the rules of the game, as outlined in the laws
of Congress, those that we have enacted under the Constitution.
Mr. Vought's expansive views of the President's spending authority
seek to destroy Congress's constitutional authority. Mr. Vought's
disdain for our hard-working civil servants who keep Americans safe--he
wants to attempt to turn all of them into political hacks, loyal only
to the President. It completely, completely disqualifies him from
holding the position of the Director of Office of Management and
Budget.
Ultimately, Russ Vought's defiant attitude toward the rule of law is
dangerous, and it is deeply, deeply un-American. His lawless actions
threaten our national security. They threaten our economy and the well-
being of the American people, and they threaten the future of our
democracy.
I urge my colleagues to take him at his word. Russ Vought has told us
loud and clear who he is and what he will
[[Page S771]]
do. He has told us he will break the law. He has told us he will
politicize the Federal workforce. He has told us he will destroy our
government from the inside.
We cannot give them another chance to inflict further harm on the
American people. We must--we must--oppose his nomination, and if we
fail to stop his confirmation, there is no question in my mind the
American people will end up paying the price.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, every single day, millions of hard-
working Americans report to work to serve their communities and their
country. They are known to our government as civil servants, but I want
to be clear about who they really are.
These civil servants are the more than 300 air traffic controllers at
the Albuquerque Sunport and airports across New Mexico who keep us safe
in the air. They are the wildland firefighters battling catastrophic
forest fires each year. They are the FBI agents who are working to get
drug cartels out of our communities. They are the rangers taking care
of our national parks and the civil engineers who manage and restore
our watersheds. They are the Federal customs officers and border agents
who enable trade at our southern border and stop fentanyl before it
enters our country. They are the inspectors and scientists who ensure
the safety of our food and our medicine, and they are the countless
workers who ensure our elders receive their Social Security checks on
time.
These are the unsung heroes in our Federal civil service. The impact
of their work touches every single person in our State and our country.
They deserve our respect and our gratitude, not an all-out attack
against them. But while these civil servants have done the quiet work
of keeping our government working, Donald Trump is singlehandedly
forcing a partial government shutdown and throwing the lives of hard-
working civil servants into chaos.
We are barely 3 weeks into this new Trump administration, and it is
abundantly clear that Donald Trump and his team have taken his narrow
victory as a license to run roughshod over all laws, norms, and even
the Constitution. Trump and Elon Musk are attempting an unlawful,
hostile takeover of the most basic Federal Government operations,
functions that so many Americans depend on.
Over the course of the last 2 weeks, Trump has threatened mass
layoffs of civil servants and closures of entire Federal Agencies.
Trump and Elon Musk's DOGE minions have forced access to the Federal
payments system. This system contains Americans' private data as well
as classified information and processes government payments that make
up more than one-fifth of the U.S. economy.
And I wish I were making this up, but it is true. According to a
report in WIRED, a 25-year-old engineer from Musk's DOGE group has
gained direct access to the Treasury Department systems responsible for
nearly all payments made by the Federal Government. This is someone
whose only other experience is working for Musk at other places--at
SpaceX and Twitter. This unelected, unvetted member of Musk's DOGE team
reportedly has administrator-level privileges. Normally, access
privileges to this highly secure system are reserved for high-level
professionals with years and years of experience at the Treasury
Department.
This breach by Elon Musk's DOGE minions may expose the system to
irreversible damage, undermining our individual privacy rights and our
country's economic and national security. And many of us will simply
not stand for it.
On top of this, Trump triggered a vast and ongoing blockade of
congressionally appropriated Federal funds, the impacts of which are
still reverberating across the Nation.
The ``masterminds'' behind this whole mess: Trump, Elon Musk, and--
yes--Russell Vought, Trump's nominee to lead the White House Office of
Management and Budget.
Let's talk about Mr. Vought and his plans. Mr. Vought was the lead
architect at the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, the blueprint for
Trump's dismantling of the Federal Government. He has spent years
crafting plans to circumvent Congress, our Constitution, and, of
course, the law.
Let me read to you directly from Mr. Vought's statements in his own
words. In a private speech last year, at his far-right Center for
Renewing America think tank, Mr. Vought stated that he would like to
put career civil servants ``in trauma.''
Mr. Vought said:
We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. When
they wake up in the morning, we want them not to want to go
to work because they are increasingly viewed as villains. We
want their funding to be shut down so that the EPA can't do
all of the rules against our energy industry because they
have no bandwidth financially to do so.
He laid out how he would do this in his chapter of the Heritage
Foundation Project 2025 playbook for the incoming Trump administration
White House. He wrote there:
The great challenge confronting a conservative President is
the existential need for aggressive use of the vast powers of
the executive branch.
He went on to say:
Success in meeting that challenge will require a . . .
boldness to bend or break the bureaucracy.
Meaning bending and breaking our career civil servants who carry out
laws passed here by Congress.
As the OMB Director at the end of the last Trump administration, Mr.
Vought was the lead architect of the President's fiscal year 2021
budget proposal that called for $500 billion cut from Medicare, $900
billion cut from Medicaid, $71 billion cut from Social Security--yes,
Social Security--$76 billion cut from disability programs, zeroing out
entire Federal programs, including the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, the Legal Services Corporation, community development
block grants, and community services block grants--all to pave the way
for Trump to double down on his tax breaks for billionaires.
At his Center for Renewing America think tank, Mr. Vought drafted a
2023 budget plan entitled ``A Commitment to End Woke and Weaponized
Government.'' This is the playbook that Trump and Musk are already
running to freeze Federal funding, dismantle and dismember Federal
Agencies, and seize the power of the purse from Congress, where the
Constitution put it.
That plan called for extending Trump's tax cuts for the wealthy by
slashing Medicaid by $2.1 trillion, SNAP by $400 billion, and
eliminating the Affordable Care tax credits that help folks afford
healthcare coverage. Mr. Vought has also openly admitted his intentions
to challenge the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which enforces
Congress's constitutional power of the purse.
During his confirmation hearing last month, Mr. Vought said he
believes the President can just overrule Congress in deciding how to
spend taxpayer dollars, despite constitutional authority and the law to
the contrary. Mr. Vought said the President ran on the notion that the
Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional. I agree with that. Last
time I checked, that was up to the Supreme Court and our court systems.
Mr. Vought has already made clear how he would use his role--or I
should say abuse his role--as OMB Director to politicize the Agency and
bend it to the whims of the President. In Project 2025, Vought wrongly
stated that OMB has the only statutory tools in the White House that
are powerful enough to override implementing the Agency's
bureaucracies. What this really means is overriding the law, duly
enacted here in Congress and signed by the President.
Mr. Vought has also questioned the very ideas of independent Federal
Agencies. In fact, in an interview last November with Tucker Carlson,
Mr. Vought said:
Number one is going after the whole notion of independence.
There are no independent agencies. Congress may have viewed
them as such--the SEC or the FCC, the CFPB, the whole
alphabet soup. But the whole notion of an independent agency
should be thrown out. You can apply the concept of destroying
independence at every agency.
Mr. Vought has called OMB a President's air traffic control system
with the ability and charge to ensure that all policy initiatives are
flying in sync and with the authority to let planes take off and at
times ground planes that are flying off course.
[[Page S772]]
Do we really trust a man hell-bent on slashing Medicare, Medicaid,
and Social Security, defying Congress, and destroying independent
Federal Agencies to be an air traffic controller?
Let me be clear. My constituents in New Mexico did not vote for this.
And my office has been fielding thousands of phone calls, letters, and
emails from New Mexicans who are upset, angry, and frustrated that
President Trump, Elon Musk, and Russell Vought are breaking laws and
shredding the Constitution in a bid to upend the basic functions of our
government.
Here is a little bit of a taste of what New Mexicans are telling me.
Arthur from Rio Rancho called my office to tell me he is concerned
about how Trump and Vought's plans to dismantle the Department of
Education will impact his son and millions of other students with
disabilities.
Arthur said:
I have a son who is autistic and nonverbal with an
individual education plan. Dismantling the Department of
Education will not only impact him, but it will devastate all
public schools and hurt students like my son who have
disabilities. This will strip away any rights and protections
for millions of students. Trump and Elon need to be sent a
clear message: Education is a fundamental right, not a
privilege for the wealthy.
A constituent from Albuquerque who requested anonymity is worried
about his job as a Federal civil servant because of Vought's agenda. He
wrote to me:
I am a U.S. Forest Service employee. Most of us are now
afraid of losing our jobs and of, among other things, the
demand for loyalty. This makes it difficult to work in the
manner that we wish to--efficiently, effectively, and to do
well for the land and all citizens.
Marissa from Santa Fe is hesitant to start a family because of the
uncertainty caused by Musk, Trump, and Vought. Marissa wrote to me:
I am really terrified at the idea that so much of the
Federal Government is being dismantled by someone who was
never nominated to a position of power. I want to be able to
start a family, but how can I do that without fear of knowing
that this man and the GOP are destroying any chance of that
happening?
Holly from Albuquerque, a public school teacher, is also deeply
worried about Trump and Vought's intentions to dismantle the Department
of Education and what this could mean for her students, fellow
teachers, and her financial security. She wrote:
As an educator for 22 years here in New Mexico, I know
firsthand the struggles that our families and students and
educators are facing in the classroom, and we really need
access to the Federal support that we get. Whether it is
title I, special education money, or grants, I don't know how
we're going to operate our schools effectively without that.
I am also worried about my pension as a public school
educator. I am supposed to be eligible for retirement in 3\1/
2\ years, and I have dedicated my life to the students of New
Mexico.
Today, I say to the thousands of New Mexicans who have asked me to
oppose Mr. Vought's nomination: I agree with you. Mr. Vought is unfit
to lead the OMB. We should reject this dangerously unfit nominee before
he dismantles the services that New Mexicans rely on. We should reject
him before he unilaterally overrides the laws that Americans' elected
representatives have passed.
We cannot stand by and allow Mr. Vought, Elon Musk, or even this
President to disregard the safety and security of the American people,
and the law is on our side.
In the last week, two Federal courts have issued restraining orders
on Trump's directives. I want to read a few short words from what the
judges have said:
The Executive's action unilaterally suspends the payment of
federal funds to the States and others simply by choosing to
do so, no matter the authorizing or appropriating statute,
the regulatory regime, or the terms of the grant itself. The
Executive cites no legal authority allowing it to do so;
indeed, no federal law would authorize the Executive's
unilateral action here.
The court continued by dismissing Trump's arguments justifying the
funding freeze, declaring:
The Executive Branch has a duty to align federal spending
and action with the will of the people as expressed through
congressional appropriations, not . . . ``Presidential
priorities.''
These court rulings represent battles won, but this war to defend the
Constitution and stability in this Nation is far from over.
We won't stop until Trump, Musk, and Vought follow the law and abide
by the Constitution. That means respecting Federal workers. It means
ending the unilateral and unlawful freeze of appropriated funds for
projects from the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Project to the Red Top
Water Development Project.
I have said it before and I will say it again: This is not a game.
This is a nation of laws, and just like you, every one of us here in
this body swore to defend the Constitution. Mass layoffs of Federal
workers, working to disband the Department of Education or the EPA or
the National Science Foundation, abusing the FBI, handing over access
to more than one-fifth of our economy and the private data of every
single American taxpayer without any regard for the risk that you are
creating for our national security--that is not defending this Nation
of laws; it is not following the Constitution; it is not putting public
service or even America first. It looks a lot like tyranny. It needs to
stop.
``We the People'' is the first phrase of the U.S. Constitution, and
that is exactly who Republicans in charge of the Senate, the House, and
the White House--the people who can stop this need to hear from you.
So to all Americans wondering what can be done right now, rise up
your voice, call your Member of Congress, call your Senators, call the
White House, call the Treasury Department, comment on your Republican
representatives' social media channels, write op-eds in your local
newspaper telling how you are impacted. Make sure that Republicans know
that we the people are paying attention, that we will hold them
accountable for following the law, upholding the Constitution. Make
sure to let your lawmakers know when you support the work that they are
doing so that they continue to do it. And let Federal civil servants
know that you support them and that you want them to keep doing their
jobs and doing them well.
I will continue to stand up to this chaos, to this lawlessness, and
as part of that work, I will vote no on Russell Vought.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise tonight in opposition to the
nomination of Russell Vought to be Director of the Office of Management
and Budget, also known as OMB. My colleagues and I have been holding
the Senate floor since yesterday to sound the alarm on this dangerous
nomination.
Russell Vought is the architect of Project 2025, the hateful, racist,
sexist policy roadmap at the center of Trump's campaign.
Mr. Vought has been working behind the scenes for years on policies
to consolidate power, undermine the critical services that the Federal
Government provides to the American people, and undermine Congress's
power of the purse.
When Vought was at the Office of Management and Budget during the
last Trump administration, he demonstrated a complete lack of regard
for our branch of government--the Congress. He was responsible for
illegally withholding and delaying billions of dollars in
congressionally appropriated funding and now is planning to ratchet up
this whole destructive power to a new level in 2025.
While Vought was withholding the funding that he and Trump don't
like, he revealed a 2021 budget plan that showed us all the terrible
things that he did like. That plan, authored by Russell Vought,
proposed--listen to this--$500 billion in cuts to Medicare, $900
billion in cuts to Medicaid, $71 billion cuts to Social Security. In
those budgets, Vought was able to find $1.4 trillion to continue the
tax that Trump gave--that big tax break to the millionaires and
billionaires in our country, all paid for out of Medicare, Medicaid,
and Social Security.
Right now, Russell Vought is working behind the scenes and not even
waiting to propose a budget. He is directing the Agency to illegally
cut billions of dollars in spending from programs that American
families rely upon.
Someone else's name may have been on the January 27 memo that came
from OMB that froze all government spending, but--make no mistake--it
was authored by Russell Vought. Everything we are seeing right now--the
[[Page S773]]
illegal and unconstitutional actions being taken to dismantle Federal
Agencies, freeze funding, steal the data of American citizens--is a
push to further the Project 2025 playbook.
Vought may be the one to have written the blueprint, but now he and
everyone else, including the President himself, are taking orders from
one man--Elon Musk. All of this chaos is because the richest man in the
world spent more than $280 million on buying this election, and he
wants to reap the benefits from his investment.
For Donald Trump, DEI seems to only stand for ``defending Elon's
interests.'' Now, he and Vought are planning to make OMB stand for
``only Musk's business.''
Elon Musk and his unqualified, unelected government arsonists wants
to be able to carry out their attacks on your privacy, your rights, and
your friends and neighbors under the cover of darkness. Because with
every new day, we are seeing Donald Trump's deep-pocketed puppeteer,
Elon Musk, attempt to dismantle the government services that keep our
communities clean, healthy, and safe. And they are acting with
impunity.
I just came from the Environmental Protection Agency--an Agency
created by Congress, authorized by Congress, signed into law by Richard
Nixon, and one which the Environmental and Public Works Committee, on
which I sit, oversees. I was denied access to the EPA to talk to Musk's
DOGE henchmen.
No, you can't come in Senator. You can't talk to these young people
rumbling around, interviewing people who majored in physics and biology
and chemistry who are protecting the clean air and clean water and
clean lands in our country. No, you can't come in.
Musk doesn't just believe he is above the law; he doesn't believe in
the law at all. He believes that the U.S. Constitution does not apply
to him. Elon Musk is not bound by the Constitution.
Everyone knows that we have three branches of government created in
the Constitution as separate articles defining the powers of each.
Article I of the Constitution is the Congress, article II of the
Constitution is the Presidency, and article III of the Constitution is
the judiciary. But Elon Musk doesn't need to answer to any of those
branches--not to Congress, not to the courts, and certainly not to his
newly bought Presidency.
It makes sense for Trump to make Elon Musk a buddy. The guy who
declared bankruptcy six times really needs a rich guy around to bail
him out. But it is almost as if Musk believes that he has his own
special place in the Constitution separate from the first three
articles.
In Musk world, our Constitution contains an article III.V right after
article III of the judiciary, and that new article that he believes
exists and applies to him is a never-before-used provision in the
Constitution with unlimited authority to remake our constitutional
order with Musk as the unelected and unaccountable leader.
Now, in Musk world, articles I, II, and III of the Constitution are
toothless compared to the power reserved for him and him alone in
article III.V, right before article IV. He just slipped it in now.
Article III.V.
In Musk world, article III.V goes something like this: Article III.V,
the Muskocracy--his own separate provision in the Constitution.
Section 1 of the Muskocracy, establishment of the Elon Musk branch:
The executive, legislative, and judicial branches shall hereby
recognize a new and supreme branch of government known as Elon Musk.
This branch shall operate independently of the other three branches,
unburdened by traditional constraints such as laws, ethics, or the need
for congressional approval.
That is section 1.
Section 2, powers and responsibilities for the Muskocracy:
The Elon Musk branch shall wield absolute authority over but not
limited to, No. 1, Federal Agency reorganization. ``Abolish the at will
clause'' is in that section--whatever he decides.
The Musk branch may at any time eliminate, restructure, or replace
any Federal Agency by way of a single tweet.
A lot of power that section 1 is.
Section 2, workforce optimization:
All Federal employees shall be subject to an immediate performance
review determined by way of an AI-powered metric called the
HyperProductivity Index, trademarked. Any Agency deemed ``inefficient''
shall be replaced by a new office staffed entirely by a mix of X
Premium subscribers, Tesla interns, and SpaceX engineers working 120-
hour weeks.
This is the Muskocracy, and it just continues.
Data access, part 3:
The Musk branch shall have unrestricted access to all government
personnel records, including security clearances, tax filings, and even
embarrassing Slack messages.
All goes to Elon Musk under article III.V of the new U.S.
Constitution enacted on Inauguration Day in 2024.
Then we have legislative override:
All bills must be reviewed and meme'd upon by the Musk branch before
passing. A simple ``haha no'' tweet from the Musk branch shall serve as
an automatic veto.
He didn't like it, just tweet it out. Everyone will jump. Make sure
that doesn't happen. This is the new Muskocracy in which we are now
living--article III.V of the new Constitution of the United States of
America.
Judicial review:
The Supreme Court shall be replaced with a single X post where Elon
asks ``Should this be legal?''
The most liked reply becomes binding precedent.
This is the only way to govern. You can just see how it is all
playing on X. It is the new Constitution of the United States, binding
on the U.S. Senate for sure. We can see that in the votes that are
being cast out there by the majority.
Then we move on to section 3, Administration and Oversight.
The Musk branch shall be staffed exclusively by engineers, AI-powered
bots, and a small staff of interns selected through an online
gladiator-style coding competition.
How else would you run America in 2025 but have those superior beings
making all decisions for all of us?
Then, section 4, checks and balances--all of them. Checks and
balances has always been the key going back to Madison and Jefferson.
They thought through the checks and balances, and so did Elon Musk in
his article III.V, the Muskocracy, the provision that is now operative
in our country in the Donald Trump Presidency.
So checks and balances says: Although the existing three branches may
express opinions, all official government actions require verification
from the Musk branch, except those initiated by Musk himself, which are
self-verifying because he is infallible. No one can question him.
And any opposition to the Musk branch shall be met with immediate
ridicule. Come on. You can't question Elon Musk. It is the new
Constitution. That is how it is. Everyone should just understand.
And then section 5, succession and perpetuity. How does our country
then operate into the future? Well, in the event that the physical Elon
Musk ceases to exist, the Musk branch shall be transferred to an AI-
trained on/off system for all of his tweets that are gathered together
and then Neura-link data and past Rogan podcast appearances and that AI
shall rule indefinitely unless overthrown by a more innovative
billionaire.
Isn't that really how we want our country to be running under this
Muskocracy, article III.V? That is where we are right now. That is the
country that we are living in.
And does he have power? Oh, he has power. Because let's not kid
ourselves; right now Elon wants us to live in the Muskocracy.
The Trump administration is operating as if article III.V is real, as
if Elon Musk has supreme authority to override the will of Congress,
seize government property, hire and fire at will, and otherwise bend
government to his benefit regardless of the consequences.
So let's not fool ourselves. We can see article III.V in action right
now. Musk is obsessed with shutting down USAID, slandering its public
service, spreading baseless conspiracy theories about the Agency's work
and mission.
If we don't stop him now through legislation and lawsuits, he will
not only destroy our ability to address global crises that will
eventually impact us at home; he will go after the Agencies that keep
our food and water safe, our
[[Page S774]]
infrastructure repaired, and our communities secured.
Gutting USAID will cause immediate harm to our national security,
place our citizens at risk, and disrupt lifesaving work. USAID helps
protect children from starvation. It prevents the spread of infectious
diseases. It is critical in our global fight against AIDS and HIV.
If we don't hold the line on Elon Musk's abolition of USAID and the
Trump administration's illegal actions, nothing will prevent him or
Trump from doing the same thing to the CDC, to the Environmental
Protection Agency, to the Small Business Administration.
He is bragging that he put USAID in the wood chipper. We wants to do
the same thing for every other Agency.
And that is why I am voting no on every Trump nominee while this
illegal and unconstitutional power grab continues, while this chaos
continues, and this corruption continues.
The fights before us will not be easy, and there will be many. The
American people are relying on us to protect their rights, their
pocketbooks, and their families. And that starts with protecting them
from nominees whose only goal is to dismantle the programs that help
feed them, employ them, and keep them warm in the winter, educate them,
and help them meet the ends that their families seek to achieve.
We need to say no to the nomination of Russell Vought tonight; no to
the illegal, unconstitutional Muskocracy; and no to the costly, sick,
or unhealthy future that Donald Trump is creating.
I urge all Members to vote no on Russell Vought as the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. LUJAN. Mr. President, chaos, corruption, confusion--that is what
Russell Vought offers.
For the past 2 weeks, my office has received thousands of calls.
Worried New Mexicans are taking time out of their busy days to share
their stories and plead for help.
Last Monday, when President Trump and Russell Vought illegally froze
Federal programs and grant money allocated by Congress, chaos erupted
in New Mexico and across the country.
A single mother of four in Bernalillo wrote to me:
I will literally have to choose between feeding my children
or paying for them to have private health insurance. I barely
make it paycheck to paycheck as it is, this freeze would
definitely put us over. . . . Please help our state.
A senior from Albuquerque told me:
My savings have been wiped out by home care costs after one
hospitalization. I am unable to work, and am living solely on
Social Security income, most of which is eaten up by
insurance premiums. I am dependent on Medicare health
treatments.
Another constituent of mine wrote:
Now, we are scared to lose medical and food. We rely on
Medicaid care for procedures and prescriptions that keep me
and my husband alive. Without SNAP, we can't afford to eat.
A family doctor shared that if the Federal freeze on grants and
programs were to be implemented, it would put a family clinic that
serves 50,000 New Mexicans in immediate danger of closing. This would
leave thousands of patients without access to primary healthcare.
Another constituent said:
I am working at the Senior Community Service Employment
Program to make enough money to live on and pay our bills.
This program allows me to make some money to pay bills
otherwise I cannot make it through the month. I am so afraid.
President Trump's plan is to take away this program. Help
please!
Another young woman in southwest Albuquerque wrote to me saying:
As a type 1 diabetic, I am afraid to lose Medicaid because
of the decision of the President. I will not survive without
it. I am beyond blessed to have Medicaid because I have made
it 12 years of being diabetic and being able to have an
insulin pump. Unfortunately, if I go without Medicaid, I
don't think I would even be able to afford an insulin pen
that only lasts up to 2 weeks.
One New Mexican, who works at a school lunch program, called asking:
Will the students have food tomorrow? We have no way to
make up the difference.
A farmer in Silver City said he was concerned about the devastation a
funding freeze would have on the farmers and ranchers across New
Mexico.
A nonprofit that helps people with disabilities find housing and
employment said they ``would not be able to function.''
A mother and nurse wrote in to say that stopping his two disabled
children's healthcare will destroy their lives.
This is just a handful of the countless stories shared with my office
in the past 11 days. New Mexicans were scared and didn't know what to
do.
The Trump administration offered a two-page memo that effectively
took away assistance for millions of Americans, Republicans and
Democrats, who would not be able to put food on the table, afford their
prescriptions, or put gas in their cars because of Russell Vought and
the Trump Administration.
When asked by reporters in the briefing room if this freeze was going
to affect programs that help feed young children, provide veterans with
healthcare, or keep the heat on for seniors during cold winters--the
White House Press Secretary answered over and over again that this
freeze would not affect individual assistance programs. She left it at
that, no specific details or plans to share with the American people
regarding whether the Trump administration planned to freeze the
funding they depend on.
What happened was these programs were frozen. Contrary to the lie the
White House told the American people, these programs were frozen.
Medicaid and Head Start payment portals were frozen with no
explanation. After Democrats and the public demanded answers, the
portals began to open up again. No explanation was given to the
American people, no accountability.
Let me be clear, Vought's fingerprints are all over Trump's funding
freeze despite not being confirmed. What Russell Vought is doing is bad
for our country. I don't need to stand here and wonder or make guesses
about what his policies will do if he is confirmed to be the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget. He has already done this job
before, and when he did, he broke the law.
Let me repeat that. Russell Vought broke the law. He decided that he
and President Trump get to determine what programs are funded. Not
Congress, as the Constitution requires, not the people of this country,
just them.
The rule of law still needs to matter in this country, and it needs
to matter in this body.
Let me also tell you why I don't need to guess what Mr. Vought is
going to do. A chief architect of Project 2025, Russell Vought wants
nothing more than to have a chance at cutting funding for Medicaid,
healthcare and mental health services for veterans, early childhood
education for kids, and so much more.
I am proud to serve New Mexico. I know that I do not just represent
the people who voted to put me in this job. And because I serve them,
all New Mexicans, I went into the confirmation process with an open
mind.
The decisions and the leadership of the person who will take the seat
of Director of the Office and Management and Budget will affect all New
Mexicans.
Under this Presidency, I know this Cabinet will not agree with me on
every issue, but I want these positions to be filled by people who will
not just serve the Americans who voted for their boss, but serve
everyone. I do not have a problem with a Republican running the Office
of Management and Budget. I take issue with a nominee who promises to
violate the law and strip funding from the American people.
I take issue with slashing funding for children's health insurance,
moms and dads trying to put food on the table, seniors being able to
afford their medicine. I take issue with this nominee who has a record
of disdain for Federal employees and ``wants federal employees to be
traumatized.'' I take issue with a nominee who, when it comes to our
Federal workers, wants to clean house and replace them with political
loyalists.
Let me end with something personal. Russell Vought believes that kids
who attend Head Start ``have worse behavior and academic outcomes than
children who do not enroll in the program.'' He signed his name on a
document saying exactly this. I am a Head Start graduate standing right
now in the well of the U.S. Senate. Early education opens up doors for
millions of
[[Page S775]]
kids and Russell Vought will try to take it away, take away the
opportunity for young children to attain the tools they need to succeed
in this world.
My grandparents often told me as a kid to leave things better than
you found them. Let me tell you what Vought is going to do. He is going
to slash programs that people depend on every day to pay for the Trump
tax scam. And Russell Vought is going to leave kids, veterans, and
seniors footing the bill. He is going to tell parents they have to make
an impossible choice: feed their kids or be able to afford medicine for
mom.
Russell Vought has no interest in the advice of my grandparents. He
is not going to leave things better than he found them. The best thing
for New Mexico right now is to not support a nominee who has already
plunged our country into chaos and confusion. Our country and New
Mexicans deserve better than this.
I want to thank each and every one of my Democratic colleagues who
came to the floor this week to stand up for our constituents and who
shared many stories and concerns from across the country over the
nomination of Russell Vought.
I urge my Republican colleagues to speak with their constituents who
will suffer at the hands of Russell Vought as Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, a decision and confirmation that would be
damaging to our country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, now we know this, and this is a
conversation I have quite often with individuals to talk about what is
happening in my State when they ask me: What is going on in Washington?
What is happening with the Executive orders and the change of the
administration?
And one thing that we talk about, and I think it is important because
sometimes it gets lost in this conversation is that when our system of
government was created, about 250 years ago, it was created because the
American people at the time decided they wanted a democracy. They
didn't want a king.
You know, the United States of America is born out of a revolution
against a monarch, a king who sat on a throne and had really no checks
on his power.
And our Founding Fathers built this Nation on a foundation of
democratic principles, supporting the idea that government is for the
people. That is what the American people wanted.
And as part of that creation, they established three coequal branches
of government. We all know the executive, the legislative, the
judicial. And along with that, they created a system of checks and
balances to ensure that no branch had too much control over the other.
Now, as we all know--we work here in Congress--that legislative
branch is important. It is the first branch of government, coequal to
all the others. But it writes and passes laws, approves Presidential
nominations, but also, importantly, the branch of government that we
all work in is about passing a budget and controlling the purse.
What does that mean? The money. We are the ones that decide how we
spend this money, the budget for the Federal Government; where it is
going to go, the appropriations for it. And that really is the power of
Congress that our Founding Fathers gave to us.
Now, the executive branch, we all know, the Founders gave the
President the authority to veto, to implement, to enforce laws, along
with the power to manage and direct government Agencies.
That is what the Founding Fathers envision to ensure that our
government puts the American people first and that no branch of
government could become too powerful. Those are checks and balances
that have been tested throughout our Nation's history.
Let me just give you an example. In 1974, President Richard Nixon
refused to release funds approved by Congress for certain programs that
he opposed. In response to his unconstitutional abuse of power,
Congress passed bipartisan legislation called the Congressional Budget
and Impoundment Act of 1974. This legislation reaffirms that, once
Congress passes bills that deliver funding to the American people, the
President can't delay or cancel those funds.
Unfortunately today, we have a nominee for the Office of Management
and Budget--we call it OMB--who thinks this critical check on the
President's power shouldn't exist.
Now, you have heard this. My Democratic colleagues have been on the
Senate floor since 2 p.m. yesterday to oppose Russ Vought.
Why? Because Russ Vought is a coauthor of President Trump's Project
2025 manifesto, and he is the chief architect of Trump's strategy to
seize the power of the legislative branch. How? How are they doing
that? Well, let's just talk about that.
On January 27, the OMB issued a memo to effectively suspend
Congress's power of the purse by announcing a pause on all Federal
grants and loans. He shut down funding for practically every State and
local program that receives money from the Federal government.
Now, like all of my colleagues, I have heard from Nevadans worried
about accessing Medicaid or their VA benefits or funding for law
enforcement or housing and energy payments that keep the lights on for
low-income Nevadans. I have heard concerns about childcare initiatives
like Head Start that have no longer any funding, and programs to
support seniors like Meals on Wheels are concerned.
I have heard from Tribes in Nevada. I just got out of my office
meeting with one of our Tribes who are still having trouble accessing
housing funds and similar funds.
Groups that support Nevada's domestic violence survivors don't know
if they will have the money to get critical resources to people in
need.
Nevada literacy programs that are helping children learn to read have
been threatened with a loss of funding.
Rural communities in Nevada receiving Federal grants, ranging from
community development grants to wastewater treatment--several of those
grants and that funding have been delayed or cut.
Trump's funding freeze shut down support for safety and security for
kids and families in the historic Westside of Las Vegas.
President Trump shut down $156 million in funding for solar energy in
Nevada. We were going to install solar power on hundreds of buildings,
helping to bring down energy costs for 20,000 hard-working Nevada
families. But President Trump illegally stopped these solar grants to
Nevada. That has jeopardized thousands of good-paying jobs for laborers
and construction crews in my State.
And while the Trump administration claims that Medicaid wasn't
affected by the Federal funding freeze, the fact is the Medicaid
payment system did go offline in all 50 States.
Now, intentional or not, the OMB order was reckless, causing
confusion and chaos for many across the country, including doctors and
healthcare staff who didn't know if they were going to get paid for the
work they do.
Like my colleagues, my office is being flooded with these calls,
including from Nevadans concerned about their future benefits from
Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.
These are real Americans who are being squeezed by this
unconstitutional funding freeze, even though Donald Trump promised to
make their lives better.
Americans right now are being hung out to dry by Donald Trump and
Russ Vought, whose Project 2025 was clearly--clearly--the inspiration
for this dangerous funding freeze.
Russ Vought is unfit to serve at the head of the Agency that oversees
our Federal budget.
During his confirmation hearing, he said the Impoundment Control Act
of 1974 is unconstitutional. One man decides the laws in this State.
Wow, that is a lot of power. He is basically saying he thinks the
President should be able to withhold any funding that they don't like,
even though that goes against the separation of powers our Founding
Fathers wrote into the Constitution.
Think about this: Under the last administration, we passed the
Inflation Reduction Act that created incredible jobs--union jobs--and
grew our economy in Nevada and across this country. Now President Trump
and Russ Vought are saying the President doesn't have to deliver all
that funding to communities in Nevada and across the country. Many of
those communities have
[[Page S776]]
already broken ground on projects that they were promised funding for.
Instead of focusing on the working families that Donald Trump said he
was fighting for, he is clearly only interested in becoming as powerful
as possible, no matter how many laws he breaks.
Listen, you know something is wrong when firefighters who went to Los
Angeles to help contain the devastating wildfires received emails from
the Trump administration encouraging them to resign. It wasn't an email
to say: Thank you. You risked your lives. We couldn't do this without
you.
They actually sent a letter to these firefighters saying: Well, it is
time to resign.
What kind of President thanks our firefighters by telling them to
leave their jobs and leave our communities defenseless? He doesn't care
about our safety and security. He only cares about his own.
My question for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is, What
is next? What will be the next congressional power we cede to Donald
Trump and his billionaire friends? What will be the next crisis we have
to clean up when we could be focusing on delivering for Americans?
We are supposed to be representing the people of our States and
fighting for them. When I speak to Nevadans every single day, they
expect me to get them the Federal support they need. That means working
across the aisle. I will work with anyone to get things done on behalf
of my State and across the country.
But it also means standing up to anyone who would prefer to sow chaos
and ignore the Constitution, violate our laws, usurp our power; anyone
who would rather do that and not tackle the real issues that Americans
are dealing with right now.
Let me say, I don't know anybody, any one of my colleagues or anyone
else, who doesn't support streamlining our Federal Government. I am
here because I was so frustrated with the bureaucracy of the Federal
Government and support streamlining it and think we should do that,
absolutely, every day, work towards how we make it work for Americans.
I support it.
But what we need is a thoughtful business strategy to do just that.
That is welcome. But burning the Federal Government to the ground, that
is not a business strategy; that is just total destruction. And that is
not what the American people deserve.
I yield the floor.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I join my colleagues--I thank the
Senator from Nevada for her great comments in articulating why we want
to have a budget process here that recognizes the U.S. Senate, the
House of Representatives, and to say that a budget process that tries
to exclude us is not what our Forefathers had in mind.
That is one of the reasons I strongly oppose this nomination to be
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget for Russell Vought.
The administration, like every one before it, has had the opportunity
to propose a budget, set overall policy principles, and propose
spending and policies. This administration does not have the power to
wave a wand and erase legally authorized and appropriated funds.
The Constitution is very clear here: Congress and the administration,
together, agree on appropriations. They agree together when we pass
laws and what we want to do to govern. And people should be able to
rely on current laws until those laws are changed.
That is how governing works, and we are here to represent the people
who want to see the certainty and predictability of laws that we have
passed. Regular review of programs and congressional oversight, as my
colleague from Nevada just mentioned, those are valuable things, and we
can continue to make reforms in thoughtful and transparent ways.
We should not allow unaccountable political actors, though, to have
unfettered access to our constituents' most sensitive data without
safeguards on how that data is protected, their rights, and conflicts
of interest, or how that data might even be used against them.
I am for a very strong national privacy law to protect our consumers,
and one person I don't want a spying on us is the U.S. Government. So I
don't take lightly somebody getting access to accounts and information,
storing it, moving it around, sharing it with other people. I don't
care if they are 22 or 42, I am not for the government doing this kind
of thing without oversight.
Taxpayers--I am not even for the government spying on U.S. citizens,
just to be clear, I am not for that. But this is just data collection.
Data collection. Who is it going to? What are they doing with it? How
much are they going to use it?
So taxpayers, they rely on us for service, and they don't want to
believe that somebody is looking around in these accounts. Even our own
personnel management system got hacked by the Chinese. How do we know
that there are safeguards for what these individuals are doing with our
most personal information?
But the havoc that has been caused by this nominee's strategy is just
absurd. Today, I met with a group of farmers who were talking about how
they grow and process export products.
They told me, because USAID operations were shut down, their products
were stuck on a dock in Houston, they don't think they are ever going
to get delivered, and they sure as heck don't think they are going to
get paid.
Is that what we want to do? Tell our farmers that they have a
contract to grow a product, to have them delivered, and the shipment is
on its way, and now, you are going to leave it on a dock because you
think you have a bright idea of way to shortcut Congress?
Over 1.8 million Washingtonians rely on Medicare, and they shouldn't
have to be worried at any moment of the day that somehow that that is
not going to be paid for. But that is what happened when Washington
State Health Care Authority was frozen out of the Medicaid portal and
the healthcare payments were not being made.
My colleague also just addressed that. The portal eventually got
turned on after the huge volume and outrage. Really, outrage by the
public forced the administration to say, ``Stop this silly attitude
that you can stop payment yourself.'' They forced them to turn the
portal back on and pay the Medicaid bills.
But Washington State is also home to community health centers. They
are nonprofit entities that serve the medically underserved population.
Part of me is thinking, this is really an attempt to steal money from
our constituents, just to pay for a tax bill.
Literally, somebody thought they were going to come in here and make
a very fast move and basically turn off payments to people who are
really poor and in very challenging situations and turn off payments so
they could take the money and put it into a tax break for the rich
later on.
That is absurd. It is absurd. It is not even legal. We were told by
some of these healthcare centers that they were blocked from
transferring Federal funds to those needed in their hospitals. In other
words, cutting off funding that would be helpful to saving lives. These
health centers provide care to more than 1 million people in our State,
over 360,000 of them. And there are children, agriculture workers, and
veterans, and the fact that these medical systems work to help all of
us provide primary care is exactly why we shouldn't turn off a system.
I got a call from someone in Pierce County to tell me about her son
Tobias, who is 36 years old. He was recently diagnosed with multiple
myeloma and is one of the youngest people who has gotten the diagnosis.
They are absolutely terrified about the risk of losing cancer research
dollars. She said she couldn't wrap her mind around it:
This insane and cruel road that we are all on now with this
new administration.
These are the stories from my constituents, they want to know what is
going on in their lives. It is not a parlor game, it is not a think
tank exercise. It is their lives.
For one of the hospitals in my State, Island Health in Anacortes, the
funding freeze means they couldn't fill a contractual agreement to pay
for surgical technology. They were under contract to pay no later than
30 days after the receipt of the equipment, which is currently being
shipped to them. So the first time this community was going to realize
the benefit of some technology that was going to help them provide
better outcomes through less invasive
[[Page S777]]
procedures, lower the infection rate, and shorten their recovery time.
But they don't know--the funds are frozen, the people of Anacortes
could have to wait, and they may not even get the delivery of that
care--because OMB created uncertainty. They created it about the
funding, without thinking through the consequences. Multiple hospitals
are worried about caring for their patients. Olympic Medical Center on
the peninsula serves about 80,000 patients. They said to me, even small
changes in the Federal grant spending will have detrimental impacts to
their facility and to their community.
A Federal funding freeze just exacerbates their ability to deliver
care that has been authorized, appropriated and promised--promised to
the operation of our healthcare system. How could people be so
heartless to try to turn that off?
Andrea Downs, the executive director for Citizens Against Domestic
and Sexual Abuse, which is the only domestic violence and sexual
assault agency for Whidbey Island, said they operate a center and a
shelter. She said the funding freeze impacts about half of their
funding. Portals, not getting paid, no processing, no time. She said
``not being able to access our grants for the remainder of this fiscal
year would have a crippling impact on our organization.''
One, Walla Walla/Tri Cities based nonprofit, Blue Mountain Heart to
Heart, is also concerned about Federal grants that they receive that
support housing needs of people who live within the region. And they
are also worried about the accountability of care that comes with the
Medicaid funds.
But probably nothing said it more clear to me than when I heard that
Elon Musk and DOGE wanted to get their hands on the FAA. What should a
man who is regulated by the FAA--his launch facilities are under the
FAA's authority to keep us safe. They need to know and coordinate
launch rocket times and to not have people just launch a rocket
whenever they want.
We already know the painful experience of these accidents on the
Potomac, of not having a system overseen with enough input by air
traffic controllers. But Mr. Musk was fined, and he didn't like the
fine. He basically went after the FAA Administrator, who decided to
step down instead of serving with this administration. Now, Mr. Musk
wants his hands on the FAA to tell them what to do, probably in
retribution for the fact that they said it wasn't safe to launch at
that moment. This is a clear conflict of interest.
We can do better than this. We are here to work together. We are here
to work across the aisle. We are here to pass a budget. We are here to
appropriate and, as an authorizer, to set those authorizations and work
with our appropriators.
It is not for a nominee to set a game plan of how to take money out
of the lives of individual families that are counting on that payment
or structural organizations that are charged with serving our
communities on something as important as health or law enforcement, and
it sure isn't turning the keys over to somebody who has already been
fined by the Agency to try to then undo the Agency's oversight of his
own personal business. There couldn't be a clearer answer here. Turn
down this nomination. Let's get back to working together, working
collaboratively.
There are lots of ideas that we have to work on government
efficiency, lots of ideas that could produce billions of dollars in
savings, produce better care for our constituents, and move our country
forward. And, oh, by the way, let's not also continue to cut funding
for all the authorized programs that these nominees basically said that
they supported. That is why we voted for some of them because they said
they supported current funding, whether that is the Department of
Transportation or other places. But now, the mastermind of how to short
circuit, pull the plug out, pull out the safety blanket, give it to the
rich is on the way for a vote here.
Please vote no.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, since yesterday afternoon, Democrats have
held this floor to ring the alarm bells across the United States of
America about the nomination of Russell Vought to lead the Office of
Management and Budget.
Russ Vought may not be as famous as Donald Trump's other nominees,
but as you have heard from so many Democrats, ``Radical Russ'' is
Donald Trump's most dangerous nominee. He is the mastermind behind
Project 2025. In following that script, he proudly breaks the law, he
proudly violates the Constitution, and he proudly seeks to gut programs
for ordinary American families to deliver trillions in tax giveaways to
the richest Americans.
Russell Vought's dead-of-night directives to freeze government
payments have already sown massive damage across our Nation--programs
for healthcare and housing and education and children.
Then, just today, I learned that the Bureau of Land Management is
ordering small businesses to cease and desist all work for forest
management--that of thinning the forests and doing prescribed burns to
prevent massive forest fires from burning down our cities. That is
literally Trump and Russ Vought playing with fire.
The American people are angry about this sweeping authoritarian coup.
They are calling our offices. Two thousand Oregonians called my office
yesterday. Thousands of people showed up to my nine townhalls over the
last two weekends.
They are asking tough questions:
How is it possible that Donald Trump could order dead-of-night
directives and cut off funding for all of the programs that help
families get on their feet and thrive and get to the middle class--
those addressing child nutrition and affordable housing and healthcare?
How is it possible that Trump can break the law to fire 17 inspectors
general who protect the American people from executive branch
corruption?
How is it possible Trump can break the law to fire a member of the
National Labor Relations Board, who protects workers' rights?
How is it possible Trump can dismantle USAID, which provides food and
medicine and humanitarian aid around the world?
How is it possible Russ Vought and President Trump can send Elon
Musk's groupies to access sensitive programs and access our data
regarding Social Security payments and Medicare payments and veterans'
benefits and the tax records of every single American?
This breach of privacy by Big Brother government is an extraordinary
threat to the security of every single citizen.
``Radical Russ'' has a three-part plan for America: Gut programs for
working families, borrow trillions from the Treasury, and give massive
tax giveaways to the very richest Americans. This is the robber baron
script: Take from ordinary families to give more to the best off.
This is the opposite of what Trump campaigned on. He campaigned on
helping families, and now that he is in office, the campaign is giving
way to, instead, Project 2025, which is about government of the
billionaires, by the billionaires, for the billionaires.
That is why the Democratic members of the Budget Committee asked to
delay the vote on sending his nomination here to the floor--because we
wanted to find out. We asked questions about what he was doing already
over at the Office of Management and Budget when he hadn't been
confirmed yet, holding meetings and sending out directives. He wouldn't
answer those questions, so his file is incomplete. So we said to hold
off for 2 weeks, but the Budget Committee chair refused to hold off and
make sure that the file was complete.
Then we said: Well, at least hold the meeting in public so we can
share our thoughts back and forth, and the public can come in and
witness it and see our arguments about why he should or shouldn't be
voted to send to the floor. Instead, the meeting was held in private.
So that was why we were so concerned then and, as you have heard from
41 Democrats over the last 30 hours, why we are so concerned now with
the philosophy and actions of ``Radical Russ'' Vought. We are working
day and night, fighting for working families, fighting for the
Constitution, and fighting to stop this sweeping authoritarian
takeover.
To my friends across the aisle: ``Radical Russ'' wants to steal the
power of
[[Page S778]]
the purse given to Congress in this Constitution--our Constitution--and
give it to Donald Trump to decide what is and isn't funded.
``Radical Russ'' wants to steal the power to write laws given to
Congress and the Constitution and give it to Donald Trump to rule by
Executive order and Presidential fiat.
``Radical Russ'' has attacked the Constitution before. Remember, he
is the force that said ``Let's stop payments to Ukraine'' that got
President Trump into trouble in his first administration.
We here have taken an oath to defend the Constitution for working
Americans--for all Americans. Join us in voting no because ``Radical
Russ'' is dangerously unfit for public office.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, Democrats have spent virtually every
minute of the last 30 hours sounding the alarm about the dangers of
Russell Vought. We feel it a mission to let America know that Russell
Vought is a threat to Social Security, to Medicare, to childcare, to
veterans' benefits, and so much more.
He is the wrong man--he seems to care little about the needs of
American families; at the wrong place--at powerful OMB, where his
decisions will be felt in every corner of the country; with the wrong
agenda--the horrible Project 2025.
There are three strikes against Russell Vought, and he should be out.
He is the wrong man at the wrong place with the wrong agenda.
Mr. Vought's policies will hurt children and seniors, hurt veterans,
hurt homeowners, and so many of our other friends and neighbors. The
only people who should celebrate Russell Vought are Donald Trump's
billionaire friends when they get another tax break.
I caution my Republican colleagues: Voting to place the chief
architect of Project 2025 in charge of White House policy will come
back to haunt them. If the chaos of the last 2 weeks is any indication
of what is to come, Russell Vought will be a massive liability for
Donald Trump, for Republicans, and worst of all, for the country.
Tonight, I will vote no fervently, strongly, with complete
conviction, and urge my colleagues to do the same.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we are getting now close to the time to
vote on the Vought nomination, and it has been a 30-hour discussion,
conversation, some of which I think is perhaps instructive.
I mean, I would make an argument, honestly, that through multiple
administrations, Congress has bequeathed and given up way too much
power to the executive branch. But I think, with the all-night vigil--
and a lot of speeches were made over here--there was a lot of high
rhetoric, I would argue, about attacks on democracy, attacks on the
Constitution.
I think it is important when you make those arguments that there be
at least some amount of self-reflection because, over the last 4 years,
there have been a lot of times when the executive branch went around
the Congress or tried to rewrite the laws Congress had passed in ways
that increased spending, and I can use a good example.
Under the committee of jurisdiction, the Commerce Committee, which is
where I spent a lot of my time over the past few years, there was a
program called the BEAD Program, which was designed to extend broadband
access to people in rural areas of the country, unserved areas of the
country, and it passed almost--well, about 3 years ago. I didn't vote
for it at the time. But that provision in the bill was designed to
deliver broadband services to unserved areas, rural areas of the
country. We are now 3 years into that program, and there hasn't been a
single dollar spent or a single household connected through that
program, and it was a $42 billion funding program--$42 billion and not
a single dollar spent.
Why? Because the administration decided to add conditions to it,
conditions that made it unusable to a lot of the telecoms--at least
certainly to the telecoms in my area, and I think I represent probably
as rural of an area as you will ever find.
What were some of those conditions?
Well, they said you had to use union labor. In South Dakota, we are a
right-to-work State, so we don't have a lot of that.
You had to meet climate conditions for your subcontractors, your
suppliers, and everything else. You had to comply with certain climate
requirements.
Then there was an issue about rate regulation. Now, rate regulation,
interestingly enough, was specifically banned by the statute. The
statute said: no rate regulation. So what the administration did is
they added to the law--in all of these ways--in a way that made it
virtually impossible for anybody to use.
So here we are, 3 years later, 3 years after that law passed this
Congress, and not a single dollar has been spent, and not a single
household has been connected. Why? Because the executive branch decided
they wanted to do some things with this law that Congress never
intended. I didn't hear the complaints about that or all-night vigils.
Another thing I will point out is the student loan program. Now, as
we all know, the student loan program, of course, is authorized again,
funded by Congress, and that is a subject of ongoing litigation--I
think we all know that--but it is hundreds of billions of dollars. It
is actually increasing spending. It is not cutting spending but
increasing spending--and, again, totally outside the parameters of what
Congress intended for the program.
The law is pretty clear, we believe. And I think when you sign
agreements--there are a lot of financial agreements that students enter
into on the student loan program. Essentially, what has been said by
the previous administration, the executive branch, the attack on
democracy, was that that is not going to apply and we are just going to
forgive them all. We will wipe out all of the agreements. We will go
around the law, circumvent the law. And folks on this side of the aisle
applauded when that happened--again, action taken by the executive
branch outside the parameters of what Congress intended when that law
was passed.
I will use one other example, and that is the Thrifty Food Program. I
serve on the Senate Agriculture Committee, as does Senator Grassley and
a lot of other of our colleagues. In the 2018 farm bill, there was a
provision in there that allows the Department of Agriculture to use
this program for sort of inflationary increases. The Thrifty Food
Program is based on current food prices, food composition data,
consumption patterns, and dietary guidance. But, interestingly enough,
what the Department of Agriculture decided to do was go around 45 years
of precedent and do something that had never been done before and
dramatically increase the program by $250 billion--$250 billion.
It wasn't an inflationary increase that was based on the cost of this
program over time. It was something that had never been done before,
and the Government Accountability Office busted the administration for
doing it.
But they used, very cynically, the 2018 farm bill as the basis for
USDA's action. But Congress never agreed to permit a quarter-of-a-
trillion-dollar increase in spending.
So, again, I mean, these are decisions made by the previous executive
branch, which happened to be the executive branch of a different party.
And everybody had sort of a different reaction at that time.
So I am certainly somebody who is not deaf to what I am hearing out
there about some of the decisions that are being made by this new
administration and their willingness to look at and evaluate programs,
perhaps reprioritize them based upon their priorities. I think that is
something a lot of administrations do.
And I think there is probably a lot of the program spending decisions
that you all are concerned about that I would probably agree with. But
I just don't think that coming down here and launching what are
``attacks on democracy'' or, you know, trying to seize power from the
Congress really matches with the facts of what happened the last 4
years.
And I will just use those three examples, but I think they are three
pretty glaring examples of what happened the last 4 years.
Then the final thing I will say, because I think everybody here
knows. We have had this conversation a number of times. But it wasn't
that long
[[Page S779]]
ago that there was a letter--2017--from a lot of U.S. Senators on both
sides--Democrats and Republicans; and many on the Democratic side of
the aisle who are still here today--that basically said:
We are mindful of the unique role the Senate plays in the
legislative process, and we are steadfastly committed to
ensuring that this great American institution continues to
serve as the world's deliberative body. Therefore, we are
asking you to join us in opposing any effort to curtail the
existing rights and prerogatives of Senators to engage in
full, robust, and extended debate as we consider legislation
before this body in the future.
The legislative filibuster--part of the Senate's heritage as an
institution--the way the Founders intended for it to operate. And in
2017, there were 32 Democrat Senators who signed that letter, a number
of them who are here today. And I think you probably know who you are.
Well, it didn't take very long when you had a little change in the
power, where you had the Democrats, everyone who was here at the time--
some of you weren't; some of you are new--voted to get rid of the
filibuster. You voted to change the rules. You know where it was going,
and some of you have been very public about it, and you have been very
public about what you would do if that happened.
The issue at that time was whether or not to federalize elections,
which, again, has constitutional issues, given the prerogatives of the
State legislatures to set the conditions under which elections are
held.
So if you have got a history of arguing here there are all these
attacks on democracy, all I am pointing out is that that was a very
different standard in the last 4 years in the last administration, and
particularly as it pertains to the legislative filibuster.
That is an issue--I don't think anybody here can argue--that is more
connected to this institution than probably anything else. It gives
voice to the minority. It requires collaboration and bipartisanship to
do anything consequential. And at the time, everybody thought it was a
good idea to preserve it.
A couple of years changed, the political winds in Washington changed,
and all of a sudden it was time to get rid of it.
So we are going to vote on this nomination, but I think it is
important to point out in the debate how many times an argument was
made here on the floor by Members on this side about attacks on
democracy. And going around and circumventing the authority and the
power of the article I branch of the government--the Congress, the
Senate of the United States--by an executive branch, and yet here are
three pretty, I would say, glaring examples of something done by the
previous administration.
Former Mayor Marion Barry once described his political philosophy as
situationist. And I think when it comes to politics, we all have our
views informed and changed, perhaps, overtime. But these are some
pretty striking, I think, and glaring examples of the inconsistency
that is being applied to the current administration when, in fact, the
previous administration--the administration of a different political
party--came to some very aggressive conclusions with respect to how
they wanted to modify and change and alter laws passed by this
institution, the U.S. Senate.
Madam President, I think it is time to vote. Let's proceed with the
vote.