Mr. President, on another matter, it really should go without saying, but no President should be accepting a $400 million gift from a foreign country. It is gross; it is reckless; it is corrupt; and the outrage and condemnation, especially on the Republican side, should be universal. There is no excuse or justification for this. It is wrong. That is the end of the story. There is no legal justification. There is no commonsense justification. Let's unpack this a little bit. Trump is planning to accept a $400 million luxury plane from Qatar, which he just so happens to be visiting this week on his first foreign trip of his term. The stated purpose of that trip is to cut business deals, but it is very hard to drive a hard bargain when the people that you are negotiating with just gave you a $400 million gift. And it means that the other side will have a much easier time getting what it wants, even if American interests are harmed. A law enforcement official called the gift a ``security nightmare'' because it would require basically the whole thing to be busted up, taken apart, and reconstituted. If that all sounds blatantly corrupt and incredibly wasteful, it is because it is. I just want everyone to go through the thought experiment. Imagine if it were a President of the other party, imagine if this happened 25 years ago and you were reading about something in history, do you think that an American President should accept a $400 million gift? Do you think that Air Force One--this icon, this symbol of American power abroad that has carried John F. Kennedy's body; where LBJ was sworn in; where George W. Bush was whisked away when the Twin Towers fell; where multiple Presidents of both parties and multiple generations have done extraordinary work around the world making sure that we are the indispensable Nation; that we are the leader of the free world--now sponsored by Qatar. I remain flabbergasted that this thing is not going to pass. I remain completely aghast. This is the most blatant, obvious, ridiculous, gross corruption that I have ever seen in my entire life by dollar amount, by symbolism, by violating constitutional and statutory law, and also just violating like--I am not a lawyer. You don't have to be all fancy pants to understand how ridiculous it is that a foreign government is going to say: Hey, we will take care of Air Force One for you. And so we have a simple resolution--and it is simple. I was going read it, but you know what, I will just summarize it. It basically says--and the way these things are structured, it is bunch of whereases: Whereas Air Force One is a symbol of the United States; Whereas Air Force One is one of the most recognizable symbols of the Office of the Presidency; and so on and so forth; therefore, be it resolved that we shouldn't do this, that the American President should not accept a $400 million gift from anybody. And so, as if in legislative session, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 218, submitted earlier today; that there be up to 2 hours for debate on the resolution and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the adoption of the resolution; finally, that if the resolution is adopted, the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Alabama. Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as usual, my Democratic colleagues are losing their minds over this situation, but let's just talk about the facts. First of all, this is not a done deal. It has not happened yet. It is all talk. But if reports are accurate, the Government of Qatar is considering gifting the United States Department of Defense an American-made Boeing 747--I will repeat that--an American-made Boeing 747 plane for temporary use as Air Force One. It is not for the President's personal use, and he will not be using it after he leaves office. It is customary and totally normal for foreign countries to give our government gifts. The DOJ has already said that this does not violate any law. So why are my colleagues and the woke media having a full-blown meltdown over this situation? Perhaps it is because in the past 72 hours, President Trump has delivered so many wins, you can't count them all. On Sunday, he negotiated a deal with China, dropping tariffs 50 percent. On Monday, he secured the release of the last remaining hostage in Hamas. Edan Alexander has been through hell the past 584 days, and it took President Trump to bring him home. Today, President Trump just announced hundreds of millions of dollars in new investment from the Middle East and on Thursday is forcing a face-to-face meeting between Putin and Zelenskyy to end this brutal war in Ukraine. You would think the media would be celebrating all these wins, along with my colleagues, but as usual, the Trump derangement syndrome is getting in the way. I am convinced that the media and some of my colleagues would rather President Trump lose on everything and our country lose on everything than be successful. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, we are all Americans. Sometimes, I think we all forget that. And we should all be able to celebrate anytime a President delivers a win for the American taxpayers. And by the way, we are $37 trillion in debt. If another country wants to give us a free plane to save the taxpayers of this country $400 million, the only thing we should say is thank you. Democrats are rudderless right now. They are looking for something to hang their hat on. They see that President Trump has done more in 4 months than President Biden did in 4 years. So they want to make a plane gift from Qatar the next so-called perfect phone call. To my Democrat colleagues: Instead of wasting our time objecting every time President Trump breathes, maybe you should go get outside of DC and go connect with the American people. I can promise you, they don't give a rip about an airplane. They care about their lives and this economy and the things that have been destroyed for the past 4 years that President Trump is trying to put back together. For these reasons, Mr. President, I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard. The Senator from Connecticut. Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 80 (Tuesday, May 13, 2025) Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 219

Madam President, everyone enters public service hoping that they can make a difference, but few have the ability or the fortune to do as much good as Senator Dick Durbin has over his long and storied career. Since stepping into these Halls of Congress more than 40 year ago, Senator Durbin has fought passionately for his constituents back home in his beloved Illinois and Americans all across the country. And while so many of us have already benefited from his extraordinary work, both knowingly and unknowingly, his legacy will continue to improve the lives of Americans for many years to come. To know Senator Durbin is to understand he is as decent and as principled as leaders come. He is dogged in his fight for fairness and justice but humble in sharing the credit for all of his successes. He is willing to work with everyone but will never compromise his values for anyone. Over the years, he has picked some very difficult but worthy fights. And he has won time after time, paving the way for cleaner air on airplane flights, leading the fight against torture, lifting up the voices that are too often left behind in Washington. A trial attorney by training, Senator Durbin can never look away from injustice, no matter how pervasive or how entrenched. No challenge was too daunting. He felt an obligation to try to fix it. Outraged by the conduct of the war on drugs that had imprisoned generations of Black and Brown men without a meaningful path to rehabilitation, he worked for years to pass the Fair Sentencing Act and the First Step Act. Those laws have since helped to reduce overcrowding in prisons, lower criminal recidivism, and revitalize communities across the country. Shocked by the plight of Dreamers who spent their lives calling America home but without the papers to prove it, Senator Durbin has been on the frontlines of the push to put them on a path to citizenship. It is a fight that still continues and one that I know Senator Durbin will keep at for as long as it takes. Anyone who has served in this body long enough knows that there are those votes that test your resolve and weigh heavily on your conscience. And for so long, Senator Durbin has been a uniquely consistent voice of moral clarity and conscience, not just when it is easy or when it is obvious but especially when it is hard and even when it is lonely. In 2002, he was among a small group of Senators who voted against the invasion of Iraq, cautioning against the dangers of acting hastily on fear rather than fact. Years later, in the throes of the war on terror, Senator Durbin became an outspoken critic of the U.S. Government's use of torture in foreign prisons. In both instances, he was criticized and condemned at the time. In both instances, history has rendered his judgment as the right and patriotic one. It has been one of the true privileges of my career to serve as his chief deputy whip and to watch him work his magic during floor debates and in the Judiciary Committee. He is a gentleman of the Senate through and through. I will never forget the time he took to talk about my dad's legacy on this very floor. I know that he has shown that kind of thoughtfulness and care to so many, even when facing his own loss. I am lucky to call him a mentor and friend, someone who I have learned as much from and rely on for counsel and perspective over many years. The good news for the country, for me, and for all of us colleagues is Senator Durbin's work here in the Senate is far from over. We are lucky to be able to count on his leadership and example, as always, in the 2 years ahead. But for now, I want to thank Senator Durbin, his family--especially his wife Loretta--and his excellent staff for their decades of extraordinary service to the State and to the Nation. We are all better for him. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. DAINES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi. Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 70 (Monday, April 28, 2025) UKRAINE

Mr. President, anyone who has tried to buy a carton of eggs at the grocery store lately has probably seen a sign on the empty shelves saying there is a national shortage of eggs because of the bird flu. The reason notices like this exist is because the Department of Health and Human Services tracks disease outbreaks around the clock and notifies the public in real time. And, of course, we take that for granted. We should take that for granted. It is the kind of thing that the government just does and that we normally don't argue about. There are a lot of things for us to argue about, but whether or not the government should tell us if there is a public health problem has never been something that we have argued about. We take it for granted, but it is an invaluable service that keeps the public safe and healthy, which is why it was so bizarre that in one of his first acts as President, Donald Trump suspended all--all--communications from HHS-- health advisories, scientific reports, updates on the website, all of it. What is that supposed to do other than keep people from getting the information that they need to keep their families healthy? This is about being able to know if a certain kind of meat or vegetable has been contaminated and staying away from it. For instance, when there was an E. coli outbreak at McDonald's last year, the FDA immediately sent out an alert, which the press picked up on and warned the public about. Those communications are paused. Cucumbers at Costco is another example. E. coli at McDonald's--I don't mean to pick on these particular companies; lots of retail operations have their various public health problems. I understand elections have consequences, right? And it is within the scope of a new administration that is reasonable for them to kind a take a look at all public policy and implement their own public policy. But, look, this is a little nuts. I am assuming that there was a person in the White House or in the transition team writing up a bunch of Executive orders and thinking through an ideological lens or even an electoral lens. Fair enough. And they wanted to have a bunch of Executive orders ready to roll. So day one--boom, nothing coming out of HHS. But the problem is, this isn't partisan; this isn't what people thought they were voting for; and this really could jeopardize the public health. So the resolution I am introducing and asking for unanimous consent on is very simple. It reaffirms the very basic belief that people deserve to have timely and accurate information relevant to their health and well-being. We are not arguing about like a COVID response. We just want to know if there is a problem in what you are about to eat. And suspending those communications has nothing to do with party. It has to do with keeping everybody safe. So if there is a problem during this pause, the Department of Health and Human Services will not communicate to the public about it. As if in legislative session, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of my resolution at the desk; further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Florida. Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Reserving the right to object, I think all of us can agree with my colleague. We can agree it is very important the American people have readily available access to accurate and timely public health information. I don't think anyone disputes that, and no one should have to doubt the important work done by the Department of Health and Human Services to provide the American people with the information they need to remain healthy and safe. But this resolution is unnecessary. The new administration just took office and issued a temporary pause until February 1 on all communications coming from its Agencies without approval. They have every right to do this. To be frank, they have a lot of problems to solve from the prior administration. I hope we can focus on confirming nominees quickly. The sooner his team gets in place, the sooner he can deliver on his promises to the American people. Therefore, I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. Nomination of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Mr. President, a new story was published today about the extent of Mr. Robert F. Kennedy's involvement in the 2019 measles outbreak in Samoa, and it shot a chill down my spine. That is not a rhetorical flourish. I read it and I felt hot, I felt angry, I felt worried. We already know that he flew halfway across the world to Samoa to spread lies about the measles vaccine and discourage people from taking it. We already know that as a result, there was a measles outbreak. Five thousand people got measles; 83 people died; 79 of them were children. But I think there is a new fact here that is worth lingering on. He saw it as a great research opportunity--he saw it as a great research opportunity. He literally took an informatics expert--somebody who studies how people receive information--with him to Samoa to run a ``natural experiment'' studying what would happen to kids if they weren't vaccinated. Let me tell you why this is personal to me. My dad is my hero. May his memory be a blessing. He is my hero for a number of reasons; but among them, he was a young doctor, and he was reading the New England Journal of Medicine. He was right out of medical school, and he read about something called the Tuskegee experiments. What happened in the Tuskegee experiments is the United States Public Health Service withheld lifesaving medication from African-American men to ``observe the disease process.'' They considered these men expendable. They provided half of the cohort with penicillin, which they knew would cure syphilis, and half of the men with a placebo without telling them to, again, observe the disease process. And so my dad went on the record and Congress actually intervened many years later with Tom Harkin, and on a bipartisan basis, making it explicit that the U.S. Public Health Service has to observe the Hippocratic Oath: ``Do no harm.'' Do no harm. And it is a dark history for America but a proud moment as I think of my father and his legacy. But the one thing I never thought would ever occur is that more than 50 years later, we would be at the precipice of confirming a person to run the Department of Health and Human Services who, in this era--50 years after the Tuskegee experiments--flew to Samoa, encouraged people not to take the measles vaccine, watched 5,000 people get sick, watched 83 people die, watched 79 kids die and said: This is a real opportunity for data collection so we can see how this plays out. I am still a little shocked that this person isn't going to be rejected 100 to 0. I understand partisanship. I understand loyalty. I am not immune to partisan pressures on my own side. But this guy is different. This guy is about to run the Department of Health and Human Services and he doesn't have just, like, one weird idea about one certain aspect of public health. He is a person who has flown across the planet to cause outbreaks of diseases that are generations in our past. And to add insult to injury, he is repeating the moral mistakes of the Tuskegee experiment that has been actually outlawed by the United States Congress. I will be talking about this more, but I am just hoping that--we fight about a lot of stuff in this building, but I know there are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle that take their obligations seriously to provide advice and consent to the President of the United States, whether you voted for him or not, whether your State voted for him or not. This is an opportunity to say we are a separate and coequal branch of government and if you are a Republican, say: Listen, I support this President, but I don't support this nominee because I don't want measles or mumps or rubella or polio to make a comeback. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 15 (Friday, January 24, 2025) Nomination of Peter Hegseth