Floor Statements

Mr. President, one of the questions we all have to wrestle with in life is, Why do the innocent suffer? Why do the righteous find, at times, the circumstances of their lives to be so painful as to be beyond imagined? And how does one make purpose out of pain?

Of all the diseases that afflict mankind, ALS is one of the most cruel. It robs someone of their ability to speak, to walk, to move, to care for themselves, yet leaves them completely present and conscious.

Over the 16 years that I have served here in the U.S. Senate, I have been blessed by visit after visit from families going from office to office to ask not for themselves, not to lessen their pain or their suffering or their challenges but to try and turn their experience into a positive investment for others, lots of different families with lots of different challenges--mostly medical--sometimes the parents of children taken hostage in other countries or veterans who didn't get the benefits they were entitled to but often families whose loved ones or who they themselves are suffering with cancer, with Parkinson's, or with ALS.

Today, I am coming to the floor to celebrate a great and enduring friendship and partnership that has helped to make a difference in this dread disease. Through some of the visits to my office, I have gotten to know some amazing people: Craig and Kristen Colby of Delaware; Brian Wallach and Sandra Abrevaya; Dan Tate, whom I knew from college.

My engagement in trying to tackle the ravages of ALS began earlier. A dear friend from Newark, DE, Alex Snyder-Mackler--his father Scott lived with and then died from ALS; my chief of staff lost his father to ALS; and my brother lost his best friend. And now today, my best friend from growing up, Dr. Jack Flynn, is bravely living through what has been a tragic and difficult diagnosis and a steadily worsening condition.

When you meet someone with ALS, they are always accompanied by someone by their side who knows every detail, who helps them to eat, to talk, to live, to communicate. And they are looking for ways to make meaning out of their suffering.

Through all of this, I have had an incredible partner and advocate, a dear friend--the senior Senator from the State of Alaska, my colleague Senator Lisa Murkowski. We are the cochairs of the Senate ALS Caucus, and I am blessed to have her with me on the floor today as we announce the next step forward in our work together on ALS.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend from the truly great State of Alaska.

Our mutual friend Dan Tate, long known here as an active lobbyist, who is living with ALS, has been texting the two of us about the impact that this research has had on him and his condition and on many others.

He most recently texted me:

NIH and FDA have done exceptional work.

The ACT for ALS bill that we helped get passed 5 years ago and that we are now reauthorizing--I will remind you that initially, advocates were seeking $10 million.

Do you remember the Ice Bucket Challenge of 2014? They were seeking $10 million in Federal medical research. This year, it was $115 million. In total over the years since we have passed this legislation through this Chamber, $391 million has been invested.

There are today 1,200 people living with ALS enrolled in a landmark genetic study, and there have been significant steps forward in experimental treatments.

Dr. Sabrina Paganoni of Mass General Brigham Neuroscience Institute said: We are at a turning point because we have a greater awareness of ALS, more funding for research than ever before, and more treatments in development than ever before.

When Lou Gehrig gave a speech announcing his retirement from baseball, he concluded by saying: I am the luckiest guy in the world. Many saw that as a bitter irony because he left an outstanding career in baseball to struggle and suffer through an ultimately terminal disease.

But I have to say that I am the luckiest man in the world to have the blessing of the great, enduring friendship of a colleague and partner from Alaska; of the steady and reliable and motivating input of so many advocates and cared-for people living with this dread disease; and the lifelong partnership and friendship of an amazing man, Dr. Jack Flynn.

In a determined effort to deliver hope and change, Senator Murkowski and I and all of us in this ALS Caucus are determined to get this bill to the President's desk, signed into law, and to deliver another generation of medical research to get us closer to that day when no one--no one--has to face the diagnosis or live with ALS and it will be a chapter in our history, not a threat for our future. But for today in this body, I am grateful for a chance to celebrate a significant step forward, a unanimous action by this Chamber, and the delivery of hope to so many around our Nation and our world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, all of us who hold the office of Senator know that we really only succeed in our service to the States which we represent because of the tireless dedication of the men and women who make up our teams, back home where we are from and here in Washington,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about my friend and colleague Lindsey Olin Graham.

Now, some watching might be surprised that I would describe T5Lindsey Graham as my friend, but those who know me and know the 16 years I have spent here know that Lindsey and I traveled the world together, legislated together, served together, fought for our Nation together.

We had our ups and downs. We certainly had our disagreements, and I will tell a few quick stories, if I might, in his memory.

There was a moment during the Kavanaugh hearings that was one of the most tense and ugly and difficult we had together on Judiciary. And it was also the time when we were working together on the bill that funds the State Department and foreign aid.

And he and I had worked together to create an outside organization to support U.S. foreign aid. And he arrived first and spoke, and I had waited for him to leave for me to come and speak because we were having one of our moments.

And I could see as I stood up to speak that he was waiting. He was born the same day as my older brother, July 9. And I said to that room: It may surprise a room full of people in Washington that I can love Lindsey Graham and want to throttle Lindsey Graham in the same minute in the same day, but that is Lindsey.

We served on Judiciary together. We served on Foreign Relations together. We served on Appropriations together. He could make up his mind like that. He would commit to doing something, and he would stick with it. He had some core commitments and passions that were a through line for the entire time we served together.

I first got to know Lindsey best through our mutual friend John McCain. Senator McCain kept trying and trying to get me to travel with him to the Munich Security Conference, and on that very first trip, Lindsey was, of course, also along. And in meeting after meeting with leaders from around the world, hearing his insights, his humor, and his powerful commitment to the fight for freedom inspired me.

He and I also traveled all over Africa and the Middle East, and over many years, we did a lot of good together. We wrote and shaped and passed some of the most important bills I have had the honor of working on while here.

And when I woke up Saturday morning, shocked to hear that he had died abruptly the night before, I thought back to the dinner we had just had together in Ankara, Turkiye at the NATO summit. Providentially, it was our first really good, warm dinner together in a while. And it was a chance for me to see the Lindsey I knew best from years gone by.

He was a fierce and tireless advocate for the Ukrainian cause for Volodymyr Zelenskyy and for the fight for freedom currently unfolding in Eastern Europe, and he had had a fabulous day. Zelenskyy's meeting with President Trump had gone well. Trump had pledged to let Zelenskyy and the Ukraine license our critical PAC-3 Patriot interceptors, and Trump had told him he would at long last let us take up and pass in the Senate a bill to impose greater costs and sanctions on the buyers of Russian oil and gas. He was on cloud nine.

And we celebrated his birthday, which was the next day, together. One of the things we talked about, as we often did, was how neither one of us could believe we were here. I was in a tough car accident a few days earlier in Lewes, DE, where a pickup truck came across the center line and totaled the car I was in. And I and everybody else involved in what was a five-car pileup walked away unscratched.

And as we were walking back to the hotel, he put his arm around me and he said: I hope you are going to stick with this because we have got a lot more good to do. I had no idea that would be the last time we would speak.

Born in the town of Central, SC, raised by a couple who owned a bar and a restaurant. He was the first in his family to go to college. Orphaned at a young age. He was dedicated to caring for his younger sister Darline, who we will soon have join us here in the U.S. Senate.

And when he found here in the Senate his friend and mentor and role model John McCain, in many ways he found his life's purpose. He and I did our best work together on Appropriations and Foreign Relations. Looking at how hard it was to get the nation of Colombia, which was nearly collapsing in internal conflict with Marxist guerrillas and drug cartels, we looked at something called Plan Colombia that over several administrations with a determined and broad engagement by the United States and hard work by the Colombian people and their government helped stabilize a country otherwise descending into chaos.

And over years of working together, we crafted something called the Global Fragility Act, which was designed to take that same view, having our State Department and, yes, USAID, and our Department of Defense and have a common strategy for identifying countries that were teetering on the edge and where thoughtful, engaged, long-term American involvement could make the difference.

He and I were working right now on its reauthorization. One of the bills I am proudest of that we worked on over several Congresses was the U.S. Foundation for International Conservation Act. We renamed it the Foundation for Counterterrorism and Conservation. Lindsey, ever agile, was working for ways to make the argument for this foundation. The bill has been signed into law. We are simply trying to get the administration to launch it. In his usual clever and agile way, he summarized what I would make as an argument in paragraphs, and he would make in two sentences.

He made up red ball caps that said ``good for animals, bad for terrorists'' and handed them out broadly.

Lindsey and I gave a speech once to the major supporters of the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, and I had worked on my speech and had all sorts of remarks and points and comments. He showed up looking like he had just woken up, smoothing his hair down. And I stood up and gave, you know, 10 minutes of detailed and thorough, and I thought, thoughtful remarks about terrorism and the West and the balance

of power in the world, things they had asked us to talk about.

And like the incredible and talented country lawyer he was, without a single note, he stood up and made a few simple, powerful, and engaging points with humor and with engagement. And I watched that room full of people just eating out of his hand.

He could make an argument. When you were on the receiving end of an argument you disagreed with, it was unpleasant and uncomfortable. When you were pulling in the same direction, making an argument in all of our best interests, it was a delight to work with him.

One of the things I never really persuaded him on was my passion for patent policy. I chaired the Intellectual Property Subcommittee on Judiciary, a committee we long served on together.

And as we were coming back from a conference in Europe--this was years ago--I spotted my moment to make my case for my really important patent policy legislation and sidling up and sitting down next to him on the plane, I spent some time really making my best arguments.

And as we landed back in the United States, Lindsey stumbled off the plane and, to me memorably, turned to the other Senators and said: I have a new idea for how we will torture people in Guantanamo; we will make them listen to Chris Coons talk about patents.

I said: So you will cosponsor the bill? And he ran.

I have many, many other stories of moments, tense moments with heads of state, moments with a group of Senators trying to hammer out a big bill on immigration or infrastructure where Lindsey's humor, his irreverent, often inappropriate, but hysterical humor broke the ice and brought us together.

One trip I will never forget was 2 weeks after October 7 when Senator Graham and Senator Cardin pulled together 10 of us, 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats, of a very broad range. We went to Tel Aviv. We went to Riyadh. We went to Cairo. We had 2-hour in-person and intense meetings with Muhammad bin Salman of the Saudi Kingdom, with El-Sisi, President of Egypt, with the Prime Minister Netanyahu and his war cabinet. It was a grim and heavy moment because the people of Israel had just suffered a horrific attack from Hamas.

But part of why that attack had happened was this process of negotiating Saudi recognition of Israel and Israeli recognition of Palestinian self-governance, and an American guarantee to the Saudis was so close to conclusion, was making real progress, that Hamas chose that moment to strike.

Lindsey never stopped trying to make that happen, not when Biden was President, not now that Trump is President. And at a formal dinner we were at together in Ankara at the NATO summit, he stood up and made the case again.

I hope that my colleagues will look on the history of this man who couldn't believe he had the honor and the blessing of serving here in the Senate, a man with a mercurial temper, a man of incredible humor, and a man with a tireless work ethic who served our Nation in the Air Force and who served our country in the Senate.

And we will redouble our efforts to make real the dream that he and I wrote together to create a conservation foundation that will secure ungoverned spaces--South America and in Africa and Southeast Asia--and shut down jihadist groups and extremist groups and conserve and protect wildlife and open spaces for the future. It requires just one signature from Secretary Rubio.

I hope that this body will take up and reauthorize our Global Fragility Act based on lessons learned over years together going to difficult and dangerous and remote places and looking at what was working and not working, places where our response was overmilitarized or where our response was discoordinated or where our response was too little, too late.

And I certainly hope that we will take up and pass the Graham- Blumenthal bill to impose real costs on Putin. That was the source of his joy in his final days. He was so excited, when we spoke, about going into Kyiv, about giving the good news to Zelenskyy, about coming back here this week and passing this bill

John, before him--Senator McCain, before him--and Senator Graham, often after, said: Putin will only stop when we stop him.

I believed that then. I believe it now.

For someone who worked so hard and for so long on our Nation's best interests, I think the least we could do to honor Lindsey Graham's memory is to take up and pass in this Senate the legislation for which he worked and fought so long.

Let me close by saying to everyone who worked for Lindsey--and I have known many of you over the years--to his sister Darline, to his extended friends and family in South Carolina, know that even though he and I fought like hell on many occasions, it was like fighting with a brother--someone, although he changed and moved and at times we had great difficulties in distance, I always knew in the end, in his heart, he loved this Nation. He loved this institution. He loved South Carolina. And he loved the people he represented.

My predecessor in this seat--Senator, then-Vice President, then- President--Joe Biden was close with Lindsey. They, too, had their moments, their fights, their falling out. But President Biden has also said that he and Dr. Biden are praying for Lindsey's family and all who worked with him and knew him. And I join them in offering my deep and heartfelt condolences.

I am just so grateful--I am just so grateful--that my last memory of him is of him in his best place, seeing a pathway toward accomplishing yet another big goal. And as we walked back to the hotel, he turned to me and he said: I never dreamed--I never imagined--I would get to be a U.S. Senator. And I hope you, Chris Coons, won't give up on it because it is a great place. It is a great institution. Change is going to come, and we are going to get a lot of great things done together.

Well, my friend, I look forward to doing those things in your honor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, 50 years ago this Saturday, our Nation celebrated its bicentennial--its 200th anniversary of that day on the 4th of July, in 1776, when a group of Delegates from around the then- Thirteen Colonies gathered to declare their independence from Great Britain.

This coming Saturday, July 4, 2026, I will once again be gathering with a whole group of friends and family in the small town of Hockessin, DE, where I celebrated our bicentennial.

In 1976, we had what some might think of as a sad small gathering that celebrated the Fourth of July. It wasn't huge. It didn't have tens of thousands of people. It didn't have great fireworks. But it was the heart of the town I grew up in.

We had a parade. We had firetrucks. My Boy Scout troop marched. I played the bugle as a group from a local church raised a flag at the new Swift Memorial Park in downtown Hockessin, a small rural farming town of then about 1,500 people.

And this coming Saturday, I will conclude the Fourth of July by, once again, marching in the annual parade, where we will have firetrucks from our volunteer fire company, children from different Scouting groups, different church youth groups, different things like the 4-H and the Grange, and thousands of people, gathering with family, on either side of Old Wilmington Pike to view the parade go by.

I love the tradition of the Fourth of July parade in my hometown of Hockessin, and I wanted to just take a moment and reflect because, as I have talked to my team here in Washington and at home in Delaware, some of them see so much division in our country that they aren't excited about our semiquincentennial, our 250th. Some of them are distracted, as in some ways I think many in America are, by fighting, squabbling between our President and our Congress, between different political parties. And it is too easy to be distracted.

I will remind you that, 50 years ago, on our bicentennial, our country was also in a period of division and political controversy, that we had just come out of the end of the Vietnam war and Watergate, that there had been protests and disagreement, that there were different rights being asserted and tumult in our politics.

My recollection, as a child, was that that day, that period of the bicentennial, was actually a moment for the American people to stop and reflect and think about what brings us together. And so today, I will briefly reflect on what I think we ought to be stopping and reflecting on as we celebrate our 250th.

Mr. President, 250 years ago, where we are right now was part of Great Britain, was part of the English Empire. In looking back, it might seem inevitable, but at that time, it was uncertain which way we would go. Ultimately, we chose liberty, we chose independence, and we had to fight for it in what became a long and brutal, internally divisive conflict.

Ultimately, the American story is not simply one story. We are a nation founded not on one ethnicity or one language, one religion or one history, but on an idea--an idea embodied in the second sentence of the declaration:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are

created equal, [and] . . . endowed by their Creator with

certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,

Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Just a few days ago, I had the chance, over at the Library of Congress, along with a bunch of my colleagues, to see the original text of the Declaration of Independence and the changes made by different Framers.

Our story is stronger when we tell it in its entirety--the good and bad, the challenging chapters, the rough places, the foundational sins, the wrongs and the arc--the arc--toward ``a more perfect Union.''

My State has long played a central role in some of these fights over the abolition of slavery, over racial segregation, over protecting our environment, over the right of women to vote, over full inclusion. And over 250 years, what I think defines us is that yearning for freedom, that yearning for the opportunity to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, as we understand it and define it.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, at the end of the Second World War--after the paroxysm of a global catastrophe of violence--talked about four freedoms, recognizing and celebrating those foundational First Amendment freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom to worship, but also freedom from want and freedom from fear.

And so I think we need to recognize, at this July 4, that we have a challenge, an opportunity, and an obligation.

In the middle of the Civil War, President Lincoln and his Senate insisted on building an expanded Capitol, at the exact moment our Nation was tearing itself apart. President Lincoln said:

If people see the Capitol going on, it is a sign we intend

the Union shall go on.

I have traveled around the world and heard from people all over that they look to this Nation as a beacon of freedom. And every time I recite the Pledge of Allegiance, I remind myself that, at its end, we pledge ourselves to be a nation committed to liberty and justice for all.

In the months ahead, I look forward to giving many more speeches about what I see as the core defining values of our Nation going forward.

But as you celebrate the Fourth of July, I hope you will take a moment. Think back about your childhood experiences that helped you understand what it means to be an American and that helped you confront the challenges and the opportunities we have ahead of us.

For me, living overseas and seeing our country from the perspectives of others was that great chance. And I think, for all of us, in recent days, seeing people from all over the world come to America during the World Cup and experience our Nation, our hospitality, and our values has been a refreshing reminder that, even in these divided and difficult times, we can continue to inspire and challenge ourselves and the world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 1 minute on the upcoming vote.

Mr. President, I serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I am a proud member of the Delaware bar. I clerked for a Federal court. And in a recent confirmation hearing, I asked four different nominees to serve as Federal district court judges a simple question: What does the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provide?

None of them could answer, so I helped them. In summary, it says you can't serve three terms as President. Once elected twice, you may not serve a third term--adopted after Franklin Delano Roosevelt served four terms. Its text and intent are simple and clear.

I questioned all four: Can you tell me whether President Trump can serve a third term, given the language of the 22nd Amendment?

All four refused. They could not find the courage to say: Yes, as a simple matter of fact and constitutional law, on the plain text, President Trump is in his second term; he cannot serve a third.

Why? Why would anyone fail to answer this simple question? I believe it is because they were terrified, if they did, President Trump would pull their nomination.

No one should be confirmed--no one should be confirmed--to a lifetime judicial appointment who cannot summon the most simple courage to apply the text of the Constitution.

I will vote against all the nominees before us today because of their failure to answer simple textual questions about the meaning and purpose of our Constitution. If you are too afraid of the President to answer whether the 22nd Amendment, by its plain text, means he can't run and win a third time, how will you be an independent judge, and how could you possibly deserve a lifetime appointment?

I urge my colleagues to stand up to this and to insist on an independent Federal judiciary.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5457 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, President Trump has previously announced the creation of a $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded ``victims of weaponization'' slush fund.

And on May 19, I questioned Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche about this announced anti-weaponization fund: Specifically, would anyone convicted of assaulting police officers in or around our Capitol on January 6 be eligible for a payout from this fund?

The Acting Attorney General would make no such commitments, and so the Senate must.

My amendment is simple. It is one sentence:

The Department of Justice may not use taxpayer funds to

make settlement payments to [any] individuals convicted of

assaulting law enforcement officers at or around the [U.S.]

Capitol on January 6, 2021.

It is not complicated.

If the administration won't rule out potentially multimillion-dollar payments to those who assaulted police on these grounds, we must.

I urge my colleagues to take up and pass this amendment alongside me and ensure that taxpayer funds won't be so badly misused in this way.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and all budget resolution discipline that applies, I move to waive all points of order for the purposes of the pending measure.

Vote on Motion

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise to follow the comments of my colleague from the Commonwealth of Virginia, and I intend to join him in voting against any proceedings by the United States military, any action by our President to invade or occupy Cuba without authorization by the Senate, by the House, by the Congress of the United States.

We just heard an address by King Charles III, and it is striking that he made a few simple and clear points. He delivered his remarks with humor, with engagement, and with respect, but he could not have been clearer that the fight for freedom in the world today is principally engaged in Ukraine's defense against Russian aggression. And he asked us to continue our support with our NATO allies for Ukraine's brave fight and got a standing ovation.

He also reminded us of the very beginnings of liberty in the British Commonwealth when the Magna Carta was signed at Runnymede and spoke about the shared history of limitations on Executive power, on restrictions on overreach--first by a King; here, by a President.

The sad truth is that this body has gradually handed away the power to control war and peace to increasingly overly powerful Presidents.

I am grateful to my colleague from the Commonwealth of Virginia for his repeated efforts to bring to this floor and to move forward clarifying amendments, important votes, to sunset an overused authorization for the use of military force that dated back 24, 25 years, and to insist that in the current actions against Venezuela, against Iran, and potentially soon against Cuba that this body do its job: Stand up and take a vote, be on the record.

Last, if I might, I am the senior Democrat on Defense Appropriations, and in repeated recent meetings with the highest levels of the leadership, civilian and military at the Pentagon, I have repeatedly raised concerns about the defense of Ukraine.

Last year, the Pentagon sent us a budget. The President sent us a budget that requested nothing--zero--to reinforce our NATO allies in the Baltic States and to support Ukraine.

Ukraine is, today, overwhelmingly funded by our NATO allies, by the Western European partners who have stepped forward and funded their acquisition of munitions in the United States and from across our partners and allies.

Last year, they requested zero, and this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, inserted $400 million for the defense of Ukraine--$400 million out of $1.1 trillion last year.

Once again, this year we received a budget with zero for Ukraine, and I have made it clear to the administration and their representatives, the Secretary and others, that if they don't demonstrate how they will spend the money appropriated by this body and signed into law by the President, they should not expect to receive one dime more.

So as the question of how we will conduct ourselves going forward in Cuba, in Ukraine, in the Middle East is before this body, I intend to continue to vote for the Congress to take its constitutional role and, more than anything, for us to not hand away the power of the purse to an overreaching President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today is tax day. Today is a day when millions and millions of Americans file their returns. On average, Americans spend about $270 and 13 hours preparing their taxes for filing. That is just nuts. That is a higher expense and a higher amount of time than millions of Americans should be spending. Look, for people who have complex holdings and lots of economic interests, that is one thing, but for tens of millions of Americans, the Federal Government already has all of their critical data, and their tax filings should be quick and free.

The simple idea behind a bill that I am cosponsoring with Senator Elizabeth Warren the Direct File Act is that there ought to be a program. In fact, there used to be a program. Congress told the IRS several years ago to create a way for Americans to file their taxes quickly, simply, and for free, and

they started a pilot program. The IRS started a pilot program called Direct File in 2024.

I used to be the senior Democrat on the Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the IRS and was actively involved in trying to develop and improve this program just from the Senate's side. It was exciting to me to get the initial reports that hundreds of thousands of Americans used Direct File in its first year, and after several years, they demonstrated that, on average, folks were saving $160, and 90 percent had a positive experience--either an above-average positive or an excellent experience. Many did their taxes in less than an hour--13 hours?--1 hour--accessing all of the government information that they had already in their database and then simply confirming it and filing versus having to work with someone and pay someone to prepare their taxes.

Well, President Trump shut down this program last year. Why? I don't know, but it is certainly uncomfortable that there was a major donation to his inauguration from the leading company that makes you pay taxes to file taxes--that makes you pay a fee to them to file and pay your taxes.

So, folks, today on tax day most Americans are looking for whether there is a way for them to file quicker, cheaper, and more easily. Three-quarters of Americans feel like they have paid as much as they expected, if not more, this year in spite of the No. 1 priority of the Republicans in this body last year, which was a big tax bill that gave tax cuts to millionaires. Working Americans did not see the tax relief from the so-called Big Beautiful Bill that they expected. They mostly saw cuts to healthcare and to food assistance.

It costs $160, on average, to pay someone to prepare your taxes. Well, that may not seem like a lot to a business executive--to a big tax company executive--who got a big tax cut himself, but it means a lot for tens of thousands of my constituents, of working Delawareans. It does not have to be this way again next year. We should pass this bill and, once again, make it easy, free, and fair to file your taxes.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I am excited to join with so many of my colleagues in advocating that, by unanimous consent, we simply reopen the path toward easy, free tax filings for Americans next year.

Madam President, the business of this body today has been the so-called SAVE America Act, a legislative proposal from my colleagues in the Republican Party that is presented as a simple voter ID bill. Who could be against that, requiring ID to vote?

But it is actually a far more destructive bill, a bill that could be characterized as the ``Save Republicans From Accountability Act,'' the bill that is designed to make it much harder to vote for tens of millions of Americans. And so to try and address some of the underlying problems, challenges, with this bill, I have offered several amendments, and I want to speak to them this evening.

My Republican colleagues who have spoken repeatedly on this floor about this bill love to say how popular voter ID is: 83 percent of Americans support it. Well, if my Republican colleagues believe we should pass this bill because of its popularity, shouldn't we start with another policy that is even more popular? Eighty-seven percent of Americans believe criminal background checks should be required for all gun purchases. That would mean closing existing loopholes that allow folks in the United States to purchase weapons without going through the background check process.

And that poll saying 87 percent support it, it is not from some leftist group; it is from FOX News. Of course, universal background checks are popular. Americans are sick of the daily tragedies of gun violence in our communities across our country. They are sick of attacks in schools, in grocery stores, at concerts, in churches, in communities. They are sick and tired of tiny coffins. So I have introduced an amendment to the SAVE Act, adding a provision that would require universal background checks. So let's get this popular and bipartisan amendment passed. And if, as my colleagues claim, the SAVE America Act is not a burden but actually a protection of the right to vote, shouldn't other constitutional rights, fundamental freedoms, be subject to the same sorts of rules? Forty-seven thousand Americans were killed in gun violence in 2023, the leading cause of death for children and teens in many States.

And the SAVE Act is presented as a solution to the problem of those who are not citizens voting. It is a solution in search of a problem. The Heritage Foundation--the Heritage Foundation--went through and looked, over decades, over all the ballots cast in 23 years and found 77 proven cases of ballots cast by noncitizens. That is a tiny percentage.

For every ballot cast by a noncitizen, 14,000 Americans are killed by a gun each year. You can tell me which is the bigger problem.

So shouldn't buying a gun be at least as difficult as voting under the bill advanced by my colleagues? My amendment would bring the same restrictions that the SAVE America Act wants to bring to voting to gun buying. If you need a passport and a birth certificate to vote, why not to buy a semiautomatic rifle? All of our constitutional rights should be protected, so why not apply the standards to the Second Amendment that my colleagues hope to apply to the right to vote?

I hope we will take it up, debate it, and pass it.

Let me speak to another amendment that I am offering to the SAVE America Act. The SAVE America Act takes away the ability to register to vote by mail or online. You have to go in person to a specific place with documents, and yet millions of Americans live in rural areas, hours away from these relevant government offices. What if you can't drive? What if you can't take time off of work? What about the cost of all that gas as the price of gas keeps skyrocketing? It would take away the ability to reregister and to vote for these rural Americans. So I filed an amendment that says: For those Americans who live 50 miles away or more from the closest election office, they can register by mail or online.

The passport process is particularly challenging for rural voters who can't get a new passport online or by mail. You have to show up in person at a government office to apply, then get to the election office to register once you get your passport. How many more hoops do my Republican colleagues want to make rural voters jump through in order to vote?

My amendment would permit those who live 50 miles or more away from a passport office or an election office to apply for their passport online or by phone.

The cost of living keeps going up. To get a passport doesn't just take time and travel, it costs $165. So I filed an amendment that would make passports for the purposes of voting free for American citizens.

The SAVE America Act has another basic flaw. It would make it difficult to vote for the nearly 70 million American women who changed their name in marriage, where their current name is different than the name on their birth certificate. That includes, obviously, many people of concern but particularly my wife and my mother have different last names today than they did the day they were born.

One of the things that is, I think, a fundamental flaw to the SAVE America Act is it allows those women to vote if they have a passport. Yet millions of Americans do not have passports, and the cost and the difficulty of getting them, I think, is too big a barrier to voting.

What about veterans? Will we actually make them drive for hours to reregister? I am working on an amendment to partner with the VA to make it easier for veterans to administer.

And so, frankly, I have many amendments I would like to discuss, but these are the few I will bring up this evening because, before we get to a final vote on the SAVE America Act, we need to perfect it because the right to vote is a sacred right in America, and this is a bill in search of a problem, not solving that problem.

Madam President, the Trump administration owes my constituents money. It owes a lot of Americans money. The administration owes you $166 billion in illegal tariff revenue. Just over a year ago with what he called ``Liberation Day,'' President Trump imposed wildly irresponsible tariffs on virtually every country on Earth, including our closest allies and those with whom he concluded trade deals like Canada and Mexico. It has damaged our relationships abroad, it has harmed our national security, and frankly, it has imposed what is the equivalent of a national sales tax on hundreds of millions of consumers.

Well, after a year of litigation, the Supreme Court ruled in February by a 6-to-3 majority that those tariffs are illegal, that under the Constitution, the tariff power--the taxing power--is assigned to the Congress, not to the President. Trump promised Americans he would bring down costs on day one, but through tariffs did the exact opposite. If someone had stolen money out of your wallet, out of your family's bank account, you would want it back.

The average American household has paid $1,700 in tariffs now declared illegal by the Supreme Court. Our President took that money out of the pockets of Americans and should now give it back, so I am here demanding Delaware's money back for Delawareans. I am a proud cosponsor of a bill to do just that. Families need that money back now because they are increasingly struggling.

Because of the war in Iran, gas in Delaware was $2.87 a gallon just over a month ago; it is now, today, $3.79. The cost of groceries have gone up. The cost of healthcare has gone up. The cost of electricity has gone up. The cost of gas has gone up. Why are these costs going up? Partly the reckless war with Iran, but also tariffs. After the Supreme Court struck down the IEEPA tariffs--that is the law on which they were based--Trump proposed and put in place a new 10-percent global tariff.

One of the things I get called about the most is the cost of housing. Our little State of Delaware needs to build 24,000 new homes by 2030 to meet the demands for housing, yet many of the key inputs--lumber from Canada, drywall from Mexico, fixtures and features, the faucets and bathroom vanities--imported from outside our country face stiff tariffs.

The costs of home ownership and housing keep going up, and my Tariff Exclusion Act would eliminate those tariffs and bring those costs back down because this just isn't right or fair to the people of Delaware and our Nation--folks who are building and innovating, folks who are farming, folks who are launching small businesses, folks just trying to put food on the table, clothes on their kids' backs, and send them to school and keep them safe. They have paid too much in tariffs, and our President should pay our people back.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to begin by referencing the remarks of my colleague from Ohio and expressing my gratitude for the service and sacrifice of the airmen lost in action over Iraq recently.

As many know, Dover Air Force Base, in Dover, DE, is where the remains of every American who falls in service to our Nation overseas first returns to our soil. My State and the men and women of the Dover community and of the Dover Air Force Base have long considered it a sacred obligation, a blessing, and an opportunity to welcome the families who are grieving in order to help prepare their sons and daughters for ultimate burial in their home States. We have welcomed many Senators from across the country to what is known as a dignified transfer, which they carry out with great solemnity.

So let me join my colleagues from Ohio in expressing deep gratitude to the families of those who have fallen in action in the air over Iraq and for their service and sacrifice and for the support to the United States military that all of us should be offering at this time of great solemnity.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about the human cost of war. There is a real and a deep and a lasting cost to every armed conflict, to every war, one paid by brave men and women around the world and by the people who love them; one also paid, all too often, by civilians, by families, by those considered collateral damage.

But before we launch our Nation into an intentional war of choice, we should only ask our Armed Forces members--our soldiers, sailors, our airmen, our marines--to take on the risks and the loss of war if we are sure why.

It is clear today we are engaged in a war in Iran. The Trump administration doesn't seem to be able to agree amongst themselves why. What is the scope, what is the mission, what is the duration, what is the cost that so many may need to bear?

At the outset, President Trump was talking regime change and urging Iranians to rise up against the brutal and oppressive regime of the mullahs and the Ayatollah. Now they are not mentioning regime change.

Recently, Secretary Rubio and Speaker Johnson said Israel forced our hand, and then Trump said: No, no. We forced theirs.

There has been talk of taking out their navy, of going after ballistic missile launchers, of preventing the resurrection of a supposedly obliterated nuclear weapons program--but without real clarity.

After months of planning, allegedly, there are hundreds and thousands of Americans in the region--civilians, diplomats, families--in harm's way with no clear path to evacuation. Our Embassies and consulates are being bombed and attacked, a number are closed, and there has been no compelling explanation of the urgency, of why this was imminent, of why this body, this Senate, couldn't carry out its constitutional role and authorize this war.

I represent Delaware. The Dover Air Force Base in the center of our State, in our State capital, is where every American who falls in service to our Nation first returns to our soil. And Dover has the honor, the sacred duty, to carry out and support what are called dignified transfers, when planes with dead Americans in flag-draped transfer cases first come off the back of a C-17 to a waiting family and an honor guard.

I have stood on the flight line at Dover next to President Trump, President Biden, President Obama, and a whole range of senior military officers as we have witnessed this grave, solemn duty. I was last there in December with President Trump and the two Senators from Iowa as we witnessed those Iowans who had fallen in Syria, and I soon hope to return to be able to join in witnessing and honoring the homecoming of CPT Cody Khork, SFC Noah Tietjens, SFC Nicole Amor, and SGT Declan Coady.

There are two more Americans fallen so far in this war whose names have not yet been released. All four I just named are from Iowa.

I am so grateful to the men and women of AFMAO, the Armed Forces Mortuary Affairs Operations unit, and to Fisher House, a nonprofit, funded special place for the families of the fallen on the grounds of Dover Air Force Base, where those who have just learned of their deep loss are hosted.

These are special missions and special places--the volunteers from our community at Fisher House, the servicemembers who staff and support AFMAO, the folks at the Personal Effects Depot who do an incredible job preparing the remains of the fallen for return to their home States for burial, the members of the Chaplaincy Corps, the military liaison officers who help comfort and engage and support the families. It is the very least we could do as a nation to respect and to honor our brave and bold who volunteered to be a part of the greatest military in the world.

I am always grateful when other Members of this body join for these dignified transfers, and in the last year, two Senators from Illinois, two Senators from Georgia, as well as Members of the House, have come and joined in these strikingly often ceremonies.

There is a sound that a mother and a widow make when they first recognize the movement of a flag-draped coffin holding the remains of their loved one that you can never unhear. And that presence, that sound, that grief, that keening into the wind should be on the

heart of every Senator, of every American leader, as we vote on whether or not to commit our Nation's Armed Forces to war.

I come from a family with a long record of military service, back to our Nation's first war. My brother, my sister-in-law, my father, and my uncles all served. I grew up in a home where my father's veteran friends visited and where I knew my brother would follow in my father's footsteps. It seemed to me just a part of American life. And it is, in my view, a great blessing to represent 10,000 servicemembers and their families who are stationed at Dover Air Force Base and to have had the opportunity to visit and to fly and to support the crews of the C-17s and the C-5As based at Dover and to see how much they have done around the world to reequip and support our troops, to support our partners and allies, to deliver badly needed relief. In the case of disasters, they carry out an incredible mission.

I can only imagine the heartsick feeling of knowing on the news that there are six fallen Americans but not yet knowing who and wondering if that terrible knock will come on your door, whether in Dover, DE, or any other American base.

We should be careful about opening a door into chaos in the Middle East when we can't see the other side of it. We should not take our men and women into war without clear plans, without clear purposes.

With our bases now under continuous fire, our President talked casually the other day about how he has been through so much. He has refused to rule out sending boots on the ground to Iran, has made it clear he understands there will be casualties--maybe many, many more-- and says that death in war is just part of the way it is.

These six fallen so far and two dozen more severely injured have sacrificed for our Nation.

Those honored dead gave the last full measure of devotion for us, and we owe them and their families that same respect.

Earlier today, just 2 hours ago on this floor, we voted on whether to proceed to a War Powers Resolution, and I voted yes. I voted to rein in this reckless war of choice. At the very least, what we owe our servicemembers is a debate, a public briefing, an explanation, an accounting of why this war and what its ends are.

Just last week during the President's State of the Union Address at the other end of this building in the House Chamber, I sat respectfully as President Trump spoke for nearly 2 hours on every imaginable subject, but he spent just 3 minutes on Iran.

For the strengths and weaknesses of President Bush and the approach that led to the Iraq war, I will at least say this: There was briefing after briefing, debate after debate, and a vote in this Chamber to authorize that war as the Constitution requires.

That is not happening now. It is not happening here, and it should.

So to the families of the fallen, to the men and women of our Nation who are in that 1 percent who serves and stands in harm's way, know that your Nation mourns with you and honors you. Proverbs teaches that:

The memory of the righteous is a blessing.

We hold the memory of these beloved fallen in our hearts, and I pray that the Lord will comfort those who mourn, bind up their wounds, and heal their heartbreak. I pray that God grants us all the grace to find a path forward together where more do not needlessly join those who have already fallen in this new war in the Middle East.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Mark Siegel was born in 1946 in Brooklyn, NY, and has spent more than five decades as one of the Democratic Party's most versatile and enduring figures, serving at various points as a strategist, speechwriter, academic, and international democracy advocate.

Siegel attended public schools in Brooklyn before earning his undergraduate degree from Brooklyn College in 1967. He went on to Northwestern University, where he completed both a master's degree in 1968 and a Ph.D. in political science in 1972, focusing on elections, party reform, and the Presidential nominating process.

His entry into national politics came during the reform-minded era of the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the Democratic Party was undergoing profound organizational and ideological change. Siegel served as a legislative assistant to Senator Hubert Humphrey from 1971 to 1972 and was chief strategist for Humphrey's 1972 Presidential campaign. He later served as political director of the 1976 Democratic National Convention and coordinated the ``Draft Ted Kennedy'' movement in 1980, roles that placed him squarely at the center of the party's most consequential internal battles of the era. He also served as an elected at-large member of the Democratic National Committee, DNC, for more than a decade and participated in the commissions that shaped Presidential nominating rules, leaving a durable mark on the party's institutional structure. At one point, he served as executive director of the DNC itself.

As a speechwriter and political adviser, Siegel worked with some of the most prominent figures in American public life, drafting speeches for President Jimmy Carter, Vice Presidents Walter Mondale and Al Gore, Senator Ted Kennedy, and Senator Bill Bradley.

During his tenure in the Carter White House, Siegel served as the administration's liaison to the American Jewish community. Remarkably, he was the first to propose a national memorial to the Holocaust, an idea that led directly to the creation of the President's Commission on the Holocaust and, 15 years later, the Holocaust Memorial Museum on the National Mall in Washington. Siegel continues to serve on the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, which acts as the governing board of trustees of the museum.

The combination of Siegel's working-class roots, his faith, and his unrelenting commitment to human dignity meant that his focus was never constrained by the geographic borders of our country. Indeed, his reach extended far beyond them, as he served as a trusted confidant and writer for leading international figures, including Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan.

Siegel's international profile also includes his long association with the National Democratic Institute, NDI, the nonprofit organization that promotes democratic governance around the world. He served on the NDI board for 15 years and chaired programs focused on political party development and election monitoring, with particular emphasis on Asia.

Throughout his career, Siegel maintained a parallel life in academia. He taught political science and political management at American University, George Washington University, Loyola University Chicago, and New York University, bringing his practical experience in campaigns and party organization directly into the classroom.

A committed advocate for civil liberties and electoral reform, Siegel has remained an active commentator and strategist within Democratic circles across decades of American political life. He contributed public analysis during major political moments, including the contested 2000 Presidential election recount.

Across roles spanning government, academia, and international affairs, Mark Siegel represents a rare continuity of engagement with Democratic politics from the reform era through the modern day. He has dedicated his life to the promise of America, striving every day to make it kinder, fairer, and stronger. Our Nation is better for the life and service of Mark Siegel--a proud resident of Delaware--and we are grateful for him.

Mr. President, yesterday, the People's Republic of China sentenced Jimmy Lai to 20 years in a Chinese prison.

His crime? Freedom. He was an outspoken, pro-democracy journalist, and he was jailed for his reporting on government.

At 78 years old, Jimmy Lai will likely die in jail. This is a tragedy for freedom in Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China--and one that reminds us that the work of liberty, the work of freedom, the sacrifice and the struggle required to maintain it are not cheap.

Our Nation was built on a yearning for the kind of freedom from government repression and overreach that Jimmy Lai stood up against. And our democracy rests on a lot of different foundations, but at the core of all of it is a restraint on government power.

A democracy rooted in free speech, freedom of worship, freedom of assembly, and a chance to have and hold our own ideas, to pursue our own dreams and our own lives, has also built strong bonds with allies around the world--bonds that have helped keep us safe and made us prosperous for decades.

We have had dark chapters in our history, certainly: the McCarthy era, the Red Scare, periods when we were not as committed to free speech as we might be. But, historically, we have not persecuted and jailed those journalists who dared challenge the government.

And so I chose to speak today partly because of the event of Jimmy Lai being sentenced and partly because of a growing concern that we are at risk of wasting, of watching slip from our grasp, that most precious inheritance that our Nation has earned: a hard-won, hard-fought legacy of millions who stepped forward and served on behalf of our Nation at home and abroad in defense of democracy--millions who have said: I will risk it all so that my children and the children of others I don't know and will never know may live free.

From the very first shots at Lexington and Concord to the fields of Gettysburg and Vicksburg, to the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima, to the sands of Southwest Asia and Afghanistan and Iraq, across the centuries, Americans have fought and served in defense not of an ethnicity, not of a religion, not of a language but of an idea--an idea that out of many, we could be one; that out of an incredible array of backgrounds, of languages, of faiths, of ethnicities, we could forge in the modern world the first real democracy since ancient times.

I have an ancestor who served at Antietam and Chattanooga and Gettysburg, who signed up as a young lieutenant and served through the whole duration of the Civil War with the New York 60th Infantry. And on a bipartisan visit by a group of Senators to that Gettysburg battlefield, I was challenged to think anew about what it meant that 50,000 Americans were the casualties of that pivotal conflict on the fields at Gettysburg.

President Lincoln, months after, spoke in dedicating the cemetery at Gettysburg. At that point, it was ``four score and seven years ago.'' Today, it would be 12 score and 10 years ago because we, this year, celebrate 250 years since the founding of our Republic through the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia.

I have often asked myself: If I served in this body, in this Chamber, if I served in the Senate of the United States in the 1840s and 1850s and 1860, would I have seen what was coming? If I had been a member of this body in the thirties, would I have seen what was coming?

And, in recent days, I have been chilled when watching a parade in Beijing where Xi Jinping, the dictator of the PRC, assembled the leaders of North Korea, Iran, India, and other allies of theirs to watch a parade of state-of-the-art weaponry. It reminded me of similar moments in the late 1930s, when the fascist states of Germany and Italy teamed up with the imperialist state of Japan to form the Axis and to plunge the world into chaos.

I have often asked myself: Would I have seen and known what was around the bend, what was happening next?

Well, to know the future, you need to know the past, and I have reflected a lot, recently, on the words spoken by President Lincoln in commemorating the sacrifice of those who served at Gettysburg. He said that it was an active question, that the point of the conflict was to answer whether a nation ``conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal'' could ``long endure.'' That was a question we have had to fight for, we have had to struggle for, and that is right before us today.

It goes back to the Framers in our founding. Federalist 51 is where Madison wrote:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

And so they came up with a structure, the separation of powers.

Our Constitution has often been remarked upon as the greatest piece of political architecture in human history because it kept the power of the executive and the judiciary and the legislative branches separate so that each might check the ambition of the other--all of this in pursuit of the restraint of power.

Yet, as I have watched in the last year the remarks and the actions of our President and Vice President, they are chillingly rhyming with those of dictators like President Xi and President Putin of the PRC and Russia--the growing and steady use of unrestrained state power to punish the President's perceived enemies. And I am wrestling with a growing sense of gloom, of concern, of alarm that a similar story will play out in our Nation today as it is in other countries around the world.

In barely more than a year, we have seen journalists covering protests arrested. We have seen masked and unaccountable government agents murder American citizens and then senior members of the administration lying about who they were and what they were doing. We have seen the administration sue media organizations and reporters--not just a few: Washington Post, ABC, BBC, New York Times, Des Moines Register--sue media outlets to cow them into compliance; using the power of the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission--the FTC to investigate media matters, violating their First Amendment rights in an effort to bankrupt them, and using FCC broadcast licenses to dictate who gets to be on late-night TV based on whether the President thinks they are funny or not; steady pressure applied on an incredible range of fronts and with a dizzying change in tempo and focus so that we are distracted. This week, it is Jimmy Kimmel. This week, it is Venezuela. This week, it is the FTC. This week, it is going after Harvard.

Our President declared war on law firms: revoked security clearances, threatened their viability by taking away their capacity to walk into Federal buildings, ending Federal contracts. Why? Because if you can control who a law firm is willing to represent, you can suppress dissent.

Some of our Nation's most reputable and accomplished firms--Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale--investigated, denied access, sued for representing the President's opponent in the 2016 election, for representing a major philanthropist, George Soros, for representing those who would advocate on behalf of trans children, for representing Robert Mueller. The point here was to make it clear: If you pick a lawyer the state doesn't like, your rights are in jeopardy.

Sound familiar?

The administration has gone after some of our Nation's best known, longest established universities, among our very oldest--Harvard, Penn, Duke, Brown, Columbia--revoking funding, conducting investigations, shutting down partnerships, depleting their endowments, coercing compliance.

Even major businesses have been dragged before the White House and pushed to comply with the administration's agenda--from Apple, to Exxon, to Nvidia--summoned to the White House, pressured to avoid disfavor or bad regulatory decisions; suing a globally known company like Nike for choosing to have a diversity program.

Where is the alarm and the concern from the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the National Association of Manufacturers, those who have stood up in the past against Federal overreach by previous administrations?

Executive branch Agencies and regulators of independent agencies post that their reviews and approvals will depend on companies' conduct and whether they align with the administration's agenda. This undermines the very foundations of rule of law that undermine capitalism itself.

Something that has alarmed me more than any development in recent days: criminalization of the dissenters and disfavored, including Members of this body--Senators who are veterans, who have served in our intelligence services or as an astronaut and a pilot in combat--for recording a video reminding members of our military that they can refuse an illegal order; Members of the Senate and House investigated for seditious behavior, which our President claims is punishable by death.

Many of my colleagues have said: Pay no attention to what the President says; pay attention to what he does.

I will say: I am paying attention to what he is doing because, in addition to a steady stream of late-night rants on social media, we have seen actions--actions--by Federal Agencies: investigations, prosecutions, persecution, labeling protesters as domestic terrorists, reclassifying dissent as something punishable by law.

In an event just last week, our President spoke at the Prayer Breakfast and said, ``I don't know how a person of faith can vote for a Democrat'' and then said jokingly, ``[I]f you do say something bad about Trump . . . I will have your tax-exempt status . . . revoked.'' Who does that? Who threatens faith leaders from across our Nation with revoking their tax-exempt status?

I was in Europe with a bipartisan delegation from this body just 2 weeks ago visiting our trusted, loyal NATO ally Denmark, as they were alarmed about the rising tide of threats from our President to extract the territory of Greenland from their nation.

This coming weekend and week, I will travel to the annual Munich Security Conference, which my friend and late colleague Senator John McCain helped build up into a critical gathering of the North Atlantic community, of NATO allies, of Ministers of Defense, heads of state, parliamentarians from all over the world, principally focused on the alliances rooted in values that have kept us safe, prosperous, and free. And I know what I will hear from our allies--that they are gravely concerned that the values that connect us are slipping away.

Last year, I had the blessing, the honor, of meeting again with Yulia Navalny, whose husband, an advocate for democracy in Russia, died in a Russian prison. Yulia will once again speak with us as a delegation about the cost of freedom.

What gave me hope last year at this conference was a panel I participated in with three legislators from three other countries-- young women serving in the legislative bodies of Ghana, of Burma, and of Poland--fighting for democracy in their countries, not because they look to the United States as the perfect example but because they know the profound human hunger for freedom--the legislator from Burma now serving in exile; the legislators from Ghana and from Poland having worked hard to resist corruption, oppression, state power, looking, yes, to America's example but, frankly, charting their own course because they know that the future for their children and their families and their nations lies on a better path when liberty and justice for all is at the core of their cause and their purpose.

As I travel to Munich again, I will be joining a bipartisan group under the name ``Codel McCain'' because even after he has passed, we continue to honor our former colleague, who spent so much of his time in a prison in Vietnam, knowing that at any day, he could raise his hand and be released but refusing to dishonor the code under which he served.

Senator McCain said in one of his last speeches that the current President seems to be trading away the ideals that have held together our Nation ``for the sake of some half-baked spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems.''

Well, we can't let that happen for all of those like Senator McCain and Senator Kerry and Senator Carper, veterans of that war. And now we are joined by veterans of our most recent wars. For all of those who have served at home and abroad--first responders, law enforcement, teachers, community leaders, doctors--all those who put their heart and time and effort into making America the democracy worthy of the regard of the world, we need to be clear that the hour is late, that the skies are darkening, that the steady advance of the grip of state power should alarm all of us.

Lincoln concluded his remarks at Gettysburg saying:

We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died

in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth

of freedom.

We have to do that again today: Call out the alarm, call out these actions, renew our commitment to the ideals that have made our Nation great, refuse to give up on our alliances rooted in values and ask the world not to give up on us, and keep fighting back against those who would strip us of our liberties and our freedoms.

I yield the floor.