Floor Statements

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.

The CEO of the U.S. African Development Foundation is one Peter Marocco, known to all of us, who watched how DOGE came in and tore up most of our foreign assistance organizations.

Yes, an individual pled guilty today to a $12,000 bribe. No, that is not the reason to shut down abruptly and end the process that has gone on since 1980, by which this organization--which has long enjoyed bipartisan support--makes grants at a very modest level to dozens of African organizations and countries using matching funds from private donors and other countries.

The SFOPS bill, of which this is a part, already addresses concerns about the ongoing investigation. This organization, which I have visited in the field over the last decade, has a long and strong record of delivering results. This one event today being misrepresented by this entity leader, who is a DOGE individual who has locked out all of the employees of this foundation and prevented it from functioning, should not lead to its closure.

Motion to Table

I move that it be tabled, that this amendment, Lee No. 4286, be tabled.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, when we began this year's appropriations process, the task before us seemed almost impossible. It has been many, many years since we have completed the full appropriations process, and there were lots of challenges in a divided nation and a divided Congress.

I just wanted to briefly, this evening, as we conclude this process in the Senate, take a moment and thank the chair and vice chair of the full Appropriations Committee, Senator Collins and Senator Murray. They and their staff made the impossible real.

The bills that just passed through this body and headed now to the House will save lives and change them--will fund hundreds of billions of dollars of positive and valuable activity on behalf of the people of the United States.

The subcommittee for which I am responsible in this Congress as the ranking member is the appropriations for the Department of Defense and for Intelligence Communities. The chair is Senator McConnell. I have truly enjoyed working with Senator McConnell on the very complex, challenging, and urgent issues related to our national defense, to our intelligence community, and to the future of our Nation.

Senators, as we all know, don't do anything on their own, even on our best days. So I wanted to take a moment and thank all of the staff and the clerks who worked tirelessly, who stayed up for weeks on end, who dealt with ridiculous crises deadlines, who negotiated and renegotiated in good faith across the aisle to achieve this result.

I want to thank in particular the folks who make the SAC-D subcommittee work--of course, principally, Rob Leonard, my clerk, and Rob Karem, who is the clerk for Senator McConnell; but in addition: Gabriella Armonda, Dylan Byrd, Rachel DaPieve, Laura Forrest, Abigail Grace, Megan Handal, Cole Hodge, Brigid Kolish, Alexa Lorick, Ryan Pettit, Todd Phillips, Kathryn Plunkett, Kim Segura, Tom Shaffer, and Elise Stebick.

If I missed anyone, count it as my fault, not the staff who helped me assemble that list and the following.

I just wanted to also thank a number of the clerks of the subcommittees with whom I worked: Evan Schatz, of course, who is Senator Murray's chief clerk; John Righter; Jo Eckert; Jen Becker; Alex Carnes, whom I am particularly thankful to for his Johnny-on-the-spot assistance all times, including on this evening's vote; and Mike Gentile.

There is more work to do. The next 2 weeks will require us to listen to each other, to work hard, and to hammer out more accountability and transparency for the Department of Homeland Security to help make sure that we meet this moment.

But at the end of the day, as someone who is proud to be an appropriator and to have the opportunity to deliver more than $150 million for my little State of Delaware, across dozens and dozens of targeted appropriations, and then, more broadly, through all of these different subcommittees, to help fund critically needed investments in medical research, in university research, in the volunteer fire service, in law enforcement, in education, in infrastructure, it is important that this body do its principal job.

The power of the purse is something that--going back to old England-- we fought for hundreds of years to wrest away from Kings. When we began this process, it was not at all clear to me that this article I body would succeed in exercising the power of the purse, but today, we have. And for that, I am grateful.

More than anything else, I am grateful to the incredible and talented staff who have made this easy by their hard work.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay my respects and to honor the memory of an incredible Delawarean and a genuine hero.

``I am anxious,'' he wrote, ``to begin a life of service and commitment to making Delaware a safer place''--a safer place ``to live, [to] work, [to] visit, and raise a family.''

Delaware State Police Corporal Ty Snook wrote those words before he left the police academy, and it laid out his hope, his vision for service.

I am anxious to begin a life of service and commitment to

making Delaware a safer place to live, work, and raise a

family.

Delaware State Police Corporal Grade One Ty Snook wrote those words as a cadet late in his time in the police academy, and it laid out his vision for the life he lived committed to protecting and serving the people of my home State.

Two days before Christmas, Corporal Snook volunteered to work an extra shift at the DMV. He was working to make some extra money for his wife and young daughter, and he was volunteering to protect people so that they could make it home to their families in the rush before Christmas. He never made it home to his. A gunman walked into the DMV and, from a blind angle, shot and killed Corporal Snook--his last act, pushing a DMV employee behind him, shielding their life with his own.

What makes a hero? Someone whose instinct is protection. Someone whose service is about loving others, even when faced with mortal pain and fear. Corporal Snook's family and friends knew a hero, but his last actions were not all that he was. He was a father to Letty, a husband to Lauren, a big brother to his brother Josh, a big brother to his sister Kassi, a son to Matthew and Karen, a friend to so many.

He was a person with a big heart and a big personality who was always the center of attention and fun but who dedicated his time to celebrating the successes of others and mentoring others. A standout athlete, he was a Delaware wrestling champion. At Saint Mark's, he improved and improved and improved in his wrestling and then went to the University of Maryland on a wrestling scholarship, a D1 school, a great program.

He knew how to make everyone feel at ease and to laugh, how to help others by showing them the way. He stood out for his mentorship of others, celebrating his teammates' victories and successes and improvement as much as his own.

His sister Kassi said: Ty always did the right thing.

And his brother Josh said: All I ever wanted was to be more like him.

His brother Josh also serves in the Delaware State Police.

Corporal Snook is from a remarkable family, a family driven by service and

love and courage, and they are today suffering through pain no one should know or endure. But they are so like every other law enforcement family in our Nation, for when a member of law enforcement puts on their badge and their gun and goes out to serve, the heart of those who love them goes with them. Their children, their spouse, their parents, they wait anxiously to hear that they have returned home safe at the end of the shift.

Corporal Snook also saw and built strength in his second families: brothers and sisters in the Delaware State Police. He was an FTO. He was a field training officer for 20 State troopers, a remarkable number. Because he was such a good mentor, he was committed to the next generation of our State's troopers.

In our State of neighbors, a loss of one is a loss to all. But at his funeral service, his memorial at the University of Delaware, there must have been a thousand people present--law enforcement officers from every State in our country, hundreds and hundreds from all of our major agencies, in our State, in our region, and hundreds of us honored just to be in the room from our community.

In what was a powerful and moving service, nothing struck home as much as the powerful words of Lauren, his widow. Lauren said:

God does not waste suffering.

And she had one ask of all of us who heard her words:

Tell the people you love that you love them. Say the words.

Make the call. Leave the voicemail. Because you never know

when it will be your last chance to say that.

Lauren's words were incredible and powerful. Anyone seeking to hear the strength and the heart and the conviction of the law enforcement community--and in particular spouses--should go and watch Lauren's words. They were incredible.

Lauren, your words found a home in my heart and in the hearts of all who heard them, and I wanted to just bring Ty's memory--Corporal Snook's memory--to this floor of this Senate and to reference your incredible service and sacrifice and remarks today so that your love, your determination to support and remember and celebrate your hero could travel further, could touch the lives of more who need and deserve to hear about you, about Ty, about your family.

Senator Blunt Rochester and I have introduced a resolution in the Senate honoring Corporal Snook's life and bravery so that we can do our small part to ensure his legacy remains and travels further.

To Corporal Snook: I want to come back to those words you wrote so many years ago as a cadet, and I hope you know that you succeeded, that you fulfilled your mission and your dream, that you made Delaware safer, that you served with honor, that our State was blessed to have you for the time we did. Better to live your life as a hero, better to live your life honorably, better to live your life loving and being loved by others than to live a long and peaceful life that amounts to little.

I want to leave you with some words from the Gospel according to John, the 14th Chapter, 27th verse:

Peace. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do

not give to you as the world gives you. Do not let your

hearts be troubled and do not let them be afraid.

I am so grateful for the service and sacrifice of Corporal Ty Snook of the Delaware State Police--a peacemaker, a hero, someone who deserves to be a legend in our national law enforcement community.

May the God of love welcome you into His arms.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly in gratitude today.

Yesterday, Dover Air Force Base once again had the honor of receiving the remains of three Americans who died in service to our Nation: SGT Edgar Brian Torres-Tovar, of Des Moines, and SGT William Nathaniel Howard, of Marshalltown--both Iowans, both servicing in the Iowa National Guard--and Ayad Mansoor Sakat, a resident of Michigan, originally an Iraqi, who served alongside American troops for 4 years during the war in Iraq and who has become a nationalized American citizen. All three were killed in a tragic incident in Syria. All three served bravely. And all three were welcomed home with the dignity and respect that all who serve our Nation and fall in service to our Nation deserve.

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

Mr. President, today is the anniversary of the election of President Trump in 2024, and, today, the shutdown of our Federal Government is officially the longest it has ever been--36 days--because we can't come to agreement between our parties and our Chambers. In fact, the House isn't even at work and hasn't been for weeks because Republicans won't work with us to ensure access to healthcare.

We are in a dangerous and unsettled place here at home, but we are also in a dangerous and unsettled place abroad and around the world. My role in appropriations in this Congress is as the senior Democrat on the subcommittee that funds all of our defense and intelligence. Given that role, wherein I have worked with Senator McConnell, the chairman, to write the bill that we should be moving forward that would fully fund the security apparatus of the United States, I wanted to come to the floor for a few minutes today and talk with my colleagues and our Nation about what it is that actually keeps us safe at home and abroad.

For my entire life, we have relied upon the U.S. military. We will soon celebrate Veterans Day next week, and all of us should thank those who have served or who are serving. We have relied on them to be something that we often take for granted--nonpartisan, nonpolitical, an all-volunteer, professional, career military. For that to be sustained--for the folks to continue to step forward, to raise their right hand, and to swear to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic--we need a nation that supports our warfighters; for it is our warfighters who answer the call to serve and to defend no matter what party is in charge, to respect and obey the chain of command and to execute all lawful orders.

I think we rely on the best equipped, the best trained, and the most professional military in the world and, in partnership with them, a global network of alliances. We are the envy of the world not only because of our weapons--the most advanced and sophisticated weapons systems--but because we have the best trained, the best respected, and the most supported military in the world. That additional factor is something stronger than envy, which is respect.

I have traveled over my 15 years here on the Foreign Relations Committee to dozens of countries on literally every continent and have seen directly the respect that other armed forces around the world have for our military--for its civilian control, its professionalization, its training, and equipment.

I grew up in the shadow of the Vietnam war. It was raging as I was a young man. I still remember being in elementary school, with classmates who had older brothers in combat. I still remember, as Saigon fell, when I was in middle school, and as the POWs, including our former colleague, John McCain, were released from years of imprisonment, being shocked at the way some returning veterans were treated--disrespected-- and at how there had been a real loss of a sense of respect and appreciation for those who served.

Over the years, our Armed Forces have earned their way back to a place of deep and broad respect in the hearts of the American people. Over the years that I served as county executive, I went to ceremony after ceremony as units of the Delaware National Guard deployed over and over, and then, often--9 months or a year later--as we would welcome them home at wonderful homecoming celebrations, I saw deep and broad support and respect for the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Tragically, I have also had the opportunity, along the flight line of Dover Air Force Base, to welcome home America's fallen, to get to know the families grieving over their loss, and, this year, to be joined by Members of the House and Senate as we have welcomed home our fallen heroes who died serving us overseas. The difference in tenor, in respect, in affection for the men and women of our Armed Forces over the arc of my lifetime--from the 1970s during the Vietnam war to today--has been striking.

Today, as I rise to speak on the 1-year anniversary of President Trump's election, I just wanted to look back and reflect on how, in that year, he and Secretary Hegseth have set us on a course that risks losing again all of that accumulated good will, all of that respect. I want to talk about how they have weakened our alliances, politicized our military, dulled down our military readiness, and brought us closer to needless, even dangerous, wars of choice--all of that leaving us weaker and less safe as we confront the most dangerous world since the end of the Cold War.

President Trump is a master of distraction. So you don't ever have time to step back and look at the bigger pattern. It is amazing how many times a day the topics change. Are we talking about the tearing down of the East Wing or the planning of a new ballroom or the renewed threat to invade a country in Africa--apparently, Nigeria, this week? It is a constant, unending smorgasbord of tweets and greatest hits designed to prevent us, with its blizzard, from ever seeing any pattern. One year after his election, I wanted to take a few minutes and show that pattern to you today.

In his first 10 months as President of the United States, President Trump has fired or pushed out more than 15 of our most senior admirals and generals, starting with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Chief of Naval Operations--fired because they were somehow considered DEI hires or too woke, which is something I find to be utterly without foundation in their service or in the opinions of others who served with them in the Armed Forces.

He hijacked the 250th anniversary parade to celebrate the history of the U.S. Army and turned it into a birthday parade for himself.

More recently, President Trump and Secretary Hegseth gathered all of our most senior military leaders from around the world for a speech here near Washington, at Quantico, which was a massive national security risk, just so they could give political speeches about grooming and about using the military against the enemy within--pulling these decorated and seasoned men and women from core jobs, literally around the world, of protecting America against our adversaries on the frontlines, to be props for a highly political speech.

In unprecedented decisions in modern times, the President has federalized the National Guards from California, from Illinois, and from Oregon over the objections of Governors and has deployed them into cities over the objections of mayors who say: We can deal with the challenges of crime. If you want to send us Federal resources, we would welcome your sending us additional Federal law enforcement, like the ATF and the FBI.

This administration also mobilized the Marines to go into Los Angeles. All of this takes away our military from

their central missions and training for partisan political ends.

This brings us to a second key pillar of our national security--the best trained and equipped military in the world.

Secretary Hegseth, at the beginning of this year, supported a full- year continuing resolution for the Department of Defense for the first time ever. Senator McConnell and I, as the chair and ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, were struck at how much harm that does. We are on the verge of doing it again for a terrible second year.

Ask any senior military leader. It makes it impossible to plan, and nothing requires more stable, certain long-term funding than designing and building the next generation of fighter aircraft, building and deploying nuclear-powered submarines, recruiting and training the world's best military and then equipping them with things on land, air, and sea that make them the most lethal Armed Forces on Earth. We can't do that if Secretary Hegseth continues to support full-year continuing resolutions.

It is also important that our warfighters be respected because they know they have the support engagement of the American people on difficult and dangerous missions--something that is lacking when they refuse to fully brief, support, and engage the Senate of the United States--a challenge that is happening right now.

We need a plan, we need preparation, and we need clarity to Congress about what is going on in the Caribbean and what preparations are being made with regard to Venezuela.

I have no objection to the idea that we need to work together to strengthen the interdiction of drugs coming to the United States, but this body, given the Constitution and our role, deserves to be consulted and included so that we can build consensus, common agreement, to support a plan of action so that our warfighters, the men and women of our Armed Forces, know we have their backs. That is the best way to send them into harm's way.

All of this is built on another of President Trump's broken promises. He ran on lowering costs, making America healthy again, and avoiding new foreign wars. On the campaign trail, I often heard that was one of his most popular promises.

Since then, the threats to start new wars with friends and allies and foes alike have been dizzying--Canada, Mexico, Denmark, Panama, Colombia, and Nigeria. Our President tosses these things off casually, but in a meeting I had earlier in his term with leaders from Denmark and Greenland, they were alarmed, frightened, and concerned about how a trusted NATO ally could threaten to seize Greenland--a seemingly casual remark that was then reinforced and repeated over and over.

I am worried that we are now sleepwalking into a war with Venezuela and an effort to overthrow Maduro, all while leaving the People's Republic of China free rein to run roughshod over the Indo-Pacific, while they massively increase the scope and scale of their aggression.

Let's be clear. There is no love lost between me and Maduro--a brutal dictator--but we should have clarity about how and why we might use our Armed Forces.

Last, a key pillar to our security for the last eight decades, since the end of the Second World War, has been a remarkable global network of powerful alliances. I have long said that one of our key advantages over the People's Republic of China is our network of trusted and deep alliances.

China has nervous neighbors and client states. President Trump is putting all of that at risk. Our adversaries are increasingly aligning. Russians are using Iranian drones, North Korean soldiers, and Chinese technology and funding to help carry out their brutal war of aggression in Ukraine. Meanwhile, our alliances are fraying.

As I mentioned, the President threatened to invade NATO allies like Canada and Denmark and kicked President Volodymyr Zelenskyy out of the Oval Office but rolled out the red carpet for Vladimir Putin; held up crucial arms deliveries and sales to nations that rely on us for their security--from Ukraine to Taiwan; and put at risk our commitment to article 5 and to collective security that have been at the heart of NATO since its founding.

The tariff deals our President has imposed on some of our closest and most trusted allies--allies that have free-trade agreements with us, like South Korea--have put them profoundly on the back foot as they look and wonder whether they can count on our security agreements.

All of this means that over the past year, President Trump has steadily hacked away at the pillars of our military that protect our Nation, making it less stable, making it more likely that the trust and confidence the American people have in our warfighters will crumble.

This is a critical and concerning, even alarming picture from which he is trying to distract us.

The Nation we had a year ago was strong, secure, and moving in a positive direction. Today, I am gravely concerned about the constant distraction and the threats and moves against our allies, our partners, and the ways in which we have undermined our warfighters.

So what should we do from here? Pass our bipartisan appropriations bills. Put on this floor, pass, and get to the President the Defense appropriations bill that I have worked so hard on this year and all the other appropriations bills and move us out of this cycle of rescissions, reconciliation, and continuing resolutions and back to reliable, steady, bipartisan support. Strengthen our alliances. Reassure our nervous partners. End this recklessness with tariffs that is an on again-off again regime where these taxes, these tariffs, add to Americans' bottom line in a disastrous way and destabilize trust and confidence from our partners and refocus on training and preparing for real wars, not culture wars. This is how we keep our Nation safe.

Just a few days ago, I was up in my father's hometown of Boston and drove through Lexington and Concord, where 250 years ago this year, our forefathers took up arms against the Crown and began what was a long- shot fight, a revolution for liberty and independence for our Nation. We have to remember all who have taken up arms and served our Nation.

I am from a family of veterans. My brother, my sister-in-law, my father, my uncles, my great-great-grandfather, and back to the Revolution, members of my family have stepped forward and served.

For all who have done the same, who have signed on the dotted line, up to and including their lives, committed their willingness to sacrifice, we owe them nothing less than the full measure of devotion that says we will support them. That support requires engagement and trust from this body, engagement and trust with our allies, and the support that our service men and women deserve.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I would like to commemorate the visit to the United States of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, the spiritual head of the second-largest Christian Church in the world which boasts 300 million faithful. The Ecumenical Patriarch is also the spiritual leader of more than 4,000 Delawareans who are Greek Orthodox Christians. Delaware's Greek community has a long and vibrant history, and it is an honor to mark the Ecumenical Patriarch's visit.

During his visit to the United States, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew received the Templeton Prize: a recognition of someone who has dedicated themselves to affirming the spiritual dimension of life. The Ecumenical Patriarch received this award for his remarkable leadership working to foster an ``ecumenical imperative'' to care for creation, in which he has brought together religious, scientific, and world leaders to advocate for greater care for our planet. The Ecumenical Patriarch joins a long list of powerful advocates for change who have received this award, including my good friend Jane Goodall. The Ecumenical Patriarch's receipt of the Templeton Award builds on his previous accolades, including his receipt of the Congressional Gold Medal: the highest award that Congress has to offer.

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew's commitment to fostering dialogue for the betterment of the world is admirable and an example that we should all seek to follow. His All-Holiness is a tremendous leader in the world and for many in our country, and I look forward to continuing to support his efforts to strive for peace on earth over the years to come.

Mr. President, I am grateful to my colleagues who have spoken this evening about the critical answer we should be giving to the question: Who is my neighbor?

I know of no faith that teaches that we should take food away from hungry children, from the seniors and the disabled and the veterans in our communities, so that we can hurt our political opponent. But, sadly, that is what our President is doing.

My foundational faith rests in the Gospels. One of the best known parables told by Jesus is the ``Parable of the Good Samaritan.'' And lots of folks know the ``Parable of the Good Samaritan'' but maybe don't know exactly what it teaches. So let me just take a moment.

Jesus is asked: What are the most important parts of the law?

And he says: Recite what the law teaches.

He is asked: What do I have to do to inherit eternal life?

And he says: What does the law teach?

``Love the lord, your God, with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind'' is the answer, and love your neighbor as yourself.

Jesus says: You read correctly.

Then, being a lawyer--I always love that part--seeking to justify himself, the questioner asks the next question: But who is my neighbor?

And Jesus tells one of the most radical, challenging, and disruptive of his parables. You have to think about it in the context in which it was given. Some of the most respected people in the society he was from are exemplars, characters in this parable.

A man is going down the road and is set upon by robbers and is beaten and injured and lying on the side of the road. And a priest--one of the most respected religious leaders in ancient Israel--a priest is walking down the road and turns and passes on the other side.

And then a Levite--part of a tribe of Israel that was known for their holiness and for their descent from the priestly class--he also walks by on the other side.

And it is a Samaritan--a member of a community, a tribe, a faith that was considered abhorrent to the ancient Israelites--who stops, who puts the wounded man on his donkey, who cares for him, who takes him to an inn, who treats his wounds and leaves money, and says to the inn keeper: I will come back and pay you whatever is required for his care.

And then Jesus says: Who was acting like a neighbor?

To which the lawyer properly says: The one who had mercy on him, on the victim.

Righteousness requires us to view and treat as neighbor those who are on the margins of life. It was Senator Hubert Humphrey, I believe, who said: The true test of a nation is how it treats those at the dawn of life--its children, those in the shadows of life, the disabled and infirm, and those in the twilight of life, the seniors.

And yet President Trump, today, in defiance of two Federal court orders, has been saying that he will refuse to distribute SNAP benefits promptly and fully.

I believe, last night, in a Truth Social post he said, ``SNAP benefits''--and I am skipping the attacks on his predecessor, ``will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government'' and not before.

The larger point is that SNAP, which is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which feeds millions of hungry Americans, is being used as a weapon, as a tool in this moment to try and leverage the hunger of millions, to put pressure on us, as a Senate, to reopen.

It is shocking that President Trump would say out loud his intention to defy court orders and to use whether or not to feed hungry children as leverage.

In my home State of Delaware, where I have heard from the head of our food bank, from the heads of lots of local organizations that care for and support seniors and children and veterans, 11 percent of our State is on SNAP--48,000 children and 4,700 veterans. Nationwide, 20 percent of all of our children are on SNAP.

It is critical to the health and safety and development of children so that they can hear the teaching in the classroom over the grumbling of their bellies.

The Food Bank of Delaware shared with me the story of a young mother whose doctor had said she had to stop working because her pregnancy was so far along and, as a result, had to leave her work at a chicken processing plant and, today, desperately needs SNAP, these benefits, to feed her four children.

What answer does President Trump and my colleagues give to the question: Who is my neighbor? On whom will they show mercy?

The answer apparently is not America's children, not veterans, not working parents, not seniors and people with disabilities.

In my home State, I am grateful for a Governor and leaders in our general assembly who have stepped in to fill the breach and to provide these SNAP benefits temporarily. But they cannot do so for long.

I believe, in the richest country on Earth, it is a shame--it is a horror--for our children, our seniors, our disabled citizens, our veterans who rely on this program to go hungry just so we can continue fighting in this Chamber. It is long past time for my colleagues and our President to answer the question ``Who is my neighbor?'' in a way that includes all Americans and does not cut them off from this vital and needed support.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have a brief question for this body before I proceed to my motion: What is it that keeps our Nation secure? It is millions of Armed Forces, Active-Duty Reserves, National Guard, civilians supporting them, the Department of Defense, the Coast Guard, the intelligence Agencies; they are keeping us safe now, like all Federal employees, not knowing when they will get another paycheck.

Our military is less than 1 percent of our Nation. That is how many people sign on the dotted line up to and including their lives to keep us safe. They put their lives on the line to secure liberty and security, and I am grateful to the thousands serving today at Dover Air Force Base, the Delaware National Guard, and throughout our Armed Forces.

They and their families deserve the same devotion to them that they are providing to us.

I come from a military family. My father, brother, sister-in-law, uncles all served in the Army, and my father long said he first really understood what it means to be an American when he was responsible for others and others' lives when deployed.

Taking care of them is our sacred obligation. So while we keep fighting for better healthcare, more affordable healthcare for all Americans, my bill will pay our Armed Forces now.

It will pay Active-Duty, Reserves, National Guard, Coast Guard, civilians at the Pentagon, and intelligence Agencies, and give those who keep us safe, often at great sacrifice, a small piece of security in return.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3079 introduced earlier today; that the bill be considered read three times and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I want to convey my thanks, my gratitude to the chair of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, my colleague and friend from Kentucky. We and our staffs have had a genuinely constructive and positive process in appropriations this year.

Frankly, overall, the Senate Appropriations Committee has worked well. We have passed out of committee a significant number of major bills by big bipartisan margins--26 to 3 in the case of our bill and the Labor, Health and Human Services bill. But there is a stark contrast between the real progress we are making on appropriations and the lack of progress on addressing the core issue of can Americans afford their healthcare.

Of course, I want to move ahead and appropriate, as my colleague from Kentucky has indicated. Of course, we need to do our job and appropriate, for this body to carry out and to continue its core article I responsibility. But part of what has got us to this moment is a vote earlier this year on the Big Beautiful Bill in July to destroy healthcare for millions of Americans.

We need to find a path forward toward ensuring that millions of Americans do not lose insurance through the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid, something that will raise insurance costs for everyone and that will increase ER wait times in my State and in every other.

This Saturday, 20 million Americans will see how much their premiums go up. And if the calls that come into my colleagues are anything like the calls I am getting, there will be then an accelerated motion toward resolving this issue and moving forward with appropriations.

I will close by just citing one conversation I had yesterday.

I spoke with a small business owner from Delaware. Her name is Jan. She is a stage IV cancer survivor. She is a small business owner.

She told me yesterday that, without the Affordable Care Act, she would have died 10 years ago because insurance would have dropped her. And if her rates double, she will need to close her business of 30 years.

This is one of many stories of entrepreneurs and families, of veterans, of servicemembers, of constituents that have reached out to me.

There is an urgency about reopening the government--yes, I agree--and an urgency about finding a path forward on healthcare. We should be negotiating both now.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to address the moment that we are in here in the U.S. Senate. We are about to proceed to a vote on a motion that the majority leader has laid on the floor.

I am the senior Democrat on the subcommittee of Appropriations that writes the bill that funds our national defense. I have worked well and closely with Senator McConnell in this undertaking this year. I am about to vote no on proceeding to take up the House Defense bill, which may surprise some of my colleagues from both parties or my constituents or folks who are wondering: What the heck is going on here? So I wanted to take a few minutes and speak to this moment, my vote, and hopefully our path forward.

Americans care deeply about security--about the security that comes from knowing that you and your family won't suddenly be bankrupted by unexpected healthcare costs, the loss of health insurance, and the security that comes from knowing that millions of highly skilled, trained, and dedicated American men and women are on the line around the world, shoulder to shoulder with our allies, defending America's security and that of the world, and we need a path towards addressing both.

The Federal Government is currently shut down. It is shut down because we can't come to an agreement here in the Senate, with the President, and with the House to deal with the expiring Affordable Care Act tax credits that make it affordable.

Letters are about to go out in my home State of Delaware that will tell folks who get their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act that their rates are going to go up dramatically--in many cases, more than 100 percent--because of expiring tax credits.

Well, what has that got to do with national defense? Bluntly, the process here in this Senate, the process with our President, and the process of spending or not spending appropriated funds has destroyed a lot of the trust that is essential for the Senate as a body to work, for the Congress to legislate, and for our Federal Government to reopen.

In the last Congress, I was the chair of the subcommittee that wrote the appropriations bill. Roughly, $32 billion went to USAID--an Agency that no longer exists. Some of you may remember DOGE--an Elon Musk-led effort to get into and tear up and, in the case of USAID, to tear apart our longstanding, decades-old, U.S. foreign assistance program. It did a lot more damage than just that.

In many ways, the actions that began in January and picked up speed in the spring caused alarm and concern by many of us in the Senate that we have an OMB Director and an administration willing to violate bipartisan agreements from the last Congress, commitments to spend money, and contracts and agreements with partners and allies around the world and across many different areas.

In fact, just yesterday, a Federal district court judge in California ruled that the reductions in force--the layoffs, the RIFs--announced by the administration during this current shutdown were illegal because they were targeted and partisan.

So many things have happened this year that it is tough to keep track, but the combination of them has led to a reduction in trust between our two caucuses--trust that is essential to having an understanding and an agreement to move forward.

Let me be clear about this year's appropriations process. It was positive from when we started in March-April to when we concluded on the committee in July and voted out eight strong, bipartisan bills. The Senate appropriations process for at least eight of the bills--the biggest bills--was constructive and bipartisan. In fact, the bill that I worked on closely with Senator McConnell was voted out of the committee by 26 to 3. So, too, were other key bills that deal with housing, that deal with education, and that deal with healthcare. They came out of the committee 26 to 3 and are ready for action on the floor of the Senate. Yet we are not proceeding to them today.

There are four bills remaining in committee that are unaddressed, and the committee should focus on them, take them up, and work them through. There are three bills that have already passed the Senate and are all but done being conferenced with the House.

What I have heard from my Republican colleagues is that Leader Thune is trying to move ahead with a process that would put the Defense bill, the Health and Education bill, the Housing and Transportation bill, which we call Labor-HHS, and T-HUD--very compelling names, I know--he wants to put together a package of many of these bills. Well, if that is the intention, we need communication between our leaders and our caucuses.

We have had a positive and productive process in Senate appropriations this year, but the leader's motion to go to the House Defense bill was not expected, was not discussed, and was not clear to my caucus as to what happens next. So it is with some real regret that I will vote no today but will continue to talk with my colleagues about how do we move forward.

I want to take a moment and just speak to the Defense bill that we have worked so hard on and that came out of the committee with such strong bipartisan support. It would provide a better quality of life to the men and women of the American military and their families. It would invest, in total, $852 billion in our national defense--expanding shipyards, expanding munition production, creating stockpiles of critical weapons that we know we need for the future, investing in cutting-edge technologies--and would reject some of the Trump budget cuts in aid to Ukraine, to Taiwan, and to our Baltic allies, who are making positive progress in key areas.

Our work together on this bill has generally been a positive experience between Senators and our staffs. Our challenge was the Department, and it was the Secretary and his budgeteers, who often appeared at hearings and meetings without their homework done, without the details ready, without a budget ready to go.

Some of you may have forgotten this, but a principal focus of the administration and the majority here during this same time was the so- called Big Beautiful Bill and trying to put $160 billion onto the Defense Department not through regular order and not through the usual budget processes but through this one-time infusion of cash.

Senator McConnell and I historically haven't agreed on much, but we certainly have agreed on this in hearings and in speeches: If we are trying to invest in the future of our Armed Forces, whether it be new planes, new ships, new systems, or new technology, doing it with 1-year money is unwise and unsound.

We need to get back to regular order. We need to get back to a reliable and predictable appropriations process. In order to do that, we need bipartisan agreement that rejects severe cuts; that restores funding for programs like the NIH and the CDC, which is done in the bipartisan Labor-H bill; and that rejects cuts to WIC and rural housing, which is done in the Ag bill. We need to move these bills forward.

The way we move these bills forward is by linking arms and making it clear: We reject rescissions. We want to appropriate beyond just defense. We want a broader package and to have clarity from our President, the House, and the Senate about how we address the imminent health security crisis that confronts millions of Americans and, for today and tomorrow, keeps our government shut down.

Americans care about security. We care about security for our families from healthcare costs, and we care about security for our Nation from the threats that are greater than at any time in my adult life.

Let's find a path toward working together to address them.

I yield the floor.