Cory A. Booker

Mr. President, I came down here to talk about AI. But before I give those remarks, I cannot let the comments that were just made on the floor go unrebutted point by point.

I have utter frustration. There are a few things in this bill that are worthy of trumpeting. But to be on this floor and say all of this, that this is about protecting athletes, I ask one simple question, Why isn't one athlete group in this country, not one of the groups that represents athletes, trumpeting the greatness of this bill?

They all know this bill undermines their rights, undermines their collective bargaining, undermines their health and safety, creates an unequal playing field for them relative to the other money interests in this bill, including the coaches.

I came down here to speak about AI, which I will do in a moment, but I need to get more into the specifics because it is outrageous to come down and talk about a bill being good for athletes when athletes themselves all over this country, every organization that represents them, condemn this bill. And it is not just the athletes; it is the parents of athletes that have died because of the NCAA and what they are doing.

Kids that have died of heatstroke. Kids that have been crippled by injuries. Their parents collectively have written letters to this body: Don't let this bill pass.

But let me get to specifics. One, this healthcare fund. There is in this bill this idea that even 5 years of healthcare after your playing years, and a fund set up of roughly $100 million. But you know that there are tens and tens--hundreds of thousands of college athletes, many of them have crippling injuries, a fund like that is inadequate for their healthcare needs. Put that relative to what professional sports do, and you will see that it is shortchanging athletes' well- being.

On this idea, secondly, that this bill somehow enshrines NIL rights, this body did nothing for generations while name and likeness was being stolen from players. Players were being exploited. This body did nothing.

But as soon as athletes start winning in court, their NIL rights-- suddenly Congress swoops in and is saying that we are saving their NIL rights? That is a lie.

The reality is, they don't need Congress' beneficent actions to give them NIL rights. They have earned them in the courts. What this bill actually does is, it takes away rights for them to legally challenge anything that the cartel of the NCAA does. That is why the AAJ--the trial lawyers--are against this because it undermines their ability to win more court cases in the future.

Other things that are not true being said--this outrageous claim that this is somehow protecting women's sports. Well, then why didn't they permanently enshrine protections of women's sports in Olympic sports? Why in section 125 do those protections expire, 4 or 9 years down the line? Why?

You are giving permanent antitrust exemptions to one of the most notorious monopolistic cartel organizations that has actually hurt women athletes, and you are allowing the protections for Olympic sports and the protections for women athletes to expire. Make them permanent then, if you are caring about that.

But you are giving permanent protections? Permanent antitrust exemptions? That is outrageous.

This idea that you are protecting women's sports, to me it falls flat when you read section 125 of this bill.

This bill talks about what it is doing for Black colleges. There is nothing more insulting to me, as someone who has fought for HBCUs. This bill--don't be fooled--doesn't put a dollar into HBCUs. It authorizes money. I have been in the Senate for 13 years. I have seen authorizations happen but no money go to those institutions.

If this was real, that HBCUs were going to benefit, appropriate the money. Don't dangle out millions of dollars and say ``Get on board on this bill'' and then be left in a situation where folks aren't getting those resources.

Let me say next, this transfer sensibility. That is the quote I heard. This brings transfer sensibility. Well, I will tell you this right now. If transfer sensibility is so important for players, why isn't there transfer sensibility for the coaches? How can you allow coaches to come in a year to a school, lure athletes to their teams, they have success based upon athletes' performance, and then they can go and get the next high-paying job?

This is the extraordinary problem with this bill, that it has one standard for players and another standard for coaches.

And this idea that this bill somehow prevents a race to the bottom. Well, you all know that there are about 15 coaches that have over-- almost a $250 million buyout provision. And I have heard on the floor now that somehow this is going to stop the race at the bottom. It doesn't do anything for private institutions. From Notre Dame to Stanford, it doesn't touch the race to the bottom there.

It doesn't touch the race to the bottom for facilities. I was a college athlete. It doesn't stop schools from rolling out greater facilities. Where is the equality in this bill that is so-called helping college athletes where every college athlete organization is against it?

Let me give you another example. This idea of disclosure requirements on athletes for their NIL deals and the like.

Why aren't there disclosure requirements on coaches? This bill puts redtape between athletes and their opportunities to make money, but doesn't put the same redtape between coaches. Somehow, we need transparency with athletes, but it is not with coaches. Coaches don't have disclosure requirements.

Why are you treating that elite class differently than you are treating athletes? That is not true.

I can go on and on and on, and I will. I will come back to this floor. I will do interviews. I am going to make sure people know the facts about this bill.

Because when this bill passes, and Donald Trump and Ted Cruz and others get what they want, athletes are going to be out of luck. And when 4 or 9 years pass and Olympic sports are being cut and women's sports are being cut, a lot of people in here are going to forget the shortcomings of this bill, but I will not, and nor will athletes.

This bill is a threat to college sports. It is a threat to college athletes. That is why every major organization is against it. I have more details. I will come down here and read paragraphs of this bill. I will do everything possible to put on the Congressional Record why this is a betrayal of college athletes, their safety, and their well-being.

And I am not saying there are not good things in this bill. I am not saying there are not things that have been incorporated that are important. But time and time again, it comes up short. A better deal for the universities. A better deal for the wealthy. A better deal for coaches. But athletes? They get the short end of this.

And that is why folks are out here doing everything they can. Athletes' groups, civil rights groups, trial lawyers, so many are saying: This is wrong. We can do better.

Why are we rushing to this bill when the No. 1 issue in America right now is rising costs? Rushing to this bill, 47 days before an election, makes no sense to me.

Why college athletes have not been involved with this, or their organizations, makes no sense.

I would like, in the record, that my now remarks on AI be separated from these reactionary remarks to the stuff that is being said that doesn't hold true with the text of the actual bill.

Thank you.

And before I go, if there is anybody on the floor, I will pause for a question on this issue. If anyone wants to do a colloquy, I will.

Thank you. This is what the Senate should be about.

Mr. President, I just want to remind that I paused for a question, not a speech.

I did not yield the floor. I am pausing for a question.

Senator, is there a question here?

I would like to answer the Senator's question.

She is talking about enshrining in law this idea of revenue sharing. Time and time again, even to the Supreme Court, when conservative Justices joined with Justices appointed by Democrats, they have affirmed college athletes' power. They have gotten power through the courts. What this does is it heads off their legal abilities by enshrining these laws.

``Let it play out in the courts'' is what every athlete organization is saying. Why are you trying to suddenly be concerned about college athletes and enshrine things that we are winning in court case after court case. This is the hypocrisy here.

For years and years and years, I have watched my own image on Madden's video game--my own image--and never got paid for that. And now athletes bring it to the courts and win, time and time again?

And now my colleague says: Oh, we want to rush and help athletes.

That is why the colleges and wealthy donors are really excited about this bill. It is because it is going to make sure that the future lawsuits are cut off, that they have all the antitrust exemptions.

Why do you think you see that the trial lawyers organizations and others who have been representing college athletes in getting them some modicum of justice are not in favor of this bill? That is rich.

We don't need your help. Athletes groups don't need your help. They don't want it. They haven't asked for it. But yet, somehow, you think you are helping them, but who you are helping are the wealthy colleges.

Are there any other questions before I move on to my remarks about

I would respectfully say that I yielded for a question.

So if that is the question, do I recognize the court case--

A settlement agreement.

We are inserting ourselves between the parties to say that we know what is better than athletes being able to negotiate for themselves.

You see, I paused for a question because I thought my colleague was going to try to stand up and defend section 125 because she spoke very passionately, my colleague, about protecting women's sports. Well, again, the simple question is, Why do things that protect Olympic and women's sports expire? Why does that expire and not the permanent antitrust exemptions we are giving a cartel--a monopolistic organization--that is violating the rights of women consistently? That is indefensible.

I will yield for a question.

If that is the Senator's question, I am going to simply say again that I have so much respect for my colleague.

She has worked so hard on this bill, and she has worked so hard. I don't think it is done yet. I think she would admit that there are things that we can improve. She is an extraordinary legislator, and I am sure she would admit that this bill isn't perfect and that more can be done, especially on the equity and treatment of athletes over coaches. I am sure she would say that because she said it to me. This is an extraordinary legislator on the Democratic side who has been leading this. I have reverence and respect for her.

I played college football. I talk to college football players all the time. I go back and talk to college football teams. I am very involved in the space. I wouldn't be here if it weren't for being a High School All-American who got an unbelievable shot at a full scholarship at Stanford.

What doesn't seem to be understood by folks is that athletes right now all across this country and their organizations are begging for this bill not to pass.

What we are doing here in Congress is truly exemplary. We are giving a permanent antitrust exemption that, as conservative Justices have said, is not seen in other areas of enterprise in the United States of America--rarely seen--and we are giving few rights to athletes but that of ``Oh, you can sue.'' Well, as a guy who played and who was competing for a starting tight end position, am I going to sue my school?

I have seen all of these posts by athletes saying: You have got to be kidding me. My coaches tell me to play injured. I do that. I don't sue them, when they are clearly not concerned about my well-being.

Athletes have been winning in court, and now we are coming in and taking away their leverage, their bargaining power. We are settling issues that are still open. Hey, I would actually respect it if they said ``You know what, we are going to give a 10-year antitrust exemption and come back and revisit this,'' but, no, they are giving it permanently.

Nobody can justify to me--nobody can--as to why college coaches don't get the exact same treatment in this bill as people who are playing on the field; why they can transfer willy-nilly; why they don't have to disclose all of their side's endorsement deals. Why are you treating the college kids differently than you are treating the coaches if it is all about the money?

I am going to come down more and talk. I didn't intend to do that today. I would like to move to a separate place in the record and talk about why, with urgency, I came down here. But as a guy who played ball, I can't let this go without putting as much as I can on the Record. I was planning on coming down here, and I will. I will read sections of the bill and talk about why

they are so outrageous, but let me get on with my remarks, separating them in the Record.

Here we go.

Artificial Intelligence

Mr. President, article II, section 3 of the Constitution gives the President power, on ``extraordinary occasions,'' to convene both Houses of Congress. The last time a President used that power was Harry Truman in 1948--78 years ago.

We find ourselves in such an extraordinary moment. We find ourselves in a moment that demands this kind of action. The safety of artificial intelligence systems demands urgent attention. The President should immediately convene Congress to address it. This is not a moment for panic or despair; it is a moment for government to govern, to protect the American people, and to prepare soberly for risks before they become crises.

Presidents have invoked this authority at moments when the stakes were extraordinarily high--from the earliest days of the Republic through periods of war, economic crisis, and national emergency. That is the purpose of this power that is spelled out in the Constitution: to bring Congress together when circumstances demand it and to give the country the full attention of its elected government.

Congress will soon leave Washington for 2 months. Artificial intelligence will not recess. The technology will continue to advance, the risks will continue to evolve, and the consequences of getting this wrong will not wait for Congress to return. This should stand above petty partisanship. It should be about one thing--putting the safety and security of the American people first.

I want to focus on three challenges, the three challenges before us now.

First, we must protect against potentially catastrophic harms.

Serious people, including the researchers and leaders inside the companies developing the most advanced AI, are warning about dangerous biological or cyber capabilities and the emergence of systems that behave in ways humans cannot reliably predict or control.

We do not know whether the most catastrophic scenarios will ever occur, but when credible experts warn of consequences, this grave, responsible government does not panic, but it does not dismiss them either; it goes to work.

Second, we must confront the harms happening right now.

Americans are already encountering AI through increasingly sophisticated scams targeting seniors and families, mass surveillance, threats to privacy, disruption in the workplace, and systems that can affect the prices people pay. The future risks of AI demand our attention, but so do the people being harmed by it today.

Third and final, we must seize the extraordinary possibilities this technology offers.

AI could help scientists discover lifesaving drugs, detect diseases earlier, accelerate scientific breakthroughs, transform education, increase the productivity of American workers, help small businesses compete, and give millions of people access to capabilities that were once available only to those with wealth and power, but none of these positive outcomes are possible without action by the government to make sure AI is safe, trusted by people, and that its benefits are broadly shared.

AI cannot become another chapter in an old story where extraordinary new technologies create extraordinary new wealth and power for a small number of people while working Americans are asked to absorb the disruption, bear the costs, and wait patiently for the benefits to reach them.

I have been calling for safety interventions for years. In July 2023, I wrote to the White House about the future of AI and what we should do as a country to prepare for it. It was clear to me then that we were seeing the early sparks of a technology that could have profound effects on our society, our economy, and our security.

Back then, I advocated for rigorous predeployment testing of advanced models, independent evaluations and audits, incident reporting and investigation, supply chain security, international coordination, and the need for a careful and disciplined approach to the pace of AI development.

I think, in addition, which I talked about, we should establish whistleblower protections for lab employees, strengthen requirements for securing frontier model weights, establish a National Transportation Safety Board-like entity for investigating AI incidents, prepare for the potential emergence of AI systems capable of autonomously improving themselves, preserve States' ability to protect their own people in the absence of meaningful Federal standards, reject antitrust exemptions that hurt customers and competition, and, yes, put the brakes on the development of capabilities whose risks outrun our ability to manage them.

Look, Americans feel beat down right now--forgotten--and that feeling is justified. Prices are up for rent, food, utilities. Hiring is flat. We have a government that moves too slowly to deliver what people need and corruption that moves too fast to protect the people. And now Americans are seeing multitrillion-dollar firms building technology that they say will exceed humans at all cognitive and physical tasks. Their anxiety is warranted, and it cannot be set aside. It cannot be dismissed like Donald Trump is doing in calling it a hoax. Americans are demanding that we act. They are demanding leadership. And we must deliver.

We have a rare convergence of early warning signs, practical options that are available, and a growing consensus for action, including among the American people, who understand what is at stake and are rightfully demanding that policymakers stand up.

In my letter to the White House more than 3 years ago, I closed by emphasizing the importance of human agency, our collective responsibility to decide what role this technology should play in our lives rather than letting the technology or its developers decide for us. That profound responsibility remains ours today.

I will always be a prisoner of hope. I will never let despair have the last word. I know how technology can lift people up. I have lived it. My dad came from humble beginnings and became one of IBM's top salesmen. But we will only unlock the promise of this technology if it is done in a democratic fashion wherein the people decide, not tech billionaires or trillionaires and not Donald Trump.

And it is ridiculous that the House of Representatives decided to pack up and leave town. Again, AI will not recess.

These issues demand our urgent attention. It is time for a special session of Congress. The time is now.

Vote on Motion

Mr. President, I want to speak forcefully against the Protect College Sports Act. There are a handful of us--like my colleagues--who played college sports. I was a high school all-American Player of the Year for my State, on the same USA TODAY All-America team with people like Emmitt Smith, and got a full scholarship.

In so many ways, like my colleagues, I am here, afforded opportunities I probably would never have had if it weren't for college athletics.

But while a college student and a player, I saw how unjust the NCAA is. It is a serial monopolist, controlling an industry over $15 billion strong and rapidly growing.

And the NCAA has a long record of ignoring the cries for justice from exploited college athletes. The NCAA protects its members, it protects the colleges, and it has repeatedly put college athletes in horrible positions.

For generations, billions of dollars were being made that were given to coaches, ADs. Everybody was making money, but college athletes weren't. It wasn't until college athletes were able to begin to win cases in court that States, seeing the injustices, began to change the law. That started to shift the power table. And now the NCAA is coming here to the U.S. Senate, asking for sweeping powers that exempt our antitrust laws.

Well, my concerns I have grown to have over the years are not addressed in this bill. This bill does not do enough to protect college athletes' health and safety and well-being. And as a result of that, the number of groups opposed to it is almost too long to read.

I am going to submit for the Record a full list, but let me just read some of them: every College Athletes Players Association; the College Football Players Association; the United College Athletes Association; all the associations of college sports; all of our major unions, the AFL-CIO, the United Steelworkers; all of our major civil rights organizations, the NAACP, the Urban League; all of our major legal think tanks that protect the health, well-being, and justice like the Center for Law and Policy. I could go on and on about those people who object to this

bill because it is not protecting athletes.

And think about this: It is doing all kinds of things to stop players from earning money--putting bureaucracy between them and the possibilities--but it does nothing to affect coaches.

So, in other words, it is treating college athletes as a different class. Meanwhile, coaches' salaries--often, in most States, the highest paid people in their State governments are the basketball or the football coaches--their salaries continue to skyrocket, with close to 15 coaches right now having almost a quarter-of-a-billion-dollar buyout for their contracts.

This is an unjust bill, and I want to deal very quickly with some of the top lines.

First and foremost, we have a bill that doesn't solve the problems it claims to solve. It says it is going to fix a system that is broken. Well, the NCAA conferences and schools continue to lose major court cases.

This bill is going to take away the power of athletes to be able to sue for their rights. It says in this bill that, oh, we are preserving an individual right of action for individual athletes. Well, let me tell you right now, any lawyer worth their salt will tell you that somebody competing for the starting pitcher spot on a softball team is not going to sue their college in hopes they are going to get justice if they are facing sexual assault or if they have been forced to play through an injury or if there has been a breaking of any of the rules around the NCAA that purports to support our students. It is creating a cartel for them, a monopoly for them, and inadequate protections for college athletes and undermining their ability--should they even choose to sue, undermining their ability to have a fair day in court.

It is not protecting the spending problem. Schools increasingly claim that athlete compensation has created unprecedented financial pressure at the same time that football coaches and basketball coaches continue to see higher and higher salaries. This bill responds by placing federally imposed ceilings on athlete compensation while leaving every other major expense free to continue to increase. How much schools are spending on their facilities, paying their ADs, paying their coaches and assistant coaches--all of those prices continue to go up, but it is the college athletes that are going to be facing the caps.

We see protections for women's and Olympic sports, which I agree on. They are in this bill. But those protections expire while the antitrust protections do not. You go to section 125 of the bill. It has protections for those roster sports and grant and aid opportunities in those sports, but those protections expire after 4 or 9 years. It is a lie to say that this bill is protecting Olympic sports because it is not. It only does so for a handful of years.

Permanent antitrust exemption, temporary protection for college athletes competing in Olympic sports. Why would we do that? Why would we do that? We should give not permanent exemption if we are not doing it in other parts of the bill, and even that is questionable.

The NCAA's record over decades does not justify giving it more control. We are giving them more authority over a group of Americans, and yet we are not asking for the right things in return--protections for athletes, their health, their well-being, their safety, equality for others involved in the sport.

The bill claims to codify into law athletes' ability to benefit from NIL. Athletes already enjoy this right. They fought decades for it. The bill just puts new redtape there.

The bill includes protections for athletes' health and safety and education. Yes, but do you know what? Without a meaningful enforcement mechanism, these protections are basically suggestions.

This bill relies exclusively on that private right of action in section 119, placing the burden on young athletes and young athletes alone to enforce anything within this bill.

They claim that schools and conferences and NCAA coaches support the Protect College Sports Act. Of course they support it--they are getting all of the financial gain and putting all of the burden and compromises and givebacks to college athletes, including their ability to win in court.

Oh, and there is a cynical part of this. They say they are going to help historically Black colleges and universities. I want everyone like me who has been fighting for HBCUs, who supports HBCUs, to understand the cynicism in this bill. This bill authorizes money. It authorizes money. It does not appropriate one single dollar. What you get is a promise for future funds, but we know that time and time again, Congress authorizes funding and that funding is never delivered.

This bill includes provisions of the SAFE Act, which I supported. Well, this leaves out a critical distinction between the SAFE Act and athletes' protections with meaningful enforcement. The SAFE Act included the State attorneys general being able to enforce it; this bill does not. The SAFE Act didn't give the NCAA and conferences sweeping new antitrust shields; this bill does. So, yes, there are some provisions from my earlier work in this bill, but they are toothless because of the lack of enforcement power.

This is a growing grassroots effort, I hear, to support this bill. Well, I am seeing millions of dollars' worth of commercials being funded by all the financial interests behind this bill, but who is protecting college athletes?

I will give an example, and I will end with this because I know time is short. I want to make sure, though, that I can enter for the Record--I am going to ask the President--I would like to enter into the Record some letters.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from college athletes organizations; this letter from civil rights organizations and former attorneys general; and this letter from college athletes safety organizations, college athletes sexual abuse survivor organizations, and families of college athletes who died following athletic activities--all speaking to the urgency to stop this bill.

Mr. President, I want to end with this. I gave an example of the lies that the NCAA tells--that they are about the protection of student-athletes first. The example I gave was a change the NFL did, which all of us who are football fans know about, when they said: You know what, we are going to change the kickoff rules.

Why did they change the kickoff rules? Well, I know from my personal experience of screaming down a field trying to break UCLA's wedge; I learned this from rushing down the field to try to tackle people, playing against USC; I learned this in playing Notre Dame--that one of the most dangerous things you could do is get a full head of steam and run down on a kickoff.

Well, they changed the kickoff rules to protect NFL athletes, and it has worked. There are less injuries in this area. It is working. Is there a peep from the NCAA? Don't you think that college sports should have more protective policies than the pros? Well, no. The pros--it is a business. We all know that. They invest millions of dollars in these employees of theirs, and they are taking actions to protect their players that the NCAA isn't.

The NCAA is an economic group of actors who seek to maximize profit. Look at their decades-long history. It is not about player protection. How do I know that? There are no enforceable standards for sexual assault. There are no enforceable standards for heatstroke. We have cases right now of brain injuries. I have friends of mine still paying for the medical costs for injuries they incurred putting thousands of people into seats.

When it comes to academic graduation rates, when it comes to all the things they tell people they are concerned with, the evidence speaks that that is not their No. 1 concern. And this body wants to give them sweeping antitrust power permanently, in perpetuity, forever, with no accountability. No accountability to Congress. Limited accountability in the courts. No accountability to the girls and boys, the young student-athletes, the college players who bring this country together, who give us some of our greatest life experiences.

This is unfair. This is unjust. This is wrong. Hundreds of organizations that represent student-athletes, that represent ideals of justice, that represent ideals of economic justice--heck, you even have somebody like Brett Kavanaugh--excuse me--you have even somebody like Gorsuch saying things like: It is a business model--this is the NCAA-- that would be flatly illegal in any other industry in America.

Yet we are moving rocket-speed when most of the Members haven't even gotten the final bill yet. They literally haven't put the bill in most of the offices here, and we are rushing to move on to it right now without reading the bill, without discussing it, without having hearings that have college athletes that have justifiable experiences, survivors of sexual assault, parents whose children have died, people that have court cases against the NCAA right now.

The NCAA knows it is going to save them from millions of dollars of liability. That is why they are spending so much money to pass this bill. It is not about the safety, it is not about the well-being, it is not about the education of college athletes. This is a money play, plain and simple.

Read the bill. Talk to college athletes. If we pass this bill, it is a shame.

After years and years of trying, college athletes finally have gained some leverage over the NCAA. No, they can't win in court, so the NCAA runs here.

I ask my colleagues not to move to this bill. Definitely do not move it if you have not read it, if your staff hasn't gotten the final copy yet. I ask my colleagues to vote no.

I yield the floor.

I am grateful for your recognition, Mr. President.

And I am going to try to get this order right. This is legislative session. I am going to give some remarks and then ask for a unanimous consent on a bill.

But I really want to, first, talk about something really challenging, tragic, that happened in the State of New Jersey. Edwin Lopez-Cornejo died. He is dead, and it is a death that did not have to be.

He was detained by ICE on June 18. He was sent to Delaney Hall in my home city, in Newark, NJ--it is a detention center--and he never came out alive.

Mr. President, 20 years--20 years--Edwin lived in the United States of America, 20 years of building a life here, 20 years of being connected to people and community, 20 years of making here in America a way forward. And yet, in less than 2 months of detention, the immigration system in our country led to his death.

And in Delaney Hall, he is the third person in 9 months to die; the 23rd person to die in ICE custody this year--not the first warning sign, not the second, this is the third death at the same facility and yet nothing changes.

Let me tell you exactly how Edwin Lopez-Cornejo died because his family deserves to have his name said on the Senate floor and his story told plainly.

Edwin had diabetes. He had high blood pressure. He needed his medication to survive, and Delaney Hall denied it to him. The day before he died, he told his mother that his arm had gone numb, half his face had gone numb. And understand, this is not a minor complaint. This was a man that was having a medical emergency, telling someone exactly what was happening to his body.

Did anyone come to his aid? No. Did he get his medication? No. Less than 24 hours, he was dead.

Doctors have warned us, attorneys have warned us in New Jersey, families have warned us, a chorus of people in our communities--not politicians, not political activists--doctors, lawyers have been warning us, detainees who walked out of that building, with their testimony and the facts and the evidence, people have said over and over again that this facility is dangerous. It is not well run, and within it is a pattern of disregard for human decency.

DHS has known that Delaney Hall is nothing short of a travesty since they reopened it over a year ago. So who runs what is, for so many, a house of horrors? Who runs the institution that I saw myself when I went there and met people? This is not for serious criminals. This is not a place for folks who have done serious crimes in our country. This is a detention facility for people, many of them have been in our country for decades, many of them have American spouses, American children.

And when I went there, I saw mothers who were recently postpartum who were not getting the support. I saw a woman who lost her child while in that detention facility, had a miscarriage there, did not get the support that she needed. Story after story, people told me what is going on there, the horrors that are going on there.

And who runs it? The U.S. Government does not run that center. It is a private group called the GEO Group, a private for-profit prison that has high-level Republican officials among its former employees. This group won a billion-dollar contract: no competition, no bidding, lots of campaign contributions, a phone call, a signature, and they have a billion dollars of taxpayer money.

New Jersey had to sue this company just to get health inspectors through the front door of a facility operating on American soil, funded by American taxpayers, and our State couldn't even do basic health inspections.

They did not get--they did not get--the permits to open that place. They did not have inspections before they did so. This is a private company taking a billion dollars of American taxpayer money. The less they provide sanitary services, the less they provide doctors and medical professionals, the more profit they make off of taxpayers. At whose expense? At the decency of American people and at the expense of the lives of the people who are there.

We give them hundreds of millions of dollars. And what are the reports out of Delaney Hall? Spoiled food, contaminated water, staff who retaliate against people brave enough to speak up about the conditions. A billion dollars in inadequate accountability. A billion dollars in inadequate healthcare. A billion dollars and a man whose face is numb, whose arm is numb, who is asking for help--does not get treatment, does not get healthcare.

So, here is the truth. It is clear for the GEO Group that part of their business model is this cruelty: cut medical staff, skimp on food, let the air-conditioning go out during the hottest days in New Jersey, let the roof leak, cram more bodies into less space. Every corner cut is a dollar of their profit. Every dollar of their profit is a dollar that the GEO Group's executives get to celebrate on their next earnings call.

GEO Group's stock has more than doubled since February of 2026--more than doubled. You know why? Well, follow the money.

Three million dollars from the GEO Group and its executives went into Donald Trump's campaign, into his PAC, into his inauguration. It is a pay-to-play that is worse than that. A pay-to-play and people get hurt. Lives are lost.

Over $2 billion in Federal contracts to run facilities like Delaney Hall in our country. This is not immigration policy. This is not what we stand for. No one loses their humanity because they are incarcerated. No one should lose their basic rights because they are behind bars.

Look, I am all for what this administration promised it would do. They said they would go after the ``worst of the worst.'' They said they would go after

the people threatening our communities, menacing our families. We should all be supportive of that.

I believe we should have strong borders. I believe we should get criminals off of our streets. But the people actually locked up in that building in Delaney Hall? We know that more than 70 percent of the people have never been convicted of a single crime.

I met a high school student who had more of a Jersey accent than I do, who just wanted to walk with his class--rounded up. I have had the Catholic church reach out to me because of the sweeps they are doing around schools and churches. I have had family members beg me to get folks out in order to see their American children hit milestones like birthdays and graduations. I have been appealed to by everyone from priests to Republicans in our community. Many are following our laws.

But we in the U.S. Senate, Congress, hold the purse strings the administration depends on. We should be a check and a balance. We should demand that our taxpayer dollars are being used.

And when we see a body count climbing that is not normal, when we see more and more deaths, when we see a mother's son whose face went numb the night before, we should be asking for action and accountability.

Edwin Lopez-Cornejo's death was not a tragedy. A tragedy is something that no one could have prevented. This is a choice. Every single day the DHS keeps Delaney Hall open is another choice to let this happen, three times already. We should not make this choice.

Mr. President, I am now asking for a unanimous consent to pass the Delaney Hall Closure Act, which would close Delaney Hall within 90 days. They are out of excuses. We are out of time. How many more people should die?

So as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to immediate consideration of my bill at the desk; that the bill be considered read three times and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I appreciate the good-faith words of my colleague, and I will take it to heart that he is against unnecessary deaths and that the GEO Group should be investigated thoroughly and be held accountable. I do want to make followup points.

First of all, I live in North New Jersey. I used to run the police department as its mayor. There is nobody who feels more urgency for public safety in my city than I do. I hired many law enforcement officers and worked well with ICE, worked well with the FBI and with the DOJ--with all of the Federal law enforcement officers--in a coordinated effort to protect my community.

This idea that Democrats want to defund ICE is wrong. I actually believe we need law enforcement in our communities to keep us safe. But I want to make sure we do it in a way that comports with our values and our decency.

Let's be clear. There is no law enforcement agency in America that has more money than ICE has right now. As to this idea that the Democrats have done anything to defund it right

now, ICE has more than the FBI, more than the ATF, and more than the Coast Guard combined. It is the most well-funded Agency there is. So the idea that they cannot provide for the basic needs of people who are in their facilities is a lie. This is not a money problem. ICE has all the money they need, and they are showing an inability to keep their inmates alive.

Now, I like my colleague's metaphor that if a bridge is broken, you close the bridge. I know this because, again, I was a mayor. If people are falling through holes on a bridge, we close the bridge. Do the inspections, but don't leave people in a hellscape where people continue to die in that facility. Keeping that open is irresponsible. ICE has enough money to transfer to other facilities the people who are a real threat. ICE has enough money to run around my State and overspend for real estate, as they have done in one of my towns. They are throwing cash around in a way that should offend Republicans and anybody who is fiscally prudent, but we are not holding the people accountable.

Yes, if something is broken, you stop using it. If people are dying because of a defect in a car, you don't use it. If people are falling through holes on a bridge, you close it. We have a responsibility to taxpayers' money, and we have shoveled this Agency more money than any law enforcement agency there is, and then we are not doing what is necessary to hold these people, like the GEO Group, accountable.

I will continue to stand for law enforcement. One of the reasons I got elected by my State is that we drove crime down in the city of Newark. Everybody saw it. Investment came back, and the population came back. I believe in creating safety in my community. This is not about the accusations that somehow, Democrats don't believe we should have strong law enforcement. If anybody believes in that, I know my record here in the Senate speaks to that.

How can we stand here and allow this from a facility in which multiple people have died in the most gruesome ways? How can we allow this from an organization that is supposed to be providing healthcare but is denying it? How can we allow this in accordance with our own values? Enough is enough.

Delaney Hall is a nightmare. I did not come to the floor to talk about closing facilities all over the country; I am talking about one facility with a record of people dying unnecessarily, with a record of people being denied medical care, with a record of people being denied healthy food--one facility that is failing. For this body to keep it open while waiting for something to change while more people are suffering and may die is irresponsible beyond compare.

I believe there is common ground on both sides of the aisle where we can achieve the highest levels of safety and also ensure that within our incarcerating facilities, people are treated with dignity. I have worked across the aisle with Senator Lindsey Graham, with Senator Chuck Grassley, and with Senator Mike Lee to improve conditions in the Bureau of Prisons. I hope that when it comes to ICE facilities and this private, for-profit company where people are dying that we can find some common ground to stop this nightmare from happening.