Floor Statements

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I stand in agreement with my colleague. Mr. Oswaldo Paya is an extraordinary hero, not just to the Cuban people but to millions of Americans, including millions of New Jerseyans and especially to the Cuban American community in my State. He is a freedom fighter who stands for our most treasured and sacrosanct ideals.

I want to work with my colleague to find a way to honor him. I would be willing to partner with him in doing something to elevate this cause and this principle and the noble ideals that my colleague speaks to.

The challenge right now is that we are in different times. This bill would permit Congress to rename a DC-owned intersection, but the District of Columbia has the right to self-governance.

When I was mayor of the city of Newark, if my State came in against my objections to rename streets in my city, I would have objected. The people of the District of Columbia have the right to control their own local affairs. Their rights are enshrined in home rule. It is critical that we reject attempts that infringe upon those rights.

The locally elected DC Council alone has the right to rename DC streets. And there is no dispute that the intersection in question is DC owned. Since the beginning of home rule, the council has opposed congressional efforts to rename its streets. Recently, Representative Holmes Norton strongly has made her views known that she opposes this bill on those grounds.

Washington, DC, has no representation in this body. We must respect the wishes of the locally and democratically elected council and DC representatives in Congress. Indeed, these democratic ideals are what we are talking about right now.

This objection is not about recognizing the courageous work of Oswaldo Paya. I will tell you, I have a deep reverence and respect and I will offer again that I will do anything I can to support the elevation of this hero, of this democratic light. Mr. Paya bravely fought for freedom and democracy in Cuba. He was killed due to his heroic work.

I hope, perhaps, our Congress can appropriate resources to do something to honor this noble man and his ideals. I hope we can think constructively about what else we can do. His work should be recognized more by our Nation. And I would support the DC Council, their elected representatives, if it decided, through their democratic process, to work with the Senator and the Democratic sponsor to rename the street.

My objection is simply right now about Washington, DC's right to control their own local affairs. This objection is about home rule and self-governance. It is true, as my colleague said, this has passed through this Chamber multiple times. But you would understand, DC is pushing for us not to do it this time because the current administration in the White House has stepped up their efforts to undermine home rule. It is looking to DC as a testing ground for extreme policies.

The fact that DC has been deprived of statehood makes the people of the District feel even more vulnerable under this President to the policies of the administration. They are asserting an even stronger way with me and others who feel a fidelity to the home rule ideals, that we should take a stand now. We cannot make DC and its residents more vulnerable still by further eroding and encroaching upon the District of Columbia's right to self-governance. That is a sacrosanct ideal that our country has stood for.

``No taxation without representation,'' the ability to elect your governing officials and entrust upon them to make decisions for your community.

It is under these principles and ideals, Mr. President, that I object. And it is with a sincere heart that I offer my colleague the willingness to work with him on other ways we might be able to bestow an honor on this extraordinary hero.

To the esteemed Presiding Officer, I am going to reserve the right to object.

I am really grateful that this is one of the areas where we have a lot of bipartisan support because this body I would say unanimously believes that we have to do more to help local law enforcement.

I see it in my State. We have real challenges--challenges with recruitment, challenges with officers who are in incredibly stressful situations for their mental health, and even empowering officers to be able to do their job, which is a job that everyone wants our officers to do.

I say this all the time: If you polled my city, which is a majority minority city, a majority African-American city, and asked them ``Hey, do you want more police, less police, or the same amount of police?'' undeniably, they would want more law enforcement.

When I talk to the law enforcement officers in not just my city but up and down the State, they want more resources. That is why I have multiple bills to actually fund our police departments around our country and specifically in New Jersey to empower them on everything from closing out murder investigations all the way to mental health.

In fact, the legislation that is being brought forward--it is right, it is bipartisan legislation. I am the cosponsor of some of the bills we have right now on the floor. We should be united in this body, all 100 of us, to stand up for public safety and to fund our police, get them the resources and the equipment they need to do their job.

Unfortunately, that is not what is happening. President Trump, through an arbitrary Executive order, has told this body: Your intentions will not be followed.

The legislation that is being proposed today--the President has already said that those DOJ grants will not go to certain States-- Illinois, California, New York, New Jersey--that they are not eligible for these grant programs. That is not a bipartisan way of going about it. That is singling out certain States over other States. That is actually defunding the police departments in certain States for other States when you say that these States that have gotten many of these grants in years past can no longer get them. None of us in this body should support that. All of us in this body should join together and say: When Congress passes a grant program, the President of the United States cannot arbitrarily decide which States receive those grants and which States don't.

I feel a driving sense of urgency that we must support our police officers. They are facing greater and newer challenges in this country. I feel a deep urgency to support mental health issues in particular because I lost one of my dear childhood friends, who died by suicide in uniform.

I want to make a simple adjustment to this legislation--very simple. What it would do is basically say that when this body has approved these grant programs, the President can't undermine the Founders' intention that we hold the purse strings, that the President can't undermine that and these grants have to go out as Congress intended them.

That is all I am asking from my colleague across the aisle, and it is all I am asking from this body, is that we, together, say: We need to get resources for police officers in all of our country. We shouldn't be picking out some departments and not others.

This is just simply making sure that this is a bipartisan effort to fund local police officers.

So I ask my colleagues to pass these bills as I amend them so that we can refocus on the urgent work of reopening the government and then providing all law enforcement agencies with the resources they need, ensuring every law enforcement agency has a fair opportunity to secure funding to support their work, to support the men and women, to support their sacred and noble duties. We should work in a bipartisan way.

So I ask that the consent be modified such that my amendments to S. 180, S. 419, S. 539, S. 1316, and S. 1563, which are at the desk, also be agreed to, with all the other provisions that my colleague is asking for remaining intact, so that we can fund all of police and stop our President's attempt to defund police departments in blue States.

Yeah, I just--again, I have so much respect for my colleague that I want to respond to some of the things he said, because, again, I just want to affirm that he is right on the urgency to help our police officers. He is right that States should abide by Federal law that passes from this body. But what we have now is a President who, in his first term, didn't ever try something like this, which is undermining the will of Congress. This is really unprecedented. It has never happened--Republican President, Democratic President--including Donald Trump's first term, where he suddenly said: I am going to turn off the spigot of support to local law enforcement agencies because I don't agree with your policies.

I think that is a threat to the independence of our branch of government. I think that is in so many ways violative of our shared values on both sides of the aisle. But let me go further than that. What the President is doing is saying: Not only am I going to stop funding from going to the State of New Jersey, I am going to go to red counties in New Jersey, red counties in California.

I actually went out and talked to people. Republican legislators in States, Republican police officers, a Republican union leader told me this as well: This is ridiculous. This is insane that we would hold grants back from the entire State. He said: I don't agree with Democrats' policies, but we are out here putting our lives on the line, and Republicans in Congress want to stop resources coming to our police departments.

One of the union leaders said to me: My guys are out there sacrificing their lives, and we can't get help that both sides of the aisle agree on?

So, yes, my colleague and I disagree on domestic immigration policies. One thing he and I don't agree on--because I was the mayor of a city that basically said: In order to keep my city safe, we are going to cooperate with the police department. It was an overbroad generalization that was made on the Senate floor that we are not supporting ICE and immigration activities. I know this up and down the State of New Jersey. Not only do we support them, but we detailed officers with Federal immigration enforcement. I did it when I was mayor.

You want to talk about cooperation. Anybody who knows local government from the FBI to the ATF to ICE, all over New Jersey, we are cooperating with Federal authorities. What we have simply said is we are responsible for local law enforcement. We are not going to do things that create such fear in our communities that immigrant communities are afraid to come to local police to report crimes. And that somehow--not in Trump's first term--but somehow in this term of office, that is a bridge too far.

Let me tell you right now, the way immigration is being pursued in our neighborhoods, where masked agents are coming out of unmarked cars or going to court appearances and schools and hospitals--my local police officers are telling me how much more dangerous this administration is making communities because people who are the victims of crime now are afraid to go to local police officers and report those crimes.

Again, this is not coming from politicians in New Jersey. This is coming from law enforcement officers that have said that we have created such a climate of fear in our country that just solving crimes is getting harder and harder because people are afraid to come to the police.

So, yes, we have policies that say there are certain things we won't do to maintain a community of trust within our communities.

I understand there is a lot of rhetoric. I could turn on shock news and all of that, but when you talk to the law enforcement officers in many of the most Republican parts of my community, they are outraged about what is happening right now.

Again, we can debate policy on immigration, but, to me, for a Senator to allow a President to undermine the power of the purse relegated by the Constitution to this body is outrageous. It has never been done before, not in Trump's first term, not by Bush, not by Reagan, not by Clinton, not by Obama. We are in new territory here in our country where we see a President encroaching upon our powers. I can't be complicit in that.

Everybody in this body--I would never question any of my colleagues on either side of the aisle. We all want our local police departments to not only be able to do their job, we all want to have more equipment and resources. That is why these bills are bipartisan. How can we allow bipartisan bills passed out of the Senate to then be stopped, in a partisan way, by a President who is then going to choose red States and hurt blue States, even though my State has millions of Republicans who deserve to have their communities safe as well?

I am standing today just to say, let's use common sense and help our police officers together; get the resources desperately needed out to our communities now and not let this fall victim to something that wasn't even an issue in Donald Trump's first term.

So I object. I object. I object.

Mr. President, New Jersey is home to one of our Nation's most vibrant Greek Orthodox communities. For generations, it has nurtured a community rooted in faith and service--values that continue to strengthen the fabric of not just our shared home but of American society.

This month, our Nation's Capital welcomed His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, the spiritual leader of over 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide. His visit to the United States--where he has met with congressional leaders and the President of the United States--is a reminder of our shared efforts and responsibility to pursue peace and justice, religious tolerance and coexistence, and environmental stewardship in all we do.

His historic visit serves as a profound moment of unity, reflection, and joy for Greek Orthodox New Jerseyans and Americans of all faiths across the country. We deeply respect and appreciate his decades of moral leadership and unwavering commitment to the dignity of all humanity.

Reserving the right to object.

I am reserving the right to object.

I want to begin by acknowledging the tragic loss of New York City Police Officer Didarul Islam last night, just about 50 miles from where I live. He made the ultimate sacrifice, bravely placing himself in harm's way to protect strangers, people he didn't know, because that is what American police officers do. This selfless commitment is a daily reminder. It is a reminder of the reality for police officers in America who risk their lives to safeguard communities. My deepest condolences go out to his family and his young children during this time of unimaginable grief.

I rise today to propose an amendment to the bills before us, one that guarantees every officer in every State like Officer Islam has the full support they deserve in their service to our communities from this body.

Sadly, this is not what the Justice Department is doing. Rather than supporting law enforcement agencies and officers equally across the Nation, they are weaponizing public safety grants to punish State and local jurisdictions that resist the Trump policy agenda, including my home State of New Jersey.

The Department of Justice is right now withholding funds from law enforcement agencies across the country--including New Jersey--that we have passed through this body in a bipartisan way unless they enforce the administration's unjust immigration agenda and comply with the President's unjust and unlawful Executive orders and memoranda. It is disgraceful, it is unfair, it is unjust, and it is dangerously reckless towards the officers whose well-being they are jeopardizing--officers like the ones I know personally who serve and protect New Jersey.

Come on now. Federal funds should not be used for partisan political games. They shouldn't be weaponized to benefit this State that supported the President and not this State that didn't support the President. This is the shift towards authoritarianism. It is undermining the separation of powers we have here in America.

This body has duly-approved grants. It is our job. It is spelled out in the Constitution that each of us has sworn an oath to protect. And this President is upending that process, violating the

will of this body, Democrats and Republicans alike, in pursuit of his petty political agenda. And who is getting hurt? Well, in this case, New Jersey police officers are being hurt; New York police officers are getting hurt. In the wake of a murder of a police officer in New York yesterday, this is outrageous.

Public safety grants like these that I am a cosponsor of are not meant to reward law enforcement in favored jurisdictions or States while punishing others. It shouldn't matter whether a person puts on his uniform in Texas or New Jersey. Does it matter that Officer Islam, who was killed last night in New York City--does it matter that he is a New York cop and not a North Dakota cop? Sadly, it appears that Donald Trump thinks so.

For us as a body, to move forward right now is being complicit in what Donald Trump is doing. I say no. I say we stand. I say we fight. I say that we reject this and, in a bipartisan way, that we demand an end to this kind of constitutionally unjust carving up of the resources we approve.

Think about this: In April, Donald Trump's administration cut nearly 400 public safety grants administered by its Office of Justice Programs without any notice or explanation. Think about that for a second. Programs that I supported, programs that I cosponsored, programs that protect police officers and communities, he canceled without a justification.

I have written letters to the Justice Department. They have not given a justification. I have asked in open hearings: Why did you cut this funding for approved grants to States like New Jersey? No justification. I sent a letter to the DOJ signed by 30 of my colleagues demanding information about what happened and that they reinstate all grants that had been rescinded, and no action and no response. Yet, today, we want to move forward with needed grant programs to protect police officers, but that money won't go to New York; that money won't go to New Jersey. You have got to be kidding me.

When will we stand and fight this President?

This offers little consolation. Today, nobody is speaking to the organizations in New Jersey, to the police officers in New Jersey that partner with law enforcement but now lack the resources to endure a burdensome appeal or to operate without critical grants or funding now for months.

When are we going to stand up as a body and defend our work, defend our jurisdiction, defend this coequal branch of government?

I ask my colleagues to pass these bills with my amendment to provide resources to law enforcement agencies with this important provision that safeguards these grants from politicization and ensures that all law enforcement agencies have a fair chance to secure these important grants.

Our officers have the hardest job in America. Every day, they put their lives on the line. Why would we do something today that is playing into the President's politics and is going to hurt the officers in States like mine?

I believe in these bills. I am a cosponsor on some. That is why I am standing here to fight to ensure police departments in New Jersey aren't excluded from accessing these vital funds. Our officers have just as much of a right as officers in other States. So do officers in California, in New York, in Illinois, in Washington, and in other States that have been the target of this Department of Justice.

I am an American. I pledge allegiance to that flag--liberty and justice for all. Pass my amendment and make sure that all officers in America who put their lives on the line have access to these grants.

I ask consent that the bill be modified, that my amendments to S. 180, S. 419, S. 539, S. 1316, and S. 1563, which are at the desk, also be agreed to, and the bills, as amended, if amended, be considered read a third time and passed en bloc so that all police officers in America get the intended resources that the Judiciary Committee passed unanimously for American police.

Reserving the right to object, I am confused by my colleague because she knows I don't object to her two bills. She is going to be offering her two bills in a second. I don't know what the confusion is there.

I object to the bills that are putting resources out that States from California to New York are not eligible for because of the actions of this President.

The second thing my colleague confuses me is saying I had my chance. Actually, I didn't. The regularly scheduled Judiciary Committee hearing wrapped up, and then a hastily one was put back together. I had no notice of that, no ability to plan for it, and had a conflict.

This, to me, is the problem with Democrats in America right now, is we are willing to be complicit to Donald

Trump; to let this pass through when we have all the leverage right now there is to say that if you are as passionate about police as we are, then pass bills out of this body that will help the police officers in Washington, that will help the police officers in Illinois, that will help the police officers in New Jersey, that will help the police officers in Newark.

Don't be complicit to the President of the United States who, we both know, doesn't understand that language: ``Oh please, oh please, don't hurt blue States.''

We are standing at a moment where our President is eviscerating the Constitution of the United States of America, and we are willing to go along with that today.

No, no. Not on my watch. I stand against this. It is a violation of our Constitution for the President of the United States to ignore the will of Congress and decide which States are eligible to grants and which are not.

Well, we know something in New York and New Jersey. I was a Newark elected official when 9/11 happened. I saw my first responders charging into those buildings. I know what police officers do every day.

My amendment was just called a poison pill. That is ridiculous. My amendment just says police officers in New Jersey are just as important as the police officers in North or South Dakota. It says the police officers in New York are just as important as the police officers in Texas. It says the police officers in California are just as important as the police officers in Alabama.

Why would we go along with a President who is violating our Constitution time and time again? When in the history of this body-- Democrats and Republicans used to stand up for their turf. These could easily pass. Put a simple amendment that says: You know what? You can play games however you want, President Trump, but when it comes to resources for police officers, no games.

Today, I stand and fight for the Constitution. I stand and fight against this President. And, heck, yeah, I am going to stand and fight for the police officers from the great State of New Jersey. I object.

Mr. President, I was just called out by name, and I want to respond.

This is what frustrates me. I have passed numerous pieces of legislation for our police officers. I partnered with Chuck Grassley-- the incredible Senator from Iowa--on a bill very similar to the one I support about police officers who fall in the line of duty. In this case, it was COVID. Police officers who got COVID and died had difficulty proving it was a line-of-duty death. We passed that legislation to make sure those families got the benefits.

I have worked in bipartisan ways and within my own party to make sure we get resources to our police officers. I don't need lectures about the urgency of this. One of my childhood best friends--a police officer in a small town in New Jersey--after a hard day's work, before he even went home to see his family, died by suicide. I don't need somebody implying in any way that this is not vital to me and my State that we have resources for our police officers. That is why I support this package. That is why I am a cosponsor of some of the bills in this package.

But what I am tired of is when the President of the United States of America violates the constitution and trashes our norms and traditions. And what does the Democratic Party do--comply? allow him? beg for scraps? No. I demand justice. Somebody is implying that this, to me, is not about resources for my State. I will fight for Jersey every day, every night and when it comes to the police officers of my State as to anybody who implies that something is going on other than my allegiance and fealty to the safety, strength, and protection of my police officers because they protect me and everybody in this body.

This is a call, folks. The Democratic Party needs a wake-up call. I see law firms bending a knee to this President, not caring about the larger principles--those free speech rights that you can take on any client. Why are you bending the knee?

I see universities that should be bastions of free speech bending at the knee to this President. I see businesses taking late-night talk show hosts off the air because they dare to insult a President. I see people who want mergers suddenly think they have to pay tribute to this President.

And what are the very people here who are elected to defend the Constitution of the United States saying? Oh, well. Today, let's look the other way and pass some resources that won't go to Connecticut; that won't go to Illinois; that won't go to New York but that will go to the States he likes. That is complicity with an authoritarian leader who is trashing our Constitution.

It is time for Democrats to have a backbone. It is time for us to fight. It is time for us to draw lines. And when it comes to the safety of my State being denied these grants, that is why I am standing here. Don't question my integrity. Don't question my motives. I am standing for Jersey; I am standing for my police officers; I am standing for the Constitution; and I am standing for what is right.

Dear God, if you want to come at me that way, you are going to have to take it up with me because there is too much on the line in America with people's due process rights and free speech rights and as secret police are running around this country picking people up off the streets who have a legal right to be here. There is too much going on in this country.

When are we going to stand together for the principles that I just heard that were agreed with? When are we going to stand together? If we don't stand as Democrats, we deserve to lose, but if we stand united, if we stand strong, if we stand with other people, if we tell America, with a chorus of conviction, that what this President is doing is wrong--if we stand up and speak that way--dear God, we will win like all of those people who are our ancestors who joined hands together and said: We shall overcome.

No, not on my watch. I am protecting Jersey today. I am protecting our Constitution today. I am standing today.

So, Mr. President, this casts a shadow over everything that was just said because I support these bills. Why do I support these bills? Because the officers of the State of New Jersey are going to benefit from them because Donald Trump hasn't targeted these and cut these, and these are things that are going to help all officers. That is what this body should do--not pick and choose one State over another, not pit one State against another, not pit so-called blue States over so-called red States. It is the United States of America.

God bless my colleague for bringing these bills forward. They should have been passed a long time ago. I support them fully because they will apply to every officer in the United States of America. That is the way this body should work, and I have no objection whatsoever.

I would just like the clerk to read the titles of the two bills.

Madam President, I want to thank Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader, for his words.

This is a really tough moment for me, not just because this is in New Jersey. This is someone who has had something I have never seen before--hundreds of judges, hundreds of Federal prosecutors and Federal public defenders from both parties come forward, saying that Emil Bove should not be on the Third Circuit as a judge for a lifetime position; not only that, but that his temperament of using vulgarities to show, it is claimed, that folks should disobey--that the Trump administration should disobey--court orders disqualifies him from being on the bench. That is one thing that bothered me.

The other thing is the fact that he has had some of the worst ethics violations of any judge I have seen come before the Judiciary Committee in holding back exculpatory evidence when he was a prosecutor. He was called by former prosecutors and former defense attorneys the drunk driving version of a prosecutor--reckless and dangerous.

Then, finally, what was the ultimate frustration was we saw a whistleblower come forward who had impinged his testimony with receipts, but there were other whistleblowers trying to come forward who were afraid for themselves because of this climate in which people who stand up and speak the truth are often targeted and attacked. Contrary to what my colleague was saying on the floor, their lawyers were trying to get somebody in the Republican Party just to listen to the evidence, and no one wanted to even listen.

This is a sad day for our democracy. This is a sad day for the judiciary and a sad day for the U.S. Senate, whose constitutional obligation is to advise and consent, to look at all of the evidence, especially when you have whistleblowers standing up with courage and wanting to speak the truth--not even to listen to it. We saw those tactics in the Judiciary Committee: not wanting to have debate, not wanting to have a discussion, rushing this nominee through as quickly as possible to this floor for a vote before any more evidence could come out before another 200, 300, 400 judges or prosecutors could come out with damning indictments of this man's qualifications.

This is a very unfortunate day for the U.S. Senate, a very unfortunate day for the State of New Jersey, and a very unfortunate day for the Third Circuit. I am expressing my deepest disappointment in this body in its abdication of its responsibilities.

Mr. President, I have seen something I haven't seen since I have been on the Judiciary Committee, which is a complete chorus of condemnation of a circuit court judge. We have had every single person express an interest in coming down here from the Democratic members of that committee to condemn our moving forward at such a rapid pace on this nomination.

Now, I would love to just leave it there, but there is something that needs to be even more urgently focused on because, as much as it might seem that this is Democrat v. Republican, I am very happy to see already that some Republicans--not enough for us to stop this nomination, but this will be a bipartisan group of opponents. It is rare, in this time of fierce partisanship, to see some Republicans looking at the evidence, looking at what Mr. Bove has said, looking at what Mr. Bove has done, looking at how he has insulted the very office that he hopes to hold of a judge and a judge's orders. People who are looking objectively at the facts are starting to see that this would be a terrible mistake in a bipartisan way. That gives me some hope that, with the hours left on the clock, perhaps others, too, will take the time to understand a few things.

One, clearly, I believe and others, not just Democrats but career prosecutors, career public defenders--we have seen judges, and we have seen so many people come forward from both sides of the

aisle to say this is wrong, that it would be wrong for the Senators to do this. This is why we are starting to see some Republicans show more interest and, at least, more than one come forward and say they will not support this nominee. It is because the facts are so glaringly clear that this is someone who has no respect for the rule of law, that this is someone who has shown no temperament to be a judge, that this is someone who has been condemned for his lack of ethics, who has withheld exculpatory evidence as a prosecutor, who has been given the worst Brady violation condemnation from a judge. There are so many things that are troubling about this individual that, on the face of it, it is why so many career professionals are coming forward to say that we should not be moving forward.

The second reason people are having pause is that we are rushing this nomination before questions are answered. Too many people are moving too quickly on the other side of the aisle to get this done before questions are answered, before information is obtained for the record. This body, which is supposed to be deliberative and is supposed to advise and consent, should not be moving forward if they are to honor the obligations that we have.

Let me give the multiple reasons as to why we are moving too quickly without information on substantive things, which should raise alarms for all of my colleagues.

We asked to hear the testimony of a whistleblower who came forward with tangible evidence--texts and emails--showing that Emil Bove instructed the DOJ's attorneys to ignore a court order if it impeded Trump's agenda. Bove said ``f you'' to the courts. Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee refused to hold a hearing to meet with this whistleblower, who is not a Democrat but a career prosecutor. Instead, we saw the vote being rammed through the committee.

Senator Kim and Senator Blumenthal and members on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which has oversight on the question of whether DHS violated a court order, asked the whistleblower to testify before them under oath. That committee has also not concluded its oversight. It is just a stunning and alarming fact that my colleagues on the Republican side have disregarded the credible account of someone who dedicated 15 years to public service and jeopardized their career and reputation to come forward at a time when people who step forward and tell the truth often face real reprisals.

In 2018, many former Southern District of New York prosecutors took the unprecedented step of alerting Emil Bove's supervisors to his unethical conduct as a prosecutor, calling him the ``drunk driver of prosecutors,'' saying that he was reckless and dangerous in the way that he went about prosecutions. This is an unprecedented step of former SDNY prosecutors.

Two years later, Emil Bove was responsible for the biggest Brady violation in the Southern District of New York's history. He withheld exculpatory evidence, resulting in the DOJ's having to toss out a case after a guilty verdict. His actions were so egregious that the judge used them as an example of what a prosecutor should never do. Many of my colleagues and I on the Judiciary Committee have requested more information from the Southern District of New York about his tenure. We still have not gotten it. Yet we are moving forward.

No. 3, finally, after receiving credible information of Emil Bove's role in the Trump administration's burying of evidence about what is going on right now--the man who was in the central position to know what was going on with the Epstein files--we have made legitimate requests to him about this, and he has not responded. There are so many questions about Mr. Trump's interest in hiding whatever their files are and in contradicting themselves. Either there are truckloads of evidence and lists or there are not, but Emil Bove was the Acting in the Justice Department, at the time, and now we have even more reason to question Emil Bove.

Just hours ago, it was revealed that the DOJ told Donald Trump that his name appears many times in those files. Emil Bove was the top official at the DOJ, who also happens to be Trump's personal lawyer. We should know what his role was in reversing course on releasing those files. It would be unconscionable for the Senate to move forward with his confirmation with those answers not being provided.

As I told the Judiciary Committee, there is a false urgency around this nominee. The only reason for this urgency is that the President wants his loyalists on the Federal bench without facing any more scrutiny as to what he knows and what his role was. Even without answering these questions, there is more than enough in his record that disqualifies Bove from having a lifetime appointment to one of the courts. But let's go one more--January 6.

Bove's role in the Trump administration's effort to erase the tragic events of the January 6 attack on the Capitol is disqualifying.

As one of his first official acts, Trump pardoned nearly 1,600 people who attacked this Capitol, including 200 people who violently assaulted law enforcement officers. Bove was one of the highest ranking officials at DOJ. He said under oath that he advised the President on these pardons.

Then he turned from freeing dangerous people convicted of assaulting police officers from prison to punishing--punishing--the dedicated law enforcement agents who investigated those cases. Bove wrote a memo saying that prosecuting those who attacked the Capitol was a ``grave national injustice,'' so he went after those prosecutors. He fired those Federal prosecutors and FBI agents who worked on the January 6 investigation. Bove then demanded a list of every single FBI employee who touched one of those cases and in doing so exposed thousands of law enforcement officials to potential retribution by the pardoned and dangerous January 6 offenders. They are now roaming free.

Several of these prosecutors reached out to my Republican colleagues and wanted to share their concerns, but not one person agreed to meet with them.

The President can nominate judges to the courts, but--and this is critical--he can only do so by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. This is a constitutional duty imposed on this House, and it requires us, every single Senator, to fully and fairly consider every nominee.

Willful ignorance does not excuse any of us from our responsibility to seek the truth. It does not excuse us from our constitutional duty to provide advice and consent.

I plead with my colleagues: Look at the facts. Give it your scrutiny. Analyze this nominee. Look at his record.

Emil Bove has shown time and time again his disrespect for the very office he seeks to hold. For God's sake, we have a whistleblower who brought testimony, receipts, texts, and emails showing that Bove said-- despite the fact that he denied it in our hearings--``f you'' to court orders. He withheld evidence that could have helped to release an innocent person or a defendant. He broke his code of conduct. He broke his ethics. He advised on the January 6 pardons and then fired the dedicated law enforcement agents who investigated and prosecuted violent insurrectionists. And now he has critical information regarding the Epstein files.

There is a lot of pressure these days to hastily push a person through who cannot be trusted on the Federal bench. There is a lot of pressure these days to rubberstamp nominees. There is a lot of pressure these days to look the other way even though the evidence is clear. There is a lot of pressure these days. But some of my Republican colleagues have broken and are standing despite the pressure and are saying this person does not belong on the bench. I am grateful that some of my Republican colleagues are standing up and doing the right thing.

There is a lot of pressure these days. There are a lot of threats. The President has put enormous pressure on people in the Republican Party who stand up and do the right thing.

Yet I have seen profiles in courage. In the first Trump administration, I saw it numerous times. I can tell you their names-- Corker, Flake. I saw my colleagues who, in times of great distress, stood up when we had a trial here--multiple people said the President was guilty; who voted against judges who were not fit for the highest office in the land; who voted against

nominees for his administration. I have seen time and time again the courage of Republicans in times of distress.

I don't know of another case I have seen in my 14 years in the Senate where someone so unqualified for the bench is before us. But somehow, right now, it just seems to be too few Republicans willing to stand up with the courage of their convictions to call it like it is, to do their constitutional duty, to look squarely at the qualifications of this judge and see what professionals, prosecutors, judges by the hundreds from both parties have come forward and said to this body: Do not let him go forward.

There are just a few hours left before our final vote on this nominee. This is a time for another profile of courage. I am hoping my Republican colleagues will look at the evidence and join with the conclusion held by so many patriots in our country and not let this man get to one of our highest courts in the land.

Mr. President, I would like to call up my amendment No. 2887 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, I have had the real pleasure, over the last 14 years, to work on some great bipartisan projects. Probably, my favorite is the Feed the Future Program.

The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee says he is proud of the Feed the Future Program because it helps to save lives, promotes self-reliance, and opens up new trade opportunities.

Numerous of my colleagues know this is one of the programs that does extraordinary things. For example, for every $1 the U.S. Government spends on Feed the Future, it unlocks $6 of private investment.

The program has shown to expand and diversify export markets that are critical to farmers and agribusinesses, and these programs lessen the reliance on humanitarian aid and strengthen local communities.

It is one of the most intelligent investments we do, and it deals with 735 million people around the world who are facing hunger.

This program has wide bipartisan support in this body, and my amendment simply says that we will reduce the development assistance funding in this rescission by $785 million to restore this widely bipartisan-supported program.

Mr. President, you are struggling to find that button.

I know my time has expired, and I am grateful for the indulgence. Thank you.

Mr. President, before I ask for the yeas and nays, I just want to say, despite what my colleague said, he is welcome to New Jersey anytime. I still love him.

Vote on Amendment No. 2887

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the GAO Congressional Review Act legal opinion dated May 28, 2025.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following motions to commit for the bill H.R. 1 be placed in the Congressional Record:

A motion to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on

Finance of the Senate with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) would--

(A) provide medical debt relief for the over 100,000,000

people in the United States affected by medical debt by

reducing the tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy within this

legislation; and

(B) ensure big corporations and the ultra-wealthy pay a

fair share in taxes.

A motion to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on

Finance of the Senate with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) would-

(A) create a report by the Government Accountability Office

to Congress studying the health and economic impacts of

cutting Medicaid funding, by the amounts provided in such

legislation for those purposes, provided that such

legislation would not increase the deficit over the period of

the total of fiscal years 2025 through 2034; and

(B) ensure big corporations and the ultra-wealthy pay a

fair share in taxes.

A motion moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee

on Finance of the Senate with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) would--

(A) disallow lower coverage rates, reduced benefits or

decreased affordability for children and pregnant women

receiving coverage through the Medicaid Program, the

Children's Health Insurance Program, or the private insurance

markets established under the Patient Protection and

Affordable Care Act; and

(B) ensure big corporations and the ultra-wealthy pay a

fair share in taxes.

A motion moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee

on Finance of the Senate with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) would strike any provision that cuts Medicaid payments

for mental health care; and

(3) would ensure big corporations and the ultra-wealthy pay

a fair share in taxes.

Mr. President, I never thought I would imagine having to stand here and discuss what I saw today: a U.S. Senator, in his own community, in the city in which he grew up, elected under the authority of the people, stepping forward to get answers to legitimate questions, and we see him being thrown to the ground after being removed from a room forcibly and put into handcuffs by multiple people.

This, to me, is such an abuse of authority. It is a violent act. There can be no justification of seeing a Senator forced to their knees, laid flat on the ground, their hands twisted behind their back, and being put into restraints. If you see the video, at that point, he is not fighting; he is not pushing.

But this is a pattern and a practice. This is not an isolated incident. I remind people that in my own community, in the city of Newark, we had a Congresswoman and a mayor at a facility. The mayor, invited into the gate; the Congress people, invited into a conference room; and then the mayor, asked to leave, who did leave; and then numerous agents run out to arrest that mayor. Now, the judge in this case said it was outrageous and reprimanded the Trump administration for the arrest in and of itself.

We see, time and time again, this administration trying to precipitate a response by the misuse and the abuse of force. This is more akin to authoritarian governments.

When you see a democratic nation having their executive begin to arrest mayors, begin to arrest judges, begin to arrest a U.S. Senator who is simply

asking for answers to their questions, to remove them from a room forcibly, to throw them to the ground, to put them in restraints, this is something that we should not tolerate. And by we--this is not Democrats and Republicans. This is we in this body.

We have a constitutional obligation to provide oversight to the executive; a constitutional obligation to ask questions, to make inquiries; a constitutional obligation to check and balance the authority of the executive.

So here we saw, before our eyes, a Senator in their district, in their State, asking questions, and we see him being shoved out of a room--but it did not stop there--shoved to the ground, shoved onto his belly, and have his arms pulled behind his back. This should outrage every U.S. Senator.

I would yield for a question while retaining the right to the floor.

Mr. President, I want to thank the Chair.

Clearly, the voices of my colleagues and I are calling this what it is, which is a crossroads for this body.

One of our Members--it matters not what their party--who was in their State was forcibly removed when he was asking for accountability from the executive branch. He was taken out of that room forcibly by multiple men, who then--even when he identified himself, even when he was pulled out of that room, he was then forced to the ground, pushed upon his face, his hands wrenched behind his back, and he was put in restraints.

This is a crossroads for this body. This is not a partisan issue; it is one about who we are as a body. Will we let the abuses of the executive branch physically take a Member of this body and drive them to the ground and put them in restraints?

And why? Why? Well, we are starting to get answers already. Here is Tricia McLaughlin, who is the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. This is her statement.

Senator Padilla chose disrespectful political theatre and

interrupted a live press conference without identifying

himself or having his Senate security pin on as he lunged

toward Secretary Noem.

Mr. Padilla was told repeatedly to back away and did not

comply with officers' repeated commands. @SecretService

thought he was an attacker and officers acted appropriately.

The statement concludes that:

Secretary Noem met with Senator Padilla after and held a 15

minute meeting.

We know this is not true because we hear with our own ears on the tape Senator Padilla identifying himself; further ``disrespectful political theatre'' is not a justification to remove a U.S. Senator in their own State at a public press conference and violently push them out of the room, drive them to the ground, put them on their stomach, and handcuff them.

Disrespectful behavior? This is our democracy. You have a right to speak up. You have a right to free speech. You have a right to stand and do the job that you swore an oath in this Chamber to do, to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. And one of your jobs is to provide a check and a balance to the administration. One of your jobs is to give accountability to the administration.

I know the other 99 Members of this body, and if disrespectful behavior is a justification for violent reprisal from the administration, how many Members of this body--how many Members of this body--would be subjected to that?

This is a farce of a justification and, therefore, we are at a crossroads. Will my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--will my Republican colleagues--justify the treatment of one of the Members of this body, justify the violence against one of the Members of this body, justify a Member of this body being thrown upon the ground and put in handcuffs--for what? For disrespectful behavior.

If you think it stops with one, you are inviting it for the all because it does not. You are inviting it for every Member of this body.

If the Obama administration or the Biden administration said that a Senator on the other side of the aisle was being disrespectful and threw that Senator violently onto the ground and put him into handcuffs, this body would be full of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle condemning what the Biden Justice Department did or the Obama Justice Department.

This should not be about partisanship; this should be about patriotism. This should not be about tribalism; it should be standing up and being a leader in this moment.

This is wrong. This violence is wrong.

But let me be more personal. I tried to understand why this particularly upset me, and I think my colleague from Delaware spoke to that because of Alex Padilla's reputation in this body of being a kind and gentle person. We all know him, the goodness and the decency that he has. He is not one of the louder Senators. He is not one of the performative Senators. He has a reputation, as my colleague from Delaware said, on both sides of the aisle for being a gentle man.

But I think what was really hard for me to see was that a Member of this body was driven to his knees and made to kneel before authorities. That is what got me. I think when I saw him driven to his knees forcibly, something there got me.

You see, we know Alex Padilla's story. It is an unusual story for this body. His family came here as Mexican immigrants. His father was a short-order cook. His mother cleaned homes. They did those jobs that don't always

come with esteem or respect. They did those jobs where, when people see them, they sometimes look down on them. They did those jobs that are often marginalized despite their dignity.

They raised their son to serve. He went to MIT. They raised their son to work hard, to show grit, to rise. They got to watch their son become a city councilperson in L.A. They got to watch their son ascend to be the secretary of state for California. They got to watch their son come to this body.

And this son of Mexican immigrants who cleaned homes and served food, this man with equal dignity in this body, today, was driven violently to his knees as if made to kneel before the authority of the executive because he was so-called disrespectful. That should offend the consciousness, not just of the other 99 Members of this body, it should offend the conscience of this country because if you can make Alex Padilla forcibly kneel before this executive, when does it stop?

He is a U.S. Senator. And if you can force him to kneel to his knees violently, when does it stop? What does it say to other Americans who want to speak up? What does it say to other Americans that want to exercise their constitutional duty? What does it say to other Americans this weekend when they want to peacefully protest? What does it say to other Americans from humble backgrounds who know poverty, that if a U.S. Senator who stands up to do his job can be made to heel, driven to his knees, violently handcuffed, what does it say? What message does it send?

Everybody in this body should see that this is a crossroads. They treated a Member of the U.S. Senate violently after he identified himself; dragged him out of the room, threw him upon the ground, and put him in handcuffs. Every Member of this body should object to that. Why? Because the statement was that he was disrespectful. That is unacceptable. That is offensive. That is un-American.

So why is there silence right now? Why aren't my colleagues saying--I don't care if it is a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent, when you drive a man to his knees in the United States of America, that is wrong, that is wrong, that is wrong. This is a test. This is a crossroads. This is a day in which the character of this body will be defined.

Alex Padilla, a man of infinite decency, generosity of spirit, who, whether you disagree with him or not, is so well-liked in this body, who today, in a time of understandable outrage in Los Angeles, went to be with his constituents to get answers. And when he walked into a room and saw a Cabinet Secretary and raised his voice to ask questions, he was met with violence. They heaped upon him indignities. They drove him to his knees and then to his face and they put him in cuffs.

Well, they didn't just assault the physicality of Alex Padilla, they did not succeed in assaulting his dignity. I know he rose off that ground with the same dignity he had before they threw him upon it. What they assaulted today is the dignity of this body. What is in question now is a truth of who we are and what we stand for.

This is an abuse of power. This is a violent act unjustifiably taken on a Member of this body. The question is, Who will we be as a Senate? The question is, How will we respond? Will we defend this institution or will we yield to the tactics of authoritarian, violent leaders?

I see my colleague here from Maryland. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I just want to first thank my colleague from California for stating so plainly about the character of the individual we are talking about.

We have justifiable disagreements in this body. We have strong-held beliefs in this body. We have real debates and arguments in this body. But it has been generations and generations and generations since there has been violence in this body.

I stand with my back toward the Chamber where there was the caning of Sumner during the slavery debates, and a House Member came over and beat a U.S. Senator within an inch of his life.

You see, there is this decorum here where we have this mutual respect, and we understand violence is absolutely unacceptable.

And if there is anybody that shows that kind of decency and that kind of peace, my colleague from California put it so plainly--Alex Padilla, like many of my colleagues, even across the aisle--he is one of the people of true character here. I think that is why today has hurt so many of us personally is because of what this breach of this body actually means to all of us.

We know of dangers of violence in a democracy and the insidiousness that violence presents or that fear of violent reprisal presents.

Jefferson said it so eloquently:

When people fear their government, there is tyranny. When

the government fears [its] people, there is liberty.

What is so disturbing when you see a Member of this body thrown to the floor, a knee on his shoulder, arms being wrenched behind him after he has identified himself as a U.S. Senator is literally what Alex Padilla said.

I am going to pull from what I know he has already said publicly, but this is what he also has written privately.

Alex Padilla says:

If [this is] what they do to a . . . Senator with a

question, imagine what they [are doing] to farm workers, day

laborers, cooks, and [the] other [of the] nonviolent

immigrants they are targeting.

You see, Alex Padilla knows something about this country, which is that we are all, as Martin Luther King so eloquently wrote in those letters from the Birmingham Jail, when he was jailed for his nonviolent civil disobedience--what Alex Padilla knows is what King said so eloquently; that we are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality tied to a common garment of destiny that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, that when you have a President that so exceeds his constitutional authority, that he begins to do things to infringe upon the fundamental rights and securities of other Americans, it is a threat to all Americans.

This is why right across the way--I can almost see it looking through these windows--why the Supreme Court, with nominees from both parties, with three Donald Trump appointees on it, ruled 9 to 0 in support of the due process rights of someone in our country that was not even a citizen of this Nation--because in the Constitution, using the words ``any Person,'' knowing that if you erode the due process rights of anybody in this Nation, it is a threat to the due process rights of everyone in this Nation.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Understand what we saw today: A U.S. Senator forcibly removed from a room in a Federal building--a Federal official forcibly removed from a Federal building after he identified himself as a U.S. Senator. But after he was out of that building, they did not stop there. They drove our colleague to his knees and then forcibly shoved him upon his face, wrenched his arms behind him, and Alex Padilla writes: If they do that me, what are they doing to farmworkers and cooks and domestics?

What are they doing to other people? What does that mean if they are using the violent force of government unjustly against him? This is a breach. This body has not seen such a breach in my lifetime or longer where the executive has treated an honorable Member of this body in this way.

That should be enough, but our colleague correctly points out that if we are in an environment where that is happening to a U.S. Senator, what does it say--if the Government of the United States is unjustly taking violent action against a U.S. Senator, dear God, what does it mean for other Americans? That is what Alex Padilla asked today.

Now, I will tell you this: This is not an isolated incident. That is the challenge. We have already seen the actions taken against a mayor, a local government official who himself was forcibly handcuffed, dragged into a police vehicle, held for hours as a prisoner, and then, when he finally got before a judge, that judge reprimanded this administration for an abuse of their power.

Alex Padilla sees this with the violation of the due process rights of individuals going on in this country. Alex Padilla sees this with a mayor in America unjustly incarcerated, handcuffed, held.

This is the challenge we have in this moment.

I love this quote by my favorite author, James Baldwin, who wrote this letter the night authorities came and arrested Angela Davis.

He said:

If they come for you in the morning, then they will come

for me at night.

This administration, in its abuse of power, in the audacity of handcuffing, of violently assaulting, of forcibly pushing to his knees and onto his stomach a U.S. Senator--what does that say?

We all gather right there as Senators to raise our hand and swear our oath to uphold the Constitution, but we are not the only ones. Members of the Supreme Court do that. They are not the only ones with Members of this body; administrative officials do that as well. We are bound by the laws of this land.

The terrifying thing for every American should be a government that is not restrained by the law, a government that misuses its power--and not just its power; its power to use violence unjustly against its citizenry. That is when we slip away from our democratic ideals, from our constitutional principles, and slide towards an authoritarian government that wants to make its people heel before them, kneel before them.

That is what I physically saw with my own eyes--a Member of this body being driven to his knees for asking a question, for standing up to speak truth to power. What was the response? The response was violence--being dragged out of that room, being forced to his knees, being thrown prostrate, and being handcuffed.

Here is the thing that frustrates me the most: Is this another day where the lead stories will be about the actions of this administration? We have seen a week where it is violating a tradition that has gone back before I was born where the Federal Government activating Federal troops in a community goes through--in fact, I know the statute: title 10, section 12406--that they should go through the Governors, work in coordination with them. But, no, this was a provocative incident, moving military troops at the expense of taxpayers into a community where even the leader of the police department says this is wrong.

All of this, from the beginning of our week to this unprecedented action of violently removing a U.S. Senator from a Federal building, from a room, thrown upon the ground, driven to his knees, and handcuffed--this is all purposefully being done in our country by a President that has a different view of his authorities as President; that if a judge criticizes him, he believes it is wrong.

He drew reprimand from the Supreme Court for his calling out Justices whose opinions he disagrees with. This is a President that doesn't believe in the checks and balances of our Constitution.

But the frustrating thing about all of this is that it is distracting us--this dangerous, violent distraction--from the bill we should be discussing on this floor about the ripping away of healthcare from millions of Americans, the cutting of food stamps for millions of children, the cutting of services for disabled Americans, the cutting of support for our senior citizens.

This monumental moment, the biggest transfer of wealth from working people in America to millionaires and billionaires; this moment that should be dominating our attention and our focus; this imminent bill that is being debated and discussed here in the Senate right now that has such incredible consequences, putting $2.4 trillion more of debt in our country and raising the energy costs on the average American by hundreds of dollars; this bill that would raise the premiums of people in our Nation by hundreds of dollars; this bill that merits debate and discussion because it is so violative of our common values; this bill that takes food away from the hungry, healthcare away from the sick, and takes working people and makes their challenges harder, all to give more tax cuts to billionaires and drives up our deficit by the trillions--that should be the central conversation in our country.

But this President, almost as if he knows the unpopularity of his bill, the betrayal of his bill, is misusing, abusing his powers and trying to change the conversation in the most despicable of ways; abusing his authority, treading on our traditions, violating our Constitution, and now perhaps one of the greatest violent assaults on a Member of this body by the executive.

This is not metaphorical; this is literal. A Member of this body, after identifying himself, was physically and forcibly dragged out of a room in a Federal building, and then, when the doors were closed--you can see it on the camera--the Federal Government, the executive branch, taking a Member of this body, a Member of the U.S. Senate, a coequal branch of our government, and driving that man to his knees, slamming him upon his face, and wrenching his arms behind his back. That is what we are talking about in this body right now.

This is a dangerous time in America. When the President from the Oval Office says almost daringly ``Do not protest my parade,'' warns people about protests--and this is the thing the President of the United States doesn't understand about this country: When a President is violating norms and traditions and violating our Constitution, dissent is not unpatriotic; protest is not un-American; silence is unpatriotic.

This is a time where protest is justified. Peaceful protest is necessary and vital. This is a time where speaking up and exercising your constitutional principles--like freedom of speech, like freedom of assembly, like the right to petition your government--is demanded by our democracy.

When you have a President that so flagrantly violates the checks and balances--so much so that the authorities today kept a Senator from stepping forward and asking questions to an executive official and is met by violence--this is exactly the time that our Founders saw that we must stand up and speak up and protest peacefully and let our voices be heard because silence in a time like this is complicity.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have to see this. It doesn't take that much mental acuity to understand that if this was the Biden administration or the Obama administration and an official used their security detail to put another person in this body--to put a Senator from the other side of the aisle on their knees and in handcuffs, we would see outrage.

This is not about left or right; this is about right or wrong. And today, we saw a deep, grave wrong heaped upon not just this body but, as Alex Padilla wrote so eloquently, upon the ideals. Because if you could do this to a U.S. Senator, then you can do it to another American.

I yield the floor.

I am grateful for the recognition.

I know we have been talking here for quite some time about an incident that is unprecedented--I would imagine in generations here-- that a U.S. Senator, today, in a Federal building, going to ask questions to a Federal official in the executive, is forcibly handled, identifies himself as a U.S. Senator, and is pulled out of the room. Doors close, and as we saw from another camera, he is forcibly driven to his knees and thrown upon his face with his arms wrenched behind him and handcuffed. It is such a breach to have one of our Members of this body treated in such a way for, as one of the officials from the Department of Homeland Security says, for being ``disrespectful and performative.'' Well, if that is a reason for people to be thrown on the ground, forcibly handcuffed, most of this body would have had that experience.

This is something far more serious when we see that overstep of power. I have seen this with LaMonica McIver, doing her oversight authority, being caught up in a storm of officials going to arrest a mayor who then the judge said clearly was wrongfully arrested.

We have seen this in the overstepping of the bounds of propriety. But this act of violence against a Member of this body demands a response.

We have seen what happens when government abuses their power, when they engage in violent actions against their citizenry. Indeed, we have seen this in its extreme cases, time and time again, throughout our history, unfortunately, in the labor movement, in the suffrage movement, in the civil rights movement.

We know that when State officials in Alabama met John Lewis and marchers across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, they were met with such violence that the intention there was to suppress our freedoms.

We are in a time now where we are seeing protests planned all across the United States of America, with hundreds of protests coming this weekend. As Alex Padilla, himself, has asked: If they can do this to a U.S. Senator, what does that say to the average American who wants to exercise their constitutionally protected rights to protest, to petition their government, to speak up?

More than this, Alex Padilla, in this body, has come in a very unusual way. He is the son of Mexican immigrants--a short-order cook and a woman who cleaned homes. In this environment, where we have seen our immigration enforcement officials not going after criminals or gang members or people that are somehow threatening us but going to separate families, taking away a mother from her children, taking away people dropping off their kids at school, going to work sites or places like Home Depot where people stand looking for work, going after agricultural workers--this is a moment where we see good-faith people peacefully protesting and having the courage to stand up to the most powerful person in the world, the President of the United States.

Yet, again, we see an example where that President is willing to abuse their authority in an act that is ensured to be an attempt at intimidation.

If Alex Padilla, a U.S. Senator, can be dragged from a room in a Federal building for asking questions, thrown upon the ground and handcuffed, what does it say to the traditions in our Nation that are one of the reasons why we are all here?

Because our government does have its limits--it is not unchecked power. The President is not the King. Insulting him is not a crime.

Look, I have been disappointed, as I have seen in joint statements and I have seen this in State of the Union Addresses, behavior from people that I don't find justifiable within the Chamber. I remember when a South Carolina Congressman heckled the President of the United States. I heard it in one of Trump's addresses--people yelling things at the President.

Is that, in a democracy, sufficient provocation to arrest Senators or Congress people who are ``disrespectful,'' as Alex Padilla was accused of being, as if that is a justification to be thrown upon the ground and violently handcuffed?

We have certain exalted ideals and principles in a democracy. In fact, fundamental to our democracy, written in our founding documents, over 200 years old, was this ideal of certain inalienable rights of the people. Our Bill of Rights enshrines--before even the ratification of our Constitution by States, it was demanded that we have a Bill of Rights that guarantees certain principles before a government. Our design of our government was to provide checks and balances because of how much our Founders feared excesses and abuses of power.

These are constitutional principles now that, today, in the most dramatic of fashion, are under attack. We, as a Nation, have elevated the ideals of the ability of American citizens to speak truth to power, to protest, to stand peacefully and forcibly in defiance of abuses of power.

And, today, in this body of 100, we have seen one of our Members, the son of Mexican immigrants, the son of a short-order cook and a woman who cleaned houses in the most noble of fashions--who invested themselves in our common dream, who invested themselves in our ideals, who raised an extraordinary young man who has lived his life in service of others, starting in Los Angeles, starting as a city councilperson in that very city, a graduate of MIT--face an indignity and an assault and violence that should not be tolerated on anybody in this body.

That is an executive overreach by the President of the United States, and it is happening within a pattern of conduct--a mayor in Newark arrested, rebuked by a judge that the authorities of the executive were overstepped; LaMonica McIver, a Congresswoman, brought up on charges as she was caught in a storm of officials rushing to arrest--wrongfully arrest--that

mayor, who is now suing for that wrongful arrest.

We see, time and time again, a pattern being created of an executive overstepping its authority and, in this case, using violence against an American citizen who also happens to be a Member of this body, a U.S. Senator.

I have strong, strong concerns about the fear and intimidation that this President seeks to create in our society--the fear and intimidation of a President that seems to equate defiance, dissent, and protests with somehow being unpatriotic or being un-American.

Well, leader after leader in our history says that when there is injustice, when there are abuses of power, when there is a Federal Government overstepping its bounds, it is incumbent upon the citizenry of the United States of America not to be complicit, not to be silent, not to do anything.

In this Nation, we bring strong voices that know that the true checks of the power of the executive are not just the judicial branch and the Congress. The true checks on abuses of power will always be the power of the people. I believe that our Founders spoke to this. I believe that there are extraordinary words from our past, and I would like to read some of them:

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts

absolutely.

This is a quote that so guided our Framers--that the President of the United States is not a King. The great difficulty lies in this: ``You must first enable the government to'' stand for justice.

In Federalist No. 51, James Madison talked about the urgency of the people to check the power of the executive.

Here is Jefferson: The abuse of power is not a new thing. It is the consequence of power evidence.

Jefferson was suggesting the urgency for us as a citizenry to be vigilant against the abuses of power. As I said already, the words of Jefferson:

When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

Donald Trump seems to want to make protesters afraid of him, dissenters afraid of him, those who disagree with him afraid of him. He seems to want to have law firms come to heel because of threats to their financial well-being. He wants to make universities come to heel because of their fears of losing Federal grants. These are signs not of a healthy democracy but one under assault.

Another quote:

Emergencies have always been the pretext upon which the

safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.

A President that tries to precipitate a crisis or make people believe that there is a crisis in Los Angeles--one that cannot be handled by the local police, the city police, the county police--and in the farce of some serious emergency, sends in Federal troops. This is a President that is abusing our traditions and, as we saw today, a President whose administration, in my lifetime, took the first violent action against a Member of this body who was standing up to ask questions.

I quote George Washington:

[I]f Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments

on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming

consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind,

reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken

away, and, dumb and silent, we may be led, like sheep, to the

Slaughter.

That is how important our first President thought of as the ability for the people of this Country to stand up and speak truth to power. The right to free speech, the right to petition your government, the right to assemble--these are vaunted, sacred principles in this country.

And, today, if those principles are stripped from a U.S. Senator in their own State, in a Federal building; if a U.S. Senator cannot exercise their right of speech, their right to question their government, the right to provide checks and balances--even after they identified themselves, they are forcibly removed from a room in that Federal building, forced to kneel, and then thrown upon their face, then having their arms wrenched behind their back and handcuffed. As Alex Padilla said: If they are doing that to me, just imagine what they are doing to laborers and farmworkers and others who do not have the stature of this office.

What will this body do? This is the test before us right now. What will this body do? Where are the voices of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle?

True tests of leadership are not easy. To stand in a storm, to stand for principle against politics, to stand for patriotism against partisanship, to stand up for what is right--that is what this moment calls.

For us to normalize what we saw today, normalize a U.S. Senator being violently grabbed and handcuffed with no charges filed, if we say nothing now, our silence is complicity in that behavior by the executive. It is an erosion of our democracy, of our principles.

I heard the authors of this book, ``How Democracies Die,'' speak with fear and worry about our current state of affairs in America. One of the signs they pointed to about a democracy in peril was violence. But it wasn't violence of a political sectarian nature. Yes, that is part of it. But the worst type of violence that shows the erosion of a democracy is when the state itself uses violence unjustly against its citizens.

That was the horror of Donald Trump pardoning people who beat police officers in this building. The horror to me was not the Presidential pardon power; the horror to me was that the very people who beat into submission police officers in order to unjustly install a President, in order to prevent the peaceful transfer of power--that very same President was saying: Hey, it is all right. I am going to call you patriots and absolve you of your convictions by a jury of your peers. Some of you who even pled guilty to your crimes, I am going to say that is all forgiven.

The danger in that is a President saying: If you commit violent acts to my benefit--in this case, to unjustly install me in my position-- then that is OK.

It is encouraging violence within our society that erodes our democracy as a whole.

This is the crisis we are in. This is a moment that is a test of this body. This is a crossroads in this body.

A Member of this body in a Federal building, trying to ask questions to a Federal official after identifying themselves, faced violence from his government that tried to silence him as he tried to ask a question.

This has precipitated for us a greater question: Are we a vibrant democracy that protects our fundamental rights, that checks power from abuse, that demands that no one is above the law, whether it be any American citizen and especially those who serve in public office? What will our democracy be tomorrow? Will we normalize this kind of violence, this kind of attack on a Member of this body by the administration for the sin that they themselves have said is just disrespectful behavior--asking a question at a press conference?

This is a day of great challenge and great trial. This is a test of this body. How will we respond in this moment? Will this body simply allow the administration to continue in this manner this pattern and practice that they are establishing where the rights of American citizens to speak truth, to protest, to speak up, to call out, to question, to be in dissent--are those sacrosanct principles or will we allow them to be violated even when it is a Member of our own body?

At the end of the Declaration of Independence, these brave men who saw the abuses of power of a King; those revolutionaries who gave birth to this great democracy; those imperfect geniuses who grappled with the great ideals of their time, that set up a nation not ruled by Kings and Queens, not a theocracy where there is some divine right of someone to rule over us, decided to vest the power in this Nation with the people and created a government organized around the principle of the suspicion of concentrations of power and created three branches of government to provide checks and balances and then gave to the people of the United States of America certain fundamental rights--the First Amendment to our Constitution, enshrining those rights--those rights that have allowed generation after generation to use them to make our Nation more perfect, to speak up to the wrongs and the ills of government, to challenge leaders who had gotten corrupt and had gone wrong; generation after generation

standing on the principles of our Constitution.

And here we are in 2025 where those ideals are being tested, where that Constitution is being strained, where a Member of this body speaking up and asking questions at a time of trial in his community is not met with answers to his questions but is met with violence. That is wrong.

But when wrongs continue--or, as our Founders called them, usurpations of our inalienable rights--when those go unchecked, when such actions go unanswered, it paves a road toward tyranny, and in our day and age, they are signs of our weakening commitment to democracy.

Our Founders knew something so well, and as they pledged themselves to break with a King, to break with a central powerful person, to break through a world where you must go before the dear leader and bow in submission, where the vicissitudes and the whims of an individual leader wreak havoc with the community--those people who broke with that course of human events and established this Nation knew one thing for sure: that if we were to make this Nation work, we had to make an unusual commitment to each other. They ended that Declaration of Independence with that commitment--we must mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

There is no honor in what happened to one of our Members today when he was taken violently and driven to his knees. There is no honor in what happened today when an American standing up to ask questions to a person in authority was met with violence. There is no honor in what happened today when a Member of our body was thrown into handcuffs. There is no honor in that.

But where we can show honor, where we can honor our traditions, is not being silent in the face of something going wrong. The truth of the matter is, our Nation has seen wrongs before, but the way we dealt with them was by having others stand up and call them out to help us to correct course.

When those marchers were met with violence at the Edmund Pettus Bridge, that was not the end of the story. The end of the story happened days later when they made it over that bridge; when they got to their destination; when they presented their grievances to their government; when this body itself, hearing from the people, passed new laws and legislation to protect the people and their rights--in this case, their voting rights.

Bad things happen. Mistakes are made. Power seeks more power. Our country is not bereft of demagoguery or hate or powerful people who want to suppress dissent, people who equate opposition with being un- American. We have seen that all. But so far, we have seen people in those times having the courage to stand up and stand against it, who have called it out to demand redress, to fight for justice.

This is a moment that demands that tradition. This is a moment that demands not just people on one side of the political aisle, not just one party, it demands us coming together and pledging a deeper, more sacred honor--that we will defend this democracy, that we will uphold the Constitution and stand together united against anyone--especially using violence--who tries to suppress the fundamental rights of another American, especially a senior U.S. Senator from the great State of California.

I yield the floor.

(Mr. CURTIS assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, I would like to call up my amendment No. 1441 and ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 25 hours.

OK. I just ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, farmers already deal with so much uncertainty from prices. They should not have to deal with the uncertainty that our government won't follow through on its contracts.

Farmers who apply for grant programs are awarded funding on their merits. They make legally binding agreements. As a result, they spend tens of thousands of dollars on projects in accordance with those agreements. But with little notice, President Trump stopped paying those contracts. No one is telling the farmers or even Congress here when or if this money will be released, as legally required. It is really unacceptable.

Farmers operate on tight margins and cannot be left waiting for weeks and months without the funding they rightfully plan for and need to keep operating. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment to prohibit Trump's USDA from continuing to illegally withhold funding from our farmers.

Out of the kindness and generosity of my colleague there, instead of asking for a rollcall vote, I ask for a voice vote.

Vote on Amendment No. 1441