Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am really grateful you are in the Chair and grateful to be able to rise right now and speak.

I want to say at the top that I have a tremendous love for this institution, and a lot of that is born from the people that are here-- from the pages I get to know in every class, to the folks that work the door, the clerks, the Parliamentarians. It is a special place, and a lot of people who are known here are not the ones that really keep this place functioning.

I come in here days and I have good moods or bad moods but always find myself lifted when I walk onto this floor. It is a sacred civic space. It is extraordinary. And I am always aware of the weight of history when I walk in here. No matter a good day, bad day, whether I am in a rush or not, when I touch the Senate floor, I feel something really magnificent.

I don't think that our Founders would have ever imagined a body like this with Black people on both sides of the aisle, with women serving here, with folks from many different backgrounds. We are in many ways doing what the Founders had envisioned, which was this idea of every generation making this a more perfect Union.

But there have been times in this journey where our Union was in crisis and was in peril. There were times in this great American journey, over our 250 years, where so many heroes had to emerge, people that I have come to revere, like Joshua Chamberlain from Maine, who played such a pivotal role in the Battle of Gettysburg. What a noble soul he was. He would later go on to be Governor of his State and go on to do great things, but his heroism lay that in a time of crisis, he stood up.

I know there are veterans in this body--I admire them so much--who have answered that call to serve our country and put their lives in sacrifice.

There are people I admire that are heroes of mine that were suffragettes. There were people who fought as abolitionists. There are people more recently that I have come to lionize and admire because they did so much for this country--not with titles, not with high ranks or positions, but folks who, when this country was facing crossroads, was facing crises, they stood up. They spoke up.

One of my greatest heroes of life was a man I got to serve with named John Lewis. I served with him while in this body. Every opportunity I had, I would ask him about the times when he was just a 20-something. He was the youngest person who was a feature speaker on the March on Washington. He was called the bravest man in the civil rights movement because he kept putting himself in harm's way to dramatize, to let folks know, to bring attention to the injustices in this world and to say very strongly that this--what was going on in our country--is not normal, that what is going on in our country is wrong.

I stand on this floor as a U.S. Senator, but I revere people who never stood on this floor; people who, before they even got to their thirties and forties and fifties in life, were out there as great patriots fighting for this Nation.

I rise today in an unusual manner, and I want to be clear and explain that. But I just want to tell you what John Lewis said. It is a quote so many people know. He really spoke not to Members of the Senate or the Congress; he was really speaking to Americans. He said:

Get in good trouble, necessary trouble, and help redeem the

soul of America.

John Lewis died in 2020, in July, at a time that--it was Donald Trump's first term in office. He did what Congresspeople did, but he also did some really extraordinary things to fight for healthcare.

My friend Chris Murphy knows about that. He was there when John Lewis did an open Facebook chat--not in this Chamber or the House Chamber; he sat on the steps, and people were there. I remember when he did a sit- in. They had to shut the cameras off him. He got in good trouble on the House side too.

So I start tonight thinking about him. I have been thinking about him a lot during these last 71 days--``Get in good trouble, necessary trouble, and help redeem the soul of America,'' and I had to ask myself, if he is my hero, how am I living up to his words?

I think Democrats and Republicans have made a lot of mistakes. No side has a monopoly on the truth. No side has been perfect servants of this country. But what has happened in the last 71 days is a patent demonstration of a time where John Lewis's call to everyone has, I think, become more urgent and more pressing. If I think it is a call for our country, I have to ask myself, how I am living these words?

So tonight, I rise with the intention of getting in some good trouble. I rise with the intention of disrupting the normal business of the U.S. Senate for as long as I am physically able. I rise tonight because I believe sincerely that our country is in crisis. And I believe that not in a partisan sense because so many of the people that have been reaching out to my office in pain, in fear, having their lives upended--so many of them identify themselves as Republicans. Indeed, in conversations from in this body, to in this building, to across my State, and recently in travel across the country, Republicans as well as Democrats are talking to me about what they feel is a sense of dread about a growing crisis or what they point to about what is going wrong.

The bedrock commitments in our country that both sides rely on--that people from all backgrounds rely on--those bedrock commitments are being broken. Unnecessary hardships are being borne by Americans of all backgrounds. Institutions which are special in America, which are precious, which are unique in our country, are being recklessly--and I would even say unconstitutionally--affected, attacked, even shattered.

In just 71 days, the President of the United States has inflicted so much harm on Americans' safety, financial stability, the core foundations of our democracy, and even our aspirations as a people from our highest offices, a sense of common decency. These are not normal times in America, and they should not be treated as such.

John Lewis and so many heroes before us would say that this is the time to stand up, to speak up. This is the time to get in some good trouble, to get into necessary trouble.

I can't allow this body to continue without doing something different, speaking out. The threats to American people and American democracy are grave and urgent, and we all must do more. We all must do more against them.

But those 10 words--``If it is to be, it is up to me''--all of us have to think of those 10 words, those 10 two-letter words--``If it is to be, it is up to me''--because I believe generations from now will look back at this moment and have a single question: Where were you? Where were you when our country was in crisis and when American people were asking for help: Help me. Help me. Did we speak up?

When 73 million American seniors who rely on Social Security were to have that promise mocked, attacked, and then to have the services undermined, to be told ``There will be no one there to answer if you call for help''; when our seniors became afraid and worried and panicked because of the menacing words of their President, of the most wealthy person in the world, of Cabinet Secretaries, did we speak up?

When the American economy, in 71 days--71 days--has been upended; when prices at the grocery store were skyrocketing and the stock market was plunging; when pension funds, 401(k)s were going down; when Americans were hurting and looking up; when the resounding answer to this question was no--are you better off economically than you were 71 days ago?--where were you?

Did you speak up at a time when the President of the United States was launching trade wars against our closest allies, when he was firing regulators who investigate America's biggest banks and biggest corporations to stop them from taking advantage of the little guy or the little gal or my grandmother or your grandfather, dismantling the Agency that protects consumers from fraud--the only one whose sole purpose is to look out for them?

Did you speak up when the President of the United States, in a way that is so crass and craven, peddled his own meme coin and made millions upon millions upon millions of dollars for his own bank account at a time so many are struggling economically?

Did you speak up when the President of the United States did what amounts to a car commercial for the richest man in the world right in front of America's house, the White House?

When the President tried to take healthcare away, where were you? Did you speak up? Threatening a program called Medicaid that helps people with disabilities, helps expectant mothers, helps millions upon millions of Americans. And why? Why? As a part of a larger plan to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest amongst us who have done the best over the last 20 years, for billionaires that seem so close to the President that they sat right on the dais at his inauguration and sit in his Cabinet meetings at the White House.

Did you speak up when he gutted public education, slashed funds for pediatric cancer research, fired thousands of veterans who risked their lives for their country; when he abandoned our allies and our international commitments at a time when floods, fires, hurricanes, and droughts are devastating communities across this country; when countries all around the world are banning together to do something and he turned his back?

Did you speak up when outbreaks of dangerous, infectious diseases are still

a global threat, yet we have stopped engaging in the efforts necessary to meet those threats?

Where were you when the American press was being censored; when international students were being disappeared from American streets without due process; when American universities were being intimidated into silence, challenging that fundamental idea of freedom of thought, freedom of expression; when the law firms that represent clients that may not be favored are attacked and attacked and attacked? Where were you? Did you speak up when they came for those firms?

What about when the people who attacked the police officers who defended this building--an American democracy--on January 6; who just outside those doors put their lives on the line for us, and many of them would later die--where were you when the President pardoned them, celebrated them, and even talked of giving them money, people who savagely beat American police officers?

Did you speak up when Americans from across the country were all speaking up, when more and more voices in this country were speaking up, saying: ``This is not right. This is un-American. This is not who we are. This is not America''? Did you speak up?

So I rise tonight because I believe to be about what is normal right now when so much abnormal is happening that is unacceptable. I rise tonight because silence at this moment of national crisis would be a betrayal of some of the greatest heroes of our Nation, because at stake in this moment is nothing less than everything that we brag about, that we talk about, that makes us special.

At stake right now are some of our most basic American principles that so many Americans understand are worth fighting for, worth standing for, worth speaking up for--like, if you work hard your entire life and pay into Social Security, it should be there for you when you retire, and you should not have to question that those paychecks will arrive and that the government should strive to improve service to you, not brag about cutting it; basic American principles like, if you serve your Nation in the military, if you put your life in danger abroad, you will be respected and taken care of. You will be cherished and honored and not forced to worry that the Federal employees who provide you with care, many of whom were veterans themselves, will be fired or the benefits that you rely on will be denied or that your healthcare needs won't be met; basic American principles like your child will have access to a high-quality public education, that every child has a unique genius, even our children--beautiful children--with special needs; they have genius; and that our children can go to school and parents and teachers know that they will be safe there.

Safe now are those basic American principles; that the people you elect to serve you in government will represent you and not to try to make themselves richer, not run some scam, and call you a sucker; the basic ideals of our Nation that everyone's rights will be equally protected, and everyone will be held accountable under the law. Right now, all of this--things that make our country different--are under attack. Our constituents are asking us to acknowledge this. Everywhere I travel now, I hear from Republicans and Independents and Democrats who are afraid, who are worried, who are angry.

I think about John Lewis, who taught me that fear is not something to be shunned. It is almost a signpost that you are headed in the right direction. It is something that is a necessary precondition. You cannot have great fear without great courage. John Lewis would tell us that this is a time for great courage. He would tell us that anger is a fuel. It can consume you, debilitate you, or it can fuel you to put yourself in the service of others. I feel, if my friend were here, if my hero were here, he would tell us and try to teach us that this is a moment to know that despair is only possible if you don't meet it as an agent of hope.

If John Lewis were here, he would look at me and say: What are you doing? What are we doing?

So, tonight, I rise in an unusual way. I rise with the intention to stand here until I can stand no longer, until I am physically unable to stand anymore. I am going to speak up. I am going to try to cause some good trouble in this body I respect so much. I am going to try to cause what I believe is necessary trouble. I am going to try to honor the legacy that I know I have inherited as an American, the legacy I think about when I come to this floor and feel sometimes overwhelmed with all of the sacrifice and struggle that had to get me here: good people who caused good trouble in the face of slavery; good people who caused good trouble in the face of the denial of the right to vote; good people who caused good trouble in the cause of equal rights; good people who caused good trouble in the fight against hate; good people who caused good trouble in the fight against demagogues from McCarthyism to Father Coughlin, to big people who showed such small character when they tried to suppress others. I want to cause good trouble and prove worthy of those who came before.

This is not normal. Listen to America. Listen to Americans. They seem to always be ahead of this body. They are rising up in State after State, not along partisan lines, but along an American line, not because they hate other Americans, but because they love America. What does love look like in public? It looks like justice, and there is so much injustice going on.

I don't know how long I can stand, but I will stand and speak up. I want to start by reading some of these letters to try to give folks a flavor of what has happened in my office for 71 days. The calls we have gotten have gotten more and more and more numerous. I know I am not the only one because the calls became so numerous to the Senate as a whole that it locked up the lines. There are letters I am getting and emails I am getting. There are people taking scraps of paper and just writing their hearts out and sending them in to say: These are not ordinary times. These are painful times, frightening times, times when people question what is happening to America and worry that there are powerful people trying to fundamentally change our Nation in a way that will hurt people to the benefit of the powerful and the wealthy.

I look at these letters like this one. I won't read the name, but they say:

Hi, Senator Booker. Medicaid has saved my life many, many

times. Without it, many people in America will die. Please,

help us.

It is underlined multiple times.

Here is another scrap of paper on which somebody writes their heart out:

Dear Senator Booker, when I got out of the Navy, I had

mental illness. I needed psychiatric medicine to stop going

in and out of the hospital. Because of Medicaid, I have

medicine that has kept me out of the hospital for 18 years.

Without Medicaid and my medicine, I will wind up in the

hospital.

Americans are telling me their most vulnerable pains. Their most terrified realities are now confronting them, rendering their pride and telling their truth.

Here is another one:

Dear Senator Booker, I am writing you today as a

constituent. In addition to being a concerned citizen, I am a

25-year employee of the local board of education and a parent

of a permanently disabled daughter who has just started

receiving Medicaid. Even with her master's degree, my

daughter is only able to work 19 hours a week. Therefore,

insurance is not provided. Medicaid is a necessity to

maintain her physical and emotional health and provide

services to assist with her independence so she can continue

to be a contributing member of society. By withdrawing

funding for Medicaid, the policy would disrupt programs

serving disabled and elderly people in New Jersey and

throughout the country. And Medicaid is only one area which

will potentially be affected by Donald Trump's funding

freeze. Please protect Social Security and Medicare for the

hard-working Americans who have earned it. Social Security

isn't a ``handout.'' We have paid into it with every paycheck

throughout our entire working lives, and the 66 million

seniors relying on Medicare could have their healthcare put

on hold or canceled. We deserve to know these programs will

be there for us. If Federal grants are limited, medical and

science research limited, including vaccines and disease

prevention, they will all be severely impacted. The United

States should be a world leader in healthcare and education

and scientific advancement. This is an embarrassment to us as

a country. It should not be possible in America for one

single man--even an elected President--to stop funds which

Congress has already allocated. I implore you to use your

power as my Senator and a key member of our government to

stand up for what is important to the people of your

district. We want to go to work, take care of our families,

and ensure all citizens have the health services they

deserve. These latest orders are inappropriate, untenable,

and illegal. As a Senator, please

take action. Please take action to defend and protect these

programs. Thank you for your time.

Cory Booker, recently it has come to my attention that my

students' rights in New Jersey are under threat from new

legislation. This has caused distress and uncertainty in my

classroom for my students who depend on funds from Medicaid.

My students depend on consistency, and a lapse in their

education and care would result in regression, trauma, and

worse. I teach students in New Jersey who are supported by

your legislature. I teach all abilities, meaning many of the

students live with ADHD, autism, and other disorders that

require extra care and attention. It is my life's mission to

bring what I know to those who want to learn it. I love the

job I do. I love that I get to spend time with those who need

it most and deliver care and education. The job that I do

helps my students live more independently and achieve richer

and more fulfilling lives. I live out of State, but most of

my students are from the State you help legislate. My

students' rights are in trouble and need you to advocate for

them. I urge you to continue to fight for Medicaid. Please

work to oppose any and all cuts or caps to the Medicaid

program.

Dear Senator Booker, my name is--I am a registered voter in

New Jersey. I am writing today to strongly urge you and your

fellow policymakers to oppose all cuts to the Medicaid

program as it is a lifeline for individuals with

disabilities. Oppose all cuts or caps. I was a special

education teacher for 30 years, and after I retired, I

volunteered as a special education advocate for 10 years. I

had the privilege of advocating for many disabled children

and young adults who were receiving Medicaid services.

Medicaid gave many of my clients the opportunity to

participate in society by providing daily life skills for

independence. Skills reinforced through Medicare programs

include shopping, safety, job search, speech and language--

just to point out a few of the services provided by Medicaid.

My clients require repetition of these skills to function in

their daily lives. Without these programs provided by

Medicaid, regression will occur, and learned skills will not

be retained. Without Medicaid, this community will struggle,

isolate, and lose any quality of life they have enjoyed since

receiving Medicaid services. Medicaid has made a critical

difference in the lives of my clients. Cutting and capping

Medicaid will have devastating consequences for them and

their family.

Senator, there are 1.6 million New Jersey residents with

disabilities who rely on Medicaid for access to vital care,

resources, and essential medications needed to survive.

Please support and fight for these vulnerable New Jersey

citizens. Please take action to protect these vital programs

provided by Medicaid.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated efforts in my

request of your support for our most vulnerable residents.

I am going to rise tonight, as I said, and stay for as long as I physically can, and I am going to go through issue area after issue area after issue area and talk specifically to the concerns, the fears, the actions taken, to the hurts that are already being felt throughout America, elevating others' voices who don't have the privilege of standing in this body, honoring those Americans who, even though they don't have such a position, they are raising their voice. I will rise for as long as I can to honor them and raise mine.

The first area I want to talk about is Medicaid, Medicare, and healthcare, as my constituent spoke to.

I don't need to tell anyone the importance of healthcare to humanity. Without our health, we would not be able to do anything else. We would not be able to provide for our families, spend time with our loved ones, do all of the things that make life worth living. That is why I am going to stand here and explain to people what is going on and how our healthcare programs are at risk and being undermined.

The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are, right now, discussing how to cut these programs in a way of putting those savings either into tax cuts for the rich--I say ``either'' because they are going to be putting them into tax cuts for the rich, but those tax cuts, as we know, are still going to blow massive trillion-dollar holes in our deficits.

They are trying to gut Medicaid and Medicare programs on which nearly a third of our country rely, all to pay for those tax cuts to billionaires and corporations. They are also dismantling the very institutions meant to safeguard our Nation's health and well-being. And this is not the first time.

They tried this before during Trump's first administration when he unsuccessfully tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act and cut Medicaid, despite its popularity across the Nation, across the political aisle. He was going after something that wasn't left or right, that Americans were saying in the course of conviction that this is about right or wrong, and it is wrong to take away healthcare for millions of people.

Let me explain, if I can, or speak to a few points from a recent report by Protect Our Care to explain what the administration is trying to do to our healthcare system. They want to slash almost a trillion dollars--about $850 billion--from Medicaid, forcing people to choose between healthcare and putting food on the table.

In every State, hundreds of thousands of seniors, children, and working families could lose their health insurance, thanks to Republicans' plan to cut those hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid.

It would impose, they seek, burdensome work requirements for people on Medicaid. The last proposal coming from Republicans of that work requirement has one goal: to make it harder for people to qualify for Medicaid, to slash benefits, and deny up to 36 million people access to healthcare so they could fund, again, those tax breaks for the wealthiest, for corporations.

Work requirements only increase the redtape of hard-working families already burdened by working multiple jobs, caring for children, and more. They are simply increasing the redtape working families have to go through to obtain affordable care.

Their intention is also to hike premium costs. Millions of families who use private health insurance saved an average of $2,400 per year on their premiums, thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act advanced premium tax cuts. But now the proposals Republicans are putting forth want to end these savings and raise costs for over 24 million Americans.

The proposal wants to take away protections from people with preexisting conditions. The GOP plans to repeal and undermine the ACA; meaning, if they are successful, 135 million people with preexisting conditions like asthma, cancer, and diabetes would lose critical protections, and private insurers, insurance companies can charge them higher premiums.

The efforts that they are discussing--Republicans are discussing-- would raise prescription drug prices. It would stop medical research and stop medical debt relief.

Over the first 3 months of his administration, Donald Trump and Republican allies have increased the prices of prescription drugs-- including cancer and heart medications, as well as vital antibiotics-- delayed the implementation of a Biden administration rule that barred medical debt from showing up on credit reports, cut NIH grants, halted all studies and activities within the NIH relating in any capacity to the health of LGBTQ Americans, including active research programs, and President Trump violated court orders to halt funding freezes to organizations like the NIH.

Republicans rejected legislation to cap insulin costs for millions of people with diabetes nationwide. Now they want to raise costs for seniors by repealing the cap for people who rely on Medicare. As many as one in four of the 7.5 million Americans depending on insulin are skipping or skimping on doses. I want to say that again. As many as one in four of the 7.5 million Americans depending on insulin are skipping or skimping on doses. This is a life-threatening practice. No one in this country should have to bear that.

This week, we know Republicans in the Senate will make us vote on a budget that will, inevitably, intend to harm the strength of programs like Medicaid and vital health programs in general.

Here is what a few organizations are saying about the impact of the budget that will soon be put on this floor, what impact it will have on our health systems.

According to this nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan policy and research institute, this is what they write:

The House Republican budget would require deep cuts to

Medicaid, and recent statements from House Energy and

Commerce Committee Chair Brett Guthrie suggest the Affordable

Care Act's . . . Medicaid expansion to adults with low

incomes--which covers more than 20 million [Americans]--will

be a prime target. Cutting Medicaid by hundreds of billions

of dollars and focusing many of those cuts on the Medicaid

expansion would lead millions of people to become

uninsured. Eliminating Medicaid expansion was a key goal of

Republicans' failed effort to repeal the ACA eight years ago,

and Congress should once again reject efforts to undermine

it.

Recent Republican proposals such as reducing the federal

matching rate for Medicaid expansion, repealing the 2021

Rescue Plan's incentive for new states to expand, or taking

away Medicaid coverage from certain adult enrollees by

imposing work requirements would leave expansion enrollees at

risk. They could lose their coverage due to work

requirements, or their state might drop their coverage due to

a drastic increase in state costs. Twelve states--

Twelve American States--

have ``poison pill laws'' that would automatically end

expansion coverage or require review of the coverage if the

federal matching rate drops below 90 percent. In [those]

states, expansion enrollees are at even greater risk.

[Representative] Guthrie's recent statement confirms that [House] Republicans are eyeing proposals such as work requirements, a reduction in the federal matching rate, or a per capita cap on funding for the expansion group. This last option could shift . . . $72 billion and $190 billion in costs to states from 2026 to 2034--

Putting that burden from $72 billion to $190 billion on States--

increasing the state costs of expansion by 41 to 108

percent and [thus] jeopardizing [medical] coverage for

millions.

Forty states plus Washington, D.C. have adopted the

Medicaid expansion--

Forty States, plus the District of Columbia have adopted the Medicaid expansion--

helping adults with low incomes become healthier and more

financially secure. Health coverage through expansion

improves people's access to--

Something that makes so much economic sense. It--

improves people's access to preventive and primary care,

[it also] provides care for [people with] chronic illnesses,

prevents premature deaths, and protects people from

catastrophic out-of-pocket medical costs.

Let me pull away from the nonpartisan group's remarks for a second because I saw this as a mayor. When you scrimp on regular treatment for people with chronic care, when you scrimp on preventing disease, it costs more to taxpayers. I saw that because folks would end up in my emergency rooms in Newark. And the care there is so much more expensive. For a taxpayer, you get a much better deal in helping someone treat their chronic disease. You get a much better deal in giving them regular access to doctors. But to cut that makes no sense.

Not only are you cutting it to give, again, those larger tax cuts to billionaires and corporations, but you are cutting it, and you are just going to add more and more to the overall healthcare costs of our country and to the size of the debt.

Let me go back to the text.

Having health coverage also makes it easier for adults to

work or . . . look for a job. Considering that Medicaid

supports work and that 9 out of 10 Medicaid adults are

already working, caring for family, attending school, or are

ill or disabled, work requirements are unnecessary. [They

are] burdensome. [They are more redtape and hassles.]

Proposals to use work requirements as a way to take away

Medicaid coverage from certain adults are just another way to

undermine the Medicaid expansion.

Attacks on the Medicaid expansion are often based on false

claims that covering adults with low incomes takes away care

from groups traditionally eligible for Medicaid. In reality,

Medicaid expansion supports better outcomes for all groups,

including children, older adults, and people with

disabilities.

Medicaid expansion has driven coverage gains for parents,

which improves their access to care as well as [their]

overall well-being [the overall well-being] of their

children.

Stepping away from the text, there is not a parent in America who knows that when you are sick, when you are being hurt by your chronic disease, it is harder to take care of children, and their well-being suffers.

Back to the text:

Expansion has also driven coverage gains among people with

disabilities. People with disabilities who receive

Supplemental Security [insurance] Income generally also

qualify for Medicaid, but 2 out of 3 people with disabilities

who participate in Medicaid qualify on another basis, meaning

Medicaid expansion is an important path to coverage for those

with low incomes.

Medicaid expansion also supports hospitals and other health

care providers by reducing their uncompensated care costs and

improving their operating margins, especially [especially,

especially] for rural and safety-net hospitals. If all states

[in America] were to drop the Medicaid expansion in response

to a decline in federal support, a recent analysis found that

[the] provider revenues would fall by $80 billion and

uncompensated care costs would increase by $19 billion in

2026 [alone].

That is the end of the article. This is not a hyperbole or scare tactic. These are real possibilities. Even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said there is no way to meet the Republican budget resolution dedicated cuts without cutting Medicaid or Medicare.

(Mr. MORENO assumed the Chair.)

Tonight and into tomorrow morning, I am going to do everything I can to elevate the voices of Republicans because this is not intended to be a partisan speech.

From the Cato Institute to the Wall Street Journal, to nonpartisan groups, to the Congressional Budget Office, everyone is pointing to what is happening as not normal, not what the President says it is, as something that is going to hurt Americans, something that is going to cost us more money in the long run--that someone is going to take people with disabilities and put them even more in the shadows and in the margins when they should be centralized and empowered, that what they are proposing is not just morally wrong; it actually adds to the fiscal crisis of our country.

It will drive up healthcare costs in America. It will drive up chronic disease in America, an issue so important to me that I have been fighting for it since I got here, because America--this great Nation, this great land--is one of the leading countries on the planet Earth, in the Western World--in the leading democracies, I should say-- that has maternal mortality rates that are extraordinarily high.

Forty-plus percent of our babies are born on Medicaid.

Here is an article from NBC: ``Republicans can't meet their own budget target without cutting Medicare or Medicaid.''

House Republicans can't meet their own budget target that

is necessary to pass President Donald Trump's legislative

agenda without making significant cuts to Medicare or

Medicaid, the official budget scorekeeper confirmed

Wednesday.

House Republicans adopted a budget blueprint last week that

opens the door to pass Trump's policy priorities on

immigration, energy and taxes. It instructs the House Energy

and Commerce Committee to cut spending under its jurisdiction

by $880 billion.

The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan in-house

think tank that referees the process, said that when Medicare

is set aside, the total funding under the committee's

jurisdiction is $8.8 trillion over 10 years. Medicaid

accounts for $8.2 trillion of that, or 93%.

When Medicare and Medicaid are excluded, the committee

oversees a total of $581 billion in spending--much less than

the $880 billion target--the CBO said. The letter outlining

the figures was in response to a query by--

I will step away from the article for a second--by my friend and longtime New Jerseyan Representative Frank Pallone--he is the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee--and Brendan Boyle, a Democrat, of Pennsylvania, the ranking member of the Budget Committee. They asked the question.

That leaves Republicans in a deep predicament. The budget

resolution, adopted by the slimmest of margins in the

narrowly divided House, was the delicate product of

negotiations among conservative hard-liners who demand steep

spending cuts and swing-district GOP lawmakers who say they

don't want to slash funding for the health programs their

constituents rely on.

Off the article for a second, God bless you for caring about your constituents.

Revising the target would mean upsetting one of those

factions and potentially risking the support of key votes to

pass the eventual budget reconciliation bill that advances

Trump's agenda.

Democrats have made protecting Medicaid a centerpiece of

their attack on the party-line GOP agenda, accusing Trump of

trying to cut health care for the working class to pay for

tax cuts for the wealthy.

``This letter from CBO confirms what we've been saying all

along: the math doesn't work without devastating Medicaid

cuts,'' Pallone said Wednesday in a statement. ``Republicans

know their spin is a lie, and the truth is they have no

problem taking health care away from millions of Americans so

that the rich can get richer and pay less in taxes than they

already do.''

You see--stepping away from this--they are saying we are going to make these cuts to balance the budget, but their budget blows a bigger hole in our deficit. If this is what Trump said, then why are they proposing to cut $880 billion from critical healthcare programs

like Medicaid, Medicare, and the Children's Health Insurance Program?

You can't have it both ways. Donald Trump promised to make America healthy again, but gutting healthcare for millions of Americans-- gutting healthcare for millions of Americans--rolling back healthcare for millions of Americans, rolling back support for new mothers, slashing innovative cancer treatments--this doesn't help families.

I love what Dr. King said. Martin Luther King famously stated:

Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health is the

most shocking and inhumane.

Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health is the

most shocking and inhumane.

Paul Farmer--extraordinary leader, physician, anthropologist, renowned humanitarian, pioneer of global health--I read his book ``Mountains Beyond Mountains.'' In another one of his books, ``Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the New War on the Poor,'' he wrote:

If access to healthcare is considered a human right, who is

considered human enough to have that right?

I think, in a country this wealthy, where we are seeing stratospheric wealth created here in individuals, we are seeing some of the richest people in the world, and yet we still are targeting--for tax breaks for them, we are targeting millions and millions of Americans who rely on things like Medicare.

I started my speech with John Lewis. Let me quote him now. In 2012, he said:

Healthcare is a right, and it is not a privilege, not just

for some people but for all people.

John Lewis was a visionary.

So let me tell you a bit more about Medicaid. If you are watching, let me break it down and show just how critical it is for millions of Americans.

Medicaid, right now, is in the crosshairs of many, many Republicans in Congress. It is on this precipice. It is not abstract policy. It is not just numbers in a line item in a budget.

At stake, when we talk about Medicare, it is millions and millions of Americans' health. It goes to this question: How deeply do we care for one another?

I love what our Founders said in the Declaration of Independence. At the very end of that, they say: ``We [must] mutually pledge''--pledging to each other--``our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Are we living up to that when we are saying we are going to take away healthcare from millions of Americans in order to have greater tax cuts?

You see, people want to just say, ``Oh, it is a government program,'' as if that is a slur, when, really, it is something that we the people, in order to create a more perfect Union, created as a lifeline to tens of millions of Americans that, but for programs like this, would be succumbing to diseases, succumbing to ill health. And we as an entire country would suffer.

Think about this not as that slur where they try to call this in ways that try to shift public opinion away from human beings, fellow Americans, our patriots. Think of it instead as a lifeline.

It is the reason a child with asthma can breathe easier. It is the reason a senior can receive the care they need in a nursing home--our elders. It is the reason a low-income mother can take her child in for vaccinations or a person with a disability can live with dignity and independence.

Congress is entertaining proposals now--conversations are being had in this building and in Senate and House office buildings about how we can gut programs.

God, I wish somebody said: In a bipartisan way, let's come together and find healthcare savings. I offered that. I literally said to the now-Secretary of Health--I told stories about private sector folks who saved money by expanding access to food--to healthy, fresh food. Let's say that, because I know private sector companies that have bent their cost curves and saved money not by cutting healthcare but by giving people better access to nutritious, healthy foods. You are what you eat.

We are not coming up with bipartisan proposals to save money, to create efficiencies, to do things that can make programs run better. Heck, when I was mayor, we were able to lower expenditures, create more efficiency, have more customer service. There are ways to do that.

But no, this is folks coming with an ax to cut your healthcare or your neighbor's healthcare or your elder's healthcare.

It is not a government program; it is a commitment we make to each other. In the greatest Nation on the planet Earth, we say we will take care of our children; we say we will take care of expectant mothers; we say we will take care of our own.

But they passed that House budget resolution. Republicans who call themselves moderates or budget hawks, they all voted for it except for one, who had this crazy thing to do in Washington--to tell the truth. Massie said that, by their own numbers, this don't add up; what they are pushing on the American people, it is going to steal from the future generations by racking up trillions of debt. He stood on principle.

They are not even doing what they are telling us they are going to do. And $880 billion in Medicaid funding cuts, that is not trimming the fat. It is not finding deficiencies. It is not a plan to cut out any possible corruption. It is to make children and expectant mothers and seniors and people with disabilities have a harder time accessing healthcare, which we already said--Martin Luther King said:

Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in healthcare is

the most shocking and inhumane.

Not bigotry, not poverty--two things he fought so nobly against--he said the most inhumane, the most unjust are what we are talking about here.

Take away access to healthcare from children, take away access to healthcare from our elders, take away access to healthcare from people with chronic diseases. Why? Why? To cut the deficit?

Well, there are some Republicans willing to tell the truth. It is not going to cut the deficit. It is to take from the poor and give it to the rich and powerful. Well, we know the rich and powerful will get bigger tax cuts.

They are not shrinking the government, folks. They are creating bigger and bigger governmental obligations.

And what do they mean when you look at 10 years out and have trillions and trillions and trillions of more? It means that future generations--or maybe 10 years from now--their debt payments are going to grow more and more and more, taking away more money that we have as a collective body, as Americans, to invest in scientific research, to invest in cutting-edge medical technology.

So let's be clear. Let's be clear. Children from low-income families would lose access to routine checkups, vaccinations, and emergency care. Seniors who depend on Medicaid for long-term care, many of whom are already exhausting their life savings, would be left without options. People with disabilities who require constant medical attention, specialized equipment, and home-based services would face uncertainty and loss of those services.

And let us not forget the low-income adults who gained coverage through Medicaid expansion, who worked hard every day. They got access to Medicaid through expansion under the Affordable Care Act. For them, this is not ideology. For them, this is not political philosophy. For them, this is life or death. It is about survival.

These proposed cuts would also devastate the very infrastructure of our healthcare system.

These proposed cuts would also devastate the very infrastructure of our healthcare system. I have heard this from hospitals--again, Republican and Democratic leaders in my State who know our hospitals are speaking to this injustice. Medicare provides nearly 19 percent of all hospital revenue. It allows rural hospitals already on the brink to keep their doors open--rural hospitals.

It would take safety-net hospitals that serve uninsured and underinsured populations. Without Medicaid, with these cuts, these institutions would crumble. That is not rhetoric. I have talked to my safety-net hospital.

I did an event, and I remember the fear in this hospital administrator's eyes who lives every day to help the poor, to help the uninsured. In many ways, we share a faith, and I know he believes he is answering the highest calling of his country and his faith to

help those who come with nothing because when hospitals close and when Medicaid staff lose their jobs, tired communities lose access to care. Ambulances end up having to drive farther and farther. Wait times increase. Lives are at risk.

The ripple effects are vast. Schools will suffer when children with disabilities lose access to Medicaid support services like physical therapy, transportation, and mental health support. Children's abilities to learn and thrive is compromised. Schools in rural areas where Medicaid often funds onsite nurses and telehealth programs, they would be stripped of essential support.

What we are witnessing is--again, don't get caught in this Washington parlance. This is not a normal time. This is a threat to millions of Americans. It is not a budgetary proposal.

It is like the metaphorical sword of Damocles. It is people all over this country who are beginning to see what this really means. It is an economic crisis that would be rolled upon States and rural areas and communities and cities. It is a moral crisis that speaks to the soul of our Nation.

It is a deliberate, calculated--and being calculated right now--it is a deliberate and calculated attack on healthcare for Americans in order, again, to give tax cuts to the wealthy.

If the enhanced Federal match for Medicaid is eliminated, one of the things on the chopping block: States would be forced to absorb the difference, an estimated $80 billion every year. That is a 29-percent increase in State-funded Medicare spending per resident.

To fill those holes, States would be left with impossible choices. Either raise taxes or slash services; education, infrastructure, public safety. For them, they would have to figure out where to get the money from, or else they would be slashing services.

It is an unholy choice. Cutting Medicare doesn't make us stronger. It will weaken our economy. It will raise healthcare costs for everyone and push millions of Americans into crises that will ripple and radiate through their lives, their families' lives, their work lives.

Hospitals will pass unpaid bills onto insured patients. Healthcare premiums will rise. People will delay care, omit medications, and then show up in emergency rooms later, more sick, and therefore more expensive to treat.

And in the end, who pays for it? Who pays for this moral failure, this financial failure? Who pays for it? We do, the American people. And who gets rich on this? Well, I know the last tax cut they wanted to extend to the people who make the most money off this system and these cuts because the tax cuts they will get will be billionaires.

And working families in America, the people who are paying insurance rates--hurts; it is hard; it is difficult. The people who have high premiums, copays--it is the rest of us that pay.

So I want to talk about the people at risk. There are nearly 12 million people who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid, our Nation's most vulnerable. They would lose critical wraparound services, services like long-term care, dental care, vision, and nonemergency transportation services that are not luxuries for these folks, but they are lifelines.

A higher share, those with both Medicaid and Medicare, have cognitive impairments and conditions, impairments like Alzheimer's, and God, my father who had dementia.

We are a well-off family. I saw the challenges, the resources, the drains, the physical challenges for his primary caregiver, my mother.

Millions of Americans, though, would rely on Medicaid, and they would face devastating choices; to quit their jobs to provide full care-- full-time care--or leave their loved ones while they go off to work on a job without the support they need.

When it comes to Alzheimer's and dementia, I know personally you cannot leave someone without the care. Nursing homes may be forced to shut their doors and cut staffing levels to dangerous lows. In fact, people who can't take care of their elders, they might be going to nursing homes, which again, increases costs for taxpayers. Home healthcare services, often the only thing keeping people and their communities out of institutions, that would disappear.

This would be a crisis for elder care. This would be a crisis for disability services. What it is: When a nation isn't taking care of its elders, it is a crisis of our national character.

Medicaid also plays a profound role in the success of children and their well-being. Nearly half of all children in the United States are covered by Medicaid and CHIP. Research shows that when children have access to care, they are more likely to stay in school, graduate, and earn more as adults.

That is not surprising to people just to think it through. It is true. If kids have access to healthcare, they succeed more in life. Medicaid helps diagnose learning disorders, treat chronic conditions, and ensure children don't fall behind simply because they are born in poverty. It is essential to the American dream, that just because you are poor, it shouldn't affect your destiny.

For us to be the America of which we speak, a child born in poverty shouldn't have their future cut off because they can't get the healthcare to empower them to thrive. Talk to any school district in any State in any county. Those resources are necessary to help children.

Medicaid pays for nearly half of the births in the United States. The United States, as I said earlier, has a shameful distinction of a massive maternal health crisis. We have the highest rate of maternal deaths of any high-income nation. I am going to say that again: America has the highest rates of maternal deaths--women dying in childbirth or in the days after--of any nation. A majority of these maternal deaths take place during that postpartum period, the days after birth.

For years, I fought for Medicaid to provide coverage for women for up to 1 year postpartum instead of just 60 days. In 2022's Congress, I was so happy that States had the option to expand Medicaid coverage for up to 1 year postpartum. It was one of the solutions to this maternal healthcare crisis that expert after expert after expert says: Just make sure those women who gave birth are not knocked off of healthcare after 2 months.

As of this January, 49 States, plus the District of Columbia, have expanded postpartum Medicaid coverage past those 60 days. Hey, we are stepping in the right direction to show that we love our moms, we value those lifegivers that are mothers. We value them. But cutting Medicare means potentially eliminating the progress we made toward ending that maternal mortality crisis. There is just no justifying that in a nation this great and this wealthy.

We talk so much about children and motherhood. All of us should be coming together about this maternal health crisis, but what is happening now, again, is the very program that has helped us to begin to address this is under attack.

When we invest in Medicaid, we are investing in the future. Children will grow up to be healthier, and seniors will age with dignity in rural communities with limited access to healthcare and services and families who don't have to choose between a prescription and rent.

This is about health, but I want to tell you, for all those doing the math at home, you cannot have a thriving economic engine without good healthcare. The two are incompatible. Widespread sickness, illness, and disease and people can't get their health issues covered, it takes away from our economic strength.

In fact, just cutting Medicaid would cost jobs, nurse's aides, support staff, medical technicians. Entire communities depend on funding that Medicare provides. Cutting it would destabilize State budgets, force those impossible tradeoffs and widen the gap--widen the gap--between the richest in our country and the rest, a gap that is already widening at stunning rates.

These cuts are not about efficiency. Don't let anybody tell you these cuts are about efficiency. I know a lot about making government more efficient. This is not about innovation. There are so many things that we as a country should be doing to deal with medical innovation. I will be the first to say: Republicans and Democrats have failed to step up to the 21st century and do things that really can create more efficiencies in our healthcare system.

I really hope to see more bold thinkers about creating real efficiency. But

what they are doing now is not about efficiency. It is not about innovation. It is not about the heart priorities of Americans who know everything that I am saying.

The letters I have gotten, Republicans and Democrats and Independents in my State, scared people--they know what this is about. Republicans in New Jersey who run hospitals know what this is about. This should be a bipartisan strategy to how do we make our society more healthy and less dependent on healthcare. When it comes to healthcare, heck, let's not do the stupid things like cutting scientific and biosciences and the research that often leads to medical breakthroughs.

Let's come together and figure out how to deliver services more efficiently. Making Americans healthier, I don't believe them. They are cutting access for kids to fresh and healthy foods. They are cutting school lunch resources. There is a way to do this that should be bringing the best ideas from both sides of the aisle to deal with these issues, but that is not what they are doing.

Every data point, every story, hospitals from rural areas to urban areas, everyone is saying the same thing to illustrate the same point: Medicaid is critical to the health of some of the most vulnerable Americans. It is critical to our elders, to our children, to our mothers. It is a lifeline for more than 72 million people.

With control of the Senate, the House, and the Presidency, Republicans have the opportunity to dream big. They have an opportunity to lead with a vision for better health in America, to come before the people and Congress and hearings and say: This is our vision for American health and well-being. We are going to show what some private companies did. They cut their healthcare costs and improved the health of their employees by providing better access to food.

There are so many good ideas that I learned when I was mayor, from Republicans, from private sector people, but those aren't the ideas coming forward. The ideas coming forward are: Hey, let's just send to the Energy and Commerce Committee the mandate to cut $808 billion. Let's rush now. Let's rush now. Let's get it done before our narrow majority somehow gets undermined. Let's just cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, and in the end, what is the result?

Americans get sicker, driving up overall healthcare costs, all to give billionaires more of a tax cut.

I know the character of so many of my friends in this body on both sides of the aisle. This is not who we are. It is not who we are.

But God, there is no big vision, there is no big dream for healthcare. Instead of improving Medicaid and increasing funding, as 42 percent of Americans support, they want to make extraordinary cuts that will demolish the program. They are proposing that $880 billion cut from Medicaid, taking healthcare away from millions of Americans. They want to impose work requirements even though 90 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries are already working or cannot work for legitimate reasons.

Arkansas actually tried this. I love case studies. They tried this in 2017, and the results were disastrous. People lost coverage that they shouldn't have, and employment didn't increase.

Nationally, such requirements could put 36 million people at risk of losing their healthcare.

They are proposing failed policies, not breakthrough ideas, not a bold vision that I know is in America's heart.

This repeal that some folks are saying that they want to do to save money, the hatred for the previous President--they want to repeal Biden-era rules that made Medicaid and CHIP enrollment easier, less redtape, easier for seniors and children. Let's repeal that, they say.

They want to end a rule requiring minimum staffing standards in nursing homes, including 24/7 access to registered nurses--one of the hardest, most underappreciated jobs in America. Let's give less access to these noble, noble professionals.

They propose per capita caps that would upend Medicaid's financial model in every State, leaving States with less money to meet their residents' needs. In States that expanded Medicaid under the ACA, these cuts could jeopardize coverage for 20 million people who gained access.

The budget that they are proposing would require deeper cuts.

Speaker Johnson claims these changes are about rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse, but that is not what is happening, folks. What is happening is an assault on a program that provides dignity, health, and stability, economic growth, improved outcomes for kids, and more respect for our elders and care for the disabled. Nearly 2 million New Jerseyans, 2 million people in my State rely on Medicaid, and yet our State is slated to see cuts of up to $5.2 billion.

Medicaid accounts for a quarter--more than a quarter--of New Jersey's State budget. Think about that. It accounts for more than a quarter of our State's budget. My State--one of the hardest working States that are out there--just their work requirement would put about 700,000 of my neighbors at risk of losing their healthcare.

Medicaid covers about one-fifth of hospital spending. At University Hospital in Newark, New Jersey's only level I trauma center, more than $149 million in potential cuts loom. I know this hospital. I have been there when my officers have been injured. I have been there when my firefighters in Newark were injured. I have been there when heroic citizens are injured and brought there. It is our level I trauma center. People from all around our region are sent there. These emergency room workers are incredible. Heck, they have treated me coming out of an emergency. And they are facing $149 million in cuts. And their leadership, knowing how vital that hospital is, how that hospital stands in the breach between life and death, health and illness, they know what it would mean.

We should be strengthening this program through innovations that come from people on both sides of the aisle. We should be coming together as a body and saying: OK, let's spitball this. Let's put up the best ideas in America to make things more efficient.

Well, wait a minute, you mean if we treat chronic diseases with access to healthy food, we might actually be able to lower diabetes rates, lower hypertension rates, lower obesity rates? Well, that is one great way to make this investment happen.

There is technology and innovation that are happening right now with our best scientists that could create better access to telehealth, that could create more efficiency in medical records, that could cut down on mistakes that are still made in medical care, like combining the wrong drugs or other challenges that drive up costs.

There are systems that we could create that could create more transparency and eliminate more real fraud and go after the fraudsters themselves in a more efficient manner.

There are so many things that we could do if we came together as a body. But what are we doing instead? Following our President that wants his tax cuts renewed.

What did those tax cuts do the first time around? Most of the benefits went to the wealthiest people and corporations, and it drove trillions of dollars--the largest deficit growth that we have seen in a generation; rapacious, rapacious, misguided budgeting, creating bigger and bigger debt payments.

I remind you that Clinton balanced the budget.

Bush--the first President in American history that didn't call for the common sacrifice to go to war. We spent trillions of dollars in those foreign wars. And guess what he said. No common sacrifice. Only about 1 percent of our people will fight in those wars. I am going to give you a tax cut.

Well, that makes no sense. You are going to drive up deficits that my children will have to pay for.

Obama comes along, and at least he lowers deficit spending, but then Trump comes in and increases it by trillions of dollars on the backs of working Americans to give those benefits to the wealthiest.

Now, Biden, who shrunk the deficit a bit--didn't eliminate it--still spent what any fiscally prudent person might say is really problematic. Let's not make this blindly partisan. But for anybody who would criticize Biden and follow Trump into what he is doing with this budget proposal that is going to slash healthcare for millions of Americans, increase the deficit by trillions and trillions of dollars, and make

Elon Musk richer and richer--is that your solution? It violates our values. It violates our national character. It violates the highest principles put forth by the most noble people in American history.

I stand today--and I will not sit down for hours and hours if God gives me the ability to stand here--because I want to be the voices of Americans. I want to share their voices in this body. I want it to echo in history. I want it to be recorded by these extraordinary people who stand here every day and record my words and my colleagues' words. I want it to be in the Congressional Record.

I want DeAnna's story--DeAnna's daughter is disabled, and Medicaid provides her with lifesaving medications, medical equipment, orthotics, and multiple specialists for her rare disease diagnosis. She has life- threatening seizures and requires rescue procedures, medications, oxygen, CPR, and has nurses that accompany her to school and meet her medical needs during the day so that DeAnna can go to work.

DeAnna is ``terrified''--she uses this word--she is ``terrified'' of her daughter losing her Medicaid. She is so afraid, she is literally talking openly about going to Canada and asking for asylum there so that her daughter has her healthcare needs met. That is outrageous to me, that an American who is fearful for their child would think about fleeing to Canada for better healthcare.

Wendy and Cassie. Wendy is the mother, and she wrote about the threats that Medicaid cuts would pose to her daughter Cassie.

Cassie is 32 years old. She has Rett syndrome--R-E-T-T--a rare neurological disorder that significantly impairs even basic motor functions, requiring the individual to have lifelong care and supervision. Without Medicaid funding, Cassie and Wendy would not be able to afford housing, the day program, and the prescriptions that she needs on a daily basis.

Tonya and Cameron. God, Tonya uses Medicare and Medicaid to care for her son, her beloved child Cameron. Cameron is battling stage IV cancer and is confined to a wheelchair. Due to the severity of his illness, he cannot be without his cancer treatment and prescription medication. Medicare and Medicaid coverage are for them, they say, a matter of life and death for Cameron.

Here is this amazing group in New Jersey, in Cherry Hill--amazing group--the Cherry Hill Free Clinic. Volunteers sustain the Cherry Hill Free Clinic, doctors who give up their own time because they are driven by the conviction that in America, we take care of each other, we love each other.

When you say ``Love your neighbor,'' love requires sacrifice and service, and these doctors and professionals that volunteer their time at the Cherry Hill Clinic--I just want to tell you: God bless you. Thank you for living our American values and the values of your faith's traditions.

The Cherry Hill Free Clinic provides free healthcare treatment and medication to low-income individuals not just in Cherry Hill but throughout New Jersey. Without the support of Medicare and Medicaid coverage for their patients, the free clinic would not be able to provide the extent of services and care their patients desperately need; they would not be able to be the source of light to so many people that are facing scary darkness.

They think: That is not going to happen to me. That cancer diagnosis is not going to happen to me. That rare disease that affects the child--it is not going to happen to me.

But when it does and they can't imagine how they will make ends meet, they find in the Cherry Hill Clinic doctors and medical professionals willing to step up. And they have been doing extraordinary things. It would make every American proud. And now they see what is coming from this Republican, from this Donald Trump proposal.

Jeanne is an awesome soul. She is a disabled citizen. She relies on Medicaid coverage for her frequent hospitalizations. Without Medicaid, she would be unable to receive the critical care that she needs.

God bless you, Jeanne.

Susan writes to us. She is a disabled person who is confined to a wheelchair. Susan relies on Medicaid for her healthcare. Medicaid provides her wheelchair transportation to get her to her medical appointments. Without Medicaid, she would not have medical coverage or the transportation means to receive the essential healthcare.

Edna. Edna. Edna is 98. God bless her--98. What a life. Now, as a 98- year-old, she has dementia. Her daughter is 78 years old. I can't imagine this moment when you realize at 78 that you can't any longer care for your 98-year-old mom due to her worsening dementia. Edna receives Medicaid coverage and is now able to have full-time care at a rehabilitation center for senior citizens.

Her daughter, at 78 years old, is so grateful, so grateful to live in a country where her 98-year-old mom can be in a rehabilitation care center. But they know what savage cuts in Medicaid would do.

Randi and Dylan. Randi enrolled her son Dylan in Medicaid. Dylan is 10. He is wheelchair-bound due to Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Dylan requires frequent medical care and daily heart medications to prevent the issues with his heart functioning.

Randi relies on Medicaid to provide medical care for Dylan, whom Randi loves so much. Medicaid covers the costs and his critical prescription medications.

And then there is Theresa, who recently lost her job, and required urgent medical assessments due to a medical issue that was discovered by her doctor.

During what was a difficult time where you go to the doctor and the doctor discovers something that is so urgent you need immediate support, Theresa was without insurance and needed to receive care as instructed by her doctor. Due to her enrollment in Medicaid, she was able to receive the diagnostic testing that she needed.

It is a good story, but stories like that have become more difficult if cuts are made.

Pamela: Pamela writes that Medicaid is essential to her 22-year-old son's life. He has epilepsy, cerebral palsy, vision impairment, and too many other complex medical issues for Pam to list to us. Medicaid provides his health benefits and is his funding source to attend his day program and receive therapies. Private duty nursing comes to his home, and it pays for vital medications.

She writes to me that ``Our private insurance is not enough to cover our son's complex medical needs. We would not be able to pay for his monthly prescription costs, nor the lengthy hospital stays when he is sick. We would not have the nursing hours to support his care to be able to continue to live at home, nor would we be able to leave home on weekdays and have a day program to attend.''

Pamela writes:

As his parent, I need to take an early retirement from

public school teaching to care for our son because the

medical coverage he has just isn't enough.

It doesn't provide for his transportation and his day programs. So she is leaving her job early.

She writes--and she bolds this:

Our disabled community members and their families deserve

better. Medicaid provides for a bare minimum existence.

And she has a message for the lies being told by too many. She says:

There are no excesses here in my house.

Sally and Mike:

We rely on Medicaid for our two adult children with

disabilities for long-term care, especially for my daughter

who just finished her 2\1/2\-year chemo treatment regime. We

will need it for monthly checkups and prevention of a

relapse. We use the funding to provide the much-needed care

she needs at home.

We also have 90-plus-year-old parents who need Medicaid in

order to survive. We are the real sandwich generation, caring

for two adult children with special needs and two very

elderly parents who couldn't survive on their own. Please do

everything in your power to help fund and not cut Medicaid in

any way. Thank you for your time and your commitment in

helping the more vulnerable population.

I mean, Sally and Mike, you are not alone. That sandwich generation, taking care of children and parents. You are taking care of adult children and 90-plus-year-old parents. I hear you. I hear you.

Carole:

My son Jason is 41 and autistic. He has severe behavioral

issues. Medicaid has enabled my son to attend a day program 3

days a week. The program bills Medicaid for his

participation. We would not have the financial resources to

pay for my son's day program. Medicaid helps us to have our

son living at home with his loved ones, not in a group home.

We save the State money by taking care of him. Do not cut--do

not cut--this vital program.

Rosemari: Now, Rosemari says that she has an adult son, and that son has CP, a seizure disorder, cystic--this is where maybe I should have gone to medical school and not law school--cystic encephalomalacia. My cousin, the doctor is here. She would be able to help me if she was down here.

But it is her son, her adult son is on the autism spectrum, yet he earned a BA--``yet he earned a BA on the autism spectrum and lives `independently' but with our support and works a part-time job.'' She put ``independently'' in quotes.

If he loses his medical coverage, he would not be able to

afford to live where he lives and, most importantly, will not

be able to afford his meds. He has medications that would run

$500 a month. We live with the anxiety.

We live with the anxiety. We live with that anxiety that millions of Americans live with; that erodes them; that burns at their spirit. That anxiety that has put millions of Americans in bankruptcy. That anxiety. That anxiety that I can't afford my medications. That anxiety that I can't care for my children. That anxiety that I won't have the resources. That anxiety.

We live with the anxiety of Medicaid cuts, every report

about what House Republicans are doing. We support anything

that can be done to maintain Medicaid. Please, Senator.

Danielle, she writes:

I am the oldest sibling to my two younger brothers, Matt

and Christian, who have been living with a rare neuromuscular

disease since they were diagnosed as babies. Throughout their

lives, Matt and Chris, along with my parents and family, have

fought to ensure that they have the best care possible,

despite how unknown and underresearched their condition is.

Taking Medicaid away from them would strip Matt and

Christian of basic access to specialized care that they rely

on and therefore strip them of their dignity and their

independence.

As someone who has had a front row seat watching two people

I love suffer from a neuromuscular condition and as a human

being who believes in the right to access medical care, I

implore--

I implore; I implore--

our representatives and the Trump administration to

consider the devastating impact that these cuts would have on

people like my brothers. Slashing funds for an already

underfunded program is not only the wrong target in the name

of, quote, efficiency, but also a decision that would cement

our Nation's treacherous path toward becoming a nation that

does not seek--

Does not seek--

justice for all. Instead a nation that only serves those in

power, only serves the powerful, only serves the wealthy. As

your constituent affected by neuromuscular disease, I am

concerned about the potential unintended consequences of the

efforts to so-call reform Medicaid.

Seventy-two million Americans rely on Medicaid for affordable accessible and State health coverage, including children, pregnant women, parents, seniors, and individuals with disabilities. Any effort to reform Medicaid should not inadvertently prevent patients from having access to the healthcare that they deserve. Danielle, I hear you.

Judith: She goes right to the point.

Please stop Trump. Please stop Trump now. He is going after

Medicaid. I have an adult, severely autistic granddaughter

who relies on Medicaid for her special needs program. She

writes:

A country is judged by how it meets the needs of the

weakest people. Please stop him.

I want to read your words again, Judith:

A country is judged by how it meets the needs of its

weakest people.

A country is judged by how it meets the needs of the weakest people.

Elizabeth writes:

Medicaid helps me access healthcare and direct supports in

my home, in my community. Cuts to Medicaid would mean I

wouldn't have the services I need to live on my own with

supports and would be forced to live in a more restrictive

setting.

Sandra writes:

Medicaid has allowed my son's needs to be met at home and

not in a group home. It has allowed my husband to participate

in his caregiving, not a stranger. It has allowed him to be

employed with the aid of a job coach.

These are just a few things, in addition to healthcare, if the cuts to Medicaid happen--it goes away.

Alicia:

Medicaid provides healthcare and services to my

developmentally disabled adult child. If Medicare funding is

cut, my son will not have the healthcare they need and the

programs to attend.

Maggie:

My 28-year-old son Will has Down's syndrome. He currently

lives a full and active, inclusive life.

His life is full. His life is active.

He is in the community where he is cherished.

He lives in the community. He is cherished.

He has wonderful support staff and has lots of activities

that keep him healthy and happy. His days include

volunteering at a senior citizen center, working at the local

gym, shopping, leisure activities, speech therapy. He does

music therapy.

We follow the self-direction model, which is work on my

end, but I would not have it any other way. But if Medicare

funding is cut, these cuts would impact his livelihood.

Nybil:

Without my Medicaid, I would not be able to be as mobile

nor independent. Without Medicaid evaluating my physical

disability, cerebral palsy, and related limitations and

prescribing me an electric power wheelchair for daily

independence and assistance with mobility and even pain

management due to not being able to walk well. I am actually

up for a new wheelchair this year, as it was allowable every

5 years for a new wheelchair prescription.

Without my Medicaid, I would not have been properly

diagnosed with things like sleep apnea in 2017. I now use a

CPAP machine to force air into my body so I can sleep

peacefully instead of gasping for air at night. Without my

Medicaid, I would not be able to be fitted for a leg brace

for my physical support and mobility, enabling me to actually

stand up straight and walk without my wheelchair. Without my

Medicaid, I would not be able to be a full-time employee, a

full-time worker.

Laura:

Medicaid has provided my sister with benefits to help

support her medical and mental health issues since she

graduated high school. She is now 33 and living with me and

my husband after being separated from our parents that are

now in assisted living and nursing home arrangements.

Wow.

Susan has never worked or been married because of her

mental disability, and she is dependent on her Medicaid

benefits. Please keep these benefits in place for people like

my sister who don't have much in their lives they can depend

on.

Laura, your sister is now living with you after being separated from your parents, who are now in a nursing home. I see you.

Michael:

I need Medicaid because it provides me the ability to get

my anxiety medication and to afford my therapist. I use

Medicaid for medical, dental, and visual visits. I wear

glasses. Without Medicaid, I am unable to live or function in

this world.

Robin:

Courtney is my 35-year-old daughter with severe

disabilities. From 2009 to present, she has needed crucial

surgeries, as well as medications and hospital stays.

Medicaid has made the financial support for these procedures

possible and to save her life.

And I know, I can tell from her letter, that Robin loves her 35-year- old daughter Courtney.

Mary:

Medicaid is helping to improve my daughter's life through

the services of the Division of Developmental Disabilities.

Without it, she would be left to whittle away at home 7 days

a week with no community interaction. She is learning

prevocational skills in a manner that she is validated and

viewed as a person with strengths.

Thank you, Mary.

Allison:

I am my daughter's caregiver in New Jersey. Medicaid-funded

programs allow her to remain an active part of our community

at home with her family. If Medicaid is cut, we would lose

our healthcare. It would be devastating.

Gihan:

My daughter has a disability. Through Medicaid, she

receives a lot of services that help her improve and

progress. Also, to help her stay active and social, she gets

speech therapy, occupational and physical therapy. People

come to our home to help her as well. If Medicaid cuts

happen, she will stop all the services she receives, and her

life will be threatened. Please, she must keep her Medicaid

because, as a parent, I don't know what I can do with my

daughter if that is happening. It will be so hard for her and

us.

Roseanne:

Medicaid has supplied the nurses that take care of my

disabled granddaughter that I am raising at home, instead of

being sent to an institution. She will put her life at risk

for a medical emergency or fatal injury without nurses here.

Ash:

My daughter takes speech therapy, occupational and physical

therapy, and tutoring. So if that is all gone, she will stop

progress, and she will be more disabled and will be unable to

do anything by herself or live inadvertently. She needs a lot

of help. And if these Medicaid cuts happen, I don't know what

I will do with her, and it will make life so hard.

These Americans are facing challenges that I can't imagine. And what is amazing about so many of them is they find the goodness and the decency of their neighbors, of people who are helping and supporting them, of people who do the jobs, the occupations that many Americans would find incredibly challenging--the occupational therapist, the physical therapist, the person who does the transportation, the nurses that take care of folks. It is a community of people out there that are trying to make our Nation stand for what we say we do. They are trying to show that we are a loving and caring and compassionate community.

And what I love is that this is not partisan. I keep saying this over and over again for this whole time I can stand. I hope it is as many hours as possible. I am going to be bringing in the voices of Republicans and Democrats because it is not a partisan issue. Maybe it is in Congress, but the Republicans and Democrats of America don't want Medicaid cuts. They especially don't want them to benefit the richest amongst us, who don't need more help. God bless them. They are doing all right.

And it is not going to solve our budget problems. Their budget proposal, as was said by the one lone Republican who voted against it because he is such a fiscal hawk--he said: If you just read their own numbers, this is a lie, a sham. It increases the deficit by trillions.

Let me go to some Republicans.

Joe Lombardo, the Governor of Nevada:

An abrupt reduction in federal funding would not only

disrupt care of those who rely on Medicaid, but would also

destabilize public and private healthcare providers, leading

to workforce reductions, service limitations, and financial

strain on already overburdened health care facilities.

The Governor of Nevada knows that my mom, my aunt, my uncle, my other aunt--they live in Nevada. My mom lives in a retirement community there. This Governor knows that that State would be hit so hard by a reduction of these services that it would be like an impact that ripples out throughout the State, raising costs, lowering care, hurting Americans, hurting Nevadans.

My colleague Mike Rounds of South Dakota said:

That is not a cost-cutting measure--that's a cost transfer.

He said:

And when you've got partnerships with the states, you

shouldn't be doing that without having them involved in the

discussion.

I tell you, I have conversations with lots of my Republican colleagues, and I appreciate this quote from one of them.

The Coalition of State Medical Associations writes:

On behalf of 50 state medical associations and the District

of Columbia, the hundreds of thousands of physicians we

represent--

I am adding this. I am sure of both political parties and Independents.

Back to what they write:

--and the 80 million Medicaid patients we serve, we are

united in urging the U.S. [Senate] . . . to protect Medicaid

from the devastating $880 billion [cuts] . . . in spending

reduction target in the House Budget Resolution.

If these cuts are enacted millions of Medicaid patients

will lose their coverage and we expect all Medicaid patients

to lose some of their existing benefits--

``All Medicaid patients''--``all Medicaid patients to lose some of their existing benefits''--

and access to essential healthcare services.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, Children's Defense Fund, Children's Hospital Association, Family Voices National, First Focus Campaign for Children, March of Dimes, and National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners--they all came together to jointly write:

By reducing vital support from Medicaid and CHIP, you would

not just be cutting a budget line--you would be eliminating

the health prospects of our children, leaving them without the care they need to grow into healthy adults.

I would yield specifically for a question, yes.

To my leader, Leader Schumer, I mean, that is the pain of these stories from the families that I read of the fear that they have to rely on these lifelines that are going to be cut and of the services that are going to be cut that are going to affect their beloved parents or their children with disabilities.

When they ask the question, Why? Is it for a noble purpose? Is it for collective sacrifice? No. The answer that they have to stare at is that you are going to cut services for my vulnerable child or for my parents in order to give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, in order to give tax cuts to the billionaires.

Here is the insult added to that injury: It is also this lie that we are going to be focused on the fiscal strength of our Nation. They are going to give all those tax cuts away and give away healthcare benefits, and the results are going to be even bigger deficits. So people like Elon Musk and Donald Trump--billionaires, where most of these tax cuts will accrue to their benefit--will get more, more, more money. And if you were spending $100,000 a week for the rest of your life, you wouldn't get near the net worth of Elon Musk.

Yes. Yes.

That is accurate.

It is stunning that they know that they can't do this, so they are going to use some budget trickery to mask the truth. Math doesn't lie. Numbers don't lie. You may be able to mask it so you could use rules of reconciliation and try to force it through, but the result for the American people is going to be the same.

Chuck, people will lose healthcare, healthcare benefits, and watch the deficit of this Nation not increase but explode, which means the cost of our debt payments alone are going to be more than the very programs that they are going to be slashing for families. That is outrageous, cruel, unacceptable, and we have to do everything we can as a people to stop it.

Yes, sir.

I was reading stories, and many of them will live with me. There is a family who is taking care of their two parents in their nineties and their disabled adult children. They are desperately relying on these programs. No matter what you do or say or call it or label you slap on it, those are the kinds of Americans who are stepping up to take care of their loved ones who will get hurt.

Yes.

Yes, Senator Schumer.

To tell a family to just double up or triple up drives up their costs. It is often that the elder who is living with them who might have dementia demands care. So the family member who is caring for them has to decide, Oh, my God. Am I going to give up my job, which I need to pay the rent? Am I going to stay home to take care of them or go to the job and let really difficult things happen? This is the thing that the leader is pointing out that, I think, is really important.

Yes, please.

I appreciate the Democratic leader's question.

I think that all 100 of us in this body are getting what I have gotten. I can't go to the grocery store. I can't walk my neighborhood. I just did a travel around the country to do what a lot of us elected officials do, and I got stopped in the airport by people who want to tell me stories about a parent with dementia or a disabled child or a child with a rare disease who has seizures. It is story after story after story.

There are people who have been writing in to me, some of them on scraps of

paper, just to try to tell us: Please--they are not saying don't do $880 billion in cuts; they say any diminution of resources. They live on such a precipice that any diminution of resources would drive their families into crisis and despair. Many of the professionals I am quoting are saying: We don't need to be cutting. We need to be finding ways to extend services to do more. How can we do more?

I talked earlier about the fact--and you helped with this, Senator Schumer, when we were battling, many of us, and I know my friend Lisa Blunt Rochester was a leader in the House when we said: Why are so many women dying in childbirth in a postpartum period in America? It is shameful that we are the worst Nation of all the wealthy nations, and that is for us as a whole, but for Black women, it is almost four times as much.

So what do we do here, Chuck? You remember this. Excuse me. Senator Schumer, what do we do here?

``Chuck'' is OK.

We came together, and we said: This is a time for Medicaid expansion. It was to say to a woman: You don't just get 60 days postpartum; we are going to expand that beyond 60 days. State after State--red and blue States--said: You are right. This is a crisis. That which should be the happiest period of a woman's life is the most devastating with women hemorrhaging and dying. We began to treat that.

Now what is the threat? The threat is that they are going to cut these things that we did to help more people, to stop more folks from dying.

And here is the trick: You know this battle well. I wasn't here, Chuck. You were here, and I know my chief of staff was on your staff, writing this in. This is why you all said: We are going to try to incentivize States to expand Medicare. We are going to cover 90 percent of the costs.

I still don't understand why some States--talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face--said no. In my State, the Republican Governor said: Heck, yes. Sign New Jersey up. But many of those States have this automatic trigger that if the funding is cut--even if they say we are not going to cut $880 billion, just $250 billion--well, that is going to trigger many States to give up that Medicare expansion and go back to the days where millions upon millions of Americans don't have coverage at all.

So, again, this whole speech is because, Chuck--Senator Schumer--it has been business as usual in this place when that kind of threat has been happening; that of the stories that I read that I had to struggle through. We should be doing hearings. We should be bringing in the people. I know the values that we share on both sides of the aisle. How could we be so abjectly cruel, and why? To push through a tax break plan from which families in the neighborhood I live won't see the benefits.

Thank you for allowing me to yield the floor for you to ask a question.

I see my colleague here from Delaware. I am going to read a few more stories, but I suspect that she, too, has a question because she and I did not just meet when she was sworn in here in January. God bless her. She is my colleague, but she is my sister, and she has inspired me for years.

When she heard I was doing this--and I am not sure how much this is done on the Senate floor--my sister came over and prayed with me that I could stand for a long time because she knew what we were trying to do, which was to try to create--with whom we served--John Lewis-type good trouble in this institution, to not do things as normal, and to begin to say that the voices I am reading are of Democrats and Republicans. The voices I am reading are of Democratic and Republican Governors, of Democratic and Republican heads of hospitals, of Democratic and Republican heads of medical associations, of Democratic and Republican constituencies. This is not right or left. This is right or wrong.

My colleague--my colleague--I am going to put her on blast, but God bless your friends who remind you of who you are when you forget. She didn't know that I really wanted to give a speech that was speaking to all of America, but she came up here, and when we were praying, she said: I pray that you speak words of love because she and I know love is ferocious. It is the strongest force on the Earth. It is not soft. She asked God to give me words of love today.

So I know that this friend of mine--my sister here, my colleague-- whom I have worked with for years and years and years, asked me if she could come to the floor and ask a question. So, as I am instructed to do, if you were asking me to yield for a question, then I am going to say: Go ahead if you want to ask me.

I will yield for a question. I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

I am so grateful for that question. It sobers me when you ask it because just a reduction in Medicaid--I love that metaphor use-- is pulling a string out for families who are barely holding it together right now--families with children with disabilities or who are developmentally disabled who have been struggling so much to get their children into programs that could help move them--some of them to independence, some of

them into adulthood where they can get jobs. So many of these things that help to propel these children would be undermined. Just transportation services going away would create hardship and devastation on families.

So here we are in America, when costs are going up, housing is going up; we are about to have these awful tariffs where the price of vehicles will go up, the price of transportation will go up. So the ripple effect of an impact on children, just by a fraction of the cuts that they are proposing--not to mention the grandeur of the $880 billion--would have a devastating impact on millions and millions of children.

But it doesn't stop there. You quoted King. King said in the letter from the Birmingham jail:

We are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality,

tied in a single garment of destiny.

To think that there could be an injury to their family and their child and have it not affect you is not only self-defeating ignorance, it is callous and uncaring, and it demands us to step up for those children that you so rightfully asked me about in your question.

I will definitely yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Well, that is the thing that is so significant. Already, Governors and mayors are writing letters and speaking up.

When I go to different cities in New Jersey, I am often called by local leaders because they know, No. 1, the stories of the people who rely on Medicaid--the seniors, the children, the disabled families. But more importantly than that, they know their hospitals who already have very fragile budgets, to carve out millions and millions of dollars, as I said, over tens of millions of dollars for our level 1 trauma hospital in New Jersey, that would devastate the entire economic model for our hospital. It would affect jobs. It would affect the economy. It would affect small businesses. It would be devastating.

Yes.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

I am going to continue elevating here, throughout the hours and hours of my speech, the voices of Americans from all backgrounds, all geographies, elevating the stories of leaders--Democrat, Republican, and Independent.

I want to start with Matthew Cook, who is the president and CEO of Children's Hospital Association. Matthew Cook writes:

The House budget resolution directive to the Energy and

Commerce Committee to cut 880 billion in spending will almost

certainly lead to deep reductions in Medicaid funding for

children who rely on the program and destabilize the

financial viability of the providers caring for them.

To the point that my colleague from Delaware asked:

Slashing funding would mean fewer healthcare providers,

fewer services, and longer wait times for patients who

already--

Who already--

face significant barriers to care. These cuts will impact the

37 million children on the Medicaid Program, including the

nearly 50 percent of children with special healthcare needs.

Three million children in military-connected families--

I am going to repeat that.

Three million children in military-connected families, more

than 40 percent of the children living in rural areas and

small towns, patients in rural communities would be hit

especially hard as hospitals and clinics in these areas rely

heavily on Medicare funding to stay open.

Here is a letter from the Mental Health Liaison Group:

In the midst of our Nation's ongoing mental health crisis--

I am going to pause there. When I ran for President and moved around the country, in townhall meeting after townhall meeting after townhall meeting, I was even surprised with how many Americans--I don't think we had a townhall where someone didn't want to stand up and tell me about the mental health crisis in America and how poorly we were doing. So when the Mental Health Liaison Group starts off with that, it hits me very hard.

I still remember meeting with a guy in a New Jersey diner who had mental health issues, was a teacher in a high school, and he stabilized his mental health because of his prescription drugs but then stopped being able to afford them, started skimping on the drugs, had a mental health crisis, lost his job, and his whole life destabilized. Just because of not being able to have access to a costly prescription drug, a valued teacher had his life upended.

I start this letter again:

In the midst of our Nation's ongoing mental health crisis,

including its devastating impact on youth and our ongoing

overdose epidemic, it is paramount that access to lifesaving

MHSUD services is not reduced and the integrity of the

Medicaid Program to serve as a vital Federal and State

partner safety net is preserved. Limiting access to Medicaid

threatens to undermine gains in reducing overdose mortality

rates and could lead to increasing rates of incarceration and

hospitalization.

My colleague from Delaware knows this. The biggest mental health institutions in America--the biggest ones--pick your State, from Illinois to Los Angeles, the biggest mental health institutions are Los Angeles prisons, are Chicago's prisons and jails, wasting taxpayer dollars. Where folks got their mental health treatment, their lives could stabilize. They could be workers. They could be helpers. They could not be sick.

Here is Chip Kahn, the CEO of the Federation of American Hospitals:

Key Republican lawmakers recognizing that so many

constituents rely on Medicaid for critical care made it clear

that their vote today was based on an understanding that the

final reconciliation bill would not include devastating cuts

or changes. I believe that is gratifying.

Chip Kahn writes:

It is important that these members came to the same

conclusion. Medicaid cuts should be off the table.

Medicaid cuts should be off the table.

It is up to these lawmakers to follow through and ensure

spending cuts don't come at the expense of care for over 70

million Americans, including kids, seniors, and hard-working

families.

I love the appeal in that letter because it was an appeal that I am reminded of when my colleagues Lisa Murkowski and the great John McCain and an extraordinary friend Susan Collins when they voted to save the Affordable Care Act. They listened to the appeal of people like this gentleman.

My colleague sitting there, it is like, often, we resort to words of vicious cruelty. John Lewis didn't do that when he advocated against the most horrific racists. He didn't take on words of hate. We have got to appeal to colleagues of good conscience, not to let--as this person says, no Medicaid cuts; no Medicaid cuts.

I know President Trump has said that Medicaid cuts are off the table. He said that over and over and over again. We will see. We will see.

Modern Medicaid Alliance:

With over 70 million children, seniors, and hard-working

families who are relying on Medicaid for their health and

well-being, it is critical Congress listens to State and

local government officials, faith leaders, healthcare

providers, and hard-working Americans, and blocks proposed

cuts to the program.

As organizations representing and caring for the millions

of Americans who receive coverage and benefits through

Medicaid, we know firsthand how the current level of cuts

being considered by Congress would impact

their care. They will cause Americans to lose coverage,

reduce health access, and increase costs. We oppose any

cuts--

We oppose any cuts.

We oppose any cuts or harmful policy changes to Americans'

Medicaid benefits as part of the budget reconciliation

process and call on congressional leaders to reverse course

and protect the program moving forward.

Here is the Modern Medicaid Alliance:

The latest House vote breaks a vital promise to more than

70 million Americans who depend on the Medicaid Program and

now face the potential for unprecedented, destabilizing cuts

to their coverage and access to care. The full extent of cuts

being considered go far beyond addressing ``waste, fraud and

abuse'' and would undermine Medicaid coverage for those who

depend on it. Already, Senators are issuing stark warnings

about the impact of Medicaid cuts on the stability of their

communities, State budgets, hospitals and providers. We urge

members of the House and Senate to block any Medicaid cuts or

harmful policy proposals as part of the ongoing budget

process.

Sister Mary Haddad, President and CEO of Catholic Health Association:

We are deeply concerned that the budget resolution would

force the House Energy and Commerce Committee to slash $880

billion from the Medicaid Program, an essential healthcare

program for nearly 80 million low-income Americans. Medicaid

provides coverage for one in five individuals, funds 41

percent of all national births, and is the largest payor for

long-term care and behavioral health services. These cuts

would have devastating consequences, particularly for those

in small towns and rural communities, where Medicaid is often

the primary source of health coverage.

Medicaid is not just a health program; it is a lifeline. It

provides access to care for those who need it most--poor and

vulnerable children, pregnant women, elderly adults, and

disabled individuals in our Nation--while ensuring their

dignity. Their dignity.

Here is the Partnership for Medicaid again:

The Partnership for Medicaid, a nonpartisan nationwide

organization representing clinicians, healthcare providers,

safety-net health plans, and counties, calls on Congress to

reject cuts to Medicaid during the budget reconciliation

process. The Partnership for Medicaid stands ready to work

with policymakers to identify more sustainable strategies to

strengthen Medicaid and improve upon its promise of providing

high-quality coverage and access to care populations.

So this is another organization saying: Hey, put me in. Let us help you improve this program, and maybe we can achieve some of our mutual goals.

Here is Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the great AAP:

The American Academy of Pediatrics urges lawmakers to

reject the budget resolution before the U.S. House of

Representatives and to protect programs that are vital to the

health and well-being of children. We oppose the proposed

funding cuts to programs like Medicaid and the Children's

Health Insurance Program, which cover nearly half of all U.S.

children, as well as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance

Program. These cuts would have devastating consequences for

children and families.

We are going to talk about cuts to SNAP later, but I love how Dr. Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, can't help but mention them together. Why is a doctor concerned about healthcare also mentioning SNAP? Well, fundamental to our children's health and well-being is having access to fresh and healthy foods.

This is me being a little critical of people saying they are MAHA-- Make America Healthy Again--and then immediately cutting kids' access to fresh, healthy fruits and vegetables.

I love this doctor. It is almost like you are doubling down on the injury to our children. We are cheapening highly processed and sugar- filled, nutritionally empty foods, denying access to fresh, healthy fruits and vegetables, and then not letting people with chronic diseases get healthcare. I love this doctor for pointing out those connections.

Now I am going to go to Brian Connell, who is the vice president of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society:

The fiscal year 2025 budget resolution would create not

just the opportunity but the obligation for the House

Committee on Energy and Commerce to make dangerous cuts--

Dangerous cuts--

to the Medicaid program in the budget reconciliation process

expected in the coming week. The hundreds of billions of

dollars of cuts demanded by the budget resolution cannot be

achieved without slashing benefits for enrollees or

altogether taking away Medicaid coverage for millions of

Americans.

To be clear, the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society and the

patients we represent are clamoring for Congress to lower

healthcare costs, but the framework before the House today

would pave the way for policies that do just the opposite,

putting affordable access to healthcare out of reach of

millions of Americans.

Feeding America--I love this organization:

Cuts to vital federal nutrition programs like SNAP,

necessitated by this resolution and the Senate version passed

last week, will harm families grappling with high food costs,

hurt rural economies and strain food banks already

overwhelmed by rising demand. We urge the House to reject

spending cuts to nutrition programs in the budget

reconciliation process and support the work the House and

Senate agriculture committees are doing to create a strong,

bipartisan farm bill.

The Federal AIDS Policy Partnership:

We are writing on behalf of 95 national, regional, and

local organizations advocating for Federal funding

legislation and policy to end the HIV epidemic in the United

States. We urge Congress to reject all proposals to enact

cuts to Medicaid, whether through per-capita caps or block

grants, restrictions to the Federal Medical Assistance

Percentage, or FMAP, or mandatory work requirements during

reconciliation for the 2025-2026 fiscal year budgets.

Medicaid is the most important source of health coverage

and lifesaving care for people living with HIV--

The most important source of health coverage and lifesaving care for people living with HIV--

providing coverage for more than 40 percent of the people

living with HIV and contributing 45 percent of all Federal

funding for domestic HIV care and treatment.

The next letter starts:

To be clear, the cuts outlined above are being proposed for

one simple reason: to pay for $4.5 trillion in tax breaks

that disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Congress can and

must take a different path--

Congress must take a different path--

one that lifts more families out of poverty and provides more

Americans with the opportunity to reach their full potential.

A people-first agenda should include expanding the child tax

credit for the 17 million children who don't receive the full

credit due to low family incomes, expanding rental

assistance, increasing SNAP benefits to reflect rising

grocery prices and closing the Medicaid coverage gap.

If Congress focused on ensuring that wealthy Americans pay their fair share rather than providing additional tax breaks, we could fund these initiatives and so much more.

This is a group of groups that you will recognize or many people will recognize: American Association of Nurse Practitioners, Gerontological Advanced Practice Nurses Association, the National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health, National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, and the National Organization of Nurse Practitioner Faculties. They write:

We are deeply concerned with the impact of these cuts on

the healthcare system and their potential to harm our most

vulnerable patients. Further, these cuts will threaten the

viability of practices that treat Medicaid patients,

financially destabilizing and having a disproportionate

impact on those who provide care to underserved and rural

communities.

Association of American Medical Colleges, AAMC:

We remain extremely concerned that the budget resolution's

reconciliation instructions would result in unsustainable

cuts to Federal healthcare programs--specifically Medicaid--

by requiring at least $880 billion in savings from the House

Energy and Commerce Committee. Cuts of this magnitude would

jeopardize both access to care for millions of Medicaid

enrollees and the financial stability of the providers who

care for them.

Here is one from Chimes International:

Cuts in Medicaid will have a dramatic negative impact on

our healthcare system and the first responder community.

Millions of Americans will be at risk of losing access to

housing, thereby increasing homelessness for some of the most

vulnerable members of society, especially in areas that

already lack affordable housing. Provider organizations like

ours will be forced to close the doors of residential

facilities and reduce support staff, which is already in

short supply.

Katie Smith Sloan, who is the president and CEO of LeadingAge:

States would have to fill in massive budget holes if

Federal funding to Medicaid programs were cut. Even if a cut

such as a change to the expansion FMAP proposal does not seem

to directly impact aging services, it would because the cost

of the cut would have to somehow be absorbed by State

budgets. That type of hole cannot be filled in via

more efficiency. Balancing the 10-year program budget cycle

on the back of the Medicaid program is not a good tradeoff

for the American people.

Alan Morgan, who is the CEO of the National Rural Health Association--this letter is powerful. He represents the National Rural Health Association:

Any cuts to the Medicaid program will disproportionately

affect rural communities. Rural Americans rely on Medicaid

coverage, with about 20 percent of non-elderly adults and 40

percent of children living in rural areas enrolled in

Medicaid and CHIP. In almost all States, rural areas have

higher rates of Medicaid enrollment than metropolitan areas.

Cuts to Medicaid would shift healthcare costs onto rural

families, many of whom already struggle with financial

instability. Medicaid cuts would force families to face

higher out-of-pocket expenses, leading many to delay or forgo

necessary treatments. The burden would worsen health

outcomes, especially for those managing chronic conditions

like diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.

To the extraordinary prescience of my colleague from Delaware, who knew this letter was coming, I imagine, this is a letter from the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, and the International City/County Management Association.

I am going to pause for a second just to remind folks--because I have been involved in the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities. I have dealt with the National Association of Counties on things that were important here in the Senate. All of these groups are bipartisan. All of these groups represent Democrat and Republican mayors, Democrat and Republican city council people.

I was actually a nonpartisan mayor. New York does not have partisan elections. So they have nonpartisan folks.

This is a group of people who have those jobs where the rubber meets the road. A change in State policy, a change in Federal policy--we had to eat it when I was mayor if it cost us more money. I was a mayor that talked like lots of mayors do, not in partisan lingo. They just talk about: Hey, it is an unfunded mandate. Hey, that is adding more bureaucracy. Hey, that is going to cause more people in my community to be homeless. It is going to cause more children in my community to use an emergency room as their primary care physician.

When I meet a mayor, I look at them and I thank them because it is one of the hardest jobs in America.

So this organization that represents Democrats and Republicans--they write:

As a coalition of bipartisan membership organizations

representing State legislatures, mayors, cities, and

counties, we are committed to working collaboratively to

strengthen the Medicaid program so that the States and

localities can continue to meet the needs of their residents

effectively. We write to express concern over proposed

changes to Medicaid financing and requirements that could

significantly impact State and local budgets, healthcare

infrastructure, and millions and millions of Americans who

rely on the program.

I would say so far there are at least half a dozen to a dozen of these letters where bipartisan groups are saying: Let us help you. Don't rush this through in a way that is going to cause havoc to State and local governments, cause havoc to children and seniors and the disabled, cause havoc to hospitals and businesses, cause havoc to rural communities, cause havoc to the idea of what it means to be an American: that we take care of our own, that we stand up for each other, that we lend a hand, that we lift folks up. And here it is, this voice of bipartisan sensibility that says: Hey, hold a hearing. We will come. Put some of us on a commission.

This is a group called Advocates for Community Health:

Medicaid's successes as a national program derive from its

variations across different States.

Different States doing things in different ways.

Medicaid looks different in every State and territory

because the program is able to reflect and accommodate the

specific needs of the State's patients, providers, and

communities.

These State-based programs are vital to the patients served

by community health centers, patient-to-direct primary care

providers that serve rural and underserved communities

nationwide.

As the House and Senate work toward a budget reconciliation

package, Advocates for Community Health encourages a cautious

approach to changes to Medicaid policy as broad changes have

a potential to destabilize State Medicaid programs and

community health centers, impact local economies and job

creation, and further exacerbate rural healthcare access

challenges.

Families USA. Their executive director--his name is Anthony Wright:

Americans are storming townhalls, calling their

Representatives in Congress, and demanding that House

Republicans stop their plan to massively cut the healthcare

that Americans want and need. President Trump and some

Republicans have said they won't touch Medicaid, but their

vote today is when we see who walks the walk. The vote is the

walk-the-plank moment for moderates who say they don't want

Medicaid cuts but are being asked to cut over $880 billion to

the care and coverage of their constituents.

Policymakers and the public alike understand that there is

no version of this budget resolution that does not include

deep cuts to vital programs, services, and benefits the

American people use every day to help them see a doctor, pay

rent, or feed their families.

Justice in Aging is an organization that is led by its executive director, Kevin Prindiville. He writes:

With this vote, lawmakers endorsed taking away Medicaid

from millions of Americans, including older adults, all to

bankroll tax cuts for the wealthy. Thanks to our collective

advocacy, the vote to pass this dangerous budget blueprint

did not come easily, and we will make sure lawmakers know

that voting to enact these cuts would be voting to abandon

older Americans.

The National Alliance for Caregiving:

The House budget blueprint to eliminate at least $800

billion in Federal funding unfairly targets critical

healthcare and supportive services that older adults, people

with diabetes, and their family caregivers depend upon to

maintain health and economic security for families and

themselves.

Home- and community-based services funded via Medicaid are

cost-effective. They save millions of taxpayer dollars on

unnecessary and often unwanted institutional care. Most of

all, Medicaid-funded HCBS--

Home- and community-based services--

offers consumers a choice in how they receive care in the

dignity of their own homes.

In the dignity of their own homes. Dignity.

The Coalition for Whole Health Legal Action Center:

Among the options being discussed are work requirements for

enrollees, despite the fact that most people receiving

Medicaid do work, and other cuts to Federal funding that

would disproportionately harm people with substance abuse and

mental health conditions and those with arrest and conviction

records by making it harder to access critical health

coverage and service, medications, and support.

Such individuals already face pervasive stigma and

discrimination, including significant barriers to employment

that threaten their stability and well-being, at a time when

overdose and suicide are claiming more than 400 lives a day.

We cannot afford to reduce access to comprehensive healthcare

services that people with substance abuse use, mental health

conditions, and those rebuilding their lives after

incarceration desperately need to recover and thrive.

Let me tell you something about that that really strikes me. I was blessed to go to colleges, and there, people would use drugs. Now I live in a community where the consequences for drug use often mean jail time. In fact, if you look at low-income people, their chances of being incarcerated are far greater than college kids, who have drug usage rates at about the same.

So now you say to somebody who has an arrest record and served some time that when they come out, they can't get help? People with mental illness are over-incarcerated. You are going to say to them ``You have this mental illness. Now you have a record, and you also can't get healthcare services?'' That is, again, self-defeatist when it comes to our Nation trying to give people ways of elevating themselves above their past mistakes or the diseases that challenge them.

Here is another group, Community Catalyst:

These cuts will hit hardest where healthcare access is

already fragile.

Here is the Alliance for Ageing Research:

We, the undersigned organizations, urge you to oppose any

cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance

Program, SNAP, including those called for in the proposed

budget resolution. We are concerned about the negative impact

these deep cuts will have on the Americans living with

chronic disease and other disabilities.

But we are willing to draw your attention now to how

devastating it will be on those with Alzheimer's and related

diseases, including frontotemporal degeneration and Lewy body

dementia, and their family caregivers.

April Verrett, the president of SEIU:

Let's be clear, Americans have flooded congressional phone

lines, rallied at townhalls, and lifted their voices to make

it clear that they do not want massive cuts to the healthcare

and public services they depend on. Despite that, today

Speaker Johnson pressed a budget resolution forward that puts

our Nation on a disastrous path to ripping away healthcare

from 80 million children, pregnant women, veterans, seniors,

people with disabilities by gutting Medicaid.

Lee Saunders, the president of AFSCME:

This budget proves that extremists are more concerned with

giving wealthy trillions in tax cuts than helping working

people. Voters across the country are packing townhalls to

demand no cuts to Medicaid and SNAP. They are calling

Representatives and asking them, Please save these services.

They want elected leaders who will lower rising costs, who

make it easier to afford rent and food, but instead of

listening to workers, the House moved forward on a budget

plan that will cause millions to lose their healthcare,

increasing food insecurity for families, and jeopardize

Medicare and Social Security in the long term.

He calls this ``shameful.''

The Diabetes Leadership Council and the Diabetes Patient Advocacy Coalition:

We are deeply concerned about the budget resolution passed

in the House of Representatives this week. This budget

resolution will likely lead to cuts to the safety-net

Medicaid programs, which provide health insurance to almost

80 million Americans, including children, pregnant women,

elderly adults, people with diabetes, and low-income adults

and families.

This action would disproportionately impact Americans who

most need us, including those with diabetes or other chronic

conditions who rely on Medicaid to access medications and

technology that they need to manage their conditions.

Members of Congress should, instead, work to ensure access

to health insurance through the Medicare program--work to

ensure access to healthcare without barriers for the most

vulnerable Americans.

Here is the Alliance for Childhood Cancer:

Work requirements may also impact caregivers of children

with cancer who are unable to work due to the demands of

cancer treatment for young adults with cancer who may not be

eligible for insurance via their employer or may not be able

to work due to their diagnosis. Many young adults rely on

Medicaid, especially Medicaid expansion, for coverage, and

research shows a clear increase in survival for young adults

with cancer in Medicaid expansion States.

UnidosUS:

The proposed resolution would slash at least $880 billion

from programs that have long provided lifesaving, affordable

coverage to millions of Americans. Medicaid alone serves 80

million people, covering nearly 40 million children, half of

those with special healthcare needs, and more than 40 percent

of all births.

In Latino communities, Medicaid reaches 20 million

individuals, protecting nearly one-third of community

members, more than half of Latino children, and roughly 30

percent of Hispanic elders. Without these vital programs, it

would be higher hospitalization rates, delayed diagnoses, and

increased mortality. This would become the norm, placing an

unsustainable strain on public health and national financial

security.

As UnidosUS recently pointed out, these proposed cuts would represent the largest cuts to Medicaid in U.S. history.

The Coalition of Survivors of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault:

On behalf of the adult and child survivors of domestic

violence and sexual assault, we serve and advocate for them.

We, on behalf of them, write to ask you to reject cuts to

Federal Medicaid funding.

Survivors rely on Medicaid every day to escape abuse, to

rebuild their lives after violence, to care for their

children and families.

The Catholic Health Association of United States, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Catholic Charities USA:

Weakening Medicaid through structural challenges such as

per capita caps or block grants would undermine these values

and risk leaving millions without access to essential health

services.

Furthermore, policies like work reporting requirements have

shown clear evidence of creating artificial barriers to care,

generating paperwork and bureaucracy while doing little to

support people looking for work. These requirements also fail

to recognize that most people on Medicaid already work and

ignore the realities of low-wage workers, caregiving

responsibilities, and health limitations, and studies have

shown they frequently result in loss of coverage for eligible

individuals and children.

The Disability and Aging Collaborative and the Consortium for Constituents with Disabilities on behalf of 107 national organizations and more than 230 State and local organizations:

The undersigned members of the Disability and Aging

Collaborative, the health and long-term service and support

task forces of the Consortium for Constituents with

Disabilities, and allied organizations write to urge you to

exclude Medicaid cuts, work requirements, or any changes that

limit funding or eligibility from budget reconciliation or

other legislation.

People with disabilities, older adults, family caregivers

and their children, direct care workers and other low-income

individuals and families depend on Medicaid every day for

their health, safety, and independence. Medicaid enables our

communities to go to work and to care for loved ones. It is

our community's lifeline, and we cannot afford for any part

of it to be cut.

(Mr. BANKS assumed the Chair.)

The Jesuit Conference:

Programs that meet basic needs such as SNAP, Medicare and

Medicaid, health insurance premium tax credits, and Social

Security should be protected and remain as robust as

possible. We oppose modifications that would have the effect

of reducing important benefits or excluding vulnerable people

from participating.

Thank you, the Jesuit Conference.

Why? I mean, we have just read dozens and dozens of letters from real people who are relying on these programs to take care of their elderly parents, to take care of their loved one with dementia, to take care of their children, to take care of their adult children with disabilities, to take care of their children with special needs, to take care of their families, to take care of their communities, to take care of rural towns, to take care of the hospitals that take care of people.

Why? Why? Why are all of these people lifting their voices now, pointing to the crisis that can't be normalized, pointing to the challenges? Because we have seen this reconciliation process call for $880 billion of cuts, when, as I read earlier, there is only one place that the majority of those cuts can come from, and that would be hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid, which organization after organization told you it is already a delicate balance; that cuts to these programs could ultimately tear down people's access to lifesaving benefits.

People use the word ``dignity'' over and over again--dignity. It is a value in our country that we treat our elders with dignity, that we give people struggling with chronic disease dignity, that we give parents who are slammed with the unimaginable diagnoses for their children--we help them to access dignity.

People that we have talked about and that we read their letters, they all said: We can help you find efficiencies. We can help you make the programs work better. We can help you, but why are you doing this if it is all part of a larger package to give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, to give tax cuts to billionaires? How does that work?

That Elon Musk should get richer and richer and richer, and families--the love in these letters--who love their children, who love their aging parent, who love that person with dementia, even though they don't recognize them anymore. But that doesn't stop the heroic love. And they piece together their finances in a nation where housing costs are going up, food costs are going up, and transportation is going up. They piece together the fragile finances of their lives. The Medicaid funding is one part of it that gets yanked away, and everything unravels. Why, they ask, why? They plead for help. They ask us to do something.

I want to read some articles, coming from a variety of backgrounds-- but perhaps this one from PBS, ``A closer look at who relies on Medicaid.''

This is what PBS wrote:

As congressional Republicans seek about $4.5 trillion to

extend expiring tax cuts, the Federal Government will need to

find savings elsewhere.

You are going to give that $4.5 trillion that disproportionately go to the wealthy, and you are going to have to find savings elsewhere.

Experts say budget cuts could affect Medicaid coverage for

as many as millions of Americans, at a time when the program

may need more funding, not less.

The proposed House bill requires the Committee on Energy

and Commerce to find $880 billion in spending cuts, which

means some aspects of Medicaid, which the committee oversees,

may be on the chopping block.

Medicaid is a massive . . . program that provides free and

reduced-cost health care for eligible enrollees. It offers

critical coverage to a wide variety of Americans, including

children, adults with disabilities and older people in

nursing homes.

Even for Americans who have private insurance, Medicaid can

play a part in their health care. That's because Medicaid is

such a large engine of funding for so many aspects of the

country's health coverage.

So many benefit from these aspects of this country's health coverage.

The public health insurance option is funded in part by the

Federal Government and in part by states, covering around 72

million [Americans].

The Federal Government spent about $880 billion on Medicaid

in fiscal year 2023, the most recent year for which there's

data, according to an analysis by the nonprofit health policy

research organization KFF.

Medicaid is an extremely popular entitlement program, said

Robin Rudowitz, director of the program on Medicaid and the

uninsured at KFF.

More than 9 in 10 adults say Medicaid is ``very'' or

``somewhat'' important to their local community, according to

recent KFF polling. Forty percent of respondents said they

wanted Medicaid funding to remain the same, while 42 percent

wanted to increase funding for the program. Just 17 percent

wanted to decrease funding ``a little'' or ``a lot.''

Some studies have found that expanding Medicaid can save

money for states, including in spending reductions in

corrections health care as well as mental health and

substance abuse care.

Pulling away from the article for a second, that is so logical. Expanding health coverage for people with mental health challenges or substance abuse means an investment now and saves a lot of money for society later and saves them from being rearrested because of their disease.

Back to the article:

President Donald Trump has said his administration will not

cut Medicaid benefits, and will instead reduce spending by

eliminating waste and fraud.

[Well,] according to health policy experts, there may not

be a way to fund the tax cuts without cutting Medicaid. Doing

that will have real implications, said Allison Orris, senior

fellow and director of Medicaid policy at the Center on

Budget and Policy Priorities.

Another nonpartisan group.

``It's fair to say if Medicaid is cut by hundreds of

billions of dollars, people will lose coverage. But some of

the ways in which they will lose coverage and health care and

access are a little bit tricky,'' she said.

[So] who and what relies on Medicaid?

Medicaid covers low-income Americans in all 50 states, as

well as D.C. and the American territories, but the program's

benefits are farther reaching.

Medicaid pays for around 2 in every 5 births in the

country. The program accounts for about 20 percent of both

hospital funding and total health care spending nationwide,

according to KFF. That organization's analyses of hundreds of

studies conducted since 2014 largely found that Medicaid

expansion helped cut hospital costs associated with uninsured

patients. Many studies also found that Medicaid expansion

helped with overall hospital funding and resulted in fewer

hospital closures.

And Medicaid--not Medicare--is the single largest payer of

long-term coverage, including nursing home care.

Here are some of the ways Medicaid is crucial for so many

Americans' health care.

Long-term care for people with disabilities.

According to KFF analyses, 35 percent of Americans with

disabilities have Medicaid, [that is about] 15 million

people. That compares with 19 percent of people without

disabilities, [and] the majority of whom have employer-

provided health insurance.

Currently, Medicaid covers about 60 percent of long-term

care coverage, much of which provides care for younger adults

with disabilities.

Nursing homes.

Medicaid is the primary payer of nursing care in the U.S.;

it covers 63 percent of nursing home residents.

For many older adults, ``Medicaid is the safety net,'' says

David Grabowski, professor of health care policy at Harvard

Medical School. ``An individual can be middle-income their

entire life and then reach their older, long-term care years

and have to enter a nursing home.''

Because nursing homes can be so expensive, families can

quickly deplete [all of] their assets, then rely on Medicaid

to cover long-term care.

Another group:

Children.

Thirty-seven percent of people enrolled in Medicaid are

children, but they account for only about 15 percent of the

program's spending.

In 2023, KFF found that of the 72 million people enrolled

in Medicaid, about 30 million were children. Millions more

children are enrolled in the Children's Health Insurance

Program, which some states run with Medicaid expansion funds.

They are tied. Forgive me. That is off the article.

Back to the article:

So far, political conversation has not yet focused on

cutting CHIP.

Rural maternal health.

Medicaid covered around 40 percent of births nationwide in

2023, KFF found, and nearly half--

Nearly 50 percent--

of all rural births.

Studies also show that being enrolled in Medicaid leads to

improved health outcomes for children, including declines in

infant and child mortality, preventive care visits on par

with privately insured children and even potentially positive

outcomes into adulthood, such as improvements in education.

That is what studies show being enrolled in Medicaid leads to.

How about Native Americans and Alaskan Indians?

Four in 10 American Indian/Alaskan Native people are

enrolled in Medicaid, the highest enrollment rate among any

race and ethnicity category. This includes about 23 percent

of nonelderly AIAN adults and 44 percent of [American Indian/

Alaskan Native] children.

How the Federal Government funds the states' Medicaid

plans.

Medicaid began as an optional program in 1966 alongside

Medicare, with around 8 million people eligible for

enrollment. By the 1980s, all states had opted into providing

health insurance through Medicaid.

Though eligibility requirements have changed over the last

60 years and vary by state, the most significant change to

Medicaid was the enactment of the Patient Protection and

Affordable Care Act in 2010. It required states to cover

adults with incomes up to 138 percent of the [federal]

poverty line. After the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that

expansion for states should be optional, 40 states and

Washington, D.C., have expanded Medicaid.

Forty of our 50 States accepted ``federal funds at a much higher rate than the match rate for non-expansion coverage.''

That is a good summary by PBS of how far-reaching this program is, how many Americans in every single State, from all backgrounds, from both sides of the political aisle--Independents, old, young, hospitals, businesses, care professionals, and more--this is who we are. We have expanded the program. We have made it better. We have brought improvements. And yet we are doing a process, and it is not going through a committee. We are not soliciting the best ideas from both sides of the aisle about how to make it more efficient, more effective. We are not bringing in private sector professionals to give advice and input or hospital providers or people that are seeing things that we can learn from and craft legislation to make the program better.

And the letters are even showing that we are not even doing any of those things, and then we are cutting the very programs that allow people access to fresh, healthy food, that then cause us to need more health care for chronic diseases.

This alone would be bad enough if we were gutting a program with no input from professionals, if we were taking away healthcare from seniors, children, expectant mothers, the disabled. That would be bad enough.

But why? Again, why? Because it is part of a larger budget package to give trillions of dollars in tax cuts disproportionately to the wealthiest Americans and still add trillions to the national deficit.

I talked about American Indians and Alaskan Natives. I mentioned that I recently visited some proud Native Americans and heard their stories and was inspired by their conviction and their grit, and how under incredible odds, they were able to create better lives. After extraordinary oppression and vicious policies and more, they found a way forward.

There is a disproportionate number of Native Americans and Alaska Natives that rely on these programs, people who have maintained extraordinary dignity despite promises made and promises broken.

So many people are talking about that idea of a sacred trust; that the richest Nation in the world, to honor its ideals of freedom, has to focus on keeping people free from fear that one medical bill will throw their family in crisis or fear that one diagnosis for their child will unravel their lives or fear that, if their parent gets dementia, there will be no care for them.

So much of this conversation is within this larger understanding of who we are, and what do we stand for. I want to take a look at some of the things the Trump administration is doing that is going to undermine not just Medicaid but health insurance coverage for Americans, for all Americans, and raise the cost of healthcare, and negatively impact our health. At a time when basic prices of everyday goods are going up, the President is making healthcare harder to access and drug prices even higher.

I want to explain this. On his first day back in office, Trump rescinded the

policy that extended the enrollment period for ACA plans. This policy gave Americans sufficient time to enroll in healthcare for the year, and enrollment in the ACA continues to go up as people see how affordable this program is and how they can get quality healthcare. But the first thing--one of the first things he does--is rescind the policy that extended the enrollment period.

In addition to this, Republicans in Congress want to take away the tax credits that make healthcare more affordable for so many people. Millions of working-class Americans rely on Affordable Care Act tax credits to access affordable, quality healthcare and coverage.

I could go on with the things. For example, currently these tax credits, they are set to expire at the end of this year. If these tax credits were taken away, families will pay up to 90 percent more for their healthcare, and 5 million Americans could lose their healthcare altogether. All, again, if this goes through in 2025, billionaires and CEOs will get a huge tax break while working Americans relying on this tax credit will lose it.

Think about that. This would allow billionaires and CEOs to get more of a tax break, while these tax credits that help more Americans access healthcare would expire.

For New Jerseyans, ending the ACA tax credit would make health insurance less affordable for 352,000 hard-working people and their families and would force 75,000 people to go uninsured--75,000 people in my State alone.

Last year, 24 million people chose Affordable Care Act plans during the most recent open enrollment due to these expanded tax credits that made plans available to people for little or no monthly premiums and extended the enrollment period, which I just said the President has rolled back.

President Trump also overturned an effort for Medicare to lower drug costs like implementing a $2 monthly out-of-pocket cap on certain generic drugs as well as a measure that would reduce Medicare payments for rare disease drugs and drugs that treat life-threatening conditions.

I just don't understand that. I really see that as cruel. Americans struggling to afford their drugs had a cap of out-of-pocket expenses on certain generic drugs, and that was overturned.

Costs are going up. Costs are going up. And now this President is expanding costs for out-of-pocket generic drugs as well as Medicaid payments being eligible for rare diseases.

I had the privilege of becoming close to John McCain. I came here in the Senate, got this admonition, almost, from Bill Bradley, somebody who held my seat beforehand, and he challenged me to go and have lunch with or meetings with all my Republican colleagues at the time. That was way back in 2013. And I was told by John McCain's staff that I had like 10, 15 minutes, but I was going to take it. This is John McCain. He is legend.

And I go in and meet with him, and I don't come out of that office for 90 minutes. We both got emotional as he showed me pictures and documentation from his time as a prisoner of war.

In 2017, he was under extraordinary pressure in this healthcare crisis, and there were thousands of Americans descending on our Capitol. I will never forget the ``little lobbyists,'' they called themselves, kids in wheelchairs that would roll up to Congress people and raise their little voice, respectfully, and ask them not to take away their health coverage.

I remember people coming in here with preexisting conditions and saying: Don't repeal my healthcare and not even have a plan to replace it.

President Trump was asked about healthcare when he was Candidate Trump for this office, and he said he had, I think it was, ``conceptions of a plan.'' And since he has been in office, I haven't heard a vision for healthcare besides budget proposals that would cut people's healthcare.

But John McCain, I will never ever forget that moment. I was actually standing on the Republican side, if I remember correctly, having conversations, and he came to the floor, after listening to Arizonans tell stories like the ones I have been reading, and put his thumb down.

He wrote a speech about his decision, and I want to read a part of that now.

I have been a Member of the U.S. Senate for 30 years. I had

another long, if not as long, career before I arrived here,

another profession that was profoundly rewarding and in which

I had experiences and friendships that I revere. Make no

mistake, my service here is the most important job I have had

in my life. I am so grateful to the people of Arizona for the

privilege--for the honor--of serving here and the

opportunities it gives me to play a small role in the history

of the country I love.

I have known and admired men and women in the Senate who

played much more than a small role in our history--true

statesmen, giants of American politics. They came from both

parties and from various backgrounds. Their ambitions were

frequently in conflict. They held different views on the

issues of the day. They often had very serious disagreements

about how best to serve the national interest.

But they knew that however sharp and heartfelt their

disputes and however keen their ambitions, they had an

obligation to work collaboratively to ensure the Senate

discharged its constitutional responsibilities effectively.

Our responsibilities are important--vitally important--to the

continued success of our Republic. Our arcane rules and

customs are deliberatively intended to require broad

cooperation to function well at all. The most revered Members

of this institution accepted the necessity of compromise in

order to make incremental progress on solving America's

problems and to defend her from her adversaries.

That principled mindset and the service of our predecessors

who possessed it come to mind when I hear the Senate

referred to as the world's greatest deliberative body. I

am not sure we can claim that distinction with a straight

face today. I am sure it wasn't always deserved in

previous eras either. I am sure there have been times when

it was, and I was privileged to witness some of those

occasions.

Our deliberations today, not just our debates but the

exercise of all our responsibilities--authorizing government

policies, appropriating the funds to implement them,

exercising our advice and consent role--are often lively and

interesting. They can be sincere and principled, but they are

more partisan, more tribal more of the time than at any time

I can remember. Our deliberations can still be important and

useful, but I think we would all agree they haven't been

overburdened by greatness lately. Right now, they aren't

producing much for the American people.

Both sides have let this happen. Let's leave the history of

who shot first to the historians. I suspect they will find we

all conspired in our decline, either by deliberate actions or

neglect. We have all played some role in it. Certainly, I

have. Sometimes, I have let my passion rule my reason.

Sometimes I made it harder to find common ground because of

something harsh I said to a colleague. Sometimes I wanted to

win more for the sake of winning than to achieve a contested

policy.

Incremental progress, compromises that each side criticizes

but also accepts, and just plain muddling through to chip

away at problems and to keep our enemies from doing their

worst aren't glamorous or exciting. It doesn't feel like a

political triumph. It is usually the most we can expect from

our system of government, operating in a country as diverse,

quarrelsome, and free as ours.

Considering the injustice and cruelties inflicted by

autocratic governments and how corruptible human nature can

be, the problem-solving our system does make possible, the

fitful progress it produces, and the liberty and justice it

preserves, are a magnificent achievement.

Our system doesn't depend on our nobility. It accounts for

our imperfections and gives an order to our individual

strivings that has helped make ours the most powerful and

prosperous society on Earth. It is our responsibility to

preserve that, even when it requires us to do something less

satisfying than winning, even when we must give a little to

get a little, even when our efforts managed just 3 yards in a

cloud of dust, while critics on both sides denounced us for

timidity, for our failure to triumph.

I hope we can again rely on humility, on our need to

cooperate, on our dependence on each other to learn how to

trust each other again and, by so doing, better serve the

people who elected us. Stop listening to the bombastic

loudmouths on the radio and television and the internet. To

hell with them. They don't want anything done for the public

good. Our incapacity is their livelihood.

Let's trust each other. Let's return to regular order. We

have been spinning our wheels on too many important issues

because we keep trying to find a way to win without help from

across the aisle. That is an approach that has been employed

by both sides: mandating legislation from the top down,

without any support from the other side, with all the

parliamentary maneuvers it requires. We are getting nothing

done.

All we have really done this year is confirm Neil Gorsuch

to the Supreme Court. Our healthcare insurance system is a

mess. We all know it, those who support Obamacare and those

who oppose it. Something has to be done. We Republicans have

looked for a way to end it and replace it with something else

without paying a terrible political price. We haven't found

it yet. I am not sure we will. All we have managed to do is

make more popular a policy that wasn't very popular when we

started trying to get rid of it.

I voted for the motion to proceed to allow debate to continue

and amendments to be offered.

I will not vote for the bill as it is today. It is a shell

of a bill right now. We all know that. I have changes urged

by my State's Governor that will have to be included to earn

my support for final passage of any bill. I know many of you

will have to see the bill changed substantially for you to

support it. We have tried to do this by coming up with a

proposal behind closed doors in consultation with the

administration, then springing it on skeptical Members,

trying to convince them it is better than nothing--that it is

better than nothing--asking us to swallow our doubts and

force it past a unified opposition. I don't think that is

going to work in the end and probably shouldn't.

That is prescient. I mean, that is prescient. As a great New Jerseyan, Yogi Berra says ``It's like deja vu all over again.'' To hear what John McCain was criticizing--one party behind closed doors without consultation of experts, against the wishes of Republican Governors, is trying to force something through past a united opposition--he literally is describing what is happening right now and condemning both sides of this institution for playing this record over and over and over again.

Yes, I am a Democrat, and I admit that our healthcare system needs so much help and so much reform. One out of every three of our tax dollars is being spent on healthcare. That is ridiculous. And what are we getting from it? A society that is getting more and more sick.

And what are our solutions as a body? Did we come together as a team? Did we set up a special conference, set up a special committee to study the issues, to bring in the experts, to involve the best technology, to learn the lessons from private sector and public sector, from universities, from scientists--are we doing that, or are we doing exactly what John McCain said we shouldn't do, exactly what he described why he voted no?

It is maddening in this country to create greater and greater healthcare crises and for us not to solve it but to battle back and forth between trying to make incremental changes or to tear it all down with no plan to make it better, leaving more and more Americans suffering what is still one of the most significant ways people go bankrupt, which is not being able to afford their healthcare.

And what are we doing it for this time, John? Senator McCain? I know you wouldn't sanction this. I know you would be screaming. I have seen how angry you can get, John McCain. I have seen you tear people apart on the floor, Democrat and Republican, for doing the same stupid thing over and over again.

Listen to John McCain explain why he voted no the last time the Republican Party tried to unite and tear down healthcare with no idea how to fix it and threatening to put millions of Americans in financial crisis and healthcare crisis.

I can't believe we are here again with thousands upon thousands upon thousands of Americans writing letters, storming into townhalls-- hospital leaders, private sector leaders, Republican Governors, Republican mayors, Democrat Governors, Democrat mayors, all saying: What are you doing in Congress and why?

I think what is even more outrageous this time is the why--to redo the tax cuts that independent budget analysis says, no, that the overwhelming benefit went to the billionaires who sat on stage with Donald Trump during his inauguration. We are not saving any money in our budgets. Their plan is to expand our budget crisis. Their plan will add trillions of dollars to our budget and give tax cuts to the wealthiest and not help the people that John McCain is talking about. His echoes haunt me that he said we are mistaken when we don't come together across the aisle--across our differences--to try to make things better.

There is a healthcare crisis in this country. One out of three dollars in our government is going to healthcare. And we have more chronic disease in this Nation than we have ever had before. And there is no solution being offered in this reconciliation to deal with that. In fact, we are making it worse because we are denying children access to healthy foods. This is ridiculous.

If they are successful, what kind of country will we be with more stratifications of wealth, with people who have done so good?

I am not one of these Democrats who hates successful or wealthy people. Heck, people in my neighborhood--I am the only Senator that probably lives in a low-income neighborhood--strive to be wealthy. They are doing great. The top quartile of our country the last 20 years has made extraordinary wealth. God bless them.

But when you see that 70, 80 percent of Americans don't want Medicaid cuts because most Americans know neighbors, family members, church members who rely on Medicaid; they know that their grandmother in a nursing home relies on Medicaid; they know that the disabled child next door relies on Medicaid. And now we want to gut it $880 billion?

John McCain--most people remember the thumb down. They don't remember his words; they don't remember the warnings. This man is in Heaven now and his words, they speak to us in this moment again. Why won't we listen to them?

Our deliberations today, not just are debates but the

exercise of all our responsibilities--authorizing

government policies, appropriating the funds to implement

them . . . They can be sincere and principled, but they

are more partisan, more tribal more of the time than at

any time I can remember. Our deliberations can still be

important and useful, but I think we would all agree they

haven't been overburdened. . . . Right now, they aren't

producing much for the American people.

Both sides have let this happen. Let's leave the history of

who shot first to the historians. I suspect they will find we

all conspired in our decline, either by deliberate actions or

neglect.

Listen to John McCain:

Our system doesn't depend on our nobility. It accounts for

our imperfections and gives an order to our individual

strivings that has helped make ours a most powerful and

prosperous society on Earth.

Listen to us:

Let's trust each other. Let's return to regular order. We

have been spinning our wheels on too many important issues

because we keep trying to find a way to win without the help

from [the other side]. That is an approach that has been

employed by both sides: mandating legislation from the top

down, without any support from the other side . . . We are

getting nothing done.

All we have really done this year is to confirm Neil

Gorsuch. . . . I voted for the motion to proceed to allow

debate to continue and amendments to be offered.

I will not vote for the bill as it stands today.

I will not vote for the bill.

We have tried to do this by coming up with a proposal

behind closed doors in consultation with the administration--

Donald Trump--

then springing it on skeptical Members, trying to convince

them it is better than nothing . . . asking us to swallow our

doubts and force it past a unified opposition. I don't think

that is going to work in the end and probably shouldn't.

Well, this shouldn't work either. This shouldn't work either. This is wrong. This is wrong.

I see the leader here. I am sorry, sir. I should be conserving my energy.

I would yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Collins, Murkowski, and McCain, I think, took a lot of courage. They were getting a lot of pressure from the White House. John McCain was viciously attacked afterwards. But his private conversations with Members and you, Senator Schumer--I know at the last lap around his track of life, he didn't want to be remembered as someone doing something--to use John McCain kind of language--boneheaded; to hurt a lot of innocent, fragile people and leave them without a plan. When his own Republican Governor--I read Republican Governors earlier who were saying, don't do this.

I want to say something else to the Senator in response to his question. I watched you that night, and I just loved something you did. I never said this to you. People over here tried to start applauding and you stood up angry and told them not to because what John showed was something bigger than partisanship. He talked about it, one side trying to win; it is more ego sometimes than it is ideals. And you stood up and said, no, this is not that moment. We are watching a man take a position that was not easy. It didn't serve his politics but served his spirit.

I don't know if my staff has the envelope of the article I want, specifically because there is a story in there--I don't have it now, I will read it later--about John McCain in the prison camps.

I wasn't here when we had this moment. But when I got here weeks after this moment, Mr. Leader, all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talked about a special conference in the Old Senate Chamber. I was not there, but the Democrats and Republicans--it actually changed our behavior in here. It didn't last. But I came here and people said, because of that, we were all going to partner up, and for State of the Union Addresses, you have a Republican partner and Democrat--we would go as couples, basically.

It was something about this man where the dignity that he had that we all treasured, in a moment like that, he began to elevate.

I had my partner Senator here say to me when I got here: You are not a full Senator until you get ripped by John McCain's anger.

And I never got ripped by him. After my meeting, I mentioned earlier in his office, he started inviting me with him. My first codel was with him. He told me all the time: Booker, there are two types of Senators here. I don't mean to cast any aspersions on others, but there are people who represent their States, and there are statesmen. He kept challenging me to be a statesman, not a great Democratic Senator but to be a great American Senator. He would challenge me over and over and over again.

I would go to his national security conferences out at his ranch. One of my favorite moments as a Senator--if I have my top 10 favorite moments as a Senator, this is one of them. The leader knows that I am a vegan, and when you go to one of his open barbecues, there is nothing vegan. I mean, they even saturated every vegetable in butter, and mayonnaise was everywhere. But I am not going to complain. I am just going to sit and enjoy conference conversations.

So now I am in a golf cart, going home at the end of the night, and the young man who was shuttling me home goes to me: How was the food? Did you enjoy the dinner?

I go: Well, actually, if I am going to be honest, I didn't eat.

They go: You haven't had dinner?

I go: No. I am a vegan.

They go: Well, we are about to pass John McCain's home, where he lives, and I am sure it is late, and I am sure he is asleep, but maybe we can break in and see what is in his fridge.

And I am like: Dude, I am from New Jersey. I love this. Breaking into John McCain's house, and I won't have to worry about getting arrested? I am all in.

And so we went in, and as soon as we looked around in the kitchen, I looked through the kitchen, and John McCain was sitting there with another elderly, tough-looking man on the couch, engaging in some conversation. So I didn't get my joy of breaking into John McCain's house, but I walk in, and he is sitting there with a former Secretary, if I remember correctly, of the Navy.

And they were like: Booker, skedaddle. We are going to have a meeting.

So I am sitting there, eating peanut butter and, like, celery or whatever, and these two men are talking about government inefficiency. They say the place that we could be saving the most money--the former Secretary, if I remember correctly, of the Navy and one of the great men on national security. They started detailing the waste in the military. They both claimed that we could have much more capacity and greater military effectiveness for billions and billions and billions of dollars less.

I will never forget. Again, this is me new to the Senate. I don't know foreign policy like I do 12 years later or the military like I do 12 years later, but I was listening to these two experienced men complaining about the gross waste that was undermining our overall effectiveness and efficiency. That is why, to this day, I am infuriated that, when people come in and say they want to cut budgets, the first thing they want to go for is not to have a real conversation--because the military hasn't passed an audit in years--about a lot of the baked- in corruption and misspending in the military, but they are going after programs that hospital after hospital, that healthcare provider after healthcare provider, that leader after leader, and that Governor after Governor says: Are you crazy?

So this is one of the more preposterous moments. You and I both know, if John McCain were here right now, he would reject this whole thing because we were literally repeating the same thing we did in 2017, 8 years ago.

I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Resoundingly, yes.

I am just laughing that every time DOGE puts up their supposed savings, they then try to take them down because, as soon as they are fact-checked, so many of them are not done. And I don't want to say all of them. I don't want to paint that broad a brush. I know about having Microsoft licenses, too many. Yes, there is waste. I wish we were doing this in a bipartisan way. Those cuts would be bigger and probably have a lot more staying power than what they are doing, which is ready, fire, aim, and then having to beg people to come back to work because they fired FAA people or nuclear regulators or what have you.

But this is the bigger point that you are making that really is getting me: So you know this. I used to be an executive. There is nobody in this body--here is a bold, bold, braggadocious thing to say, but fact-check me, anybody. There is nobody in this body who was a Governor, a county executive, like Coons or a mayor who cut government as much as I did. I had to cut my government by 25 percent. Imagine that here at the Federal level. I had to do it because I couldn't print money. It was a national recession. I was left with a mess. I had to do it, but we

found ways to do it cooperatively with the legislature and bringing in experts.

But this is the point I want to make to you: One thing I couldn't cut were my healthcare costs. So I started asking people: What can I do?

Do you know whom I found? I found a big business owner, with tens of thousands of employees, who said: I had the same problem, and do you know what I did? I went into my cafeteria where thousands of people eat--a big, big place--and I saw deep fryers and, like, Cinnabon-like products and all this unhealthy stuff, and I ripped it all out and had the union ready to go crazy on me, but then I brought in the best chef. I paid extra money to get the best kind of all healthy, nutritious whole foods. Then they loved it, and then they started asking me: Can we get food to take home for our kids? Because we stop at McDonald's and Burger King on the way home. Long story short, he said it began to bend their cost curve.

What are we doing in the United States of America? What has Donald Trump--I just read all he is doing. He is cutting access to healthy lunch programs. He is cutting--they are threatening to cut the SNAP program. They are cutting the things that give our residents in America not the cheap, hyperprocessed, empty nutrition foods but the stuff that is healthy for our kids.

There is so much hypocrisy based in this that even the private sector folks are saying: You are going to drive up costs for your country when you make people get their healthcare in emergency rooms. You are going to drive up costs for your country when you are going to force people to have to quit their jobs so they can come home and take care of their loved ones with dementia. This will drive up costs, ultimately, for our country and put more hardship on people, all while giving the most wealthy people who don't need it bigger tax cuts. It makes no sense, and that is the spirit of why John McCain voted against this effort in 2017.

(Mr. CURTIS assumed the Chair.)

I appreciate your allowing me to yield to you to answer a question while retaining the floor.

I am going to continue with a little bit more here before we change topics for the night.

I want to point out how grateful I am for my friend Chris Murphy. The last time I stood on this floor for many hours was just in support, doing like my colleague is doing for me right now, after the Pulse shooting. We wanted a vote on commonsense gun safety--bipartisan- supported, commonsense gun safety. We didn't get it. Chris Murphy, who is right down there, held the floor for 15 hours. I paced around, walked the floor, helped to support things, stayed up with him all night. So it is profound to me, when I told my brother that I wanted to cause some good trouble and that I was going to rise, that he said: I am in. I am in. So there he is, helping me out, especially as we approach 11 o'clock at night and the fourth hour. I am just grateful for him. I am grateful for him.

I want to go now to cuts that are being made to local and State health department funding. Again, from Republican and Democratic Governors, we have letters from people on both sides of the aisle who are saying that this is just wrong, and it makes no sense, but here we go.

It is actually, really, what I would call a dangerous reversal. Trump's HHS recently announced the cancelation of almost $12 billion in Federal grants that State and local health departments have been using to track infectious diseases, health disparities, vaccinations, mental health, substance use and services. Because of that reversal, my State, for example, is going to lose $350 million in Federal funding for health programs due to these cuts. My Governor, Phil Murphy, said that these cuts would create an unfillable void in funding that will have disastrous ramifications for our most vulnerable neighbors.

Last week, we learned that HHS planned to cut an additional 10,000 jobs. In total, since January, HHS has cut 20,000 of its employees. That is over a quarter of its workforce. These are people who inspect nursing homes to ensure that they are safe. They approve diagnostic and treatment services for children. They regulate health insurance to make sure that they are not discriminating against you based on your health conditions and health status. They protect you from infectious diseases. They conduct inspections to make sure that infant formula is safe.

I want to tell you that Secretary Kennedy has committed to bringing radical transparency to the HHS. I would love radical transparency, but at the end of February, Secretary Kennedy announced that HHS is no longer required to undergo the public comment period--a practice that has taken place at the Agency since 1971.

Another critical resource of health information for the American public is the CDC's ``Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.'' It has been published since 1952 and is often called the voice of the CDC. Unfortunately, on January 23, for the first time since its inception, the report was not published in a direct response to the Trump administration's freeze on public communications.

In addition to pausing the critical publication, it also reported that the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System had halted operation. This PRAMS, which was developed in 1987, is designed to identify groups of women and infants at higher risk of health problems to monitor changes in health status, to measure the progress toward goals, and improve the health of mothers and infants. Over the last 38 years, the program has collected essential data on maternal behaviors and experiences before, during, and shortly after pregnancy. Maternal care providers rely on that data collected by PRAMS--the sole source of this type of information--to enhance prenatal and postnatal care. The United States is in the midst of a mortality crisis, which we mentioned before. We have the highest rate of maternal deaths of any high-income nation.

As I learned when I was a mayor, data is power. You can't manage a problem unless you have measures on the problem. If you pull back things like that, again, you are reducing transparency, and you are cutting back on vital reports that people who are trying to meet this crisis rely on to inform their strategies.

Again, the frustration is that we are the worst in maternal health outcomes for developed nations, but even in our country, African- American women are three times more likely to die from pregnancy- related causes than the majority. This is one of the countries where it is profoundly dangerous to have kids.

Again, this is yet another thing that HHS is doing. It is leaving us more vulnerable, less informed, and less empowered to deal with the health challenges that we still deal with.

Since the Trump administration made the disastrous decision for Agencies to pause external communications, we have been seeing significant delays in critical information from other key Agencies.

There have been avoidable delays in critical data from the CDC so that States are starting to speak out, saying that they need to protect the health of their communities. As of March 20, when it comes to vaccines, what we are seeing in America--talk about getting less safe-- there were 378 confirmed cases of measles throughout the United States. As one of my doctor friends said, there are more children with measles right now than there are trans athletes in the NCAA.

This is a real crisis. For the first time in a decade, a child who was not vaccinated for measles tragically died in that outbreak. And while measles is spreading across our Nation and we are having one of the worst flu seasons in the last decade, HHS has delayed the convening of critical advisory councils of the CDC and FDA. These advisory councils are responsible for determining the vaccine schedule--what vaccines must be covered by insurance--and the safety, effectiveness, and appropriate use of vaccines. They do essential and timely work to keep people safe, and disruptions to their work can be harmful to the health of American people.

Let me go to the National Institutes of Health. It is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the

world. It is facing devastating cuts. The NIH is one of the greatest successes in publicly funded scientific research in all of human history. The United States is one of the best places to do scientific research because it has had more capacity than any other country to fund and conduct research at the highest levels.

Pauses, lapses, and elimination of NIH funding will drive researchers to do their research in other countries and undermine the efforts to cure diseases, to find solutions to conditions from obesity, to Alzheimer's, to cancers. One of the best taxpayer dollars we can invest is in NIH because it returns more than 5 taxpayer dollars back in the breakthroughs that they make.

We have put the future of scientific research in the United States at grave threat with what the Trump administration is now doing. They have imposed cuts and a number of harmful orders on the NIH that have both stalled its research and confused its partners.

Now, 99.4 percent of the FDA-approved drugs come from the NIH-funded research. Let me just say that again. NIH-funded research has led to 99.4 percent of all the FDA drugs that are out there.

The NIH funding cuts will directly affect your access to future novel treatments that can improve the quality of life for your children or-- if you love your neighbor like so many religions call us to do--your neighbor's children as well.

Here is an example of that. Hepatitis C is a liver disease caused by the virus HCV, and it is one of the most common types of viral hepatitis in the United States. It is estimated that 3 to 4 million Americans have hepatitis. In 2014, the first complete treatment for hepatitis C was approved by the FDA. The development of this revolutionary new treatment that has since been used to cure millions of people around the world was funded by--you know--NIH research.

This is the type of lifesaving innovation we will lose out on if we defund the NIH as the Trump administration is currently doing. American enterprise and knowledge will be drained. We will fall behind.

We already know there is fierce competition for the researchers by countries like China. They are aiming--in fact, they are upping their investments in scientific research, doing everything they can to keep scientific researchers in their country.

I was just talking to an innovator out on the west coast who was telling me that they are starting to take passports away from their researchers.

There is a fierce competition going on to keep the best minds here in this country or be drawn away to other places, from Europe to China. And we are stopping our funding?

I have heard from academic institutions that are telling me that they are not even offering as many Ph.D. programs in some of these key areas of science because of the attacks that are happening on our universities, all while China is upping their investments in universities. I can't believe that they are trying to out-America us and we are trying to turn our backs on our most successful traditions.

In one of his first actions, President Trump imposed a communications freeze on all U.S. health Agencies, effectively silencing some of our Nation's top researchers, scientists, and public health experts. This action stalled 16,000 grant applications for around $1.5 billion in NIH funding. The NIH has since begun to incrementally send notices to the Office of the Federal Register to resume reviews.

The combination of these actions has irresponsibly stalled our Nation's primary source of lifesaving biomedical research. It is our understanding that full communications have not been resumed and that it continues to impede critical research at the NIH.

As I have been told time and time again by experts in this area, just to pause funding could set research back years because, when you are conducting research, whether it is in a test tube, a biomedical researcher can't pause; or whether it is a human body, in biomedical research, you can't pause.

Across the Nation, brilliant researchers have been finding out daily the Trump administration has canceled their research--research on critical issues like maternal health, long COVID, diabetes, new pharmaceutical drugs, cancer, and so much more.

The NIH has decided to cancel its 2025 summer internship program. On average, 1,100 interns participate in this program each year, helping develop the next generation of scientists and researchers. A small number of summer interns had already accepted their offer to join the NIH in 2025. The decision follows the Trump administration's Federal hiring freeze.

Again, in my faith, as I said, you train a child in the way he shall go, and he will not depart from it. These are our young people. These are the future scientists who now aren't getting the experience of a lifetime. I have met people in this institution who first came here as college summer interns.

The NIH has decided not only to cancel those internships but to shut the door to many kids who had already made their summer plans. Many people here know what it is like to have a summer plan, have a summer internship, and not apply for other ones. It is another act of just meanness and cruelty. Let this class come in and then say: OK. I am going to cut the program next year.

But the way they are doing things is mean and cruel and is having an impact on people's lives.

Congressionally directed medical research programs--I have worked across the aisle with my colleagues. I have friends in here that have worked with me on specific diseases in a bipartisan way. I am so proud of some of that work.

Well, we have long appropriated about $1.5 billion a year in Federal funds for medical research, nearly half of which typically goes to cancer. It is something that we have found common ground on in my 12 years here in significant stretches.

The medical research program was created and sustained by Congress and competitively awards funds to hundreds of projects each year at both the Defense Department labs and outside research institutions, including at many American universities, to study everything, again, from cancer, to battlefield wounds, to suicide prevention.

In 2024, $130 million was specifically appropriated in a bipartisan way in this body--incredibly good Senators of good conscience coming together and saying: We should do more in these areas.

They approved $130 million for research in breast, kidney, lung, melanoma, ovarian, pancreatic, prostate, and a handful of very rare cancers. Why? Because there are people of good conscience here.

We meet folks who come to this--not lobbyists. They come and they tell us about their stories of rare cancers. There are people on both sides of the aisle who have marched for prostate awareness, for breast cancer awareness. There is goodness and decency here.

But in 2024, this funding--it is a bill that passed in March. It was now slashed--slashed--by 57 percent. And I told you earlier, that data--one of the best taxpayer dollars we can spend is in medical research. We have all heard this in this body when the NIH has come through and has shown that $1 invested and you get more than $5 back. Any Wall Street executive that would get five times their money back from an investment--who is this helping? And do we think about the people?

I thank God I don't have any family members that are going about their day, go to the doctor, and come back with cancer. I know lots of people, though. I know their stories, when they are diagnosed with a cancer and they are told there is no cure. I have seen people go through what you go through with that.

So how could a country that has led humanity for more than a generation or two suddenly have a President come along and say: I am going to slash all of these things. Oh, by the way, I am going to give billionaires a big tax cut.

So what do we say when these folks come to our offices? Some of the people with rare diseases came to my office a couple weeks ago. And the amount of their funding is so small. And maybe--maybe--if it was to solve our budget deficit. If we are going to do this as a country, we have to come together in a bipartisan way. The debt is--I am one of those Senators who believe it is a real crisis. But we are not solving the deficit in what they are proposing here.

They are cutting and cutting and cutting things that make no sense to cut, and they are doing it for tax breaks which disproportionately go to the wealthiest and to rack up even more debt.

I want to read this article. My staff told me that we have lots of sections to go through, and it has been 4 hours, 11 minutes. But this is one that hurts me because I have met so many people who fall into this category. I want to read an article that deals with an issue called medical debt and the ongoing impact it has on people as part of their lives.

The Affordable Care Act--when we did that, we lowered the costs and implemented protections for Americans, requiring insurers to cover preexisting conditions; expanding Medicaid, which we have talked a lot about tonight; implementing caps on out-of-pocket costs for Americans. All of these helped in alleviating medical bankruptcy for some.

Medical bankruptcies in America have gone down but not all. We still live in a country where one of the top reasons for bankruptcy is medical debt.

One of my staffers kind of shook me with the reality she was dealing with, which is she has stratospheric medical debt.

So here is an article from Healthcare Insights. It is not a partisan rag; it is a scientific journal. ``How Medical Debt Is Crushing 100 Million Americans.'' It is from October of last year.

This author--I just want to give a little more understanding of what kind of article this is--is John August. He is the Scheinman Institute's director of healthcare.

George Curlee is one of 52 million people or 1/3 of

Americans in the workforce who earn $15/hour or less.

I had the opportunity to interview George recently about

his experience with medical debt and how it has impacted his

life. Having suffered an industrial accident, and even though

his employer was responsible for his injuries and he carried

health insurance, he still accumulated $20,000 in medical

debt.

George grew up near Dallas, and spent his life working hard

as a full-time warehouse and retail worker.

At one point in his life, he found a job he enjoyed as a

fork lift driver in a factory that produced ceramic tile. In

time he switched jobs, working on the production line. One

fateful day a piece of metal struck him in the foot. He had

to have surgery and underwent the amputation of one of his

toes.

He had to take a month off of work, and when he returned he

went back to driving the forklift truck. He found that due to

his accident and surgery, he could not operate the forklift

to his satisfaction. He became frustrated with not being able

to operate the forklift, grew depressed, and left the job.

``It took me three months to get back on my feet after the

toe amputation. There was nursing care for two months to help

me walk again. This life saving medical procedure left me

with over $20,000 in debt, even with insurance!

I avoided doing [necessary] follow up with doctors due to

not being able to afford additional needed care.

There were hard times on top of this. I suffered a great

deal of depression due to losing my job during my leave of

absence. This medical debt is currently following me. There

was a point of time that I was rebuilding my credit. Before

the surgery, I built it up by over 120 points. With this

medical debt on my credit report, my credit score dropped 60

points.

The big drop in score has not allowed me to get my own

place. I'm not able to continue to pursue my dream of being a

voice actor due to not having proper financial footing to get

back to school. I can't travel and do things I would like to

do. I am working, but things are very financially tight. The

medicine I need is being paid out of pocket.

After paying my bills, I am in the negative. There is no

money left over to pay my medical debt. I can't save money

right now, not even towards retirement. To have this medical

debt on my credit score means not being able to pursue a

better life.''

He went on short-term disability for a while, but then

found a part time job he holds now at Walgreen's. He had to

return to work to pay for the house he and his brothers had

purchased.

Through this period, George had to take payday loans.

Between those loans and his weekly wages, he attempted to pay

back the money he owed the hospitals.

He learned that because of his medical debt, his credit

rating was destroyed by credit agencies who learned that he

had fallen behind on his payments to the hospitals.

According to the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau--

Which I guess barely exists now--

100 million Americans owe $220 billion in medical debt.

So ``100 million Americans owe $220 billion medical debt.''

George told me that the medical debt has had several

devastating impacts on his life:

Inability to borrow money for a mortgage or a car.

Employees ask for credit reports, and reports that show an

applicant for a position are often rejected due to a poor

credit report. This has impacted his ability to find a better

job than his part-time job at $15/hour with no benefits

working at Walgreen's where he lives in Garland, TX.

Incredible stress that further impacts his health

conditions including diabetes. (An additional note: Garland,

TX, where George lives, is near Dallas. Tarrant County, which

includes Garland and Dallas, is a locality with high medical

debt and high profit for healthcare systems in the region.)

Though George makes very low wages, medical debt is a

broadly shared experience by Americans across income groups.

Clearly, low-wage workers suffer a worse burden, but the

problem is pervasive and a broad feature of American life.

Some background.

In the oft-sited study, as many as 66.5% of people who file

for bankruptcy blame medical bills as a primary cause.

I am going to repeat that in the article: 66.5 percent of Americans ``who file for bankruptcy blame medical bills as their primary cause.'' Two-thirds of Americans who are filing bankruptcy point to medical bills as the cause.

As many as 550,000 people file for bankruptcy every year

for this reason.

More than half a million Americans, year after year after year after year after year after year, for no fault of their own--because of a metal bar shoved up through his toe, because of a diagnosis of cancer, because of diabetes, because of things outside of their control--they rack up medical debt that, as this man, can erode their well-being.

This data has been known [about how many Americans are

affected] and has continued with the passage of the

Affordable Care Act.

Lesser known is the amount of medical debt that Americans

carry.

What are the causes of the burden on so many?

While more Americans have health insurance today than ever

before, coverage has many gaps. High deductibles and narrow

networks which prevent patients from seeking health providers

of their choice are common causes of accumulation of high

cost bills. When patients understandably seek care from a

preferred provider, too often that care is not covered.

Most healthcare plans only provide 80% of payment for

covered cost. 20%--

Twenty percent--

patient responsibility of high medical bills can leave people

unable to pay their bills.

Approximately 14 million people in America (6% of adults)

in the U.S. owe over a $1,000 in medical debt and about 3

million people (1% of adults) owe medical debt of more than

$10,000.

Additionally, this government report identifies many of the

components of medical debt which are completely out of

control of the patient. In most cases these practices are

unlawful, but hospitals use these tactics frequently to press

patients to pay, including:

Double billing: Companies cannot attempt to collect on

medical bills that have already been paid by the consumer,

insurance, or a government program such as Medicare or

Medicaid. This practice can coerce consumers into paying

twice for the same service.

Exceeding legal limits: Companies must attempt to collect

amounts that surpass federal or state caps, such as those set

by the federal No Surprises Act or state laws on

``reasonable'' rates. These violations can saddle consumers

with unjustly high medical debts, burdening their finances.

Falsified or fake charges: Debt collectors must not collect

on bills that include ``up coded'' or exaggerated services,

or charges for service the consumer did not receive.

Collecting unsubstantiated medical [debts]: Debt collectors

must not attempt to collect medical debts.

These are all awful practices that go on.

Here is Paul Sugar's story, compelling and tragic.

Paul spent much of his life, starting as a child, learning

about jewelry, living in a small town near Albuquerque, NM.

At an early age, he earned enough money selling silver and

turquoise necklaces to be able to buy a motorcycle. As he

became an adult, he developed a successful business in the

mining and selling of silver and turquoise used in making

jewelry.

He also worked at a GE engine plant, but was laid off

during the time of industrial downsizing. He also [went] to

work for Quest, installing communications infrastructure, but

was laid off from that job when Quest was acquired by US

West.

So, he returned to his business.

On January 9, 2019, he was terribly injured in a fire in

his home. He is still recovering physically and economically.

After losing 66 percent of his skin and getting care at a

specialty trauma unit in another part of the country, he

ended up owing over $82,000 in medical bills. The medical

debt on his credit

report means he has not been able to get loans to expand his

business and earn more. After the fire, his medical bills

[totaled] $550,000.

Insurance covered most of it, but it was still more than he

could pay. He made payment plans with all of his various

bills, but when his credit card number changed, some of the

automatic payments he had arranged for did not go through,

and the bills ended up in collection before he even knew he

was behind.

Prior to the fire, he had always had a stellar credit

rating, but since this medical debt, it has gone down. In his

business, it is important to be able to take out short-term

loans to resupply the company, but now he can't do that at

reasonable terms and rates. He spent his retirement savings

account trying to pay back all his medical bills--

His retirement savings--

but it wasn't enough. Now, he worries about his future. How

will he retire? Will he have enough for his daughter's

college education? Can he move homes if he needs to?

At one point, he needed to replace his car because he and

his wife had to travel in 18 hours round trips every couple

of weeks to receive prescriptions for pain medication. He was

denied the credit to do so.

Our Health Care Professionals are on the Frontlines of

Impact of Medical Debt.

Doctors and other healthcare professionals experience

firsthand when patients are denied care due to medical debt.

This article describes how healthcare systems deny patients

with medical debt.

Dr. Matt Hoffman, who is a leader in the successful effort

to form a union with Doctors Council in 2023 [talked about

this problem.]

[They] instructed staff to stop providing care to patients

more than $4,500 in overdue bills, going beyond the more

common practice of turning such debts over to collection

agencies.

He and his follow doctors protested their health system's

decision to deny the patients access to care due to medical

debt. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison banned the

denial of care for patients . . . [with] medical debt.

I mean these practices sound like they are Byzantine. They sound like--they don't sound like America or at least who we should be.

There are a lot of New Jerseyans who are dealing with medical debt. There are a lot of New Jerseyans who are being impacted by these programs that the President has already rolled back.

I am standing today because of this crisis in our country, and one of the strategies that Donald Trump and ]his team talked about is to flood the zone--flood the zone, flood the zone. So sometimes the press doesn't even cover the cutting of some of these programs, some of these benefits that help people who are struggling with medical debt or struggling to make ends meet, to help them access healthcare.

It is a level of distraction and cruelty. Again, why? Why are they cutting this? They are saying they are trying to make government more efficient or more effective. Well, it is not effective for these folks.

What are the savings going to go to? Is it going to go to expanding medical research, expanding those things that, when the taxpayers invest money, they get a return? No. They are cutting medical research. They are cutting the things that empower children to grow up and have healthy, productive lives. And again, what they are aiming to do with it--what they are aiming to do with it--is to provide massive, massive tax cuts.

I am coming to the end of this section, but there are more voices that I want to include. I want to read a few, and then I think I am going to get a question from my colleague. So a few more pages, if I may, before we begin to dialogue--or at least I will receive a question, I imagine.

I want to elevate some of these voices.

This is a person writing to me in February 28:

Dear Senator Booker, I am writing to you as a concerned

citizen, most importantly as a proud aunt of a Ph.D. in

neuroscience, dedicating her life to research that could lead

to lifesaving treatments.

As a minority in science, she has worked incredibly hard to

break barriers in a field that has not always welcomed people

like her.

Watching the current political attacks on research funding

is not just heartbreaking; it is dangerous for our country's

future.

Science is not political. It serves all people, regardless

of race, background, or party affiliation.

Yes, funding cuts to Agencies like NIH and the National Science Foundation threaten to halt critical research, slowing the development of treatment for diseases that impact millions. These cuts will push out brilliant young scientists, many of whom have already had to fight to get where they are to do the research they are doing.

This is not just about my niece or scientists in general.

It is about every American. Disease does not choose a

political party. Cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and

countless others affect Republicans and Democrats alike.

Without strong investment in research, we are all at risk of

losing the chance for better treatments, new cures, and

improved healthcare.

Beyond health, defunding science will hurt our economy.

Scientific research drives innovation, creates jobs, and

ensures that the U.S. remains a global leader.

A country that does not invest in science is a country that

falls behind.

I urge you to continue standing with the scientific

community, supporting young researchers from all backgrounds,

and fighting to protect and expand research funding. This is

one of the most critical investments we can make for health,

for economic growth, and for the future of every American.

Thank you for your time, leadership, and dedication for

building a stronger, smarter, and healthier Nation.

A couple of New Jersey sources--this is a letter from someone in Somerset, NJ:

At my university, I am extremely concerned that we are not

as large an institution as some of the others and do not get

as much State aid. We rely on these funds for more than

running facilities.

If this goes into effect, it will ultimately lead to the

loss of jobs, research, opportunities for students, and will

stunt our growth as we embark on a journey to become an R1

institution. I am not sure we can recover from this anytime

soon.

Another person on these cuts to the NIH:

I am a postdoctoral researcher performing basic science

research on bacterial communication. In short, I am seeking

to understand bacterial chemical communication to find new

pathways for therapeutic development.

Antibiotic resistance is already killing thousands of

Americans each year. We need new treatments provided by

indirect costs to find these cures.

Indirect costs, actually, directly funded my day-to-day

work, providing funds for building maintenance staff,

university shared resources, such as electron microscopes,

and common laboratory supplies, such as liquid nitrogen.

Without any of these resources, my job and those of other

researchers seeking new cures would be impossible. Thus,

eliminating or reducing these funds will have negative

repercussions on the health and well-being of the American

people for generations to come.

That is my constituent from Plainsboro, NJ.

Relating to Federal grant fund freezes, another New Jerseyan writes:

I am a researcher at the University of New Jersey where I

study ways to combat cancer and promote infant health,

critical research that ensures generations grow into healthy

adults. My aspirations align with yours, fostering a strong,

healthy, and educated population. For this reason, I urge

you, Cory Booker, to take immediate action to restore normal

federal grant operations so that my colleagues and I can

continue making paradigm-shifting, state-of-the-art

discoveries with the potential to save millions of lives.

This university is dependent upon federal grants, a

testament to the world-class quality of our research and its

leadership in the biomedical field. These grants enable

groundbreaking advancements that position the United States

at the forefront of scientific information.

I had planned to apply for a federal grant in 2025 to

further my research, but with the current uncertainty, I am

deeply concerned about my application's future.

Here is another scientist:

My 5-year NIH grant is in its second year; and although my

first-year budget ended and I submitted all the required

documents, my second-year funding was cut. We need the

funding to be able to continue our critical research.

Here is another patient story:

At age 17, a large black spot blocking his vision suddenly

appeared in my patient's right eye. Over the next couple of

months, multiple trips to increasingly specialized doctors

led to a clinical diagnosis of Von Hippel-Lindau disease, the

diagnosis received by phone on his 18th birthday. This is a

genetic disease in which the damaged VHL tumor-suppressor

gene fails to stop tumors from growing. Patients experience

randomly occurring tumors in up to 10 organs, and the only

available treatment was surgery to try to remove the tumors.

The patient is one of about 10 percent of patients who are

de novo, the result of random genetic mutation. In this

patient's case, scans had revealed not only a large tumor on

the optic nerve of his right eye but also a huge tumor

encompassing one of his adrenal glands that, in retrospect,

had been causing him headaches, inability to concentrate, and

anxiety due to consistently elevated adrenal levels. While

MRI scans also relayed tumors in his spine, kidney, and

pancreas, this tumor and entire adrenal gland needed to be

removed.

After months of injections in his eye interspersed with

laser treatment, he lost the vision in his right eye. The

time needed for

medical care required him to give up his team sport, losing

both his support group and his chance to compete in the

Division I level, but he continued with his final exams,

graduation, and plans to study engineering at the university.

With continued regular monitoring, he was able to attend

university, but the trauma of his diagnosis and the

processing of the impact of what it might mean for his life,

coupled with the stress of engineering studies, brought on

significant mental health challenges.

He did go on to graduate, traveling to the NIH for his

regular surveillance, supported by various specialists. In

2022, a kidney tumor had grown large enough that he needed

surgery again. The kidney is a sensitive organ and will

normally have full nephrectomy of the affected kidney.

Doctors were treating him, and now at age 24, his tumor was

removed in a successful kidney-sparing robotic operation, yet

tumors on his spine continue to grow.

This experience with my patient and many others

encapsulates that the miracle of medical research funding has

such a powerful impact on people's lives. We were able to get

seriously miraculous things done; but without funding for

these diseases, we may never have had a chance to test the

ideas and develop them in a way that led to a drug that

ultimately helped this patient with these tumors.

This is a success story, but will we have more? Will we

have others? The drug we've developed is expensive. Current

recommendations are to take it daily. Nothing is known about

its long-term side effects. More research isn't done. It's

not known whether patients can take breaks from the drug.

Stopping at some point might mean tumors would resume. One of

the congressionally directed medical research program grants

recommended for FY25 funding is going to look precisely at

many of these questions. Two others will examine other

aspects of critical treatment.

These are life-or-death issues for the patients, and yet

this funding now is threatened, yet this research now is

threatened. Please continue to fully fund the congressionally

directed medical program.

I am going to read a few more and then pause, just in case my colleague wants to ask a question.

But this is Kerry Muller from Texas:

My family has benefited from congressionally directed

medical research programs because my 13-year-old daughters

have neurofibromatosis, a rare genetic disease which causes

uncontrolled tumor growth. My daughter Kaitlyn was diagnosed

with a brain tumor 2 years ago, and thanks to the drug whose

research was seeded with a congressionally directed medical

research program, her brain tumor has decreased to the point

that it is now undetectable on an MRI.

Without this drug, she would have had to have tried other

chemotherapy treatments that would have been more invasive,

in addition to brain surgery to bypass the blockage the tumor

would have caused.

This is Samantha Pearson from Las Vegas:

For just over 4 years, I have been at a clinical trial at

UCLA. The meds were just recently FDA-approved. While the

side effects have made me question agreeing to the trial,

being told my tumors have drastically shrunk made it all

worthwhile. My pain has decreased. My plexiform neurofibroma

is 90 percent smaller, and I am so happy that I get to be a

part of this clinical trial made possible by NFRP because of

my participation in the drug trial.

There is story after story here of people: Camille Oldenburg; Jane Dmochowski; Lola Neudecker; Professor Alexander Rabchevsky; Kyle Reitz; Karissa Haberkamp from Illinois; Samuel Kirton; Dr. Stephanie Buxhoeveden; Katharina Hopp; Jerrod Kerr; Dr. Terry Watnick; Scott Howe, Marine Corps retired; Van Stewart, United States Navy; Reid Novotny, colonel, Air National Guard; Alex and Lesley; Chip and Kristin; Gregg and Molly from Denver.

William Tuttle, United States Navy:

After my son's birth and diagnosis, I was diagnosed with

tuberculosis sclerosis complex at the age of 43, just 3

months after I retired from a 23-year naval career.

The complexity of this disease means that it remains to be

seen whether my young son will be able to live the typical

life that I have been fortunate to live. Because of research

conducted through the TSCRP, my son has effective treatment

options available to him that were not available even just a

decade ago. But there is still so much to learn.

Again, another person benefiting from our research, benefiting from the funding that is now being threatened and cut.

Beth Tinlin from Nevada; Shelly Meitzler; Ron Heffron; David and Brooke Carpenter, military family; Major David Long, U.S. Air Force; Debora Moritz; Fran Hillier.

I just want to say that the Declaration of Independence clearly states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are

created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with

certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,

Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

How can you have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without health? Health is at the core of life. Health is at the core of true liberty. Health is at the core of the pursuit of happiness.

The right to health is fundamental for overall well-being and for the realization of other human rights. In his annual State of the Union Address to Congress on January 6, 1941, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt underscored the importance and shared commitment to four freedoms. Many of you know them.

The first freedom is freedom of speech and expression; the second is the freedom of every person to worship their own way; third is the freedom from want, which means every person deserves peace and health, among other things, he said. The fourth freedom is a freedom from fear, which in our country of great wealth, no one should fear their healthcare going away.

We have known from our country's beginnings and throughout that we must do all we can to provide for our people, and we have tried to do that over the years from the Social Security Act of 1965, which created Medicaid and Medicare, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, HIPAA, the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act of 2010--the ACA.

We should be adding to these protections and benefits trying to get more people health coverage. We should be caring for each other. We should be loving each other. We should be fighting for the justice of each other. We should be hearing the cries of parents worried for their children. We should be hearing the agony of a partner whose spouse has Alzheimer's. We should be standing up for these folks. This is why we fight. This is why I stand.

Yes, I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

First of all, thank you for the question. But I just want to reiterate the friendship I have with Chris Murphy and his willingness to spend the night with me here on the floor as we go hour after hour after hour. I just want to say this again, and I am going to say it a few times in this long speech that will go on for as long as I am physically able.

Chris, the last time we spent 15 hours on this floor together was a health issue. It was yet another stunning mass shooting, this time at the Pulse nightclub.

You and I talked a lot before we got on this floor, and I think the agony that you and I were feeling was, how can this be the strongest Nation in the world, organized government?

If you read our founding documents, if you read our Founding Fathers, one of the first things they organized this government for--you know, it is good to carry around the Constitution. It is so important to understand what the preamble to the Constitution says we are about.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more

perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic

Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the

general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to

ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this

Constitution for the United States of America.

Which each one of us, each one of us in this body, went down there and swore an oath to uphold. Those are the first words of this, Chris.

And, God, I remember your agony.

Folks, I want you to know, when I came to this body, my staff was talking about the maiden speech, the maiden speech.

Please don't go back and look at my maiden speech--not great.

But the maiden speech my staff wanted me to watch was yours, and it was gut-wrenching about Newtown, gut-wrenching that the strongest Nation on planet Earth should now be this Nation where we tell our children in this implicit lesson--not explicit but implicit lesson-- that we are going to teach you how to hide, we are going to run active shooter drills because we can't protect you.

My mom lives in Vegas--that Vegas shooting. The shooting at a synagogue in Pittsburgh.

So here we were in yet another of these maddening realities in our country that the leading cause of death for our children is shooting. In our conversations leading up to it, I still remember you and I saying: We need to come to this floor.

You said: I am going to stand and do something different.

And we--again, just like tonight--we had no end to that. We were 9 years younger, my friend, and we said we were going to stand down here and try to get this body to do something different, try to get this body to recognize the gravity of what was going on in the strongest Nation on Earth that was having child after child after child, American after American dying of gun violence. And the response we were getting from this body--the world's most deliberative body--was nothing is going to change. We can't do anything.

I mean, I am giving you respect years later. You were part of the first gun legislation to pass out of this body in 30-something years. And now I just found out that the Community Violence Intervention money that you allowed me to fight so hard to get in that bill is being clawed back by Donald Trump--our bipartisan bill, our bipartisan- approved finances, money, and I think the taking away of our power in this body--from the bill that you were one of the main architects of with Republican colleagues, God bless them, people like Cornyn and others.

I want to take people back to what the insider conversations--and you were generous. I want to remind you, teasingly, on the floor, you never asked me if you could publish my text messages, but you put them in your book.

It is a great book. I actually learned--I read my colleague's book, and I learned a lot of data about gun violence from your book.

We were talking about this belief that these words--this belief in our country that these words, why this government was formed is so important. America, this is who we are, these imperfect geniuses. We formed this:

We the people, in Order to form a more perfect Union,

establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for

the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure

the Blessings of Liberty.

You stood right down there for 15 hours. I paced this room pledging to you I wouldn't go to the bathroom. I wouldn't sit down. And I was hurting after 15 hours, but you were steadfast until we finally got Mitch McConnell to give us something. It was one or two votes. It was two votes. Both of them failed; we didn't get 60. At least what we forced this institution to do was to confront the horrendous horrors of that nightclub shooting.

So you ask me now--as you and I and my dear brother whom I have known since he was coming out of college, three of us on this floor at a new day, it is past midnight, a new month, it is past midnight as we sit here--why? Because of your question. I can't stand anymore to live in a country where it seems that these convulsions come that threaten our most vulnerable over and over again. I can't stand it. I have to stand up and speak up. We have to do something different yet again. You and I talked about this last week.

America, we are not doing a good job right now. We read the section about medical debt. Tens of millions of Americans are saddled with medical debt. Sixty-six percent of the people that declare bankruptcy is because they can't afford their medical bills because something that happened to them could happen to us and our families.

My mother, my brother, and I had a lot of challenges, a lot of problems, but we weren't saddled with a rare disease. We didn't have tumors springing up all over our bodies. I don't know what that would have done to my family.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

In answering this question--again, I continue to yield the question to you while retaining the floor. I want to just compound this for people. I know these numbers--$880 billion, 100 million Americans affected that would be affected directly by Medicaid cuts or the people that work in the hospitals will be affected by Medicaid cuts or nursing homes affected by Medicaid cuts--these are big, big numbers. But people, these are human beings.

I was in a community that had a horrible lead poisoning problem for their kids, that had horrible toxic sites. And children born around toxic Superfund sites, as you know they are called, have higher rates of autism, higher rates of birth defects.

Even coming up as a city council person, I saw that the environmental injustices surrounding my community were causing parents to have to deal with medical complications amongst their children at alarming rates and needed help, and Medicaid was the program--no fault of their own, environmental injustice.

Here is the double insult of the Trump administration. One is they gutted the Environmental Justice section at the DOJ. They are not investigating corporate polluters. They are not investigating the injustices environmentally that big, powerful, wealthy people do that often cause people--we all saw ``Erin Brockovich''--that cause people to get seriously hurt.

And then the second part of that insult is, we are not only not going to hold people accountable and let them get away with that, the polluters, the folks causing the source of the disease, we are now not going to get healthcare to the families who often live in fragile communities that have these resources.

These are the people, when you sit with them in your offices, as you and I have and the other Senator from New Jersey on the floor tonight has--as you sit with them and they tell you their stories and you see that this is a lifeline, this Medicaid Program--and you are so good by telling people--I saw this during the Affordable Care Act. Just the name alone, people were like, I don't have ObamaCare. Yes, you have the ACA, and let me explain it to you. It is under many, many different names, including in my State that people don't know this is a Medicaid- funded program. So they don't know this is a sort of Damocles of their family's well-being. But this is the larger issue, Senator Murphy, is these are real people in every county, in every State.

It is why their representatives--it is why I read statements demanding there not to be cuts by the organizations that are bipartisan. I read the League of Cities--the largest mayoral association--Republican Governors, and others are all saying do not cut this program. They are not even saying, ``Don't do $880 million, just do $400 million.'' They are saying, ``Do not cut this program.''

Many are saying we need to find ways to expand the program because there are still gaps that people are falling into. And it doesn't make economic sense because if you get regular care, if your chronic disease is treated, it ultimately could be cheaper to the taxpayer as opposed to people ending up in hospitals. But those hospitals now, because of what is being threatened in this bill, rural hospitals and tier I trauma hospitals, are all being threatened in their care.

So tonight, it is not normal. I ask everybody to understand this is not a normal moment in America. This is a crossroads moment in America. It is one of those times where the values that we talk about in the Constitution are at stake. What is going to define us, our commitments to ideals of justice, fairness, of being there for each other.

Mr. President, one of those other programs that is now in crisis is what I want to switch to. I think my colleague was joking with me because we have--for anybody who is watching--we have a whole list of things we wanted to get to. My staff, now, seemingly very ambitious--Medicaid, Medicare, healthcare, Social Security is coming up now, tariffs and economic policy, education, national security, public safety, immigration, housing--chapter by chapter, each one about an hour or so. This would be enough to make it until tomorrow evening if I can stand that long and who knows?

But we are behind schedule. So I am going to jump in to talk about Social Security. I want to start because, as I said earlier, I get to stand here. I get to come to this floor, but so many millions of people don't. I want to elevate their voices tonight.

As I go across New Jersey, as I go across my Nation, I see Republicans, Democrats, Independents--there are so many people stopping me in airports, in the community, stopping me in the grocery store, wanting to tell me that they are afraid, that they are angry, that they are worried, that they believe we are in crisis, that our Nation is at a crossroads. Whom are we going to be as a nation?

This topic, I don't know, maybe I will just let you all know that this topic--my mom chewed into me about this topic. She lives in a senior citizen retirement community, mostly Republicans. I visited her many times. It is a great community. I hate how we go to this idea of right or left. These are great seniors that live in a great community, and they are talking about Social Security.

I want to read--start with this section by just reading--these are people sending to me. This is a small postcard, handwritten from somebody from Hamilton Square, NJ:

Dear Senator Booker, I am writing to ask you if my Social

Security is now in danger. Please let me know. It is very

important to me. Thank you.

I am going to try to answer that tonight fairly and candidly. Here is another person who writes. My staff is protecting their identity. I just want to say where they are from. South Plains, NJ:

I am one of your constituents and a proud New Jerseyan. I

am writing to let you know how upset, distraught, and worried

I am about the current state of our country. I hope you will

take time and read my letter as this is the first time I felt

compelled to write a government official.

I want to tell you, I am reading your letter again, and I am now reading it on national TV, if C-SPAN can be--the Presiding Officer may challenge me with a factual error, but C-SPAN is national TV, I think.

I want to start by telling you a little about myself. I am

64 years old and I am currently working full time. I am a

breast cancer survivor. My plan was to retire in the next 3

years, but with the current state of chaos and turmoil, I

honestly don't see how I can retire. I am concerned about

Medicare, which I will definitely need when I retire. I will

also need a supplemental plan for whatever Medicare does not

cover. I do not qualify for retirement benefits through my

job. With the cuts being made to Federal programs, Medicare

will not be enough. I would need a more expensive

supplemental plan to cover these cuts.

I am also concerned about Social Security. I have worked

since I was 16, except for 9 years when I was home with my

three children.

I have worked hard and paid into Social Security and

believed that the money was for my retirement. Now I hear

that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, and it may be

privatized. This is so unfair for people like me that worked

hard all their life and counted on this money to retire. I

was planning to work past 65 to get my full Social Security

benefits, but now I begin to wonder if it is worth it.

So, at this point, I am in a holding pattern due to the

unstable climate in which we are all living. As I said, I

have three children who are all adults now. My son has been

diagnosed with being bipolar. He has been hospitalized a few

times for this. He is currently on medication that he needs

to function and sees a therapist. He is in grad school and is

on Medicaid. He works part time since he is a full-time grad

student. So he does not qualify for benefits.

I worry about what these cuts will do to my son and others

like him. No one seems concerned with the people who rely on

these programs to live their best life. Someone needs to look

out and take an interest in helping people in these

circumstances.

My daughter is a teacher in a district that receives title

I funds. She works very hard as a teacher and is devoted to

her students. With the dismantling of the Department of

Education, I am concerned about what this means to the

education field, teachers, administration, and students. My

daughter's school is making a difference in the lives of

these students, and they need the funding that is received

from both the State and Federal Government. Programs like the

title I and other federally funded programs need to stay in

place.

On another topic--

This constituent is getting a lot into her first letter to a government official, and I appreciate it.

On another topic, inflation: Increasing prices and the

overpriced housing market is a huge problem. Placing tariffs

on our biggest trade partners is beyond unfair. This drives

the cost of goods up, and the consumer is the one who ends up

paying the increase. A lot of families are food insecure,

wondering where their next meal is coming from. A lot of

parents go without so their children can eat. Food pantries

and banks are scrambling to meet demand. Something needs to

be done so families can survive.

The housing market is also an issue. Owning your own home

is now unreachable for most young people starting out.

Interest rates are high, and housing prices in New Jersey are

unaffordable.

Thank you for reading my letter. I am asking you, as our

Senator, please stand up for what is in the best interest of

families, seniors, adults, and children in your district.

Tariffs, dismantling Departments like Social Security,

Medicare, Medicaid, Education, and other services that are

important to the everyday person is not the answer. You are

our voice in the Senate. Please do the right thing, and speak

up, and continue to fight for everyday Americans.

This is why I am standing up. This is why I will stand here as long as I am

physically able. This is why I continue to tell story after story.

But, first, a little important history: 90 years. Our country has made a promise to people that, if you pay into the Social Security Program your whole life, your money will be there for you when you retire. Franklin Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law 84 years ago, and this is his quote. He called it ``a cornerstone in a structure which is being built, but it is by no means complete.'' Social Security is still a cornerstone. It is still the bedrock according to FDR. It is the bedrock of an edifice being built in a nation where we belong to each other. We the people are building this. That is our cornerstone. He called it Social Security. Today, 73 million Americans count on Social Security. Millions more than that are planning on those benefits they earned being there for them.

You heard from the first letters I read that people are really worried. The President of the United States stood up in the State of the Union Address and talked about rampant fraud because payments are going out. All from conservative papers to ones on the other side have shown that what he was saying was not true. But they are sowing chaos. They are attacking, delegitimizing it, and calling it a Ponzi scheme-- DOGE leader Musk and the President.

There are 73 million Americans who are counting on Social Security benefits, and 1.6 million are in my State. Forty percent of the people who rely on Social Security--40 percent--have no other source of income. They live paycheck to paycheck--Social Security checks, excuse me. Social Security checks.

Despite mocking Social Security and calling it a Ponzi scheme, people in communities like my parents'--my mom's--are beginning to worry. They actually took real actions to lay off thousands of Social Security employees, making it harder to process Social Security applications and troubleshoot questions from beneficiaries. They didn't roll out a plan to say: Hey, this is how we are going to show that we can give the best customer service ever. We are going to bring in some of the best private sector people to advise on how we can use technology and innovation to give the best customer service. Hell, roll in AI, and do all of these things. We are going to make a model of responsiveness to our seniors because we are a society that respects our elders, values them, wants them to retire in dignity and security and peace of mind. That is the big ambition.

No, that is not what was said.

Social Security employees, like many employees, got letters that they didn't expect, saying they were laid off. It didn't matter how well they performed, and it didn't matter what function they performed. It put in jeopardy just trying to contact Social Security, if you are retired or just trying to contact Social Security if you need to apply for benefits. They tried to eliminate service by phone, saying that they wanted to require in-person visits, which is absurd for many seniors who don't have access to transportation or who live in rural areas because--do you know what they are doing also? They are trying to close down many Social Security offices, and I will get to the specifics of that later.

These actions are harmful enough, but they are just the beginning of what our President and Elon Musk are saying they want to do to a program that, for millions of Americans, is their only check a week. It is essential for them and for others. It is how they make their retirement secure. You don't protect the future by punishing the people who built this country. You don't fix America by throwing seniors or veterans or Americans with disabilities under the bus. That is not how we do things. That is not how we should do things. There are so many hard-working families who believe in this idea of, if I work hard all my life in America, I can make ends meet; I can raise my kids; and I can retire with dignity.

Congress does have a responsibility to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. We should do more of that. I want to do more of that. I want to help lead in that fight. But none of us were invited to the table when it came to this. This congressionally established program--FDR I read--but it was Congress that established it and is now not being included in the planning or in the procedures to try to improve Social Security or to make it more efficient or more effective. We haven't convened hearings or task forces in a bipartisan way to find out what we can do to better serve our seniors.

Instead, lies are being proffered about Social Security making wrongful payments. Lies are being proffered by the highest office in the land and by the most rich person in the land, who does not need Social Security, who is calling it a Ponzi scheme, who is telling people who are relying on it that they are part of a Ponzi scheme.

But remember this: Social Security is not the government's money to spend. It is the hard-earned savings of working Americans, and it belongs to Americans. The President and Elon Musk need to keep their hands off of it. It is not theirs to take, and it is not theirs to break.

It is their scheme. They are the ones who have a scheme, and it is not about efficiency. It is not visionary. What we need in America now are visionary leaders who have bold, exciting visions for things like what Social Security can be. What they are doing is not only wrong, but it hurts people; it scares people. And it is not just people but our elders--the people who raised us, the people who built roads and highways, the people who served food, made food, who started small businesses, who raised generations. They are who we are disrespecting.

So what happens in this context? Why am I standing here?

It is because the people of New Jersey are saying: Why aren't you doing more? This is unacceptable, Senator Booker. It is unacceptable. Hear our voices.

My phones have exploded with people whom the President and Elon Musk have made terrified about what is happening to the Social Security service and what is happening to their checks. My staff said that we were overwhelmed with phone calls and emails from people who were worried about the direction that the President is taking Social Security. The people who called were angry or terrified, and I want to share some of these calls from my constituents.

Here is someone from the great Cherry Hill, NJ:

I am very concerned that the President, along with his

cruel and inept administration and DOGE, are working to

privatize and ruin the Social Security Program.

I am a constituent, Senator Booker. I live in Cherry Hill,

NJ, and I am a senior who relies on Social Security income

for my basic needs, food, and housing. The mere idea of not

having those funds has caused me sleepless nights and

wondering if I will become homeless.

I am going to stop there for a second.

I remember President FDR and growing up hearing that what he did was get on the radio not to stir up fear, not to stir up chaos, but to comfort people, to remind them that we are Americans, and you have no need to fear. But this President, just with his rhetoric alone about Social Security, is driving my constituents to write me notes like this.

I continue with the letter from my constituent from Cherry Hill:

I hope you will convince both Democrat and Republican

colleagues to prevent this from happening. Trump lied when he

promised during his campaign he would not touch the Social

Security Administration, but now we see threats and already

some actions toward making severe cuts and making the program

less accessible. I urge you to continue to fight for us.

(Mr. CRAMER assumed the Chair.)

Pennington, NJ:

My sister and I are older Americans who are each disabled--

one from a severe accident because of a drunk driver and the

other from a life-changing illness. We are alone and take

care of each other. For me, SSDI is my one and only income. I

have a few years before I am at full retirement age. Even

with my check and splitting rent costs between us, it is

taking right under 50 percent of my monthly check for rent

alone.

Fifty percent.

This does not leave much to cover even the bare necessities

of health, vehicle insurance, utilities, food, medicine--even

a tight budget, especially with costs on everything

continuing to rise.

Senator, as seniors, we are petrified about what is

happening to SSA. I must ask you, Senator: What do we do if

our monthly SSA benefits are interrupted? How do we keep a

roof over our heads as disabled seniors? With very limited

savings, it would only take a few months before the roof over

our heads would be in jeopardy. We just spent a small

fortune for us to move into a smaller, lower cost apartment

because we could not afford significant ongoing rent

increases. I realize we are far from alone in our fears, but

that is of very little comfort as we spend our nights unable

to sleep, fearful we do not lose our only income along with a

roof over our heads.

These are our elders.

Here is a constituent from Egg Harbor Township:

My husband and I live Social Security check to Social

Security check. Without those checks we earned--without those

checks we earned--we are dead. Please don't let this

outrageous administration take our benefits away.

This is a constituent from Runnemede, NJ:

I am a 75-year-old New Jersey resident. I received my

working papers in 1964, at the age of 14. I worked

continuously until I reached the age of 70, in 2020. I

enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1967 and retired in 1999. I was

on Active Duty from 1970 to 1977. I finished my career in the

Naval Reserve. For 56 years, I paid my taxes and contributed

to Social Security.

I have collected my Social Security for 4 years, and as you

are no doubt aware, the amount of money paid me monthly by

the Social Security Act was calculated by them based on my

contribution.

I am currently a full-time, 24/7 caretaker for my invalid

wife and do not have the luxury of earning a supplemental

income. My sole income is from Social Security and a small

Naval Reserve pension. My total healthcare comes from

Medicare and TRICARE for Life.

The contract I made with the United States Government was

that they could use my money during my working life with the

understanding that they would take care of me when I could no

longer earn for myself. I have kept my part of this bargain

for 56 years. Now, after only 4 years, the government is

threatening to renege on our agreement.

Please, sir, do not let this happen, Senator Booker. That

is my money. I earned it. I earned my Social Security by my

contributions, and I earned my pension by my service.

Another constituent named Sara:

I have been a teacher in Atlantic County for 26 years. My

husband is a 100-percent disabled veteran who receives VA

disability payments as well as SSDI. We depend on the VA and

SSDI for approximately half of our income for our family of

five.

We are currently preparing our oldest for his first year at

college and are awaiting financial aid packages from several

schools. We are petrified that Trump and Musk's agenda is

dangerous and will have life-altering consequences for

families like ours.

We are counting on you, Senator Booker, to do the hard work

to protect the essential benefits.

The destruction of the Department of Education is another

completely horrifying situation. We need to protect our

special needs students and Federal financial aid for college-

bound students. We need to protect the idea that education is

for all--

Education is for all. Education is for all--

instead of a few elites who could just afford it.

Rosie is another constituent. She starts off proudly:

I am a senior, 84 years old.

God bless you, Rosie. My mom is 85.

My only income is Social Security--

She generously gives me confidential information.

My only income is Social Security, $1,179 per month, and I

am terrified that the current gang of thieves in the White

House will tamper with it under the guise of ``saving

money.'' If Social Security is cut off, I am on the streets.

I can't keep harping enough on the traditions of our country, where Presidents, whether you agree with them or not, whether they are from your party or not--Ronald Reagan didn't whip up fear in bedrock commitments like Social Security or health. Barack Obama didn't shake people so that Republicans and Democrats in my State would write me letters using words like ``fear'' and ``terror,'' would worry about losing sleep when they have enough things to stress over.

Here is Debra:

I am a retired widow. I depend on Social Security to pay

bills each month. I am concerned about the reports that Elon

Musk is to revamp and, in my opinion, ruin the Social

Security Administration. I am worried that payments will be

disrupted. There are many other things going on in the

government today that I am also concerned about. I hope that

the Senators and Congress people, along with the judicial

system, can stand up to him and take back control of

government.

She says this is going to revamp and ruin Social Security. This is just somebody simply saying--it is like, be plain. Don't make up lies about false payments. Don't call it a Ponzi scheme. Give us a bold vision of how it is going to help more seniors, how you are going to serve more seniors, how you are going to improve the system, how you are going to make it better, how you are going to serve the dignity of our seniors.

This is Holly. Holly is a constituent too.

I am one of your constituents who is retired and relies 100

percent in order to live on my earned Social Security benefit

in which I paid throughout my entire working career. I call

on you to maintain the Social Security Program as it stood

before the ascension of Trump and Musk. You must ensure that

there are no missed earned benefit payments or late payments

made to recipients; especially, accessible Social Security

offices must remain open and fully staffed with trained,

experienced Social Security employees in order to provide the

kind of regular, necessary customer service by phone, online,

and in person.

And the Trump-Musk administration's endless terrorist

threats of dismantling the Social Security Administration,

insidiously calling it a Ponzi scheme, working in order to

privatize it--it must cease and desist immediately.

Moreover you, Cory Booker, must reverse and/or stop

whatever draconian changes are being made to destroy the

Social Security Administration with thousands of cuts to

needed employees with almost no notice and no public input.

Social Security is being dismantled by an unelected

billionaire. At least for now, Musk and his band of DOGE

boys--not a real government department--who have illegally

and callously rifled through our most private, personal

information and done God knows what with it, with their

ultimate goal to risk and/or steal the retirement funds of

older Americans by placing the Social Security Trust Fund in

the hands of private corporate equity firms--seniors do not

agree to this. Seniors do not agree to this. Such action is

illegal and completely unacceptable!

This constituent continues:

Furthermore, I am deeply concerned that the ceaseless chaos

will invite criminals to exploit confusion around identity

verification. Ironically, while the administration claims

these changes are meant to combat fraud, they may very well

do the opposite. Hastily introducing new, unfamiliar

technology and verification steps without any real public

education campaign will create the perfect environment for

criminals to deceive and defraud.

This late and ill-conceived change also comes at a time

when the Social Security Administration is already struggling

with a customer service crisis, long hold times, low

staffing, delayed callback systems, confusing announcements

about possible office closures. This chaos has to be stopped

now, Senator Booker.

I urgently ask you to please use your congressional power

to reverse these changes which are creating more confusion

for older Americans. Senior Americans earned Social Security

through a lifetime of hard, honest work. I know I did. The

money is ours, and we deserve a properly run Social Security

Administration which continues to be administrated

honestly through the Federal Government, as established in

1935.

In fact, the narrative of the Social Security Act running

out of money could be easily fixed if Congress wrote laws

that slightly increased the amount that high-net-worth

individuals--the wealthiest of the wealthy--paid into the

program.

Holly, God bless you.

My mother, in her senior community, is seeing this rise in scammers trying to steal people's money, and she is amazed at the technology they are using. The scams involve the voices of their relatives asking them for help during a crisis. All that technology and the wisdom of my mom--she is like, why aren't we using the technology and innovations to make Social Security easier to use and easier to engage with? Commonsense questions.

Carli, a constituent from New Jersey:

Please include disabled people when you talk about Social

Security and Medicare, Senator Booker. You don't mention us

every time. I paid into Social Security for 16 years. I

worked full time. I was sick almost every day. I finally had

to leave my job in 2015. I was granted SSDI, and I am on

Medicare. And until I was injured last year, I had a part-

time job, where I continued paying into the system.

I fear that the first people they will go after are the

disabled. We are not as capable of fighting. People see us as

lazy or fakers, and we are almost never included in the

conversations about marginalized communities. Please don't

let me be erased.

Carli, you are not. I see you, and I am standing here for as long as I physically can so that I can elevate your voice and others'.

Patricia, a constituent from New Jersey:

I am 65 years old, a senior. I have worked my whole life

and paid into Social Security. Will you please work hard and

push back to preserve these benefits? Without Social Security

money and Medicare as well, I will not survive. I am

outraged--

Patricia writes--

to see what is happening recently. Help. If there is anything

you request of me--

My constituent says: If there is anything you need of me, please let me know.

That is one of the most beautiful sentiments in America, is that people in crisis who are racked with fear and worry still are standing up to volunteer, retired seniors.

I am always moved when a constituent not only tells me what is on their mind, how they are angry, how they are worried, what their concerns are, but they also say: Let me help you. Let me help you.

Patricia, it is late at night, and you are probably sleeping, but you helped me tonight at 12:41 a.m.

The goodness and the decency of our seniors, the kindness and generosity of our communities, and what does our President do to these people? He spends time in the State of the Union Address not calling us together, not calling us to a common cause, not reminding us that we share common values and common virtues; he spreads lies about Social Security and unleashes the wealthiest man in the world to cut before he even understands the Agencies he is cutting--a guy who, with the same kind of cynical nature--I can't even fathom being as wealthy as he is; it is not what I have sought in my life--he calls it a Ponzi scheme when constituent after constituent tells me that is their only source of income, that they paid into it all of their lives, and now the most powerful person on the planet and the richest person on the planet are striking fear and worry into seniors.

Yet, with all of that power, all of that money, a constituent from New Jersey tells me about what she is concerned with and then says:

If there is anything you request of me, please let me know.

I am here to help.

``I am here to help.''

That is the country I know and love, not the fearmongers and the demagogues and the spreaders of lies but the good decency of Americans who, even in their time of crisis, ask the question: How can I help? How can I help.

Helen from New Jersey:

Senator Booker, please stand up to Musk and Trump to save,

protect Social Security and Medicare. My life and my

husband's life depend on it. We are senior citizens who

worked and paid our share of taxes for over 50 years. We now

need those benefits to survive.

Here is Janet, one of the hundreds--I am sorry to my staff--thousands of people who have written, emailed, and called. One more. Janet:

I oppose the closing of Social Security field offices. If

anything, more field services should be opened if phone

support is cut back.

In 2022, while living in Wyoming, I started on Social

Security. There were issues, and thank God for the local

field office in Cheyenne because they were the only people

who could physically look at my documentation, realize what

was happening to me, submit corrections, and enter notes in

the system that the Social Security phone support could see.

It took four or five trips to my local field office to

resolve it.

I had previously gotten nowhere with Social Security phone

support. Today, I read the list of field offices that are

slated to be closed, and they appear to be in rural areas.

The people who live there might have to drive a full day's

drive several times to apply for and follow up on their

benefits. It is not fair. It is not fair. It is not fair. It

is not fair.

Across the country--my office hears from--it is not just New Jersey. Across the country, people are frustrated and feel like nobody listens. We get calls from across the country. My staff doesn't say: You are not from New Jersey, so we are not going to talk to you. My staff is just incredible people I have surrounding me in the office who remind me of the values I treasure.

So they wanted me to include tonight people not from New Jersey because, again, we hear from thousands of people in my State and so many around the country.

Here is Maria Caranci from Springfield, Delaware County, PA:

My name is Maria Caranci.

Forgive me, Maria, if I am pronouncing your name wrong.

I am 78 years old and live in Springfield, Delaware County,

I am sorry about that. I am sorry about that. The Presiding Officer is such a good man. His State is not on my top five non-New Jersey States, but North Carolina is. And I am going to read a letter from Judith Brown.

My name is Judith Brown. I live in Charlotte, North

Carolina. I was 17 when I started working and worked for

another 20 years as an administrator until I had to be

declared disabled. Without disability, I would not have been

able to see my specialist, get eye care, or any of the other

needs that I had. I was also the mother of two young sons who

are on the autism spectrum. Without disability, I wouldn't

have been able to take care of them and get the care they

needed to be independent young men.

God bless them.

I hear that they want to close the field offices and change

the customer service line.

As a person with mobility and vision impairments, this is

outrageous. I need to be able to access it the best way I can

on the times that I can access it. Please, Senator, fight to

protect Social Security for a senior like me and for young

people with disabilities like my son. Thank you.

No, thank you, Judith Brown. Thank you for writing a letter. Thank you for speaking up. Thank you for not being silent. Thank you for advocating, not just for your family but for the millions and millions of other Americans who lean heavily not just on their Social Security checks but on the incredible public servants that keep that Agency working and who wish to have a President that said: I am going to bring the best of business experience to my customer service. I am going to bring the best of caring and technology and innovation. I am going to call the best computer technologist scientists in the country. We are going to make this the best Social Security in the history of our country.

And you know what, my friends, the billionaires I had on stage with me when I was inaugurated, I am just going to ask them to pay a little bit more, .00001 percent more of their net worth to make sure Social Security is safe forever.

I am sorry. It is crazy. I am going back to Pennsylvania. I mean, it is almost like you can't make this up, honestly. I just know my country. I know our character. I know how good of a people we are. I know how much we love one another. I know our faith in red States and blue States and right and left.

I have sat next to people on planes who introduced themselves to me as Republicans from a red State, and by the end, we are laughing and talking and sharing stories. We are a good nation. Together, we can be so great and show them that.

But how can we have a President that in 71 days drives this much fear into our country? It is absurd, everybody. It is absurd. This is why I can't let this be normal anymore.

Michelle from Lancaster, PA:

My name is Michelle Gruver--

I love your last name, Michelle--

from Lancaster, PA, and I would definitely be impacted if

something would happen to my Social Security--

Michelle also has Parkinson's--

and I am on disability, and the money that I have goes pretty

much to most of my medications and foods that I need to eat

to keep myself going and strong. That is how it would impact

my family. I wouldn't be able to afford also my insulin for

my diabetes.

Parkinson's and diabetes.

So it is a challenge every month as it is even with the

amount that we have because of the cost of pharmaceuticals

and things to keep us going.

Yes.

So that is why Social Security is really important to us as

a family. It helps us get by every day. Thank you.

This is Patricia Heaney Porter from Johnstown, PA:

My name is Patricia Heaney Porter. I reside in Johnstown,

Pennsylvania. My work is varied. I have been employed as a

secretary in the private sector, as a statistician for a

government agency, as a real estate agent, and most recently

as a legal secretary. This is my story of how Social Security

has affected my life. My mother passed away in 1956. My

sisters and I--

God bless you--

were 8, 10, and 11.

My maternal grandparents stepped in, and they raised us

with the help of Social Security survivor benefits, resulting

in good education and other needs to be met. We had almost

normal lives due to these benefits.

While raising two children, I worked as a real estate

agent. My income was based on commissions rather than salary,

so I made entire Social Security payments based on my income.

We had a roof over our heads, healthy food on the table. One

of my children had serious medical issues. And I paid for her

bills out of pocket, never asking for a penny from any

government agency. These expenses were paid for from my

income, and I paid taxes every year.

I waited until I was 70 to collect my Social Security

benefits as I realized the later you collect, the better the

benefits. I have no pension, and I live almost entirely on

Social Security benefits. I am always looking for part-time

work, but few people want to hire me as I will be 80 in June.

God bless you, God bless you.

Based on the benefits I receive, I am able to pay my

mortgage and all monthly expenses. I receive Medicare which

helps pay the medical bills.

Should Social Security and Medicare be taken from me, I

will likely lose my home. I could no longer afford medical

costs, groceries. I have a medical condition which requires

regular visits with a specialist who is 70 miles away.

Without Social Security and Medicare, I would no longer be

able to see him, and my condition would result in death

sooner rather than later.

Thank you for all you are doing to see that the benefits

received from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will

continue.

Senator Murphy and I were talking. It is all interrelated, right? This is somebody on Social Security, but they have to drive for medical attention. We are in a hospital crisis in America. There are so many rural areas where rural residents of our country have to drive so far just to get to a hospital.

And cuts in Medicaid, we heard it from the letters I read in the last section, will endanger those hospitals' survival.

Charlotte, NC, again, Kevin Woodson. I get a lot of letters, my staff, from Wisconsin and Charlotte, NC. OK.

My name is Kevin Woodson. I am a 69-year-old retiree living

in Charlotte, North Carolina. I worked 38 years for two

Fortune 50 companies, and I thought that I would have a fully

funded pension plan to live off of in my retirement. However,

I never got to 25 years in, so only got partial pensions.

This is why I need Social Security. It covers the holes the

pensions don't cover in terms of medical benefits. It allows

me the freedom to enjoy my life, take care of activities that

I need in order to keep myself healthy. Social Security is

dependable, something I rely on--

Not a Ponzi scheme--

and I hope that we don't touch Social Security and we don't

have any issues trying to keep that money flowing. It is

money I paid into.

Margaret Silva from Surprise, AZ. I love that name. Surprise, AZ.

Hello, my name is Margaret Silva. I live in Surprise,

Arizona, with my husband. I started working at the age of 15

doing volunteer work as a candy striper at the hospital where

my mother worked. I did not get paid. After that, I started

working as a waitress earning .50 cents an hour. After

graduating from high school, I took various jobs earning a

little more, and then I started working at Mountain Bell, and

I retired after 30 years from Qwest. So if they do Social

Security cuts, I don't know what I am going to do.

I will be forced at the age of 74 to look for a job. So

those are my hard-earned benefits, I worked for that. More

than 30 years I worked for that. Thank you.

Wayne Behnke from Chippewa Falls, WI. I need to go to Chippewa Falls, WI. This is the third letter you guys are having me read, including people reaching out to me from Chippewa Falls. God bless you. I need to visit your community.

Hello, I am Wayne from Chippewa Falls. Soon to be 69 years

old. I have been on Social Security for a couple years, my

wife and I. I spent years in the service, Navy, and, again,

like I said, my wife and I are going to have been on Social

Security. Saying that, we would, if we lost our Social

Security tomorrow, we would lose our house, our cars, and

pretty much our livelihood because this is what we have

worked for, and we don't need to lose it.

Why do you work for 55 years and pay into Social Security

and then lose it? Recently, I tried to get back online and

get on my Social Security account. I wasn't able to. Because

of that, I went down to the Social Security office in Eau

Claire, Wisconsin, and they said they couldn't do anything

for me that I had to set up an appointment. So I come home

later, called, set up an appointment, and it is still three

days out before I can get my appointment. And they don't know

if they can help me. So at this point in time, I really need

to know what is going on with Social Security, Senator

Booker, because if we lose it, everybody else that is on it

loses it. We are going to be in a really sorry state.

Those folks who answer phones and set appointments, they are sure important. When somebody is in crisis, they have to wait a few days, their check is missed, and it is real consequences for real people.

Hello, my name is Manuel. My wife and I live--

Surprise, surprise--

in Surprise, Arizona. We are both on Social Security. That is

what we depend on to live our lives in our retirement years.

We have to pay our bills, we have to buy food, we basically

have to live off of that. So if they take our Social

Security, what are we going to live off? Are you going to

take care of us? You know, we are American citizens, and we

deserve, and we have paid into it, and we have earned it. And

it is not just something given to us. So leave our Social

Security alone. Let us live our lives. Let us live our lives

out the way they should be. And we are supposed to be in our

golden years, so it is important to us. It is important to

all Americans out there that are seniors. Let us live our

lives. Thank you very much, Senator Booker.

Patricia Naughton from Pittsburgh, PA, I lift your voice.

My name is Patricia Naughton, and I am from Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania. I have been paying into Social Security since I

was 16 years old. I am currently 70 and have been collecting

Social Security for the last 5 years. Without Social

Security, I wouldn't be able to pay my mortgage, utilities,

food, medicine, copays, and many other things. I would not be

able to survive without Social Security. There is no reason

that seniors should be held hostage over Social Security.

This is our money, our money that we put into the Social

Security system for many years. We deserve not to be

threatened by the loss. Thank you.

Kathleen Woverding, from Hanover, PA.

Hello, my name is Kathleen Woverding, and I currently live

in Hanover, Pennsylvania. I am originally from New Jersey and

taught in the public school system for 29 years as a school

librarian. When I retired, I decided to move to Hanover,

Pennsylvania--

Kathleen, you are missed in New Jersey--

and at the age of 62, I started collecting Social Security

because of COVID. I needed the extra stability that Social

Security provides. I no longer have to work a full-time job

because of Social Security, although I do work a part-time

job and still pay into the system. Social Security provides

me with stability, financial stability. It helps pay the

bills, and I really don't have to worry about my finances

because it is Social Security.

If Social Security is taken away, I will lose everything I

have worked for the last 60 years. I feel that Social

Security is a godsend. Protect it, Senator Booker. Thank you.

Cynthia Marino from Pennsylvania:

My name is Cynthia Marino. I am a retired registered nurse

from Lancaster, PA. My husband--

I am sorry, Cynthia.

My husband died in 1990, and two of my children received

survivor benefits for 8 years, during which time I was able

to get my bachelor's degree in nursing and work part-time.

All three of my children went on to get college degrees.

When I was 61 years old, I went on Social Security

disability, having a hip replacement. I was switched to

regular Social Security when I turned 65. I now depend mostly

on Social Security for my husband and myself, with small

pensions from both of our jobs supplementing Social Security.

I am now able to live independently in a handicap mobile

home thanks to the money from Social Security in the past and

present. It is much cheaper than Medicaid funds to keep me in

a nursing home. Thank you, Senator Booker. Protect it.

Thank you, Cynthia, for your story.

These are just some. These are just some. I lift their voices. I lift their voices with mine.

I want to go to the Detroit Free Press, but before I read this article, I know my Senator from New Jersey is here. I am going to read this article, and if he is interested in our sixth hour, if he has a question, I will yield for a question while retaining the floor. But I am going to read this article, and then we will go.

This is from the Detroit Free Press. My mom was born in Detroit. I love the city. My family owes it a lot. It is where my grandfather went to find a job on the assembly lines in Detroit, building bombers during World War II.

It says:

Kathie Sherrill has been retired for about 10 years now and

typically didn't think twice about whether she'd receive her

Social Security payments on time.

For the first time ever, the 74-year-old Troy retiree went

online in March on the very day that $2,800 was to hit her

bank account through direct deposit. She suddenly felt

compelled to make absolutely certain that her Social Security

money was there when it was supposed to be.

Sherrill and other retirees are on edge. Big. Time. Call it

Social Security insecurity.

``I have never really worried about it as much as I have

this year,'' Sherrill said. The money, thankfully, was

sitting in her account in March and she knew her checks and

payments for her ongoing bills would not start bouncing.

``I think anybody, future or current people on Social

Security, are definitely targeted,'' she said. ``It's a worry

that I'm sure everybody is having right now.''

I know it because I heard from my mom and her whole senior community. Seniors are uncertain of what is next for Social Security.

Since early February, AARP has seen nearly double the calls

to its customer care line at 888-687-2277 as more people

began being troubled about Social Security, and it has shown

no signs of abating, according to an AARP spokesperson.

Since Feb. 1, AARP said it has been receiving more than

2,000 calls into its call center per week on concerns

relating to Social Security.

``Social Security has never missed a payment and AARP and

our tens of millions of members are not going to stand by and

let that happen now,'' said John Hishta, AARP senior vice

president of campaigns, in a statement last week.

While those words sound reassuring, it's frankly not

comforting to realize that seniors need to hear that their

monthly Social Security payments will arrive as usual. I

don't imagine anyone had this one on their bingo cards for

March 2025.

This kind of worry and stress.

On social media, I spotted one comment that said: ``Folks,

the federal workers began advising last month that all

Americans remove all funds from the account where they

normally receive any federal payments (Social Security,

federal tax refunds and the like). Keep the account but only

use it as a place for feds to transfer money. Immediately

move all transferred cash to a separate account.''

The concern, according to the post: ``DOGE can declare you

dead and force your bank to send back any funds paid to

you.''

Whoa, a lot of retirement angst there and, yes, some wild

notions and really bad advice. Moving Social Security money

around to hide it in another account, different from where

it's directly deposited, actually could put more of your

money at risk when it comes to some debt collection.

Anyone who has tracked retirement policy, as I have, knows

that the potential unraveling of the Social Security system

has been discussed for decades. Many retirees just never

imagined a convoluted scenario where someone would think

Social Security, possibly, could implode in a few days.

The health of Social Security, which marks its 90th

anniversary this year, isn't all that makes many retirees and

those about to retire nervous. Their anxiety can go into

overdrive watching the stock market slide on Trump tariff

news--and seeing all the political ping-pong with Social

Security money that belongs in their pockets.

The Trump administration has maintained that it wants to

cut costs and fraud when it comes to the Social Security

program, not benefits. But people remain skeptical, and some

commentary isn't helping.

Acting Social Security Commissioner Leland Dudek in

interviews last week, including one with Bloomberg News last

Thursday, actually threatened to temporarily shut down Social

Security after a federal judge temporarily stopped members of

Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency from digging

through personal data at the Social Security Administration.

The DOGE operatives, according to the court, will first

need to receive proper training on handling sensitive

information, which some might say is the least they could do.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees, or AFSCME, Alliance for Retired Americans, and the

American Federation of Teachers filed a motion for emergency

relief on March 7 to halt DOGE's ``unprecedented, unlawful

seizure'' of sensitive data regarding millions of Americans.

No surprise, Dudek soon found it politically prudent to

back off from his threat.

``I am not shutting down the agency,'' Dudek said in a

statement, indicating he had received clarifying guidance

from the court about the temporary restraining order.

President Trump supports keeping Social Security offices

open and getting the right check to the right person at the

right time,'' [Dudek said].

Financial tech CEO Frank Bisignano, who was nominated by

President Donald Trump to lead the Social Security

Administration, ended up being grilled by Democrats about the

bedlam during confirmation hearings before the Senate Finance

Committee on Tuesday.

The angst isn't about to go away, particularly if people

continue to face even longer waits on the phones or see

Social Security offices closing in their communities, thanks

to some key changes being made now [by Trump's

administration].

Customer service is on the chopping block, as the Social

Security Administration reduces the number of employees,

restricts what services can be handled by phone and shutters

some local offices where people could talk to someone face-

to-face.

On Wednesday, the Social Security Administration announced

that it would initiate a two-week delay for implementing a

highly criticized move to end phone services and require in-

person visits for some services.

``In-person identity proofing for people unable to use

their personal `my Social Security' account for certain

services will be effective April 14,'' according to the

announcement.

But individuals applying for Medicare, disability and

Supplemental Security Income who cannot use a personal ``my

Social Security'' account can complete their claim entirely

over the telephone without the need to come into an office,

according to the March 26 announcement. That's good news for

many.

Even so, merely delaying the change doesn't help others

and, frankly, customer service could still suffer longer

term.

And it will get very ugly if current Social Security

recipients miss out on even one dime of their benefits.

At one point last week, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard

Lutnick suggested that his 94-year-old mother-in-law wouldn't

complain about missing a Social Security check for a month or

so. Only fraudsters would call, he said during an ``All-In''

podcast.

My thought: Have you ever watched an exchange where someone

on Social Security is being denied a coupon or a senior

discount at

a store or restaurant? It is not pretty. Worse yet, has

Lutnick ever talked with a friend or relative in his or her

70s or 80s who depends on Social Security to cover basic

bills?

Social Security provides retirement, survivor and

disability payments to 73 million people each month. That

number includes about 56 million people who are age 65 or

older.

Some people--and even Sherrill includes herself in that

group--are better off than others. They won't miss paying an

electric bill or the rent because they can turn to retirement

savings or money from a traditional pension. Even so, Social

Security remains an integral source of income each month for

all retirees and others who receive benefits.

``I'm concerned about my financial future,'' Sherrill told

me.

Social Security now represents about half of her monthly

income.

She never imagined that any Social Security fix would

involve cutting benefits for existing retirees. . . . Some

GOP proposals have suggested increasing the age for full

retirement benefits from 67 to 69 over an eight-year period

beginning in 2026.

But she now fears that it's possible her benefits could get

cut at some point down the road.

Overall, Sherrill has had fun in retirement.

She has nine grandchildren and 12 great-grandchildren and

wants to spend more time with them, not less.

Sherrill and her friends who are retired are cutting back

on eating out and entertainment, just in case something

happens to Social Security. Higher prices for many things put

pressure on fixed incomes, too.

She wants to take less money out of her retirement savings

now, so she has more money sitting on the sidelines in case

her Social Security benefits are cut in the future.

Even so, she's staring at an unexpected $600 new monthly

car payment ahead because she needs to replace a car that was

in an accident a few weeks ago.

If her Social Security payments are cut or stopped . . .

``I may be selling it.''

The wild swings for the stock market--and 401(k) plans--

only created more jitters.

The economy seems uncertain. Consumer confidence is in worse of a place. Leaders are threatening Social Security services. Offices are being cut. People are being laid off. So people are worrying.

Taking a rough guess, she estimates that she has lost about

$30,000 on her retirement investments as the stock market

tumbled in early 2025.

Over the years, she said, cuts to Social Security were

always part of the political realm. But she felt that

Congress provided a stopgap to any drastic moves. And she

doesn't believe that's true anymore.

``I'm hoping that Congress wakes up, looks in the mirror

and decides they don't like what they see,'' she told me.

One big problem with fueling an atmosphere of chaos is that

many people do start worrying about everything, including the

possibility that Social Security isn't a system that they can

depend on anymore.

Sherrill said she just took a call from her college

roommate who mentioned that she was going to look at her bank

account online to see whether her monthly Social Security

payment was stopped or had arrived as usual.

``I said, `You're OK. I got [mine] this month.' ''

So many people are afraid right now.

Yes, I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

I will answer your question. But knowing that my mom is watching right now, before I answer the question, I want to tell the folks who may not know about the relationship with my other Senator from New Jersey--it is probably one of the more interesting relationships in here.

I always tell New Jerseyans, I voted for Andy Kim before anybody else did because I was on an interview committee for the Rhodes Scholarship in New Jersey. I was a former Rhodes, and I really wanted the experience of what it was like to be on the other side because my experience was quite interesting.

These incredible folks came in, young people from New Jersey who were amazing, applying for this extremely competitive scholarship. Andy Kim was one among that number, and he blew the committee away. So way back--I am going to retain the floor but ask you a question. What year was that?

How many years?

Twenty-one years ago. In 2002, I lost a run for mayor and in 2006, I ran again. I was in between trying to do my work in Newark.

Andy blew me away. I knew then that he was this extraordinary man of character and brilliance, this great mix of heart and head, this great mix of honor, and a fierce ambition to make a contribution to the world. And if you follow Andy's career, he has been a public servant in some of the highest levels of the administration.

But then he ran for Congress, and I remember that race. You electrified, not just the district you represented but really the whole State of New Jersey. And then he came here.

But the moment that I remember most was during the January 6 attack. I was here on the Senate floor in this very seat. I will never forget how back here, Mark Kelly, an unbelievable Senator--he and I were two of the last people off the floor, along with one of our Republican colleagues, trying to make sure if anybody broke through we would be there. I can't believe as a Senator I was thinking how to fight my way off the Senate floor.

But I remember we got to an undisclosed location. A lot of Senators were in safe spots, a lot of House Members were in safe spots debating about what to do. I am so happy we came back late and continued the business of government, transfer of power.

While all these Senators were dealing with big issues, whatever, Andy Kim took a broom, plastic bags, and began cleaning up under the Capitol dome--remarkable humility shown in a humble gesture about his love of country.

Now, here we stand on the Senate floor at the earliest hours of the morning, closing in on 2 a.m. You asked me this question I didn't expect which is: Hey, Cory, this now seems to be a time where Democrats are finding themselves about what they are against; shouldn't we be talking about a vision of what we are for? I am very upset watching what is happening to Social Security, watching what is happening to insinuate fear amongst seniors who should be retiring with security and peace, cuts undermining thousands of people being laid off--all of that is worthy of us standing here and the things we are reading.

But what I think Senator Kim is really pointing to is the fact that there are bold visions for whom we are going to be as a country. He is one of these big believers that we can be a nation that boasts about we are a country where somebody doesn't retire and lives on such a meager check that they are technically at the poverty line. ``Senator Booker, we have more wealth than nations all around the globe--stratospheric wealth in this country, GDP growth, and can't we design a system that doesn't have seniors stressed out and living--those that live off of their paychecks--living there?''

The other thing I know you know about--and I recently did a talk with a Republican friend of mine, Senator Young--we worked on a bill together because we both recognize we are in a grip with seniors--that generation, baby boomers, a generation ahead of me--I almost said us, but you are technically a millennial.

I am an Xer. But the generation ahead of me is so big that we are seeing this massive group of Americans, soon to be retiring, and lots of people recognize it, calling it the ``great retirement crisis,'' not because Social Security checks won't be there. You were asking me: Cory, what is the great vision for them to be there? But because just the reality that the Social Security checks themselves are so meager, and many other people don't have jobs where they have 401(k)s and the like. Senator Young--again, this is not a partisan speech.

Later, I will be quoting from the Cato Institute, the Wall Street Journal, where there are lots of conservatives who point to this not being a normal time in America; this being a crisis moment in America, not just people on my side of the aisle but Republican Governors, Republican thought leaders--a lot of folks are saying there is a real crisis in our country being caused by the current President, who, in 71 days, most people can't say yes; most people say no to the question, Are you better off than you were 71 days ago?

So I want to answer your question by saying this: Everyone should retire with a secure Social Security. I believe there are ways to secure the programs by asking the wealthiest people who pay the smallest percentage of their income into Social Security to pay a little bit more in Social Security taxes on their income, which is minuscule. As you said, there is a gravity of wealth that is being created in this country, which is, again, something I am not against in terms of just being successful. But this idea that we have a system that creates a fair retirement is one thing we can do.

I think, also, one of these things we should be talking about right now is how do we make the Social Security system not frustrating for people who complained before Donald Trump laid off tens of thousands of people with Musk, who complained about wait times, and other things. There are ways we can improve Social Security services as well.

So I think we can do things to secure Social Security in the long term with a simple fix, not by raising the retirement age for people who are struggling but by doing things by simply saying: Do you know what? Social Security taxes are already regressive because they cap out at a certain amount. Maybe skip some of the people in the middle, under $400,000 or $500,000 a year, and make people who are the wealthiest in the country pay a little bit more. That would be my vision. A very small amount would create a secure system. I think we can also do a lot to improve the Social Security services.

Then what I did with Senator Young--this is what is special about this place when it happens. It is for people to reimagine what economic security could be about. I am now very quietly--I think I have told you about this. I have this great idea that I have been talking about for years called baby bonds, or that every child born in America--and this is not a new idea. We actually scraped it from people years and years ago on both sides of the aisle in here, who had this idea that why not in a capitalist society have every child be born with a savings account--excuse me--a growth account. The government seeds it with some money, and through their entire lives, people can contribute into that tax-free, and it can grow, so that by the time--not by retirement--but by the time they are 20, 25, 30, they have thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars to invest in things that create wealth, because, right now, lots of people are working paycheck to paycheck and don't have stock accounts or the kinds of things that could actually produce a lot more wealth.

I am just throwing that out as one idea, Andy. I am going to pause because I know you have another question, and I am going to yield to a question while retaining the floor. But I just want to say there are so many bipartisan ideas with which to deal with wealth inequality. I mean, the child tax credit was, unfortunately, not made permanent. It cut child poverty in America in half. It worked for an entire year. I remember some of my colleagues, from Marco Rubio to Mitt Romney, talking about: Hey, we should be expanding the child tax credit. We should be having a bolder vision for America--for retirement security, for wealth creation, for economic security.

But we are not talking about those bold ideas.

We have a President who has come in, and one of the first things he has done in 71 days is insinuate fear and insecurity about Social Security by threatening it, by creating and telling lies about it, and by having somebody like Elon Musk calling it a Ponzi scheme. That is why we get fear. Then they take a hatchet to the actual Agency that undermines its ability to deliver service in a good way.

I will yield to a question while retaining the floor.

So, Andy, you have gotten me really excited--

--because I love that you are a millennial. I am X generation. I love the baby boomers, but they are quickly leaving Congress. This is the last baby boomer President you will ever have. I am confident of that. And new generations are coming forward to lead in America.

It is time that we dream America anew. It really is. It is time that we revive and redeem the dream. I just am one of these people who thinks, like: OK, guys, we have some of the brightest minds on the planet Earth. Some of our Founding Fathers said we need a little revolution every once in a while, like we need new thoughts and new ideas and new visions that energize people, that take a lot of the old divisions in our country and erase them and remind people we have common cause and common purpose. I want to get people excited again about the American dream. I want to renew the dream, to redeem the dream. We can do that. I am so excited about it.

And on financial security, it is absurd that we don't have the greatest plan to create wealth, not for the favored few simply--again, the top quartile in America has crushed it over the last 25 years. Under Obama alone, the stock market doubled. But most Americans don't own stocks. So people who are sitting on passive wealth were able to grow and grow and grow and grow, while working Americans saw their prices going up, housing becoming

unaffordable, and the idea of the American dream under assault.

It ticks me off that other countries are trying to out-America us. They are trying to take our secret sauce that we seem to be turning our back on: affordable higher education, apprenticeship programs. I mean, with some of our European competitors, a job just appears before you, and you can go right into an apprenticeship program where you can earn and learn and end up in a career that gives you not just success but that you thrive in.

There is no idea that we can't conceive of as a country. This is an idea and a time that I just think that we need to start being bold again in our visions for collective prosperity, for everyone to thrive--not just the favorite few but the many. I am telling you that those ideas are out there, whether it is baby bonds or the child tax credit or investing in science and research. There are so many things.

But you are--can I say this to you affectionately? You are a nerd as am I. We are two guys who love to read, who love American history. We are two guys in this body--go back a century. They never imagined that we would be here. OK?

One of my favorite speeches of all time was when Daniel Webster got on Bunker Hill, and he delivered a speech--I am going to read the introduction to it--to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Revolutionary War battle at Bunker Hill, in which the outnumbered colonists inflicted such heavy losses on the mighty British forces attempting to invade. I love one of the quotes. I can't remember it exactly, but the general--the person who was leading the British attack--wrote in their diary.

He wrote back to the King: We won the battle, but a few more victories like this and we are going to lose the continent.

That is how great these people were, and this is what I want you to know: It is a new generation, right?

Those leaders are no longer around. I read this, and I get excited by the possibility for our generation and for the new leaders who are emerging in America. They have to. It is their obligation to not let the dream die and to redeem the dream.

So here it is. I am just dying to read this to you. Here it is, Andy. I don't want to read too much of it to you.

OK. Here we go:

If in our case the representative system is ultimately to

fail, this idea of a democratic government, popular

governments must be pronounced impossible.

He is saying:

We have an obligation to make a more perfect Union. No

combination of circumstances more favorable to this

experiment can ever be expected. The last hopes of mankind,

therefore, rest with us. Can we make this democratic

experiment work?

And it should be proclaimed that our example had become an

argument for the experiment. The principle of free government

adheres to this American soil. It is bedded in the soil. It

is as movable as this Nation's mountains. And let the sacred

obligations--

This is the part, Senator Kim.

And let the sacred obligations which have devolved on this

generation, and on us, sink deep into our hearts [the sacred

obligations]. Those are daily dropping from among us who

established our liberty and our government. The generation

that established this Nation are now dying. The great trust

now descends to our hands. Let us apply ourselves to which is

presented to us as an appropriate object. We can win no

laurels in our generation in a war for independence. Earlier

and worthier hands gathered [all of those laurels]. Nor are

there places for us by the sight of Solon and Alfred and

other founders of our state. Our fathers have filled them.

But there remains to us a great duty of defense and

preservation, and there is open to us also that noble pursuit

to which the spirit of the times strongly invites us. Our

proper business is improvement. Let ours be the age of

improvement. In a day of peace, let us advance the arts of

peace and the works of peace. Let us develop the resources of our lands, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its greatness, and see whether we also, in our day and generation, may not perform something worthy to be remembered. Let us cultivate a true spirit of union and harmony. In pursuing the great objects which our condition points out to us, let us act under a settled conviction, and an habitual feeling, that these twenty-four states are one country. Let our conceptions be enlarged to the circle of our duties. Let us extend our ideas over the whole of the vast field in which we are called to act. Let our object be our country, our whole country. . . . And, by the blessings of God, may that country itself become a vast and splendid monument, not of oppression and terror but of wisdom, peace, and liberty upon which the world may gaze with admiration for ever!

That is a bold vision--this bold vision that doesn't give up on America, that doesn't surrender to cynicism about America. That is who you are, Andy Kim, and that is what gets me excited.

Right now, we are fighting against what I think are tyrannical forces. I am sorry. When a leader stands up not with humility like in George Washington's Farewell Address or like some of the great Founders in their inaugural addresses, but who stands up and says, ``Only I can solve these problems,'' but who doesn't use his speeches to heal and to comfort but to talk about the enemies he is going to pursue--and those enemies are not the adversaries who seek to destroy us but are the enemies who are other Americans--and to create an environment where our seniors, who should be retiring in security, are fearful that their Social Security or their Medicaid or their Medicare is going to be under threat, that is insidious to me.

This is an un-normal time. This is why I am standing here. But you, my friend, my partner in the Senate--God, this partnership. I am so excited about the future. I am so excited about the promise. Let us fend off all attempts to cut Social Security and Social Security services. Let us fend off all attempts to cut Medicaid and Medicaid care and CHIP and all the other things that we rely on.

But let us also not forget that our obligation is not to defend what it is but to have a vision for what can become. We now, when so many people are giving up on the American dream, on the idea of America, on which you said so wonderfully that my children will do better than me-- that basic bedrock that our children, generation after generation, will do better and better and better--it is time to redeem the dream and dream America anew with bold visions. It is not how we will just help people survive in retirement, but they are visions of how we can all thrive in this great Nation that has enough resource and enough abundance--abundance--to provide for everyone's hopes and dreams.

(Mr. McCORMICK assumed the Chair.)

Thank you. You have given me energy. I am sourcing my energy from you.

I don't want to just cast aspersions on--and we are saying things that I just want to back up in fact. All of those letters--all of those letters from seniors--I see my dear friend from Pennsylvania is now the Presiding Officer. He missed all of the letters I read from Pennsylvania. In all of those letters, people were using the words ``Ponzi scheme.'' Where did that come from? I just want to read from ``The Joe Rogan Experience.'' I actually liked it. I enjoy listening to Joe Rogan.

Elon:

Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time.

Now, that is a big statement. It is the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time, Elon says.

And Joe Rogan says:

Why? Explain that.

Elon says:

Oh. So, well, people pay into Social Security, um . . .

and--and the money goes out of Social Security immediately.

But the obligation for Social Security is . . . uh . . . your

entire retirement career. So you're . . . you're paying . . .

uh . . . with your, the kind of people . . . you're paying .

. .

And I am reading this verbatim.

You're paying . . . uh . . . with your, the kind of people

. . . you're paying . . . like--like--if you look at the

future obligations of Social Security, it far exceeds, uh,

the--the tax revenue--uh . . . far.

If you've looked at the debt, the debt clock.

Rogan says:

Yes.

OK. There's, there's, there's--

Three ``there's.'' I am reading it verbatim--

our present-day debt, but then there's our future obligation.

So when you look at the future obligation of Social Security,

um, uh, the actual, uh, national debt is, like, double

what--what people think it is because of the future

obligations.

Rogan:

Uh.

Elon:

So, uh, basically, people are living way longer than

expected.

That was the evidence of a Ponzi scheme.

Now, let's correct something. The reason why we have a massive debt in America--lots of people should take ownership over it. But the biggest debt creator in the last, say, 25, 30 years, is the President of the United States, the current one, in his first term, by blowing massive holes in our deficits to give tax cuts that went way disproportionately to the wealthiest Americans and corporations. And he wants to renew those tax cuts that independent budget folks are saying could add trillions of dollars to our national deficit.

So if he is talking about the debt clock or whatever he is talking about, he is part of an administration--even though he is not elected and not approved by Congress and whatever, he and his President--the richest man in the world and the most powerful man in the world-- together they are driving an agenda that is going to drive this deficit much bigger. And they are going to try to pay for some of it--not all of it because it is trillions of dollars of projected debt. They are going to try to pay for some of it by cutting NIH grants, by cutting Medicaid, by cutting staff at Social Security.

So, no, Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. People paid into it. And as Andy Kim and I just talked, there are ways to preserve it, strengthen it, and make it better.

It is a program that pays benefits after a lifetime of work. It has never missed a payment. It has never run out of money. It is an insurance program. But don't take my word. Here is Current Affairs magazine editor Nathan Robinson writing on March 7: ``Why Social Security Is Not a Ponzi Scheme.''

That is a great title.

Old age insurance is not a scam, and it's not destined to

collapse. Proponents of privatizing or eliminating Social

Security are constantly telling lies about it.

Here is the article:

Elon Musk has called Social Security a ``Ponzi scheme,''

comparing it to a scam in which a con man must keep finding

new suckers in order to disguise the financial

unsustainability of his enterprise. [The] term has also been

used by libertarian commentators at Reason and the Hoover

Institute, who try to convince people that the program is

fundamentally broken and unsustainable. Because both Social

Security and Ponzi schemes take money in from new

contributors which they pay to old ones, it is easy to craft

a superficial resemblance between [the two]. But Social

Security is not a Ponzi scheme, and it's important to

understand why, because the comparison is used to generate

the illusion of a Social Security ``crisis'' that can be used

to justify major benefit cuts or even the elimination of the

program altogether. [Under the Ponzi scheme,] the differences

between old age insurance and Ponzi schemes, we can train

ourselves mentally to resist the propaganda that is used to

try to convince the public to support undermining one of our

most important social welfare programs.

Let's think about a few different cases in which money is

pooled and paid out. First, let us imagine a company has a

pension scheme. (I realize this may be difficult to imagine

these days, but stick with me for a minute.) Workers pay 5

percent of their income. The employer pays in an amount

equivalent to 15 percent of the worker's income. When the

worker retires, they get a fixed benefit every year for the

rest of their life, equivalent to some percentage of what

their salary was. [Let's call that] Scenario A.

Now let us imagine a different scenario: Five (uncommonly

astute) middle schoolers create a rudimentary insurance

scheme to guard against being punished by their parents. The

children all go to the mall every week to play arcade games

together. They each get an allowance of $10 per week, which

they spend at the arcade. What they decide to do is spend $9

each week instead and put $1 per week into a fund. If one of

them has their allowance taken away by their parents, the

fund will pay their arcade money for the week. That way,

nobody in the friend group is ever deprived of the ability to

go to the arcade. We are going to call [that] Scenario B.

Finally, let us imagine a scenario in which a fraudster

tricks a group of old people into giving him their money.

He says that if they invest their retirement money with

him, he can guarantee them a 20 percent per year return,

risk-free. They invest. He provides them with statements

showing that their money is indeed growing at 20 percent

[a] year. When they ask [him] to pull a portion of their

money out so they can spend it, he disburses it. But what

he [is actually] doing is spending all of their money and

providing fake statements. He is able to keep paying

withdrawals because he is constantly recruiting new

suckers, just enough to cover what people are withdrawing.

Eventually, people get suspicious, too many try to

withdraw their money at once, and he flees the country.

This is a Ponzi scheme, named after the Italian con [man]

Charles Ponzi, who fleeced people in this way. We will

call the Ponzi scheme scenario C.

Notice that there are similarities and differences between

[the] three scenarios. A similarity is that there is a fund

that some people are paying into while others are being paid.

Another similarity is that all three are potentially

unstable. . . . In Scenario A (company pension), employees

start living a very long time in [their] retirement, the

amount of money in the pension fund might not be able to

cover the promised benefits, necessitating an adjustment of

the contributions from the next generation of workers. . . .

Or if, in Scenario B (middle school arcade . . . insurance),

one of the kids might be so unruly that his parents are

suspending his allowance every other week, requiring an

adjustment of the rules for payouts or contributions . . . to

keep the fund sustainable. Scenario C [the] (Ponzi scheme) is

the most unstable of all, because it depends on an elaborate

fraud, on fake accounting that disguises the fact [that]

nobody has the amount of money that they are being told they

have. It . . . only last[s] until people try to actually use

the money. . . . But scenarios A and B could also collapse if

they are not managed well.

We can see that despite the commonalities . . . there are

fundamental differences between scenarios A . . . B and

scenario C. The first two are legitimate ways for people to

pool and distribute money, and they can work just fine . . .

accomplishing their intended purpose. The third is a fraud in

which people's money is being stolen. The difference is more

important than the similarities.

I have laboriously laid out these examples in . . . hopes

that we can better understand why Social Security can be made

to look like a ``Ponzi scheme'' but [it] isn't . . . one at

all. ``Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme of all

time,'' said Musk. ``People pay into Social Security, and the

money goes out of Social Security immediately. But the

obligation for Social Security is your entire retirement

career.'' Now, it's true that in an insurance system, the

incoming payments from new people might be used to fund

outgoing payments to people who were already part of the

[Ponzi scheme.] But that's not what makes a Ponzi scheme a

Ponzi scheme. Musk, not for the first time, doesn't know what

he's talking about.

One of the reasons Social Security can be made to seem like

a Ponzi scheme is [because] people may misunderstand how it

works. People might think that Social Security saves their

money over time, and then when they retire it pays ``their''

money back. That is not how it works. It's not like a savings

account. The money I pay in is not saved up for me, it's paid

out to today's beneficiaries. When I retire, my benefits will

be paid by the money coming in from the next generation of

workers. Discovering this fact can make people think [that]

Social Security is [a Ponzi scheme, but it is not.]

. . . . a Ponzi scheme is a fraud in which the returns are

fake. There is nothing fake about Social Security. As long as

enough money is in the pool to pay out the beneficiaries, the

operation is sustainable, and perfectly honest. The only

reason it matters that retirees do not pay for their own

benefits, but depend on the payments of the next generation

of workers, is that if there isn't a next generation of

workers, we . . . have [got] a problem. But fortunately,

there is every reason to believe that human beings will

continue to exist, work, and pay Social Security taxes.

Now, what Musk and others who claim Social Security is a

``scam'' or in ``crisis'' say is that in the future, there

will not be enough workers [to pay] retiree[s] . . . the

promised benefits. Musk says: ``If you look at the future

obligations of Social Security, it far exceeds the tax

revenue . . . There's our present-day debt, but then there's

our future obligations . . . So, when you look at the future

obligations of Social Security, the actual national debt is

like double what people think it is because of future

obligations. . . . Basically, people are living way longer

than expected, and there are fewer babies being born, so you

have [many] people who are retired and that live for a long

time and get retirement payments . . . However bad the

financial situation is right now for the federal government,

it'll be much worse in the future.''

But while he's trying to get you to think this is a major

problem or some deep fundamental flaw with . . . Social

Security, it isn't. Every insurance plan has to make

adjustments over time. If there are a lot of wildfires

burning down houses, a company selling fire insurance might

have to raise premiums. . . . The increased premiums might be

small, but without them the program would go bankrupt. [This]

doesn't mean, however, that we'd be justified in saying . . .

fire insurance plans are a ``Ponzi scheme'' destined to go

bankrupt.

The adjustments needed to make Social Security sustainable

in the long term are minor. Yes, people are living longer and

having fewer babies. That means there ultimately has to be

some kind of adjustment to

either how much is being paid in, how much is being paid out,

or both. Republicans want to cut benefits. Defenders of

Social Security, instead, want to raise the money going into

it by increasing taxes paid by the wealthy.

It is so interesting that we just saw that in the dialogue with my ideas with Andy Kim.

The amount of taxes that would need to be raised in order

to make Social Security solvent is negligible (the Social

Security Administration has estimated that ``increase in the

combined payroll tax rate from 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent''

to make the program sustainable for the next 75 years). As

Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot put it in the introduction to

1999's Social Security [book entitled]: The Phony Crisis:

``The only real threat to Social Security comes not from any

fiscal or demographic constraints but from the political

assaults on the program by would-be `reformers.' If not for

these attacks, the probability that Social Security `will not

be there' when anyone who is alive today retires would be

about the same as the odds that the U.S. government will not

be there.''

Of course, in the 25 years since this was written, the

chances that the U.S. government itself someday ``may not be

there'' could conceivably have gone up.

This is a funny author.

Musk is certainly trying to make sure as little of it

remains as possible. But the point remains. The theory behind

Social Security is sound. It is not . . . like an

unsustainable con, although it's also not like a savings

account. It can easily be sustained indefinitely, with some

minor adjustments to ensure that enough money is coming in to

keep it going. (It is also the case that even the need to

keep enough money flowing in is artificial. As Stephanie

Kelton explains, the restrictions on Social Security's

ability to pay out are created by a legal choice, not an

actual financial constraint facing the U.S. government, which

could keep paying benefits even when Social Security's

funding ``runs out'' if it was authorized by Congress to do

so.) Beware the rhetoric of those who describe it as in a

``crisis'' or being a scam. They either do not understand the

fundamentals of how it works or they are deliberately trying

to deceive you. (I cannot say for certain whether Musk is

knowledgeable enough to understand the basics and is lying or

simply cannot wrap his head around the basic way an old age

insurance program works.)

The author continues:

As Alex Lawson of Social Security Works explained to me,

the right has been trying to destroy Social Security since

its inception. This is for a few reasons. First, a lot of

vultures stand to benefit from privatization, just as the

privatized ``Medicare Advantage'' program has enriched

insurers like UnitedHealth. Second, the right, believing that

individuals should be responsible for their own fates, has an

ideological opposition to government social welfare

programs--even if this results in a bunch of old people being

poor. They see Social Security as an offensive ``Big

Government'' intrusion into the free market, something that

compels people to put money into a retirement program whether

they want to or not. The problem is that most of the public

doesn't share this hatred for the concept behind Social

Security, and the program is overwhelmingly popular [on both

sides of the political aisle.] Because they have failed to

win the ideological argument, the right must therefore

convince the public of a different argument: That the program

is collapsing and doomed and can only be ``saved'' through

major benefit cuts, which will be stated as the euphemism of

``raising the retirement age.''

Hence the propaganda about unsustainability and Ponzi

schemes. This can be effective because if you don't know much

about how Social Security works, it's easy to be convinced

that there's something fishy about its payment structure or

that it is heading for some dire financial apocalypse. But

this is not the case. Baker and Weisbrot are right that the

threats to Social Security come from those who say they are

trying to ``save'' it from a crisis. We need to have a clear

understanding of what is going on so that we can fight to

save a program that works just fine and can easily be made to

continue providing retirement benefits to every subsequent

generation of Americans, ideally ensuring that nobody has to

endure old age in poverty.

So why are they cutting Social Security staff? Thousands of people. Again--I say this time and time again--I am standing here because this is not a usual time. I think our country is facing a growing crisis. But I am quoting so many Republicans because a lot of us who have run stuff know that you don't just fire people and then realize the mistakes you have made and beg them to come back to work. They know that you don't just fire people that do essential functions in a program before you have even done assessments of what your goals and ambitions are for Social Security.

It is clear that their goal and ambition isn't to invest in customer service to improve the complaints that I have heard over the years about waits, unreturned calls, challenges at Social Security offices. That is not their ambition.

We have missed a big opportunity to come together in this Nation and start to really reimagine our government that works for people, that can do big things and serve folks. Instead, we are trying to demonize people; we are trying to lie about critical programs, calling this a Ponzi scheme; make up out of thin air that somehow we are paying thousands of people that are over 150 years old, fraudulently. We are better than that.

To that point, I just want to again make my facts clear. Here is an Associated Pressed fact-check from the President's speech: ``Tens of millions of dead people aren't getting Social Security checks, despite Trump and Musk claims.''

The Trump administration is falsely claiming that tens of

millions of dead people over 100 years old are receiving

Social Security payments.

Over the past few days, President Donald Trump and

billionaire adviser Elon Musk have said on social media and

in press briefings that people who are 100, 200 and even 300

years old are improperly getting benefits--a ``HUGE

problem,'' Musk wrote, as his Department of Government

Efficiency digs into federal agencies to root out waste,

fraud and abuse.

It is true that improper payments have been made, including

some to dead people. But the numbers thrown out by Musk and

the White House are overstated and misrepresent Social

Security data.

Here are the facts:

What has the Trump administration said about payments to

centenarians? On Tuesday, Trump said at a press briefing in

Florida that ``we have millions and millions of people over

100 years old'' receiving Social Security benefits. ``They're

obviously fraudulent or incompetent,'' Trump said.

``If you take all of those millions of people off Social

Security, all of a sudden we have a very powerful Social

Security with people that are 80 and 70 and 90, but not 200

years old,'' he said. He also said that there's one person in

the system listed as 360 years old.

Late Monday, Musk posted a slew of posts on his social

media platform X, including: ``Maybe Twilight is real and

there are a lot of vampires collecting Social Security,'' and

``Having tens of millions of people marked in Social Security

as ``ALIVE'' when they are definitely dead is a HUGE problem.

Obviously. Some of these people would have been alive before

America existed as a country. Think about that for a second .

. . ''

On Wednesday, Social Security's new acting commissioner,

Lee Dudek, acknowledged recent reporting about the number of

people older than age 100 who may be receiving benefits from

Social Security. ``The reported data are people in our

records with a Social Security number who do not have a date

of death associated with their record. These individuals are

not necessarily receiving benefits.''

``I am confident that with DOGE's help and the commitment

of our executive team and workforce, that Social Security

will continue to deliver for the American people,'' Dudek

said.

How big of a problem is Social Security fraud?

A July 2024 report from Social Security's inspector general

states that from fiscal years 2015 through 2022, the agency

paid out almost $8.6 trillion in benefits, including $71.8

billion--or less than 1%--in improper payments. Most of the

erroneous payments were overpayments to living people.

In addition, in early January, the U.S. Treasury clawed

back more than $31 million in a variety of federal payments--

not just Social Security payments--that improperly went to

dead people, a recovery that former Treasury official David

Lebryk said was ``just the tip of the iceberg.''

The money was reclaimed as part of a five-month pilot

program after Congress gave the Department of Treasury

temporary access to the Social Security Administration's

``Full Death Master File'' for three years as part of the

omnibus appropriations bill in 2021. The SSA maintains the

most complete federal database of individuals who have died,

and the file contains more than 142 million records, which go

back to 1899, according to the Treasury.

Treasury estimated in January that it would recover more

than $215 million during its three-year access period, which

runs from December 2023 through 2026.

So are tens of millions of people over 100 years old

receiving benefits?

No.

No. No. But the letters I read from scared people across the country show what happens when a President lies and when his unelected, biggest campaign contributor, the richest man in the world, just continue to make public statements to insinuate fear and doubt and chaos and then make announcements that they have to take back that they are going to end the call-in service, which so many seniors rely on.

Then they create more fear when people see that posted government buildings that are going to be sold at auction to the private sector are actually the addresses of their Social Security offices.

Why?

Everywhere I am going around my State and everywhere I have gone around the country in the last few weeks and my mom and her mostly Republican senior community are all up in arms and feel this fear--or the people that we have read about who write letters about losing sleep--and it is because of the chaos, the crass cruelty, the unjustified cuts and attacks on a program that is a bedrock between security and financial ruin for so many Americans.

Here is the Wall Street Journal writing about this, how Trump and Musk are undermining Social Security:

Dealing With Social Security Is Heading From Bad to Worse.

The agency that administers benefits is cutting staff and

restricting services as part of a Department of Government

Efficiency review.

The Wall Street Journal writes:

The federal agency that administers Social Security

benefits is facing a customer-service mess. The Social

Security Administration is cutting staff, restricting what

recipients can do over the phone and closing some local field

offices that help people in person. The number of retirees

claiming benefits has risen in recent years as baby boomers

age.

Few federal agencies reach as far into Americans' lives as

the Social Security Administration, which delivers a monthly

check to some 70 million people. Many fear that the changes,

part of President Trump's push to overhaul the federal

government through the Department of Government Efficiency,

are eroding confidence in the nearly 90-year-old program.

The Wall Street Journal continues:

Agency officials have acknowledged that because of a

planned reduction in services over the phone, there will be

longer wait and processing times. An estimated 75,000 to

85,000 additional visitors a week could show up at local

field offices, according to an internal memo sent by Doris

Diaz, the acting deputy commissioner for operations. (Details

of the memo, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal,

were reported earlier by the Washington Post.)

That is likely to tax the agency's 800 number, where people

typically make appointments for office visits. Already,

Social Security recipients have long complained about

customer service.

Holly Lawrence, 64 years old, made several unsuccessful

attempts to reach a human before she filed her Social

Security claim online. The Washington, D.C.-based freelance

journalist said she called the agency's 800 number several

times starting in February. Each time, she got an automated

voice that warned of a two-hour wait. Her calls were

disconnected before she could leave a message or request a

callback.

She gave up trying to reach a customer-service agent and

created an online account on the agency's website on March 3.

She had to wait two weeks for an account activation code to

arrive in the mail before she could submit her claim. She is

now waiting for that claim to be reviewed and processed.

Lawrence said she has virtually no retirement savings.

``I'm financially strapped and cannot afford to get a

financial adviser. It was important to me to be able to talk

to someone at Social Security,'' she said, adding that she is

concerned the customer-service delays she encountered could

negatively affect others ``who don't have the strength to be

persistent.''

The Wall Street Journal continues:

Social Security has a reputation as the ``third rail'' of

American politics, a benefit to which elected officials make

cuts at the risk of their own re-election. President Trump

has vowed not to cut benefits. But he and DOGE's leader, Elon

Musk, have made unfounded claims of widespread fraud in the

program.

I am going to repeat that sentence by the Wall Street Journal:

[H]e and DOGE's leader, Elon Musk, have made unfounded

claims of widespread fraud in the program.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in a recent podcast

interview that if Social Security checks were hypothetically

delayed, it might catch those guilty of fraud because they

would make ``the loudest noise screaming, yelling and

complaining.''

Critics say turmoil at the agency is undermining trust in

the safety-net programs.

``They're killing these programs from the inside,'' said

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat. ``The result of which

is, we don't know what they are doing to tear down the

scaffolding that holds Social Security together.''

DOGE has gained access to systems containing personal

information but a federal judge has temporarily blocked those

efforts. On Friday, Leland Dudek, acting Social Security

commissioner, threatened to shut down the agency because of

the order, but later reversed course.

Dudek, the acting commissioner, said the changes ``are

designed to make sure the right payment is to the right

person at the right time. It's a common-sense measure.''

Even before DOGE's plans went into motion, the agency's

customer-service operation had been showing signs of strain.

Roughly 47% of the quarter million people who call Social

Security's 800-number on an average day have gotten through

to a representative this year. That is down from nearly 60%

in 2024. The average time to wait for a callback is over two

hours.

There has been a steady decline in the agency's staff, and

DOGE plans to cut employment by another 12% this year. That

would bring the total number of employees to about 50,000,

from about 57,000 today and nearly 68,000 in 2010.

``Customer service has been going downhill for years,''

said Bill Sweeney, senior vice president at AARP. ``It's

going to get worse.''

Some of the Social Security Administration's changes amount

to cuts in services.

The Wall Street Journal continues:

Starting March 31, people who want to file for retirement,

survivor or disability benefits or change their direct

deposit information can no longer complete the process by

phone, the agency said Tuesday. Instead they must do so

online or at a field office.

The agency said it is stopping phone claims as part of an

effort to reduce fraud and strengthen identity-proofing

procedures. The Social Security agency has estimated that

improper payments represent 0.3% of total benefits.

Dudek acknowledged that recent changes, including the shift

away from claiming on the phone, are likely to drive up the

numbers making appointments at field offices over the next 60

days. He said field employees would be trained over the next

two weeks to respond to the changes.

``We're going to adjust our policy and our procedures to

adapt to that volume,'' he said in a recent call with

reporters. ``These changes are not intended to hurt our

customers.''

Dudek said Monday in a call with advocates that the phone

service policy change and quick timeline were directed by the

White House, according to people familiar with the call.

Directed by the White House.

Kathleen Romig, director of Social Security and disability

policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, says it

isn't clear why the agency chose to discontinue identity

verification over the phone, while allowing it online and in

person. She and other advocates say that by discontinuing the

phone option, the agency is creating hurdles for those who

lack internet service or live far from a field office.

The agency has also largely stopped serving walk-in

customers in field offices, said Maria Freese, senior

legislative representative at the nonprofit National

Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare. Most

wanting in-person service must book appointments on the 800-

number.

In February, 45% of people who scheduled a phone or in-

person appointment to file a claim got one within 28 days.

DOGE plans to close nearly 50 of the agency's approximately

1,200 field offices, according to Social Security Works,

although a spokeswoman for the nonprofit said some of the

offices on the list ``don't seem to exist.''

Frank Bisgnano, chairman and CEO of Fiserv, Inc, has been

picked by Trump to serve as [Social Security's] commissioner

and will appear before the Senate Finance Committee on

Tuesday.

I mean, this is the Wall Street Journal pointing out utter incompetence, utter incompetence. And they are rolling back, trying to catch up, but they don't seem to care, and the way they are going about this they are hurting seniors. They are undermining the security of the program.

The title of the Wall Street Journal's article is the best, it is taking services, Social Security services are now going from bad to worse, under this leadership, who promised they were going to serve people.

I see the Senator standing, and I will yield for a question while retaining the floor, if he has one.

And, again, you and I and the Presiding Officer, there are a lot of people here I know that operate from just a place of just like decency. There are problems with government. We need to fix them. We need to make government more efficient. We need to deal with the national debt.

There are so many things that people on the right and the left don't agree on. You and I can agree that, God bless America, the government could be a lot more efficient.

But the question is, They are not playing on the level. There are lies about USAID like, I don't know, 5 million condoms going to Gaza or something outrageous and easily proven false, time and time again. The President of the United States, again, this doesn't shock people anymore, he is a President, more than any other modern President, by independent fact-checkers, has been proven to lie over and over again.

But as I sat there listening to his speech, and he just goes on and on about transgender mice when that was proven to be utterly a lie or else somebody just misreading the kind of mice that are used in medical experiments which have a similar word.

So are they lying in order to attack these programs? DOGE is insidious in the fact that they keep posting things and then having to pull them down because, just, independent folks.

And I have article after article--we are so far behind on this agenda of things to get through, I am not going to read them all, some of them I will submit to the Record--but not people on the left calling them out for what they are doing and saying being a lie about Social Security.

So you are pointing out a pattern. First, they tell terrible lies to try to whip up public sentiment against entities created in a bipartisan way, by the way.

Using congressional powers, approving spending, approving programs, approving Agencies. Let's create incredible lies. Magnify them on social media, try to spread them with our influencers and everybody. So now people believe that somehow, oh, the President talked about all this money going to transgender mice. That is a lie.

But we are going to use that as an excuse to attack the scientific funding. We are going to use that as an excuse to attack Medicaid. We are going to use that as an excuse to pull the people fighting Ebola out of East Africa.

And so I was told by a colleague of mine, a Republican colleague of mine: When you come here, don't try to get in the head of your colleague and understand what their motivations are.

But this, to me, is a pattern in which they are trying to undermine public confidence. And the result of this pattern has seniors--letter after letter I wrote--using things like ``I am losing sleep.'' ``I am terrified.'' ``I am scared.'' ``Help me, please.'' Telling the most painful stories about retirement insecurity, about health challenges.

And so, again, I have this expectation, whether you are a Republican or Democratic President, you don't insinuate fear amongst vulnerable communities. You don't insinuate fears amongst our elders who deserve respect and deserve to retire with dignity. You don't do that. You stand boldly in front of them and say: Do you know what? There are some things we are going to improve. We are going to try to bring the best minds in America to make the best customer service because every independent group has been saying that the customer service is failing. Yeah, we want to go after fraud and abuse. We are not going to do it. The first thing we are going to do is fire the inspectors general who have a better record than Elon Musk does over this last decade rooting out fraud and abuse under Democrat and Republican Presidents. It just doesn't add up. It is not on the level.

So before I allow you to ask this next question: What does this amount to, Senator Murphy? Ultimately, what this amounts to is an attack on the programs, the healthcare, the services, the retirement security that millions of Americans rely on. And often, for them, what they are relying on is the difference between safety and security and chaos and destitution. I am not exaggerating that.

When somebody's Social Security check is the only income they have and they have already downsized--as you said, brought in roommates-- doing everything they can to cut costs because, under this President, costs are going up.

This is why we have to stand and not let this happen.

Yes, I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Right. But that is the problem, right? Is that if you have an idea, bring it. Let's have an actual debate. Let's bring in experts. Let's have a debate.

The person you are talking about, Bush, who had that idea, he had the good sense to say: Do You know what? I am not going to try to kill the Agency. I am not going to lay off thousands of their employees. I am not going to drive the services it provides, make them worse, to be called out by right-leaning newspapers and right-leaning writers. I am actually going to bring my idea forward, and let's have the debate in Congress. Let's bring people together. Let's hold the hearings. Let's have the conversation.

I can deal with that because--this is going to surprise you, Senator Murphy--I have had conclusions about policy positions that I have changed over the years. When I had a debate, I had a contest of ideas, people have persuaded me.

But that is not the way Trump operates. He tried to kill healthcare without a plan. The powerful letter I read by John McCain about why he voted

no, it was because it was first: Kill this thing that people rely on. Don't worry. Trust me. We will figure it out later.

That is what is happening with Medicaid right now. There is no conversation about how to better provide healthcare to the tens of millions of people that rely on Medicaid, from our seniors to expectant mothers to people with disabilities--no conversation. They are just sending people into dark rooms and saying: Here is $880 billion I need. Find a way to cut it. Let's kill it and see what happens.

Ready, fire, aim.

Senator Murphy, I prepared for so many days on this, and we are talking about the points so I am going to submit--there are lots of articles here that I am going to submit to the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a Washington Post article about ``Long waits, waves of calls, website crashes: Social Security is breaking down.''

Thank you to the Presiding Officer and my friend whom I am keeping up at 3 a.m. He is a kind and generous man to be here.

Here is a closure of Social Security offices, 47 closures across the country in red States and blue States, everywhere between. Closures of Social Security offices. I know everybody is talking about cutting Social Security, but what they are doing right now--right now--is grinding the services of Social Security, grinding them down.

The article from the Associated Press, ``A list of the Social Security offices across the US expected to close this year,'' can be found online at https://apnews.com/article/social-securi ty-offices- closures-doge-trump-b2b1a5b 2ba4fb968abc3379bf90715ff.

I want to read some of the places: Alabama, 634--this is without the rest of the language I just put in the record, but just for folks out there who are watching. These are the places, Social Security offices that provide really important services to your community, that this administration and Elon Musk are closing: Alabama, 634 Broad Street; Arkansas, 965 Holiday Drive, Forrest City; 4083 Jefferson Avenue, Texarkana.

In the great State of Colorado, they are closing 825 North Crest Drive, Grand Junction. In Florida, they are closing 4740 Dairy Road in Melbourne. In Georgia, they are closing 1338 Broadway in Columbus. In Kentucky, they are closing 825 High Street in Hazard. In Louisiana, they are closing 178 Civic Center Drive, Houma.

In Mississippi, there are three places they are closing: 4717 26th Street, Meridian--Meridian, excuse me, to the great people who live there--604 Yalobusha Street in Greenwood, 2383 Sunset Drive in Grenada, MS. In Montana, they are closing 3701 American Way.

They are closing Social Security offices in North Carolina: 730 Roanoke Avenue, Roanoke Rapids. They are closing 2123 Lakeside Drive in Franklin, NC. They are closing 2805 Charles Boulevard in Greenville, NC--I know that town. They are closing 1865 West City Drive, Elizabeth City, NC. North Dakota, they are closing 414 20th Avenue SW--forgive me the great people who live in this community--Minot. I am sure I am butchering it.

In Nevada, where my mom lives, in the city my mom lives, they are closing 701 Bridger Avenue, Las Vegas.

In New York, 75 South Broadway, White Plains--my mom worked there-- and 332 Main Street in Poughkeepsie, NY. In Ohio, 30 North Diamond Street, Mansfield. In Oklahoma, 1610 SW Lee Boulevard. In Texas, they are closing two offices: 1122 North University Drive. I know the people are going to write me letters that I am mispronouncing their town names. Nacogdoches?

Anyone from Texas here? No?

I am sorry. 8208 NE Zac Lentz Parkway. In West Virginia, they are closing 1103 George Kostas Drive. In Wyoming, they are closing 79 Winston Drive, Rock Springs, WY.

They are cutting the Social Security staff. How deeply are they cutting?

They are cutting thousands. We have already talked about it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the Associated Press, ``Social Security Administration could cut up to 50% of its workforce.''

Thank you. The article that I won't read out of generosity to my dear friend that is presiding, but it details in painful ways what these cuts could mean to people in the country.

Just trying to move a little quicker through my documents because I am way behind.

The impact of these cuts--one of the big places they are going to impact is in rural America, already suffering so much. There is a lot of sources that are talking about the rural areas of our Nation they are going to cut.

And I would like to enter into the Record another Associated Press article entitled ``New Social Security requirements pose barriers to rural communities without internet, transportation.'' A new requirement where Social Security recipients go online or in person to a field office to access key benefits instead of just making a phone call will be difficult for many people to meet.

This is an article from March 22, which can be found online at https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/new-soci al-security-rules-present- barriers-rural -communities-120054669.

Thank you very much to the kind friend who is up with me late--or early, I should say.

One more article I want to ask for the Record. I feel like I can take liberties with the Presiding Officer because I have known him for 20- plus years, consider him a real friend. He married up, and he is going to teach me how to do that.

I guess I am not allowed to insult a colleague on this. That is a violation of rule 19, I think, but that is a joke.

But you did marry up. You know that.

So this is former Social Security officers who are speaking out about what is happening. People who worked at the Agency see what is happening. Two former senior officials at the Social Security Administration--one under a Democratic President, one under a Republican President--wrote this column published in The Hill. The title of the column is ``Social Security faces a crisis with staff cuts, closures.''

Again, these are folks from both sides of the aisle yelling into the wilderness, hoping that more people will understand what is happening to Social Security, what these cuts in staff are actually going to do to the quality of life for millions of Americans who rely on Social Security, disproportionately impacting people that are living in rural areas.

Red States, blue States, Republicans, Democrats--this is not a normal time, America. The bedrock commitment made is being undermined by the most powerful man in our country and the richest man in the world.

The title of the article, ``Social Security faces a crisis with staff cuts and closures,'' written by, again, somebody who worked under a Republican, somebody who worked under a Democrat.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.

I want to end with what I have been trying to do since I started some, I think, about 8 hours ago--yeah, 8 hours ago, I began. I want to begin by doing what I said I was going to do, is not just lift my voice but lift the voice of New Jerseyans and Americans. And so here are some words.

This is one employee from New Jersey who contacted me to say that the teleservice center has received many calls from the public from New Jersey to Georgia and other States. What they all have in common is the fear of losing their livelihood as a result of identification verification, in-person visits. Seniors, disabled, and others that are economically disadvantaged need a voice, Senator Booker. And the voice I hear all throughout the day from seniors are voices of fear. Please review any policy of in-person identification for the public.

A person from my State begging because they are hearing the fear of the seniors that they pledged themselves to serve.

Another Social Security employee from New Jersey contacted me and said:

I worked at Social Security for almost 19 years. I was

approaching my 19 years in July. However, I took the early-

out retirement because there is a lot of uncertainty within

the agency.

The resignation of others also brings additional phone

calls and workloads into the office. This adds additional

stress and no additional bodies to handle the workloads. It

also provides poor, unfair service to the public.

Here is another story from a Social Security employee in New Jersey:

I am a claims representative for our Social Security field

office. The most dramatic changes I have noticed from our

recent change in operations is that our appointment calendar

seems to be filling up more quickly for simple post-

entitlement changes that were formerly handled over the

phone. This occupies appointment space for most urgent and

critical issues that would warrant an office visit.

We have identified verification protocols already in place

to keep identity thieves in check. To the extent that some

fraudsters are still getting through requiring people to come

to our office and verify their identities is obviously a less

efficient solution to the problem. A better solution to

enhance security is to use two-step verification systems and

document fraud attempts in our technician dashboards so

scammers can't just shop around for field offices to fool.

Regarding the in-person identifying policy, I believe that

it is causing more harm than good. I've had claimants

appearing in person frantic that they will lose their

benefits because of this.

My office lost four staff members. Two are members of

management. This is nothing but chaos here. I can foresee

more loss and further decline and poor morale.

That is from a Social Security employee in my State describing what is going on in their office.

Another New Jersey Social Security worker:

I work in one of the smaller offices in New Jersey, and we

are currently combined with another office that is undergoing

renovations, which has caused the number of claimants coming

into the office to double over the last few months.

Although we do have extra staff because the staff have been

deployed to our location, it doesn't change the

infrastructure of the building, such as the number of desks

available to do in-person interviews and provide adequate

waiting space for double the amount of claimants. In our

office, we only have nine desks where we can interview the

public safely and use safety protocols. Three of these are

front windows where we can do quick changes and six of them

are where we could do short interviews for benefit

applications.

Right now, being that most interviews are being done over

the phone, we have over 20 people interviewing at a time now.

Imagine having to do these interviews in person. We can only

have six to nine interviews at a time instead of 20-plus

because there are only six to nine desks available. This

doesn't seem very efficient.

Maybe they should--too bad they can't call the Department of Government Efficiency, which caused the problem.

Here is another Social Security worker and their story:

Foot traffic in a field office on a daily basis is already

overwhelming. The public coming in randomly to show their

identity would be a disadvantage for the elderly, people with

vision issues, disabled, and someone with no car.

This really hits home with me. My older brother lost his

right leg to diabetes, is legally blind, unable to drive. He

called me concerned about this, knowing there is no way he

can get to his field office and cannot afford to lose his

retirement. I am hoping this is reconsidered.

Social Security is not a program; it is a promise. We owe it to seniors and working people who paid into Social Security their whole lives to make good on the promise of a secure retirement, not to attack Social Security, to drive them to fear and worry, and when they call for help, to put them on hold for hours or drive them to offices that may be closing or are overcrowded or are unable to help our elders.

Does this sound like America at its best? Does this sound like America being made great again? This is outrageous. These are our elders. They deserve dignity, respect, and they deserve their Social Security.

I am going to move on to the next item, but I want to reiterate again that I am determined to stand here as long as I physically can. We are 8 hours into it. Dozens and dozens of people--I read their stories. As I have gone around the country and I have gone around my State, there is this growing anger and rage and fear. There is chaos. There is confusion.

They read the newspapers and see that programs are helping them when an unexpected disease or cancer or crisis hits them, and they see that a bunch of folks are trying to figure out how to cut $880 billion from things like Medicaid.

The stories got me a little emotional just because I am hearing about so many people who--not to their fault, not to their problem--are hit by a crisis, a challenge, an accident at work are now sitting back and are going to see what we do.

People have told us that their whole delicate, fragile world works because they have a transportation program that could be on the blocks of cuts in Medicaid or their home healthcare worker or their medications.

Even while these big issues are being discussed, we are seeing, as we have been documenting here, again, from Republicans and Democrats, how the administration is already taking steps to roll back programs, to seize funding that people have used to access the ACA or to lower their prescription drug costs or that is funding the research that we are competing with China on through the NIH. Republicans and

Democrats, we have read already, have been saying: Hey, wait a minute, you shouldn't cut things that produce money for your country in the long term.

But now here is something that I want to get into, which is education in our Nation. I believe that genius is equally distributed in the United States. There are as many geniuses being born in the wealthiest parts of New Jersey and Pennsylvania as are being born in the lowest incomes.

In a global knowledge-based economy, the most valuable natural resource any nation has is the genius of its children. One genius--one Einstein, one Madame Curie--one genius could change humanity forever.

I hear the stories about China graduating more people in STEM than we have total graduates in our entire country. It is a global competition. If we are to be this Nation that Andy Kim talked about where every generation has the right as an American to expect that the next generation will do better, not worse, so much of this revolves around what we all know: how important education is to a democracy especially--the best ideas, the best innovations, the best artists, innovators, entrepreneurs, scientists, doctors, teachers. We need to invest in the best pipeline possible.

But now, not with Congress, which established the Department of Education, but by Executive fiat undermining separation of powers, the administration wants to dismantle, defund, destroy the Department of Education, scatter its responsibilities across Agencies that themselves are going through massive personnel cuts and are not equipped to handle it.

This is ultimately about whether or not we as a nation believe that every child deserves an education. We should organize ourselves to meet that calling. Our Nation's children are that precious resource. One of the most noble professions are people that teach our children.

So let's go right into it. At the signing ceremony to commemorate the establishment of the Department of Education, President Jimmy Carter said:

Today's signing fulfills a longstanding personal commitment

on my part. My first public office was as a county school

board member. As a state senator and governor, I devoted much

of my time to education issues. I remain convinced education

is one of the most noblest enterprises a person or society

can undertake.

Pastor Carter also said that the Department of Education was created because education is so important to our Nation's future that it must have a robust level of national support.

Here is a letter I really wanted to read. I am a member of a Baptist church with the great Pastor Jefferson, but I actually studied Torah. In my Torah study with Rabbi Davidson, when I heard about all these cuts in the Department of Education, he wanted me to hear from a great rebbe, Rebbe Menachem Schneerson, a Lubavitch rebbe who in 1979 wrote a letter not in support of religious schools but wrote a letter in support of public education, in support of the creation of a special Department of Education.

He wrote this letter in 1979. I was so moved by it--thank you, Rabbi Davidson--I want to read it here.

This is the rebbe:

I am certain that you will agree that the state of

education in this country, as many others, leaves much to be

desired;--

He was not happy--

that the status quo (as reflected in juvenile delinquency,

[et cetera]) is far from satisfactory, and, what is worse,

has been steadily eroding; and that some determined nation-

wide effort is called for to upgrade the quality of public

education in this resourceful country.

I trust you will agree that such an enormous effort, which

is surely in the highest national interest, can come only

from the Federal government with the fullest cooperation of

State, County and City.

In my view, a separate, adequately funded Cabinet-level

Department of Education, subject to legislative safeguards to

ensure that the traditional primacy of States and localities

in education affairs would not be jeopardized, could well

meet the challenge.

The main reasons why I support said proposal are as

follows:

1. The creation of a distinct Cabinet-level Department of

Education would have a salutary impact on all who are

involved in education, particularly parents, teachers, and

students. The very innovation of upgrading the status of

Education from that of an adjunct to, or division of, another

national agency, would pointedly underscore its proper place

among the Nation's priorities.

Look how prescient the rebbe was and what he might say if he was alive today.

2. The workshops of child education are the school and the

home. For various reasons, which need not be discussed--

``I am worried about the home,'' he basically says. Too much of school is left to the streets.

Insofar as the street is concerned there is very little we

can do as things now stand. More can be done, and needs to be

done. . . . But in the final analysis it is the public school

where the greatest improvement can and must be achieved.

3. Among the factors that lie at the roots of shortcomings

of public education, two--in my opinion--command primary

attention: One has to do with the general curriculum, which

should place much greater emphasis on character building and

moral and ethical values. The other has to do with the

quality of teaching--by qualified, dedicated and motivating

teachers. The latter point requires the upgrading of

teachers' salaries on par with comparable professions in

other fields of science and relieving them, as far as

possible, of other frustrations and stresses.

I want to do a side note here. I am a big believer that we should slash public school professionals' tax rates. We need the best minds coming into the profession. Why not as a country say: If you are going to take a job as a teacher--which, unfortunately, pays too low in our country--let's do that instead of, again, giving these massive tax cuts disproportionately to the wealthiest in our country.

The upgrading of the Nation's educational system will, of

course, require considerable Federal [investment]. But this

is one area where spending has built-in returns, not only in

the long term, but also in . . . immediate gains in terms of

diminishing expenditures in the penal system, crime

prevention, reduction in vandalism, drug abuse. . . . In the

longer term, it would also bring savings in expenditure on

health and welfare, and--one may venture to say--even in the

defense budget, since a morally healthy, strong and united

nation is in itself a strong deterrent against any enemy.

5. The creation of a separate Cabinet-level Department of

Education, as I understand it, has been conceived not for the

purpose of merely improving administrative efficiency, nor

merely as coordinator of existing programs, or for similar

technical reasons. The main purpose is to breathe new life

into the whole educational system of this Nation, and to

involve the whole Nation, through its Federal government, in

this massive and concerted effort. As such--I am convinced--

[a national Department of Education, Cabinet-level] deserves

everybody's support.

Thank you, rebbe.

Unfortunately, this administration has not listened to the rebbes.

What does the Department of Education do, and how is this administration attacking it? Let me read you an excerpt.

The New York Times: ``Can Trump Really Abolish the Department of Education?'' March 20:

President Trump signed an executive order on Thursday that

directs the federal Department of Education to come up with a

plan for its own demise. Only Congress can abolish a Cabinet-

level agency, and it is not clear whether Mr. Trump has the

votes in Congress to do so.

I will tell you, in the Senate, if he needs 60 votes, he doesn't.

But he has already begun to dismantle the department,

firing about half of its staff, gutting its respected

education-research arm, and vastly narrowing the focus of its

civil rights division, which works to protect students from

discrimination.

Mr. Trump's long history of attacking the Department of

Education represents a revival of a Reagan-era Republican

talking point. It has unified Democrats in fiery opposition.

Yeah.

But is shuttering the department possible? And if not, how

has Trump begun to use the agency to achieve his policy

goals?

What does the department do?

Founded in 1979, its main job is distributing money to

college students through grants and loans. It also sends

federal money to K-12 schools, targeted toward low-income and

disabled students, and enforces anti-discrimination laws.

The money for schools has been set aside by Congress and is

unlikely to be affected by Mr. Trump's executive order.

I don't agree with the New York Times because time and time again, the money set aside by Congress is being clawed back by the President against the people that the Constitution of the United States of America says has spending power.

Those federal dollars account for only about 10 percent of

K-12 school funding nationwide. While Mr. Trump has said he

wants to return power over education to the states, states

and school districts already control

K-12 education, which is mostly paid for with state and local

tax dollars. The federal department does not control learning

standards or reading lists.

The agency does play a big role in funding and

disseminating research on education, but those efforts have

been significantly scaled back by the Trump administration.

It also administers tests to track whether American

students are learning and how they compare with their peers

in other states and countries.

God forbid we measure people's performances.

It is unclear whether those tests will continue to be

delivered given the drastic reductions in the staff and

funding necessary to manage them.

Still, closing the department would not likely have much of

an immediate effect on how schools and colleges operate. The

Trump administration has discussed tapping the Treasury

Department to disburse student loans and grants, for

instance, and Health and Human Services to administer funding

for students with disabilities. . . . Any effort to fully

eliminate the department would have to go through Congress.

Republican members would mostly hear opposition from

superintendents, college presidents, and other education

leaders in their school districts; schools in Republican

regions rely on federal aid from the agency, just as schools

in Democratic regions do.

``They are going to run into opposition,'' says Jon Valant,

an education expert at the Brookings Institution. ``They have

a laser-thin majority and a filibuster to confront in the

Senate.''

Even if congressional Republicans stuck together . . . Dr.

Valant predicts their constituents would protest, given the

department's role in distributing money in programs like Pell

grants, which pay for college tuition, and I.D.E.A., which

provides support to students with disabilities.

``It's a very hard sell. . . . I am . . . skeptical.''

Efforts to eliminate the Department threaten the enforcement of critical laws. There is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which has supported school districts since 1965 in low-income areas; the Individuals with Disabilities Act, which ensures 7.5 million students with disabilities receive an education; the Higher Education Act, which helps more students afford college; and title IX protections to guard against sex discrimination. This doesn't just hurt our country, but undermining those resources for our students hurts generations to come.

I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article entitled ``Trump Firings Gut Education Civil Rights Division'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that ``How Education Department Cuts Could Hurt Low-Income and Rural Schools in Particular,'' an article of March 21, 2025, be printed in the Record.

Again, rural communities are really taking a hit.

If I can give disability rights testimonials: Gutting the Department of Education will be devastating for students with disabilities. Right now, the Department of Education--the Individuals with Disabilities Act guarantees more than 7 million students in America the right to a free, appropriate public education. It ensures that--it provides services like speech therapies, counseling, and personalized learning plans. Without Federal oversight, these protections could disappear; schools could delay evaluations, cut corners, or deny support altogether for parents.

Consider Kathryn, a resident of Westwood, NJ, right by Harrington Park, where I grew up. Kathryn has 7-year-old twin boys who receive special services. They currently attend an out-of-school-district specialized program but are very much a part of the Westwood Regional School District and may even one day transition back into the school.

In her words:

The Department of Education plays a critical role in

enforcing the IDEA and ensuring that students with

disabilities receive the accommodations and support they need

to succeed. Without this oversight, many students risk losing

essential services, widening existing gaps and disparities,

and they will face greater barriers to academic success and

reaching their highest potential.

This is not a partisan issue; it is a matter of assuring that all students, regardless of ability, have equal access to education.

Her story is one of thousands of parents, educators, and advocates across the country who are standing up for children's rights to an equitable education. Kathryn's family is for her boys, and every child deserves a fair shot at success. Their fight for inclusive education is essential.

Here is Ashley from Wayne, NJ, who knows firsthand how important the Department of Education's funding is. Her daughter, who is legally blind, relies on Bookshare--an online learning tool--that provides successful materials to students with print disabilities

at no cost to schools or families. Without it, her daughter would be left behind.

As Ashley put it:

This is a service she absolutely needs in order to access

information that regularly sighted people do not even have to

think about. Cutting programs like this isn't just

irresponsible; it would be cruel.

Kimberly from Dumont, NJ, the mother of twin boys with nonverbal level 3 autism:

They attend an amazing school in Nutley because of IDEA.

Without it, their future would be uncertain.

In her own words, she says:

It was not long ago that kids like them would have had to

have been institutionalized. Now they are able to have a

beautiful life and go to school. I am terrified of the future

if IDEA is eliminated. I am begging you. Please consider

families like mine.

Kimberly, I see you.

Michelle from New Jersey shares this fear. Her daughter, who has neurofibromatosis, who is 1--excuse me--and has apraxia, depends on in- class support to succeed. She knows firsthand how essential the Department of Education is in protecting students with disabilities.

These are her words:

Gutting, weakening, and ultimately closing the Department

of Education is disastrous and dangerous for the disabled

students who depend upon it.

She reminds us that education is a civil right and that laws like the IDEA and section 504 ensure that students with disabilities receive the support they need to succeed.

Alana from my State is deeply concerned about her 20-year-old son, who depends on the protections of section 504 to have a fair shot at the future. Her 10-year-old child with autism relies on these protections every single day. She is asking for help because, as she put it, ``Section 504 and its rules are very important to the disability community. We need your help to save it.''

Roger, who is a grandfather from New Jersey, is also pleading for action. His granddaughter has relied on a 504 plan since the seventh grade and will continue to need it as she applies to college. He raises the essential question: Which programs are directly helping students? The answer is clear: Laws like IDEA, IEP, and section 504. They are not luxuries; they are lifelines.

Again, this is not about politics, and, as we see from various writings, people from both sides of the aisle are worried and concerned.

I ask unanimous consent that this article from one of the publications in my State--``What happens to special education programs in New Jersey if Trump shuts down the Department of Education?'' by Gene Myers--be printed in the Record.

I want to say something about student loans too.

The Department of Education is also responsible for operating the $1.6 trillion Federal student loan program, which benefits 42.7 million borrowers in America, and it allows students to access higher education--something that is shown unequivocally to strengthen our economy.

This administration plans to move student loan funding to the Small Business Administration--a plan that even some of my Republican colleagues in Congress have expressed serious concerns about.

Here is an article: ``Republicans hesitant to stand behind Trump's plan for student loans.''

Although SBA . . . managed a wealth of COVID relief

programs, it normally runs a much smaller operation than

[the] student debt [program].

President . . . Trump has yet to win over his own party

with his push to ``immediately'' transfer the Education

Department's massive student loan operation to another agency

slated for deep staff cuts.

Trump was expected to propose moving the agency's $1.6

trillion portfolio to the Treasury Department--a concept

long-discussed on Capitol Hill and suggested in Project 2025,

The Heritage Foundation's conservative policy blueprint.

Instead, the president announced this month that the [SBA]

would get it, surprising many lawmakers and conservatives who

track the issue.

Although the SBA, which provides financial support to

companies for disaster relief, training and other needs,

managed a wealth of COVID relief programs, it normally runs a

much smaller operation than student debt. It is also slated

to lose 43 percent of its staff.

Now . . . Republicans are worried about the size of the

debt and the staffing needed to manage the complex system of

servicers, borrowers, and loan applications. And with about

43 million borrowers--and a record number of them starting to

fall behind on their payments since the pandemic-era hiatus

ended in 2023--transferring this work may be one of the most

challenging hurdles for unwinding the agency President Trump

has pledged to close.

``A lot of us were thinking it would go to Treasury. We are

talking about the huge nature of student loans,'' House

Education and Workforce Chair Tim Walberg said in an

interview. ``They have much larger staffing capabilities

right now than the SBA, but the president may have something

specific in mind that I'm not aware of.''

Early legislation from Senator Mike Rounds . . . aimed at

dismantling the Education Department also recommended the

Treasury Department for the job. And at a recent House Rules

Committee meeting, Walberg suggested that moving the

portfolio to the SBA--which likely requires an act of

Congress to complete--might not be ``permanent.'' Some

Republican lawmakers have been hesitant to say the move is

official.

Neither the Education Department's Federal Aid office,

which manages the loan program, nor SBA have provided a

timeline or detailed plans to move the portfolio. But

Education Department officials skeptical of Trump's SBA plan

met the week after his announcement to discuss if the

Treasury Department should manage this massive portfolio

instead of the SBA, according to a person granted anonymity

to discuss the matter.

Some conservatives are concerned about the SBA's lack of

experience with colleges and universities and the time crunch

its staff will be under to learn the complex student loan

system.

The plan to move the portfolio ``sounds rushed, it sounds

like no one has been briefed on it, and it is not clear what

the purpose is,'' said Jason Delisle, who served on the

Education Department's review group on Trump's presidential

transition team.

FSA largely works with direct loans, meaning that instead

of a bank lending the money, the Education Department

disburses the funds directly to the institution in the

student's name. Colleges and universities, however, aren't on

the hook if the loan isn't repaid--the borrower is.

SBA only started working with direct loans at a massive

scale in the aftermath of the pandemic.

``They're laying off 43 percent of the SBA staff at the

same time [SBA is] being handed a $1.6 trillion portfolio

that is three times the size of what they have,'' said

Michael Negron, who worked on small business and student

loans for the National Economic Council during the Biden

administration.

The administration has not clearly stated whether FSA

workers who have expertise on the student debt system would

be transferred to the SBA, which is a concern for Negron.

That doesn't mean it's impossible. SBA could be a good fit,

he said, but the conditions need to be right.

``There is a world where this could work,'' he said optimistically. He is now a fellow at Groundwork Collaborative, a leftwing think tank.

The White House did not acknowledge questions about how it

would transfer.

``President Trump is doing everything he can within his

executive authority to dismantle the Department of Education

and return education back to the states while safeguarding

critical functions for students and families,'' press

secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement. The President

has always said Congress has a role to play in this

effort, and we expect him to help the President deliver.

You know, that sounds like a President who doesn't care about Congress, who cares about what he is trying to do. He hasn't approached this in an intelligent way, making grand statements and opinions without considering the Department you are transferring loans to might actually be incapable, with a severely diminished staff, of doing the job.

Here is an incredible article by Fareed Zakaria about what is really going on and how it affects the United States, especially relative to other nations:

There is no area in which the United States' global

dominance is more total than higher education. With about 4

percent of the world's population and 25 percent of its gross

domestic product, America has 72 percent of the world's 25

top universities by one ranking and 64 percent by another.

But this crucial U.S. competitive advantage is being

undermined by the Trump administration's war on colleges. Hat

tip to the New York Times's Michelle Goldberg for raising

this issue as well.

``We have to honestly and aggressively attack the

universities in this country. . . . The professors are the

enemy,'' said JD Vance during a speech to the National

Conservatism Conference in 2021. The administration has put

those words into action. The most dramatic assault has been

financial: a freezing or massive reduction in research grants

and loans from the federal government. Some of these efforts

are under court review, but the cumulative impact could be

billions of dollars in cuts to basic research, much of it

disrupting ongoing projects and programs.

High quality research in the United States has emerged in a

unique ecosystem. The federal government provides much of the

funding through prominent institutions such as the National

Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

Private foundations and companies account for most of the

rest. Professors at universities, both public and private,

use these funds to conduct the research. No other country has

a system that works as well. What is at risk now is what

Holden Thorp, the editor in chief of the Science family of

journals, calls, ``the social contract that the federal

government and institutions have had to enable the scientific

research enterprise in America in the last 80 years.''

That is what is at risk.

Take Duke University, which ranked No. 11 in total grants

received from NIH last year. Of its $1.33 billion research

budget, $863 million came from Washington, according to the

[AP]. That includes funds for critical research projects on

cancer and other diseases but also support[s] . . . more than

630 PhD students at the medical school. If the cuts go

through, those projects and students will have to be pared

back substantially. Just on Thursday, Johns Hopkins . . .

announced huge layoffs, saying it would let go of more than

2,000 employees after losing $800 million in federal grants.

One crucial mechanism to cut funding is through a massive

reduction in the overhead, or indirect, costs that

universities get reimbursed for by the federal government.

Overhead often makes up 40 percent or 50 percent of a grant,

but last month, NIH ordered that it be capped at 15 percent.

[That] sounds more rational than it is. Universities divide

their costs on science grants into research costs (the

salaries of the professors and graduate students) and

overhead (the costs of the buildings, labs, energy and

utilities and administrative staff). When you are building a

complex lab to conduct experiments, the structure and

equipment is often far more costly than the salaries and

stipends of the researchers. Michigan State University has

declared that these cuts could make it stop construction of a

$330 million research building for cancer, cardiovascular

disease and neuroscience studies.

Government funding plays a unique role [in America]. It

often supports basic research, the kind that companies have

less incentive to do, and its results cannot be hoarded by

any one company but rather are provided free to the entire

scientific and technological community so that all can use it

to experiment and innovate.

It is an American system that has reaped billions and billions of dollars in rewards to our economy.

The mapping of the human genome cost less than $3 billion

and took 13 years. Because it was government-funded, one of

its

key requirements was that the research should be made

publicly available for all within 24 hours of being

generated.

The other assault on the universities is a strange new

attack on free speech.

Fareed writes:

It began from a principled critique that bureaucracies,

universities and elites had all become too woke. But the

government's response to this problem has been Orwellian,

searching through these institutions for any mentions of the

words ``diversity'' or ``identity'' or ``inclusion'' and then

shutting down those programs without any review. Worse, it

now punishes universities for having on their campuses people

who might espouse certain views on topics like Israel and

Palestine--and now is punishing the protesters themselves. I

have long argued that universities have a huge problem: They

have far too little intellectual and ideological diversity--

which is the most important kind of diversity on a campus.

But the way you fix that is not to restrict radical left-wing

speech but to add voices and views from other parts of the

spectrum. The answer to censorship by the left is not

censorship by the right.

The fury with which the Trump administration has turned on

academia resembles nothing so much as the early days of the

Cultural Revolution, when an increasingly paranoid Mao Zedong

smashed China's established universities, a madness that took

generations [in China] to remedy. Meanwhile, in Beijing last

week, the Chinese government announced its intention to

massively increase its funding for research and technology so

that it could lead the world in science in the 21st century.

So, as America appears to be copying the worst aspects of

China's recent history, China is copying the best aspects of

America's, striving to take the edge [away from] . . . the

United States [as though we are going] through [our] . . .

own cultural revolution.

Learn from the fascists in China. Fareed's article is over. This is me now.

Learn from the fascists in China and don't do what the Chinese did. What America has done to lead humanity in the sciences, in innovation, in research, in breakthroughs, in science--we are the global model. And one administration, in 71 days, has our best universities cutting the number of Ph.D. students they bring in, cutting the research that they are doing, cutting the planned development of research buildings. This is insanity, insanity.

We are America. Why is the President of the United States attacking the science and the research at the top universities on planet Earth, bullying them, undermining them?

I have had universities from my State. I have had universities from my neighboring State--not Connecticut, New York. And I have had my college, Stanford, come to see me--top researchers. The academic community--not the political community, not the history majors, not the political scientists, not the literature students, not the Af-Am departments--the scientists of America have been coming to the Senate to say: What the heck? What is going on? How could you take America's edge, America's advantage, America's strength, America's brilliance and undercut it in 71 days of your administration?

We are killing the golden goose. Why? Because we have a President who is taking money that we already approved--the article I branch of government--and claiming that he could claw it back, all on some trumped-up charge that these institutions are too woke. The solution to that is not to cut science funding.

This should make people mad. But more importantly, it should make people stand up and not be bystanders and wait until we lose our edge because our adversaries globally are smiling as we destroy our institutions, from Duke to Rutgers, to the University of Michigan, to Berkeley, to Stanford.

This is madness. This is insanity--and one of a dozen reasons why we are going through this, a dozen reasons why I am standing here, that we should not be doing things normally. If we are complicit in what Trump is doing--I am hearing it not from political people but from scientists who show up in my office from Cornell, medical researchers who show up in my office from our research hospitals in New Jersey and are saying-- they are not political. They are just saying: What the heck? You are undermining the research of today that will affect the breakthroughs 5 years from now, 10 years from now.

What is China doing while we are doing this? They are investing in record numbers, record levels. The country of Tiananmen Square, cracking down on college students, is now trying to act like America, while America is acting more like them because our President is violating the separation of powers, taking away the money we approved. And we are letting it happen by doing things normally here and not holding one hearing.

Here is another example of what Fareed was talking about. It is an article entitled: ``Graduate student admissions paused and cut back as universities react to Trump orders on research.'' Again, this is not from a political magazine. It is not from the New York Times or the Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal. This is from STAT News. When did science become political?

Acceptances for biomedical graduate students and

postdoctoral scholars are being cut back at some universities

and medical centers across the country as many grapple with

the potential impact of the Trump administration's order to

cut National Institutes of Health research funding.

That paragraph alone should have people--all in this Chamber--upset. Let's just give European universities, Australian universities, Canadian universities, Chinese universities a leg up because we are going to cut the number of graduate students and postdoctoral students. The geniuses in our country will have less opportunity.

The cuts come even as the proposed reductions to funding

for overhead expenses, set to start Feb. 10, were temporarily

halted last week by a federal judge, at least until a court

hearing this Friday. Universities appear to be exercising

caution, with some freezing positions and not taking new

applications, or accepting fewer students than normal,

according to interviews, public announcements, and internal

emails obtained by STAT. The abrupt narrowing of training

opportunities is leaving many future researchers at the start

of their scientific journey in limbo.

The academic calendar runs to the rhythm of its own

seasons; right now is typically the time of year when offer

letters for Ph.D. programs and postdoc positions in labs

start hitting inboxes. Universities and academic medical

centers were in the thick of that process when the NIH--

Under President Donald Trump--

policy about overhead costs, known as indirect costs, landed.

``This couldn't be worse timing for doing this,'' said

Waverly Ding, an associate professor at the University of

Maryland who studies the biomedical sciences workforce.

``It's creating a jolt in the market that is going to be

disabling for labs, especially the smaller ones, because they

won't have the human capital to do their science. It's also

going to create chaos for Ph.D.s. It's going to be a

cascading kind of chain effect through the entire

ecosystem.''

I know we don't read science--actually, we have a few doctors in here that do--but look at the alarm that they are sounding that this is not normal.

The slowdown is happening at some universities and not at

others; some students may be unaware of the issue as they

anxiously await acceptance letters without fully

understanding the role national politics is playing in those

decisions. Some faculty are grappling with admissions that

are paused and then unpaused, while others say they are

receiving little information or guidance from leadership.

At the University of Southern California--

And as a former Stanford football player, it is hard for me to talk about USC. I had to jab them, Senator Murphy.

At the University of Southern California, faculty in some

departments were told last week to pause admissions, and not

formalize offers to students--even those who had visited and

been given verbal acceptances. ``The awkward part is that we

already told these applicants that they were provisionally

accepted and invited them to an in-person recruitment day;

many have already purchased flight + hotel reservations''--

I mean, that is just cruel--

one professor said in a faculty discussion list-serve

observed by STAT.

I know Senator Murphy hangs out in faculty discussion list-serves.

That pause on admissions, in psychology, was lifted this

week, STAT was told.

Jennifer Unger, a professor who runs a doctoral program in

health behavior research in the department of population and

public health sciences at the University of Southern

California Keck School of Medicine, said Wednesday she was

still not able to admit the six graduate students her

department had accepted after a visit day on Feb. 3.

``We had just flown them out, we told them we love you, we

want to admit you, and then everything just stopped,'' Unger

said. ``On the day Trump announced they were cutting indirect

costs . . . USC paused all Ph.D. admissions.''

``I just don't know what to tell them,'' Unger said of the

students. ``Some of them

have other offers and will likely go somewhere else. We've

probably lost them.''

Despite USC's ``unpausing'' of admissions in many

departments, Unger said Wednesday she was still not able to

admit students. She hoped her portal to admit students would

open soon, but said the disruption was coming at a time when

her field, public health, was already reeling from the

actions of the Trump administration, something affecting

potential graduate students as well.

``It's very stressful for them, this is a major life

decision,'' she said, adding they were already worried about

their futures. ``They were asking, `Do you think we'll be

able to get a job in this environment? Do you think we'll get

grants?' ''

The dean of the Graduate School at USC told STAT late

Friday that the university briefly paused Ph.D. admissions to

``assess the uncertainties around federal funding,'' but that

the admissions process was now open.

Some schools were continuing to accept students or had

accepted graduate students before the recent turmoil and said

those offers are intact.

``We have no knowledge of any disruptions to graduate

student admissions in the science fields . . . ,'' Rachel

Zaentz, senior director of communications [said].

In some cases, the pauses to hiring and admissions were

implemented ahead of the NIH policy change--evidence of how

quickly the Trump administration's threats to withhold

federal research dollars over diversity, equity, and

inclusion efforts are shifting the financial footings of

universities.

On Feb. 6, faculty at Vanderbilt University were instructed

to reduce graduate admissions by half across the board,

according to an email obtained by STAT.

Reduce graduate admissions by half.

On the same day, faculty at the University of Washington

School of Public Health received an email to pause offers to

doctoral students as well as offers of financial support to

graduate students. Faculty hiring was also frozen, the email

said. This Tuesday, the public health school sent out another

email informing the community that some faculty hiring and

Ph.D. student offers would continue, but at a greatly

diminished level.

The school is also planning to take more ``cost containment

measures,'' including hiring freezes and reappointment

freezes . . . through the end of the academic year due to

the volatility caused by the Trump administration.

Existing offers will be honored, wrote Hilary Godwin, dean

of UW's school of public health.

Marion Pepper, chair of UW's immunology department, said

she was instructed by university leadership to keep her

program's next graduate cohort smaller than the usual five to

nine students admitted each year. That's easier said than

done, because the proportion of students who accept offers of

admission varies year-to-year. Pepper told STAT that while

she expects the incoming class to be slightly smaller than

normal, she has spoken with program heads at UW and elsewhere

who are reducing class sizes by half or more.

``I know for other programs, they're feeling very bleak

about how they're going to keep labs running without funding

or students,'' Pepper said. ``It's pretty overwhelming.''

Medical schools are hit hard. Medical research is hit hard.

It's unclear how many other universities are taking similar

preemptive belt-tightening measures, but schools of public

health and medical schools are particularly vulnerable,

because they tend to have many faculty, postdocs, and

graduate students supported by grants.

Boston University School of Public Health has also ordered

an across-the-board hiring freeze on all new faculty and

staff positions--including student workers and postdocs. In a

campus-wide announcement, Dean ad interim Michael Stein said

the move was being made due to ``the uncertainty of the

moment.'' A spokesperson for the school told STAT that

graduate admissions are unaffected by the freeze.

Unger said USC had cut funding for some [teaching

assistants] in her department earlier this year before the

new executive orders, which reduced the number of graduate

students her program could accept from 10 to 6.

On Feb. 11, Columbia University's medical school faculty

were told that the school was putting a temporary pause on

hiring as well as other activities like travel and procuring

equipment, according to an email obtained by the Columbia

student newspaper, the Columbia Spectator. A spokesperson for

Columbia declined to comment on the pause.

In other cases, schools may accept fewer graduate students

than they had planned, not because of an overt directive from

university leaders, but because faculty feel unsure about

future funding, given the Trump administration's intent to

cut billions of dollars in overhead funding.

At the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 25% fewer

graduate students will be admitted this year--

Twenty-five percent fewer--

based on a survey of faculty members taking new students,

said Mark Peifer, a professor of cell biology there. This

means the school will admit about 75 students across the

biomedical sciences. He noted the numbers of graduate

students vary each year so the decline was not unprecedented.

And the numbers continue to go down.

In an interview with STAT, Robert Ferris, the director of

UNC's Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, said that

hiring freezes, fewer Ph.D. student offers, and other similar

cost containment measures are being considered as the center

is eyeing the same financially turbulent waters as other

research institutions. ``Every one of those things is on the

table, unfortunately,'' Ferris said. ``There's so much

uncertainty. Can we hire this faculty member? Can we purchase

this equipment?''

They just don't know exactly what or how many measures the

center may have to take, he said, as there are simply still

too many unknowns--for instance, the outcome of the NIH

indirect rate cut policy is still up in the air. ``Not

knowing how it's going to shake out,'' he said, ``it just

freezes everybody into inaction.''

Adding to the uncertainty is disruptions to key parts of

the NIH approval process for proposed research grants.

Although some meetings of study sections--in which grant

applications are reviewed--resumed at the start of the month,

meetings of advisory councils have not. Each of the 27

institutes of the NIH has its own advisory council, which

meets three times a year to issue final funding

recommendations on new research projects. None of these

councils--

None--

has met since the Jan. 22 communications freeze was ordered

across all federal health agencies.

A law called the Federal Advisory Committee Act requires

that advisory councils post meeting details in the Federal

Register 15 days prior to their scheduled date. But because

submissions to the Federal Register have been put on hold

indefinitely, these meetings can't take place. And without

these meetings, no new grants can be funded.

According to one NIH employee, at least one NIH meeting

scheduled for this Friday to allow an institute director to

provide updates that could proceed because it had been posted

to the Federal Register was nonetheless canceled Wednesday.

This was because the meeting specified it would include a

session open to the public--but because a ban remains in

place on any public communications, meetings with open

sessions cannot be held. ``And they can't update the federal

registry with a revised agenda stating no open session

because the federal registry is closed.''

Principal investigators who had been counting on awards to

pay the salaries of new graduate students and postdocs are

now left wondering if their labs will be able to make it

through the summer, let alone take on new members.

Referencing the hold on submissions to the Federal

Register, MIT neuroscientist Nancy Kanwisher posted on social

media Wednesday: ``So much for the grant I submitted last

September, which was supposed to be reviewed next week.

Hardly the biggest tragedy on the current scale of things,

but it will force me to severely downsize my already small

lab.''

Fears were similar for one computational genomics

researcher at a prominent East Coast institution who asked

for anonymity for fear of being targeted by the new

administration. ``We have people coming to visit the lab next

week, and these are students we haven't made offers to yet

because we can't,'' he said. ``I don't know what I'm going to

tell them.''

Beyond the immediate harm to young scientists, he worries

about the long-term damage to fields like computer science

and biomedical engineering--areas where the U.S. has long

been the world leader. ``If we stop training students, we're

going to lose that lead very quickly,'' he said. ``It's not

clear anyone else is going to pick up the ball. We're just

going to be worse off and people won't even be aware of it--

it's hard to notice when it takes 20 years instead of 10 to

get a cure.''

Cuts within NIH are also adding to the rapidly constricting

pool of places prospective scientists can go to train. Since

the 1960s, the NIH has provided opportunities for recent

college graduates to spend one or two years in a full-time

research position within one of the institute's labs, which

many scientists see as a key tool for recruiting young people

into biomedical fields. On Feb. 1, a notice appeared on the

NIH website announcing that all training programs had paused

recruitment ``pending guidance from Health and Human

Services.''

The NIH's Postbac Program, which provides recent college

graduates with research positions and career advising and

last year admitted roughly 1,600 people, will not be

accepting any new applicants for 2025, according to an NIH

employee who asked for anonymity for fear of repercussions.

Of course, that is my add.

``It's a vital link in the training of doctors and

biomedical scientists in the country,'' the NIH employee

said. ``You can't find a medical school or biomed program

that doesn't have students from the postbac program.''

And it is ending.

While the Trump administration may be hoping that the

headwinds it's creating for academic hiring may push recent

graduates or newly minted Ph.D.s into private industry, it's

unlikely to play out that way because of the speed and scale

of the disruption. ``Pharmaceutical firms are not going to

suddenly open up more jobs for graduates to

adapt to this situation,'' said Ding. More likely is that

people will start looking for opportunities outside the U.S.,

or wind up without jobs altogether, she added.

At this point, it's still too early to say if these are the

first signs of losing a generation of American scientists.

But even people like Ding, who track the data that could

provide clues about how extensive the damage will be, are

facing uncertainty about their ability to continue their own

work.

Her plans to hire a postdoc are currently on hold as she

waits to find out if a grant she has through the National

Science Foundation--which is facing its own drastic cuts--

will come through.

(Mr. HUSTED assumed the Chair.)

I mean, honestly. I am here because I said at the beginning, some 9 hours ago, that I was going to stand here because what is going on in America is not normal. We have gone through healthcare cuts. We have gone through Social Security being attacked and undermined and slashed, and the Department of Education. But if those things don't worry you, statements like this should:

It is still a little too early to say that these things are

the first signs of losing a generation of American

scientists.

I know this. I have been privileged. I studied at Oxford University overseas. I have studied at Stanford University in Silicon Valley, and I have studied at Yale.

I watched friends get degrees in the sciences and things I couldn't spell, and they had options, not just in America. But for the brightest minds on the planet Earth, there is a global competition going on for them from Canada to Oxford, to countries in Asia.

If you are telling me that thousands of people, right now, 71 days into the Trump administration, are losing opportunities in the sciences to do research in the most important areas of human endeavor can't get hired, they will go elsewhere.

For over a generation, America has led the planet Earth because of this combination between research universities, private sector industry, and government. How do I know this? Because I am here because of it. The whole computer revolution in America was because incredible computer science researchers at academic institutions were partnering with industry and being funded in many ways by the government, and it helped companies like IBM with their mainframes dominate.

My dad was one of IBM's first Black people hired as a salesman in the Washington, DC-Maryland area. My parents were IBMers because when scientific endeavor explodes into new industry, new ideas, new biomedical breakthroughs, it creates a ripple effect in our economy lifting so many people up.

And in 71 days, Donald Trump's actions have led scientific articles like this to talk about a postbac program that provides bright recent college graduates--brilliant people, 1,600 of them--to usually get jobs to be canceled.

And this article laments from scientists--not political people, not politicians--that this is a crisis. It is a crisis in America, and we haven't held one hearing on this in Congress.

Yet university after university--I can't be the only Senator having this happen--not just from my State. The universities are coming from New York to California, sounding the alarm that we are going to lose our competitive edge against one of our greatest competitors, China, which is doubling down, as the article said, in research on the sciences.

But let me just give you some examples, and then I will yield for a question. I want to talk about some New Jersey institutions that have written me:

Rutgers has been a partner in the Air Force Research

Laboratory Minority Leaders Research Collaborative Program, a

grant which has been led by the Ohio State University and is

on pause.

God forbid they use the word ``minority.''

And the annual program review and summer internship

programs are not expected to happen this year.

Rutgers School of Nursing has been working with the

Institute of Human Virology in Nigeria on an action to

sustain precision in HIV response toward epidemic control,

and they were funded through a CDC and PEPFAR grant. A stop

work order came in.

Multiple Rutgers entities have received communications from

Federal Agencies related to DEIA cancellation of

apprenticeship programs.

Many conferences have been canceled that are trying to find the best minds wherever they might be because there is many geniuses at Howard and Fisk and Morehouse that are often overlooked.

Annika Barber, a faculty at the Rutgers department of molecular biology and biochemistry writes me this:

Rutgers holds an NIH initiative for maximizing student

development training grant that supports an additional five

doctoral students. This grant expires in January 2026, and we

put in for renewal this fall, for which I wrote a letter of

support. However, it seems likely that this grant proposal

will not even be reviewed.

I just completed the first year of funding on my NIH

Maximizing Investigators' Research Award and put in my

progress report for the next years of funding. These are

noncompeting renewals, which means they don't go through peer

review. In the past, they were reviewed by the NIH program

officials to ensure the funds were being managed in

accordance with the approval grant and the research funds.

However, NIH has been extremely slow to process even these

noncompetitive renewals. This type of grant requires a plan

for enhancing the work.

I want to read this last letter. It is handwritten:

I am writing you not only as a concerned parent that

believes in progress, education, and the power of science to

improve lives.

My daughter is a Ph.D. in neuroscience, dedicating her life

to research that has the potential to save countless lives.

As a minority in science, she has worked tirelessly to

overcome barriers in a field that is already competitive and

abandoned.

Watching the current political attacks on research funding

is devastating not just her future but the future of the

American country. Science is not political. It serves all

people.

Yet funding cuts to Agencies like NIH and the National

Science Foundation threaten to halt critical research that

leads to medical breakthroughs. These cuts will not only slow

progress in fighting diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's, and

Parkinson's, but they will also discourage young, diverse

scientists, many of whom have already fought hard to be in

these spaces, from staying in the field. This is not just

about scientists. It is about every American.

Diseases do not know political parties. Without adequate

research funding, we are all at risk of losing the chance for

better treatments, new cures, and improved healthcare. If we

truly want a stronger and more innovative America, we must

invest in science, not abandon it.

Defunding research will also harm our economy. Scientific

innovation drives job creation, medical advancements, and

global progress. A country that does not invest in science is

a country that falls behind.

I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Wow.

Yes.

I just want to answer you. Again, I would drive myself mad trying to understand what the ambitions of Trump were or the ambitions behind some of the crazy stuff in Project 2025 that he said wasn't there, and he tried to run away from it because it was so unpopular, and now so much of it is being done. It almost sounds too partisan, too insane.

What I do want to do, Senator Murphy, in answer to your question--all I can do is try to be as fair and factual in describing what is happening in our country and appeal to people who are moderates in this country, the people who are fair arbiters of what is happening, to try to appeal to them that this is a crisis.

So when university after university after university is cutting scientific research, stopping bringing in the best minds, Ph.D. candidates, post-docs, when they are telling you that they are stopping investment in state-of-the-art research buildings, when they are telling you that they are shutting down programs to bring the youngest, brightest minds in and our competitor China is doing the exact opposite, flowing money through because China understands if we get two steps ahead of America on quantum computing, we can break all kinds of encryptions. We can locate every submarine they have. China understands if we can get two steps ahead of America on artificial intelligence, it is an endgame for them.

This is a global competition, and a President, in 71 days--if you are a moderate in America and just want America to win in human endeavor, look at what the President is doing. And here is to the point you were driving, Senator Murphy. It is Orwellian.

The bastions of freedom that are our universities, as an article from Fareed Zakaria has said, even if universities got too woke and too excessive, the antidote to that isn't to try to shut down the thought of the left. It is to try to make a fair, more competitive marketplace for ideas from all around the political spectrum.

But this isn't about politics; it is about science; it is about research; it is about cutting NIH funding, science funding. But I want to stick with that because that is the controversial nub, right?

Like, we need to go after DEI programs. I am hearing it all the time. It was like the confusion I had 5 years ago when people were asking me: Oh, the Republicans are talking about critical race theory. As my father says, I have more degrees than the month of July, but I am not hot. But I had to go back and research: What is critical race theory? Oxford, Stanford, Yale grad, I wasn't sure what they were talking about. And this is the rub on that because I don't want to just talk about what is obvious, which should enrage people on both sides of the aisle, not just enrage people on both sides of the aisle because of the China outcompeting us, but because we allocated this money in a bipartisan way that he is now trying to pull back. That should raise a violation of article I of the Constitution.

But I want to stick in this more controversial era that you talked about that has, all across the country, people banning books. When I heard Toni Morrison's ``The Bluest Eye'' was being taken out of libraries, when I heard my favorite author James Baldwin was being taken out of libraries--what kind of world do we live in where, somehow, studying what they call Black history is something that we have to--that Trump feels like it is a rally for people to stop, where a person working for the Department of Education can't look you in the eye and say: Yes, we need to study Black history? Black history is American history.

I had a brilliant friend of mine, brilliant. He looked at me with deadpan embarrassment and told me he just found out that year about the bombing in Tulsa, OK, something I worked with Senator Lankford to do more to memorialize, but he just never knew about it; that this thriving African-American financial community was the first recorded aerial bombing--not Pearl Harbor--in the United States of America, and he was never taught it.

Is that Black history or is that American history?

Why do these people who attack our history think they have to sanitize, homogenize, ``Disneyfy'' American history to make us proud? I am more proud of our country when we tell the truth about what happened, when we learned from the wretchedness and the difficulties and the bigotries and the hates and demagogues who pit us against each other and how we all overcame that. That is our greatness. How the genius of inventors that were women or Blacks in the most oppressive of times still manifested their genius that transformed humanities. These are stories that should make every American more proud.

So, yes, when you have a President now that is making people scrape through programs that they don't even know what they are doing, but if there were more diversity in it, that is bad? That is insanity.

My mom worked for IBM before they used words like ``DEI.'' One of her jobs was to find a bigger pool of highly qualified applicants. You know what she did is what is being stopped by the Trump administration. She just made sure that they were going to HCBUs to find the brightest students so that their applicant pool would be better. This isn't about preferential treatment for one group over another; it is about trying to create a more competitive pool where we get the best of the best. It is about merit-based.

And this President talked about merit--and I watched Senator Whitehouse ask one of the top lawyers of the EPA if he ever brought a case, if he ever had a hearing, if he ever did a deposition--no, no, no. Wait a minute. How are you qualified for this job?

And that is the conflict in the logic that I am observing. In one sense, they are exalting the wealthy elites. I have never imagined that I would see a Presidential inauguration where the billionaires, leaders of tech companies, would sit in front of Cabinet members, many of whom were billionaires themselves--but that kind of elitism. Yet they call academic excellence, brilliance, and achievement in the sciences at these universities the elites we need to go after.

If we start going after our educational institutions and weakening their ability to advance excellence in human endeavor, we are injuring ourselves, and we have models for that. As

Fareed Zakaria says, the best example was Mao Zedong and the cultural revolution where one of the first groups they went after were their universities. Now they are reversing that. They watched what we did so well. They are doubling down on their funding of universities. They are taking their best scientists and taking away their passports because they don't want them to come here and study. They are trying to get ahead of us in DeepSeek and AI. They are trying to get ahead of us in quantum computers. They are trying to get ahead of us in robotics. They are trying to get ahead of us in biomedical engineering. They are trying to get ahead of us in all of these things. They know the way they do it is do what America did in the sixties, seventies, eighties, the nineties, the aughts, 2010--to do what they did all those times and look at them now.

I will yield while still retaining the floor.

Yes.

I want to interrupt you before you go to your last question. I know you want to get your last question out before I get to the next area so related to this, immigration. I mean, the brightest minds on the planet Earth are coming here.

I want to say something to you. You got me triggered when you said we had some consensus over the last 4 years. I love how you say just yesterday. I remember the CHIPS and Science Act. That was a bipartisan bill. I was sitting in a SCIF with all of us, and I watched a whole national security apparatus talk about why science endeavors and chipmaking and the breakthroughs that are happening on chips are so essential for our national security and how we had to stay ahead of the competition. And we marched out of that meeting in a bipartisan fashion. We saw this in the bipartisan work we have been doing on AI here, talking about how America has to lead in this area.

And with all of that bipartisan vigor, we let a President come in and in 71 days, halt scientific research, pausing literally experiments in their tracks, halting researchers in their tracks, shaking universities to the core that are afraid of free expression for getting on the wrong side of ``Dear Leader'' that it might cost them their science funding. So you are putting your finger on it.

But can I just say something on a personal level because I just want to remind folks, as we are closing in on the 10th hour, that you and I were here for 15, and you are here because you agree with me. You agree with me that from science and research to higher education, Department of Education, Social Security, to healthcare in America, we are at a crisis. Any one of those alone should have Americans--but the case we are making going through all these, we are pulling from people on the left and the right. We quoted Republican Governors. We have quoted Republican mayor organizations, represented by organizations. We quoted Republican business people. We quoted the Wall Street Journal. This is not a partisan crisis that people across the spectrum are pointing to.

But I do want to point out, you have been such a good friend to me to spend 10 hours, almost, on the floor, and it means a lot to me tonight. Thank you for that.

As I switch to immigration, I appreciate the sentiments that you have and that you had after the Pulse shooting that you were so worried about when I listened to your maiden speech when you first got here in the Senate that we would normalize gun violence in this country. What I am worried about--I share your worry there. I grew up in a time where fire drills were the big thing. And the space between people ducking and covering because of nuclear fears and left school before we were a country that had more active shooter drills than fire drills, and we just sort of are normalizing this terror in our country and haven't stepped up to the challenge of really doing something about it.

This is one of these crises where if we act like business as usual, 71 days so far of the Trump administration, when we get to 100 days, catastrophic things could have happened to Medicaid and healthcare, crashing of research for science, attacks on programs our senior citizens rely on. We, as a country have to, as I said at the very beginning 10 hours ago almost--we have to do what John Lewis challenged us to do: To stand up, to speak up, to get in good trouble, necessary trouble.

And tonight, my friend, in the wee hours--there are so many songs about 4 o'clock in the morning. It is like the hour nobody should be awake. I want to thank the Presiding Officer for being here. I want to thank the clerks and parliamentary staff and the impositions. But the cries of American citizens for their leaders to do something different, to stand up, to speak up--I felt like this has to be done. Let's keep going. Almost 10 hours in, I am thankful.

We are going to start the next session. Like I am trying to do in all of these, I am trying to elevate the voices that don't get to come to this place--voices I am hearing from, voices that identify themselves as a Republican veteran, a Democrat. Most of them are just people saying this is not normal. Many of them are saying, ``Do something.'' Some of them get me very emotional saying, ``What can I do?'' I get that question a lot: ``Tell me what I can do to try to stop this.''

We are going to take this issue of immigration. And here is--I am not sure where this person is from. My staff has covered it up, probably to protect the person's identity. I am going to read this handwritten note. It is from New Jersey.

Thank you, Senator Booker. Please continue to fight the

good fight against the injustices being done by the current

administration. I am the pastor of Emanuel Lutheran Church in

New Brunswick. As a faith leader and your constituent, I am

deeply concerned about the treatment of LGBTQ people and

immigrants by this administration. The demonization and

marginalization of these groups is unchristian and deeply

offensive to the values of my faith. I ask that you continue

to oppose all Executive orders and legislation that targets

these groups. You have been a consistent ally. Please

continue to be a champion for justice for all people, but

especially the most vulnerable.

Another person, late yesterday, in fact:

Court filings of the Trump administration reveal that a

mistakenly deported Maryland father with protected legal

status to this horrific prison in El Salvador--Abrego Garcia

is married to a U.S. citizen and has a 5-year-old disabled

child who is a U.S. citizen. He has no criminal record in the

United States. Despite receiving a legal status call

withholding of removal where a United States immigration

judge found that he would more likely than not face

persecution if deported to El Salvador, the Trump

administration deported him, where? The very country from

which he fled gang violence.

Here is a story that was written about him in The Atlantic.

The Trump administration acknowledged in a court filing on

Monday that it had grabbed a Maryland father with protected

legal status and mistakenly deported him to El Salvador. It

was said that U.S. courts lack jurisdiction to order his

return from the mega prison where he's now locked up.

The case appears to be the first time the Trump

administration has admitted to errors when it sent three

planeloads of Salvadorian and Venezuelan deportees to El

Salvador's . . . ``Terrorism Confinement Center'' on March

15. Attorneys for several Venezuelan deportees have said that

the Trump administration falsely labeled their clients as

gang members because of their tattoos . . . But in Monday's

court filing, attorneys for the government admitted that the

Salvadorian man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, was deported

accidentally. ``Although ICE was aware of his protection from

removal to El Salvador, Abrego Garcia was removed to El

Salvador because of an administrative error,'' the government

told the court. Trump lawyers said the court has no ability

to bring him back now that Abrego Garcia is in Salvadorian

custody.

Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, Abrego Garcia's attorney, says

he's never seen a case in which the government knowingly

deported someone who had already received protected legal

status from an immigration judge. He is asking the court to

order the Trump administration to ask for Abrego Garcia's

return and, if necessary, to withhold payment to the

Salvadorian government, which says it's charging the United

States $6 million a year to jail U.S. deportees.

[The] Trump administration . . . told the court to dismiss

the request on multiple grounds, including . . . Trump's

primacy in foreign affairs.

``[P]rimacy in foreign affairs.'' I am not going to stop now, but I ask anybody who has read the Constitution to understand that the President of the United States is not King. He does not have primacy in foreign affairs.

I continue with the article:

``The claim that the court is powerless to order any

relief,'' Sandoval-Moshenberg told me, ``if that's true, the

immigration laws are meaningless--all of them--because the

government can deport whoever they want, wherever they want,

whenever they want, and no court can do anything about it

once it's done.''

Court filings show Abrego Garcia came to the United States

at the age of 16 in 2011 after fleeing gang threats in his

native El Salvador. In 2019, he received a form of protected

legal status known as ``withholding of removal'' from a U.S.

immigration judge who found he would likely be targeted by

gangs if he was deported back.

Abrego Garcia, who is married to a U.S. citizen and has a

5-year-old disabled child who is also a U.S. citizen, has no

criminal record in the United States, according to his

attorney. The Trump administration does not claim he has a

criminal record, but called him a ``danger to the community''

and an active member of MS-13, the Salvadorian gang that

Trump has declared a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Sandoval-Moshenberg said those charges are false, and the

gang label stems from a 2019 incident where Abrego Garcia and

three other men were detained in a Home Depot parking lot by

a police detective in Prince Georges County, Maryland. During

questioning, one of the men told officers Abrego was a gang

member, but the man offered no proof and police said they

didn't believe him, filings show. Police did not identify him

as a gang member.

Abrego Garcia was not charged with a crime, but he was

handed over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after

the arrest to face deportation. In those proceedings, the

government claimed that a reliable informant had identified

him as a ranking member of MS-13. Abrego Garcia and his

family hired an attorney and fought the government's attempt

to deport him. He received ``withholding of removal'' six

months later, a protected status.

It is not a path to permanent U.S. residency, but it means

the government won't deport him back to his home country

because he's more likely than not to face harm there.

Abrego Garcia has had no contact with any law enforcement

agency since his release, according to his attorney. He works

full time as a union sheet metal apprentice, has complied

with requirements to check in annually with ICE, and cares

for his five-year-old son, who has autism and a hearing

defect, and is unable to communicate verbally.

On March 12, Abrego Garcia had picked up his son after work

from the boy's grandmother's house when ICE officers stopped

the car, saying his protected status had changed. Officers

waited for Abrego's wife to come to the scene and take care

of the boy, then drove him away in handcuffs. Within two

days, he had been transferred to an ICE staging facility in

Texas, along with other detainees the government was

preparing to send to El Salvador. Trump had invoked the Alien

Enemies Act of 1798, and the government planned to deport two

planeloads of Venezuelans along with a separate group of

Salvadorians.

Abrego's family has had no contact with him since he was

sent to the megaprison in El Salvador, known as the CECOT.

I think I need to. I will yield to a question. I will yield to a question while retaining the floor. And I thank my brother, I thank my friend who has now stood with me for almost 11 hours.

Yes. Yes, yes.

Senator, I appreciate your question, but I just have to say this to you. You worked so hard with Senator Lankford, and one of the things I have to say--and I hope I don't hurt his politics by telling people how much I love Senator Lankford. We disagree fundamentally on a lot of issues, maybe that will help. We both are people, though, of faith. We just recently worked together in a massive--I think there must have been like a thousand people there, maybe 500 at least, at a National Prayer Breakfast event. He is such a man of character. What I like about him, I know his values because every day, he tries to be a good Christian.

(Mrs. MOODY assumed the Chair.)

And this idea of love thy neighbor or you are a stranger in a strange land--I just took a lot of pleasure watching you, my friend, whom I have known for the last 12 years, and sitting down in this honest, sincere negotiation.

Let's be real. Everybody on your side of the aisle didn't agree with you, and everybody, before Trump's involvement, on his side of the aisle didn't agree, but you guys had the makings of a comprehensive bill that would have passed.

I tell you also I came in here in 2013 right after the Gang of 8. They did the same thing. They got the bill out, and it died in the House.

There are people in America, despite Lankford and you--who many people would put on opposite sides of the political spectrum--on these issues, they

agree. Why do they agree, Senator Murphy? Because our economy is dependent upon immigration.

You want to talk about a conservative-leaning group, Senate moderate Republicans, the national chamber of commerce will tell you that our economy will be crippled if we don't find a way to bring more people in legally to work on work visas.

When I go to the tech community or the biotech community or the AI community or the community that is trying to go forward in quantum computing, all of them are saying this is crazy that we are not allowing the brightest minds on the planet--when they get here and get Ph.D.s and have things half of Congress can't spell, that we drop kick them out of the country.

There are so many points of agreement. Take Dreamers, who people on both sides of the aisle held up as a group of people that are Americans in every way except for a piece of paper.

I could go through everything in the immigration world we need to improve on, including the need to secure our southern border. I listened to you on this section, and I look at you, and I remember your frustration. You are standing up in front of our caucus saying: We are so close.

I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

I thank you for the question I see in there.

Again, great Presidents have great ideas they bring to Congress, and they fight to pull together and cobble together legislation that will last. The problem we have right now is this whiplash between Trump's Executive orders and Biden's Executive orders and Trump's Executive orders, and it is not solving the problems. We have shown there is enough common ground to do something on it.

I don't want to stick with common ground now, actually, because there are some things in here that are not common ground, like private prisons.

I am one of these folks that don't want to criticize. I have flown out to a private prison down south to get a tour. I met really kind and nice people. But there is something problematic to me about a profit motive for imprisoning, shackling, detaining, and holding people and this combination of that and a corporate reality where you are giving campaign contributions to people that will then turn around and give you government contracts to restrict the liberties of human beings.

The story that I read about this woman feeling like they lied to her lawyer and said if she had only said she could pay for her own flight home, and they were keeping her. Every day they were keeping her, they were getting more money from American taxpayers.

This isn't a system designed for justice. This isn't a system designed for the rights of human beings in our country. This is a system that has every day an incentive to deny liberty, to hold people. It is wrong. It is wrong. It is broken.

With a President that doesn't care about these things, that is giving greater latitude so that more stories like the Canadian woman's story-- it is stunning.

I want to keep moving, though. I just want to talk about children and the way this system is extended to children. Last week, the government canceled a contract to provide legal services to 26,000 unaccompanied immigrant children.

Remember what Anton Scalia said about due process in his strict interpretations of the literal writings of our Founders.

So 26,000 unaccompanied migrant children no longer have legal representation. We started on that idea. We started on that idea. We started on the idea--the 15th and 14th Amendment--that ``no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process,'' and our country has now rolled back.

Trump got rid of a policy that prevented ICE from arresting kids at schools and people from their places of worship. Now, every day, families face the impossible choice of whether to send a kid to school and risk permanent separation from their families.

There is a story from New Jersey. Recently when I was home in Newark, NJ, a woman in my neighborhood came up to me to tell me a heartbreaking story. One morning, she was on her way to walk to school, and a mom of other children--I won't make this anonymous. One of my closest friends--she is like a sister to me. She lives in The Ironbound in Newark. She was very emotional because her neighbors were so terrified that they came to her and asked her to walk their children to school. They were American children.

There are so many teachers and school administrators who are speaking out now that they have been ordered that they must allow ICE to enter their schools.

Trump has plans to revoke temporary protected status protection for hundreds of thousands of people from various countries--from Venezuela to Haiti--paving the way for those deportations. We know who they are. He has done this despite the State Department maintaining a ``Level 4: Do Not Travel'' warning for Haiti and Venezuela due to widespread violence, danger, sexual assault, kidnappings, and more.

He claims that he is tough on crime because he wants to go after child sexual abusers, but you are sending children running into schools and churches and sending them back to environments that are known for sexual assaults on young girls.

The Department of Justice Office of Civil Rights recently dropped its case that it filed against Southwest Key, the Nation's largest provider of housing for migrant children, in which the DOJ alleged sexual abuse and neglect perpetrated against undocumented

children in Federal custody. It was a case DOJ brought against this company, which housed migrant children, because of alleged sexual abuse.

What did our government do under Trump? They dropped charges. They dropped charges. Why? Why? Children being sexually assaulted--it is not worth an investigation? Is it because the administration thinks that pursuing the lawsuit and holding perpetrators accountable will somehow interfere with their immigration agenda? They literally let alleged sex abusers go free with no explanation--the hypocrisy.

Family detentions have restarted. They failed in the past to meet basic child welfare standards and exposed children to trauma. The President's own Department of Homeland Security concluded in 2018 that family detention centers posed a high risk of harm to children and families. Despite his own Department of Homeland Security back in 2018 saying that, they have restarted.

One of the points I want to make is on crime. I was a mayor. The No. 1 issue my residents were concerned about was fighting crime, fighting crime, fighting crime.

I went back to Newark recently for a horrible, tragic death of a police officer by a 14-year-old with a ghost gun. It was horrible. The sendoff--hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of police officers from all over our State, from New York. This police officer was murdered by a 14-year-old. I still pray for his family, his mom.

As I was standing there looking at this parade of police officers who were waiting for the casket, I had police officers come to me and complain that they are having a harder and harder time in New Jersey solving crimes because now victims of crime--victims of sexual assault, victims of robbery--who happen to be undocumented are afraid to go and talk to local police because of all this rhetoric that is creating the fear that they will be turned over to ICE.

Imagine, in our country there are people out there who are sexually assaulting people but who are getting away with it because they are targeting immigrants. And if you don't think that hurts Americans' safety, you are wrong.

When you are afraid to go and talk to police officers to report crimes, when you are subverting people's constitutional rights and incarcerating people in foreign prisons with no criminal records, it does harm to children.

We talked about all of the diverting of law enforcement resources away from investigating national security threats, terrorism, drug smuggling, human trafficking, illegal arms exports, financial crimes, and sex crimes. It is taking law enforcement away from investigating those crimes and forcing all Federal law enforcement Agencies to enforce boat-level immigration crimes or, I should say, undocumented people with no criminal activity beyond their being in our country.

Reuters wrote about this misguided redirection of Federal resources. I will read their article:

Federal agents who usually hunt down child abusers are now

cracking down on immigrants who live in the U.S. legally.

Homeland Security investigators who specialize in money

laundering are raiding restaurants and other small

businesses, looking for immigrants who aren't authorized to

work.

Agents who pursue drug traffickers and tax fraud are being

reassigned to enforce immigration law.

As U.S. President Donald Trump pledges to deport ``millions

and millions'' of ``criminal aliens,'' thousands of federal

law enforcement officers from multiple federal agencies are

being enlisted to take on new work as immigration enforcers,

pulling crime fighting resources away from other areas--from

drug trafficking and terrorism and sexual abuse and fraud.

This account of Trump's push to reorganize federal law

enforcement--the most significant since the September 11,

2001, terrorist attacks--is based on interviews with more

than 20 current and former federal agents, attorneys, and

other federal officials. Most had first-hand knowledge of the

changes. Nearly all spoke on the condition of anonymity

because they were not authorized to discuss their work.

``I do not recall ever seeing this wide spectrum of federal

government resources all being turned toward immigration

enforcement,'' said Theresa Cardinal Brown, the former

Homeland Security official who has served in both Republican

and Democratic administrations. ``When you are telling

agencies to stop what you are doing and do this now, whatever

else they were doing takes a back seat.''

In response to questions from Reuters, Homeland Security

Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said the U.S.

Government is mobilizing federal and state law enforcement to

find, arrest, and deport illegal aliens. The [FBI] declined

to respond to questions about its staffing. In a statement,

the FBI said it is ``protecting the U.S. from many threats.''

The Trump administration has offered no comprehensive

accounting of the revamp. But it echoes the aftermath of the

2001 attacks, when Congress created the Department of

Homeland Security and pulled together 169,000 federal

employees from other agencies and refocused the FBI on

battling terrorism.

Trump's hardline approach to deporting immigrants has

intensified America's already stark partisan divide. The U.S.

Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin, described the crackdown

as a ``wasteful, misguided diversion of resources''. . . . It

is ``making America less safe'' by drawing agents and

officials away from fighting corporate fraud, terrorism,

child sexual exploitation, and other crimes.

The focus on immigration is drawing significant resources

from other crime-fighting departments, according to the more

than 20 sources who spoke.

Until January, pursuing immigrants living in the country

illegally was largely the job of two agencies: Immigration

and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, and Customs and Border

Protection, with a combined staff of 80,000. Other

Departments spent . . . [on crime].

In Detroit--where immigration prosecutions have been rare--

the number of people charged with immigration offenses rose

from 2 in February . . . to 19 last month.

Case managements records from the Justice Department show

that fewer than 1% of the cases brought to prosecutors by the

DEA and ATF over the past decade involve allegations that

someone had violated immigration law.

Since January, however, DEA agents have been ordered to

reopen cases involving arrests up to five years old, where

prosecutors have declined to bring charges.

As Trump and billionaire Elon Musk flash the size of the

Federal Government bureaucracy, jobs that deal with

immigration enforcement appear largely exempt.

In a January 31 email to ICE employees, a human resources

official told them they wouldn't be eligible for retirement

buyouts offered to some 2.3 million Federal workers. ``All

ICE positions are excluded,'' said the previously unreported

email.

Yes, I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Yes. Yes.

I was going to ask a question. Did the Senator finish his question?

I want to first start by saying that the Senator has a reputation around this place; that there is a deep, penetrating goodness that is in you. I love to watch my Senate colleagues when other people are not--it is a habit of mine--because I think what you do when no one is watching is really telling. There is a belief I have that someone who is nice to you but not nice to the waiter is not a nice person.

And we have a body full of people that show some deep, decent goodness. You are one of those people. And what I love about watching you is that it could be the farthest ideological person away from you, and you just have this--like, you look at people like you see their divinity, whether it is the person at the highest position, a leader of the Senate on either side, or someone who holds the door.

What I love about you is, when I watch you, you are one of the Senators--some people just keep to their side of the aisle--I always look up, and I find you over there talking to somebody. And I just rely on that decency in you as a friend, and I have come to love you like a brother, and I want to thank you for being here before your alarm in the morning goes off. It really touches me.

And I don't know if you remember this, but about 12 hours ago, you sat right here and you embraced me in a hug, and I leaned on that hug because I wasn't sure that I would even make it 12 hours. I take strength from you, my friend. And I take strength from you to hold to my kindness, to look for it everywhere.

This is a story I don't think I have ever shared with you, but it speaks to how we get things done and how we should get things done.

When I first got to the U.S. Senate, my mentor, Bill Bradley, gave me three real lessons for me to learn. I think I have obeyed two out of the three. One was to know the rules of procedure really well. That is the one I have probably failed. I am still learning things, 13 years into this, about the rules of procedure. The second one was become a specialist in some areas; don't be a mile wide and an inch deep. I feel like I have done a pretty good job on that.

But the one that he told me that was most fruitful--I already mentioned one of the benefits I had in doing this with John McCain earlier in this 12 hours--he commanded me to go and meet with all your Republican colleagues; take them out to dinner, sit with them for lunch, whomever they are.

I went out to dinner with Ted Cruz. It was hard--to find a restaurant--because I am a vegan and Ted Cruz is from Texas. But I still remember that we went out and how people were sort of shocked just to see two human beings breaking bread.

But the story I want to tell my friend about is when I went to see Jim Inhofe, a Republican from the same State as Lankford. And I couldn't get him to meet with me. I couldn't get on his schedule.

And I found out that he had Bible study in his hideaway, and so I go up to his hideaway for Bible study. Thune was there. And we all have implicit biases. We all have implicit biases. My implicit bias was that I did not expect of this older, conservative man that I would walk in and see on his mantle this beautiful picture, centered, of him hugging a little Black girl. I am embarrassed by that, that it so surprised me.

And I--especially in those days, I didn't talk to, like, the senior giants in the Senate. I didn't call them by their first names. I still have a problem calling Senator Durbin by his first name, for example. He is a lion of the Senate, in my opinion, and one of the kindest people to me since I have been here.

So I go to him--I go to Jim Inhofe. I go, ``Mr. Chairman, sir,'' and I look at the picture and I go, ``Who dat?''

And he smiles and chuckles, and then he tells me the most beautiful story of his family adopting this little Black girl out of some of the most terrible circumstances. And I was so moved.

And thinking about my friend Bill Bradley, I would have never known this incredibly beautiful thing about someone who is my--ideologically, we disagreed on so many things, but knowing this personal moment, it created this thread between us--not a rope, not a cord, but a thread-- that connected me to him, and it created a deeper affection.

So fast-forward many months in this body, and there is a big education bill, which Chris Murphy referenced earlier. A big education bill was going through the Senate because No Child Left Behind--we were going back the other way. Senator Durbin has told me about this pendulum that sometimes swings and swings back in its place. And it was a deal.

Lamar Alexander was in the well of the Senate. He was the manager of the bill. And there were no amendments allowed. No amendments allowed. Of course, I am sitting back here. This is where I sat. And you talk about egos. My ego--I had this great amendment, and I was frustrated that they were having this rule--no amendments--but I have a great amendment to do something about homeless and foster children, who have the worst educational

outcomes, and I thought I had a modest amendment to try to make a difference for American children who are in foster care or that were homeless.

And I am frustrated. I am sitting back here, something that I dream of doing again one day--sitting--and just kind of upset. And then I see, walking through those doors, Senator Jim Inhofe, and he walks to the well kind of talking. And I remember the story he told me about this little Black girl in his family, and something tells me to get up. And I walk into the well, down these steps, and I say to him, ``Mr. Chairman, sir, I know how much you care for children in tough circumstances. I have an amendment.''

And I explained my amendment to him, and he looked at me and gave me the Senate version of no, which is, ``I will think about it.''

And I got frustrated, and I said, ``Thank you, sir, for considering it,'' and I walked back and I sat down right here. And then when I picked my head up, he is marching into our side--like you do on the other side--like his GPS coordinates were off. He marches up to me and just sort of grunts at me, ``I'm in,'' and then turns around and starts walking away from me.

I step up and I say, ``Wait. Excuse me. What do you mean?''

He goes, ``Cory, I am going to cosponsor your amendment.'' And I was so happy.

And now I go over to Senator Grassley and say the same thing to him-- a relationship that, thanks to Dick Durbin, I really bonded; I have a sweet relationship with him even though, again, we disagree on so much. He doesn't even make me wait. He looks at me, and he goes, ``You got Inhofe?'' And he signs on my amendment.

(Mr. YOUNG assumed the Chair.)

By the time I go to Lamar Alexander, I look up and I am like, I got a full house. Sorry, I got no other Democrats, but I got all these Republicans. He looks at me, and he laughs. He goes ``Really?'' and he puts the amendment on the bill. It is the law of the land right now.

So what you said in the beginning of your long windup question, my dear friend, my dear brother, is how real change is made.

That man, Dick Durbin, when I first got to the Senate, he knew how much I cared about criminal justice reform. He brought me to the table. I started working--as I presided, I started working in conversations with Mike Lee, in conversations with Chuck Grassley. We cobbled together a bill. It wasn't done by Executive fiat; it was done in the Senate--87 votes. It is the law of the land. Thousands have been liberated from unjust incarceration.

So my point to the Senator is that his spirit is so right, is so true about what it takes to make real change, but the President we have right now doesn't seem to be coming to this body with any kind of bold, bipartisan legislation to solve the problems of our Nation, to cobble together the common ground of this country on immigration. No. He is not acting like that. He is using language like ``Presidential primacy.'' He is defending his corrupt practices in immigration by saying things like ``Presidential primacy.'' He is invoking the Alien Enemies Act. He is invoking the Alien Enemies Act--an act from the 1700s--to deny due process, and Antonin Scalia, a textualist, said that whether you are born in this country or not, you have due process here.

The Constitution states only one thing twice: Both the 5th and the 14th Amendments say that no one--not no citizen--no one shall be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law. Yet this President is disappearing people and, as we documented here, disappearing the wrong people; as we documented here, unjustly detaining Americans, separating families--all while pushing his agenda and doing things that the values of people on both sides of this aisle don't believe in, like stopping the investigation of children for alleged sexual molestation. This is wrong.

I sat down with some of the advocates who were telling me and who are trying to fight to stop the law from being broken, and they scared me, Dick Durbin, because they said what I said on this floor: If someone is willing to violate the Constitution for some, it endangers the constitutional rights for us all. Do not think this is, oh, those people. If they are violating the rights of some, it is a threat to the rights of all.

I am standing here because of a national crisis that is growing. We talked about Social Security. We talked about healthcare. We talked education. This is a crisis for us.

This is what the person said. They talked about the Insurrection Act. They have been hearing people in the administration talk about the Insurrection Act.

Every person in this Congress and across this country wants a safe and secure border, but scapegoating immigrants to erode basic constitutional freedoms does not make America safer, does not make our communities safer, does not reform our immigration system like we should be doing in a bipartisan manner like Lankford and Murphy. It does not stop our longstanding problems in our agricultural industry and our tech industry.

History has shown that when due process and basic constitutional rights are eroded for some people, it does not stop. It continues to erode. The shoreline that kept you safe will shrink until it reaches you.

I am reminded of German Pastor Martin Niemoller's quote about fascism in Germany:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak

out--because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak

out--because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--

because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak

for me.

Well, everything that has happened in the last few months contradicts American values, shared values. I am most concerned about what this signals for the future and the potential indication of this President of the Insurrection Act.

Some of our country's most prominent lawyers have warned that the invocation of these two antiquated laws--the Alien Enemies Act and the Insurrection Act--may result in the true erosion of our constitutional rights.

Trump's recent indication of the Alien Enemies Act is the first step to securing people without due process, which Justice Scalia said is wrong, and then on the first day in office, Trump directed the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security--Trump directed them to initiate a 90-day review to determine whether the President should invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807. That 90-review-- when do the 90 days come up, folks? This month. In 19 days. April 20.

The President of the United States has already invoked a 1780- something law and also asked his immigration folks, his homeland security folks, to do a 90-day review about the Insurrection Act of 1807.

Now, there are probably people watching and saying: What is the Insurrection Act? I had to look up what the Alien Enemies Act was. So let me tell folks what the Insurrection Act that our President on his first day in office--of all the things a President has to do, he turned to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to initiate a 90-day review of the Insurrection Act.

America, what is the Insurrection Act of 1807? It is among the President's most powerful authorities. He can deploy the U.S. Armed Forces and militia during a national emergency. He can declare a national emergency.

This President has already wrongfully declared national emergencies. He declared a national emergency on energy. Senator Kaine talked about the outrageousness of somebody declaring a national emergency on energy when we are at the highest level of petrol chemical extraction in our country's history. Until he started rolling back what we were doing on wind and solar, we had an all-of-the-above strategy. Nobody ``drill baby drilled'' more than Joe Biden.

The Insurrection Act gives the ability of the President to declare a national emergency to suppress insurrections, to quell civil unrest or domestic violence, and to enforce the law when he believes it is being obstructed.

When can the President invoke the Insurrection Act? Well, nothing in the text of the law defines insurrection, rebellion, or domestic violence. Those are prerequisites for deployment, but they don't define those things.

One of Trump's first Executive orders signed the evening he took office on January 20 was titled ``Declaring a National Emergency at the Southern Border of the United States.'' In that order, he said ``America's sovereignty is under attack.'' He has already declared a national emergency.

Neither Congress nor the courts played a role in deciding what constitutes an obstruction or a rebellion. If Trump does unlawfully invoke the Insurrection Act, he can conceivably use our military to carry out his deportation agenda within our country's borders, all without any due process or opportunity to prove that their presence in the U.S. is lawful or even that they are a citizen.

Trump himself said he wants to deport American citizens to foreign countries. Trump himself has said: I want to deport American citizens to foreign countries.

On February 4, he said:

I am just saying if we had a legal right to do it, I would

do it in a heartbeat. I don't know if we do or not. We are

looking at it right now.

This is what he has asked his Secretary of Defense and his Secretary of Homeland Security to say: Can I invoke the Insurrection Act?

So don't be mistaken. This is not just about immigrants. This is not just denying immigrants the due process that Antonin Scalia said that immigrants have a right to so you don't disappear the wrong people like the Trump administration has done, that you don't wildly disagree with what a citizen is saying and use that as a pretext to disappear them.

He is creating the pretext to invoke that 1807 law, the Insurrection Act, and if he does that, when they came for the immigrants and denied them due process, he is trying to get us to surrender our commitment to the constitutional guarantees that Americans have. He has said he would invoke--he would deport Americans if he could.

When the President denies due process to some in America, it threatens the due process of all.

Let's see what happens on April 20 if this President, who has already invoked the Alien Enemies Act, follows through and invokes the Insurrection Act. But why wait until April 20? Raise your voice now. Stand up now. Do something now. Cause some good trouble now. Let this President know that if he does ever do that, there will be a rising up of people's voices, a rising up of good trouble, as John Lewis would say, to say: Not in my country. This is unacceptable.

To Senator Dick Durbin, to somebody who has been my mentor and friend, I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Yes, yes, yes, it does. I mean, you put forth this litany where what we have to ask ourselves is at what point do my colleagues in the House and the Senate and the Republican Party say enough? Enough. God bless John Kennedy for calling out the

absolute absurd. I was in that hearing where you have nominees for some of the highest positions in the administration failing to say that they will abide by a court order.

I mean, that is something we haven't heard people on either side of nominees just say so bluntly now, not, yes, I will follow the orders of a court. They are equivocating. And God bless one of my colleagues, John Kennedy, who said: That is absurd. You either obey the order or you resign because we have a Constitution.

And so when is it enough? When is it enough? This is the week, this is the month of Passover, and there is a wonderful song I love singing when I am at a Pesach seder--the Dayenu. ``It would have been enough,'' is the song, if God just delivered us from Egypt. It would have been enough if he parted the seas. Dayenu. This is kind of a twisted version of that. When is it enough when the President of the United States starts a meme coin on his first day, violating the emoluments clause immediately and enriching himself?

When is it enough when he takes an Agency that is on the frontlines of stopping infectious diseases, like Ebola or drug-resistant tuberculosis, from coming here? Is that enough? When we created that in Congress, and he has no right to stop that Agency, would that have been enough?

When is it enough for him to issue Executive orders that trample on the highest ideals of this land, when he mocks members of the courts so badly that even the current Chief Justice admonishes him? When is it enough when Elon Musk is indiscriminately firing people and then realizing oops, we need the FAA safety folks; oops, we need the nuclear folks who are helping us keep our regulations? When is it enough that you will say: ``OK. I will call them in and have a hearing to create some transparency in what he is doing''?

When is it enough when he activates the Alien Enemies Acts and starts disappearing human beings without due process? When is it enough?

Well, it is enough for me. It is enough for me. Twelve hours now I am standing, and I am still going strong because this President is wrong. And he is violating principles that we hold dear and principles in this document that are so clear and plain. The powers of the article I branch are spelled out, and he is violating them. Don't take my word for it, Republican-appointed judges, Democrat-appointed judges are saying it and stopping him, and then he maligns the judge that did that.

When is it enough for people to speak out and not just fall in line, to put patriotism over a person that is in the White House?

So to your question, sir, to my friend, and I am sorry to get a little animated at this early morning hour, but I am so frustrated and not just because of that, but I am reading the stories.

We are going into the next section, which is national security, and I am reading the stories of our citizens of this country, not just New Jerseyans, there are a lot we have read in these 12 hours, but there are people from all over the country who are reaching out to my office.

And I know they are yours, Senator Durbin. You are the second highest ranking Democrat in here. I know they are reaching out to you because you are a man that stands for justice. I know they are reaching out to your office, too, because you are one of the outposts for sanity in a Congress that is being too complicit to an Executive that is overstepping his authority and violating the Constitution and hurting people who rely on healthcare and Social Security.

I am reading these stories, sir, because of the voices of the Americans that don't have the privilege of the 100 of us, who don't get to stand here, but I believe the power of the people is greater than the people in power. Those are the ideals of our democracy and our Constitution.

So I am rip-roaring and ready. I am wide awake. I am going to stand here for as many hours as I can, 12 hours, and I recognize that my other friend, another person I consider more than a friend, like a sister to me, from the State of New York, my neighbor.

My sister, for you I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Seven thousand.

I read last night--thank you for the question, my friend. I read last night some of the most painful letters of people over and over again, from throughout my State and throughout other States, who are living in fear, who use words like ``terrified'' and told stories that they couldn't sleep because of the rhetoric of this President, the rhetoric of Elon Musk calling it a Ponzi scheme, telling lies during the joint address.

And then I read stories from people that work in Social Security. They are telling about not having desks and the waiting lines and inefficiencies that this has created, and the horrible, deteriorating customer service.

And I have been trying, as much as I can, during these last 12 hours, to read stories of Republicans.

To read editorials from the Wall Street Journal, to just show that this isn't a partisan thing. This isn't about left or right. It is about right or wrong. It is about will we, as a country, honor our commitments that we made.

And then I read from independent folks that are saying: This is crazy that this program is even in jeopardy.

And I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

So I appreciate this more than you know, and there is a line threaded throughout your entire question about the way they are going about doing this from so many Agencies. First, they are trying to kill certain Agencies--the Department of Education, which they can't legally do. USAID, they can't legally do. We created that--the article I branch of government.

But on some of these other Agencies like Social Security, where you started, we know it is: Ready, fire, aim. And actually the ``aim'' part never happens. They are savagely cutting personnel and organization after organization.

Seniors, thousands of them, are already writing in about the undermining of service. The Wall Street Journal article we read last night said that the customer service at Social Security is going from bad to worse and painted horrific pictures that are putting seniors in crisis, not to mention the closing of Social Security centers in rural areas, where people have to now drive hours and hours and hours.

And so at the FAA, it was one of the early outrages that they fired people that they then realized they needed and tried to find some way to pull some of them back.

And you and I both know the way they talk about government workers--a large percentage of them are veterans--the way they demean and degrade them, the way they accuse them of being parts of corruption, fraud, or fat, when the stories we have been reading of what some of these folks do is extraordinary.

And so your question, though, brings up a lot of national security issues, and I am going to bridge to that because you and I both were really, really incensed that we weren't getting enough information when we had these incursions. And I want to start--what I have been doing in other sections is just reading, elevating on this floor the voices of people from our country, trying to elevate more of the voices to let people know we see you, we hear you. Your outrage, your hurt, your fears--they have value.

I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

I am so grateful for the questions from my colleague and my friend.

I want folks to know, probably the best dinner I had here when I came here was with the Senator from New York, who really gave me a quick rundown on how to get things done in this body. I have watched her work on both sides of the aisle, relentlessly, to get things over the finish line and to help people in our region--from the 9/11 folks, who were our first responders, to get their healthcare; to fight to support the military, to empower the military; but to fight against sexual assault in the military. She is one of these phenomenal people.

A lot of the questions we are going to get to, including that question that was obviously painful about national security, is like, hey, one of the strategies of Russia--and we know this--is to attack the elections of other democracies, to try to sow discord, to try to undermine the very voting process, and the Trump administration pulled away a lot of the people from the DOJ and elsewhere when their sole purpose was to fight against foreign election interference.

So how can we have a nation where the President is in charge of national security and is not doing things to address the issues that were in your questions?

I want to start by reading a couple of constituent letters. I know we want to step back and talk a little bit about immigration, as my colleague and my friend and my partner in leadership in the Senate Tina Smith is here, but I want to get into some of these letters because I said over 12 hours ago that we were going to continue to elevate the voices of people out there.

So this is coming from--I just want to--from someone from New Jersey. They are writing:

Dear Senator Booker, I am writing to express my deep

concern regarding the current state of our Nation and the

lack of response to the looming constitutional crisis. It is

becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the actions of a

President who routinely lies and makes outrageous proposals

such as annexing Greenland, Mexico, and Panama or even

renaming the Gulf of Mexico. Those proposals not only

undermine our international standing but also disrespect the

foundations of our country.

Furthermore, I am alarmed by the growing threat to press

freedom. Recently, for example, the Associated Press was

barred from the White House press room simply for referring

to the Gulf of Mexico rather than the Gulf of America--a

clear sign of the President's disregard for free speech

and a free press's role in holding power to account.

The President is actively trampling on the Constitution and

blatantly ignoring the rule of law--

As Senator Gillibrand was saying:

He has taken steps to slash vital Federal Agencies and

disaster relief programs, undermining our Nation's capacity

to respond to crises. His decision to appoint unqualified

individuals to high positions for the purpose of following

his will is another example of how our democratic systems are

being systematically weakened.

Additionally, his reckless and irresponsible approach to

foreign policy is making the world more dangerous. His

insistence on blaming Ukraine for Russia's invasion and

ongoing war is not only historically inaccurate but also

deeply damaging to our allies and global stability. Even

worse, his administration has entertained so-called peace

settlements that exclude Ukraine from the process entirely,

effectively allowing Russia to dictate terms without any

Ukrainian input. Such actions betray our commitments to

sovereignty and democracy and embolden authoritarian regimes

worldwide.

Domestically, his agenda is destructive. His administration

has pursued the withdrawal from the USAID, the gutting of

critical global humanitarian and development efforts that

have long served U.S. interests abroad.

At home, he is enabling tech billionaires like Elon Musk to

take a chain saw to government Agencies, arbitrarily

dismantling institutions that provide essential public

services. His attacks on the NIH and its funding jeopardize

critical medical research and public health initiatives,

undermining scientific progress for purely ideological

reasons.

Beyond these threats, his treatment of our closest allies

is both reckless and embarrassing. His taunting of Canada,

whether through inflammatory rhetoric or deliberate policy

snubs, weakens our diplomatic ties and disregards the

importance of maintaining strong relationships with our

neighbors. This petty, shortsighted approach to international

regulations has isolated the United States at a time when

global cooperation is more critical than ever.

My greatest frustration, however, is the lack of action

from our Representatives and Governors. Too many are cowering

in fear of the President's authoritarian tactics. I am

troubled by the absence of pushback. I am troubled by the

absence of pushback. I am troubled by the absence of

pushback. We are witnessing the erosion of checks and

balances, and the consequences could be dire.

I was heartened by Governor Janet Mills, of Maine, standing

up to the President's orders. Unfortunately, his response was

a threat to her political future--further evidence of the

intimidation tactics being employed.

I implore you, Senator Booker, to show some moral courage

and take meaningful action to stand up to this growing threat

to our democracy. Please let me know how you are responding

to the situation and what steps you, Senator Booker, are

taking to defend our Constitution and the rule of law. Thank

you for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you

soon.

I hope at this early morning hour, at almost 8 o'clock, that maybe you are listening, because I hear you; I see you; and I am standing here because I am part of letters like yours. This is not normal. These are not normal times, and we must begin to do as John Lewis said: Get in good trouble. Get in necessary trouble.

I want to read from another constituent. I just want to see where this person is from. I am not trying to violate the privacy, which my staff doesn't want me to do.

What's that?

We know Wisconsin is getting a lot of love here. I told my colleague I kept seeing folks from two towns--one in your State and one in the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, but this person, alas, is from Jersey.

I wrote to ask you to do all you can to resolve funding for

the National Institutes of Health and USAID. I work in

information technology at Princeton University, and I have

seen firsthand the destruction the termination of funds is

causing to research and education. We are losing the momentum

of research and causing a deep and lasting loss of

educational resources. The NIH and the National Science

Foundation provide funds for basic research as well as

applied topics. The benefits of this research will be long

lasting, and the cost of disruption will be very high.

Similarly, the disruption of USAID is tragic. My daughter

works for an organization

working with USAID on climate mitigation and adaptation. She

has lost job security as a result of the Trump

administration's actions. Work she has built on in Ethiopia,

Kenya, and elsewhere will be disrupted due to lack of

funding.

Thank you for your leadership as our Senator. I am proud to

be represented by you as well as our new Senator, Andy Kim.

The promise of our country is great, but we must redefine

our purpose and imagine a new future. Your experience and

knowledge will be critical to our country's success.

Let me go with two more and then turn to my colleague. This is a short one.

I am writing to express my concerns about the chaos and

lawlessness coming out of the White House. USAID must be

restored. Please use powers to restore democracy to the

United States of America. This is not what democracy looks

like. Thank you.

Somebody from New Jersey.

And one more. One more. One more voice.

As a parent of a USAID Foreign Service Officer recently in Ukraine and now in Kenya, I am outraged and horrified by the coup now being staged by Elon Musk under the authority from the President. To be called ``criminal'' after putting your life at risk in the service of America's interests is itself to be a victim of criminal-like behavior.

I have seen the beautiful roads and railroads in Africa,

built by the Chinese. In one fell swoop, Trump has given that

continent to the Chinese and the Russians. He did the same

thing years ago by canceling participation in the Pacific

free trade pact, forfeiting our power and our good will,

making China the largest player in the region. I saw the good

will in the eyes of passersby from the Philippines to Georgia

to Tajikistan. Now I hear it turn to hostility.

Think of sports fans in Canada, booing our National Anthem.

Think also of the infants who will now die of AIDS because

USAID's treatment program was abruptly stopped, along with

vaccinations programs and programs for stopping diseases such

as Ebola, monkey pox, hemorrhagic fever. These diseases will

come home with even a 90-day pause of workers in these

programs. We will lose jobs, and rent, and some never will

return. Refrigeration of medicines will be at risk. Clinics

and offices will become unavailable. Humpty Dumpty will not

be quickly put back together again.

Some of what Trump wants to do will ultimately need

approval of Congress. I urge you to fight every one of his

proposals and appointments. Slow the legislative process as

much as you can, please. I hope Trump will lose his majority.

Thank you for your attention.

I will be of service in any way possible to right these

wrongs.

I love when constituents don't only point out what is wrong but stand up and say: I will be of service. Let me know how I can help.

Your voice is helping tonight. Speaking to these issues is helping tonight.

I know my Senate colleague is here. She has a question. I will yield while retaining the floor.

I want to respond deeply. I, first, want to thank my colleague for being here in the morning. She is one of my colleagues that I confided in when I told her it was enough for me, I needed to do something different, and she readily encouraged me to be here on the floor for what is now about 13 hours. She has encouraged me. She has encouraged my heart and is just one of my dear friends. I am just so grateful to see her this morning.

I want to say something before I begin answering her question. In my hometown where I grew up in Bergen County, there is a family, the Alexanders, whose son Edan is an American who is being held by Hamas. He is being likely tortured and in trauma and in pain. He is a U.S. citizen. He is an American.

I had a friend with me just recently, a man who was driving me around. I have this ribbon that I often use that I keep in my pocket. It reminds me of him and my determination to bring him home--bring him home. I want his family to know that, as a State Senator, he is in my thoughts.

I also feel there are so many New Jerseyans who are affected by this crisis, who lost family members in the region. We must bring peace.

Then my friend Senator Smith asked this question about--which is a real test because when you disagree with someone's statements so much, but the very nature of the First Amendment--what makes this document so precious is that it says that no matter how reprehensible your speech is, this document says you have the right to say it.

I remember the controversy over an NFL player who kneeled. One of the voices that sticks in my head is a White guy from the military who just said: I fought battles--I think it was Afghanistan--and I am offended by his taking a knee, but the very reason I fought was so that he would have the freedom to do it.

So I came back. I was there on October 7. I have very hurt, strong feelings about what is going on over there and urgent desires to end the nightmare, to bring people like Edan home, to end the nightmare for so many Israelis and Palestinians. I find so many things people are saying so unhelpful to the crisis and to the moral truth that I believe in. But I will fight for people's rights.

So here is a situation where you see a video, and it just doesn't seem like who we are. If you are revoking somebody's visa, make a phone call. Tell them: You have 30 days to leave. But there should be due process. You should have to prove your claims in court. If this person is somehow aligning with some kind of enemy, prove it. But what I saw there doesn't reflect the highest ideals.

God, if this Constitution was easy, it wouldn't be worth the paper it is written on.

So I love my friend because she wades into some difficult waters, but she is guided by the oath that she took to defend the Constitution, and in these complex and difficult times, she is standing up.

And I tell you, when we were in the immigration section last night-- or earlier, I should say--we read the most painful stories. My brother over on the other side of me--I have got some of my really dear friends on the floor right now: Senator Murphy, Senator Warnock, Senator Smith.

My brother Senator Warnock knows that we are a nation that is paying hundreds of millions of dollars over the years of the Trump administration to fund private prisons that are being paid, incentivized, to take away people's liberties. We read stories in the immigration section about people that got trapped in those systems that should never be there--horrible stories, painful voices I have read, about folks who were caught up in a system.

And I just loved that one article from the Canadian who was, for weeks, put in a private prison. And suddenly, when she heard the lies of the people who found ways to keep her there--the ``aha'' moment that she realized: These people, every day I am there, they get profit. They are not incentivized by justice; they are incentivized by profit.

I read stories, Senator Smith, of people who were sent to that horrible jail in El Salvador that the government admitted they made a mistake. They disappeared someone who has American family members. Story after story I read that just are such a betrayal not of democratic values but of American values because we all in this body know we need to do more to protect our borders, to keep us safe, to arrest criminals, be they undocumented or documented. That is an urgency we all feel.

But when you sacrifice your core values, when you sacrifice them to a demagogue who says, ``This is all about your safety,'' when you sacrifice your core principles for your safety, you will achieve neither. You will neither be safe nor morally strong.

The true leaders on both sides of the aisle that I have heard over the years talk on these issues say we can do both; we can make our country safe, and we can abide by our values. And in a complex world where country after country disappears people, when authoritarian countries disappear their political enemies, their political adversaries, disappear people who say things they politically disagree with--those countries are looking to us.

Did you know, when Donald Trump started using that phrase ``fake news, fake news, fake news,'' that in Turkey, Erdogan started arresting people on charges of fake news--because we are looked to. I believe, like Reagan said, we could be that city on the hill, but we are up high, and folks are going to look to us.

But what is the world order going to be? What is democracy globally going to look like? Are we going to defend democracy and democratic principles or will we behave like the authoritarians that we should be against?

So this is a fundamental question you ask, and it has been resonating all these 13 hours. We keep coming back to the Constitution because so many things the Trump administration is doing, from the separation of powers to violating the very first words of our Constitution, the very first words, this commitment we make when we swear oaths, all of us: ``We the People of the United States'' of America--this is our mandate--``in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice''-- it

comes really quick. It comes really quick. Is it just to disappear a human being with no due process?

I quoted Antonin Scalia, this conservative that was sitting on a stage with somebody he had a lot of affection for, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and this moderator asked him: Does somebody in our country have the rights of this document? And he said: Yes, especially the 14th Amendment that doesn't say any ``citizen''; it says no ``person,'' no body.

So where do we stand when our Founders, those imperfect geniuses, say: ``We the People . . . in Order to form a more perfect Union''-- ``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity''--what Nation are we turning over to the next President, to the next Congress, when this Congress is sacrificing the powers that are given right underneath that preamble? It is article I which spells out: ``All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.''

And then it goes on to talk about what we have the power to do. We set the laws.

This President is invoking emergency powers like the alien insurrection act, a 1790-something law that the last time it was used was in World War II to detain Japanese Americans--something so shameful--to put them in concentration camps here in America.

He wants to take power from our Congress. And the thing that is killing me, that is actually breaking my heart, Brother Warnock, the thing that is actually breaking my heart is that we are letting him, that we are letting him take our power.

If Elon Musk were a Democrat and Joe Biden said, ``Hey, go after the spending power of Congress,'' all the things that they approved--it is hard to do bipartisan things here. God bless Patty Murray and Susan Collins coming together and getting spending bills--hard work--done. Lord knows, I sometimes play a little Motown in here. I ain't too proud to beg. I go to the Appropriations leader and say: Hey, my New Jerseyans in this county need this. We work on all these--I fight for programs with Lindsey Graham and USAID with now-Secretary of State Marco Rubio, programs that he approved.

The Department of Education. I have worked with Republicans to put things in the Department of Education. There are people here that worked in a bipartisan way to try to simplify the FAFSA forms. I could go through all the work we have done that now this body--the article I branch of the Constitution, right under the mandate of the United States of America, as Tina Smith is telling us, right after ``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice''--the Senator, my friend, and so that is why we are here. That is why, now, the Senate is filling up. It is friends galore. We have Amy Klobuchar now on the floor.

That is why we are here. No business as usual. No business as usual. We are not doing the usual order. We are talking about these things. We are making the case. We talked about immigration. We talked about Medicaid. We talked about Medicare. We talked about healthcare. We talked about medical research. We talked about Social Security. We are marching through. We are marching through. Thirteen hours. I have more in the tank.

And so I thank you for that question. It brings up very emotional things for me; I will be honest. It brings up pain and frustration and hurt. It brings up, for me, the pain of so many New Jerseyans that have reached out--the Palestinian doctors in my State who worked with my office to get Palestinian babies into America for care. It brings up the hurt of being there and seeing the worst slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust.

So many things are painful, but if we sacrifice our values, it reminds me of the mosque being built, 9/11. It reminds me of all these difficult points: the marchers in Skokie, of KKK--all these difficult points where the values of this Constitution were tested, where we were being measured.

But I have to say, what this President is doing with the alien insurrection act, what this President is doing with no due process, what this President is doing with flushing the Department of Education, with getting rid of the USAID, with attacking thousands of people that serve our veterans and that serve our Social Security--those things should be obvious to this institution, to the Senate, that that is wrong, that they have unelected--the biggest campaign donor, unelected, who is getting our personal information, and there is no transparency. Nobody in this body can say they know what confidential information was let out, Elon Musk has, and knows what they do with it because they didn't bring him here to answer for it.

So I thank my colleague for the question. And I know Reverend Warnock is going to ask me one. I just want to take us a couple pages into this for a second.

The American people alone, our approach to foreign policy practiced by the President--what the President has done is left our allies feeling abandoned, feeling degraded and insulted. He has left our adversaries feeling emboldened and has done things that have hurt our national security, that has made Americans less safe.

In the short time President Trump has been in office for a second term, Americans have already been put in harm's way because of the reckless approach of the administration. It all begins, in fact, with his extremely poor judgment. This administration has prioritized the obsequiousness to Donald Trump over the expertise when it comes to some of the most important national security jobs, and it has sidelined dedicated professionals who have devoted their lives to keeping our country safe.

This administration has also demonstrated an inability to distinguish between America's adversaries and America's allies and a disturbing failure to understand how America's partnerships and investments abroad protect and benefit communities here.

I am reminded of General Mattis saying: If you are cutting things like the USAID or the State Department, buy me more bullets.

But this is something that folks on the floor have talked about. I see one of my friends and somebody I really look up to--I see Tim Kaine--who sits a little bit higher up on the dais than I on the Foreign Relations Committee, somebody I have turned to many times. And he was astonished by this. And I know he, like me, has had private conversations with our Republican colleagues about this. But this body has not called for one hearing or one investigation. No accountability.

What am I talking about? It is when, last week, we learned Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Director of the CIA John Ratcliffe, Trump's National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, Special Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff, and several other high-ranking officials in the Trump administration discussed attack plans against the Houthis in Yemen in a group chat over the commercial messaging app Signal.

We learned of this because the President's National Security Advisor mistakenly invited the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, on the text chain. And after Jeffrey Goldberg published a story describing this jaw-dropping national security failure where they could have broken at least two laws that I am aware of just by doing that--from the preservation of public records all the way to disclosing national security, highly classified information--the President and his Cabinet members didn't step up and say, ``We made mistakes,'' didn't step up and say, ``This is clearly abjectly wrong,'' didn't step up and say, ``There will be accountability,'' didn't step up and say, ``We will take actions.'' No.

What they decided to do when they were exposed is actually target the reporter with a barrage of insults and not acknowledging any wrongdoing. Unsurprisingly, the Trump team's response led Jeffrey Goldberg to publish the rest of the Signal chat messages, which exposed more administration lies.

We are going to go into that, but I really want to turn to my brother. And

I said earlier about Senator Murphy's speech, one of my favorites I have ever actually heard when I was in the Senate--Brother Warnock gave a speech that was one of my favorites in the Senate, too, when he talked about the difference between January 5 America and that fateful day, January 6.

He has been a friend of mine for a long time. I think he might be the only person in this body--I started this talk 13 hours ago by talking about getting into good trouble. I think you might be the only person in this body that was arrested in this building for protesting before you came to serve in this building as a U.S. Senator.

I am going to stick to what I am told to say. If you ask me that you would like to speak--you have to say, ``I would like to ask you a question.'' I think that is how this goes.

Why, yes. I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

That is an important phone call.

That is my easiest colleague's question I have gotten within these 13 hours.

Yes, they should. I was talking in the healthcare section about, while there are these big issues that we should be concerned about-- $880 billion for Medicaid--cutting all of that out to give to the wealthiest, as you said--God bless them; they don't need our help; they don't need more tax cuts--to give them tax cuts, and explode the deficit, this is literally taking from working Americans.

The letters we read, the voices of Americans, the fear, the anguish, the hurt, the worry, people who were suffering from Parkinson's, who had children with disabilities, who had elder parents living with them, so many people telling them--not $880 billion, their whole financial well-being was hanging on a thread and just cutting transportation programs involved.

But I said, while all that was going on, the Trump administration was still doing other things to attack ACA enrollment, to attack the tax credits that people are relying on, and doing other things to drive up costs.

I know some of my colleagues are on the floor, like Amy Klobuchar. We have centered the lowering prescription costs, and he is doing things to drive out-of-pocket costs up. There is a cruelty in that.

And I intend to still be standing at noon, when we have the pause in the Senate for the Pledge and the prayer.

And, Pastor, I want to talk to you in the way that you talked to me last night.

I called my brother, I called my friend, and told him I was doing this--and Warnock shifts gears a lot in my life. Sometimes, he is my colleague. Sometimes, he is my brother. Sometimes, we talk about the state of unmarried guys in the Senate. I won't put you on blast, sir.

The bald-headed caucus.

But the one time you shifted gears into being my pastor and my friend, we prayed together last night. And most Americans identify in our faith--the Christian faith. And you and I know--I would yield for you to ask a question,

but I am yielding just to have you talk about Matthew 25.

You and I both. That is what we hold in common.

What were you?

Yes. Yes.

Sir, my friend, I don't understand how a nation could allow a President to be so cruel that he would take away healthcare from people struggling with children that are facing the worst of health challenges, people who have a spouse like the person who wrote to me--no, it wasn't a spouse. She wrote me herself. She had Parkinson's.

I got upset because that is how my father died. I watched, year after year after year, how it affected my family, how it demanded from my mother, how it cost thousands of dollars for his care. And thank God we have the privilege. But this person was writing because they were afraid, and they didn't know what the costs would be.

How can our country say that kind of cruelty--how could a nation where the majority of its people are people of faith, be they Muslim or Jain or Baha'i or Hindu or Jewish--how can the central precept of our country, founded on principles that are reflected in the Good Book--how could we say that we should cut healthcare from the sick and the needy to give bigger tax cuts to Elon Musk?

I will yield to you, my brother, while retaining the floor.

I read that last night, Pastor. I read that last night.

I came after.

I didn't know you were a two-time arrestee, man.

Oh, good trouble.

Yes, I remember that.

Yes.

I am going to just say this just to try to stay in the parliamentary--I yield for a question while retaining the floor. I yield for another question while retaining the floor.

Yes.

Amen, hallelujah, yes, I do. Thank you for that question.

I know there is going to be a question coming to me, I just want to say pray Isaiah 40:31 for me.

All right. The article I was going to start reading--

I yield for a question while retaining the floor. The Senator asked a question. I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Yes, while retaining the floor, yes.

So I want to thank the Senator for the question, and when I think of people who stand in adversity, I still see you standing in a snowstorm and the strength that you have had and stood up to fight for affordable healthcare, stood up and fought for affordable prescription drugs, stood up and fought for farmers and police officers and communities.

You are that kind of person that gives me strength that I have learned so much from. And you have brought this issue up, what you just said on the floor, to let you know, this is not performative for her. She has brought this up in our small meetings with Chuck Schumer. She has brought this up in our caucus meetings. I have seen her talk about it in her own State. This question of what will it take?

And here is something that pains me to hear, that Elon Musk is calling Republicans up and saying: If you take this stand, I am going to put $100 million in a primary against you, that they are bullying people who dare to stand up and say, maybe this appointee is not the most qualified person you could find to lead this Cabinet position, or maybe it is wrong to cut this Agency that we together created in Congress.

There are people who are asking those questions, but we have seen them get dragged through X, mob attacked when it comes to their virtual presence, and threatened to be primaried.

But we know, because you are somebody that works on both sides of the aisle, that there are really good people of conscience on both sides of the aisle.

And as the great pastor said: There are enough sins in this body to go around for all of us.

But this is not a partisan moment; it is a moral moment. This is not a left or right moment; it is a right or wrong moment.

We have a President that is shredding the very Agencies that Americans who are struggling are relying on.

Working people that, over the last 71 days, are finding higher prices, that are finding housing prices go up. Farmers in your State-- my State too; it is our fourth largest industry. I have had farmers come to me from as far away as Texas and tell me: They are clawing back these contracts that we have already relied on to buy things, and now you are putting me in a situation where I might lose my farm.

You see veterans who come to our offices--I know they come to your office, Senator Klobuchar; you are a Senator from Minnesota, but you are a national figure, so I know they are coming to your office--and they are saying things to me like: I am a veteran. I could go do other jobs. I wanted to work on suicide prevention and mental health issues, and I am being fired?

And you said it right. I have heard you say it in private. I have heard you say it in public. I know it irks you because you are one of those sort of balanced people. OK, we have a big deficit. That is a real problem. Maybe they are trying to lower the deficit, but they are not. That is the irony. They are not. They are about to explode trillions of dollars, most of which disproportionately goes to the wealthiest people, as you have been pointing out in our private phone calls over and over again, Senator Klobuchar.

So your question to me is spot on. It is spot on. And it is why I am standing here right now at the top of another hour, because of what you are saying relentlessly, persistently, and unyieldingly.

Why are we hurting American farmers? We just talked about rural hospitals here for about 20, 30 minutes and what the threats are to them. We talked about rural Social Security centers and the threats that are to them. We talked about communities all over our country that are being hurt. And your question, why? To give tax breaks that will disproportionately go to the wealthiest Americans.

You and I are not those people that demonize wealth. We don't demonize success. I want more people to start businesses. I want more people to dream of moving on up like the Jeffersons. I want more people to have that vision. I am not one of those people that are going to be mad at you because you are very successful. I am going to be one of those people that say: You don't need more tax cuts.

We as a society have an obligation to each other, to those farmers, to those rural folks, to the cops I stood with at the funeral of one of their colleagues in Newark 2 weeks ago. We have an obligation to them to help them get equipment to protect themselves.

This country cannot do something that is so monumentally fiscally irresponsible.

Who was the one person in the House that voted--a Republican that voted against it? A guy named Massie? And I watched. I had to smile and laugh because he said the quiet part out loud. He was sitting there looking at something. I saw him in an interview. He said: By their own numbers, this doesn't add up. They are adding to our deficit by the trillions.

He stayed true to his principles.

What happened to all those mighty deficit hawks in the House of Representatives on the Republican side that caved to the pressure of a President?

So happy you asked it in the right fashion.

I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Thank you for the question, Senator Klobuchar. I love that you are bringing it back to real people and what effect it is having.

What you are spelling out is something that is really important. There is a strategy that they have expressly said: They want to overwhelm you--not us. They want to overwhelm the American people. They want to flood the zone.

So I see a whole bunch of trying to do things to distract us: Gulf of Mexico, Gulf of America, Greenland--all these things to try to whip us up and not pay attention to what most Americans are concerned with: Can they make ends meet?

Even the big reconciliation bill that they are going to try to do that we have to find a way to appeal to a small group of Republican Congresspeople to stop the cutting of $880 million out of Medicaid--we went through in great detail at length last night why that is bad, but you are pointing to something even more insidious, which is that big things are going on. They actually are cutting the support to get more people signed up with the ACA--already happened. Make it harder to sign up for the ACA. They have already cut the tax credits that are helping people that are in the ACA get resources to help with their healthcare costs. They are going after these things.

Here is one that you know really well. They are going after--as we talk about all of these parents struggling with children and family members with chronic diseases, we know one of the things that help people with chronic diseases is having access to fresh, healthy foods. But they are cutting access to that for our kids going to school.

This administration has not only overseen in 71 days a rise in inflation, a rise in the cost of groceries, a lowering of people's 401(K)s with the stock market going on; it is not only bringing economic chaos, but they are already hurting people on the basic delivery of their services--from taking thousands of jobs out of Social Security, making it harder for people who have some problem to get it solved, to the VA, to the ACA.

I will definitely yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Is that your question?

I will answer that question by avoiding it because in New Jersey, there are so many great patron saints, from the great Bon Jovi, to the great Bruce Springsteen, to the incredible Queen Latifah, to the ``Chairman of the Board'' from New Jersey, the great Frank Sinatra. So I am not going to pick. We have so many great singers, rappers like Redman. We are just a thriving State of--Count Basie. There are just too many. I would not force you to do that. Of course, if it is Prince--

Thank you, Senator. I will answer that.

I see Ron Wyden has come to the floor--for both Amy and me, one of the chair people or, at this point, the ranking member of one of the great committees.

To Amy Klobuchar's question, I read a lot of angry letters--people who were demanding of me to do something to stop them--do something different: Stand up. Speak up, Senator. I am afraid.

Stand up. Speak up, Senator. I am so angry.

Stand up. Speak up, Senator. The services for my disabled child are threatened.

Stand up, speak up.

That is one of the reasons I am doing this, why my staff and I talked about this for so many days. Do something to show, to let our constituents know, to elevate their voices on the floor, to read their letters, to read their statements. It is not just New Jerseyans like you, but hundreds and hundreds of people who are calling us from other States.

But I am most moved by the letters that tell me about their pain or their challenges or their fears. But they end that question with your question: I am here to help. Tell me how I can help.

I am here to help. Tell me how I can help.

And you said it, Senator.

I read the letter of John McCain last night, his letter explaining his vote. It was so beautiful. It was tough, like he was. It was hard on the whole body. But he called to principles. Senator Schumer was here when I read it. It was eerie because he was describing what was wrong then, which is the same thing here--that we do need to make our country better. We do need to have a bolder vision for healthcare, a bolder vision for Social Security. We need to make them work for the people, but we are not doing it here in this body.

And this man who is not acting like a President but is trashing our constitutional traditions, violating our laws, as he is getting tied up in court but ignoring court orders--and when he gets a decision he doesn't like, he trashes the judges so badly that the Supreme Court itself finds that it has to go out and tell him to stop it.

What stopped healthcare from being taken away the last time wasn't the persuasive powers of anybody on this side of the political aisle of the Senate convincing anybody over there. I would like to think it was my eloquence for Lisa Murkowski. I would like to think it was my high- minded intellect that, somehow, was damaged playing too much football, but that, somehow, I got the right argument to Susan Collins. That wasn't it. I would like to think it was my ability to stand up to John McCain, himself. No, none of that. It was the people. It was the people.

You remember the little lobbyists in their wheelchairs, rolling up to Senators and speaking their heart, telling them their pain, their fear. It was people coming here and marching; people coming and flooding the calls, like they are doing now; people writing letters; people marching; people in their States, from all political spectrums, coming in and saying: This is wrong. This is wrong. This is wrong.

And so if you are asking me what we can do, I know what we can do, but we have to, as the great song--Senator Klobuchar, I had my staff print a bunch of statements I sent them. I sent them because I knew they were some of my favorite people from history. There is one here by Webster, one by Jefferson, ``Letter from Birmingham Jail,'' Langston Hughes, something by Harper Lee, Emma Lazarus.

But here is one. Here is the answer in a poem. And forgive me for reading this. I wanted to do it at some point today. This is perfect. I see my Senator here may have a question. But I love this poem. It was written and put to song by a man named James Weldon Johnson. He was an educator, a poet, a civil rights activist. He was born in the great State of Florida. He said that this is what we have to do: ``Lift Every Voice and Sing.''

Lift every voice and sing,

Till Earth and Heaven ring,

Ring with the harmonies of Liberty;

Let our rejoicing rise

High as the list'ning skies,

Let it resound loud as the rolling sea.

[We must] sing a song full of the faith that the dark past

has taught us,

Sing a song full of the hope that present has brought us;

Facing the rising sun of a new day begun,

Let us march on till victory is won.

It doesn't ignore the wretchedness of our history. It speaks to the truth and the excitement and the hope about that past and the virtues that our ancestors gave us. It goes on:

Stony the road we trod,

Bitter the chast'ning rod,

Felt in the days when hope unborn had died;

Yet with a steady beat,

Have not our weary feet

Come to the place for which our fathers sighed?

We have come over a way that with tears has been watered.

We have come, treading our path through the blood of the

slaughtered,

Out from the gloomy past,

Till now we stand at last

Where the white gleam of the bright star is cast.

The last stanza:

God of our weary years,

God of our silent tears,

Thou who has brought us thus far on the way;

Thou who hast by Thy might,

Led us into the night,

Keep us forever in the path, we pray.

Lest our feet stray from the places, our God, where we met

Thee,

Lest our hearts, drunk with the wine of the world, we

forget Thee;

Shadowed beneath Thy hand,

May we forever stand,

True to our God,

True to [this] our native land.

What can we do? Do like our ancestors did. What can we do? Do like the people who never gave up, even when this country they loved didn't love them back. They kept fighting, kept pushing.

Senator Klobuchar, in my time in the Senate with you, we have seen some of the most amazing, shocking moments with the Obergefell case in the Supreme Court recognizing the humanity, the dignity, the equal rights of the LGBTQ Americans to have love and marry.

We have seen fights, in this time that we have been here, where we have seen victories on healthcare that made such a difference in people's lives. We have seen the fights while we have been here, some of the most painful moments, where we have seen the arc of the moral universe bent not by the people here, not by the people in this body. Do you think we got suffrage because a bunch of men on the Senate floor said: OK, guys, come on. Put your hands in here. Ready to give women the right to vote on three. Ready, break.

That is not how it happened. That is not how it happened. The power of the people is greater than the people in power.

Do you think we got civil rights because one day, Strom Thurmond, after filibustering for 24 hours--do you think we got civil rights because he came to the floor one day and said: I have seen the light. Let those Negro people have the right to vote.

No, we got civil rights because people marched for it, sweat for it, and John Lewis bled for it.

So I am scared too. But fear is a necessary precondition to courage. I am angry too. But my mom told me: Never let your anger consume you. Channel it. Fuel it so it can help your love be greater and stronger.

Amy Klobuchar, that is what this moment needs. Our job in this body is to be truth tellers. Our job, just as you said so brilliantly, is to elevate the voices of the people of the country.

You are right, Amy Klobuchar. This is the people's House. It is article I of the Constitution, and it is under assault. Article I is under assault. Our spending powers, our budgetary powers, the power to establish Agencies like the Department of Education and USAID--it is under assault by a President that doesn't respect this document.

And how do we stop them? I am sorry to say, we hold powerful positions. We were elected by great States, but we are in the minority right now. You spelled it out in the beginning of your questions to me. It will take three people of conscience on that side. It will take four here.

I am going back to my book because there is somebody that you know--I don't know if my staff put it in at the last moment. Yes, they did-- Margaret Chase Smith, whom you know.

Margaret Chase Smith, a U.S. Senator from Maine, a Republican. When a demagogue rose in the land exploiting people's fear, deporting Jews who were not citizens of this country because they were accusing them of being Communists, at a time that this body was being twisted and contorted to the will of a demagogue, where nobody had the courage to stand up, it was a woman from the Republican Party that stood--I don't know--somewhere in this body.

Her feet might have been tired. Her heart might have been hurt. She might

have been afraid of the consequences to stand up to people preaching the Red Scare. But this woman in this body, a rare thing in those years--this woman in this body, which our Founders--to those imperfect geniuses who wrote this Constitution, a woman in this body wasn't imagined by our Founders. Thank God they called upon us to make a more perfect Union. And generations of activists finally made it real that women could serve in this body. She had the courage, the audacity to call her own party to task.

I read her words. She said:

I don't believe that the Republican party is in any sense a

party of fear, but I do believe that the Republican Party has

made an alliance with the Four Horsemen of fear--the fear of

communism, the fear of labor unions, the fear of the future,

the fear of progress. I think it is high time that we

remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the

Constitution.

She continues:

I think that it is high time that we remembered that the

Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of

speech but also the freedom of trial by [jury].

This great Senator, this great Republican, said:

Whether it is criminal prosecutions in the court or

character prosecutions in the Senate, there is little

political distinction when the life of a person has been

ruined.

Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in

making character assassinations are all too frequently those

who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic

principles [of what it means to be an American]--the right to

criticize.

Without thinking the President is going to drag you from the Oval Office for criticizing him.

The right to hold unpopular beliefs.

That if you have a belief I find contemptible, it does not mean I can disappear you from a city street.

She goes on:

The right to protest.

That just for assembly and speaking up, that is not a right to cut hundreds of billions of dollars for universities' science funding.

The right to independent thought.

The exercise of these rights should not cost one single

American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood

nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or

livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who

holds unpopular beliefs.

Like a law firm that represents suing the President and now has their very firm, their very livelihoods, the legal secretaries and others come after them.

Margaret Chase Smith goes on to call her party to be a woman of conscience; to stand up and say ``the American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as `Communists' or `Fascists' by their opponents. Freedom of speech,'' she says, ``is not what it used to be in America. It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.''

Dear God, if I stand up in this body and say it is wrong to put Pete Hegseth in the Cabinet as Secretary of Defense because he is unqualified--he is unqualified; he is unqualified--look at a Signal chat to see how unqualified he is.

Margaret Chase Smith continues:

As a Republican, I say to my colleagues on this side of the

aisle that the Republican party faces a challenge today that

is not unlike the challenge it faced back in Lincoln's day.

The Republican party so successfully met that challenge that

it emerged from the Civil War as the champion of a united

nation--in addition to being the party which unrelentingly

fought loose spending and loose programs.

I doubt if the Republican Party could--simply because I

don't believe the American people will uphold any political

party that puts political exploitation above national

interest. Surely we Republicans aren't that desperate for

victory.

I don't want to see the Republican Party win that way.

While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican

Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American

people. Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the

Republican Party and the two-party system [itself] that has

protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a

one-party system.

You ask me, Amy Klobuchar, what do we need to do? We need to call to the conscience of our comrades in the people's branch and say: How could you go along with a reconciliation that will put trillions of dollars of debt on our children and our children's children? How could you go along with cutting $800 billion for Medicaid only to give tax cuts to the wealthiest, to disproportionately go to the wealthiest? How could you, in good conscience--if you are a fiscal hawk, if you are a Christian conservative, how could you hurt the weak to benefit the rich and powerful? That is the answer to your question.

The people of the United States of America--all of us--have to stand up and say: No, not on my watch. I am a Republican; I am a veteran; I am a police officer; I am a firefighter; I am a teacher--not in America. We won't allow this. We won't allow this. We won't allow this.

I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator.

I am hearing a lot of fear, a lot of anger. I am hearing heads of hospitals say that this is outrageous, the threats to our hospitals in New Jersey. I am hearing heads of critical health services tell me what the Medicaid cuts will mean to their organizations. I am hearing from Catholic priests who are doing extraordinary things in service of their communities. I am hearing from citizens who are veterans who got fired from their jobs.

I am hearing from people, as I read letters, who work in the Social Security Agency and the chaos that has been created and the deteriorating service to seniors. I have heard from seniors who are terrified about what is being done to Social Security and how it might affect their lives.

I am hearing demands from our constituents, people demanding, Senator, that we do something about the outrages they are seeing.

I think that when I hear New Jerseyans, by larger and larger numbers--and I will be back in my State. I know we were planning meetings and a townhall and a lot more this weekend. But I have to say now, more than ever, we need more of it. We need more of it.

And one of the reasons I am here is because I want to elevate those voices of my constituents. I want to tell the stories that my constituents are writing in about and lift their voices and tell them that they are seen; they are heard.

I have been going through section by section, as you pointed out: Social Security, a section on healthcare, a section on education and the Department of Education and the work that it does. I have been going point by point through.

This is the agenda. I didn't know how much of it I could get through. But we laid it out. We have binders for each one of these issues. Immigration, we went through. We have housing, the environment, farmers and food, veterans, the corruption that has been normalized by this President, the rule of law, public safety--all the ways that we know that there is a crisis in our country, and we, as a nation, need to be more attuned to it and doing more to meet this crisis, to rise up and defend our country, defend our well-being.

And all the while, things are happening that you know. You are the chairman of the Finance Committee, and you have these insights. We have talked about them, about what is about to happen in this reconciliation process. I mean, that is one of the more stunning things that is almost immediate on this floor.

I think we are going to see about the tariffs tomorrow and see how far the President will go. But we do know, whatever it is, it is going to affect prices that are going to continue to go up for Americans. This inflation has continued to go up for Americans as the stock market continues to go down, as people's 401(k)s have lost so much money.

The uncertainty I am hearing from businesses in New Jersey, the chaos that they feel about the economy--the consumer confidence in this country has gone way down.

If you ask the question: Are you better off than you were 71 days ago, not many Americans could say that they are better off. Their costs are higher. Their groceries are higher. They are soon to see everything from car prices to food go higher. Their retirement security is under attack. Their healthcare is under attack. They are losing their Department of Education. They are less safe from infectious diseases abroad. There are so many things that we have to talk to and try to stop.

You are our leader on the Finance Committee, and you know that the tax thing they are trying to run through now. I am trying to get my head wrapped around these whacky parliamentary things that even the podcast I listen to in the morning to inform me say they even spoke about this years and years ago. But they said, oh, this is too crazy. We can't do this, to try to tell the American people somehow that the trillions of dollars of tax cuts that we are going to give disproportionately to the wealthiest people of all, oh, there is nothing to see here; that has a zero impact on the budget, so we can do it through reconciliation. That is the biggest hocus-pocus, manufactured artifice that I have ever seen to obscure the truth in America.

What the Republicans are trying to do is cut massively into healthcare for Americans in order to give tax cuts disproportionately to the wealthiest who don't need it and to drive up the deficits, making our children and our children's children have a more dangerous economy and higher and higher debt payments to make--debt payments that will skyrocket higher than any expense the government makes.

We are literally about to see something go through reconciliation that threatens to sacrifice our children's future so that the richest of the rich can get richer.

I know there are a lot of people who are angry, who are worried, who are feeling overwhelmed, who are struggling to make ends meet. But I know of only one way to do this--and I am trying to do it myself--is to do things differently, to stand up, to speak up, to not act like this is just normal in our country.

There is not a President, from Eisenhower to Reagan to Bush, on the Republican side who could ever imagine a day where, in a U.N. vote, we side with Russia and China against the Western democracies that we saved in World War II; that we stormed the beaches of Normandy for; that we did the Berlin airlift for; that we did the Marshall Plan for.

We designed the world order, and now we are turning our back on it. We designed the rules-based world order, and we are turning our back on those organizations, from trashing NATO to getting out of the World Health Organization, to getting out of the group of countries coming together to deal with climate change.

We are not leading the planet Earth anymore. Our allies are saying openly they can't trust us. The quotes are unbelievable by our allies:

Generations of Americans all know one thing: Russia is our

adversary. This principle was reinforced after Russia's

brutal, unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February of 2022.

The American public knows a lot about Putin and his cronies and what they have done to the brave people of Ukraine. Russia has abducted over 19,000 children, taking them from their families and homeland.

Russia has targeted civilians, bombing hospitals and schools, including a strike on a children's hospital during the supposed cease- fire negotiations just a few weeks ago.

Russian forces have raped and assaulted Ukrainian civilians, and Russia has tortured prisoners of war.

One would think, given all the horrors inflicted by Russia, that the United States would continue to treat Russia as the adversary and the pariah as other Western democracies treat it. But that is not what Trump has done. He has done the opposite.

On the third anniversary of Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, the administration joined Russia and North Korea in voting against the resolution condemning the innovation that has killed over 12,000 Ukrainian civilians and injured 30,000. Imagine that.

I had the Foreign Minister of a great ally in NATO in my office looking at me and saying, basically, What the heck?

My friend Chris Murphy, on the floor, we sit close to each other. He is further up the dais than I in Foreign Relations, and this stuff is insanity.

Here is NBC News:

President Donald Trump has said Ukraine--not Russia--

started the war. He's called [the] Ukrainian President

Volodymyr Zelenskyy--not Vladimir Putin--[he called

Zelenskyy] a dictator. Meanwhile, Trump's administration is

standing down on a suite of tough anti-Kremlin policies.

In just over a month, Trump has executed a startling

realignment of American foreign policy, effectively throwing

U.S. support behind Moscow and rejecting the tight alliance

with Kyiv cultivated by former President Joe Biden.

The extraordinary pivot has upended decades of hawkish

foreign policy toward Russia that provided a rare area of

bipartisan consensus in an increasingly divided nation.

Trump's recent moves have drawn international attention,

unsettling U.S. allies in Europe and thrilling conservative

populists who favor a turn away from Zelenskyy.

The new posture was put in stark relief on Friday during a

tense Oval Office meeting--

We all remember this--

between Trump and Zelenskyy. The leaders clashed in front of

the press, raising questions about the future of American

support for Kyiv.

Alliances and partners around the world are our biggest strength against any U.S. adversary or competitor, from China to Russia to Iran to North Korea. We are the strongest Nation on the planet Earth, but our strength is multiplied and magnified when we stand in alliance with those nations that share our values and are bonded to us and are committed to us.

In fact, the only time article 5 in the United Nations--that article that says that if one person in NATO is attacked, everyone is attacked and they all join together--that one time it happened was 9/11, when our NATO allies stood up with America.

And so look at NATO. It has been the bedrock of the international order for 80 years. It was created in 1949 by 12 countries, including the United States,

to provide collective security and, in many ways, provide collective security against the Soviet Union. Since then, 20 more countries have joined NATO through 10 rounds of enlargement, bringing the total number of NATO countries to 32. The most recent additions were Sweden in 2024 and Finland in 2023, who applied to join NATO in 2022 after Russia invaded Ukraine, because those countries are realizing that the authoritarian dictator that Putin is--who threatens his smaller neighbors--those other nations have realized they should be standing with NATO; that we have a principle of collective defense, as I said, enshrined in article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. ``Collective defense'' means an attack on one ally is considered an attack against all allies.

A strong NATO has made America safer and stronger and more prosperous. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize this. I have been in this body for 12 years. I have been told by people who I have learned from about foreign policy when I came here as a mayor and leaned on people like Chris Coons and leaned on people like Chris Murphy, leaned on people like John McCain, leaned on people like Lindsey Graham, leaned on people like Senator Rubio.

We helped pass a law that enshrined congressional action before the President can withdraw from NATO. That law passed with overwhelming bipartisan support--87 Senators voted yes.

Senator Rubio, now Secretary of State, said:

NATO serves as an essential military alliance that protects

shared military interests and enhances America's

international presence. Any decision to leave the alliance

should be rigorously debated and considered by the U.S.

Congress with the input of the American people.

Two weeks ago, though, on March 19, 2025, in response to news that the Pentagon may give up the role of supreme allied commander in Europe, a position held by an American general since the NATO alliance was formed in 1949, Republican Senator Wicker and Representative Rogers signaled their opposition in an extraordinary joint statement warning Donald Trump that that change would ``risk undermining American deterrence around the globe.''

I want to read some of the comments of NATO partners about the damage that has been done in just the last 71 days of Trump's leadership in upending the world order that has helped to keep America stronger and safer and more prosperous.

The EU's top diplomat said ``the free world needs a new leader.'' Think about that. Think about that. The EU's top diplomat has said, in response to Donald Trump, that now the free world needs a new leader.

Every President of my lifetime was seen as the leader of the free world, and now the rest of the free world, its top diplomat, is saying it is time for that to change.

The new German Chancellor said:

My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as

quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really

achieve independence from the USA.

He went on to say:

I never thought I would have to say something like this on

a television program. But after Donald Trump's statements

last week at the latest, it is clear that the Americans, at

least this part of the Americans, this administration, are

largely indifferent to the fate of Europe.

Our ancestors saved Europe. Our ancestors stormed beaches in Normandy, paratrooped into Europe, liberated concentration camps. Our ancestors sacrificed blood and treasure for Europe. It turned Germany from one of history's worst despotic states into a global economic power and a democracy.

We were there at the Berlin airlift. We were there for the Marshall Plan. And now Europe is saying:

It is clear that the Americans, at least this part of the

Americans, this administration, are largely indifferent to

the fate of Europe.

That is not true. That is not true. And as long as I have breath in my body and blood in my veins, I will join with the other people on both sides of the aisle--God bless you, Roger Wicker--for standing with the understanding that America is the strongest Nation in the world, but our strength is multiplied and magnified when we stand with our allies, from Germany to Japan, from Australia to Iceland; that when our country stands up, we don't bully our neighbors like Canada. We don't threaten our allies like Iceland, like Greenland. We don't threaten smaller, weaker nations like Panama. We don't upend the world order.

Donald Trump does not speak for me. He does not speak for the traditions of this body. He doesn't speak for the people that are buried--Americans that are buried in fields in Germany and in France and all over Europe.

Here is former Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin's speech to NATO and the Atlantic Council.

On April 4, 1949 . . . 12 democracies came together in the

wake of two world wars and at the dawn of a new Cold War.

They all remembered, as President Truman put it, ``the

sickening blow of unprovoked aggression.''

That is what Truman said. They were coming together against the sickening blow of unprovoked aggression.

Do you hear that, Putin?

So they vowed to stand together for their collective

defense and to safeguard freedom and democracy across Europe

and North America. They made a solemn commitment, declaring

that an armed attack against one ally would be considered

``an attack against them all.''

Now that commitment was enshrined in Article Five of the

North Atlantic Treaty. It was the foundation of NATO. And it

still is.

On that bedrock, we have built the strongest and most

successful defensive alliance in human history.

And, I will say, one of the most prosperous blocs of democratic countries.

Throughout the Cold War, NATO deterred Soviet aggression

against Western Europe--and prevented a third world war. In

the 1990s, NATO used air power to stop ethnic cleansing in

Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Kosovo. And the day after

September 11, 2001, when al-Qaeda terrorists attacked our

country, including slamming a plane into the Pentagon--

Not far from here--

NATO invoked Article Five for the first and only time in its

history.

I yield for a question. While retaining the floor, I yield to one of my best friends in the Senate. I yield to one of the smartest guys I know. I yield to the guy who handed me the chairmanship of the committee that oversaw world public health and Africa and still reminds me that he knows more Swahili than I will ever know.

I yield to the guy who when he speaks up in the Senate, people on both sides of the aisle listen. I yield to my friend who has real friendships, who when I came to him and said: We are seeing the worst famines on the planet Earth; that Joe Biden didn't put enough money into the World Food Programme, he went to another appropriator over there, another friend of ours, Lindsey Graham, and together we got billions of dollars of more that saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

You are a prince of a man. You are my friend. You are somebody that is a hero, who folks don't know their name and the countries that you have affected with your strength on foreign policy.

Dear God, my friend, I yield the floor for a question, while retaining the floor. Excuse me. I want to say that correctly. I yield for a question while retaining the floor. I do not yield the floor.

Not at this moment.

I have not read the paper this day.

First of all, I want to say this is when, when you ask me a question--to yield for a question--I want to say I yield for a question while retaining the floor, and I want to say to my colleague, I am familiar with some of this, but I--if as a part of a question to me and not anything resembling a colloquy, I will yield for a question while retaining the floor if you have another question.

(Mr. MORENO assumed the Chair.)

To my colleague, are you familiar with an article ``USDA halts millions of dollars worth of deliveries to food banks''?

I pretty sure I am. I am.

Therefore, if you are going to ask me a question, I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

I am familiar. I have mentioned it earlier in these last 15 hours, so thank you.

I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

I am very familiar with that. It haunts me that when America was in crisis--I live 11 miles from Ground Zero.

Yes, I am. That country that has shed more blood than any of our allies, side-by-side, fighting with America is Canada--is Canada.

Oh, it is Denmark.

Thank you very much. I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Yes, I am familiar. And I am grateful for your making those points.

As we threaten Greenland, Denmark tried to bully them in a way that-- with rhetoric that fashions more after the behavior of Vladimir Putin's threatening before the Ukrainian invasion, as opposed to what allies do who are grateful for shared sacrifice, who are grateful for shared honor, who are grateful for shared prosperity.

What is happening right now, to me, is shameful. How we are treating our allies is unacceptable. And the tariffs that will be imposed will indeed hurt Canada and other NATO allies, but they will hurt us in the long run more, not only with the immediacy of the driving up of prices for Americans, but what the President is doing as he turns his back on Republican traditions and Democratic traditions, it is going to hurt us more as a nation in the long run as other countries look to other places for leadership of the free world.

I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

I hope that the colleague of mine who, again, has been a mentor, a friend on all they things foreign policy, my belief is that he is referring to when General Mattis sat before the United States Senate and said very pointedly: If you cut the foreign aid, if you cut organizations like USAID, if you cut programs in the State Department, then buy me more bullets.

I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

So this is the powerful thing about my friend whom I went with on my first trip to the continent of Africa as a Senator, and I remember flying into Zimbabwe. The leader of that country had passed away, and you always correct me on my pronunciation so I am going to try my best pronunciation--Mnangagwa.

Thank you, sir.

The alligator was his reputation--had taken over as his leadership. And we, this bipartisan merry group of Senators were going there to sit there in a unified, bipartisan way and say to this new leader: You need to honor democratic principles. You need to honor free and fair elections, that we want to be your partner, we want to be your friend, but it is time for a new peaceful democratic Zimbabwe.

And as we landed--I don't know if you remember--he was landing, too, in the airport. And he was coming from China. He was coming from China which has different values than we have.

In fact, you and I both see now all over the continent of Africa a competition. We come with USAID. We come with PEPFAR. We come with a program called AGOA, helping with economic development. We come with scientists that stand in the breach against the worst infectious diseases.

One of the most courageous things I saw Chris Coons do in my life was when the Ebola scare was happening 8 years ago and was starting to show up on our shores, you did something that people were afraid to do.

You went to Africa to visit with the people from our country that are there fighting Ebola. You had to come and quarantine when you came back to make sure you didn't have it. It was amazing because you were going there to say to the world, I, Chris Coons, Senator from Delaware, is here, but America is here. America knows that an infectious disease anywhere is a threat to public health everywhere. America knows that when it comes to the globe, Martin Luther King was right in his spiritual proclamation in the ``Letter from the Birmingham Jail'' that we are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a common garment of destiny, that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

I have been to where you have been, Kenya to Tanzania, traveling with you to Ouagadougou. You used to make me smile when I used to say the capital of Burkina Faso. Ouagadougou, my friend.

There is a word I learned from a language, the Bantu language. It basically roughly translates into this:

I am because we are. I am because we are.

America has learned the power of soft power. General Mattis knew much cheaper investment, much more success, string of successes we have had in the last 25 years have been with our soft power, not with our 20- year wars in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

General Mattis knew that. He gave wisdom. He said: Do not cut the State Department. Do not cut USAID. They are making an invaluable contribution to fighting terrorism, to fighting instability, to spreading democracy, to fighting infectious diseases when we go and stand.

But now, we are shrinking. We are retreating. We are pulling back. We are cutting aid. And when crises are happening like we are seeing in Myanmar right now, we don't even have the personnel to be there to help people. But you know who does? China. And they show up, and they leverage influence--you and I know this--to the continent of Africa. Here, take our money, take our money. Be in debt to us now. We have control. By the way, we want a military port here like they have right next to us in Djibouti. The Chinese are playing the long game, and Trump is playing into their hands and weakening our Nation, not just against infectious diseases, not just against the global fight against climate change, not just against the economic opportunities that we are missing out in the Continent of Africa.

Guess what, if you don't know this: By 2050, one out of every four people on the planet Earth will live on the continent of Africa. One of three working-age people on the planet Earth will be on the continent of Africa. China is playing the long game, not only critical rare earth minerals but the economic power of the most populous continent on the planet.

And what are we doing with Trump? We are doing the Michael Jackson. We are moonwalking away from that continent, saying: China, go ahead.

I love you Chris Coons. I am the ranking member of this subcommittee inspired by you, Chris Coons, and the work that you and me and Lindsay Graham and John McCain did over the last 10 years is being swept away as our allies are saying frightening things; that they have to look elsewhere for leadership and not to the people who saved the free world.

It is a shame what we are doing to my grandparents' generation, with my grandmother with her war bonds and her victory garden and my grandfather building bombers at the Willow Run bomber plant in Michigan. All the country came together and sacrificed for the war effort.

We saved Europe. We bled and died on that European Continent. There are--and you have seen them--these fields of crosses and you see some Stars of David and you see some Muslim graves. You see it all.

Our American boys died. And yet we still invested in that continent. We still invested with the Marshall Plan. We still invested with the Berlin Airlift. We still stood up to communism. And a great Republican President--a great Republican President--who stood up in front of a Russian autocratic leader and said: Gorbachev, tear down this wall.

And what is Trump going to be remembered for? I really love Vladimir Putin. Zelenskyy is a dictator. You are my friend.

You and I both visit VA halls, and occasionally, we meet a World War II veteran. In my State, there are some incredible men that still wear their hat. If they can, they stand with pride. They are called the ``greatest generation.''

And what are we doing to their legacy? What are we doing to their legacy, Chris Coons?

I am going to keep talking unless somebody wants to say: Will the Senator yield for a question?

I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

I so appreciate the Senator, and I want to tell folks that when I wrote my book, I thought I knew this man here. I did a lot about environmental justice in my book. I did a lot about these toxic chemicals out there that are threatening our people.

I came to the office of the Senate one day so humbled because I told him: I

knew you as my colleague. We both got here around the same time. But I had no idea of the kinds of things you did in the U.S. House of Representatives, how many bills that made a difference in people's lives in Boston, in Newark, in Camden, in Passaic. You are one of the people that, after a few years here, I discovered in 2015, writing my book, how amazing your career is. And now having served in the Senate about the same amount of time, I am so grateful for you.

You have been so consistent in why you came here, not forgetting the people you have been fighting for for your whole career. So your question is right aligned with that point.

It was said earlier about things that humanity's biggest fight, humanity's biggest consistent theme is us versus them or just us. I don't like when you pit one group in this country against another group. It is not us versus the billionaires or us versus the Republicans; it is understanding what is best for ``we the people.'' How can we create a more perfect Union?

I will tell you this right now, we are a Union in trouble. Compared to our global peers, we have higher disease rates, higher diabetes rates, higher cancer rates, higher maternal mortality rates, higher premature birth rates, and higher infant mortality rates.

There are so many things going on in this country that should not go on. But yet we are a nation of utter abundance. We are a nation of incredible wealth and resources, and we have proven in our past to be a nation of incredible vision. That is why I don't understand why we are playing so small, why we have a President that is playing so small. It is not coming here like Presidents of the past and saying ``We together,'' from Reagan, to Clinton, to Obama. There is a big challenge, America, and we together are going to get into the room and do sausage making, Republicans and Democrats, and we are going to find a way to write great legislation.

Whatever you want to say about Joe Biden, he was a big President because he didn't try to do things by Executive fiat or this quote of Donald Trump's I put here, ``the primacy of the Executive,'' ignoring our Constitution.

Do you know how many bipartisan bills were hammered out here? I see another dear friend of mine, Mark Warner. Do you know how many bipartisan bills Mark Warner was at the table for, my senior Senator who was chairman of Intelligence? We did a bipartisan infrastructure act when Trump, in his first term, had infrastructure week every other week. We did a Chips and Science bill. He is trying to claw back the money. But we, together--I still remember that classified SCIF where the whole Senate was there and our national security team, and Gina Raimondo put forward the crisis in our country, the vulnerabilities, and we came out of that room, we got into our rooms, and we hammered out a great Chips and Science bill.

Decades went by in this body with doing nothing on gun violence-- decades. Courageous people on the Republican side, friends of mine that surprised me that stood up--like Senator Cornyn--and said: We are going to do something. I have my lines, you have your lines, but let's find space in the middle.

We did programs. If you come to New Jersey, the community violence intervention money is lowering murder rates in places like Newark by over 50 percent and helping to get it done, along with our great law enforcement officers.

The incredible thing about that now is Trump is trying to claw back that money, violating the separation of powers because we decide how we are spending money in America, not the Executive. Read the Constitution.

So you and I both know that a big President would come here and say: Let's do some legislation.

But John McCain--and I read it in the middle of the night--but John McCain--it is really important--John McCain--I won't read it, but I will tell it--voted against the healthcare last time, the taking away of healthcare from millions of Americans, and said that it is because of the dysfunction of this body that we don't come together and do something bigger and bolder to provide better healthcare, to bring the ideas from both sides and expand the opportunities for Americans and replace the imperfections of the Affordable Care Act with smarter and better things.

Not Donald Trump. He is repeating--why?--the mistakes, but not with the ACA, which affects tens of millions of Americans, with Medicaid, which affects 70 to 100 million Americans. Why? You ask why. Well, we know why. There are two things that this will achieve--two things. One, as you said, it is because he wants to not just renew the Trump tax cuts but expand them to have disproportionate benefits to the wealthiest.

I wish the wealthiest in the country, names that we know, people like Elon Musk, would say: I don't want a tax cut. I wish he would say the truth: I don't need a tax cut.

But that is one of the reasons. He wants to renew a program that gave disproportionate money. But that is not the only reason. There is a cruelty in what he is doing. It is so offensive. He seems to have no respect for people with disabilities. He made fun of a journalist with a disability once. He seems to have no respect for people who are working hard and struggling but still can't make ends meet, no respect for people that are afraid of his language, of his threats. They think that what he is doing to Social Security might mean they don't have it.

What he is saying about Medicare and Medicaid are lies. He has more registered lies than any President of my lifetime. They don't think they can trust this President not to hurt them because he already is.

I was told by my parents that what defines you as a person is not what happens to you but how you choose to respond.

What happens to us as a nation is not what defines us. They can bomb us at Pearl Harbor and attack us on 9/11. The American character was defined by how we responded to those crises. Yes, there have been major political crises before, but we responded by bending the arc of our Nation more towards justice, taking care of more and more people, saying that we belong to each other in America. It is ``we the people.'' It is ``we the people.''

I see the standing of my friend Mark Warner. I don't know if he has a question, but I know what I am told to say if he asks me to yield for a question.

I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Yes.

Yes. Absolutely, yes.

I love that you gave that litany, Senator.

I benefited from your leadership on the Intel Committee. You are one of the people that--when things go down on planet Earth, you are one of the small handful of people with the highest security clearance here. You know before rank-and-file Senators do. We have had so many conversations about threat matrices and what our enemies are doing. You have sent me to the SCIF and said ``I can't talk to you about this; go down to the SCIF and ask for the information'' and helped me to fill out my understanding of national security.

But I am stunned by this President. All that I have read in the SCIF about what Russia is doing to this country--I am stunned and angry at this President and what he is doing to us by cozying up to Putin and turning his back on our allies.

But the sloppiness, the unqualified leaders that he has put in place--it has caused us to be more at risk. And Signalgate--you said it. If that had happened under any other President, Republican or Democrat, whoever controlled the Senate would have hearings. They would want to know: Was this pattern and practice? Did these Signal conversations happen before and we only know about this one because somehow you pulled in a journalist?

Well, that is a violation of the law because their disappearing messages were destroying government documents that the executive branch has a legal obligation to keep. And classified materials--putting it out there saying there was nothing classified about that, lying, then they put up the actual--if there is nothing classified, then release the whole thing.

To the wisdom of people like you--again, more wisdom and experience at intel than me--it is clear that was sensitive, probably classified. But we should be having hearings and accountability.

I keep going back to how this document is being undermined and attacked by this President. And one of the powers and responsibilities that we swore to uphold--every one of us swore to uphold that we are to be a check on the administration.

Before I yield to the next question from Senator Schumer, I want to talk about Senator Schumer. I want to say something and get it off my chest.

Senator Murphy, we passed the 15-hour mark. I want to thank Senator Murphy in particular because he has been with me the whole night. He hasn't left my side. In some ways, that repaid the 15 hours because we called Chuck Schumer 9 years ago--9 years ago. I remember exactly where we were standing when the three of us were on the phone. We asked Chuck to help us, for you to take the floor right down there and do a filibuster. We didn't know how long it was going to last. I committed to you I would be your aide-de-camp. And 15 hours you stood, Chris Murphy, saying this Nation shouldn't do business as usual for the Postmaster. The leader of the Senate, 9 years ago, said, ``I support you guys. Go ahead.''

So one of the first people I called was Senator Schumer and talked to about this--actually, it was Murphy. He did full circle for me and has been with me the whole 15 hours. The debt is paid, but I have fuel in the tank, man. The only reason you stopped wasn't because you couldn't go on anymore. We got a concession from Mitch McConnell. We got a concession to get two votes on commonsense gun safety that Republicans had put forward, like universal background checks in the past. But we lost that vote. On both occasions, 9 years apart, once when Murphy was the principal and now here, we had a leader who said: Yes, how can I help?

I want to thank Senator Schumer before, I suspect, he might ask and yield for a question, for being a friend, a partner, and one of the first people I turned to with this idea and encouraged me to go for it. ``Go for it, Cory.''

Thank you, Chuck Schumer.

I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Yes, I will, Leader Schumer. Earlier, or late last night, rather, I read dozens and dozens and dozens of letters from terrified people. The stories were heartbreaking as people rendered their pride and gave us insights into the more painful aspects of their lives.

I got emotional over one about a person talking about being diagnosed with Parkinson's and knowing the disease would be more and more debilitating, like I saw with my father, and demand more and more help. And she was paranoid that the burden on her family, they couldn't afford it.

I had these amazing--this one amazing letter about a person who said they were in a sandwich generation--two 90-something-year-old parents they were taking care of and two adult men--children--with disabilities. For all these people, like you saw in the nursing homes, Medicaid wasn't a plus or some kind of abundance heaped upon their lives. It helps them keep the fragile financial world they were living in stable. And it is not just the $880 billion cuts, Senator Schumer. Half of that or a quarter of that would cut services that would pull apart their whole lives--their ability to care for their loved ones, their ability to still work.

One person just said the transportation we get through Medicaid for my disabled child is the link that holds it all together. And callously and cruelly, they are talking about this, not in any kind of insightful way, not in any kind of ``here is how we can make it more efficient and help keep it.'' There is none of that thought or logic, bringing in experts because we read page after page after page from rural hospital leaders, of urban hospital leaders and more and more.

Your question is clearly that it is this crazy scheme right now to expand the Trump tax cuts that overwhelmingly disproportionately go to the wealthiest of us in America who need not our help; that would still yet expand the deficit by trillions of dollars, which means your children--and I know how proud a grandfather you are--your grandchildren would have to pay for that debt. They are stealing from your grandchildren so that the wealthiest amongst us could get bigger tax cuts and, at the same time, taking away medical coverage from the most vulnerable.

What is that? It is not who we are. It is not who we are, America.

And as much as people--thousands depended on us to save the ACA-- Medicaid affects millions and millions of more people. Wake up. They are coming after a vital program for American expectant mothers, for American children, for American disabled, for seniors like the ones you visited.

I have one more thing to get off my chest, sir. This is a little lighter. You heaped so many kind things on me, I don't know if you realize that never before in the history of America has a man from Brooklyn said so many complimentary things about a man from Newark.

Who play where? In New Jersey. This is not a colloquy. I hold the floor. I do not yield. Brooklyn stole the Nets--it is an injustice--from Newark. They stole the Nets. I do not yield the floor for a rebuttal. And the Giants and the Jets play in New Jersey. There is only one football team in New York, and that is the Bills.

I do not yield, but I do love and respect you. When I have the floor, I don't have to yield. The one time in my life I get the last word with my much more senior, much wiser friend and Senator.

OK, unrelated. As long as you give me that commitment, I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Thank you.

No, they don't.

I will.

So you and I both know that in 72 days now--it is the next day--that of the 72 days that Trump has been in office, he has caused havoc on the American economy, especially given the economy he inherited. Inflation is up. Prices are up. Consumer confidence is down. The stock market and people's 401(k)s--their retirement plans--are down. He continues to do things to rattle confidence, to raise prices, and to hurt not the billionaires--the people who can afford these things--but to hurt average Americans, who find housing prices too high and difficult to make ends meet.

Every time--and I have looked at the tariffs throughout history. In fact, one of my friends sent me this really funny clip I hope somebody will put up for me from, I think it was ``Ferris Bueller's Day Off'' where he was talking about tariffs and was like ``Bueller! Bueller!''-- or maybe it was another

movie. I am mixing it up. It shows my--

What is that?

Thank you.

But the tariffs haven't worked out for Republican Presidents who tried them during the Depression. The evidence is here. Learn from our history.

Smoot and Hawley. Yes, sir, I definitely remember those names from high school history.

God bless you, Mr. Al Gore and Mr. Perot.

So, yes, what he is going to do tomorrow is going to rattle the markets. What he is going to do tomorrow is raise prices for Americans. What he is going to do tomorrow is lie to folks and say this is something that China will pay or whoever will pay when actually it is the American consumers who will pay with higher prices and more economic insecurity.

This man--I will tell you this quote that Frederick Douglass once said. This I do remember.

He said:

The limits of tyranny are prescribed by the endurance of

those whom they oppress.

How much more will we take of this? How much more will we as America say ``Cut our Medicaid to give tax cuts to the billionaires. Take the Affordable Care Act, and take away tax credits. Take away enrollment support. Hey, come after Social Security. Cut thousands of people. Make customer service get worse,'' as said the Wall Street Journal? How much more of these indignities will we take as he turns our back on our allies? How much more will we take--how much more?--of a person who is doing tyrannical things as he takes our Constitution and continues to trash it as he is running into judge after judge after judge who is trying to stop him? But we have already seen that he wants to ignore judges or if he gets rulings he doesn't like, he trashes the judges, and even the Chief Justice, appointed by a Republican, says: No, no.

This is not right. This is not who we are. This is not how we do things in America.

How much more can we endure before we in the collective chorus of conviction in our country say: Enough is enough. Enough is enough. You are not going to get away with this.

Thank you. Thank you.

I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Yes.

Yes.

Amen. Amen.

You know, Reverend Warnock was here earlier and was preaching and quoting Scripture, but you are preaching the gospel of truth, my friend, from a civic gospel that speaks to the cares and the concerns of American hope and of the American dream and of the American Constitution, because you and I both know the answer to the question.

I have to say, for the folks who are watching, she is the great Senator from Massachusetts, but she used to be a professor in New Jersey.

She was a Rutgers professor. I was listening to her way before I got to the Senate when she was fighting for the CFPB, when she was fighting so people would not be taken advantage of. She established the first-ever Agency whose sole purpose was to stand up to the Big Bs--to big banks, to big corporate powers--and defend people. It is an institution that got billions and billions of dollars back into the pockets of the American consumers.

What did Donald Trump and DOGE do to an institution that we set up in Congress in a bipartisan way? They did something that is against the Constitution. They went after it to hack it to pieces so that it is no more.

But to add insult to injury, down here, we just had a vote on overdraft fees that was stunning to me because there is just no defense of it. It was a clear thing.

Some of the big banks said: Do you know what? We don't need those usury fees. It is actually wrong. Those are the big banks that stood up and did the right thing. But a handful of others were still taking advantage of people, and this Senate got to vote on which side are we on. And we failed.

So your question is right. You detail what is right about how people are getting hurt already, how the benefits of Social Security are already being affected, how rural Social Security offices are being closed already. And the question is why, under the guise of efficiency, but you are hurting our elders who deserve dignity in their retirement.

It is stunning to me, Senator Warren--stunning to me--that we are actually even having this discussion and having this debate when there has been not one congressional hearing about what Elon Musk is doing.

The letters I read earlier about Social Security were painful because people wanted to know what was being done with their most confidential and private information.

I want to continue because we were working through national security. And given the time, I want to rush to just read some stories of voices. I wanted to come to the floor and read people's voices, elevate voices.

So here is a voice, a statement from Julia Hurley from Bergen County,

Oh, God, yes, I will. I yield for a question while retaining the floor, Chris Murphy.

Senator Murphy, that is correct. You have been one of the most articulate voices for this decision--I shouldn't even call it a decision--this reckless trashing of USAID, this vilification of the proud men and women that stand in Ebola outbreaks, that stand in terrorism, that stand against hardships and ethnic cleansing, that stand against malnutrition.

You are so good at pointing out that those are American interests and that not to do that makes this a more dangerous and unsafe world, a world where countries like ours want to lob missiles into Yemen, post- facto of crises.

So I hear you, Chris Murphy, and I answer your question with a simple understanding that what you are saying is right. And I am going to tell you that I have got so many others to read, but we are way behind schedule of where we wanted to be at this point. We are way behind at about 16 hours and 24 minutes.

And so, to obey my staff, as Senators are told to do, I want to move quickly to just the housing issues. So I want to move quickly to housing and start, really, with the theme of affordable housing.

Again, we keep returning to the economy and how the Trump administration is making things worse in every area, especially for people struggling. And so let me be clear that, for decades, under Democrat and Republican Presidents, it has become increasingly difficult for working-class Americans to afford a home.

In recent years, this nationwide housing affordability crisis for so many Americans has nearly reached a breaking point. The crisis now impacts nearly all Americans, shared across all demographics. Regardless of partisan identification, race, age, gender, education, or whether you own or rent your home, we in America are in a housing crisis.

According to the Center for American Progress, 80 percent of Americans living in rural communities believe housing affordability is getting worse, while 72 percent of residents in urban areas feel the same way. In October 2024, the Center for American Progress found, no matter your ZIP Code, the goal of homeownership in America is drifting further out of reach all across the country.

Over the past two decades, housing costs have dramatically outpaced income growth in the United States, increasing the rent burden, heightening barriers for homeownership. The Housing Price Index, a gauge of how selling prices for single-family homes have changed over time, was more than 50 percent higher in July 2024 than it was in July 2019.

According to the Brookings Institution, the U.S. housing market was short 4.9 million housing units in 2023 relative to the mid-2000s. Decades of policy at the Federal, State, and local levels have all contributed to this reality. Let's not blame some rank partisanship; it has been decades in the making.

There are far too few homes in the United States, and there are far too few homes being built in the United States. The cost of housing keeps rising. Rents continue to skyrocket. Median home prices are on the rise, which makes it harder and harder for families to make ends meet.

The vast majority of young Americans are hard-pressed to save for the chance of one day having enough for a downpayment to buy a home. Almost half of all renters in America struggle to pay their rent. Almost half of all renters are struggling to pay the rent, devoting more than one- third of their income to housing costs.

Since the pandemic, rents have jumped more than 12 percent year over year. Hidden rental fees and other expenses on already cost-burdened tenants continue to mount as landlords assume more and more power and leverage, leaving tenants and prospective home buyers with nowhere to turn.

Last year, NPR methodically walked through the supply shortage that is impacting our country.

But before I read this article, I see that my colleague, my friend, the extraordinary leader from Maryland, is here, and I think he has a question for me first.

I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Yes. Yes.

You are putting it right. Donald Trump made commitments to America. We have quotes of him at rally after rally. He said: ``Grocery,'' that is a really great word, he said. I am going to bring down grocery prices.

Well, grocery prices are up dramatically. The American dream, many of us see that as owning a home. Well, you said it: Home prices are already up, but with these tariffs, they can go upward of 10 percent or more. You can be sure that the Canadian lumber coming down here is going to be expensive.

You can see Donald Trump making it more difficult to access healthcare, and this massive reconciliation is going to be a direct attack on working-class healthcare, on healthcare of expectant mothers, on healthcare of Americans with disabilities, on healthcare of the majority of seniors in nursing homes.

I am about to go to my next chapter. It is all going to be about how Trump is rolling back commonsense protections for clean air and water. Elizabeth Warren said it very powerfully: He is reducing services, which is a service cut to people with Social Security. In so many ways, Americans should see these crises looming--these attacks--but ask yourself one economic question: With the stock market, which just had its worst quarter in years, and people's retirement savings, if they have it in 401(k)'s, is going down--ask yourself this question. I ask Americans, please, ask yourself this financial question: Am I better off than I was 71 days ago? Am I better off or worse off?

And this is before he has even gotten going, because we see what is about to happen with this whole sham reconciliation process. They are already trying to change the rules to obscure what they are doing.

This is what they are doing. Three things you should take home:

Are we going to let them again--like they did with the ACA, with the Affordable Care Act--come after healthcare for 70-plus million Americans by doing their proposed $880 billion cuts?

Are we going to allow them to blow a hole so big, in the trillions of dollars? They are going to push it out over 10 years. They are going to create such a deficit in our country that our children's children--they are stealing from our children's children and putting on a deficit that they are going to have to pay for.

No. 3, are they going to let them do all of that to renew tax cuts that the Congressional Budget Office, a very independent Agency, says very clearly would give trillions of dollars of tax cuts that go disproportionately to the wealthiest in our Nation.

That is the addition. That is what we know. And it doesn't account for the things he is doing to our allies. It doesn't account for how he is turning his back on NATO. It doesn't account for how he is praising Putin and calling Zelenskyy a dictator. It doesn't account for how he is giving advantage to China around the world, from the region in Southeast Asia all the way to Africa. It doesn't account for how he has already made it harder to enroll in the Affordable Care Act. It doesn't account for all the other things he is doing that we wake up and hear every day, not to mention trying to threaten Greenland, trying to threaten Panama, trying to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico.

All these things he didn't tell us he was going to do, didn't promise. He promised to lower your grocery prices; they are higher. He promised to be a better steward of the economy; it is worse than what he inherited it. Over and over, he is breaking promises and doing outrageous things, like disappearing people off of American streets, violating fundamental principles of this document, invoking the Alien Enemies Act from the 1700s that was last used to put Japanese-Americans in internment camps.

Do we see what is happening? How much is enough? We have to stand and do something different not just in this body but in America because-- you know this--how we stopped him in his last term was the American people rose up, spoke up, stood up, rose up in the most extraordinary, nonviolent demonstrations and demands.

So thank you.

Yes, I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

I will give a short answer to your question, then, which is the irony--the irony that this President is remaining quiet about folks that are violating international law in many ways.

So I think it is absurd, and you are right. It is another betrayal.

I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

I want to thank the Senator for the question. I want to thank her for being my colleague. But more important than even being my friend, she is a spiritual sister of mine and was very kind to me when I was telling her that I was going to do this and gave me so much encouragement and prayer.

And I just love you, and I am grateful.

You read a litany of things. I had a whole section, a whole binder that my staff told me to skip to go to this one about all the things, going in deep, in-depth to all the things the Trump administration is doing to make housing more unaffordable, more inaccessible, more expensive, more discrimination in housing, which we know is still a problem, more challenges, more pain heaped upon rural areas, and more complications and problems for building affordable housing in all areas.

It is so frustrating to me that this is a problem. We cannot lay the crisis of housing at one administration in the United States. We need to have bold visions and ideas to address this. I am so excited about this next generation of Americans that are rising up with bold visions.

I want to give a shout-out to Ezra Klein. His book is a must read-- ``Abundance.'' This is a vision of doing great things again, of building housing, of redeeming the American dream.

But to have a President that is dead set on, for the next 4 years, doing the kinds of things that you made a litany of and now, tomorrow, is going to bring tariffs that are going to raise the price even more on housing is outrageous.

Where are his promises to make this country more affordable and more accessible?

You heard the data that I read about how we have so many millions of Americans--close to the majority of renters now spend more than a third of their income on rent, which is the very definition that our government has of housing insecurity.

So it should anger people in this country. Even if you own your home, have paid off your mortgage, you should be angry about what they are doing to the American dream and that there are no bold ideas coming from this administration to help. In fact, they are hurting it. They are hurting it.

So thank you very much to my colleague. Thank you for giving me strength, as you did, and prayer. I thank you for the question that should anger people, that should inspire people, that should activate people, that should engage people, that should demand from us that we take our country away from those who want to do so much harm.

I want to start by reading until someone--I know the prayer. I am going to keep going. I want to talk about environmental protections and how this country is becoming less safe for people with emphysema or with asthma because Donald Trump is rolling back commonsense environmental protections, threatening our children's future, and hurting our Nation's economy.

Energy costs in America are continuing to rise, making it harder and harder for working families to pay their bills. At a time when we should be investing in clean energy, this administration is canceling projects that would create more jobs for Americans and lower energy prices. He claims he supports an ``all of the above'' strategy, but that is clearly not what we are seeing, and there is too much silence about it.

All Americans, regardless of where you are born, deserve safe drinking water, clean air, and equal opportunity for a healthy and fulfilling life.

President Trump promised America the cleanest air and the cleanest water, but on entering office, he immediately instructed the EPA--the Environmental Protection Agency--to cut a long list of commonsense environmental protections. This administration is rolling back efforts to reduce emissions from powerplants. He is letting polluters pollute our air more. That affects the health of Americans. It drives up the aggravating of the rates of asthma and emphysema, weakening rules that keep our rivers and water systems clean as well.

I am going to continue until one of my colleagues asks me a question.

One of my heroes in the Senate--a living legend, my partner on some bills that I am so passionate about, expanding IVF-- someone that is just freaking awesome, I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

I love my colleague--I love my colleague--I love how she has been standing up, quite figuratively, time and time again on issues. She really inspired me. I told folks on social media, I have been celebrating, elevating, liking her content. She is truly fierce and is a voice that gives me strength.

Today, she is asking me about one of my favorite subjects. A lot of people are surprised. My staff knows this story well that I am on the Ag Committee. When one of my staffers, a guy sitting over here, Adam Zipkin--who has been with me since 1998--came to me and said you should go on the farm committee--this is going to get me in trouble. I laughed at him. It is one of the committees I love. What is the old saying? First, they laugh at you, then they fight you, then they finally accept it. He told me all the issues I care about intersect with our farm and food system; that our farmers are such vital parts of America, they need more people standing up and fighting for them.

The American farmers are getting screwed. We are losing thousands of farms in this country, family farmers are going belly-up. The math doesn't work for them. And this President, as you have pointed out--oh, gosh. President Trump is causing an unprecedented amount of chaos, instability, and harm for farmers.

Farmers already deal with so much uncertainty from prices, weather, pests, and more. They should not have to deal with uncertainty that our government won't follow through, as you said, on contracts. I had farmers from New Jersey to Texas coming to my office about this President freezing contracts that we approved in a bipartisan manner, putting them in financial crisis.

One of the first things that Trump and Musk did was freeze thousands of contracts and agreements that have been already made with our farmers, farmers applied to grant programs and were selected on their merit. They made legally binding contracts. Yet starting in late January, farmers found themselves not getting reimbursed, sometimes reading in the news that a particular grant was frozen or sometimes no information at all other than they were not getting their payments processed.

I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

I am aware of one of our colleagues.

I just want to say, yes, I am aware of that. The way that Trump--I am just going to summarize--contract freezes, this is one of the ways Trump and Musk are causing havoc. Program cuts. They have eliminated programs that you said support local food systems, including those that connect farmers with food banks and schools and promote regenerative practices. It is stunning.

USDA destabilization. Trump and Musk have laid off USDA employees, closed USDA offices, hindering the Agency's ability to provide essential services to foreigners.

Tariff policies. Trump's tariff policies implemented without consultation with or support from farmers will increase farmer costs and consumer food prices.

And, finally, general chaos, which seems to be something you are pointing out that they are very good at. Farmers already deal with so much uncertainty from prices, weather, pests, and more. They should not have to deal with uncertainty from Donald Trump's administration that will undermine everything that they do.

I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Yes.

I love you. I love you. I love you for bringing these things to point because we--by the way, with Adam Zipkin, we did a farm tour. We

were in southern Illinois, meeting with Republican farmers--this is before the pandemic--and you see them give so much common cause as they are trying desperately to hold on to their farms. So, with the Crop Insurance Program, we need to reimagine it so it is more accessible to independent family farmers and not just big agribusinesses. We need to be visionary about our farm bill. We need to create a food system so that the farmers will want to help them be better stewards of the land--the oversubscribed programs for regenerative farming and cover crops and environmental practices. They want those things to preserve their soil and to reduce their dependence on chemicals. They want those things. They want a farm bill that works for them, and we should be delivering that in a bipartisan way. So you are right on point. But do you hear that from the White House? Not at all. Not at all.

I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Please.

Before I answer the Senator's question, I just want anybody who is watching to know that--and I will put it bluntly--this is one of the baddest ass human beings serving here in the Senate. You have been the Governor of a State with all the challenges. You are beloved. I have spent a lot of time in New Hampshire.

Folks, after New Jersey, it is one of my favorite new States. No disrespect to New Mexico over here on my right. But I love your State. I love the people of your State, and they love you.

You were an extraordinary Governor. You were a trailblazer, a glass ceiling breaker, a name-taker. You are a bad ass. And to have served with you as my colleague, you have the kind of leadership in the Senate that it needs more of, that of somebody who stands in the middle and draws people together to common sense and pragmatism.

I started on healthcare--

--you know, some 16 or so hours ago, and you would be proud of me because she is one of these voices who comes to me and says: Hey, Cory. Let's bring people together.

I know that the Presiding Officer is new here, but he has the same spirit of trying to bring people together. This might be like the third time I have seen him in the chair over the last hours--17 hours.

Thank you, sir.

But you whisper in my ear all the time, like we have got to find a way to do this together. We have got to find a way to put more ``indivisible'' into ``one nation under God.''

So I hope that you would be proud because I told my staff, who prepared for days--they spent days preparing all these sections, from farming to the environment and all the ways that Donald Trump is betraying his promises, betraying America, driving up costs, wrecking our economy, endangering us globally and here at home, and turning his back on a lot of our values, all while disrespecting this document more than any President I have seen.

But I wanted to make sure--I told the instructions to my staff to pull from all the Republicans you can. We want to use the Wall Street Journal. We want to use the Cato Institute. We want to bring this together because why we are standing up here is not to talk about left or right; we are talking about what is right or wrong. I do not want to talk about this being a Democratic moment; it is a moral moment.

You are the perfect Senator to be asking these questions about healthcare to, to me, because of what you stand for. You got elected as Governor--twice, I think. When you get elected to the Senate here, you have to get votes from Democrats, Independents, and Republicans or you can't win in New Hampshire. I have been in your State, and I have met the people. God, you have a very participatory democracy up there.

People feel like, if you are not going from north to south to house parties, you have to engage directly with the people. They don't care what party you ascribe to; they want to feel you, see you. They don't care how much you know until they know how much you care. That is why I think you are such a bad ass leader.

So you would have been proud of me when I did the healthcare section because I read from Republican Governors and Democratic Governors. Forty States have expanded Medicaid, and all of these Governors and all of these voices said exactly what you are intimating here, which is, do not let Donald Trump cut $880 billion out of Medicaid. It will crush rural hospitals. It will crush level I trauma care centers. It will crush organizations that deal with beautiful disabled children. It will crush people who are struggling for healthcare. It will crush nursing homes. It will hurt red counties and blue counties. It will hurt America. Republican voices were saying that.

To have a bipartisan Senator who embodies the spirit this place should ascribe to more say these things is affirming the truth.

Why? Why are they rushing to cut $880 billion, which voice after voice whom I read said that it would do so much damage to people's lives, so much damage to healthcare providers, so much damage to hospitals. Why? The only two things that will result from that are that they will extend the Trump tax cuts, where the disproportionate benefits went to the wealthiest among us, who are doing better than they have ever done in this country--they don't need it. Taking money from struggling folks and giving it to them is not the answer.

The other thing is, to a person who, like me, when we were executives--you were a Governor, and I was a mighty mayor. We had to balance our budgets. But they are not balancing the budget. They are not lowering the deficit. They are increasing it by trillions of dollars. This makes no sense to a pragmatic person who has balanced budgets, who expanded healthcare access, who made her State work, and who has loved and respected votes, frankly, from Democrats and Republicans. You know this makes no sense.

So if you are standing up and colleagues of mine further to the left of me, then why aren't other people standing up? Why did only one Republican in the House vote against it? He told the truth. Massie.

I see some of my Republican colleagues here.

He is a fiscal hawk. He told the truth. This budget is going to explode the American national debt, stealing from future generations. I can't vote for this. He was not bullied, like other people in the House, into doing what dear leader Donald Trump says.

So, my colleague, you are on the money. I have internalized your voice as there are only a few people's voices I have internalized. One of them is my mother's, but you are more my peer. You are one of those voices in America right now who we need who does not slip into a partisan argument but makes the pragmatic argument that what Donald Trump is trying to do, with the aiding and abetting of congressional Republicans, is wrong. It is fiscally wrong. It is morally wrong. It will hurt Americans. It is not for the common welfare. It is not for the common defense. Read the start of the Constitution, please. I beg of you. You all swore to uphold it.

How do our Founders begin?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more

perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic

Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the

general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to

ourselves and our Posterity.

Trillions of dollars of deficit doesn't secure the blessings of liberty; it endangers our country. The common welfare is this idea that everybody should have access to what makes us free. What makes us free is not having medical debt. What makes us free is not being chained to the uncertainty and insecurity that if someone in my family gets sick, I would not be able to afford it. Still the majority or close to the majority of bankruptcies in the United States of America are of people who can't afford their healthcare bills. We need to find better ways to expand access and not cut more people off.

You know this, former Governor: There are a number of States that have these things called triggers, automatic triggers, in that if the funding for Medicaid reduces to covering 90 percent of the costs, what happens in those States? Boom! Medicaid expansion goes offline. So if you don't even cut it $880 billion and maybe you say we will just do $250 billion of an ax, States are going to lose their expansion, and people are going to suffer and get hurt. Why? You said it. You said it. You said it.

You and I are the two people who want to see entrepreneurs make money. You and I want to see small business people thrive. We don't hate rich people. We think that is great. It is often, not always-- Donald Trump--it is often a sign of people in America who are using the ingenuity, applying it, and being successful. But you and I both know that the richest people in this country don't need more tax cuts. It is morally wrong. It is fiscally wrong. It is wrong in the Name of God and America. How could we be doing this to ourselves?

I can't call you one of the baddest ass people I have ever worked with and not yield to your question, but I have to read the words: I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Shots fired on the Senate floor. Where is the Parliamentarian?

Rule XIX her.

Last night, I had a whole chapter on Social Security, outlining not just what you said, my colleague, my friend, but stories from seniors. And some of them really got to me. They were hard to read through.

I have to say, I have prepped this by reading a lot of them, but somehow on the floor, when I read about the woman who had Parkinson's, when I read about the person taking care of their elderly parents, a spouse with dementia, children with special needs--and Social Security, it helps a lot of folks. But here is the craziness--the craziness--of the Trump attacks on the Social Security Administration: First, he makes people insecure about it.

My mom lives in this amazing senior home, Las Ventanas, in Las Vegas, NV. Most of the people there--first of all, I love them all for who they are, not their party affiliation. But it is more Republicans than Democrats. And the story my mom tells me about just the worry that they or other people in their family have because of Elon Musk calling it a Ponzi scheme, of Donald Trump talking about utter lies from the highest post in the land, during a joint address, savaging Social Security with lies that everybody, from conservative papers to Democratic papers, to left-leaning papers, have all called that lie, lie, lie, lie, lie-- there are not millions of people receiving false payments. They have insinuated so much insecurity that people are writing me letters talking about how they are losing sleep. They have so much anxiety because they only live on their Social Security check.

And Howard Lutnick, whom I know--and I don't know what he was thinking when he said it, a billionaire talking about his mother-in- law--I don't know what you were thinking, Howard. I just don't understand it, how you were saying if she misses a payment, she is OK; but if people complain, they are probably fraudsters. Do you understand how many millions of Americans only have that as their only protection between poverty and destitution; that if they miss a payment, they can't make their rent, they can't buy food?

So they have created so much insecurity, so much fear, and I compared it, Governor--I compared it--to the difference between an FDR and a Donald Trump.

FDR knew people were suffering. He knew people were afraid, and he stood before the American public and didn't lie to them, didn't attack people, didn't demean people, didn't degrade people. He comforted people. He allayed their fears. He inspired them: ``You have nothing to fear but fear itself''--what an opposite in leadership.

So, yes, there are a lot of people who, right now, don't know.

But then my colleague from Massachusetts comes in and makes the very clear point--the professor we have in our caucus--she makes a very good point: They have already done benefit cuts because when you close offices in rural areas, that person who is missing a check or has an issue, now they have to drive--how many miles?

A hundred miles.

Now, what is that hardship to a senior?

I have heard from people in their nineties. They already are having benefit cuts.

The Wall Street Journal--I told you, I was trying to make you proud. I wanted to get as many sources from anybody that was more center to right, and I read from the Wall Street Journal and said the customer service--the customer service--in Social Security is going from bad to worse. That was the title of the article.

So they are already doing cuts. They are already heaping insecurity on our seniors, heaping inconvenience on our seniors, heaping fear upon our seniors, heaping insecurity, making people lose sleep. This is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. This is not a model of leadership. It is a model of cruelty and mean-spiritedness and hurting people.

When is it enough, America? When is it enough that we say, it may not be my grandmother who depends on that Social Security check, but I love America. And you cannot love Americans, you cannot love America, you cannot call yourself a patriot--please listen to me. You cannot say you love this country and you are a patriot because patriotism is love of country, but you can't love your country unless you love your country men and women.

And love means that if somebody's mother or grandmother is hurting, is afraid, that I am going to stand up and do what I can to comfort them and fight for them because, today, it might be your grandmother; it might be your family with a disabled child.

This is not right or left; it is right or wrong. This is not a partisan moment; it is a moral moment. Where do you stand?

We started this by talking about John Lewis. It is time for good trouble, necessary trouble.

Thank you. Thank you, my friend, even though you made fun of me, before my entire State, for not remembering the very important preamble to the Constitution.

Thank you very much. I take your compliments because you don't give them abundantly or overly well. So thank you very much.

Heck no, not to you. Not to you. Not to you.

Let me tell you, I have something to get off of my chest about you. I woke up yesterday morning, and the first thing I did--now, this shirt is all wrinkled and a little ripe. But the first thing I did is grab a gift from you.

People, don't get upset ethics-wise. We are allowed to give each other gifts.

This looks like--I don't know how much it costs, but you gave me--I was talking about traveling and how we have to pack bags and go all the time. And you told me: I travel with a steamer.

And I pulled out this little steamer for this shirt that I am wearing right now. You are one of the kindest, sweetest people I know. You are one of my closest friends here in the U.S. Senate. And I want to say something about you because, in this moment, as people are watching, I want people to go there.

We had a conversation. You came to my office. It is always a sign of respect when you come to a Senator's office. And you came to my office, and we were talking about social media. And I was encouraging you. You were a little resistant--if you don't mind me outing you--to open up and get more on the platform. We were talking about ideas and talking about Social Security, talking about Medicare and Medicaid.

You opened up to me. And I hope I am not betraying confidences. I asked you just like, what do you do? You are such an amazing human being. You are one of the kindest people I know. I asked you: What do you do on your weekends? What do you do for fun? Let people see it.

Then you kind of made me pause when you said: Well, my mother is kind of getting old--is getting older. I love her so much.

You said: My siblings and I, we alternate weekends, just spending time with our mother.

It was one of the sweetest things I heard. I said to you: What do you do with your mom?

And then you brightened up. And you choked me up, you jerk, because you said: What I love to do with my mom is to dance with her in the kitchen. When we are in the kitchen making food or something, I just love sometimes to put on a song, and we dance.

I don't know why it struck me as beautiful. And this is what I hope people will do right now. I said: Well, why don't you record that?

I didn't think you would do it, that you would ask her if you could do it. But you then put up one of the most beautiful videos I have ever seen, from one of my colleagues, of you and your mom in the kitchen. I think it is on your Instagram page. And I have looked at that video--I am probably all the views right now--of my colleague, this big U.S. Senator, loving his mother so much. And we are talking about that.

I have talked about this on the floor. Great nations respect their elders. They take care of them.

One of my colleagues, when they asked me a question about Social Security, they reminded me of what it was--the greatest anti-poverty program in the history of America; that Social Security rescued millions of Americans from being in poverty. It virtually ended poverty, although the checks now are becoming meager and meager. As prices are going up, more people are getting lower and lower toward poverty. And people who live on those checks live very austerely.

But you are just this amazing guy who turns your own lived experience into greater and greater urgencies to fight for the people of New Mexico.

So I did not want to yield for a question before getting that off my chest. You are my friend. You are my colleague. You are my brother. And more than you know it, you are my inspiration.

So, yes, I yield for a question while retaining the floor now. I feel like I have so much power here to yield to my colleagues. They are often more eloquent. I am like afraid of Whitehouse because he is one of the brainiest people in the Senate. But I now have the control.

But for you, now that I have gotten this off my chest and, hopefully, embarrassed you but maybe added a few more views to my favorite video, I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Yes.

Yep.

Yes.

One of my favorite stories.

Thank you for the question. You said it with the same words that literally--I didn't write these words. My staff wrote this little paragraph here: Trump is pulling the rug out from under producers that need stability and reliable markets.

You and I are sitting right by each other in the Ag Committee, and we see this connection that you so beautifully say, this idea that we are separate

from each other. These visible lines that divide us in this country are bunk compared to the strong ties that bind us. That farmer-producer in a rural neighborhood is deeply connected to the person in my community, and I live in an inner city--Newark, NJ. There is a powerful spiritual connection.

And if you talk to that farmer, they have got pride that they are feeding America, and they have pride in the ground. You describe it so beautifully. They have pride in their soil, and they want to be stewards of the land, and they want to create a vibrant American food system. And they rely on people that empower them in that process and don't pull the rug out from under them, drag back contracts, cut programing--especially not those programs that help them get fresh fruits and vegetables, healthy foods to food banks.

If you talk to the food banks, they will attest that families--how grateful they are for those fresh fruits and vegetables. You said it right: Parents want the best quality food for their kids. But this food system is killing them.

And when I heard the new Secretary of HHS talk about: Hey, we need to get greater access to fresh, healthy foods; food is medicine--things I have been saying for years--and then what do they do when they get in there? They cut the very programs that help our farmers get fresh fruits and vegetables to kids to deal with chronic diseases.

How could you say out of one side of your mouth--Trump--oh, I am going to let the MAHA people go their way, and then the first thing you do is cut the programs that help kids get healthy, nutritious foods? It makes no sense. It makes no economic sense. It hurts our farmers. It hurts our farmworkers. It hurts our end users.

It is not fair, and I appreciate your question, sir. Thank you.

Let me think about this for a second.

I want to thank Senator Whitehouse. He has been a colleague and friend for a long time, and he stands right there at that desk for very long speeches. I think I am trying to go a long time; you go a consistency of times. And you have talked about the climate crisis. You have talked about the Supreme Court scams.

You have not only educated Members in this body on these issues; you have educated America. You are a YouTube star now, and I learn from you every time I hear you speak.

So I am a little worried right now, but I am going to step out on faith and yield for a question while retaining the floor.

I shall not complain. I shall not complain. But thank you for checking in on me, my friend.

I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Well, first of all, I will say to you that I meet wealthy people, like a group called the Patriotic Millionaires, who advocate for progressive tax policy and are the first to say and speak out against this tax scam.

Again, to me, what does patriotism mean to you? Patriotism, by definition, means love of country. If you don't love your fellow countrymen and -women, how do you love your country?

And so what would you do--I actually know what you would do; I don't even need you to answer this question--if somehow you came into a billion or more dollars? You would not be asking for more.

You would literally say: Wait a minute, Republican Congress. Wait a minute, Donald Trump. What you are trying to do is take away healthcare from expectant mothers, from disabled children, and from seniors in order to give me more tax credit.

I would think that the patriotic thing to do, that the thing in love--in love--you would say: Donald Trump, go screw yourself.

I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Yes.

Yes.

I want to answer this question so badly, but the crazy thing is that the person best to answer this question is the person who asked it. You have sat here and given this detailed analysis to show how this group of very wealthy billionaires in this country are so perverting our system by creating these front groups that then interfere in our democracy in the most disgusting ways.

Even if you are like me and you can't stand the decision of Citizens United, even in Citizens United, the majority opinion really projected that we should do the DISCLOSE Act, which we have tried to bring to this floor and get passed, that says no more dark money.

How do we have a political system that is so corrupted by billionaires who so, with all of their money, drown out the voices in politics of other Americans?

(Mrs. BRITT assumed the Chair.)

A great example of that is, they are getting so reckless that many billionaires aren't even hiding it anymore; i.e.

Elon Musk. He is like saying, Hey, I am going to roll up into a Supreme Court case up in one of our best Great Lake States. I am just going to dump $100 million there and then give away, as if to insult our democracy, million-dollar checks as part of my effort to influence an election with my overwhelming flood-the-zone amount of billions of dollars.

And by the way, hey, it is a pretty good investment, right? Donald Trump is his biggest campaign contributor. As soon he gets elected, a lot of my stock goes up--although, Tesla stock isn't doing so great right now.

The reality is, we live in a country right now that we are giving more and more ability for billionaires to use their wealth to rig the system and then get more wealth as a result of that.

It is so corrupt and so corrupting to this. We have been talking about this, as you said, for 18 hours now--these big, unchecked corporate contributions, billionaire dollars, dark money in front organizations that nobody in the Senate has outlined better than you are corrupting our Constitution.

And even the bad case, Citizens United, even they said this shouldn't have happened. You all should write laws in this place that force people to disclose where this money is coming from. But how many years has it been since Citizens United? Many.

And how many times have we failed? 15. Gosh, I don't know--and I am so grateful for this man because all my colleagues who are assembled here know doggedly and determinately you have stood right there with charts and graphs. You have outlined it ad nauseam. They have attacked you because your truth is so threatening to them that more people will know about how Big Money is corrupting democracy.

So how many assaults are we going to have to watch in 71 days when we now have a President that can create a meme coin? Isn't there something here, my great constitutional scholar, a big word called the called emoluments? This President has basically created a meme coin where we now know--hard to trace this--that millions of dollars have been put into his pocket. I have my team reading about it right now; foreign countries, Russian oligarchs, incredible Arab wealth. You want a payoff to Donald Trump because his government is being run like this?

It is not JFK:

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you do

for your country.

You have seen how he has behaved. It is ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for Donald Trump. That is how he does business. How do we know that? Look at the evidence of the last 71 days.

If you are a law firm that comes to him and offers him $40 million of pro bono work--God how many people I love in Newark had that kind of legal representation, pro bono. He is beating you up, threatening to ruin your business until you come to him and tell him what you are going to do for him.

We are seeing it. You want a merger? You want a merger? What do you do? Give a million dollars to his inaugural committee and then find ways--find ways to get money to him through his meme coin, kowtow to him in any way possible.

Senator Whitehouse, nobody has outlined this more than I have--more than you have, excuse me. I encourage people--I feel like now I am advertising everybody's social media--to go to his YouTube. I call him the YouTube scholar. I am not joking.

You have on YouTube, I know, just great details and outline about how the corruption of money in politics is getting worse and worse and worse in this era of billionaires like Elon Musk who have no shame anymore.

I am going to say it on the Senate floor: There are so many reports and stories of them threatening elected leaders, threatening to put $100 million in a primary challenge if they don't kowtow to what the great leader is telling them to do.

You use the word all the time, and I am going to say it over and over: This is corrupting to our democracy and amounts to another assault on our Constitution. How much will we take, America, until we say enough, until we say no more, until we say pass the Disclose Act, bring back the dark money. Put light on it. Shine the light of truth on this web of dark money lies. How long will we endure this?

I hope that you and I are in the Senate when you no longer have to give that speech because we took action on the Senate floor to end this nightmare of billionaires trying to outsize influence on our democracy.

Not immediately. I want to say to Patty Murray thank you. You were a coconspirator in my life of trying to cause good trouble. You are one of the most powerful people in the U.S. Senate, and you have never lost.

Your compassion and your care for people--you are like somebody else I talked about in the Senate, two of my favorite people who live this ideal that I may be a U.S. Senator, I may be head of Appropriations, I may be President pro tempore of the Senate, but I will never lose my connection to the people I represent and to the convictions that brought me to this place.

You are such an honorable soul; you are such a great American; and you have been such a dear friend to me in this Congress. I savor the times where you let me come to your--a lot more seniority than I--you have got a great hideaway with a view--with a view, one day maybe.

But I just want to say thank you, Patty Murray, for being so kind to me.

Your showing up right now gives me a lot of strength, puts more fuel in my tank. So now--I feel all this power--now, you will outrank me in every imaginable way here. You are the head of Democratic Appropriations so I am obligated by the State of New Jersey to be very obsequious to you.

I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

I am so grateful you brought this up--and especially all the work we had to do when I was elected 12, 13 years ago. One of the earliest things I did was meet with women veterans in my State and heard these awful stories about how long it took to get gynecological care, the waits that they had to do, the indignities they had to endure. And I am glad we have made so many strides, in part, thanks to your leadership in New Jersey, with special dedicated facilities to our women veterans, with shortening those wait times, with prioritizing them.

But you are now right. Their proposal is to cut 83,000 positions from the VA. And you know this, you said it, just years ago this governing body passed the PACT Act with overwhelming bipartisan support, signed by President Biden in August of 2022, the largest healthcare benefit expansion in VA history. You were one of the leaders, increasing disability compensation and extending eligibility for VA care.

To meet this increased demand, the VA added 61,000 employees in 2023. These new hires were claim processors, physicians, nursing staff, medical support assistants, food service workers, and housekeeping staff.

And now the progress this body made is in jeopardy by this President. We added 61,000 just to keep up with the demands and the needs. And now he is cutting 83,000.

This is an article if you don't want me to yield: ``DAV urges Veteran Affairs to be more transparent about vet care amid layoffs and budget cuts.''

Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins says veterans' care

won't be impacted . . . which saw the largest expansion of VA

healthcare benefits in a generation after the passing of the

PACT Act.

Collins attended DAV's recent Mid-Winter Conference, where

he came from behind the podium, walked into the audience and

told attendees that vet care and benefits would not be

impacted by the Trump administration's cuts.

In a recent appearance on the CBS Eye on Veterans podcast,

DAV Communications Chief and Air Force veteran Dan Clare said

the VA has not demonstrated how it will keep that promise.

They have not demonstrated.

DAV also does not have ``a lot of information about what's

planned,'' he said.

Can you imagine that? Leaving all these veterans with insecurity and uncertainty.

``Now, we're hearing about 83,000 people losing their jobs,

20,000 or so of those folks might be veterans,'' said Clare.

``We're very concerned about how we're going to be able to

cut that many people and maintain care and benefits.''

VA has hired thousands of staffers since 2022 in response

to the PACT Act, which brought nearly 800,000 new enrollees

into its system. Collins has said cutting the VA workforce by

83,000 would bring it back down to its 2019 level.

Before we did all of those expansions to help women vets.

Clare said he has not heard about specific performance

problems with those who have been laid off . . .

Well, you haven't heard about it.

Veterans' needs have not changed and remain great.

``The people who are sick from the burn pits didn't

necessarily get better overnight and some of these folks are

going to have a long road to hoe when it comes to their

health,'' he said.

DAV is getting calls frequently from veterans who are

``scared, angry and don't understand what's going on and how

it's going to affect them,'' added Clare.

Clare was one of the first whistleblowers on burn pits in

Iraq, which eventually inspired the fight to pass the PACT

Act, [to help] veterans who became sick, or even died, from

their toxic exposures.

``When we started talking about dioxin, when Vietnam

veterans heard that, they immediately thought of Agent Orange

. . . and that's probably what this is, our generation's

Agent Orange.''

``There's a lot of decisions being made behind closed

doors,'' he continued. ``We want to know what the plan is.''

We want to know what the plan is.

``We're not against efficiency [of] government. We're not

against even removing VA employees who may not be fit

performers.''

A veteran has a unique understanding of another veteran's

needs, Clare [said.] ``When you lose those folks out of the

VA system, [the veterans,] you lose an institutional capacity

to understand veterans.''

It is also unclear how the cuts will impact VA research,

which Clare also stressed has helped veterans deal with

complex issues that are service-connected, such as traumatic

brain injuries and post-traumatic stress.

In addition to being concerned about how recent budget cuts

and staff reductions will impact veteran care and caregivers,

Clare said DAV is also concerned about the impact on veteran-

owned small businesses.

DAV is asking veteran business owners whose contracts have

been recently cancelled or who have been fired from their VA

jobs to reach out here. DAV is actively keeping a list of

veterans negatively affected by the Trump administration's

cuts and plans on fighting for them in the weeks and months

to come.

And those lists that they are keeping are getting longer and longer and longer, the people affected by this.

So to answer your question, it is absurd; it is offensive; it is ready, fire, aim. Tens of thousands of veterans laid off, veterans who do business and work in contracts, contracts ended. Why is this another group that the President of the United States is scaring? Frightened veterans, angry veterans; I am hearing from them in my State. I know you are hearing from them in yours.

What is the plan? What is the plan? They have no answer for us. All they are doing is cutting Social Security staff, undermining the delivery of those services, cutting the VA services. And why, by the way? Is it creating efficiency or effectiveness? No. Is it to create savings? Because we have to create savings to give more of those tax

cuts to billionaires like Elon Musk. It is not fair; it is not right.

When we send people off into the most dangerous environments on the planet Earth and ask them to put their lives on the line for us, the least we can do as a Nation is not penny-pinch on their backs of the service that they deserve.

I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Thank you for the question. No. And I am just going to read another article that is going to make even clearer the point that you just laid that is so strong and so important.

This is from Axios. ``How White House firings are hurting veterans.''

The Trump administration's big cuts to the federal

government are hitting one group particularly hard--the

country's veterans.

Why it matters: Many of those who've served in the military

derive a sense of purpose and belonging from their government

work--viewing it as a way to serve their country and help

their peers outside of active duty.

The big picture: It's not yet clear yet how many military

vets have been fired, or will be. Last year veterans made up

28 percent of the federal workforce--

That's 28 percent--

per federal data--a far bigger share than the 5% in the

private sector.

About 36% of the vets working in civil service, more than

200,000 in total, are disabled or have a serious health

condition, per federal data.

So 36 percent of the vets working in civil service are disabled vets.

``This is the largest attack on veteran employment in our

lifetime,'' says William Attig, executive director of the

Union Veterans Council, a labor group that represents many of

these workers.

Attig, who was deployed in Iraq from 2003 to 2009, has been

talking to newly unemployed members, trying to get a tally of

everyone who's lost a job.

Zoom in: Some veterans, still holding on to their jobs for

now, are waiting for the hammer to drop.

``We're being smeared as leeches, but I just want to serve

my country and provide for my family,'' an employee at the

Department of Defense who is a disabled veteran, and

requested anonymity because he didn't want to put his job

further at risk.

Talk about free speech. ``We're being smeared as leeches,'' says a disabled veteran who stood for us.

He was thrilled to land his job just a few months ago, but

is anxiously waiting to see if he'll be one of the more than

5,000 workers the Pentagon said it would fire next week.

Privately--

Privately now--

GOP lawmakers are growing uneasy with [the] cuts that impact

veterans--

I know this because I know the heart of so many of my Republican colleagues--

Politico reports, adding that vets have been

``disproportionately affected'' by the firings.

Since, again, GOP lawmakers are growing uneasy about it.

The White House did not say how many veterans have been

fired. At least one department, Interior, has reportedly

carved out an exception for them.

``President Trump has consistently stood up for our brave

men and women in uniform--delivering crucial reforms that

improved VA healthcare, decreased Veteran homelessness, and

enhanced education benefits,'' said White House spokesperson

Anna Kelly in an email.

There are a few reasons government work attracts vets. The

federal government has a ``veterans preference''--put simply,

when deciding among a group of qualified candidates, they're

first in line.

Put simply when deciding among a group of qualified candidates, they are first in line. I think that is right.

``You'd have to jump through a lot of hoops to not hire a

veteran,'' said a former federal official . . .

With more veterans working in government, more feel

welcomed to work among people who understand them. Others are

drawn to the retirement benefits--years of military service

counts towards your federal pension.

Plus, many of these folks feel drawn to mission-driven

employment. ``Most veterans feel like they are putting on

another uniform [when they go work in other Federal

Agencies].''

These jobs are a crucial piece of the puzzle in post-

military life, he says, adding that it's also a key part of

suicide prevention for this at-risk group.

``One of the most important things you can do for veterans

is to find them a job.''

How can we expect to maintain what is, in America, an all-volunteer force if we fail to show those folks willing to serve how we care for our servicemembers when they come home?

Slashing more than 83,000 jobs from the VA alone, it is clear that these cuts are going to have a disproportionate impact on veterans, veteran contractors, and the services they receive. I am angry about these cuts; but most of all, it should make all Americans feel a sense of sadness.

We ask our veterans to sacrifice so much, and we all know, who know veterans, it is not just the veterans, it is also veteran families that make that sacrifice, that share in that service, that share in that commitment.

And these veterans, some of the more talented dedicated leaders I know. They are not doing it for the money; they are doing it because they are called to serve.

Do you know how many people jumped into service after 9/11? Friends of mine rushed to join the military, to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. And now they are home. Many of them with invisible wounds. Many of them with visible wounds.

And the services they rely on for their healthcare, the services they rely on as lifelines, the services they rely on often that give them hope and opportunity, not compounding their trauma, this is now being attacked by our President, who is not keeping his promises. He says he values veterans, but the facts are different.

``She Devoted Her Life to Serving the U.S. Then DOGE

Targeted Her.''

It had been six days since Joy Marver was locked out of her

office at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, five days

since she checked herself into a hospital for emergency

psychiatric care, and two days since she sent a letter to her

supervisors: ``Please, I'm so confused. Can you help me

understand?''

Now, she followed her wife into the storage room of their

house outside Minneapolis, searching for answers no one would

give her.

A half-dozen bins held the remnants of 22 years spent in

service to the U.S. government--first as a sergeant first

class in Iraq, then as a disabled veteran and finally as a

V.A. support specialist in logistics.

She had devoted her career to a system that had always made

sense to her, but now nobody seemed to know whether she had

officially been laid off, or for how long, or why.

``Are you sure you never got an email?'' asked her wife,

Miki Jo Carlson, 49.

``How would I know?'' asked Marver, 45. ``They deleted my

account.''

``Maybe it's because you were still probationary?''

``My boss said I was exempt,'' Marver said. ``I was

supposed to be essential.''

In the last few months, more than 30,000 people across the

country were fired by President Trump's new initiative called

the Department of Government Efficiency, a historic reduction

of the federal work force that has been all the more

disruptive because of its chaotic execution. Entire agency

divisions have been cut without explanation or mistakenly

fired and then rapidly rehired, resulting in several lawsuits

and mass confusion among civil workers. After a court ruled

last week that many of the firings were illegal, the

government began reinstating workers, even as the Trump

administration appealed the decision and promised more

layoffs.

The V.A. alone said it planned to cut about 80,000 more

jobs this year--including tens of thousands of veterans--and

for Marver the shock of losing her job was eclipsed by the

disorientation of being repeatedly dismissed

and belittled by the government she served. She had watched

on TV as Trump's billionaire adviser Elon Musk took the stage

at a political conference wielding a chain saw to the beat of

rock music, slicing apart the air with what he called the

``chain saw for bureaucracy.'' She had listened to Trump's

aides and allies deride federal employees for being ``lazy,''

``parasitic,'' ``unaccountable'' and ``essentially wasting''

taxpayer money in their ``fake jobs.''

In Marver's case, that job had meant helping to retrain

soldiers for the civilian work force and coordinating veteran

burials while earning a salary of $53,000 a year.

``Here's the note I got a little while after I was hired,''

Marver told Carlson, pulling a form letter from the

government. ``You represent the best of who we are as

Americans,'' it read. ``You could have chosen to do anything

with your talents, but you chose public service.''

``Kind of boilerplate, but it is nice,'' Carlson said.

Before I yield, I just want to acknowledge my friend in the chair. And she is cracking a tight whip, so I appreciate you following the rules here. I have to read this now. And I am eager to get to your question, because you are one of the few people I knew before I got to the Senate.

I didn't yield for a question. I can't say anything, sir. The Parliamentarian will jump all over you. I have the floor.

So much power, it is going to my head.

Oh, man. I have known you for like 25 years. I wanted to talk about you, but you are being so insistent, I will reward your insistence and say I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

I actually believe you would do a 5-hour question to try to help me power through. Senator, we have been at this for--

I love you and your wife Susan, but I love your children more.

Is this a question? I yield for a question while retaining the floor. Let's make it a 7-minute question.

Please, please.

Thank you for the question, my long, longtime friend, one of the folks I have known the longest whom I get to serve with.

What you did for me when I came here--It was you and Sherrod Brown who sat right there by the door. You let Bennet and Brown become Bennet, Brown, Booker--three B's. We joined together with some of the most extraordinary House Members and Brother Warnock to fight for the child tax credit.

It took years, but we found our opening when we called Ron Klain together before the election was even settled and said: Please, the best thing our country can do is to expand the child tax credit and make it fully refundable. Because we knew, as you said, it would give the overwhelming majority--between 80 and 93 percent depending on what State you are--of people in those States a--when you expand the earned income tax credit, it would give them a tax break.

It was arguably one of the greatest tax cuts in the last 50 years. It cut child poverty in America nearly in half. And child poverty is a moral obscenity. Child poverty is violence against children--violence.

Here is the thing that you and I both know from the research: Every dollar you spend in raising a child above the poverty line, you return to society between $5 and $7 in economic growth and activity or in lesser costs because kids above the child poverty line have, for example, less visits to the emergency room.

I just don't understand how we are a nation--again, the wealthiest Nation--that has one of the highest child poverty rates. It makes no sense, zero sense, when we proved once and for all with that 1-year effort--because we couldn't make it permanent; we were short one vote in this body--we proved forever in America that child poverty is a policy choice, not an inevitable reality.

So you asked a great question. Why, in a nation that was founded by men that studied virtue, the ideals of virtue--they were imperfect geniuses. They were imperfect geniuses, but they really struggled with moral philosophy.

We have the power--we have proven it--to cut child poverty in half. What is the argument against it? Wasteful spending? Come on. Come on. Giving trillions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthiest in America--I am sorry, it is wasteful spending, especially if it ends up blowing a hole. Those tax cuts don't pay for themselves. Trump 1 tax cuts didn't, and renewing them won't. Doing the same thing over and over again and thinking you will get different results is the very definition of ``insanity.''

You are one of the most passionate--I remember a spellbinder of a speech you gave in this body. You were so angry.

I love it when Bennet is unchained.

You were so angry when you started talking about the horrible policies of this Nation that have eaten away the inheritance of children to come. You went off on the trillions of dollars spent on stupid foreign wars, where our brave men and women fought for this country, but this country made bad mistakes in these long wars. You talked about the money we spent there. And you talked about the first time in American history--common sacrifice every war before that, not just the men and women who were brave enough to go out and fight--you said the first time in American history that we said: The only people that are going to bear a burden are the people that are going to go. The rest of you get tax cuts.

George Bush--first time ever we went to war and gave tax cuts. From the Civil War, to the Revolutionary War, to World War I, to World War II, it was a common collective effort. My grandmother talked with pride about victory gardens and with pride about war bonds. Everybody pitched in.

Here we are at another crossroads. Is America going to tolerate this idea that we are going to give extraordinary tax cuts that overwhelmingly, disproportionately will accrue to the wealthiest amongst us? For what?

If I were a mayor, I would have to answer that. So I appreciate your question, but I also appreciate your moral indignation. I really do. I keep saying over and over again, in elevating the voices of Americans on this floor, in elevating the point, I hope, that we can't keep doing things like this as business as usual. These are real issues, not of right or left or of right or wrong. It is a moral moment in America, and you point out a very clear choice we have: When we talk about our tax policy, it should reflect our values.

Thank you, sir.

For Jack Reed, I would do just about anything. So I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

To answer the Senator's question, I have been on the floor since last night. So I haven't read any news reports. But when you ask if I am aware of thousands and thousands of HHS employees who have been laid off of their jobs, I am not aware of it, but I am not surprised. The question isn't, Is Donald Trump going to lay more people off? The question isn't, Is Donald Trump going to lay, more disproportionately, veterans off? The question is, What are we going to do to stop it when it isn't thoughtful, reasonable cuts?

He talks about the people he is cutting as leaches and demeans and degrades their commitment to service and their noble obligations.

We were told that HHS would be about making America healthy again, and I haven't seen that. I have seen them cut services that give children access to fresh and healthy foods. I have seen them cut regulations on polluters that make our air quality worse, which hurts people with emphysema, with asthma, and with other respiratory diseases. In fact, a lot of the actuarials show that more Americans die when polluters are allowed to go back to polluting more. I can go through the things they are doing that are not making our water healthier or safer, that are not making our air

healthier or safer, not making more access to access healthcare that stops and treats chronic disease, and not giving access to healthy food. We are not making America healthy anymore.

So these cuts don't surprise me, but they hurt me. They hurt me. These are Americans. They are disproportionately veterans. I thank you for speaking up for them today.

I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

I so appreciate the question from my friend.

I really think that he is a superpower, and you are a Superman in that character because you are thinking about the people affected.

We throw these acronyms down here, and they sound like government programs, but then you meet with people. I remember when I was starting out in my political career in service in Newark, and I had this dear friend named Kim. She was one of these people who worked at trying to sign people up for LIHEAP. The stories would affect her of the people for whom that was a lifeline for them to have a little bit of resources--a little bit of resources--to help them get their energy costs in place where they could afford heat in the winter and some air in the summer. There are stories of elders and the vulnerable.

I don't understand how we can be a nation with so much wealth and abundance, and we haven't figured out a way to design a system where, when you invest in the well-being of people, people thrive, where kids are growing up in quality housing, with great public schools, with clean air, without lead in their water, and above the poverty line.

Do you know what I love about young people in this country? It is their resiliency. I meet these beautiful children with light in their eyes, and all they need is a little fertile ground, and they go beyond our imagination in what they can achieve.

So here we are taking our national treasure. The resources being paid into our taxes are our national treasure. And what do we invest in? What do we do with it? Well, we are running up more debt. We are not going to pay for these tax cuts that are overwhelmingly going to go to the wealthiest, but we are taking all of these things that people rely on from our veterans to our seniors, to our disabled, to our expectant moms. We are just taking as much as we can to defer as much of these gross tax cuts that go disproportionately to the wealthy.

So, again, I return to where I have been for closing in on 19 hours. I go back to: What are we going to do about it? It can't be business as usual. There are too many things we have already covered that show that this is a moral moment in America. Where do we stand?

As John Lewis said and as I keep repeating--he says it is time to get into good trouble, necessary trouble, to redeem the soul of our Nation, and what you are talking about goes directly to the soul, what we stand for. Whom do we stand for? We should stand for each other.

Thank you, sir.

To my dear friend, I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

I thank you for being here. I thank you for your leadership. I thank you for what you stand for. I look forward to your question.

Yes.

I thank you for the question, my friend and my chairwoman.

I did talk about this, but it is so worth repeating. At some point in the night, we covered Social Security, and we read story after story after story of senior citizens who are frightened and afraid that the President of the United States will stand at the joint address and attack Social Security and make fun of it with lie after lie after lie about millions and millions of people getting fraudulent checks when the people who do the fact-checking and even the Social Security folks themselves say that it is a minuscule number of people getting checks and usually it is an overpayment.

But they didn't stop there. Elon Musk called it a Ponzi scheme. The richest man in the world and the most powerful man in the world-- himself a billionaire--are attacking the program that millions and millions of our senior citizens rely on.

I read letters from people who said: Don't forget about the mental or disabled who rely on SSI. They were begging us to remember and speak their names and tell their stories.

There is a lot of fear, a lot of terror, a lot of insecurity.

We spoke about this on the floor, that the benefits are already being cut. What do I mean by that? Well, if you are cutting Social Security offices--as one of our colleagues said from New Hampshire--in a rural area, you are forcing people to have to drive 100 miles if they have a problem. They can't talk on the phone because the wait times on the phone--I read an article in the Wall Street Journal, which is no leftwing mag. It was talking about how the customer service is going downhill because of the cuts they are making, and now you are forcing seniors--we read letters from 85-year-olds, 90-year-olds, 93-year-olds. They are going to drive 100 miles?

I read letters from Social Security workers who now work in inadequate spaces, with inadequate staff, unable to do the job they love. They are not leeches. They are not people who should be demeaned or degraded by the most powerful people in our land. They are public servants who love their jobs and want to serve seniors but now can't do it because they cut, cut, cut before they thought, thought, thought.

I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

I cannot emphasize to you strongly enough, we decided to start this whole thing at 7 p.m. last night with Medicaid. We read story after story after story after story of people who are Medicaid beneficiaries who are terrified, who are afraid. If they cut $880 billion, if they diminish the cuts in any way to their services--they are holding together their lives in this fragile financial equilibrium, and one little tug of a transportation service, one little tug of a home healthcare giver, and it all crumbles. They are terrified and afraid.

Some Americans are dealing with the greatest challenges--not of their own making. Some of them are working full-time jobs, and getting an injury causes an extraordinary amount of chaos to their lives.

So, yes, I read from the people who are recipients. I read from the people who run hospitals--from rural hospitals, to urban hospitals, to level I trauma centers--who all said that if they cut hundreds of billions of dollars, it will affect them.

I did something really important. I read from Republican Governors and Democratic Governors because I keep saying over and over: America, this is not right or left. It is right or wrong. It is not a partisan moment. It is an American moment. It is a moral moment.

I read voices from Republicans specifically, Republican Governors in Medicaid expansion States. They have this trigger--you know this--many States, that when the funding from the Federal Government dips below 90 percent, boom, Medicaid expansion is over and millions of people are in financial crisis, in healthcare crisis.

What is it going to take for us to say no with such a firm voice, such a chorus of conviction, thousands, hundreds of thousands of Americans, red, white, and blue, every State, saying: Do not do this for no good reason but to give the majority of your tax cuts to billionaires like Elon Musk. It makes no sense.

Who are we as a country? These are not normal times. This is not usual. We should be standing up because I read the stories of Republicans who run hospitals, Republicans who are Governors, who all are saying: Don't do this. Don't do this.

Senator Padilla, I was teasing. I am not yielding yet, Senator Padilla. I was teasing that man over there named Bennet. He and I have known each other for years, but you and I have known each other for longer. I knew the Senator from Washington before I got here-- mutual friends. So these are three people who were friends of mine before we met in this institution. If I had Coons here, I would have all four.

You, though, I knew you longer than Bennet, longer than the great Senator from Washington, and the chairwoman. We met in 1998, 1999, around then. We were both city council people. And a dear friend, the beautiful man who introduced us, told me before we walked into your office that you were a rising star, that you were a man of deep decency; that you were going to do extraordinary things in your career, and he didn't overstate the fact.

You are one of my close friends, and I definitely yield for a question while retaining the floor.

I love you for that question, my friend. And I just want to talk about anger because I have been all over the place. I read these letters, and they make me sad. I read these letters, and they make me angry. I read these letters, and they make me embarrassed that we are a country where people have to rent their pride and beg for help because of the little, teeny modicum of support they get from a service like Medicaid.

But I have been saying over and over again--as I have tried to learn from my elders, as I have tried to learn from the heroes I revere--that I learned from my parents anger is not a bad emotion. It is what you do with that emotion that is important.

Does it consume you? Does it drive you to hate other people or do you allow it to fuel you? Because it was ferocious love that had ancestors of all of ours in this country make it through insults--no Irish need apply; the injuries of Japanese internments. It is what do you do with those feelings. You are not defined by what happens to you; you are defined by how you choose to respond.

So I tell people, anger--if you are not angry, if you are not angry-- let that fuel you.

Well, what about the heartbreak that I feel? Well, I get emotional sometimes because I read a letter and something in it makes me remember somebody I know or to feel the hurt of constituents begging for help, and it breaks my heart.

But I tell you, if America hasn't broken your heart, you don't love her enough because there is so much heartbreak and fear and pain in a nation where people are seeing their economic hopes and dreams of maybe buying a home or having the money to help their kids with school or to meet their basic needs--where so many Americans are one flat tire, one $400 hit, and they are suddenly doing payday loans or having to struggle to find a way through. There is so much heartbreak in this country.

Great love means you make yourself vulnerable to having that heartbreak. But the heart is a powerful tool that, even when it is broken, it still beats.

What about people who are afraid? I get afraid sometimes. I think about this legislation: If it goes through, what is going to happen in my State? I know the hospitals. I know the recipients.

But you are telling me: Look at our history. Is there anybody in American history that you revere that didn't face extraordinary fear, because you cannot have great courage without great fear. Fear is a necessary precondition to courage. And so you ask me, my friend, what can people do?

I want to remind people, as I have said before on this floor, to remember the truth that I heard before I came here: that change does not come from Washington; it comes to Washington by the people who demand it.

I said this earlier: Do you think that we got suffrage in this country because a bunch of men on this Senate floor right here put their hands in and said: Hey, fellas, on the count of three, women get the right to vote. Ready? One, two, three, go.

No. That is not how it happened. It happened because of Alice Paul. She was a young, young person from New Jersey. She broke with the course of human events. Alice Paul--one of my greatest heroes--you know what she did? She caused a heck of a lot of good trouble, necessary trouble.

She is the first American ever--young American, in her early twenties--the first American ever to protest in front of the White House. She broke with the older, more mature suffrage organizations and went to the White House and did what she called a silent protest. She held up signs quoting President Woodrow Wilson's own words about freedom and equality saying: Aren't they true for me? Like a great Black woman would later say: Ain't I a woman? Don't I deserve rights?

You don't think she was afraid? Let me tell you how afraid she was. Hundreds came out to jeer her, blocking the street, and then they arrested her for obstructing public passage.

And then what do you do with a strong, powerful woman? You say that she is crazy, and you throw her in an insane asylum, before Gandhi. Sitting in jail before Gandhi, Alice Paul, this young American from New Jersey, goes on a hunger strike.

And they don't honor her hunger strike. They shove tubes down her throat, crack eggs into the tube, force-feeding her.

And thank God for the First Amendment, which is under attack here in America; the freedom of the press, under attack here in America. Look at the dragging of the journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg, right now for doing what? Getting the highest security officials in the land, just showing them the laws that they were breaking.

A journalist covered what Alice Paul did. She gets out of jail because of public outrage. She goes back to protesting in front of the White House, and Woodrow Wilson, the President of the United States, finally comes out and joins her in supporting suffrage.

You don't think she was afraid, angry, heartbroken? But she did something different. She chose a new and unusual pathway to show that this is not the America I believe in.

The poetry of Langston Hughes:

America never was America to me,

And yet I swear this oath--

America will be!

The poetry of Langston Hughes:

There's a dream in the land

With its back against the wall.

To save the dream for one,

It must be saved for ALL.

It is what you do with those emotions that matters. Does it call you to greater service? Does it call you to greater sacrifice? Does it call you to greater love?

And let me say one more thing. As you were speaking, I just wanted to bring this up. You know I love history. And this is one of my favorite letters, Alex, my colleague Senator Padilla.

It is one of my favorite letters in all of American history because an obscure, unknown American--obscure and unknown, would never have been known--writes a letter to a powerful, powerful man. This obscure American woman that nobody knows or would have heard of ever, if somebody didn't hear about her story and write a book--she would be gone, like most of the great heroes in American history that we don't know their names.

It reminded me of the last healthcare debate when Donald Trump tried to take away the ACA and how many amazing, heroic people who I don't remember their names but rose up and said: No, no, no.

They got three of my colleagues--McCain, Murkowski, and Collins--to change their vote on this floor and stop healthcare from being stripped away from 20 million Americans.

Well, here is what I mean. It is not the powerful people with titles and celebrity and offices and billions of dollars that have ever shaped this country. What shapes this Nation is hard-working, determined Americans who say: I am going to redeem the dream of America. I am going to heal the soul of this country. I am going to demand that we do better, that we rise higher, that we make change happen.

What can you do, that you ask, if you are a young person?

I love this letter. It is written by Frederick Douglass to an unknown person that would have never been heard of if it wasn't for this book. And he writes to his friend:

I am glad to know that the story of your eventful life has

been written by a kind lady, and that the same is soon to be

published. You ask for what you do not need--

Frederick Douglass writes--

when you call upon me for a word of commendation. I need such

words from you far more than you can need them from me--

He says to this unknown woman--

especially where your superior labors and devotion to the

cause of the lately enslaved of our land are known as I know

them.

The difference between us is very marked--

Said the great Frederick Douglass, one of the most known people. He was the most photographed man, period, in the 1800s.

Most that I have done and suffered in the service of our

cause has been in public, and I have received much

encouragement at every step of the way. You, on the other

hand, have labored in a private way. I have wrought in the

day--you in the night. I have had the applause of the crowd

and the satisfaction that comes of being approved by the

multitude, while the most that you have done has been

witnessed by a few trembling, scarred, and foot-sore bondmen

and women, whom you have led out of the house of bondage, and

whose heartfelt, ``God bless you,'' has been your only

reward.

The midnight sky and the silent stars have been the

witnesses of your devotion to freedom and of your heroism.

Excepting John Brown--of sacred memory--I know of no one who

has willingly encountered more perils and hardships to serve

our enslaved people than you have. Much that you have done

would seem improbable to those who do not know you as I know

you. It is to me a great pleasure and a great privilege to

bear testimony for your character and your works, and to say

to those to whom you may come, that I regard you in every way

truthful and trustworthy.

He gave his legitimacy to this book project, Frederick Douglass, to then an unknown woman who did the most heroic things. Her name was Harriet Tubman.

How did we get here, America, to this privileged place? Well, we got here because of that incredible infrastructure project that this place didn't fund called the Underground Railroad, where Black Americans and White Americans broke laws, did civil disobedience to stop slavery.

How did we get here? We got here because young 20-somethings got up on a bridge named for a grand wizard of the KKK, named the ``Edmund Pettus Bridge.'' We got here because they marched. We got here because they were beaten. We got here because they bled.

And I may know one or the two of the people on that bridge. I may know one or two of their names. But I am in this body because of them.

How did we get here, America? We got here because of people whose names I don't know who fought at Seneca Falls.

How did we get here? We got here because of people whose names I don't know who stood at Stonewall. We got here because of people's names I don't know who were there at Selma.

This is the answer to your question. This is an American moral moment. This is a question of where do we stand for healthcare? where do we stand for Social Security? where do we stand for VA benefits? where do we stand for our American neighbor when the call and commandment of every faith in our land is to love your neighbor?

What is the quality of our love, America? Now is the time to get angry, but let that anger fuel you. Now is your time to get scared for what is happening to your neighbors, and let that fear bring about your courage.

Now is your time to stare at despair and say: You will not have the last word because I am going to stand up, and at least I can give one person hope in this country. Can I give one person hope in this country?

So what do I want from my fellow Americans? Do better than me. Do better than we, in this body. We are flawed and failed people.

I see people showing up at our townhalls, yelling at us, Democrat and Republican: Do more. How are you letting this happen?

Well, I hate to tell you, we are doing all that I can think of. This is why I am standing here trying to give voice to those people. But what is more needed from now is less people sitting on the sidelines, less people being witnesses of American history and more people determined to make it, to make history, to call to the conscience of this Nation, to say: I will not stand for another American to lose their healthcare for a billionaire. I will not stand for another veteran who is dedicated to stopping the suicide of other veterans to lose their job. I won't stand for the air quality in my community to be made worse because they are letting polluters pollute more. I won't stand for the collective assaults on the Constitution by a man who even the highest Judge in our land, a Republican-appointed Judge, said: Stop threatening and bullying other branches of government.

When is it going to be enough? My voice is inadequate. My efforts today are inadequate to stop what they are trying to do.

But we the people are powerful. We are strong. We have changed history. We have bent the arc of the moral universe, and now is that moral moment again. It is the moral moment again.

God bless America. We need you now. God bless America. If you love her, if you love your neighbor, if you love this country, show your love. Stop them from doing what they are trying to do.

And for almost 20 hours we have laid out what they are trying to do-- 20 hours. I want to stand more, and I will, but I am begging people: Don't let this be another normal day in America. Please, God--please, God--don't let them take Medicaid away from 10, 20, 30, or 40 million Americans who desperately need it. Don't let them do it.

I will yield to my dear friend whom I owe an apology. The last hours of your birthday, as I was preparing for this, I realize we have a special bond. Before I yield, I want to tell this guy--

Hold on. I yield, but I retain the right to the floor. So I yield, but I retain the right to the floor.

I yield, but I retain the right to the floor.

Yes, sir.

Well, as we were talking earlier, the firings are adding up. It is now going to be 80,000 people from the VA alone, a disproportionate number of veterans. So that is a rollback in service.

We already know that veterans in all of the government Agencies represent about 24 percent of the government workers we are talking about that are getting fired. And these are veterans--as I read their stories--that just want to keep serving their country from the national parks to serving their fellow veterans and helping them get healthcare.

We are seeing people that get exemplary reviews and then they are fired as probationary workers under the only way they can, according to laws, to say that they are a bad Federal worker.

Then they get insult on top of it when the highest--the most powerful

man in the world and the richest man in the world, Trump and Musk, come together and call the guy making $45,000 serving other veterans, they call him a leech; they call him a parasite.

And so I hear what you are saying. Like, these are folks that I read their stories. They did things that few Americans would do. They went overseas and served in combat.

We had one of our dear friends here who lost her legs in combat, but she stands taller than most all the people in this body. These are the people that are so ingrained in their bodies and minds and souls to serve America, to love America. This President calls somebody like John McCain a sucker--the guy who dodged the draft.

So I hear what you are saying, and one of the things I heard you saying is it makes no sense. Nobody came to the Veterans' Affairs Committee in the Senate who actually approves the resources, establishes the Agencies, and should have the say--according to this document, this civically sacred text, our Constitution.

So what are you going to say to them if you don't even know what the plan is, you can't even explain to us what is your plan to making the VA system more efficient.

Here is the other thing. We passed in this body some of my favorite Senators like Jon Tester, whom I miss so much--maybe I just miss bumping into the guy because he was the only person in the Senate who let me run hallway all the way and hit him.

I used to joke that it was this test to see what happens when the unstoppable force beats the immovable object. He is a void in this place, but he stood for that PACT Act. He has the most fiery speeches, and finally we got that bill passed. We had to add tens of thousands of jobs because of the increased hundreds of thousands of people that were affected from these burn pits or from other challenges, and now we are cutting back 83,000 employees.

Patty Murray said something that affected me in my first weeks as a Senator when I, in New Jersey, sat down with women veterans, and they told me how long they had to wait for gynecological care. So what is this administration doing in its 83,000 cuts? Are they going to improve services to our female veterans? I don't believe it. I don't believe it. Show me I am wrong because we have an article I duty: oversight; checks and balances. Are we doing that right now?

One of the worst things I have seen happen in national security--and by the way, there are national security screwups on both parties. Nobody has a monopoly on this. Let's not be overly partisan here. But weeks ago, our--who are supposed to be the pros and set the example, our national security leadership was using a commercial app to communicate classified documents, and they had it on disappearing messages so they are violating the law of the land called the Preserving Public Records Act.

Now, I have heard from Republicans and Democrats. This is outrageous. There should be an investigation. We should be asking commonsense questions. Was this a pattern and practice of communication? How many other things that are classified have you been communicating about? There is a lot of really important questions that you should have to answer to, but where are the hearings, folks?

I just wonder why this body is shrinking from the articulated duties that we all raised our hands and said we would defend and preserve this Constitution and what it says we should do, what it says our jobs should do.

But you are Senator. I am a Senator. I can't tell you what the cut in the VA plan is. I can't tell you. They haven't come in here and told us. Are we doing our job? I can't tell you are we preserving and fighting for national security after one of the biggest national security scandals I have seen since I have been here.

They don't have providence in a partisan way, but they should answer for it. Are we doing our constitutional duty?

What about the administration that is ending the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, ending that Agency, ending the Department of Education? Do they have the right to do that according to this document? No.

Are we saying: Hey, we are going to stand up for the people who preserved this document? No. Thank God for the article III branch of government because they are being dragged into court, and Republican- appointed judges and Democrat-appointed judges are saying you can't do it.

Do you know what Trump is doing? He is ignoring the courts, and then he is demonizing the judges. You know that threats on judges in America, that threats have gone up 400 percent.

You know, I had a Federal judge--God bless her--where somebody thought they were going to her house. They did. She wasn't home, and they murdered her son and shot her husband. And Trump is out there threatening judges, dragging them on Twitter or X or whatever he is calling it now.

This is America. I know people on both sides of the aisle. We believe in common decency. We believe in respect. We believe that the highest office in the land should represent the best of our values not the worst, not a guy we wouldn't even let babysit our kids.

So I don't know what is going on with veterans, but I am not going to sit by and do nothing. That is why I am standing here. That is why I read the voices of so many veterans. Let's elevate the voices of the Americans who are being hurt and harmed. Let's talk for them if they can't talk for themselves. Let's tell them that we see you, we love you, and that all of us, we are going to fight for you.

From you, my friend, who doubled the number of vegans in the Senate, I yield for a question while retaining the floor. Thank you for being here.

You can't engage in a dialogue. The Parliamentarian is going to stare me down. You can ask me questions.

I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Right.

Yes.

My friend and colleague, I am hoping that we can figure out thousands of ignition points where Americans can stand up and do that call to their fellow Americans to do more. I am not upset at the folks that have been saying to Democratic Senators and House Members, and to me, challenging me--I have talked to so many of my constituents who said: You have got to do more.

And all of us have to interrogate ourselves because, like I said at the very beginning of this--at 7 p.m. on Monday night, I said: We have to say to history where we stood--where we stood when they were coming after our constitutional principles, where we stood when they were threatening judges to impeach them for making just decisions, where we stood when they were taking law firms and threatening their business unless they came and kowtowed to the great leader, where we stood when they were disappearing people from America without due process that even Antonin Scalia said they should have. Where were you when they came after the healthcare of the disabled, the healthcare of the children, the healthcare of the expectant mothers, the healthcare of seniors? Where were you when they attacked veterans, laying them off for no justifiable reason and attacking the VA services that they rely on?

Where were you when we turned our back on Ukraine? Where were you when we turned our back on our alliances?

Where were you when they took the economy down with tariffs, when they took the economy down by threatening it so consumer confidence drops? Where were you?

How many things are going on before we answer the question, as it says in Hebrew, Hineini. Hineini. Behold, Lord, here I am.

And so I confess that I have been imperfect. I confess that I have been inadequate to the moment. I confess that the Democratic Party has made terrible mistakes, that it gave a lane to this demagogue.

I confess we all must look in the mirror and say we will do better. And it is not just fighting ourselves on what we are against. We, the next generation, as the baby boomers are leaving the stage--the last baby boomer President--we have to say that we are going to redeem the dream. We are going to dream America anew.

We are going to start talking about bold things that don't divide people, that unite people--bold things that excite the moral imagination of a country to do better, to go higher, to call us together. This is the time when new leaders in our country must emerge.

I am not talking about Senators. I am talking about citizens. This time of despair and darkness doesn't demand more darkness. We don't need to demean and degrade people who disagree with us. This is a time for us to do something bigger than that.

Do you think Martin Luther King in Birmingham hated Bull Connor or said: I am going to defeat this guy by bringing bigger dogs and bigger firehoses.

No. But he did say: We are going to be so creative that we are going to inspire the moral imagination of the Nation. We are going to call to the conscience of the country. We are going to excite them about who we could be.

When he went to the March on Washington he didn't stand there and complain about the demagogues. Listen to his speech. He didn't stand there and demean and degrade the Governor of Alabama. He didn't stand there and talk down to Bull Connor.

No, he stood before the American people and said:

It is not what you are against; it is what you are for.

I have a dream.

And now it is our generation. We have to redeem the dream. We have to excite people again.

He, in the highest office of our land, wants to divide us against ourselves, wants to make us afraid, wants to make us fear so much that we are willing to violate people's fundamental rights, we are willing to go after the speech on college campuses, to go after law firms, to go after freedom of the press. Don't let him do that.

Don't become like him. Be an American that says: I look to the future, and I am excited. Yes, things are tough right now. They are hard. They are scary. They are hurting. But we can overcome this.

Our American history, if it is nothing else--American history, if it is nothing else--it is a perpetual testimony to the achievement of impossible things against impossible odds. We are a nation that is great, not because of the people that are trying to whitewash our history, to remove great people, Native Americans, Black people, and women from our military websites.

I don't want a Disney vacation of our history. I don't want to whitewash history. I don't want to homogenize history. Tell me the wretched truth about America because that speaks to our greatness.

And so what do I want the people to do? It starts with us, man, and you are doing it. I see the courage of my colleagues. We are doing it, but we have to do more. And I am sorry. I am not going to be a politician that is going to say: We are going to do more for you.

I am going to be a politician, I am going to be a leader that demands more from America.

I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

The mere fact that you can quote Alexis de Tocqueville-- you have got me. You have me.

I remember being right here in this seat watching you.

Yes.

Yes, I miss Elijah.

Yes.

I don't know. I am finding it from my colleagues right now. I am finding it from my friends. I am finding it from their heart and their commitment, and I am finding it from the people whose names and stories we are reading. You know I appreciate your friendship. I am so happy you are my colleague now.

And I believe that our future, our tomorrows--as bad as things seem, I still believe our tomorrows are better than our yesterdays. I know you share it.

Before I yield to you, I just want you to know, I love you, my friend. Thanks for doing some good things recently, you and I, trying to solve some big problems. I appreciate that.

I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

I am going to answer your question. I want to say thank you. There have been so many Congress people coming on to the floor from the House of Representatives. It reminds me of some other times when big things were happening and people would come to the floor. But this is a lot more, and I just want to express thank you for your kindness.

I also called the chairwoman of the CBC last night, texted her, and the force of the CBC, which has been giving me spirit and strength for a long time, is really one of the best parts of my time here as a U.S. Senator. The fact they have come through constantly means a lot to me.

I am grateful that my cousin Pam has been here the entire time--just like Chris Murphy--the entire time in the Gallery. I love her and I am grateful for her. She is sitting next to my brother. I am thankful for that.

I want to answer your question. I get it all the time, and I am not sure how to answer it all the time. I read letters that got me emotional in the middle of the night where somebody would detail all their challenges. They would render personal information to me in letters about their struggles with healthcare, about their conditions, about their pain, about their hurt--just sending it out to their government official that they never probably met, hoping that they might just listen to you and be activated by your voice. Then many of them ended the letter with that question: I am here to help you in any way. It really moves me because I believe in the decency of our country.

And so I just want to try to answer that question more with me trying to think creatively about more that I could do as a leader because, as I said before, I think we as Democratic leaders have to start thinking more creatively. Obviously, we don't control the Senate, we don't control the House; but we have positions that were given to us in trust by the people we represent. In moments like this, they require us to be more creative or more imaginable or more persistent and dogged and determined.

I say that in front of some of my colleagues on the floor I know personally, like you, and some of my CBC colleagues sitting over here to my right who have been my rock for almost 13 years.

I just know, before I turn to my left to the woman who represents the most important person in my 55 years, my mom--I just want to say that the answer to that question has to be something that I will do, something more than I am doing now because the cause is so great, the challenges are so real.

I will do something that I have not done before to try to help my neighbor at a time of moral crisis in our country, and that I may be afraid, my voice may shake, but I am going to speak up more. I may be demoralized by what is happening, but I am going to find a way to get out of bed and breathe and know that I can make myself feel a little bit better by helping another person.

I don't know what it is, but we have to help each other now through this and know--I am a person of faith, and it was said to me by a colleague that though we would be willing to work through the night, but joy will come.

I am going to turn to my left because I always say that she is a Senator, but she has had one of the hardest jobs in all of America, which is to be the President of a shule. I met her and I realized she could probably do anything.

Yes, I am not Jewish, but my name is Booker, so I always say I am meshuga Booker.

There is a formal way I have to do this. I see you, I love you, and I am wondering if you have something to ask me.

I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

That is powerful.

You and I.

Yes.

Whom I suspect, like my cousin and my brother in the Galleries, that my mom is watching--

--from Las Vegas.

I want to answer your question, but first I want to just say what you already know. You represent my mom. You represent one of her best friends, Lou. You represent my Aunt Shirley. You represent my Uncle Butch. You represent my Aunt Marilyn. You represent so much of my family.

This is the place where my father died, and when Harry Reid came to his bedside when he was sick and I was still running for this office and he showed me the extraordinary kindness of Senators from Nevada-- that tradition has continued. I am so grateful for you. My family is grateful for you. I am grateful that we were founders of the Black Jewish Caucus, and, in fact, I am going to--

Our Juneteenth seder is coming up. I am going to put this on as you have it on.

I think about Edan Alexander and all those who are suffering. I am just so grateful for our friendship and what we have done against anti- Semitism, about what we have done for the Abraham Accords. You and I are those who find a lot of ways to work with people.

The best thing I saw in you was on January 6. Sitting in this row were me, you, and Mark Kelly, and I always say that often in the most difficult of circumstances, you see the best of people. I don't know if you remember this, but staffers started coming in. They rushed in. Usually, you have to have special identification. Then some of them stood behind us. They were crying, they were upset, and they were frightened. I just watched you go from Senator to mother, and I watched you comforting people in their times of fear--when they thought they were going to be killed, literally--and you were this voice of comfort, this voice of calm. I saw you in one of our country's worst crises. I saw your light. I saw your love. I saw the Jewish mom, and I benefited from that.

I just feel that Trump mocks us. What does his liberation day mean to the people who are shackled to debt? They are shackled with medical debt and they are shackled with student debt so that they can't afford the rising costs of groceries.

What does his liberation mean to people who are chained by fear, who are right now waiting with bated breath to see if the Medicaid Programs they rely on are going to be cut?

What does his liberation mean to people who are literally in jails right now because they were disappeared from our streets?

What does his liberation mean to people who can't afford homes because of his tariffs or to people who dreamed of a new car but that is going to go up as well?

I don't know what he means by ``liberation.'' I honestly don't. I wish he could explain it to the American people.

Who is liberated? In these financial times, who is liberated? I don't think the law firms feel liberated. They are so threatened by you that they felt the only way they could get out from under the threat of you is to come to you and beg and offer and say ``We will do this'' and say ``We will give you millions of dollars of pro bono work.'' I don't think they feel liberated.

What about the people who are banned from the press corps because they won't call it the Gulf of America? The idea of the freedom of the press--do they feel his liberty? What does his liberty mean?

What does Donald Trump's liberty day tomorrow mean in a nation where I read in letter after letter of people who feel like their liberty is gone, that they are losing sleep at night, worried about Social Security?

What does liberty mean to the veteran who was laid off who fought for my liberty?

What does Donald Trump's liberty mean? What is he talking about?

What does his liberty mean to Canada, who fought next to us, who died next to Americans who were fighting for our own causes? What does his liberty mean to them?

I don't understand Donald Trump. I really don't. There are going to be Ph.D. students writing about him for generations. He will love that in Heaven. He will look down and say: I am so happy that people are talking about me.

But I will tell you this: I love great Presidents. I love that Lincoln said:

With malice toward none, with charity [toward] all.

But I hear Donald Trump say with malice toward everybody who does not tell him how great he is, and charity--I don't know if he understands that, what it means to have sympathy and

compassion and empathy and to help people whether they like you or not.

I love great Presidents. I love FDR: ``You have nothing to fear but fear itself.'' But in letter after letter after letter was the word ``fear'' and the word ``terror.'' I was reading from voices from my State and across the country. It says: If Donald Trump is saying be afraid, be afraid of me, the big man with the power. Be afraid. Be afraid. Be afraid.

There was another President who said, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'' Yet Ukrainian-Americans are watching their President go not ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall''; they are saying ``Hey, Mr. Putin, come in and take the Donbas. I am going to start the negotiations--not with Zelenskyy at the table. I am going to call him a dictator. I am going to start the negotiations from a position of giving Putin what he wants--Ukrainian sovereign land--and that is where we will start the negotiation.''

I love John F. Kennedy. Quoting a poet: ``Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.'' With Donald Trump, it is not ``Ask not what your country can do for you''; it is ``Ask what can you do for Donald Trump because I will threaten you until you kowtow. I will threaten to run primaries against you if you don't fall in line and vote for things you know are wrong. I will terrorize your law firm unless you come to me and kiss my ring. I will make political your applications for your merger. I will drop cases against you. I will pardon you if,'' as he said in a recent pardon--he was a pro-Trump guy.

I don't understand this. I really don't. I don't understand why he tries to divide Americans.

I got on a plane once. I am on a plane, and I am juggling to put my carryon up. I get lots of reactions in airports, I have to say on the whole part, good, but occasionally--I think my colleagues next month, next May, should send me a Mother's Day card because occasionally I get called ``you mother'' with something following it.

So here I am putting up my overhead baggage, and I sit down next to two people--the Presiding Officer before this, my friend from Alabama-- two Alabamians, one 80 years old and one 60 years old, mother and a daughter.

They saw people paying attention to me, and they said: Who are you? Are you a professional athlete?

As a middle-age, overweight, Black guy, my ego wasn't insulted. I wanted to say: Well, I could be, but I chose to serve the people.

But no. I go: No, ma'am, I am not.

Well, who are you then?

Well, I am a Senator.

And we are so conditioned in America. If we meet a Congress person out and about, the first thing we want to know is, whose team are you on--my team or their team? It is us versus them. We have a horrible dynamic of tribalism in our country.

I took a deep breath, and I looked at these two great American women and said: Ma'am, I am a Democrat.

The woman next to me looks at me, suddenly sour, and she said: I should have brought my Trump hat.

And she wheeled away from me.

Immediately, I said: Do you know what, I am not going to dance to this tune. I am going to scratch this record. I am going to scratch this record.

I looked at her, and I go: Oh, my gosh. Donald Trump signed two of the biggest bills I wrote in Congress into law--the FIRST STEP Act, which we passed in this body with 87 votes. We would have gotten 88 if one of my dear friends and colleagues was not off trying to do whatever in the world and he wasn't here to vote on it. I talked about opportunity zones and working with Tim Scott to get billions of dollars invested into some of our country's poorest rural and urban areas.

Now they were confused, but by the end of that flight, Donald Trump didn't divide us, though. By the end of that flight, I was talking to them like fellow Americans, and we found so many points of connection, so much common humanity, and so much common cause.

These outrage machines--TV and these devices--I want to say to America that their financial interest is to keep your eyes on the screen as much as you possibly can. Do you know what sells? Division. Divide. Moral indignation.

I will tell you this: I have this great friend who is part of the bald club--Van Jones. He told me this story that he was on ``Crossfire'' on CNN. Van Jones got on with Newt Gingrich.

Van Jones--the green activist guy I met in law school--is an extraordinary man. He speaks like a poet to me. He worked in the Obama White House. Then Newt Gingrich is a very known Republican.

The two of them sit down. But Brene Brown writes something extraordinary. She writes: It is hard to hate up close, so pull people in.

So they get on this show called ``Crossfire,'' and they found out that with all the differences they have, they also have commonality, things they agree on, and they actually kind of like each other.

So they go to the producers, and they say: Hey, could you let us do a final segment called ``Cease-Fire''? Can you let us do a final segment called ``Cease-Fire''?

The producer said: Yes. Go ahead. Go ahead.

So they do this last segment talking about the areas where they agreed, but the producer comes running in after a few segments, saying: Stop them. Can't do it.

Why? Ratings are going down.

There are a lot of legitimate differences in places where I am going to stand my ground and fight for people's healthcare, for people's Social Security. I am going to fight. But I am never going to get in a position where anybody in this country can make me hate another American because this is the age where we have to figure out how to live up to those words up there, ``e pluribus unum.'' That is the call of our ancestors, to put more ``indivisible'' into this ``one nation under God.'' That is the challenge.

There are enough things that we agree on in America, especially when we stop and talk about things--like the child tax credit. Most Americans are for that.

Oh, gosh, I have been waiting for you. For crying out loud, why didn't you stop me earlier?

Oh, come on. Come on, Senator.

I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

This is my veterans book. This is what I was reading from earlier. And everything you are saying is right, and it is such an insult.

I read stories from our veterans. It is such an insult to the highest calling of our country, to stand and serve, as you did--as you did-- injured veterans, disabled veterans.

I read an article about thousands of disabled veterans who want to serve their country, love this Nation so much that they want to serve in humble jobs doing noble things. And how do we treat them? I will say 83,000 people being laid off. A quarter of them are our veterans from the VA itself, including veterans who do things for the Park Service in our national parks, veterans who do things for us in the Defense Department, veterans who do things for us across this country.

I find in my State that some of the greatest leaders I have met in my State are veterans who are still serving veterans. And then veteran entrepreneurs--you know the data--they are incredibly successful. They add to our economy.

The government is cutting not just veteran jobs; they are cutting contracts with veteran-owned businesses.

I don't understand how you can say out of one side of your mouth that you honor and respect our veterans, which is not what our President has always said--dear God, what he said about John McCain.

I still remember John McCain was in a townhall with Barack Obama, fighting fiercely to be the President of the United States, and somebody gets up and says that Barack Obama--as if it is an insult; it is not--is a Muslim or something, and he grabs the mike back and corrects her. One of his voters--he corrects her on national TV: This is wrong. He is a guy who loves his wife, a Christian, loves his family.

I mean, that is character and honor. Can you ever see that from our President now?

And this is how wrong I was. I want to admit I have made mistakes. I have been wrong.

I remember where I was when he said in his campaign that he is no hero, that people who are captured are not heroes. I said to the people who were with me: There goes his 15 minutes of fame. I thought that was the end of Trump. But somehow you can become President of the United States when you insult the veterans who serve.

I know you have another question, but can I read you--John Lewis and John McCain--the two Johns--are coming up a lot so far in my 20 hours. But I want to read you this. I want to read this when you are here.

This is John McCain writing:

Let me [all] tell you what I think about our Pledge of

Allegiance, our flag, and our country. I want to tell you a

story about when I was a prisoner of war. I spent 5 . . .

years at the Hanoi Hilton. In the early years of our

imprisonment, the North Vietnamese kept us in solitary

confinement or two or three to a cell.

In 1971 the [North Vietnamese] moved us from these

conditions of isolation into large rooms with as many as 30

or 40 men to a room.

This was, as you can imagine, a wonderful change and was a

direct result of the efforts of millions of Americans [led by

people like Nancy and Ronald Reagan] on behalf of a few

hundred POWs, 10,000 miles from home.

One of the men who moved into my cell was Mike Christian.

Mike came from a small town [near] Selma, Alabama. [He]

didn't wear a pair of shoes until he was 13 years old. At 17,

he enlisted in the US Navy. He later earned a commission. . .

. [H]e became a Naval Flight Officer, and was shot down and

captured in 1967. Mike had a keen and deep appreciation of

the opportunities this country and our military provide for

people who want to work and want to succeed.

The uniforms we wore in prison consisted of a blue, short-

sleeve shirt, trousers that looked like pajama trousers, and

rubber sandals that were made out of automobile tires. I

recommend them highly. My pair lasted my entire stay.

As a part of the change in treatment, the Vietnamese

allowed some prisoners to receive packages from home, and

some of these packages were handkerchiefs, scarfs, and other

items of clothing. Mike got himself a piece of white cloth

and a piece of red cloth and fashioned himself a bamboo

needle. Over a period of a couple of months, he sewed the

American flag on the inside of his shirt.

Every afternoon, before we had a bowl of soup, we would

hang Mike's shirt on the wall of our cell, and say the Pledge

of Allegiance. I know that saying the Pledge of Allegiance

may not seem the most important or meaningful part of our day

now--

Our day in the Senate--

but I can assure you that for those men in that stark prison

cell, it was indeed the most important and meaningful event

of our day.

One day, the Vietnamese searched our cell and discovered

Mike's shirt with the flag sewn inside, and removed it. That

evening they returned, opened the door of the cell, called

for Mike Christian to come out, closed the door of the cell,

and for the benefit of all of us, beat Mike Christian

severely for the next couple of hours. Then they opened the

door of the cell and threw him back inside. He was not in

good shape. We tried to comfort and take care of him as well

as we could. The cell in which we lived had a concrete slab

in the middle on which we slept. Four naked light bulbs hung

in each corner of the room.

After things quieted down, I went to lie down to go to

sleep. As I did, I happened to look in the corner of the

room. Sitting there beneath that dim light bulb, with a piece

of white cloth, a piece of red cloth, another shirt and his

bamboo needle, was my friend Mike Christian, sitting there,

with his eyes almost shut from his beating, making another

American flag. He was not making that flag because it made

Mike Christian feel better. He was making that flag because

he knew how important it was for us to be able to pledge our

allegiance to our flag and our country.

Duty, honor, country--we must never forget those thousands of Americans who, with their courage, with their sacrifice, with their lives, made those words alive for all of us. That is our veterans.

That is you. That is you, my friend.

And Trump is coming after them. DOGE is coming after them. They are firing them right now. And are we silent, America? Are we silent when the bravest amongst us, the most honorable amongst us, the most noble amongst us are losing their jobs? Did you speak up when they came for American veterans? When they fired them for no good reason, what did you do? What did you say? I say no.

I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Oh, God, I am very moved by your comments. I want to say that, from David McCormick to Jack Reed, the Senate has a good number of people who served this Nation, who answered the call. They should all get our honor and respect. Senator Blumenthal served, and he has a son, a Navy SEAL.

We should have a reverence for those people because a lot of them didn't make it back. A lot of people didn't make it back. And a lot of people who came home came home with horrible wounds, visible and invisible.

We should all be ashamed of the veterans that are committing suicide. We should all be ashamed of veteran homelessness. We have the capacity--we are a great enough nation--to help them.

But the ones that didn't come back, they watch over us. They look down upon this Nation.

I want to read you one more thing because I have--I was raised by parents who could not--they seemed really worried, raising me in an affluent town in a beautiful home, that I would not recognize how extraordinarily privileged I was.

My dad used to say to me: Boy, don't walk around this house like you hit a triple. You were born on third base.

My dad used to say things to me like: Boy, don't sit at this table and not realize that you drink deeply from wells of freedom and liberty that you did not dig. You eat from banquet tables of blessings prepared for you by your ancestors. You must metabolize those blessings, not so that you can pay your ancestors back but so you can pay it forward.

My dad, when I got degrees from Stanford, Oxford, and Yale, said: Boy, you got more degrees than the month of July, but you ain't hot. Life ain't about the degrees you get; it is about the service you give.

So McCormick and Reed and Tammy--I am here because of people that died for this country, that stormed beaches in Normandy for this country, they were at Iwo Jima for this country, they liberated Nazi concentration camps for this country. They are buried--I have seen their burials in Thailand, in fields full of American soldiers who never made it home. And every time I see one of those, I get overcome with emotion. I can't think about--when I look at their ages: 18, 19, 20, 21.

So let me read this. And I am going to compose myself because you got me all emotional, Tammy. I thought you were my friend.

This is a poem written by Billy Rose. You know it, probably. It is called ``The Unknown Soldier.'' And just listen to the words, and let them echo and see if we are living up to them, if our President lives up to them. The most powerful person in the world or the richest man in the world, are they respecting?

There's a graveyard near the White House

Where the Unknown Soldier lies,

And the flowers there are sprinkled

With the tears from mother's eyes.

I stood there not so long ago

With roses for the brave,

And suddenly I heard a voice

Speak from out the grave:

``I am the Unknown Soldier,

The spirit voice began

``And I think I have the right

To ask some questions man to man.

``Are my buddies taken care of?

Was their victory so sweet?

Is that big reward you offered

Selling pencils on the street?

``Did they really win the freedom

They battled to achieve?

Do you still respect that Croix de Guerre

Above that empty sleeve?

``Does a gold star in the window

Now mean anything at all?

I wonder how my old girl feels

When she hears a bugle call.

``And that baby who sang

`Hello, Central, give me no man's land'

Can they replace her daddy

With a military band?

``I wonder if the profiteers

Have satisfied their greed?

I wonder if a soldier's mother

Ever is in need?

``I wonder if the kings, who planned it all

Are really satisfied?

They played their game of checkers

And eleven million died.

``I am the Unknown Soldier

And maybe I died in vain,

But if I were alive and my country called,

I'd do it all over again.

Thank you, Senator. Every time I see you, I have such reverence and gratitude that I get to serve alongside of you. I didn't serve in the military alongside of you like those courageous soldiers, like those people who carried you, at risk to themselves, the people who saved your life, the people who helped you in rehab, the people that empowered you to get back on your feet and run for one of the highest offices in the land. And then you serve here with distinction because you don't forget who helped you get here.

Exactly. And my dad, who is in heaven with a lot of the other good folks from American history, I don't know what he would think of his son, but I know he would be proud of you.

All right. Let's talk about the economy.

Oh, Christopher Coons.

I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

So every time you ask me the question, we have to go through the same thing. I am slightly familiar, yes, because you talked about it, but I would be really happy if you ask me another question and you filled in some gaps.

Then I yield for a question. If you want to ask me a question, I yield for a question while retaining the floor, with the recognition that I have to do it because I am standing between two Delawareans, and I am a little nervous. A New Jerseyan never wants to be between two Delawareans.

I thank you, Senator Coons, by your strength of voice, by your tone, by the colleague and citizen that you invoke. You are saying the answer with strength, my friend.

How do we judge our Nation? What measure do we judge America? Is it by how tall our buildings are? Well, those are great marvels, but other countries have taller buildings. God, maybe Ezra Klein has got me so focused now on making our Nation do bold and build great things.

But does the speed of our rails, as an Amtrak guy, speak to the greatness of our Nation? No. Other nations have faster rail.

Does the wealth of our people--we have more billionaires than any other country--does that speak to the greatness of our Nation? No.

I think the things that speak to the greatness of a nation is: How do we take care of each other? How do we take care of our elders who deserve our respect and our reverence and gratitude for building America, for sustaining America, for doing the hard jobs to raise families to set the next generation on their way.

I think we should be judged by how we treat our children. They are the only true hope we have of seeing tomorrows that we will never live through. I think we should be judged by how we treat the sick. Whether it is people with the disease of alcoholism or mental health or crippling cancers or chronic diseases, what do we do?

I think we should be judged by how we nurture our families. God, we put American families under crazy stress. Affordable childcare, paid family leave, other nations--our competitors--have these things.

I think we should judge the greatness of our Nation by how we treat our veterans, these honorable men and women, some of them who gave their last measure--last measure of their devotion on fields across the world from Thailand to Gettysburg and gave their lives.

Those who came home--those who came home, how they--the America they experienced will speak to the truth of who we are. So I am in this place like you are in this place. We have been friends for a long time. I am

blaming you a little bit because you are one of those people I called and said: Hey, I am thinking about running for Governor. I am thinking about running for Senator.

You told me to come here, man. I am joking. I love you for it. I am honored and blessed that New Jerseyans sent me here.

I know that you and I are working to--and let's talk like we talk when we are not on the floor of the Senate. We both are deeply devoted Christians. You told me one of my favorite stories in the Senate, which I won't tell right now. I have been asking you to tell that story. I hope you will tell it, but it is just about your parents.

James Baldwin said: Children are never good at listening to their elders, but they never fail to imitate them.

You are a great reflection of the stories of your parents you told me, and you and I grapple with this faith of ours, which demands the most radical love--radical love. What does the Bible say about immigrants? I mean, come on. What does the Bible say about the poor? What does the Bible say about the hated, the prostitute, the leper, the people who are looked down upon?

What is the story of the Prodigal Son? What does Matthew 25 say about how we should live? ``Even as the least of these you did unto me.''

How many times does the Bible mention poverty. How many?

I am abiding by it. I will not yield to you. But I knew you would know it. Two thousand times it mentions poverty. Does it say we should scorn the poor? Does it say we should ignore the poor? No. It calls us to love our neighbor. No exceptions to that.

Thank you, man. I have been waiting for that question. The prayers of the righteous and vails. You are a righteous man. I have a lot of work to do.

I yield for a question, but I am retaining the floor.

I tried to instigate you, Chris. I tried to throw out Jesus bait.

Good. Thank God. I yield for a question about whatever you want to ask me for, but I am retaining the floor.

Yes, I am aware. I said it earlier that he calls it Liberation Day, and I am not sure what he means by that because Americans will not, by this move, be liberated from high prices. They won't be liberated from watching their 401(k)s dwindle in value as the stock market goes down. They won't be liberated from the high cost of groceries. They won't be liberated from the high cost and hard availability of housing.

He calls it Liberation Day, but Americans won't be liberated from crushing debt, from medical debt, from student loan debt, parents who are struggling to take care of their parents and their children who rely on Medicaid because a parent has Alzheimer's and a child has a disability and they are trying to make it all work. But yet they are shackled in fear because they see that recommended to a House Committee on Energy and Commerce was to find $880 billion of cuts to the programs that they are relying on as a lifeline to keep their family together.

Who is liberated? Who is liberated by the tariffs that he is going to come and bring onto a country where half this Nation is dealing with a tough, tough economic reality, where half of the renters in this country--you and I were both local leaders. We know it is technically the definition of housing insecurity if you are paying more than a third of your income on rent.

Chris Coons, you love people. You know people. You traveled Delaware. It is a much smaller State. I do say that with some little bit of twisted non-Christian arrogance from New Jersey looking down, but you know people in your State. I have been with you in your State. You are connected to your communities.

So you know people that are struggling just to make ends meet. You know people that are one emergency away like a car accident or a sickness that forces them to miss a week of work and a paycheck, that that will throw their lives in financial ruin.

Is this President doing his promises to make their lives better? President Trump is calling his tariffs Liberation Day. Do you think Canada feels liberated from the bully neighbor that is Donald Trump? You think Greenland feels liberated from the bullying nature? Do you think Panama feels liberated?

What about universities that are cutting NIH funding, that are cutting the scientific research that will cure the diseases in the future and will alleviate suffering? They now are not allowing postdocs to come to their school. They are not hiring. They are slashing the number of engineering students that they are allowing in because they are terrified this President is menacing indirect costs. Is that liberation?

Seventy-one days in--now 72 days. I ask you: Are you better off than you were 72 days ago economically? I ask that question. Ask it to your friends. Are they better off economically? Well, I don't see how they could be because prices are up. The stock market is down. The risk of recession is climbing. Consumer confidence is in the gutter. And 401(k) plans are losing value.

Are you better off than you were 72 days ago under this President's leadership on the verge of his so-called Liberation Day that is going to drive prices up even more?

He is doubling down on tax cuts for the rich. He wants an economy that works for him, his billionaire donors, his powerful special interests, and it is coming at the expense of working people who are struggling to get by and a lot of programs that they rely on like for their healthcare, like for their Social Security.

He wants an economy where the richest people get the biggest tax cuts with the largest corporations. Heck, they may get to skip out on taxes altogether and where hard-working Americans are getting crushed by rising food prices and rising rents.

This idea that that might trickle down, but we know it doesn't work. He is continuing the same reckless economic approach he used in his first term: massive tax cuts that inure mostly to the wealthy, unchecked spending, rapacious spending, big, big,

big holes in our national debt, trillions of dollars in more debt, and no serious plan on how to pay for any of the things that he is doing, from Social Security to public health to the education that supports children with disabilities and scientific research, the safety nets that millions of people depend upon.

Here is a New York Times: ``Trump's policies have shaken a once-solid economic outlook.'' This is from March 7.

President Trump inherited an economy that was, by most

conventional measures, firing on all cylinders. Wages,

consumer spending and corporate profits were rising.

Unemployment was low. The inflation rate, though higher than

normal, was falling.

Just weeks into Mr. Trump's term, the outlook is gloomier.

Measures of business and consumer confidence have plunged.

The stock market has been on a roller-coaster ride. Layoffs

are picking up.

And by the way, this is March 7. We just finished March, the worst performing quarter in years in the stock market.

Back to the article:

Layoffs are picking up, according to some data. And

forecasters are cutting their estimates for economic growth

this year, with some even predicting that the U.S. gross

domestic product could shrink in the first quarter.

Some commentators have gone further, arguing that the

economy could be headed for a recession, a sharp rebound in

inflation or even the dreaded combination of the two,

``stagflation.'' Most economists consider that unlikely,

saying growth is more likely to slow than to give way to a

decline.

Still, the sudden deterioration in the outlook is striking,

especially because it is almost entirely a result of Mr.

Trump's policies and the resulting uncertainty. Tariffs, and

the inevitable retaliation from trading partners, will

increase prices and slow down growth. Federal job cuts will

push up unemployment, and could lead government employees and

contractors to pull back on spending while they wait to learn

their fate. Deportations could drive up costs for industries

like construction and hospitality--

And the agricultural sector--

that depend on immigrant labor.

``If the economy was starting out in quite good shape, it's

probably in less good shape after what we've seen the last

few weeks,'' said Donald Rissmiller, chief economist at

Strategas, a research firm.

The U.S. economy has repeatedly shown its resilience in

recent years, and there are parts of Mr. Trump's agenda that

could foster growth. Business groups have responded

enthusiastically to Republican plans to cut taxes and reduce

regulation. A streamlined government could, in theory, make

the overall economy more productive.

So far, however, the Trump administration's approach to

economic policy has been characterized more by chaos--tariffs

that are announced and then delayed, government workers who

are fired and rehired--than by careful planning.

Michael R. Strain, an economist at the conservative

American Enterprise Institute--

I know AEI well--

said Mr. Trump's policies on trade and immigration, and his

slash-and-burn approach to federal job cuts, would have a

damaging effect.

This is a conservative think tank.

``What President Trump has proposed will not cause a

recession,'' he continued. ``But it will slow economic

growth. It will take money out of people's pockets. It will

increase the unemployment rate. It will cost people jobs. It

will make American businesses less competitive.''

That is AEI, folks.

It is certainly possible for Mr. Trump's policies to come

together in a way that causes a recession. His tariffs alone

could shave a full percentage point off growth in gross

domestic product this year, according to some economic

models--enough to cut in half the 2 percent growth rate that

economists expected going into this year.

Many economists contend that deporting millions of

immigrants--as Mr. Trump promised to do on the campaign trail

last year--could be even more harmful than tariffs, given the

U.S. economy's need for workers, particularly in industries

like construction and health care.

And the administration's push to shrink the federal

government, an effort led by Elon Musk, could leave hundreds

of thousands of federal workers and government contractors

looking for jobs when hiring has slowed. That could set off a

chain reaction: Workers who lose jobs, or worry they might,

would pull back on spending, which would force businesses to

cut costs, leading to more layoffs and further reductions in

spending.

Ordinarily, that would prompt the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates and shore up the economy. But that could be difficult if tariffs are also pushing up prices, making policymakers nervous that cutting interest rates could spur inflation.

``It's a death by a thousand paper cuts,'' said Jay Bryson,

chief economist for Wells Fargo. ``All these things

individually aren't enough to cause a recession, but if you

layer them on top of one another, it might be.''

Most economists think such an outcome is relatively

unlikely, however. Mr. Trump has repeatedly delayed full

enforcement of his promised tariffs. For example, on

Thursday--

This article is from March 7--

he suspended tariffs on most imports from Mexico and Canada

until April.

What month are we in? April.

His deportation efforts have likewise gotten off to a slow

start. And some of the cuts to the federal workforce have

been tied up in court.

As they should be.

Such delays and reversals will help blunt the impact of Mr.

Trump's policies, and could make a recession less likely, at

least in the short term. But the prolonged uncertainty could

have its own costs, leading businesses to delay investment

and hiring decisions.

``If we don't get clarity by the back half of this year,

economic uncertainty can be like a deer in the headlights,''

said Nancy Lazar, chief global economist at the investment

bank Piper Sandler. ``Things just stop. Business confidence

is muted, employment is muted, and capital spending is put on

hold.''

Even if Mr. Trump's policies don't cause a recession, they

could do long-term damage. Lower immigration will leave the

country with a smaller labor force as the native-born

population is aging. Trade barriers will be a relatively

modest drag on growth while in place--a chronic condition,

rather than an acute one.

``It's less like the economy is in a car wreck, and it's

more like the economy has decided to start smoking a pack a

day,'' said Michael Madowitz, an economist at the Roosevelt

Institute, a progressive group.

In certain places and for certain groups, the consequences

could be harder to ignore. Veterans, who make up a

disproportionate share of federal workers, could be

particularly hard-hit by government layoffs. So could parts

of the country that depend heavily on federal jobs: Already,

there are signs that home prices in the Washington

metropolitan area are falling.

``It's going to be substantial for certain communities.''

``When you look at the aggregate,'' it is going to be

challenging.

I talked or texted with this person who asked me to yield the floor. I have been letting this power go to my head. I have never in the Senate had the ability to hold the floor and leave the person in a little bit of limbo.

I just want to say that Tim Kaine is one of the friends. Honestly, he is more like a pastor to me. He is one of the more honorable men I have met in my life and struggles, like me, about faith and public service.

I read your book. I really hope more people read your book. I didn't think it was going to be as beautiful as it was. I laughed, I wept. When you were attacked by spiders and things like that, I am sorry, I was laughing at your misfortune, sir.

It is a book about you going through your whole State by walking the Appalachian Trail, canoeing. Every story you told moved me. It is a great book. I have read a lot of my colleagues' books, this one really touched me. You have a beautiful view of America, and I want people to read your book, I really want people to read your book. So if I should yield, I will yield only if you will tell people the name of your book and maybe tell something about it. This is extortion on the Senate floor. I am going to hold on to the floor unless you agree to that. Shake your head up and down if you agree.

All right. Then, of course, to my dear friend and somebody that I probably wouldn't be standing here, we had some discussions about procedural opportunities and things like that, he had to make some concessions to me, I won't give details, but he is an honorable man, and in the crux before I came here, he really helped to clear the pathway for me to stand here now. I owe you a lot of my 12 years. You are like a big brother to me.

And I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

God bless you.

Not a colloquy. That is not allowed. It was a question.

Wow.

I appreciate that. I am going to try to keep it short, but I want to reminisce with you about something that--do you remember in Trump's first term that he used a national security waiver to put tariffs on Canada then?

Yes. But do you remember we had a Foreign Relations Committee meeting, and a leader--I don't want to embarrass the leader, but a leader from Canada came, it was a woman, and she sat there. It was a bipartisan group together. You do remember this?

So she sat there, and she started very slowly going back to the War of 1812, and marched through Canadian-American history. I confess I have a degree in history, but I didn't know all this history. But amazing stories of Canadian sacrifice to stand next to Americans, to die next to Americans, to fight for America, to join our artists, our cultural communities, our agricultural communities, all the things we have done hand in hand to make both of our Nations stronger and more prosperous. And then she looked at us and said: And then your President, in a sense, called us a national security threat.

And you all put tariffs on us.

And I remember the quiet, the silence around that committee table. I felt like, whoa, this is such an ally, such a friend, such a consistent ally of us throughout the hardest difficult times in history, never left our side. Her litany was so admirable, and then she looks at us, a national security waiver, hardships on our economy, national security waiver to put tariffs on. And they hurt Americans, and they hurt-- embarrassingly hurt our northern neighbor. But I thought that was bad enough.

And now, what kind of bully are you? What kind of mean spirit do you look at your northern neighbor and say: I am going to call you Governor, not with the title you earned by the people that put you in that office. It is the worst kind of behavior. And nobody calls him out, of our Republican colleagues--not enough of them called it out, I should say.

So we are in, as I read in that article, in an economic crisis.

I question: How long will we wait until more of us join in a chorus to say enough is enough?

I don't know the answers. I don't know how we can stop him. But I know we did in the first term. We pushed back on him successfully and on his attempts to try to take healthcare away from tens of millions of Americans, and we can do it again.

But more people have to do things differently. They have to do like we have been talking about all day--and I will turn to my colleague again--as John Lewis called us: Get in good trouble, necessary trouble. Heal the soul of America.

We have to do more and follow the examples of our forefathers and foremothers who never gave up, with conviction and determination, with indefatigable spirit and unyielding grace that continues, time and time again, pushing back and bending the arc.

It is our turn. What are we going to do? We have to answer that question. We have to do more.

I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

I want to answer that question.

I want to, at first, say Hakeem Jeffries is here. Now I am worried because two Brooklynites are shaking hands. I confess, when I had the floor and Schumer was here, it was the only time in my life I could deny him the right to speak on the Senate floor.

I confess to my friend who is part of the X generation--the hip-hop generation--my brother who is part of that transition in American history from the ``greatest generation'' to baby boomers, that the baby boomers are now seeing leaders emerge that are X generation and millennials. He represents the best of the future.

This question is so good--because you didn't honor your commitment to me and talk about your book.

I want to say I insulted Brooklyn for stealing my Nets. I told the leader--I abused my power to retain the floor, and I told the leader there is only one football team in New York, the Buffalo Bills. The other two are in New Jersey.

I should have reminded the leader that the ``Chairman of the Board,'' who sings ``New York, New York'' is actually from New Jersey.

I can go on with this litany.

I do want to get back to your very serious question about tyranny. I think many of us have read books like ``On Tyranny.'' We are reading articles, and people are talking about the fears that they have, fears that they have about this document.

You and I have had serious conversations over the last 72 days of Donald Trump's Presidency. How much of the encroachment--I would say ``encroachment'' is a gentle word--of the separation of powers is happening? We are watching Justices, judges--from Republican appointees to Democratic appointees--trying to stop him from doing things. Which one of our great Bill of Rights amendments, from the freedom of the press--he is doing things to the press that, in my opinion, are bullying them, breaking with traditions that Presidents have done in the past; trying to create a press corps like Putin or Erdogan have, who will only let people in the room who will give obsequious supplications often for the dear leader.

What about the freedom of speech? You and I both know reprehensible speech is protected. Disappearing people for what they said--Scalia talked very clearly about having rights, even when you are in the country. One of the most conservative Justices said: You have rights.

We are seeing him invoke emergencies.

You have been the leader in our caucus, talking about the absurdities of these emergencies he is doing. He tried to rally this body saying: Don't let this happen.

You talked to me about all of these things.

So what is the limit of tyranny? You and I--and we talked about this with your book. I am trying to get back there.

I told you once, when Skip Gates did my history, that he traced my history back to Virginia. I tried to show you that I have more Virginia legitimacy because my roots go back to 1640 in your State. The Stampers came over, and following down, down, down, then Henrietta Stamper, who my mom still talks about as a relative. John Stamper--and with the chart that Skip Gates gave me, the only thing you could say about John Stamper is that the mother of Henrietta Stamper was ``slave woman.'' Born Henrietta Stamper, they called her on her documents ``mulatto'' and Stamper fought for her ownership because it would later come out that was his child. These are the traditions in my family.

It is really amazing what Skip Gates did and showed me that I am a direct descendent of slaves and slave owners. I am a direct descendent of a Confederate soldier that was captured in retreat. I am the direct descendent of Native Americans and people who fought in the Creek war to kill Native Americans.

And these traditions in our country, I draw upon all of them. I am proud of all of them. They speak us to. They speak to the complicated history of America.

But perhaps one of the best things I got about this complicated history was a visit to my office by--I don't know if I told the leader this--I am sorry. I am going to return to his question.

I know how busy the leader is. If the leader asks me a question--if he asks--I will yield for a question.

I yield for a question while retaining for the floor.

Chuck, I am not 100 percent right now, and you just hit me with stunning news that I can't even think about how to respond right now. I am stunned by that. I wish--if you want to ask me a question, ask me a question. I wish you would explain a little bit more because what you are basically saying to me is that we are not going to go through the Parliamentarian. This is a gimmick that is going to be done to try to break, really, what the Byrd rule requirements of reconciliation are. I am using Senate speak, and I don't think we should use that.

So what they are going to try to say is obscure the impact of reconciliation. They are going to obscure this--the incredible tax cuts, the cost of trillions of dollars to our economy--blowing up our debt. So-called fiscal hawks are going to blow it up. I am stunned by this news.

I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Yes. The answer to the question is yes.

I just want to say that anything further is a breaking of the Senate. In a severe way, it is the breaking of the Senate. Every time you break the Senate like that to do another big nuclear option thing, the next time around, when the pendulum swings--I have been here for 12 years, and I have watched it swing back and forth. There is no going back now.

I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

I hate to answer the question this way, but America will regret this day. The American people will regret this day. All of us will regret this. All of us will.

You cannot yield the floor because I have the floor, sir. I maintain the floor. This is one of the few times I will be able to get to tell Chuck Schumer what the rules are here.

But I just want to get back to you, and maybe this is a way to get back to you by sharing a story I don't think I have ever told you.

(Mr. CURTIS assumed the Chair.)

It was a few years ago with one of Biden's last State of the Union speeches, and I--we all had to vote on the floor about an hour before the speech, and then we would come back here and assemble to do this extraordinary walk through history.

So, days before that, I was with the leader, Hakeem, and I was with some other people in the Oval Office with the President.

The President put his arm around me as we finished the meeting, and he said: Hey, Cory.

And I am like: Yes, Mr. President.

I have got a big speech coming up.

I know, Mr. President.

I am going to go to Camp David to work on it.

And I said: OK, Mr. President.

He goes: Can I call you if I need some help?

And I said: Yes. Right, Mr. President. Sure.

And that was it. Over the weekend, he didn't call me for help with his speech, and we came here and did that vote an hour before, and then--I like walking out that door. Many people know this. If I can, I go straight out the next doors and onto the steps. I love those steps-- maybe because I watched ``Schoolhouse Rock'' as a kid, and that is where there was ``Mr. Bill, I am just a bill.'' So I pause sometimes there and just feel the sense of gratitude and the Supreme Court right in front of me and the Library of Congress, and if you stand in the right place, you can see the gold dome behind you.

As I am standing there in that moment an hour before we have to hustle back here, my phone rings. I answer my phone, and it begins with what I think is one of the top stupidest questions in America. You have gotten this question. I think you would agree with me. You are not the kind of guy who uses words like, ``Hey, this is stupid,'' but this is stupid. The thing I heard--the stupid question--was this: This is the White House operator. Will you hold for the President of the United States?

Who says no to that question as one does when they get a call from the President of the United States?

So I say: Yeah. I will hold. Hold it a minute. I am washing my hair.

I say: Yes, of course.

The next thing you know, it is Joe Biden, and he goes: Cory.

And I go: Mr. President.

He goes: I am struggling with my speech.

And at that point--I know you weren't this kind of student in college, but all of my guilt from my college days of waiting until the last minute to finish a paper was gone. The President of the United States was waiting until the last minute to finish his speech. Heck, I feel good.

And so he goes: Cory, can I read you a section of this speech?

So he read to me a section of the speech where I have a lot of policy depth, and I couldn't believe it. The President of the United States, an hour before his speech, is rehearsing a part of the speech, and then he asks me that immortal question.

You are a married man. You have to give me good advice on

how to answer this question. When your spouse looks at you

and says, ``How do I look?'' you are torn between two

things--right?--maybe to tell the truth or to tell your

spouse what they want to hear.

Tell me what you answer with, but you can't do it now because I have the floor.

And so I take a moment. Am I going to tell the President what I really think of this section or am I going to just say: ``Yes, Mr. Leader''?

So I decided that he called me up an hour before his speech. So he really must want my advice. And I gave some hard input. Turn this dial down more. Turn this one to whatever.

And he said: OK, Cory.

And abruptly he is gone.

I go back to the office, and I tell them: I just got a call from the President of the United States, and he asked

for help on his speech. What a crazy life moment while I stood on the steps, like the bill--``I'm just a bill.''

Anyway, we get back here, and it is a wonderful moment in the Senate. I don't know if anybody has the privilege of seeing what we do. We all gaggle around those doors. We talk to each other. People think we always fight and yell. That is not the case. Democrats and Republicans merge into this ball of senatorial humanity. Then, when those doors open, I love it because, when you walk out, you walk past Thune's office--what used to be the Library of Congress.

You walk past the Old Senate Chamber, where there were some of the greatest debates in American history and violence on that Senate floor with the caning of Sumner.

You walk through the dome and the statue of Lincoln by an 18-year-old woman named Ream, the suffrage leaders, Martin Luther King, Presidents--extraordinary Presidents.

Then you walk past where the old House used to be. And you love this, and I love this--those little gold plates on the floor where Presidents had their desks, exactly where the Presidents had their desks. Most people go in right under the Junipero Serra, California's statue. Under that cross is Lincoln's gold plate--people who were in the House and served as the President. That is not my favorite one, though. It is John Quincy Adams. Why? You know this. He was the only person in American history ever--and it will probably never happen again--where somebody went to the Presidency and came back to the House. He ran for a House seat. He worked at that spot where that desk was until he collapsed and was carried off the floor. He would soon later die. Amazing. Maybe a future President will. Maybe Obama is going to think, you know: I have got to run for the House.

Then you get into that old Chamber, and we sit down; we find our seats. Then, at that great moment--I don't care if you are Republican or Democrat. When that person walks in and says, ``The President of the United States of America,'' I still get that feeling.

Joe Biden comes in, and I think he sets a record for the longest it would take to get from those doors all the way down. Everybody he is talking to. ``Marjorie Taylor Greene, what's up?'' He is just touching everybody. He gets up there, and he gives his speech. Now, you know that this is an aerobic event. You stand up. You sit down. You stand up. You sit down. You have got to get your squats in when you are doing it. Well, the part of the speech he called me on is--and I am sitting down, and I hear my input in the speech.

I don't know if you all noticed, my colleagues, but I was the first person to stand up for that section, and I was looking at Schatz: Get up, man. This is the best speech ever given.

It was amazing. I go home. I am kind of buzzing about the whole experience, and I am lying in bed. Unfortunately, I have my phone on my nightstand, and it goes off. I see a number I don't recognize, but I open it up, and it says:

Senator Booker, this is John Meacham--

The great historian.

Thank you for helping the President of the United States

with his speech. You made more of a difference than you will

ever know.

And my first thought was, How do I print this out? How do you print out a text? So he gave me his cell phone number, and now, I am going to troll him until this historian comes to my office and finally relents.

He comes, and now, he steps into your domain, my brilliant friend of history. I expressed worry, fear, concern, demagoguery in our land, the rising of tribalism. I dump on him. I am normally a prisoner of hope. I am normally a purveyor of finding your joy even in the toughest of times. And he listens for a while, and then--and then--and then he looks at me and says:

Cory, there is nothing about this time that is

unprecedented. It is all precedented. You want to talk about

demagoguery?

And he goes through every generation of Americans having extraordinary demagogues. I read Margaret Chase Smith's incredible speech on this floor against a demagogue and the demagoguery even within her own party. He talked about the No. 1 radio show in all of America that the majority of Americans listen to and its anti-Semitic screeds.

Father Coughlin.

He went through them all, and he said: Do you want a big worry?

He said that there was an American general in the Depression. He said his name, but I am forgetting it now. I am not at my best. He said that this guy was calling for a military takeover of our democracy. Do you want to talk about authoritarianism? He talked about a Senator here on the left, Huey Long, who was calling for the people to storm the Capitol.

He went through this all, and he said: Every single time, Nazis were in Manhattan at Madison Square Garden. I couldn't believe it. It was unbelievable. I wish people were there listening to this guy as he went through of all these times when America was at a crossroads, when we came upon a moral moment, and he said: What happened as to how we chose the right path? When people were trashing this document or treading on it or undermining it, when demagogues rose to the highest points of popularity in our land, how did we stop it?

Well, he looked at me with some sympathy and said: Not you guys. Not a Senator.

It was that the better majority of American people said: Enough. They chose to define the soul of our country. He gave that phraseology to our President, and he said the soul of America is not the people in office; it is the everyday citizens who choose the better angels of their nature, who choose right over wrong, who recognize a moral moment and know that they have to stand up and bend the arc of the moral universe or, more importantly, steer the ship of our state out of the troubled waters into the clear, open sea.

I rose here--and I have gotten into lots of questions with my colleagues. But I rose, hoping to have reborn more of the stories of as many Americans as I could, and during the night, my friend Chris Murphy and I read a lot of them.

You know me well, my friend. You know the truth of all of us in this place. You know the truth of everybody. We are all mountain ranges. We all have peaks, and we all have valleys. You, my friend, have seen my valley. You have seen me at my worst. I have failed as a leader at times or at least have come up short for my own personal expectations. You have seen me at some of my better moments.

I know we have obligations. I know people are right to be upset or be demanding of us right now. Please help us. What are you doing in the face of people who might make it so that we might not have elections or might make it so that we do break things in this government that can never be fixed?

One of the speakers who came into our caucus was one of the people who wrote the book ``How Democracies Die.'' Great nations, great civilizations that forget democracy don't necessarily die from external threats. They die from internal corruption. Think of the Roman Empire. Think of the Soviet Empire. It crumbled from its own corrupted failure to live up to its promises and ideals.

We are at this moment. I am here to tell you, America, and to tell my friends and colleagues and anybody who cares to listen to a Senator from New Jersey that we are at that moment. We are past that moment. Every day, things are happening. In the 72 days of this administration, God, if there is not enough to upset you, to ignite you, to realize that maybe you and your family are not getting hurt but other Americans are. Our veterans are. Our seniors are. We have told their stories here. Over these last 21 hours, 22 hours, we have told their stories.

People are getting hurt. People are afraid. People are worried. People I don't even agree with are getting disappeared. Law firms that I have known for my entire career--for my entire career--are being forced to kowtow to this President. Universities that should be the bastions of free speech, free thought, free enterprise, intellectual research, academic research, scientific research are getting torn up by cutting indirect costs. I have read stories of Ph.D. programs that are virtually being canceled, and from the best scientific minds not being able to build the state-of-the-art labs.

The country that has led humanity in scientific invention is taking a blow.

And Fareed Zakaria--I have read his article here, and he is saying that China is doubling down in investments in the universities as this President is cutting them--unless, of course, you come to the leader and make all of these commitments and meet all of these demands. There should be enough already. It should be enough already.

So this is that moment John Meacham told me about. I want to try in the Senate--I know my colleagues--I see Tammy Baldwin; I see Chris Murphy; I see Angela Alsobrooks. I love you guys. I served side by side with you. I know your passion. I have heard your anger. I heard your fear. I heard how you want to fight for this country, but we are not enough.

We can do demonstrations, we can do demands, we can try to do things differently. In fact, we must.

I will definitely yield to Tammy Baldwin, my friend and my colleague.

Thank you very much. I don't have that much gas in the tank, but hold on, let me say it right.

I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Yes.

I am so grateful for the question because that is what we said we are here about. We are here to try to elevate the voices of people affected by what they are doing to our government. And, frankly, as they cut the Department of Education completely or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, they are getting rid of Agencies that were created by Congress, and many people are right to believe they can't be eliminated without congressional action.

We were talking before with people here that the biggest plurality of people being laid off from all of these Departments are our veterans.

Again, I am going to be back in New Jersey this weekend. I am going to try to be at a rally, a townhall. I know everywhere I go in my State, I am going to hear from people who are rightfully angry, who are rightfully afraid, who are affected by this, who are fearful of what is to come. These are such important human emotions.

But the question, then, is going to be for all of us, and I know people will be questioning me: What are we going to do? What can I do? What are you going to do, Senator?

So I don't have a brilliant response. I don't have some prescient idea that we are going to be able to change the course of this. But I know we are going to fight.

I want to be honest with you. I wasn't sure we could stop Donald Trump when he tried to take down the ACA. I just wasn't sure. I really wasn't. I did not know how that was going to end. People gasped--do you remember that--in this room.

People gasped. We did not know. This room usually has very predictable actions. That is why I am still standing here, because I didn't want the predictable. I didn't want business as usual to happen. It is rare that we have unpredictability on this floor. It is usually finely orchestrated. You know and I both know this.

But that day, no one expected that or at least wasn't sure. It was drama. It was a moment. And we won.

I want to tell you this. I said this earlier, when I say ``we won,'' I don't think there is one Senator here or the 99 others who convinced John McCain of his vote. I know who did, though, Arizonans who stood up, who spoke up, and demanded more from their leadership not to hurt people, not to hurt folks who needed that healthcare, not to hurt folks with preexisting conditions, not to hurt children.

So I am one of these people who wants to learn from our history. I want to stand here today and tell you I am going to do everything I can. I am willing to go to some lengths. But I am inadequate. You are inadequate. We are Senators with all of this power, but in this democracy, the power of the people is greater than the people in power. This is a moral moment that more Americans need to stand up and say: Enough is enough.

I am sorry, the civil rights movement wasn't won because of just a few Black folks who stood up and were really articulate. No. They called to the consciences of this country, and the country responded. It was a Rainbow Coalition that said this ain't who we are in America.

I know New Jerseyans are hurting. I know. I have been to your State. I love your State. We had some fun in your State together.

We saw young artists, business people. You are this person who says these words over and over again, more than any Republican or Democrat: ``Buy American, buy American''; and created so many jobs in your State.

We were in some packed restaurant. People packed not to see me as a special guest but to listen to your story. You are a trailblazer, too, in the Senate. You are doing things that our Founders did not expect, and you know that.

And you want to stand up. I heard you in our caucus, I heard you in Schumer's leadership meeting stand up for people who are most marginalized, most looked down on, most talked about. I hear you, Tammy.

I won't respond to a question. I am going to read this for the 75th time.

I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Yes.

People give a ship.

Make them, too, yes.

We are in the top 5 in New Jersey.

Yes.

I love that you focused it there because that is who President Trump made promises to, in my State, that things are bad with this economy because it is not serving people who are working every day. He promised that he would make things better.

I will make grocery prices go down--he said that. So people were expecting that is where he would focus. They didn't think he would focus on Greenland. They didn't think he would focus on the Gulf of Mexico. They didn't think he would focus on bullying Canada. They didn't think he would focus on turning his back on Ukraine. They didn't think he would focus on gutting the Department of Education and ending it.

This is not the reason why people voted for him. They did something that Reverend Warnock calls--that vote is a sort of prayer. He says it is like a civic prayer: that I am putting a prayer out there that you will be who I hope you can be; you will be a blessing to my life and not a burden.

But you are talking about the burdens that he is bringing. This economy, under 72 days, has not gotten better for working Americans. And they don't even see the President trying to make it better; they see what he is doing to make it worse. And one of the things is going to be these tariffs, which are going to raise costs on working Americans.

Then we--what Chuck Schumer said to me is sounding like, it is going to just sail through--a plan that is going to blow trillions of dollars of holes to our budget, give trillions of dollars of tax cuts to the wealthiest, and gut your Medicaid and gut your services for your grandparents in nursing homes.

People believe. People put their trust. I don't blame them. They are my fellow Americans. They wanted for their families--they wanted an America that was more affordable. They wanted America to be first, prioritized. They wanted a safer America, a stronger America, a more prosperous America. I heard that.

So when I am back home this weekend, I know that I am going to encounter a lot of folks who are workers in my State who are getting hurt. They want better. They want better from their government.

So the burden upon us and each other is: What are we going to do? Are we going to do the same old thing over and over again or are we going to try to do things differently? Are we going to be willing to, again, get in good trouble, necessary trouble to try to save the soul of this Nation?

I think my colleague, my dear sister, my prayer partner, my soul lifter--I thought I heard you say something?

Ah, yes, I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

I am so grateful for the question from my friend--and that is the centering that we have been trying to do--which is, What are families around New Jersey and America thinking?

As you said, the Department of Education--we read that earlier today--it doesn't dictate educational policy of the States, but it does do a lot to provide funding for special needs kids in the States. So I am already hearing from parents of kids with special needs regarding the impact it will have if those resources are cut, everything from programs that help young people afford college, to programs that I have worked with people that help schools afford advanced scientific equipment so the bright minds, the geniuses of our State and the country, can have the equipment they need.

This administration is cutting things that are hurting families, and we are hearing from them. We are hearing from veterans. We are hearing from the elderly.

We are hearing from people who are taking care of the elderly. We are hearing from people who run our hospitals.

We are hearing from people who run our universities and who talk about the science funding and the cutting of Ph.D.s.

We are hearing from people who rely on Medicare and Medicaid, who rely on Social Security.

We are hearing from people that are appalled that their Nation bullies smaller nations like Canada or Greenland.

We are hearing from people that are shocked at what they are doing to the most vulnerable people who come to our Nation, who have American children or an American spouse, who are being disappeared off of our streets, who have no criminal record.

We are hearing from people that don't think it is right that a President should have a meme coin that allows him to enrich himself, to hawk his power and position for even greater wealth.

So I have done everything I can, and I am going to do more--I still have a little gas in the tank--to elevate those voices, to elevate those voices.

Before I yield, because I just keep wanting to exercise this power that I might have for a little while longer and exercise it over a man that I have a real chip on my shoulder for--the Senator from Arizona. Yeah, he has been a military fighter pilot. He has been an astronaut. He has been out of this world.

But what ticks me off, sir--I have said nice things about everybody else, but I am not saying them about you, sir, because when I go home through New Jersey and I walk through my airport--I was the Newark mayor--I see your big bald head up and a big, big picture of you saying ``New Jersey Hall of Fame, Mark Kelly.''

Who the heck am I? You are the Senator from Arizona, but yeah, yeah-- you are right, OK--he was a great, celebrated military veteran and astronaut who grew up in New Jersey, who went to high school in West Orange, whose parents were cops. So you have the accolades in my State, and I am proud of that. I am proud I get to serve with you.

I still have the floor. Stop trying to speak. There are rules in this place.

Don't make me sic the Parliamentarian or the Presiding Officer--thank you, sir. Thank you, sir.

Well, with that kind of deference, I now will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Where you overshadow me, literally.

I appreciate a New Jersey Hall of Fame member, the only one in the U.S. Senate--I appreciate his question.

I appreciate the service of his parents, out there every day putting their heart and soul into serving the community in a dangerous job where you often see people at their worst.

I said this earlier, James Baldwin said:

Children are never good at listening to their elders, but

they . . . never fail to imitate them.

You are living up to the example your parents set in so many ways.

Then you go and pull something off that really makes me jealous is you are one of the guys in the Senate that probably most married up.

We are both are Jersey boys. We both grew up there in grade schools and high schools. We both know those teachers that did so much for us, that coached sports. They taught us. I am going back for a funeral for a great man in New Jersey, Ed Koehler, this weekend, who was one of the greater influences in my life in high school, and you know how much people invested themselves.

I remember learning Little League from a guy that would come back from working at a gas station, a parent of another kid. I still remember his big thick hands teaching us how to hold a bat. This guy is working a job at a gas station and rushes home to teach his kid Little League and treated me--the only Black kid--like one of his own kids.

Special communities, special heritage, special culture that we share--this is the Jersey culture. We got a chip on our shoulders. We are tough. We are strong. We are proud.

And a lot of New Jersey is watching. Thousands of letters and emails and phone calls from all over New Jersey. Andy Kim and I are hearing from so many people, and they are afraid. They are angry. They are worried. They don't understand why they are going after our Social Security programs, cutting benefits by cutting so many employees and cutting the service people get.

They don't understand why they are seeing veterans being laid off from their government jobs. They don't understand why Social Security is being called a Ponzi scheme. The President of the United States is making up lies.

They don't understand why veterans and Medicaid and Medicare--there are so many things that are making people worry. I am hearing their letters, and they are praying we stop some of these things like $880 billion dollars' worth--and the question is, Why? Why are we doing this?

We are doing this--and they are saying it is to extend or make permanent the Trump tax cuts, the overwhelming disproportionate benefit that went to the wealthiest amongst us, the wealthy corporations.

So Trump's economy in the first 72 days is pretty bad because of his reckless chaotic behavior: Prices are up. Inflation is up. The stock market had its worst quarter in 2, 3 years.

Consumer confidence is down. And now we are going to see tariffs tomorrow, which are going to further drive up prices, create more chaos.

Trump squandered the progress we were making on the economy. He tanked the market, jacked the prices. Is it any surprise that Americans are feeling more pessimistic, as I said, with consumer confidence going down? And what is his first major legislative push? This is what we are talking about, my colleague, my friend, my fellow New Jerseyan: His first big legislative push in this body is not to help families.

No plan to lower costs. That is what he said he would do. Is his first legislation coming here while lowering costs? No. Is it any relief for seniors? Is it some big idea like we did to lower prescription drug costs? No, that is not what he is doing.

Is his first priority helping our veterans? What is his first priority? As I said, it is extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts, a multitrillion dollar giveaway that slashed corporate taxes and overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy and left the middle class with crumbs, relative crumbs.

He and his allies promised that the benefits would trickle down to workers. That is what we heard. It would ``pay for itself,'' he said.

But in 2022, the Fed and the Joint Committee on Taxation confirmed the truth: 90 percent of workers--90 percent of folks in our States saw no benefit. Now Trump and his GOP allies

want to double down with even bigger tax cuts that will increase the deficit by over $4.5 trillion, a majority of which would go to the wealthiest people.

Let me read what the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities--how they described the plan.

Here is a quote:

Following a presidential campaign in which Donald Trump

promised to improve the economic circumstances of working

families, House Republicans are instead pushing to extend all

expiring provisions of the costly 2017 tax law--which are

heavily skewed to people with high incomes--and add new tax

cuts on top. The Republican-controlled House passed a budget

resolution on February 25 authorizing $4.5 trillion in tax

cuts through 2034 and calling on committees to partially

offset the cost with $2 trillion in cuts; these cuts will

inevitably hit programs such as Medicaid and SNAP, which help

millions of families afford essential needs.

Are they cuts to the wealthiest? No.

These cuts will inevitably hit programs such as Medicaid

and SNAP, which help millions of families afford essential

needs.

Extending the expiring tax cuts for individuals and large

estates would double down on the flaws in the 2017 law by:

Giving the biggest benefits to the wealthy. Households with

incomes in the top 5 percent, who have incomes over around

$320,000, would receive roughly half of the benefits.

So billionaires above that, altogether, they would receive roughly half of the benefits.

Ballooning the deficit. Along with the 2001 and 2003 tax

cuts enacted under President Bush, the 2017 law has severely

eroded our nation's revenue base. The House budget would

compound the damage, adding hundreds of billions of dollars

to deficits each year. Extending the 2017 tax cuts would cost

$3.6 trillion through 2034.

Failing to significantly boost economic growth, workers'

earnings, or other benefits for workers [would not be seen.]

The trickle-down benefits that proponents claimed the 2017

law would produce never materialized, and the law hasn't come

close to paying for itself.

As I heard on the Senate floor from my colleagues, they said: Oh, this is going to pay for itself; oh, this is going to pay for itself.

Yet the House budget claims that extending the tax cuts

would generate trillions in revenue--far more than any

independent estimate.

As in 2017, an alternative path is available. Congress

should work toward creating a fairer federal tax system that

raises more revenues from wealthy people and corporations and

supports high-value investments that expand opportunity and

promote shared prosperity.

During the 2017 debate, Trump Administration officials and

prominent proponents claimed the tax law would yield broadly

shared benefits by boosting economic growth. President

Trump's Council of Economic Advisers claimed the centerpiece

corporate tax rate cut would ``very conservatively'' lead to

a $4,000 boost in household income.

What a lie.

But research to date has failed to find evidence that the

gains from the corporate rate cut trickled down to most

workers.

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

A study by economists from the Joint Committee on Taxation

and the Federal Reserve Board found that workers below the

90th percentile of their firm's income scale--a group whose

incomes were below roughly $114,000 in 2016--saw no change in

earnings from the rate cut.

Proponents' claims that the tax cuts would pay for

themselves haven't panned out either. In fact, a study by

economists from Harvard, Princeton, the University of

Chicago, and the Treasury Department estimates that the law's

total corporate tax cuts--the rate cut as well as full

expensing for capital investments and international tax

changes--reduced revenue by roughly 98 cents for every dollar

of tax cuts, even after accounting for increases in economic

activity due to those cuts.

Similarly, proponents argued the law's 20 percent deduction

for pass-through businesses (partnerships, S corporations,

and sole proprietorships) would boost investment and create

jobs. Then-Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, for example,

argued the deduction would ``be good for the economy; good

for growth.'' But researchers have found no evidence that it

provided any significant boost in economic activity and

little evidence that it increased investment or broadly

benefited workers, other than the owners themselves.

Despite this underwhelming performance, the House

Republican budget resolution assumes that enacting $4.5

trillion in new or extended tax cuts will produce enough

additional economic growth to generate an extra $2.6 trillion

in revenue through 2035.

They think it is going to offset the tax cuts.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has derided

this claim as ``fantasy math,'' noting that it is many times

greater than even the most optimistic independent estimate.

They lied to us, or at least just put out really expansive hope in the past, and none of it came true. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool the American people twice, well, we should not let it happen.

This idea in this country that if you make the wealthiest more wealthy by giving them more tax cuts and deny services to our veterans, deny healthcare to our seniors, cut Social Security benefits, cut scientific research, cut programs that protect people's safety and security, that that is going to somehow help our Nation to prosper as a whole, you are kidding yourselves. We have the evidence. We have the analysis.

And this is the crazy thing, as I heard from Chuck Schumer, the Republicans are now trying to hide the true cost of their billionaire tax cuts with accounting gimmicks.

The New York Times interviewed budget experts from across the political spectrum to shed light on the Republicans' trickery. And this is the article I want to read. I know some people have questions, but I want to read this article because Schumer shook me. Shook me.

So here is the New York Times. The title of the article is ``The Budget Trick the G.O.P Might Use to Make $4 Trillion Tax Cuts Look Free.''

How much does a tax cut cost? It depends on what you

compare it to.

Republicans in Congress trying to advance a giant bill that

includes $4 trillion in tax cut extensions are considering a

novel strategy that would make the extension appear to be

free money. The trick: Budgeting with the assumption that

current policies extend indefinitely into the future--even

those with an expiration date, like the 2017 tax cuts set to

end next year. It's the difference between making the

extension appear to cost $4 trillion.

Which is the true cost, or hiding it and saying it costs nothing.

Using this ``current policy baseline'' wouldn't change the

bill's real effect on deficits or debt. But it would make it

easier to actually make the tax cuts lasting by sidestepping

a rule governing budget reconciliation, the process

Republicans are using to pass the bill.

Yes, this sounds technical! That's why we've enlisted some

of Washington's top budget veterans to explain this maneuver

using a metaphor. Across the ideological spectrum, nearly all

of the more than 20 experts we heard from disliked changing

the baseline.

And Chuck Schumer just came in here and said the Republicans have already decided they are going to do it. This is outrageous.

But here the New York Times interviewed across the ideological spectrum, whole bunch of experts from the center, from the right, from the left, and let's hear what they are saying about this gimmick.

``If budget reconciliation is like taking the express lanes

on a highway (there's extra rules and tolls, limited stops,

but it gets you to where you want to go faster), using a

current policy baseline for taxes is like slapping a fake

license plate on your car.'' Zach Moller, Director of the

economic program at Third Way, which describes itself as a

``center-left'' research group.

They don't like this gimmick. They think it is fakery.

Here is another person using an analogy:

``It's like taking an expensive week-long vacation and then

assuming you can spend an extra $1,000 per day forever since

you are no longer staying at the Plaza.'' Marc Goldwein,

Senior vice president and senior policy director for the

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan

group that tends to be hawkish on deficits.

Here is another person, Jessica Reidl, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute--I have worked with them in the past--a conservative research group, and the chief economist for the former Republican Senator Ron Portman of Ohio.

``Last year, despite being deeply in debt, I bought a

$100,000 sports car. So next year, buying another $100,000

car is not irresponsible because I am merely spending the

same amount of money as the year before. And if I purchase

``only'' a $70,000 car, then I should be congratulated for

reducing my annual spending by $30,000.''

A conservative think tank is basically calling this a hoax and a lie. Lying to yourself, that if I keep spending, spending, spending the same amount I kept spending, spending, spending to drive up the costs, then I am just doing the same thing I have done before, so it is not adding.

Well, it is adding. There is no way to not call what the Republicans are trying to do a gimmick that is trying to

hide the truth that they are going to add trillions of dollars to the deficits that we, that our children, that our children's children are going to have to pay for.

The debt payments alone to service the debt are going to be bigger than any of the programs we think we should be investing in like science research or education or affordable childcare, or lowering prescription drug costs, or expanding the child tax credit. Things that we know if we invest in, we will get some returns.

But, no, what they are investing in is bigger tax cuts for the wealthiest. Conservatives, independents, left-leaning folks all come to the same conclusion.

Pretending $4 trillion in tax cuts will cost nothing may

not be easy. Many Republican lawmakers who are concerned

about the deficit are well-aware that the bill will increase

the deficit by a lot.

Here is the integrity call. One Republican in the House showed his integrity. One budget hawk named Massie said: I can't vote for this stuff. I am a budget hawk. I do not want to see increased deficits. He called it what it was. I saw him in an interview say, hey, hey, wait a minute, by your own numbers, Republican colleagues, you are driving up the deficit by trillions of dollars, and you are making the rich richer, and you are leaving future generations more bankrupt.

So this article assumes that this was all going to be decided by the Senate Parliamentarian ``who advises legislators on Chamber rules.'' The Parliamentarian, I thought, ``could rule that the current policy baseline isn't allowed.''

Forcing the Republicans to have to make a choice, overruling or replacing my friend the Parliamentarian, somebody that on both sides of the aisle we respect, it is very rarely done.

I have been here for 13 years. We have had the same Parliamentarian. But that doesn't mean Republicans won't try, this article assumes. And I guess they did try.

They found a way around the Parliamentarian. They found a way around the rules of the Senate. They found a way around the ideals of reconciliation and the Byrd Rule. They are deciding the way we are going to do this is break the Senate and make up our own rules.

This is how they are going to get a bill through that gives trillion dollars of tax cuts to the wealthiest in our country who are doing very well. It is not hate on other Americans. I celebrate success, God bless you. But you don't need tax cuts, especially not that are going to be given to you on the backs of the poor, on the backs of our elders, on the backs of our children, on the backs of expectant mothers, on the backs of my mom's, your mom's Social Security.

What does it say about our values and our priorities to allow that to happen? Who are we, America, if you don't think this is a moral moment where the character of our country is being tested?

I tell you, the Senate has stopped crazy gimmicks like this before, but the persuasive power of Democratic Senators probably won't be enough. We, as a country, like these economists that are Republicans, that are Democrats, that are nonpartisan, who called out this budget gimmickry for what it is--when is it enough?

When they came after journalists? When they came after colleges and universities, research and science? When they came after law firms who had the audacity to defend clients or to represent clients that were suing the President, who, God bless America, lost in civil courts, lost in criminal courts?

When do you cross your line? We can't let this happen. It is not a right or left moment. It is a right or wrong moment. It is a moral moment in America. I have read Republican after Republican from Republican Governors to Republican mayor groups, from the Cato Institute to the Manhattan Institute to AEI, calling out this budget gimmickry for what it is, and the result will be the same, blowing up our Federal deficit to stratospheric, almost unimaginable levels.

This is wrong every way you look at it. And if your values aren't fiscal conservativism, then vote with your integrity and vote against that. If your values are fiscal hawk and you hate deficit, then vote against the bill because it violates you.

Don't make up some fantasy that this is going to pay for itself. The 2017 tax cuts didn't, and you are going to extend them and say, well, it is going to happen this time. Oh, don't worry about it. It is going to happen this time. No, it is not.

Here is an article. ``Donald Trump Built a National Debt So Big That It'll Weigh Down the Economy For Years.''

One of President Donald Trump's lesser known but profoundly

damaging legacies will be the explosive rise in the national

debt that occurred on his watch. The financial burden that

he's inflicted on our government will wreak havoc for

decades, saddling our kids and grandkids with debt.

The national debt has risen by almost $7.8 trillion during

Trump's time in office. That's nearly twice as much as what

Americans owe on student loans, car loans, credit cards and

every other type of debt, other than mortgages, combined,

according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

It amounts to about $23,500 in new federal debt for every

person in the country.

Every person, $23,500.

The growth in the annual deficit under Trump ranks as the

third-biggest increase, relative to the size of the economy,

of any U.S. presidential administration, according to a

calculation by a leading Washington budget maven, Eugene

Steuerle, co-founder of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy

Center. And unlike George W. Bush and Abraham Lincoln, who

oversaw the larger relative increases in deficits, Trump did

not launch two foreign conflicts or have to pay for a civil

war.

In peacetimes, he is No. 3--not the reason you want to be like Lincoln.

Economists agree that we needed massive deficit spending

during the COVID-19 crisis to ward off an economic cataclysm,

but federal finances under Trump had become dire even before

the pandemic. That happened even though the economy was

booming and unemployment was at historically low levels. By

the Trump administration's own description, the pre-pandemic

national debt level was already a ``crisis'' and a ``grave

threat.''

To our Nation.

The combination of Trump's 2017 tax cut and the lack of any

serious spending restraint helped both the deficit and the

debt soar. So when the once-in-a-lifetime viral disaster

slammed our country and we threw more than $3 trillion into

COVID-19-related stimulus, there was no longer any margin for

error.

Our national debt has reached immense levels relative to

our economy, nearly as high as it was at the end of World War

II. But unlike 75 years ago, the massive financial overhang

from Medicare and Social Security will make it dramatically

more difficult to dig ourselves out of the debt ditch.

Falling deeper into the red is the opposite of what Trump,

the self-styled ``King of Debt,'' said would happen if he

became president. In a March 31, 2016, interview with Bob

Woodward and Robert Costa of The Washington Post, Trump said

he could pay down the national debt, then about $19 trillion,

``over a period of eight years'' by renegotiating trade deals

and spurring economic growth.

God, this man breaks his promises over and over. After he took office, Trump predicted that economic growth created by [his] 2017 tax cut, combined with the proceeds from the tariffs he imposed in 2017 on a wide range of goods from numerous countries, would help eliminate the budget deficit and let the U.S. begin to pay down its debt. On July 17, 2018, he told Sean Hannity of FOX News: ``We have $21 trillion in debt. When this [the 2017 tax cut] really kicks in, we'll start paying off the debt like it's water.''

That is Trump on FOX News lying.

Nine days later, he tweeted, ``Because of Tariffs we will

be able to start paying down large amounts of $21 trillion in

debt that has been accumulated much by the Obama

Administration.''

The guy can't help blaming Obama.

That is not how it played out.

Nothing he said came true.

When Trump took office in January 2017, the nonpartisan

Congressional Budget Office was projecting that the Federal

deficit would be 2% to 3% of our gross domestic product

during Trump's term. Instead, the deficit reached nearly 4%

of gross domestic product in 2018 and 4.6% in 2019.

There were multiple culprits. Trump's tax cuts, especially

the sharp reduction in the corporate tax rate to 21% from

35%--

Again, what is here--a lot of my colleagues were here. The big business groups were coming in and asking for 25 percent from 35 percent, and Trump said: No, you are asking me for 25. I am going to give you 21 percent, cut your taxes even more.

It took a big bite out of Federal revenue.

The CBO estimated in 2018 that the tax cut would increase

deficits by about $1.9 trillion over 11 years.

Meanwhile, Trump's claim--

I wish the author wrote ``Trump's lie.'' But he says:

Trump's claim that increased revenue from the tariffs would

help eliminate (or at least reduce) our national debt hasn't

panned out.

Surprise, surprise.

In 2018, Trump's administration began hiking tariffs on

aluminum, steel, and many other products, launching what

became a global trade war with China, the European Union, and

other countries.

The tariffs did bring in additional revenue. In fiscal year

2019, they netted about $71 billion, up about $36 billion

from president Barack Obama's last year in office. But

although $36 billion is a lot of money, it is less than 1/

750th of the national debt. That $36 billion could have

covered a bit more than three weeks of the interest on the

national debt--that is, had the Trump administration not

unilaterally decided to send a chunk of the tariff revenue to

farmers affected by his [horrible] trade wars. Businesses

that struggled as a result of the tariffs also paid fewer

taxes, offsetting some of the increased tariff revenue.

By early 2019, the national debt had climbed to $22

trillion. Trump's budget proposal for 2020 called it a

``grave threat to our economic and societal prosperity''--

He called his own damage that.

--and asserted that the U.S. was experiencing a ``national

debt crisis.'' However, that same budget proposal included

substantial growth in the national debt.

By the end of 2019, the debt had risen in our country to

$23.2 trillion and more federal officials were sounding the

alarm. ``Not since World War II has the country seen deficits

during times of low unemployment that are as large as those

that we project--nor, in the past century, has it experienced

large deficits for as long as we project'' [said the CBO].

Weeks later, COVID-19 erupted and made the financial

situation far worse. As of Dec. 31, 2020--

About a month left, 3 weeks left in his term.

--the national debt had jumped to $27.75 trillion, up 39%

from the $19.95 trillion when Trump was sworn in.

He increased our deficit by 39 percent.

The government ended its 2020 fiscal year with the portion

of the national debt owed to investors, the metric favored by

the CBO, at around 100% of GDP. The CBO had predicted less

than a year earlier that it would take until 2030 to reach

that approximate level of a debt.

But not under Donald Trump.

Including the trillions owed to various governmental trust

funds. . . .

Under his leadership, the total debt grew and grew and grew. It is now at about 130 percent of GDP. Where are the fiscal hawks?

Normally, this is where we'd give Trump's versions of

events. But we couldn't get anyone to give us Trump's side.

Judd Deere, a White House spokesman, referred us to the

Office of Management and Budget, which is a branch of the

White House.

OMB didn't respond to our questions. Treasury directed us

to comments made by OMB director Russell Vought in October,

in which he predicted that as the pandemic eases and economic

growth rebounds, the ``fiscal picture'' will improve. The OMB

blamed legislators for deficits when Trump submitted his

proposed 2021 budget: ``Unfortunately, the Congress continues

to reject any efforts to restrain spending.''

It ain't me, he is saying, it is them.

``Instead, they have greatly continued to the continued

ballooning of the Federal debts and deficits, putting the

Nation's fiscal future at risk.''

Still, the deficit growth under Trump has been historic. .

. . [T]he Tax Policy Center . . . has done a comparison of

every American president using a metric called the ``primary

deficit.''

They are saying Trump had the third biggest primary deficit growth, 5.2 percent of GDP. He is our biggest debt man. Deficits have ballooned under this President because of his tax scam, of his lies about his tax bill in 2017, none of which came true. It didn't pay for itself. It didn't close the deficits. It blew up our deficits. The benefits didn't go to working people. The benefits, as it says--over 90 percent would go to wealthy Americans and corporations.

Even some Republicans have been calling out hypocrisy. One of our colleagues, Rand Paul, in 2018: ``I can't in all honesty,'' Rand Paul says, ``in all good faith just look the other way because my party is now complicit in these deficits.''

The other thing is there is a huge hypocrisy factor. Republicans lambasted President Obama to no end for trillion-dollar deficits, and now they have to put forward a multitrillion-dollar deficit.

Mick Mulvaney, Trump's former Chief of Staff, said in 2020:

My party is very interested in deficits when there is a

Democrat in the White House. The worst thing in the whole

world is deficits when Barack Obama was the president. Then

Donald Trump became president, and we're a lot less

interested [in deficits] as a party.

We don't care at this point.

Here is a guy I mentioned numerous times. Thomas Massie, a Republican Member of the House, said earlier this year about Republicans:

We have no plan whatsoever to balance the budget other than

growth, but what they're proposing is [going] to make the

deficit worse.

This is what our President is trying to do, with the complicity of a lot of people who call themselves deficit hawks, who call themselves fiscal conservatives. They are going to try to blow it through here, gaming the system, creating some kind of scam to obscure the real cost of this.

We--all them on the Republican side, us on the Democratic side--we all know the truth about these tax increases and what they are going to do, how much they are going to cost, but we are going to play a game, it looks like, here unless more Americans speak up.

Republican and Democrat, people who know numbers, who know what we are doing to future generations in this country, this is wrong. And I say again that this is not right or left; it is right or wrong. This is a moral moment in America. What are we going to do?

I am so glad my friend the Senator from Hawaii is here. I try to keep M&M's in my desk in case she wants to partake in New Jersey's State product. The M&M was invented in Newark. True. I give great trivia here.

I am waiting for the Senator from Hawaii, my dear friend, to ask me a question. I have the floor.

I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Thank you, Senator Hirono.

I think I need somebody to say what WTF? To come from you is pretty giving and precious, and I am grateful.

This rule of law is really important. It is part of this whole moment in American history that I keep calling the more moment--something beyond the normal, where we shouldn't respond in a normal fashion. This is a moment where judges rule in his favor, and he praises them. If you don't rule for him, he drags them and threatens them, so much so that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has to tell him to back up.

If elected officials speak up, many of them fear as to what the consequences would be for them or their reelections if they speak against him.

Lawyers decline, possibly, to represent people because they are worried that this President has already shown that if you represent the wrong people or represent, God forbid, people against him, he is going to try to shut down your law firm in ways that are against the rule of law that this country believes in.

If journalists and media organizations don't report in a way that he likes or confirm his arbitrary name changes for the Gulf of Mexico, there is a punishment that he tries to dish out to try to make them come to submission.

State and local governments literally can get extorted for their funding if they don't carry out his demands. Schools and universities that are starving for dollars and trying to invest them in research and science that will propel humanity to new heights--well, they could get targeted by this President if they don't do what he says.

It feels like his ultimate goal is to create a country where you cannot trust the outcome of elections that he loses because he is going to tell you that if he lost that election, it is the Big Lie. It is wrong. I won. I won. I won. I won. I don't care what judge after judge, court after court says--I won. And if you don't believe me, if you don't say, ``The election I won,'' well, there will be consequences for that too.

This is a President who, even as we have read people on both sides of the aisle, isn't respecting the Constitution and the separation of powers. He isn't respecting the rights that we hold precious. He isn't honoring what we call the rule of law. I want to go a little bit into this for a second.

Let's talk about the separation of powers. There are many, many different cases right now, but we know that James Madison--the Founding Father who devised the basic framework for our Constitution--devoted some of the Federalist Papers to the ways the Constitution addresses the danger of concentrating too much power in one person or in one branch of government. Written in 1788, Madison's words still have resonance today.

This is what he wrote in Federalist 487:

The cumulation of all powers--legislative, executive and

judiciary--in the same hands whether of one, a few, or many

and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elective--may

justly be pronounced the very definition of ``tyranny.''

So what is this President trying to do? He is trying to jam this court decision that is not in his favor. Either the judge is corrupt and should be impeached or he is just going to deny the ruling or not follow it.

Madison explained that the Constitution set up the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches to be separate and distinct and equal and bound together by checks and balances.

It is agreed on all sides that the powers properly

belonging to one of the branches ought not to be directly and

completely administrated by either of the other branches. It

is equally evident that none of them ought to possess

directly or indirectly an overruling influence over the

others in the administration of their executive respective

powers.

That is Federalist 48.

I am nerdy enough to have a favorite Federalist Paper. I am going to read from my favorite one, Federalist 51:

In order to lay a due foundation for the separate and

distinct exercise of the different powers of government

essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that

each department should have a will of its own, so constituted

that each should have as little agency as possible in the

appointment of the members of the others. But the great

security against a gradual concentration of the several

powers in the same department consist in giving to those who

administer each department the necessary constitutional means

to resist the encroachments of the others.

``[T]o resist the encroachments of the others.'' We are not doing that in the Senate or in the House.

Federalist 51 continues:

It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices

should be necessary to control the abuses of government.

Here is the quote, folks. Here is the quote from our Founders:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal

controls on government would be necessary.

But our President is no angel.

This is Federalist 51 continuing:

In framing a government which is to be administered by men

over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first

enable the government to control--

The government--

and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.

They are talking about at great length our Founders and the separation of powers and the checks and balances of these institutions. Yet, for 72 days of this administration, has the Congress--article I, the people's House; the Senate, the deliberative body--have we once held this President to account?

The most powerful man in the world and the richest man in the world have taken a battle ax to the Veterans' Administration, a battle ax to the Department of Education, a battle ax to the only Agency solely focused on protecting consumers against big banks and other factors that might abuse them, bringing it down.

Congress established the Department of Education. Congress established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Congress. But the President doesn't care. He is going to push as hard as he can against the principles of our Founders. And what will we do in this body? What will we do in the House of Representatives? Right now, the answer is nothing.

Has Elon Musk--the unelected, un-Senate-confirmed billionaire and No. 1 campaign contributor of Donald Trump's, who has admitted he has made mistakes--on his website, he keeps taking down the mistakes. He keeps getting called out for them. He fires people from the FAA and then begs them to come back. He fires the people who protect us from nuclear accidents. ``Oh, wait, come back.''

Have we ever in the Senate or in the House called him in for one oversight hearing to account for what he is doing to address the fears of a nation? No.

Separation of powers.

Hey, we have hearings here all the time but not with Elon Musk. Do you know why? Do you know why I think why? Tell me I am a conspiracy theorist. Because what Elon Musk is doing to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is threatening them. He is threatening to run primaries with what, to me, would be a quarter but to him is $100 million.

I am going to drop $100 million against you in a primary if you step out of line or if you dare to say Hegseth is not qualified to be the Secretary of Defense. We are going to drag you through X. We are going to awaken the mob to threaten you.

Our Founders spoke so eloquently to protect against that kind of corruption, to protect against that kind of egregious tyrannical power that says: Only I can save this country. Give me all power. Let me be the strongman.

We know who he respects on the global stage. I was stunned. I thought it was a joke during the election when he said his favorite leader is Viktor Orban, who has rolled back democratic principles, who has concentrated power. I see.

Who does he choose to call a dictator--the man who was trying desperately to lead his country in defense against the authoritarian dictator and preserve his democracy or does he call the dictator a dictator? No. A simple test. Most high school students would simply pass it but no. He calls a hero a dictator.

Do we have any conversations about that in the formal capacity, to talk about the Ukrainian war, which I know people on both sides of the aisle--Mazie Hirono brings up the separation of powers. Why is history's lesson so relevant today? Why do we study history? Did I learn that in high school that you study history so you don't repeat the mistakes of the past? You study history to gain inspiration and insight and courage against tough times. You study history to be inspired by heroes who stood up against despots, who sacrificed themselves.

What is the lesson in history? How is it relevant to us today? Because the separation of powers between the branches of government has allowed our democracy to thrive for nearly 250 years. And now we have a person in power who is barely being checked. And if the courts check him, what he does to the courts--

In the 9 weeks or 10 weeks since Donald Trump was inaugurated, there have been more than 140 Federal lawsuits filed challenging his actions. I don't know if another President, in my lifetime, ever has had 140 Federal lawsuits in about 9 weeks. It is a staggering figure. We should consider it a staggering figure. He must be the most sued President in U.S. history. Somebody should fact check that. But at least in my lifetime, I don't remember Reagan; I don't remember Bush; I don't remember Obama or Clinton or Biden being dragged into court in the first 9 weeks so many times and losing case after case.

He may have a record for the most lawsuits filed by a President himself because he is a guy who says he loves to sue folks. In support of the big lie, he did so many lawsuits and lost them all.

The lawsuits against Trump and his administration are not frivolous. Federal judges, appointed by Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents alike, have found Trump's Executive actions illegal, temporarily pausing many of them too.

Trump's Executive actions and the outcomes of these lawsuits have a direct effect on Americans. These lawsuits challenge Trump.

Here are some of the examples, folks--and I am wondering where the American people stand on these lawsuits. It is not the people who are blindly loyal to him because they believe the lies that he so artfully, creatively, and convincingly tells, but just tell me where do you stand on these issues?

Attacks on veterans who have served our country in the military and civil services--well, there are lawsuits challenging his right to attack our veterans.

There are lawsuits challenging Trump on his attacks on government Agencies that protect your grandmother from online scams. I don't know where you stand--with the grandmas getting scammed, to defend them, or the President?

Lawsuits against Trump because of his attacks on lawful American citizens born in this country and guarantee their citizenship under the U.S. Constitution. There are lawsuits against the President for withholding National Institutes of Health funds to support studies of horrific diseases like

Alzheimer's and disrupting lifesaving medical research and ongoing clinical trials.

Now, if you are a student of history, this is the problem, often, with lawsuits. Brown v. Board Education, we celebrate it as the wonderful case it was. But was it obeyed? No, it wasn't.

I have a picture of Ruby Bridges in my office because it wasn't obeyed. The court didn't declare this and, suddenly, everybody said: Hey, let Black folks go to school with White folks. No. The President had to call in the National Guard to escort a little girl into a class.

That is the problem with lawsuits. If you have a defiant executive leadership, they will defy them.

These, where you stand? Do you stand with veterans? Do you stand with your grandmother against online scams? Do you stand with American citizens born in this country? Do you stand with withholding National Institutes of Health funding? It was clearly that. We know the majority of Americans are with that. But people are having to bring them to court to fight on these issues.

So many cases being done. So many cases I have here before me. So many cases. I can read them all, but you all know many of them. They are stunning the press as he pushes, as Elon Musk pushes. They push the bounds of the authorities of the Constitution of the United States, and people are bringing lawsuits. But that is not enough.

Martin Luther King didn't step down because of Thurgood Marshall's legal work. John Lewis didn't step down. Ella Baker didn't stop. Abraham Joshua Heschel didn't stop. The great Rabbi Joachim Prinz didn't stop. The people of the United States of America, more powerful than courts; the people of the United States of America, more powerful than the Constitution--I just said something controversial, so let me defend myself.

I believe in the people. I believe in the words of the great Learned Hand. He said the like of what I just said, so let me read somebody far greater, far more vaunted than this Senator from New Jersey.

Learned Hand served as a Federal judge from 1909 to 1951. He was nicknamed the 10th Justice of the Supreme Court for his many influential decisions. He wrote this speech about our Constitution, about our liberties, about the tyrants in every generation who have tried to subvert our democracy--some of them from this body, like the Red Scare that had so many Americans being unjustly fired, unjustly deported, unjustly jailed, that infringed on freedom of speech, freedom of expression. I am sorry. Every generation of Americans have seen demagogues rise to try to undermine what America stands for, and Learned Hand knew that. He had so much wisdom about our Constitution.

We have gathered here to affirm a faith, a faith in a

common purpose, a common conviction, a common devotion. Some

of us have chosen America as the land of our adoption; the

rest have come from those who did the same. For this reason

we have some right to consider ourselves a picked group, a

group of those who had the courage to break from the past and

brave the dangers and the loneliness of a strange land. What

was the object that nerved us, or those who went before us,

to this choice? We sought liberty; freedoms from oppression,

freedom from want, freedom to be ourselves. This we then

sought; this we now believe that we are by way of winning.

What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek

liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too

much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are

false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies

in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no

constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.

While it lies [in our hearts] there it needs no constitution,

no law, no court. And what is this liberty which must lie in

the hearts of men and women?

Please, please, please, listen to what he writes next:

What is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of us

Americans? This is what he says next:

It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not

freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty,

and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men

recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society

where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we

have learned [in our country] to our sorrow.

What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I

can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the

spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of

liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the mind of

other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit

which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias;

the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls

to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him

who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson

it has never learned but [has] never quite [yet] forgotten;

that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard

and considered side by side with the greatest. . . . And now

in that spirit of that America for which our young men are at

this moment fighting and dying; in that spirit of liberty and

. . . America I ask you to rise and [say] with me [the]

pledge of our faith in the glorious destiny of our beloved

country.

I now ask you to raise your hands and repeat after me this

pledge.

And he says the Pledge of Allegiance. He believed that the Constitution dies if the spirit of it dies in the hearts of men and women.

I would tell you, this Constitution has saved my life. It made my life because people marched to make real on the promise of our democracy. People bled to make real on this democracy.

When some people told us that this Constitution didn't apply to us, this body--this body, Republicans in America--stood up and said: No, President Johnson, we are going to do amendments.

We saw the Thirteenth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment would guarantee my ancestors finally full citizenship in the United States of America and the protections of the Constitution.

I am here in this body because of past generations that fought to uphold the Constitution, not because the Constitution was real to them but because they brought reality and hope and love and promise to the Constitution. They were Americans who said, like Langston Hughes: America never was America to me, but I swear this oath, America will be.

They loved this country so much even when it didn't love them back. I am here because of that. I am the fourth Black person popularly elected to this body because of generations that believed so much in this document that they were going to make it real, if live in them.

I quoted earlier today--it is worth quoting here again--the great Margaret Chase Smith, a U.S. Senator from Maine, a Republican in her famous ``Declaration of Consciences'' speech delivered on June 1, 1950.

Thank you. Thank you, my good Senator friend Whitehouse because, Lord knows, I would have slipped and fallen on my tuchus and have ended this long filibuster because I fell to the floor. That is what you mean when your brother has your back.

What did this Republican say in the time of tyranny in her times, in the time when the Constitution stopped living in people's hearts, where people believed that whipped up fears of others by demagogues, where people believed the fear that they heard again and again on the radio that we should fear other Americans, when people believed their fear justified them, inhibiting the greatness of the Constitution? What is that old saying from one of our great leaders of the past? If you are willing to give up your liberty in order to ensure your security, you will lose them both.

So here was this courageous Republican, who, in a time that demagogues were whipping up fear, where First Amendment rights were being trampled, where people were being intimidated into silence, where people were afraid to go up against the big and the powerful and the rich, where people were being deported from our country, where Jews were being deported and accused of being communists as justification to take them out of the country because they didn't have permanent legal status--yes, that is our history. What did she stand up and say in the Senate, this Republican, putting her own career at risk to call out Senator McCarthy?

She said:

I don't believe the Republican Party is in any sense a

party of fear. I do believe that the Republican Party has

made an alliance, though, with the four horsemen of fear--the

fear of communists, the fear of labor unions, the fear of the

future, and the fear of progress.

There are people fearmongering now. There are people trying to tell Americans to hate Americans. You are either with the great ``Dear Leader'' or you are endangering an enemy. And it is not just Democrats who are being drugged, there are other Republicans. I

saw it happen. I saw it happen to one of our Vice President's daughters, a Congresswoman. I saw it happen to colleagues of mine like Jeff Flake, like John McCain, and like Corker, who stood up in this body and told the truth about dear leader, and they saw the consequences politically.

You want to talk about where the Constitution lives and defending the Constitution? First make it real in your heart, like those women did before the amendment that granted them the right to vote, who loved this country so much.

You want to know where the Constitution lives in your heart? I just met with extraordinary men and women who are Native Americans to this country, who were here before any of us. They love this country so much even with the sins against them.

You want to know where the Constitution lives? Let it live in the hearts of all Americans now, and ask yourself: Is the leader of our country living the Constitution in his heart? Because, as Learned Hand said, it is not braggadocios; it is not mean; it is loving; it is kind; it is expansive.

We are Americans. Our creed above the Presiding Officer says it all-- ``E Pluribus Unum''--trying to remind our country that despite racial difference, gender, besides Republican or Democrat, ethnics--you know all the lines that divide us are not nearly as strong as the ties that bind us. That is what ``e pluribus unum'' means.

What about the pledge that Learned Hand read? Listen to the words. It says things. It says things in that pledge. It says that we are one nation under God, that we are indivisible and we pledge ourselves to liberty and justice not just to the people who agree with the President but for all.

God bless my courageous colleagues who have spoken out in the past and suffered the consequences. Liberty and the Constitution live in their hearts. They put patriotism over politics.

We are in this moral moment now. We are in this moral moment now. This is not right or left. Don't let them say this is a partisan shift; it is not. It is not left or right; it is right or wrong.

America, this is a moral moment. Does the Constitution live in your heart?

Before I yield--I love this power trip. It is the only time in 13 years I have really felt this power. I don't have to let my colleagues speak. And I, first amongst us all, really love to speak.

I just want to say thank you to Chris Murphy. I repeated this 10, 15 hours ago, but I just want to tell the story, and then I will let you go, Chris.

Nine years ago on this floor, after the Pulse shooting, we called Chuck Schumer, Chris and I. I saw a moment and he saw a moment that we couldn't do business as usual. We just said: How can you have this mass shooting, yet another mass shooting, and this body just go on as business as usual? It is why I am standing here right now. And we agreed, with Chuck Schumer's help, that we would get control of the Senate.

Chris Murphy went down to that desk, and I promised him: I will be with you. I will stand with you. I won't sit down. We will go as long as we possibly can.

And he began a filibuster 9 years ago, and it lasted 15 hours. And he still had fuel in the tank; I know he did. I was a hurting guy. I told you my back was hurting, my feet were hurting. But we had a direct end when Mitch McConnell agreed to give us a vote on commonsense gun safety, which I think every American and most gun owners agree on--just universal background checks. It failed to get 60 votes in the Senate, but you stood and I stood with you.

He said to me days ago: If you are going to do this, Brother, I will be your aide-de-camp this time. And you have been with me. You have been with me far past 15 hours. You have been with me for 23 hours 49 minutes.

(Applause.)

Although my cousin Pam in the Gallery--she has been here the same amount of time.

All right. So I am going to yield my power. It is not going to go to my head. This is why we need separation of powers--checks on men. Men are not angels.

I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

I thank my colleague and my friend again. He and I talked about this, that I was challenged by my own constituents to do something different, challenged by my own constituents to do something, challenged by my own constituents to take risks.

My staff here should get a lot of credit for making it thus far. I am not sitting down, but I am mindful of what you said about Strom Thurmond. I am mindful of that right now as I watch that clock tick for another 20 minutes.

I am grateful for my staff. I am grateful for the Parliamentarians, the clerks. I am grateful for the Republican Presiding Officers.

I don't know if I want to out Curtis on the note that he--I am sorry--the good Senator, the Presiding Officer--forgive me--on the note he sent me, but this is the kind of specialness in this place that I love.

I want to tell a few connecting stories. I think some of my colleagues know a few of these, but I want to explain why I started this whole 24 hours talking about John Lewis and good trouble.

Sixty years ago, when he was on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, he shook New Jersey as he shook the Nation. When Bloody Sunday happened, there was a White guy on the couch in New Jersey who was watching TV and was so shaken, this lawyer said: I have to go to Alabama. He realized he couldn't afford a plane ticket, so this man slumped back down on his couch.

Then he said: At a moral moment in America, I am not going to let my inability to do everything undermine my determination to do something, to do something different.

He got up and said: OK--it was a meager calculation, but it was different--I can afford 1 hour a month of pro bono work.

He called around, and he found this woman named Lee Porter who was heading up an organization called the Fair Housing Council and said: Could you use a lawyer?

She was like: Hallelujah. Thank you, Jesus. Yes, we need some help.

They worked together and they designed a sting operation where they would send Black families in areas of New Jersey that would not sell homes to Black people, where usually the best public schools were. If they were told the house was sold, they would send a White couple behind them to expose that the house was still for sale and expose all of this.

Well, they had a lot of success getting things written about the severe housing discrimination in my State.

He said that after about 5 years, 4 years: I got this case file of a Black family trying to move to New Jersey, and they were frustrated because every time they would look at homes in the places with the best public schools, which happened to be White communities, they said they couldn't find a home.

So they did the sting operation. They sent the Black couple in. They were told this incredible house was not for sale. They loved the house. So that when the White couple went, they threw in a bid to see if it would be accepted. The bid was accepted. Papers were drawn up.

On the day of the closing, the White couple did not show up. The Black man did--lawyer, Marty Friedman marched in, confronted the real estate agent.

You would think 1969, a year after the Fair Housing Act, that he would capitulate, but he didn't. This real estate agent gets up so angry. He punches the lawyer in the face and sics a Doberman pinscher on the Black guy.

They get out of there, shaken up, and they start writing letters back and forth. The good owners of the home found out what was going on. They were so aghast. They said: Let us sell the house directly to the Black family.

The Black family moved in, and 43 years later, the baby from that family became the fourth popularly elected Black Senator in our country--me.

I tell that story because I started with John Lewis 24 hours ago, and it was John Lewis and a bunch of marchers on the bridge that influenced the destiny of my life and my family's life.

We are all interconnected. As King says:

We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied

in a single garment of destiny.

But I want to tell you the second time John Lewis shook up my life.

I was mayor of the city of Newark. I got called to be on a TV show. I got called by a guy named Skip Gates, who I love, admire. He calls me and he jazzes me up. He fills my ego. He just flatters me: Hey, I got this show called Finding Your Roots, Cory Booker. You are a rising star. You are this hotshot. We should feature you in this.

I am like: Oh, great. Oh, don't say that, Skip, but OK. Yeah, of course. And then I said: OK. Who are you going to pair me with?

I thought it was going to be another young, hotshot, up-and-coming politician in America.

No. He goes: I am going to pair you with John Lewis, and my heart sank a little bit--actually maybe it was my ego that sank. My heart got excited. Because I know how these shows start. They start with biographies.

So imagine the show starting: John Lewis; hero of the Civil Rights Movement, literally bled the southern soil red for freedom and justice.

And then he goes to my biography: Cory Booker; riding his big-wheel in suburban New Jersey. The show was unbelievable; a mountain and boy.

But I got to meet John Lewis. I got to tell him that story that he changed my life, and I didn't even know it--on a bridge in Alabama, changed the course of events in New Jersey that led to me.

Third take on John Lewis, my colleagues know I got here in a special election in 2013. What all of my colleagues might not know is I came here with a broken heart. My mom and I came here with a broken heart because I was elected in October, sworn in in October, but also in October my dad died of Parkinson's. That is why I got choked up reading these letters of people with Parkinson's.

So when we came down here, we were grieving. My dad was not with us. My mom lost her husband of nearly 50 years, and I am going to get sworn in. It is a big event, but my parents and my campaign decided: You know what we should do? Right before you get sworn in or brought over here to be escorted to the President and Vice President, that you should go and sit with John Lewis.

So we went to John Lewis' office and a lot of my colleagues from the CBC, a lot of my colleagues from the House, a lot of my colleagues, like here, came over from the House, know his office.

You walk into his office, and it looks like a civil rights museum except he is in all the pictures. And this is John Lewis--we who knew him--this was him, mountain of a man. He had already prepared eggs and grits, a good southern breakfast, and wouldn't let my mom and I get up.

He serves us all, and he humbly is saying: This is why I marched. This is why I sacrificed for historic historymaking days like this. He told us how special this was for him.

He told me he would be right here where my friends are sitting, watching

me get sworn in and how proud he was going to be. In a sense, he stood in for my dad on this floor, and then, boom, I am Senator.

I find colleagues and friends here. I find a lot of colleagues and friends in the CBC. At that point, I was the only African American in our caucus and found so many friends, so many heroes that are gone from the Senate now, who looked at me, adopted me, helped me.

Dick Durbin, you were amazing in those early months.

And this is the next time I meet John Lewis for a moment that changed my life. Chris Murphy, Brian Schatz, remember this moment. It was during the 2017 healthcare debate, when I didn't know how we were going to stop that bill from passing and taking away healthcare from 20 million Americans.

But John Lewis: Hey, Cory, let's do something different. What you got in mind?

I said: Well, John Lewis, I got this phone. It is very powerful. Let's do a Facebook live. So I open up Facebook live, we meet in between in the Capitol.

He says: Where can we go to sit down for a place?

My favorite place to sit, I watched Schoolhouse Rock so much, it is right on the steps of the Capitol. Let's just sit there and talk; Chris Murphy, Brian Schatz the first people out to sit with us.

The time lapse--the time lapse is amazing. First two, three people. Then 10 people. Then 50 people. Then hundreds of people. I have it all coming because of the moral magnetism of this man, John Lewis.

And he talked to people that night who were looking for, what can I do? I am just one person.

And this guy in his 20s who is just one person and caused a heck of lot of good trouble, he told him: Don't lose faith, don't lose hope. Get angry, but let it fuel you. Be afraid, but know that is a necessary precondition to courage. He was amazing that night. I know my colleagues remember that.

And then there was a next time. Oh, Brother Warnock, you are gonna love this one.

The next time I was with John Lewis, Jimmy Carter had gotten a little sick, but then he got better, and he went back to teaching Sunday school. And I thought: This man is in his 90s. I need to go to Sunday school. So who do I know--there is a waiting line. It is like people sneak out all night. I might have been a little selfish. How do I know I can get in?

I call John Lewis. I said: Hey, I got this great idea. Why don't we go to Jimmy Carter and watch him teach Sunday school? So I have the singular greatest road trip. I fly into Atlanta. We get into a car, and we drive all those hours to Plains, GA.

Indeed, people were waiting outside, but it is John Lewis--come on in. We sit in the front row; I must be in the front row. We sit down, and then this marvelous incredible moment comes. Somebody comes and says: Congressman Lewis, Senator Booker, the President and First Lady would love to see you beforehand.

This is my first time meeting President Jimmy Carter. But I walk in, I am sort of on the sidelines. These two men are hugging each other; me and the first lady.

The two of them whisper for a second, and Jimmy Carter walks over to me and says: I hear you are thinking of running for President of the United States.

He did something incredible. He says: I think you should run--and he pokes my heart--only if you run from here.

The last time--of the powerful moments I have had in my life with that man, that so many of us have had those powerful moments, the last time happened because of a man named Michael Collins. I know people-- there are people in this room that got the same phone call that I got, that: It won't be long now, that John Lewis is going to pass very soon. He can't speak, but I know he would want you to have your moment to say goodbye to him.

And what do I do? What do I do? Say goodbye to a man that is a legend in my life, a legend in our Nation? What do you do to say goodbye to him? I wasn't prepared. I can't say I said anything eloquent.

Michael Collins, God bless you, man. You put the phone by his ear and you just gave me my time to have a conversation with the man that would soon die, a man that changed my life, that helped my family get into a neighborhood that loved me and cherished me. God love Harrington Park.

The man that stood in for my father when heaven brought him home, the man that showed me on the steps of this Capitol how powerful the people are. It wasn't about him. It was about them.

The man that brought me to see a President, flattered every Senator's ego telling them what they want to hear: Run for President.

And so I said everything I could, but the last thing I said I remember very well. I said: I love you--I said: I love you, and I said: John, I know you are going to be in Heaven looking down on us, and I promise you--I promise you, John Lewis--that I will do everything possible, that we will do everything possible to make you proud.

The Civil Rights generation is starting to be called home. The leaders are leaving us. We in the CBC have lost a lot of greats. I can't remember the--forget the promise I made to John Lewis with all that he gave me, with all that he gave his country, that I said we would make him proud.

So this is one of those moments that John Lewis--he would not be sitting still. He would be calling me up and say: You still got that Facebook thing? I go: No, I don't really use Facebook anymore.

But there is a thing called TikTok or--I don't know what John Lewis would say right now. I know what he said in 2017.

But I will be honest with you. I don't know what he would say, but John Lewis would say something. He would do something. He wouldn't treat this moral moment like it was normal. John Lewis new what King said, that what we have to repent for, all of us here, we will have to repent for, is not just the vitriolic words and violent actions of so- called bad people.

What we have to repent for in our day and age is the appalling silence and the inaction of good people. This is our moral moment. This is when the most precious ideas of our country are being tested, where the Constitution and the question is being called: Where does the Constitution live, on paper or in our hearts? This is the moment. Generations get them. We are on a crossroads here, folks.

Healthcare is on the balance. Veterans are on the balance. Priorities are on the balance. Where is our priorities, America? More tax cuts disproportionately going to the wealthy. Greater budget deficits in the trillions and trillions of dollars. Or are we going to do something different like John Lewis would call us to do?

He would call us to get into good trouble, necessary trouble, save the soul of America. But you all know John: Don't hate each other. Don't let anybody pull you so low as to hate them.

I said this about the presiding elder, different parties, but he showed me an act of kindness during this speech. He and I talked about energy policy. He has amazing ideas. I want to partner with him.

Don't hate anybody. Did the folks in Birmingham--did Martin Luther King, Fred Shuttlesworth, Dorothy Cotton, James Bevel, did they bring bigger dogs and bigger fire hoses to match the sheriff's--Bull Connor-- thank you. I have been standing here a long time.

They didn't do that. They were creative artists of activism. They called to the conscious of a country. They challenged our moral imagination, not to focus on hate but focus on what is possible in America if we redeem the dream, if we dream America anew.

That generation in their 20s and their 30s, that is what they demanded. Martin Luther King didn't go to the March on Washington with a list of grievances against the racists in our country. He went there and called to the conscious of the country. He said he ``had a dream.'' That is what we need in our generation, a vision to redeem the dream to call our country together.

Yes, there is a man in the White House who is the most powerful man in the land, and his partner is the richest man in the world. But as long as this is a democracy that we can still protect, the power of the people is greater than the people in power, if they use their powers.

There is a great African American woman author once said: The most common way people give up their power is not realizing they have it in the first place.

I have been calling out names, folks, to tell them they have power.

I read the stories of DeAnna, of Wendy and Cassie, of Tonya, of Cameron, of Jeanne, of Susan, of Edna, Randi, of Dylan, of Theresa, of Pamela, of Sally and Mike, of Carole, Rosemari, Danielle, of Judith, of Elizabeth, of Sandra, Alicia, Maggie, Nybil, Laura, Michael, Robin, Mary, Allyson, Ash, Roseann, Kerry, Samantha P., Raphael, Will, Anthony, Sean, and so many more. I read their stories here because while we were elected, they are the power of our country.

I have made mistakes. We all have. Both parties have a lot of mistakes to account for. The ballast of this country, what will anchor us to our ideals, what will call us to new heights, lift our heads, lift our hopes, what will call us to rise is each other.

We need each other. We need a greater love in this country. We need a greater fight in this country. We need a greater determination. We can't act as if these are normal times.

These people's stories that I read were calling out for help: Senator, help me. Someone, help me. I am in danger of losing my healthcare. Someone help me. I am a veteran. Look what happened to me. It is not fair. I fought for this country. Help me. Help me. I am worried about my Social Security, and the rural office I go to is being closed. Help, people calling out for help. And what do Americans do when people are calling out for help?

They built an infrastructure. The greatest project ever, called the Underground Railroad, where Quakers, White folks joined with Black folks to shuttle people to freedom. What did they do when people were worried and fearful? They called people together from across their country. Let's have a conference. Let's go to Seneca Falls.

What did they do when they faced violence? Oh, look at the people at Stonewall who stood up, who pushed back, who organized, who won.

What do they do when the dogs are unleashed on us, when the firehose is unleashed on us? Look at what they did in Selma.

I am getting close to a record, folks, but--

(Applause.)

There is a room here in the Senate named after Strom Thurmond. To hate him is wrong, and maybe my ego got too caught up, that if I stood here maybe, maybe, just maybe I could break this record of the man who tried to stop the rights upon which I stand. I am not here though because of a speech. I am here despite his speech.

I am here because as powerful as he was, the people were more powerful.

(Applause.)

I will remind you all these people that believe like me that we have got to redeem the dream, turn again to John Lewis because you all know the story, my colleagues, of when the man that beat him savagely, drew blood, cracked bones, decades later, when he was a Congressman, that man brought his grandson with him to ask for forgiveness from John Lewis.

I heard about this story when I was in the car in Georgia with him.

What did you do, John, this man who had so viciously beat

you, wounded you, bruised you, battered you, what did you do

when he came to ask you for forgiveness? What did you do?

And the good Christian man, the man of faith, simply said: Every one of us needs mercy. Every one of us needs redemption. I forgave him. I hugged him. We wept. And I looked at the boy, this Nation needs you too.

John--

Chuck Schumer, it is the only time in my life I could tell you no.

Chuck Schumer, I have yielded for a question, and you asked me did I know. I know now.

(Applause.)

I want to not quite wrap this up yet. I don't want to wrap this up yet. My mom's Senator--my mom has been watching. I know Catherine Cortez Masto has a podium in front of her. She could give me a rest. I would like to go a little further if we can, just a little further.

I love, again, I know people are trying to train each other, in all of our media operations they give the worst images of the people of the other party, but I want to tell you one of the funny tweets my staff gave me is something Ted Cruz said around 1920 hours. He said: Maybe I should pull a fire alarm, he is going to break my record.

I am going to pause in a moment, if she has a question for me, to Catherine Cortez Masto, because she is my mother. But I do want to just say again, two points, make if I can, one is how grateful I am to my staff. When we decided to do this many days ago--

(Applause.)

When we decided to do this days ago, they were like, we have to do this, and we started preparing and working on this, and they did an extraordinary job. They were with me late nights, writing, writing, writing.

I just feel guilty because they wrote about 10 books, and we didn't use all of them. There were really some stuff pulling from Republicans and Democrats, a critique of this moment. Pulling from Democrats and Republicans, Republican Governors that were saying: Do not cut Medicaid. States that know, as my colleagues do, that have a trigger; that if the Medicaid funding goes below 90 percent, that they stop the Medicaid expansion.

My staff really worked hard to not make this just Democratic voices, to make it people in our country that Republicans and Democrats--you heard me mention in the speech, the Cato Institute, the Manhattan Institute, all people who are honest arbiters and were saying that what Trump is doing is wrong; that a budget like this that blows massive holes in our deficit, it will be something our children are trying to pay for. And what are they ultimately paying for that caused this big deficit? It is trillions of dollars of tax cuts that people like DOGE, multimillionaire, multibillionaire Musk will benefit from, but children won't.

They did such a good job bringing together authorities on both sides of the aisle, I just want to thank them. I want to thank my cousin Pam and my family. Cousin Pam, like Chris Murphy, was here for the whole time.

I want to thank Chris Murphy again.

(Applause.)

He never stopped telling me: We can do this, we can do this, we can do this, and said, I will stay with you. He has been with me on the floor. I hope you don't look as tired as I look because you look beat, man. Do I look that bad?

All right. I want to go a little bit past this, and then I am going to deal with some of the biological urgencies.

But I am going to wait here because I have the power, I have the floor, somebody has to ask me, perhaps from my mom's State, the way that is supposed to work.

My mom would be so upset with me, my Aunt Marilyn, Butch, my Aunt Shirley, all the people that are your constituents and not mine, they would be upset with me if I didn't yield to you for a question while retaining the floor.

So this bothers me for two reasons, and the first you have already mentioned, is this is the point of the bipartisan work that we do. I talked about Chris Murphy and the bipartisan gun bill that lots of people here worked on with Senator Cornyn and others and how upset my State is that some of that community violence intervention money that I worked so hard to get in that bill is being clawed back by a President.

There are people in this room, I know so many of you, and I know on the other side that have done such great work to work with our colleagues, to find common ground, and get really important programs passed that bring resources to families, and it is being clawed back by our President--not with consultation, not with a hearing, not with a discussion of even why you would target Alzheimer's research. That is a violation of the separation of powers, and I wish my Republican colleagues would hold more hearings about that. These are programs they like.

I saw them with USAID. I worked with Marco Rubio on some of those programs and those investments that have now been cut and clawed back.

So it is a separation of powers issues. It is an offense to the common goals we share in this community of leaders.

But the second reason it bothers me is an article I read hours ago by Fareed Zakaria. He talked about what is happening to a nation that cuts so dramatically what is one of the best taxpayer investment dollars in biomedical sciences. If you are an investor and I told you there is an investment that for every dollar you invest, you would get $5 back for your economy, folks would be invested in that vehicle.

Well, that is NIH funding. Every dollar you invest--who would cut a profit center? It is not just a profit center though. The outcomes and discoveries could change the lives of people who are suffering in your Nation and around the world. But he is attacking them.

I read about all these universities from around the country. That shows you how magnanimous I am trying to be. I even read stories from USC--I am sorry, a rival. And all of these universities are cutting their post-docs, cutting their Ph.D.s, because they don't know. As Donald Trump threatens the direct costs, they are stopping.

And Fareed Zakaria said: So painfully to all Americans with American pride, as we are doing that, China, when they had the Cultural Revolution, they first went after their universities. Now in modern China, their government is doing the opposite. They are trying to out- America us. They are massively increasing their investment in scientific research because they know if they get ahead of us on quantum computing, all of our subs can be located and God knows what could happen. Any kind of cryptology they could break. They know, if they could get ahead of us on scientific research, the power and advantage that will give them. They are doubling down.

What are we doing in America? We are tolerating a President that is cutting the funding that will predict who defines the future and what values will define those futures. Will they be democratic values or values of the country competing with us to beat us? And right now we are giving them a head start.

The final reason that question bothers me is because my father died of Parkinson's, and he had Parkinson's-related dementia. I know what that is like. I know the pain families are enduring.

I remember the time my dad and my mom were in the movie theater, and my mother just shook my world. It was in Georgia. And so many people here in this room have had the same experience. We are in a movie theater, and my mom leans over to me and said: You need to take your dad to the bathroom.

I never imagined--in my years of my dad, as a 2-year-old and 3-year- old, taking me to the bathroom--that one day I would have to take him, in this Atlanta movie theater in the middle of a movie--which I was like, OK, it is time for me to do this ritual that so many families know.

I pick my dad up, and he is shuffling with his Parkinson's. I am not seeing any light in his eyes. I am letting him hold me, and he is shuffling to the bathroom. We get to the bathroom, and his hands are shaking. He is standing in front of the urinal, and I realize I have to unbuckle this man's pants.

So many families know this. And my ego--I am sorry. I was leaning over saying: Wait a minute. I am in a public bathroom leaning over. I am unbuckling another man's pants. Please God, don't let someone come in.

As if God heard my call, someone walked in. I heard the person walking, and I am like, please keep walking. I heard the feet walk past me and stop, and the man turns around and says: ``Oh, my God, Cory Booker.''

And then I look up at my dad, and I see the clarity in his eyes. He is 100 percent there, and he is grinning and loving my mortified embarrassment.

Alzheimer's is devastating to so many American families watching the loved one of their lives diminish, and we are cutting funding. Donald Trump is cutting funding democratically, bipartisanly approved?

So forget the separation of powers. It is important--so important. If that doesn't get you, then maybe think about the competition with China. If that doesn't get you--if those two don't get you, America, think about the millions of Americans struggling with Alzheimer's, the struggles of those families.

This is a moral moment, America. This is going to define the character of our country for years and years to come.

Has the Senate called a hearing on your bipartisan funding, Senator? No. Have we done our oversight responsibility? Have we checked, as I read from

the Federalist Papers, as our Founders wanted us to do--it is to check the executive, to be the check of the executive. That balances our governmental powers. No, we are not checking the executive.

With Signalgate, I have heard from Republicans that serve in Congress--535 with us--I know other colleagues have heard. They are mortified.

You talked about that. They are mortified about that. And, again, it is not partisan. The Biden administration made foreign policy mistakes. Obama made foreign policy mistakes. Reagan, when I was growing up, I was hearing about the Iran-Contra scandal.

I am not going to be one of those people that says we are pristine, perfect Democrats. We made mistakes. We made failings. We let them down. We have reckoning in our own party that we are dealing with right now.

That doesn't say that you should be one of these people that says: Well, Biden did it.

No. You should be a leader of character that says there is something wrong here. In fact, you could point to real problems in the national security of our country and the laws that we established.

One of those law is very simple. You are supposed to preserve records. How can a Signal chain that disappears not be a violation of the law of this land? Is there a hearing on that--the head of the Intel Committee? Not a hearing at all.

Where are the checks and balances spelled out in the Constitution? We are derelicting our duties here in the Senate. We really are. And the consequence of that is the very national security of our country. How many times do you think--do you think this was the first time they created a Signal chat or is this a pattern of practice? You are a really rational man.

I keep looking at you, Mark. You are my leader on these issues, or Jack Reed.

No. This indicates a real problem, and the Senate--the U.S. Senate-- should get to the bottom of it.

(Applause.)

This is a moral moment. I keep saying it is a moral moment. Who are we going to be? What is going to define us? It is time not for the typical tribalism--time for leaders to start standing up and say: You know what? We can go a different way. We can imagine a different country.

That is why I pointed out the new leader of the Democratic Party of the House side. We are a different generation. There is a rising generation of people. I talked about my friend who wrote this great book, ``Abundance.'' There are a whole bunch of new ideas out there about the future, the possibilities, about the hope, about the greatness of America--not greatness that is braggadocious, not the greatness that says ``I am better than you,'' not the greatness that says ``Only I can fix things.'' It is not the America we want.

We want an America that says ``We the people,'' an America that says ``E pluribus unum,'' an America that says that history shows that rugged individualism and self-reliance are important values. But rugged individualism didn't beat the Nazis. It didn't take us to the Moon. We did that together, America. We need bigger visions that can unite us beyond our narrow partisan desires to get a real mandate.

You know what a real mandate should be? It should be government efficiency. It really should be. God, I heard from so many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle that said if they formed a commission of former executives in this body--I see you, Maggie Hassan. It was hard, but I had to cut 24 percent of my budget, one out of four employees. It was really hard. It would cause a lot of pain. But we had to reduce my government.

There are a lot of people--executives, on both sides of the aisle: Pick me. Pick me.

Let's form the most exciting team possible, because Jack Reed knows that the military of the United States of America can do things more efficiently. There is a little bit of waste over there because they haven't passed an audit.

Where is Maria Cantwell, of the Commerce Committee? There so many ideas about how to create profit centers in the American Government. You have talked to me about them. You are brilliant on some of these ideas.

I look around here, but I can look to the other side of the aisle. The man, the farmer sitting over there, the guy who has been so good to me, Chuck Grassley--I forced that man to hug me when we passed.

I forced you to hug me, sir. I have pictures. You can't deny it. I don't know how you will get reelected now. You hugged this Black dude from New Jersey. You are so sweet to me still.

We passed a big bipartisan bill because of people like him, like the Presiding Officer. I met with you. You still have big ideas. You still have big ideas that aren't partisan.

If President Trump, from his inaugural address to his first speech before the joint session of Congress, had said: Enough. There are big ideas in this country. I want the best. I want people to come together. I am tired of us talking down at each other. It is time for us to come together and imagine ways to create real abundance in America for all Americans. I trust the genius of America, the kindness and the decency.

But this President doesn't do that. He violates all of our common senses of decency.

Don't say it doesn't happen, folks. Don't say that. I listen to him. I listen to how he talks about people. We have a government now, as I said earlier, that isn't: Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. We have a country now where a President says: Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for Donald Trump.

You are seeing who gets the special treatment. Some law firms are really threatened right now with being bankrupted by Donald Trump targeting them. Others have decided a different path. I am hating them because they said: We are going to go to Trump and offer him what he wants. We are going to give him tens of millions of dollars of free pro bono work.

I wish they would bring that free pro bono work to Newark. A lot of people need lawyers--folks in my city.

What are the standards here of our government? Do you want a merger? Well, maybe you should put a lot of money in Donald Trump's meme coin. I read the document. There is something called emoluments. And we sit by and act like it is no big deal.

He made millions and millions of dollars--from whom, we don't know. We haven't held one hearing of oversight to know who is giving him millions of dollars for that meme coin. Is it the Turks, the Saudis? Is it the Chinese? Is it the Russian oligarchs? Do we know? Should we know?

Yes, America. Stop falling into tribal lanes and closing your eyes to things that should not be normalized. Why are we normalizing these things? They are wrong. They are patently, on the face of it, wrong.

If you use Signal to discuss a military attack, the time of the attack, the weapons that are going to be used, and you do it on a commercial app and decide to include a reporter, there should be accountability. Am I crazy?

(Applause, Senators rising.)

He was forced to say that.

Look at you defying.

The Senate and the House should be checks and balances on the President of the United States. The Senate and the House should not allow business as usual in this moment. When the President is insisting that no one has the power to check and balance him, when a judge does it, when a judge decides on the soundness of his legal observations to have a ruling and then the President of the United States doesn't appeal the ruling, like most people kind of do, but starts to drag and insult and threaten that judge with impeachment--and some people, astonishing to me, in our government, said: Oh, that is right. We should impeach this guy.

That is not a question of left or right. That is a question of right or wrong. We are normalizing this behavior. We are letting him do things that Republicans and Democrats should say together are wrong.

So I want to say--I am going to stop soon.

God bless you.

I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

You and I both know, in a bipartisan way, we created some of these programs principally to keep America safe. Many of us remember that dramatic hearing when Trump's Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, sat before the American people, and they were discussing the budgets for USAID and the State Department. James Mattis knew the power of those programs to keep us safe.

You mentioned infectious diseases. We live in a world where infectious disease anywhere is a threat to public health everywhere. So pulling our scientists out of the fight against Ebola and pulling our scientists out of the drug-resistant tuberculosis fight makes no sense.

Then, in terms of our safety, he just simply said: If you cut these programs, buy me more bullets because our fights are to spread democracy. There are nations in Africa, for example, where the Chinese are trying to influence a different way of life. That is why so many African countries now won't criticize China for things that the rest of the world says are bad. It is because they owe them so much debt that they are so engaged, and they are so overplaying the fact.

Chris Coons said something. I think it was Chris Coons who said something painful earlier about Myanmar--this horrific thing. America is the most generous country on the planet. When there is a crisis, we lead the rest. I have sat in meetings in a bipartisan way with Ambassadors from other countries, where we had the moral authority to tell them: You are not doing enough.

In the Myanmar crisis right now, as Chris Coons said, Who is standing there? Not Americans. We don't have the capacity anymore to help with a crisis like that, but the Chinese Government is there.

Again, it is what defines us. I keep saying this is not a left-right moment; this is a moral moment, and we tell our truth with what we do with our resources. Here is the thing: When you poll people and ask them how much money we spend on USAID, they say: Oh, it must be 10 percent of the American budget or it must be 5 percent of the American budget.

It is around 1 percent or less. A penny of what tax dollars you send down to Washington goes to help us to make sure that around the globe we are countering the hard power of some countries with the power of our light and our soft power. We have been the envy of the world, where people see and know how special America is because we live with the value of every major religion. We are going to love our neighbors. We are going to be there for you in your times of need.

We all know, with a terrorist group far away and through the most horrific attack, that in a lot of these countries terrorist groups are trying to counter the democratic governments there. Look at the Sahil region. Look what is happening. When I was in Niger, I was shocked to hear what they were talking about--of instabilities in the north, threats of terrorism in the north.

I am going to go for 7 more minutes and stop, but I want to use these last 7 minutes to return one more time to the people of my State and, actually, other States who demand that we do things differently and who ask for help.

Before I do, I just want to thank Mike Lee today. He is my partner in antitrust--a specialty of my friend Amy Klobuchar.

I don't know if you got my text--you got it?--where I said to you: Uh, I am kind of going to the floor to hold it for as long as I can, and I may not make our first subcommittee together on antitrust where we have a lot of common ground. So I am sorry I missed it today, but I know my friend will fill me in. So thank you.

I want to close back where we started about us and about why I am here.

I believe that there is an urgent crisis in our country that we are not talking about. It is not a left-right crisis; it is a right-wrong crisis. It is a moral moment again in America that is going to define our character about who we are and what we stand for. There is a threat to the bedrock commitments we have made to each other as a country.

People are threatening that bedrock commitment of Social Security. They are calling it a Ponzi scheme. They are making up absolute lies about it. I read American after American who said that that is their lifeline. They told stories that they don't get their Social

Security payments or they get caught up because nobody is answering their calls. Of the rural Social Security office, I read States red and blue where they are closing Social Security offices. If I now have to drive 100 miles or 150 miles at 93 years old, it doesn't make sense. One of my colleagues stood up here and said it is already cutting benefits if you can't access the folks.

I stood here because it is a threat to these bedrock commitments--the bedrock commitment we have made in healthcare in this country.

We won the defense of the Affordable Care Act, but my colleagues know, when you start talking about Medicaid, that is not 20-plus million Americans. It is 70, 80, 90 million Americans. It is our elders in nursing homes. It is our children with disabilities. It is our moms giving birth who are still giving birth in the country with the highest maternal mortality rates in the industrial world.

It is a moral moment. Who do we stand for?

Senator Schumer shocked me when they said they were going to use some kind of budget gimmick to push this through.

You shocked me, Chuck.

I thought this was going to come down to the Parliamentarian, but it doesn't sound like it now. It is just going to get dumped with the math that I read. The Manhattan Institute criticized it on the right. AI criticized it on the right. So what are you doing? What are you doing, America? You are going to rack up trillions and trillions of dollars in debt that our children and our children's children are going to have to pay for in passing the bucks that will grow.

Are you doing that to help people get more access to healthcare and more access to retirement security and more access to the things we believe in? I think of ideas like universal childcare and paid family leave. No. We are doing that in order to renew the tax cuts that I read of conservative budget folks, moderate budget folks--all across the spectrum--who said it will blow up our deficit, and the benefits of those tax cuts--not all. Let's not use hyperbole. But most will go-- most will go to the richest people in our country, who I promise you--I celebrate people who brought their ingenuity and their expertise and their grit and their tireless work who have built wealth in this country. It should not be us versus them, but I am telling you that those folks do not need another tax cut.

The corporations that came here, and you all remember, that said: We would like a 25-percent rate. The people I read said that when we kicked it to 21--not even what they were asking for, which was for 25-- it exploded. It is one of the main reasons it exploded our debt.

We read from conservative groups who just said that all of these promises that we would grow our way out of our deficit didn't materialize. All of the promises that were made, Trump, for those who don't remember and weren't here when I read it, was going around, telling folks: Oh, my tariffs--this is 2017. The money that I get will be what we will use to pay down the debt. The math that they did would account for about 1/750th of the debt at that time, but he used that money to try and compensate the farmers who he was hurting with his tariffs.

This is a moral moment and people are getting hurt and people are afraid because of the threats to Medicaid cuts. There are people writing in who said $880 billion would devastate me, but even small cuts to services--my whole family's fragile architecture of our finances--if you just pull out the transportation money that my disabled child uses, that will crumble my financial world.

So, when you talk about the bigger cuts, we know the math. Many States that expanded Medicaid have a trigger, that if it goes below 90 percent, all the Medicaid Expansion goes off in that State, and millions of Americans will be hurt. That is not right, guys. That is not right. So these are the choices before us--our veterans and the VA.

I am mad at you now as you made me get very emotional with your story.

We read John McCain's story. We read the stories of the poems of the unknown soldier looking over us and saying: What are you doing to the Gold Star families? What are you doing to the veterans? Are you living up to your promises that you made? Well, right now, there are cuts of tens of thousands. There are 80,000 veterans who work for the VA, but there are even more because about 20 percent or so who are Federal workers are also veterans.

We read stories from veterans in America who are shaken by what is happening, who are losing their jobs. Yet all they want to do is serve. They are not what they are being called. They are not leeches. They are not criminals. They shouldn't be degraded for wanting to serve their Nation.

This is what we are talking about: Our veterans, our seniors, our healthcare, our financial security going forward.

I asked the question to all those people who voted for Donald Trump who believed in him that he would lower your grocery prices. I ask you: Look at your financial self. Are you better off than you were 72 days ago financially?

The answer, for most people who believe in him, is no, because he didn't set out to do anything to lower prices. He set out to rename the Gulf of Mexico, to threaten Canada, to say I am going to take over Greenland. He has done a lot of things--140 Executive orders. Many of them actually drive up your costs, make it more expensive to enroll in the ACA, reduce a lot of the tax credits there.

He has increased your costs. He has taxed your bedrock services. The stock market tumbles. Your 401(k) accounts are less. Inflation is up. Consumer confidence is down. These are the voices we brought into this Chamber, the voices of all of our constituents--red States, blue States--the voices of Democrats, Republicans, Republican Governors, Democratic Governors. We brought all of the people who are saying no, this is a moral moment, not left or right, right or wrong.

So I have tried over the last 25 hours and 1 minute to center the conversation back on what will we do in good consciences.

People who are saying, I served this country, I risked my life, shouldn't I be able to keep my job?

People are saying this country once made itself the envy of the world because we invested in high-quality education for every child. I don't like what is going on, the end of the Department of Education.

People are saying I worked harder than I ever have, but the prices on everything in my life are getting higher.

People who are saying that the America I learned about in school, the one where people's rights are protected, the people are saying why are we yet again going through another healthcare battle, threatening millions of people.

People are saying that I am worried about the financial security and the future of my country. The voices of folks.

So I end by saying simply this: Where I started was John Lewis. I don't know how to solve this. I don't know how to stop us from going down this road.

Chuck Schumer has now told me that they are greasing the skids to do these things. I am sorry, but I know who does have the power--the people of the United States of America. The power of the people is greater than the people in power.

It is time to heed the words of the man I began this whole thing with, John Lewis. I begged folks to take the example of his early days, where he made himself determined to show his love for his country at a time when the country didn't love him, to love this country so much, to be such a patriot that he endured beatings savagely on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, at lunch counters, on Freedom Rides.

He said he had to do something. He would not normalize a moment like this. He would not just ago along with business as usual. He wouldn't know how to solve it.

But there is one thing that he would do that I hope we all can do, that I think I did a little bit of tonight. He said for us to go out and cause some good trouble, necessary trouble, to redeem the sole of our Nation.

I want you to redeem the dream. Let's be bold in America, not demean and degrade Americans, not divide us against each other. Let's be bolder in America, for the vision that inspires with hope, that starts with the people of the United States of America.

That is how this country started, we the people. Let's get back to the ideals

that others are threatening. Let's get back to our Founding document that those imperfect geniuses had some very special words at the end of the Declaration of Independence. It was one of the greatest in all of humanity, the Declaration of Interdependence, when our Founders said we must mutually pledge, pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. We need that now from all Americans.

This is a moral moment. It is not left or right, it is right or wrong. Let's get in good trouble.

(Ms. LUMMIS assumed the Chair.)

My friend, Madam President, I yield the floor.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

Madam President, thank you to the pages. Thank you to the Parliamentarian staffs. Thank you to the clerks. Thank you to the doorkeepers. There were so many people who make this place special. I kept you up all night. I kept you up 24 hours. I just want to say thank you. Thank you, everybody.

(Applause.)

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

Mr. President, this is an overdraft speech. It is about a commonsense rule that lowers costs for millions and millions of Americans, while carefully targeting, really, the most egregious abusive overdraft practices in the financial industry today.

Banks have long offered overdraft services to allow their customers to make purchases or even pay a bill, even if they lack sufficient funds in their account, while sometimes charging a fee for this service. But in recent years, banks have exploited this practice, charging customers billions of dollars in deceptive fees. A recent study found that more than half of all the people who overdraw their checking accounts and paid a fee could not recall consenting to the overdraft service for which they are being charged.

Moreover, we know the customers who are being charged overdraft fees are overwhelmingly folks who are low-income, who work really hard and don't get that much pay, and a $20 overdraft fee just further pushes them into a financial trap, into this cycle downward of financial instability that is hard to pull out of.

Too often, banks have been found trying to game the system, and this is really problematic. They try to game the system to impose fees on customers--even when they shouldn't be charged in the first place--by orchestrating transactions improperly or delaying deposits customers make into their accounts.

Just think about this. They can time your deposit with the time it hits your account. You think you can deposit a check and pull money out, but the way they rig the system is to create a gap in which you are actually in overdraft when technically you have already made that deposit.

Meanwhile, these fees generated enormous amounts of revenue for banks while most customers don't even know they have opted into this system.

Opponents of the rule argue that it could restrict access to emergency credit. We all are supporters of this idea of emergency credit. They think that this is an example, they say, of government overreach and that it is going to hurt banks' revenue model. Let's be honest. This isn't about protecting consumers; it is about protecting this massive, new profit line for big banks.

For years, I have fought against what is a predatory practice. I have introduced legislation to crack down on exploitative overdraft fees that banks charge consumers when they make a purchase or pay a bill that they don't have sufficient funds for in their account, trying to stop the games that banks play to make it more difficult for people to avoid the overdraft fees in the first place.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been instrumental in cracking down on banks charging surprise overdraft fees, and many banks have said ``You are right. This is a bad practice. We should stop'' but not all of them. So last year, the CFPB finalized this rule to curb illegal and predatory practices. The rule lowered most big-bank overdraft fees from $35 to $5, saving consumers in America--American hard-working citizens--saving them $5 billion a year. On average, it delivered $225 a year in savings for the average household. Think about this. It is about protecting households. There is still a consequence if you overdraft, but it can't be these usury rates.

The overdraft rule did not ban overdraft fees outright or go after small community banks and credit unions, which were exempted from the rule. It simply requires banks to either reduce their rates or comply with Federal banking laws when charging high credit fees.

Several financial institutions that I have mentioned, like Capital One and Citibank, have already eliminated overdraft fees and continue to provide overdraft protection. They are showing, to their credit, that it can be done and not somehow mess up their business model. You don't need to take advantage of consumers to make money. Meanwhile, though, Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase each earn over $1 billion a year in overdraft and NSF fees--nearly four times more than the next highest bank.

Some banks are showing ``You know what, we don't want to jerk over the customers,'' while others, to the tune of over $1 billion a year, are still taking advantage of some of our most vulnerable and financially fragile Americans, who are working hard every day to try to get out of poverty traps, yet banks take advantage of them and send them back.

Perhaps most egregiously, in 2024, Navy Fed took nearly as much as the biggest banks from its servicemembers, veterans, and other customers. They took $725 million despite a dramatically smaller customer base, clearly showing that they were trying to take advantage of our veterans, our servicemembers, and others. Who will stand up for them? Who will say ``You are not going to do predatory practices on our servicemembers, on our veterans''--dramatically more than other banks that eliminated these practices.

For those who are most affected by overdraft fees--those folks living paycheck to paycheck, who are part of the 64 percent of Americans who live paycheck to paycheck and are often minutes to hours away from having the money necessary to cover expenses that lead to overdraft fees--this rule is a lifeline to them and their families.

I was proud that New Jerseyans wrote in to the CFPB sharing how these predatory practices were impacting them. Allow me to read from a New Jerseyan from East Orange, my neighbor. They wrote:

[M]y account was closed with no notice due to a merchant

charging my account into the overdrafts. I've complained . .

. for weeks about said situation. Nothing was ever done. A

[$4,300] deposit was released--

By the bank--

but due to account closing, I currently have no access to

funds which were released.

One anonymous servicemember from Carteret, NJ, wrote:

I am writing to file a complaint against Navy Federal

Credit Union regarding multiple overdraft fees I have

incurred. Despite having sufficient funds when transactions

were authorized, I was charged due to lagged posting of

charges and credits. This issue aligns with the recent CFPB

findings . . . for similar practices where transactions

settled with insufficient balances despite initially

available funds. I believe these practices are unfair and I

request an investigation into my account transactions.

This is a New Jerseyan who is playing by the rules who is frustrated because of practices that are clearly predatory and that take advantage of folks who are living paycheck to paycheck, and they are a servicemember.

Another servicemember from Manchester Township was erroneously charged and then overdrawn from his business account from Wells Fargo.

The extra $210 that was withdrawn from my account,

including the original withdrawals and the overdraft fees,

caused a cascade effect that has led to $1,100 in overdraft

fees [this] year. I had called Wells Fargo twice to ask for

help in stopping these increasing overdraft fees. They

reimbursed me for 2 overdraft fees--$70. I was told that they

were only allowed to reverse 2 overdraft fees a year. They

also told me there was nothing else they could do to help me.

The overdraft fees of $1,100 over the last 2 months have

caused me a tremendous financial burden. As of today's date,

I am still being charged overdraft fees. I don't know what to

do, and Wells Fargo has refused to help me. I will probably

close my account with Wells Fargo, however, it is a nightmare

trying to change all the insurance companies that I receive

payments from.

Here is a servicemember, a small business person, getting screwed over because they don't have the protection this rule would provide.

To rescind this rule in order to further enrich a small handful of abusive banks and their shareholders that allow this to happen at the expense of working families, at the expense of veterans, at the expense of servicemembers, is despicable.

This body shouldn't be on the side of big banks and their further enrichment; they should be on the side of veterans and servicemembers and Americans struggling, working paycheck to paycheck, especially when certain banks have shown they don't need these usury fees to make enormous profits. Where is the moral value in that?

Instead of lowering prices and protecting consumers, I now see Members of this body who I know the values they speak to. Some of my colleagues on the Senate Republican side want to raise these prices on Americans and allow these banks to prey upon servicemembers, veterans, and working Americans. This is all while the President and Elon Musk have continued their onslaught and attack on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has returned billions of dollars to American consumers.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis to protect Americans from predatory practices and fight discriminations in the financial sector.

I wasn't here in Washington, but when the banks needed a bailout, we were here for the banks. I don't know if we charged them overdraft fees, but are we going to stand up for consumers now?

The CFPB has returned to the American consumers $19.7 billion in compensation, canceled debt, and other relief--$19.7 billion. I know firsthand the difference that the work of this Agency has made for American families. I saw it in my time as a young lawyer taking on slumlords in Newark. Hard-working people who could barely afford rent, who worked 50, 60 hours a week, barely affording rent, fighting to put food on the table for their kids, and one improper practice at a bank can throw them into financial crisis--predatory practices, scams, exploitation, which some banks have stopped doing.

I don't understand that this is even an issue here. This rule is to help consumers. This rule is to help veterans. This rule is to help servicemembers. This rule is to help the Americans who are struggling because the top 50 percent of our country has done extraordinarily well in the last economies under Republican and Democratic Presidents, but the data is clear that the bottom 50 percent of our country is working harder and making less. And we want to advantage the big banks that have record corporate profits.

I won't back down from this fight to save the CFPB, to save those who fight to defend consumers from being screwed over by big institutions. Look, I know what it is like in my family story to fight. I know what it is like to be up against insurmountable odds from my family stories. I know what it is like to be searching for someone who will stand up for you when you are doing everything right in this country, when you are working hard, when you are playing by the rules, when you are serving in your community, when you are coaching Little League, when you are trying to help on your block. I know what it is like, when you are volunteering at your church, to turn around and have some big, impersonal, distant bank screw you for their profits.

It is time for this body to do the right thing. This is not political. This is not partisan. This is, who do you stand for? At a time when people are cynical about all of Congress--they don't feel like anybody is fighting for them--who is going to stand up today and say: I fight for the little guy. I fight for the small business. I fight for the working servicemember.

Who is going to stand up? Who is going to stand up?

I know where I stand, and I encourage my colleagues to preserve this rule that stops predatory big banks from savaging the financial lives of too many Americans.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, it is with a heavy heart that I would like to make a statement to honor the extraordinary life and service of a great advocate: Mr. Grant Smith. Grant spent a lifetime working on issues to advance fair justice system.

Most recently, Grant worked with my team on the Re-Entry Support Through Opportunities for Resources and Essentials Act, known as the RESTORE Act. In all of his work with my team, he showed great professionalism, dedication, and care.

Our movement for better drug policy is forever indebted to his service. Grant and his family are in my prayers.

Mr. President, we are dealing with a crisis that all hundred Members of this body understand has taken the lives of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people, and that is the scourge of fentanyl.

One of the things we have been doing as a result of that is temporarily scheduling fentanyl analogs, these horrific substances that are manufactured in order to pour onto our streets. Such a small amount of this drug--it literally could be the size of one pill--as they say, one pill can kill. It is very important to me that we see the temporary scheduling of this continue until the Senate finds a more wholesome response to this crisis. We must rise to meet this crisis in a wholesome way, in way that meets the gravity of the crisis and does not just continue to do the things we have done over and over again.

So as we are working in a bipartisan way in the Senate Judiciary Committee with the understanding that the temporary scheduling may expire in the coming weeks--in order to remove that pressure and allow us to work in a bipartisan fashion, I have come to the floor today to ask for unanimous consent that we continue that temporary scheduling while we work in a bipartisan fashion to make sure that we give the most fulsome response possible to this crisis.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 724, the Temporary Extension of Fentanyl-Related Substances Scheduling Act, which is at the desk; I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

In reserving the right to object, this is why I am down here today--really, literally, at this point--and I want to jump here.

I thank the Presiding Officer for recognizing me. I truly appreciate that, but this gets me excited because this is the point that I want to illustrate.

My colleague is far smarter than I on medical issues. I could not have passed organic chem at Stanford. I am sure he passed it with flying colors. Of my colleague, who is truly one of my more favorite colleagues in this place because of how rational and pragmatic he is on approaching real crises like this, I am begging and hoping he will listen to me, and I am begging this body to listen to me.

We have had a fentanyl crisis in this country of monumental proportions. It is one of the greatest killers in America. Fentanyl and fentanyl analogues have literally been responsible for lowering the life expectancy for Americans. It is one of the greatest crises we have seen to human life in America in my lifetime. There is so much data- driven evidence and evidence-based answers to this, of how we can approach this crisis, but yet the only bill that we seek to do is a bill that does what we have already done on a temporary basis. I support classwide scheduling for fentanyl analogues, but here we have this bill, the HALT bill, that my colleague pointed out did pass in a bipartisan way and now is in the Judiciary Committee.

The reason I am down here is not to drag my dear friend down here because he is a busy man, and I wanted to go over to him before this conversation started to apologize, but I needed to make this point on the floor in this kind of standoff.

He is asking us to pass the HALT bill, which would give classwide scheduling to fentanyl analogues, which we have already done. For years, it has been temporarily scheduled, and what

has happened to opioid deaths in America when we have used this that law enforcement has called for, ``Schedule. Schedule. Give us these tools''? Well, we have had these tools, and deaths in the Presiding Officer's State, deaths in my colleagues' States, and deaths in my State have continued to go up.

Now, here is the beauty of the conversation we are having and why we should be passing the temporary one to let us go back to work, and I know this because I know his heart and I know your heart. There are evidence-based, bipartisan amendments to that HALT Act that are widely supported. My colleague's partner Senator from his State, in committee, said: I don't understand why we are not putting the test strips on this. Why? Because kids who are using fentanyl right now don't know that they are using this fentanyl analogue. Kids in your State and my State think they are taking Adderall, not realizing that this has those toxic things that can kill.

Here we were in committee, with a bipartisan test strip bill, and my colleague's partner Senator said: This makes sense to me. And the one excuse they were using for not doing a bipartisan bill to give us more of a response than doing what we are already doing and wiping our hands and saying, ``We did great things,'' was saying, ``We didn't have time'' because of this artificial deadline.

So I am down here to say: Wait a minute. Let's do the temporary extension and take time to do bipartisan bills.

But don't take my word for it. Take the word of the Republican witnesses who came to our hearing. We just had a painful hearing of law enforcement leaders and other Republican witnesses who told us the scourges of fentanyl that we all know. Those people all said that this can't be all Congress does; that the HALT bill cannot be our only response because the whole bill permanently schedules what we have already scheduled temporarily.

I believe in the 99 Members here who know that our response to this crisis cannot be what we have already been doing for the last 5 years when there are bipartisan bills that we could be putting on this bill to show America that we are not going to just puff ourselves up and make permanent something that was already done in a temporary way.

Let me read some of this pleading from Republican witnesses.

Republican witness Jaime Puerta, a courageous parent who lost his child to an overdose, testified:

It is imperative that we educate our children on the

dangers of any kind of drug use due to the lethality that can

come with any kind of experimentation or self-medication . .

. we must have specific fentanyl education introduced to . .

. our schools as soon as possible; otherwise, more children

will . . . die.

That doesn't even cost money.

We could be doing things through the Department of Education in supporting education campaigns. Bipartisan support for that idea--is it on the HALT bill? No. Let me go on.

Republican witness Sheriff Donald Barnes highlighted the successes of a multifaceted strategy to address both supply and demand for illicit drugs. These are the bullet points he said that we should do, imploring Congress: Don't just do what you have already done. Do something more. Give law enforcement officers naloxone to reduce overdoses; education for fifth and sixth graders; ensure the continuity of care and successful reintegration of people who are returning to the community from the scourge of these drugs.

Witness after witness--from law enforcement to scientists to doctors--have offered up bipartisan supportive ideas so that our response to one of the biggest scourges of our country isn't just to do what we have been doing for the last half decade or more.

I have got bipartisan bills on the committee, and my colleagues from Texas have bipartisan bills on the committee, and the only excuse that people gave for us not to have more consideration was: Oh, well, the deadline is coming up in a few weeks for temporary passage. But I realize we have passed temporary scheduling by unanimous consent before. It is not hard to do.

I beg of my colleagues--I beg of my colleague who is here and others: We have a moving bill that has to go back to the House because we have already added a managers' package to it. I promise you, if we add truly bipartisan things that give a more fulsome approach--a more comprehensive approach--to stop our children from dying, it will pass in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives because it was a bipartisan year. I am in agony over the deaths in New Jersey. I have met with parents who have looked at me and said: What are you going to do?

Let me read to you the words from one of these parents.

Susan Ousterman, who is a courageous mother who lost her son to an overdose--I beg of my colleagues listen to this--said:

I urge you to stop crafting policies based on stigma, false

narratives, and political loyalty, and most of all, stop

using our dead children to justify these failed approaches.

Harsher penalties for drugs, like those for the HALT Fentanyl

Act, do not deter drug use. They only push people into

riskier behaviors, increase the likelihood that someone will

die rather than call for help, and make our communities less

safe. How many more Americans must die before we finally

admit that the War on Drugs was a failure?

I am a former mayor. I oversaw a police department that had to answer the calls with children dying on floors. They had these law enforcement tools. They would tell me more needs to be done. The HALT Fentanyl Act will get passed. Fentanyl analogues will never again be unscheduled in our country. That is not the challenge right now to save lives. The challenge to save lives in America right now is, What are we going to do more than is being done right now? Fentanyl analogues are scheduled right now, and if the only thing we can do--the only bill that is moving through here--is to just do what we have been doing, shame on us.

I am asking this body to give time. Extend the temporary scheduling so that we can work in a bipartisan fashion, like Senator Kennedy, who said: I want more time to look at this. This seems rational; this seems logical; it seems like something we should do. Then, when bipartisan Senators step up like that and say, ``I want to work with the man or the woman across the aisle,'' we will have the time to do it.

So, God, I am sorry that my friend who is truly a great American leader and one of the smarter people in here--I am sorry that he objected to my bill, but I will stand up in our committee meeting on Thursday and make this same plea; that we don't just pass the HALT Fentanyl Act but that we actually put things in it that aren't partisan ideas. They are the ones that law enforcement is calling for. They are the ones that scientists are calling for. They are the ones that doctors are calling for--bipartisan bills.

Dear God, the parents of dead children are calling for us to step up and do more than the same old thing we have been doing around the War on Drugs since I was a kid myself.

With that, I object.

Mr. President, I just want to clarify because my colleague pounded on the desk, and that was hard for me to watch. I am not here because we haven't been trying to get a bipartisan consensus on this and calling and doing all the work. I have watched this now for three Congresses. Number 2, I am here not because I am trying to stop the HALT Act. I am here because I heard two Republicans in our committee say the only reason we can't consider bipartisan approaches, even if they are good ideas, is because of the urgency of this moment.

All I am saying is--this is, obviously, a fait accompli--I just don't want my colleague to walk away thinking this is some kind of stunt. This is my attempt to take away an argument for us to do the work on Thursday. Clearly, it has been objected to. I am going to go back and try my hardest on Thursday to do something more.

The one prediction--I don't want to call it a ``prediction.'' But my colleague says we have a lot more time. I have watched now for at least three Congresses that I have worked on trying to get a larger approach to meet the fentanyl crisis; and in three Congresses, this body has failed to rise to the challenge.

I am dying to be here when my colleague tells me: I told you so--and I give him permission to do that--that this body would do something beyond just scheduling. Because, as I have read, law enforcement, scientists, doctors, and parents are not just asking for the HALT Fentanyl Act; they are asking for us to do more to save lives.

Now, I have only been here 12 years, but I know the window is open to get things done when something is a must-pass bill to move. This is an opportunity to put some things on to show the larger public that we are not going to do what we always do.

I am really worried when this window closes, there will be a lot of people thumping their chests and saying: We have dealt with the fentanyl crisis, and all these other ideas won't have vehicles to go through.

I will not stop working until this body does more than just scheduling what has already been scheduled. People on both sides of the aisle are demanding us to do more. And we don't need to go left; we don't need to go right. We need to do the commonsense, evidence-based approaches that are being supported and called for. In fact, some of the commonsense amendments are already bipartisan supported by Senators. So I am grateful.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privileges of the floor be granted to the following members of my staff: Durva Trivedi, during the pendency of her legal fellowship, until September 12, 2025; and Zachary Rosenfeld and Rachelle Domond, during the pendency of their legal clerkships until April 23, 2025.

I am grateful not only that you recognized me, but with the respect which you said the State of New Jersey. I know that you love my State. Many of my State residents are moving to Florida, so you are a very Jerseyified State yourself, so thank you very much for recognizing me.

I want to say to my incredible colleague Tina Smith, the incredible stance that you just made, the facts you laid plain, the reality she has exposed, it is so important.

The exercise going on this floor for the last 24 hours has been extraordinary and unusual. And one of the reasons why leader after leader came to the Senate floor was to show that this is not usual times. These are not usual times.

It is extraordinary to me that all through the night at the 2:00 hour, the 3 a.m. hour, the 4 a.m. hour, the 5 a.m. hour, Senator after Senator came down here to speak up, to talk about the unusual things that are going on in America and, in truth, the things that we believe unequivocally are violative of not just our democratic norms, but violative of the separation of powers.

Now, much of this is taken up in the courts already. You have State attorneys general suing right now because powers that were given to Congress are being taken by the Executive.

We know in the United States of America that we do not have a king. We are not an authoritarian government. And the debates of our Founding Fathers were central to this point that we should have three branches of government, coequal branches, with clearly laid out--in article I, article II, article III, clearly laid out rules and responsibilities, obligations under the Constitution.

Now, this whole process, one could say, we are doing one of our article I obligations to advise and consent on the President over his nominations to key positions like OMB. But this is so much more than that.

This is not just us advising and giving consent; it is standing up for what was the bipartisan norms of our Nation. In fact, it was the democratic norms of our Nation from the very beginning that Congress has certain roles. And I often say, we are the article I branch of government. The article II branch of government has their roles.

But our role, perhaps very importantly, is the power of the purse. Spending decisions, spending priorities, spending allocations are made in this body. And the people have a say in that through our elections.

Every 2 years, a third of this body is up. Every 2 years, all of the House of Representatives are up, and the people elect people to carry out the Constitution. We swear an oath--I have done it a number of times now--to protect and defend the Constitution.

And so why are we doing this unusual thing of talking all through the night about a nominee for something that many Americans don't know much about--the Office of Management and Budget?

That is because what has been going on in the first three weeks of the Trump administration is a reckless violation of our separation of powers.

This body has differences, but there is one thing I know my colleagues and I agree on is that the powers assigned to Congress by the Constitution are sacrosanct, and we cannot allow a President to step over their powers and begin to do things that are more akin to dictatorships or authoritarian governments.

We have seen that erosion of democracy from Europe to Africa, where executives elected begin to try to take powers away from the other branches of government.

Let me give you a specific example. Agencies within the Federal Government are set up by Congress, funded by Congress, given directives and a mission by Congress, and then Congress provides oversight for those Agencies and how the Executive is conducting those congressional mandates.

What we saw over the last week or so was a direct assault on a bipartisan congressional intent: USAID, the United States Agency for International Development.

The President of the United States decided that he didn't want that Agency to exist. Without any thought, without any strategy, without any understanding of the Agency's vital functions, the President of the United

States took an Agency funded in a bipartisan manner where colleagues of mine--I serve on the Foreign Relations Committee--know so much of the work done on both sides of the aisle to support the critical mission of USAID. They attacked it and tried to dismantle and stop it.

Suddenly, the workers we have around the globe--so everything freezes. They were told to stop what they were doing. They were denied access to their e-mails, to critical files. Many of them were put into volatile situations because a lot of our great USAID government officials work in unstable environments; and, suddenly, their cell phones are not working, and they can't access their e-mail.

Resources that we allocated in a bipartisan way that were being spent for critical missions of the United States were so abruptly frozen that food aid, perishables, were left sitting on docks, medicines were stopped in their tracks--many of them that are perishable as well.

You want to talk about government waste? Food that could keep people alive, medicines that can keep people alive were left, basically, to spoil.

And this all ripples. Most people don't know this. There are 50,000 private sector jobs here in the United States, people who contract with the government, that are connected to this Agency USAID, created by Congress in a bipartisan fashion, year after year funded in a bipartisan agreement, bicameral. The President of the United States--by fiat, the President of the United States decides we are going to kill this Agency, stop it in its tracks. That is a violation of the separation of powers. Plain and simple.

Congress created the Agency. If the President wants to get rid of it, he should come to Congress. This Presidential action didn't show Donald Trump's strength; it showed his weakness, because a strong President makes his case to the American people, makes his case to Congress, lays out a vision, lays out a strategy, comes before Congress and proposes the legislation to do what they are saying. But, no, not this President.

Instead of following our constitutional dictates, instead of doing what a strong leader would have done, instead of doing what FDR did when he did sweeping things in the government, he came to Congress to fight to pass the laws to support his agenda.

LBJ, Ronald Reagan, strong Presidents who have a vision for this country that might be a little revolutionary, that might create great changes--they respect our Constitution. And they come to Congress with their vision to pass the laws necessary to support that vision.

I have watched it over my lifetime. I haven't always agreed with what the Presidents did, from Bush to Reagan, didn't agree with all their decisions, but they showed strength. They came to Congress and got Congress to pass laws to execute their bold vision.

I think a lot of bad decisions were made that way, but it went through Congress. Congress had a vote on the Iraq War. Congress had a vote on the authorization to use military force. Congress had a vote on welfare reform. Congress voted on Bill Clinton's vision for public safety to put 100,000 police officers on the street. Congress voted for the war on drugs. These are things I might not have always agreed with, but strong Presidents come before Congress, in alignment with the Constitution, with a respect for the separation of powers, abiding by the law, strong Presidents stand in the well of the House of Representatives and give a vision for this country.

As it says in my faith: Without vision, the people will perish. God bless the visionary Presidents we have had. John F. Kennedy pointing to the skies and saying, ``We will go to the moon.''

And then what did he do? He came to Congress with a vision to increase funding for science, math, for STEM education. What did he do? He came to Congress with a vision for making NASA something that would be the envy of the world. What did he do? He inspired a nation with a vision that was so compelling Democrats and Republicans joined together and followed him. What does this President do? What does Donald Trump-- who is no Reagan, who is no JFK--what does he do? In the dark of night, he sends in unelected individuals to access computer systems in a way that is so violative of the privacy of Americans and without congressional approval, without a legal basis. They go in and upend Agency after Agency after Agency. And for USAID, they shut it down.

That is not a visionary Presidency. That is reckless, undercover vandalism, illegal action, and the hurting of Americans.

And so why--why--has Senator after Senator come down here to speak up? Why? Because to treat this as normal would be to normalize these constitutional violations. And to allow someone like Vought, who has been saying over and over again: I don't respect the Constitution. I don't respect the courts. I don't respect the rule of law. We are going to take over.

If you don't believe me, listen to what Vought says in his own words. He believes that Congress should do what it wants to do. We knew that Vought published this memo and basically said: I have no regard for the Federal law or for Congress's power of the purse.

In 2018, Vought was instrumental in the Trump administration's attempt--they weren't successful; attempt--to use the Impoundment Control Act to withhold appropriated funds beyond their period of availability. This was a backdoor way to try to go around the law. This idea of impoundment is a theory that a President--despite Congress in a bipartisan, bicameral way passing a funding bill--this is the idea that the President of the United States, despite all of that, can just say: Nah, forget Congress. Forget the will of the people. Forget the people's representatives. Forget the U.S. Senate. I decide what we spend as a country.

And so he tried this attempt, but the attempt was determined by our processes to be illegal.

The GAO, the Government Accountability Office, said: You can't do that.

But Vought kept pushing to employ the same strategy the following year, to try to freeze foreign aid--this is 2018; the past is prologue, folks--and in doing so, he wanted to do it again, ignoring the 2018 GAO legal decision.

And in response to a 2020 prehearing question--this is how flagrantly defiant Vought is--in a response to a 2020 prehearing question, Vought wrote this: I will not abide by the 2018 decision, claiming it was wrongly decided.

Think about this. He is in the administrative branch and deciding that a legal decision was wrongly decided. So perhaps Vought not only wants to do the job of Congress, but now he wants to do the job of the article III branch of government and the courts as well.

What does that sound like? Does that sound like a patriot to our democratic traditions? No.

Does that sound like somebody who is willing to follow the rule of law? No.

Does that sound like somebody who is in the spirit of 1776--the spirit of compromise, the spirit of patriotism, the spirit of adherence to the democratic ideals of the United States of America? No.

It sounds like someone that believes that they have the power to act in an authoritarian manner and declare themselves the executive, the legislature, and the courts.

It is a deliberate misreading. And the GAO, in its earlier decision, previously signaled that the consequence of an unenacted rescission proposal should be the full prudent obligation of budget authority. In other words, I am king.

In his response following his nomination hearing, on GAO's legal decision, writing in a response to our Homeland Security Committee, he said: I do not agree with the GAO's report. OMB did not violate the IPA, as I set forth in my January 19, 2020, letter to John Yarmuth, chairman of the House Committee on the Budget. In other words, he is still standing strong during his confirmation hearing that he is doing the right thing. He stands by his defiance. He stands by this violation of the separation of powers.

And here is what a former employee who worked at USDA wrote about how dangerous this position is: For 30 years, across both Republican and Democratic administrations--decades of constitutional norms, decades of bipartisan commitment. This is what this employee said: I argue Russ Vought is the most dangerous person in the Trump administration, even over Trump, given his ideological bent and belief. He believes that the President does not spend congressional appropriations.

This, this USDA official said, defines a dictator.

We can't normalize this. And this is what I know, being here for over a decade now. If this was being done by the Barack Obama administration, there would be hair on fire on the other side of the aisle. Every Member, every Republican, would look like me as a bald man; they would have no more hair.

If Barack Obama decided to ignore the dictates of Congress, to say: Your funding decisions have no hold on my actions. I am going to ignore congressional mandate. I am going to ignore congressional rules--my Republican colleagues would be apoplectic.

If he decided with foreign policy that, hey, there is this thing called the Hyde amendment; I am going to ignore it--if Barack Obama did that, not one of them would normalize it or excuse it or look the other way.

It is that complicity that bothers me. We are at a constitutional crossroads here. We do have someone in power now who is showing weakness.

It is a weakness that other authoritarians in democratic nations have tried to do: I am not going to work through the system as designed by that nation's founders. I am not going to work in adherence to the spirit of the Constitution. I am going to do as much as I possibly can to take power for myself, to violate norms, to violate the Constitution, to indeed violate the law, and then challenge you to stop me.

And the question is: Who will speak up? Silence is complicity.

And there might be some people who are just sitting and saying: Oh, this is politics as usual. Oh, this is right-left fighting. Oh, this is not really that important. What does this have to do with me? Well, let me lay it plain, giving you one example of what has happened.

Stopping USAID's work without any plan or strategy has now endangered every American because there are things we get to go to bed at night and not have to think about because we have a government full of officials, scientists, hard-working people who, every day, make it their life mission to focus on things so that we, the people, do not have to think about them.

Think about that for a second. We know it in our own towns and communities. We have firefighters. We have police officers that stand on the frontline. They stand in the breech to protect us, to get dangerous things and conditions and people off the streets so that we are safe and we don't have to think about it every night.

(Mr. MARSHALL assumed the Chair.)

Well, that goes for USAID too. They are a national security organization. How do I know that? I am a spiritualist. I really am. I believe there are universal spiritual principles. One of them was spoken by this great American, one of the few people who is not a President of the United States whose statue sits under the dome. He was a spiritualist. He was, in fact, a person of faith. He was a minister. And he spoke to us about a scientific truth using spiritual language.

It was in this great body of work called ``Letters from a Birmingham Jail.'' And if he only knew that his words would resound in history, these spiritual words would speak to a scientific truth.

He said this: ``We are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality''--that we are tied in a common garment of destiny, that ``injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.''

Powerful words, right? But what do they have to do with science, Cory? What do they have to do with our present political crisis, our present constitutional crisis? What do they have to do with that?

Well, here is what they have to do with that. You see, in the wisdom of this body, as I have worked in a bipartisan way on the Foreign Relations Committee, we fund the USAID to do things to protect us. But we are not doing them at home. USAID officials are around the globe.

And one of the reasons why we, in the wisdom of Congress that this President is trying to violate--one of the things that we know, because we have got engineers in this place, we have got doctors in this place, we have got dedicated public servants in this place, we have got a few big, bald nerds like me in this place--what we know is that the USAID does work that is vital to keep Americans who are sleeping at night safe.

Let me be specific. Right now in Uganda, there is an Ebola outbreak in the capital. Ebola is a vicious disease that is highly infectious. I remember this because back under the Presidency of Barack Obama, it was dominating the headlines. I saw one of the most courageous things done, that Chris Coons here flew to Africa to support the efforts that the United States of America through USAID was doing to stop Ebola in its tracks in Africa so it didn't visit us here.

But because of the global interconnected transportation systems, it was getting closer and closer to threatening American lives.

This was a crisis that dominated the headlines during the Obama administration. And who was then there to fight the spread of Ebola, to arrest it in that African nation? Who was it? USAID, American people. Who was in Uganda right now up until the Trump administration stopped their work? Who was there? Americans working for USAID. In the midst of a nasty, horrific infection, they were like our first responders, they were like our soldiers because they understand that spiritual truth that King spoke: ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' An infectious disease anywhere is a threat to public health everywhere.

What was the administration's plans to deal with global infectious outbreaks? Did they come to Congress and put forth a vision? No. What was the administration's strategy to stop the growing threat of global pandemics and global threats? Did they share that plan with Congress? No. What was this administration going to do? Well, they didn't seem to care. There wasn't one hearing about this. There wasn't one conversation. There wasn't a consultation with Congress where leaders from the HELP Committee or leaders from the Foreign Relations Committee were invited to the White House to discuss their strategy in making sure that the vital functions of this Agency are preserved.

They were pursuing a radical, ideological agenda, ignoring the truth of science and the power of the spiritual truth that America's interests and national security demand Americans--be they soldiers or scientists--sometimes standing away from our country in Africa, in Asia, in Europe, protecting us from infectious diseases that are so nightmarish that--most Americans would be happy to continue to send taxpayer dollars to stop Ebola in Africa so that someone doesn't get on a plane not knowing they are infected and come to visit our country and begin an outbreak of disastrous proportions.

But here is something that USAID has been working on that is terrifying to me--truly is, and I have been talking about it for a long time in Congress--we are beginning to see bugs around this planet that are resistant to antibiotics. I talked about this in my work because I think we are these overusers of antibiotics.

Almost 50 percent of our antibiotics will be used prophylactically-- not because we are treating diseases but because of the way we raise animals in America. We have to inject them over and over again to try to stop them from getting sick and end up with these horrible things where farmers have to cull their whole herd of pigs or chickens because of some kind of outbreak.

This threat of antibiotic-resistant diseases--well, thousands of American die of them all the time.

So here is a particularly infectious, nasty disease. It is called tuberculosis. Right now--I shouldn't say that because Trump has stopped it, but there were some of the best scientists in the world that happened to be ours, Americans, working for USAID on the frontlines of treatment-resistant tuberculosis, not just Ebola, in Uganda. USAID workers were trying to figure out what kind of treatments and regimes could be put into place to stop the spread of resistant tuberculosis because of the virulently viral nature of that awful disease.

How irresponsible for a President whose No. 1 responsibility is to protect Americans to tear down the Agency, stop the Agency workers--cut off their cell phones, cut off their emails, cut off their access to files, leave them not even knowing how they would get

home--on the frontlines of an infectious disease that they are trying to stop so it does not show up in America.

This is not just a violation of our Constitution. This is not just a violation of separation of powers. This is not just a violation of the law. This is a violation of common sense. This is a violation of pragmatism. This is a violation of a sacred oath to protect the American people.

I heard, folks--you did as well--the promises that were being made to America in the campaign of this President: I will keep you safe. I will drive down your costs.

Well, in 3 weeks in office, we are less safe to infectious diseases than we were under the past two Presidents. Biden and Trump 1 didn't tear down USAID infectious disease work. Obama, Republicans and Democrats--I have worked with many of my colleagues across the aisle on making sure that we are funding the important global work to fight infectious diseases. Heck, I passed bipartisan legislation to stop wet markets, which is one of the places that these zoonotic diseases can lead to human beings.

I saw momentum after COVID that we should be working together to stop infectious diseases that might start in China, in Africa, in Europe from coming to America. There seemed to be a bipartisan commitment to that idea in Congress, and it is one of the reasons why, with past Presidents, we have funded USAID to do this vital work with some of the best scientists on the globe who are willing to put their lives at risk, to step into an Ebola outbreak, a tuberculosis outbreak, an avian flu outbreak, and say ``I will do what I can to protect my country,'' like firefighters do and soldiers do and police officers do.

They are great Americans, but what happened to them? What happened to these great Americans risking their lives to stop infectious diseases? The President of the United States, in an act of cowardice, did not come to Congress to give a vision for how we would protect our Nation from infectious diseases, how we would do the vital work of USAID--no. In the cover of night, countermanding our laws, violating the Constitution, and an affront to the wisdom on both sides of the aisle, he just went ahead and did it. He just went ahead and did it.

The world is a complex and dangerous place. As much as government workers are being maligned and attacked and vilified and beat upon, most Americans take for granted what these patriotic Americans do every day. You shop in your supermarket and don't think about ``Does this food have some disease or worm in it?'' because these government workers at USAID are inspecting that food and are making it safe.

A lot of government workers got flashed on the TV with our first major aviation accident in 16 years. Well, I get on planes a lot, and I have gone and talked to air traffic controllers. I fought for them and their contracts because I know that during those 16 years, no accident happened. You had incredible government workers working very hard, pouring their hearts out in one of the most stressful jobs, to keep us safe. So when I jump on a plane, I don't think about the air traffic around me. I know that I am on an aviation system that is safer than me getting in my car because of government workers.

We, in a bipartisan way--and this is what I am saying--there is so much goodness on both sides of the aisle. We have government workers that are doing suicide prevention work for our veterans, when we were seeing veteran after veteran die day after day after day. There are government workers, some of them I met, that make it their mission to be there for veterans that come home with invisible wounds.

I am going to make a statement that may sound braggadocios or hyperbolic, but it is actually true. In this body, there are former Governors, there are former county executives, and there are former mayors. None of them, when they were an executive, cut government more than I did.

I cut the size of Newark, New Jersey's government by 25 percent. Think about that--cutting a governmental body by a quarter. I did it. It was painful, it was hard, and it was difficult. It was during the great recession, and I had no choice.

But I had a city council. There were rules in the way I did it. There were civil service protections which I abided by.

Oh, but not this President.

We actually used what people called buyouts. We offered packages to people. But all of this we did in accordance to the laws of our State and my city in conjunction with our legislative body. We presented a vision for Newark, put a plan forward that, hey, these departments may be losing personnel, but we are going to make them more efficient.

To this day, I remember some of the data. We had like half the inspectors but did almost twice as many inspections because we had a thoughtful plan that we executed in consultation and coordination with our legislative branch.

I am the first person to tell you, as the No. 1 government-cutter in this place, that there are a lot of ways to cut waste. Just the procurement process alone in the Department of Defense is still being done in ways that are antiquated, that are being corrupted by people that leave the Pentagon and go work for the big contracting agents--a circle that is corrupting. There are ways to create more transparency on that. There are ways to bring new technology on that. There are so many ways to improve that system.

How do I know this? Because the first person to tell me this out at his ranch in Arizona was the former Secretary of the Navy, in a late- night conversation where I just sat there and learned at the foot of some wise men, was John McCain. He went on and on and on about the corruption in our U.S. military that is undermining our fighting forces. He said we could be spending less and have higher capabilities if we only started to root out the wasteful spending and the corruption in that institution.

We should be doing this in a bipartisan way. There are so many things that many of us see that don't make sense. And there is a process we could follow to do it.

A President that is a strong President would come to Washington, would come to Congress, would give a bold address like Kennedy did when he said we were going to go to the Moon; like LBJ did when he said we are going to be a great society; like Ronald Reagan did when he said it was going to be morning in America again. This is my vision. This is my plan. I am bringing it to Congress, and we are going to get it done.

But, no, this President didn't come here to push our government to a higher level, to inspire and engage, to be thoughtful about how we were going to be safer, stronger, and more prosperous--no. He brought in an unelected billionaire that everybody in this body knows is so conflicted, a guy who has so many government contracts, a guy whose net worth has been deeply affected by this government. He brought him in, and he and his agents have gone into systems that, to me, violate privacy.

They have no transparency of what they are doing until we wake up in the middle of the night or wake up the next day and find out that the people on the frontlines fighting against infectious diseases that threaten the United States--they are gone, cut off.

We just saw this last week when Donald Trump froze funding to everything--from veterans to first responders. He froze funding for daycare that had everybody in the station--I had calls from mayors who were Republicans, Democrats, Independents who couldn't access certain key portals; that had acted in contracting, relying upon a government stream of money; that had made plans and hiring decisions that suddenly were cut off in a lurch.

The powerful thing about that is the outrage across America took this President, who was violating the law, violating bipartisan spending decisions, violating the separation of powers--the fact that Americans from all over this country spoke up and spoke out stopped him in his tracks because that is how you deal with injustice. You don't normalize it. You call it out. And God bless America. This man who thought he was going to bully and steamroll and cut critical streams of funding all across this country was stopped in his tracks.

Now, he said: Oh, I am just pulling back temporarily because I am going to come back at this.

But the sigh of relief.

I have met with prosecutors this week. I have met with police officers this week. I have met with people who voted for him, voted against him, and didn't vote in my State, and all of them said that that was an outrageous move. Thank God we stopped him. Well, how did we stop him? By speaking up, by not normalizing this, by not thinking this is just politics as usual.

So that is what this all-night speak-out has been about. It is about raising voices. It is about not being silent. It is about the gifts of this democracy: the right to protest, the right to petition your government, the freedom of speech. You see, we believe in this democracy--that the power of the people is greater than the people in power. We believe in this democracy in that every voice matters.

Donald Trump is creating chaos, confusion. People like Vought have said on the record they don't care about constitutional norms, that they don't care about legal proceedings and the outcomes because that is wrongly decided. ``I have decided that that is not binding on me.'' Vought doesn't believe that we make spending decisions, that it is the President of the United States--despite the budget that was negotiated and passed by two Chambers in a bipartisan way--that the President can then decide ``I don't like this. Congress decided a spending priority. I don't care. I am not spending that money.'' That is Vought.

So some people say: Well, they have the votes. Cory, can't you count?

Well, I know I am here because I stand on the shoulders of my ancestors, like all of us do. We are all the beneficiaries of the struggles and the sacrifices that came before us. We are all the beneficiaries of moments in American history where democracy was in the balance, and the majority of our people chose the right way.

We are all here because in the Depression, when a general of the United States was calling for a military takeover, people stood up and spoke out.

We are all here because, during World War II but before America joined and there was a Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden full to the rafters, more Americans here said that we were going to resist fascist impulses.

We are all here because, on the left, there was a Senator named Huey Long, who said: Oh, the people should take over the Capitol. They are going to storm the Capitol, and I am going to be with the people.

Well, the people weren't listening to that extremist at the time.

We are all here because, moment after moment in American history, when democracy was at a crossroads, when our Constitution was at a crossroads, people of good faith stood up.

I remember one of the earliest women Senators that stood up against McCarthyism right here on the floor, criticizing someone of her own party--a profile in courage. I was taught a lot about that courage. In a chapter many people may not remember, there is a little panel to it right there. If you are in the Galleries and walk out, there is a panel to this wonderful moment in American history when we were at a crossroads.

It was the election of 1876 between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden. It was hotly contested. You see, in that, one person--Tilden-- won the popular vote, but Hayes seemed to have won the electoral college. Now, the Democrat, Tilden--there was a lot of controversy because this was post-Reconstruction--excuse me--post-Civil War, and the South had lots of African Americans participating, and this left a bit of a constitutional crisis and what became the Compromise of 1877. Hayes was declared the winner, but the compromise that was made was that the Republican, Hayes, would win and be the President as he was in exchange for what the Democrats wanted, which was to pull Federal troops out of the South who were protecting African Americans. An outcome of an election not just upended Reconstruction and upended the progress that was being made, but it upended something that was incredible, which was, I am the fourth Black person ever elected to the U.S. Senate, but during the Reconstruction era, the first one appointed--there were two.

Black folks, from the end of the Civil War until about 1901, when the last African American, Congressman White, left this place because of the fall of Reconstruction--because as soon as Federal troops were pulled out, reigns of terror began in the South. All kinds of laws were being passed to stop Blacks from voting because, in America, voting is power. Black elected officials were being beaten. Black judges were being pulled out in the streets--whipped. The Klan rose. Lynching in America--hundreds and hundreds of African Americans were being lynched with regularity who were standing up for their power. There were massacres going on to cut down Black political power.

Here we had had an election, and the results in terms of our constitutional norms--the power to vote, the idea that we secure the rule of law and protect citizens--all of that was being upended in flames and terror and violence and lynching in the South that took an early wave of Black participation in Congress. And the last one, Congressman White, in 1901, gave a phoenix speech. He knew it would be the last time. He predicted that Blacks would disappear from Congress but that, one day, they would rise like a phoenix.

Now, interestingly, in his State, a Black person didn't come from North Carolina's congressional delegation. That was 1901. Not until 1992 was another African American elected from North Carolina.

His prediction was right: Blacks would disappear because of the terror in the South, but because of the power of the civil rights movement, Blacks and Whites and Asians and Latinos--it was a rainbow coalition of people--would not be silent amongst tyranny and amongst violence and oppression. American citizens from all backgrounds, all religions, all races, bound together and were not silent. They spoke up.

One of my great heroes in this time--I have seen her spirit today. I had seen her spirit yesterday at a rally. I had seen her spirit across this country of people who know they can't necessarily stop, right now, what is going on but are saying: I am going to speak up anyway. This person was named Ida B. Wells.

Now, Ida B. Wells was a journalist in the South, and she was documenting the lynching of African Americans, documenting the injustices being done, documenting how the abuses of political power and electoral power were being used in a fascist way to stop the people from being heard. And the lynchings--the gruesome lynchings, which she was documenting and putting out there as her pamphlets were becoming nationally known, so upset people that her offices were attacked and ransacked. She had to flee for her life because Ida B. Wells was not being silent. She was telling the truth. She was letting folks know what was happening.

I think about her courage, to know that what you are doing and what you are saying against an authoritarian-style leadership can endanger your life, and yet you still tell the truth; how you are getting threats that you, too, will be lynched if you don't stop, but you keep telling the truth--the ugly truth. You put the stories out there again and again and again. Ida B. Wells could not be stopped.

There were all of these common lies that were being said about the lynchings: Oh, these were African Americans who did horrible things. These were African Americans who were guilty of crimes. These were African Americans who raped. They should have been lynched. They should have been killed.

Ida B. Wells would write detailed stories about the injustices that were even being upheld in courts of law, but she told the truth that so shocked the consciousness of our country that she, in many ways--may have been a journalist, but she was a farmer--every day relentlessly sowing seeds of truth that would one day reap a harvest of consciousness in our country, where good folks--Black folks and White folks and people of all backgrounds--would finally say: Enough is enough.

Congress here tried to pass antilynching bills way back around the time that Ida B. Wells was trying to show this horrific crime, and this body failed over 100 times over the course of a century--failed to make lynching a violation of Federal law. I am really proud that I got to lead the legislation in a bipartisan manner to finally correct this injustice; to finally bring full

circle some of the work that Ida B. Wells--this truth-teller--was doing.

I bring up Ida B. Wells today because it is my concluding message-- this defiant refusal in the face of injustice, this strength of character in the face of powerful people--Governors of States, a President of the United States, and others--making decisions on the Federal level that wreaked utter havoc for millions of Americans when you didn't have the numbers, when you didn't have the votes, but what you had was the truth: to not let things happen, not just to be a bystander but to be an upsetter. This was what Ida B. Wells did.

We study American history with an obligation to let it be not just our past, but we study American history to let it be our calling in the present so that we can try, as humble as we are, to live up to those who came before us; that but for them, our entire way of being would have collapsed.

Ida B. Wells said this:

The way to right wrongs is to turn the light of truth upon

them.

Let me repeat. Ida B. Wells--this documenter of savage injustices, this truthteller about lynchings in America, this sower of seeds of truth that, generations later, even in this body, we honor her by passing anti-lynching legislation after a century of trying--Ida B. Wells said the first thing we must do ``to right wrongs is to turn the light of truth upon them.''

For all those people in America right now, whether you are a worker in Uganda who can't even access your emails or you are an American who wants to stop Ebola; whether you are a worker here in the United States who has spent your entire professional life working to protect Americans from threats to our food or our air quality; whether you are someone who is just seeing what is going on in America right now, and you are afraid; whether you are someone who is worried that Vought will come in and upend educational funding that your disabled child relies upon every day; whether you are an American who is struggling right now and had hoped for promises that your cost of living would get better but are now seeing that, indeed, whether it is a tax on streams of revenue for middle-class families or the police in my community; or whether it is threats of tariffs with our neighbors that directly affected your small business that is barely staying afloat--whatever the challenge is, whatever the fear is, what I want to tell you right now is don't normalize a President who is violating the separation of powers. Don't normalize a President who is violating civil service laws. Don't normalize a President who is ignoring the dictates of Congress in establishing Agencies.

This is the time to summon the spirit of Ida B. Wells and ``to turn the light of truth upon what is going on'' because you may be witnessing defeats, but the democracy is not defeated. You may say what is going on is wrong, but that does not stop the power of right.

As the great poet said:

You may write me down in history with your bitter, twisted

lies. You may trod me in the very dirt, but still like dust

I'll rise.

This mighty Nation stands on the shoulders of truthtellers, of defiant, dedicated patriots of grit and gumption. It is we the people. No matter if you are a billionaire or a President, if you are a teacher, if you are a cop, if you are a plumber, this Nation says that our voices matter.

In the words of that Negro spiritual, as we have tried to do here all through the night, I hope everyone in America understands that this is the time for us to ``lift every voice.''

I yield the floor.

For New Jersey first responders, I vote no.

Mr. President, I appreciate the great Senator from the State of Florida with a haircut that is almost as good as mine. Thank you, sir.

Every year, the pages come through in cycles. I shouldn't say ``every year.'' There are multiple classes of pages. They are usually all extraordinary. This is an extraordinary class of pages. I have some issues with them, which I will air later.

But one of the traditions that we have resurrected in this new Congress is the page poetry contest. And this time, we had just a very small--a paucity of pages participated. That is an alliteration: A paucity of pages participated. And we have a number of them.

Katie Britt, in her eminent brilliance, and I have picked our top ones. Katie has picked one that I will mention, but we want to give these four of the six--I feel bad for the two we have left out. We want to give them our highest honors. But, first, the runner-up in the third position is Kaija.

There you are. You are the No. 3. I would read your poem, but we don't have time. You are articulate. You are eloquent. I teared up when I read your poem. It was so powerful and prodigiously potent.

And then the No. 2--before I read the two winners, the one selected by me and then the one selected by Katie Britt, the No. 2 is Holden. Where is Holden? Holden is over here as well.

Holden, your poem, too, brought me to depths--depths and heights.

It was to the nadir and to the zenith. It was very poetic, sir. You have talent as well.

And then the two winners. Katie Britt has chosen Jake. Where is Jake?

Jake, why are you sitting down?

Why can't I--why are those pages sitting down?

Pages, stand up. Be accounted for yourselves.

Jake, you are now going to forever go into the Senate Record. Are you prepared for this, Jake? Your work shall live forever. Here it goes.

Five months I've walked these halls of history,

Where wisdom lingers, woven in the air.

To serve the nation, humble though it be,

I've witnessed duty's weight and leaders' care.

The echoes of debates in chambers vast,

Where laws are forged and futures shaped with might,

Have shown me how the present shapes the past,

And kindled faith in government's light.

I watched as leaders certified the will,

A testament to voices heard and strong.

Though times are tense, resolve can guide us still,

A steadfast march to right what once was wrong.

This service marks the start of dreams anew,

To shape the world with honor's hue.

I am going to pause. This might be the first time the Presiding Officer has ever cried.

Is the Presiding Officer OK?

He is going to make it.

Congratulations. You are one of the two poet champions of the U.S. page class--the fall page class.

(Applause.)

Yes, yes. Don't get an ego. Don't let it go to your head. Don't be like a Senator.

OK. The other one, the final champion, is Ms. Pallan. Yes.

(Applause.)

Yes. Here is your poem.

We stand on blue, carpeted floors

From AM to PM we open Senate doors

Aching heels, and curved backs

We feel our composure start to crack

But in walks a Senator, and postures correct

Pages come together, all hands on deck

Excitement overtakes persistent exhaustion

As we wait to hear debates on legislation

People of power laugh and joke

As we watch and realize they're just common folk

Against the walls we silently hear

Colleagues and officials, but most of all--friends dear

Within this room, there stands a central divide

But there exists no aisle in our hearts or minds

That was fantastic.

(Applause.)

I am grateful for the poetic effort. I am grateful for our poetry champions, who will forever live in the annals of Senatorial history.

But there are a lot of people on this floor right now who have come to anticipate how I will proceed to demonstrate that these page writings are good. But now I will show them by reciting my own original poem.

Before I do, let me make at these pages an angry poke. Dear God, you all have been here for 5 months, and you couldn't tell me one good joke? Come on. Come on. Painful. You are the worst joke tellers. Heaven knows. But I am done. I have got my poem to read. So here goes.

Pages! With your suits so Navy, Understanding what you

signed up for, some might think you were crazy. You clearly

are the opposite of lazy. Up at 5 AM, your teenage brains

must be hazy, taking a full load of classes, English,

history, and calculus with parabolas so wavy. But that isn't

the end of your days--see. You work full-time on the job, on

the floor, serving Republican Senators like Mitch and

Democrats like Mazie. You man phones and open doors. You

tirelessly do the Senate's unglamorous chores, in this job

away from your fam, who can only see you if they join the 17

other Americans who regularly watch C-SPAN. But yet you are

vital to this place, I hope you all see. In our Federal

democracy, some might call you the foot soldiers of the

Senate's slowly making history. And in this place, of

sometimes too many partisan wars, you are this powerful,

gentle nudge to all of us old dinosaurs, that we are here for

you, the future of our nation. You are a constant reminder of

our sacred obligation. To put country first, you are subtly

telling us in this sacred space: That we are not individual

athletes but actually running a relay race. Soon the baton we

will place, in your hands, the next generation, to lead with

honor, determination, and I pray grace. So Pages! With your

suits so blue, Serving the Senate tried and true, Doing

everything we asked you to do. Walking around barely awake

some days, but you still made it through. Here are 3 pieces

of advice I have for you. First, leap into the unknown, even

if it seems scary just give it a try. Like you found out

jumping here, into your Senate experience that had to

petrify--leap. I know that to some of your friends that it

must have stupefied. Don't play it safe, hunkering down just

to fortify. Jump at tough challenges because in life it is

simple: If you don't risk great falls, you'll never see how

high you can fly. Second, Make friends with people who think

different and with whom you don't agree. This is the very

idea of our democracy. You've witnessed it here on the Senate

floor. The TV often tells us that we should hate those who

are different, but clearly you now know more. We are so much

more than a partisan, tribal war. Compromise is essential,

our founders forswore. I task you to be unifiers, common

ground builders, defining yourself by not who you are against

but by who you are for. Take our national ideal of E Pluribus

Unum and reclaim its splendor. Be an indivisible mentor--not

just to preserve our democracy, but you are tasked with

making it soar. And finally Pages! With your suits so . . .

clean, my last piece of advice is to dream bolder dreams. I

believe it, that for you there is no limitation. God, you are

already living lives way behind your ancestor's greatest

imagination. Past generations did great things. They took

humanity to flight, took on the most awful wrongs and,

incredibly, made them right. It's your turn--with grits,

guts, and gumption--to dream America anew. Challenge my

generation's limited assumptions. Dream America anew. Don't

wait for permission. Dream America anew. This is your

mission. Dream America anew--beyond what even your parents

can now see. Dream an America anew and bring us to new

heights of freedom, justice, and prosperity. Pages, dream

America anew. Dream America anew. Dream America anew. This is

my advice but also my prayer for you. Oh, and for all of

history, I hereby put into the official Senate Record this

truth, not a rumor: This Senate class, my friends, was

incredible, kind, dedicated, but you lacked a sense of humor.

Mr. President, I see the extraordinary colleague here. We read her selected poem already. But I will tell you, there are 99 colleagues, but nobody is more the surrogate Senate page parent than Katie Britt, the Senator from Alabama.

I hope that you have learned from her the power of simple, everyday kindnesses.

Mr. President, I defer to my friend and colleague, the Senator from Alabama.

Thank you to Katie Britt, the tough-as-nails Senator who will never quit, before I sit--I just can't stop myself. And thanks to Elizabeth, we should have all the poems put into the Senate Record.

So with that, I would like to ask unanimous consent that all six participants, including the two I didn't name--Gabriel, where is Gabriel? Solid, solid piece of work. I was splitting hairs, splitting hairs. The only thing that dissed you was:

The Capitol subway is my home.

It rides underneath the great dome.

I thought it was a lie that the subway is your home. I see you rarely on the subway. So your poetic genius was there; I dinged you because it was not truthful.

And then the other name I want to give is Xavier, where is Xavier? Where is Xavier? Xavier is not here; that is why Xavier did not get--I knew he would not be here. It is terrible. It is terrible.

That's what we pages are meant to observe.

And to learn from others the pride to serve.

I see no pride in his not being here right now. But I will say that they deserve to be in the Senate Record.

So, again, all six poems, all six participants will be there.

I ask unanimous consent that all six poems be printed in the Record.

Katie, thank you for your kind words, and we turn the Senate back over to its usual programming. Although I do not think anything that will happen on this floor will be as fun as the fun that Katie and I just had. Thank you very much.

Senator Kaine, would you yield for a question?

That was the stunning thing: Whom are you for? Are you working for Americans, are you for American families, or are you for the wealthiest of the wealthy?

I watched this in slow motion, this disaster for our country economically, when I was getting lobbied by corporations in the same way that you said. They said: We are not globally competitive. We are not globally competitive.

Everybody here, all 100 of us, want American businesses to win. So, yes, I think that we should have--my opinion was, yes, let's make our tax rate globally competitive and get rid of some of these crazy corporate tax loopholes that people use. So many companies pay zero taxes.

So we could have had a bipartisan conversation that could have reflected our values, lowered the overall corporate tax rate, and found a way to get rid of loopholes so corporations don't find a way to exempt themselves from taxes when the average police officer is paying higher taxes than some of the biggest corporations.

I watched you during that time--this was 8 years ago--and you began to say: Let's make sure that this tax plan benefits working Americans because when you invest in middle-class Americans, in working-class Americans, it is a proven way to grow the economy other than this fallacy of trickle-down.

And so the stunning thing for me--and this is where I want you to--I think that was one of the most powerful points I heard. It was when people were coming to me and saying 28 percent, 27 percent, 26 percent. The biggest corporations were saying it publicly. I was reading it in the newspaper. The lowest thing I saw the corporations asking for was 25 percent. What were those conversations like when you were talking to our colleagues on the other side? How did they end up at 21 percent and then not even support an amendment to bring it back up to what the corporate leaders were asking for to the benefit of working-class people? How could that amendment not have passed?

Forgive me, especially with who the Chair is. I am afraid.

So I direct that question to the Chair to the person here.

Would the Senator yield for one last question. Then I will

yield to Senator Lujan for his presentation.

Senator, I came to the floor--or to the Chair, I came to the floor to listen to the good-faith arguments of colleagues about the Trump tax cut. I heard them say they would pay for themselves. This was a mantra I heard over and over again: It will pay for itself. It will pay for itself.

But independent folks, like on the Federal Reserve Board and the Joint Committee on Taxation, found that their corporate tax cuts did not pay for themselves, but they drove our government into a multitrillion-dollar and more deficit. The benefits within this idea of trickle-down economics--said by the same groups I just mentioned--were that 90 percent of workers didn't see a dime. Overwhelmingly, it expanded corporate wealth and the wealth of the top 1 percent significantly and didn't inure to the benefit of the postal worker, the cop, the firefighter, the plumber, the teacher.

It is stunning to me that I sat here and listened to folks. But my challenge to you because you have been sort of a pragmatic, moderate guy for a long time, and we are seeing this coming around the corner-- the estimates are now that their new tax plan that they are talking about could cause a deficit and expand, again, by now over $4 trillion.

You have been around here longer than I have. When we start running budget deficits, and we know factually that their last tax plan expanded the deficit into the trillions--and this one is projected, if they do it again, to be to the benefit of the top 1 percent and, again, with very few of the benefits going to working Americans--what will that mean for America's fiscal stability going out 10 years from now or 15 years from now?

What kind of pressures will that create, and what kind of calls do we have from Republicans about how to fix the problem that their tax plan has caused?

Madam President, so much niceness headed toward this guy--it is killing me over here.

(Laughter.)

I want to clear the record, and I have a beef to settle with the good Senator from Pennsylvania.

I will tell you this: I consider myself a person of faith, and I think that Senator Bob Casey has done something very irreligious if I must say. I know he grew up as a Catholic. I grew up in a Baptist church. We are both Christians. We have very different religious faiths, but I have an issue with Bob Casey because, in the organizing Bible verse that I used to tell people was how I motivated my life, I come here, and he completely eviscerates my allegiance to this Bible verse.

So I am using this, and forgive me. And I might be rule XIX'd by somebody for maligning a colleague. But I am very upset that you have made me lose my religion a little bit, and I will give you an example.

If you know--a point of order? No.

(Laughter.)

Will the Senator yield? No, I will not.

(Laughter.)

Matthew 25 is really one of those Bible verses that has, for so much of my life, motivated me. You know, the Lord said: I was hungry, and you fed me; or thirsty, and you gave me to drink.

And it ends with this verse 40: And then you shall answer and say unto them, ``Verily I say to you, in so much as you have done to the least of these my brethren, you have done to me.''

The least of these is how--I thought that that was the calling of my faith--to do unto the least of these. And for 10 years now--11 years that I have been in the Senate, you have undermined that idea of doing unto the least of these.

Now, look, Bob--if I may call you that, sir--I came into the Senate thinking that was our job, but I have watched you for 11 years never see anyone as ``least.'' You have this way of looking at everybody and seeing their grandeur. You see people not as if they are in a lower station in any way, but you have a way of seeing people as if they are a reflection of the Divine Himself.

I had a very humbling experience in the past 7 days with the good Senator from Iowa. We were down in the basement of Dirksen when people from the disability community from Pennsylvania and all around America came to give you tribute. As I sat there welling up at the tributes to you from these extraordinary Americans, every person that spoke and that I spoke to afterwards told me that you saw them; that you were a person who recognized their humanity, who recognized their strength, who saw their character, capabilities; and that you were not doing to any least but that you were elevating everyone and this Nation in the process.

When you remarked about the little lobbyists, you pointed out how powerful they were in saving healthcare for all Americans.

So I want to tell you, in my farewell to you after your speech, that when I was coming out of college, my greatest hero in America was not a Senator or a politician; it was Marian Wright Edelman. I thought that should be the calling of this country, to focus on children.

I love what Marian Wright Edelman said:

So much of America's tragic and costly failures to care for

all of its children stems from our tendency to distinguish

between our children and other people's children--as if

justice were divisible.

I see this framing that has made humanity suffer for thousands of years--those who framed humanity in us versus them. You have this superpower to only see just us. It is not your family and my family; we are family--to try not to sound like a famous song.

Somehow, my friend, you make real the words of one of my favorite poets, Gwendolyn Brooks, who simply said:

We are each other's harvest; we are each other's business;

we are each other's magnitude and bond.

I look up to you, Bob. I see in you--if you ask me what is the difference between a Hollywood heartthrob--or what does Bob Casey have in common with a Hollywood heartthrob, I would say, nothing at all.

(Laughter.)

You are not sexy. You are not glamorous.

(Laughter.)

My church tradition was, you had charismatic leaders in the pulpit giving great speeches. You must have gone to a very boring church.

(Laughter.)

But somehow you made me aspire to know in the Senate the difference between celebrity and significance, the difference between a showhorse and a workhorse, the difference between some nobility that you feel that you are reaching out and reaching down to help others, to humbling yourself before God's creations.

I end with this framing: Marian Wright Edelman inspired me at the beginning of my career, and the way you have focused on children inspires me amidst my middle-age years as a Senator. I still am inspired by people who care about kids. That is why you have been one of my greatest heroes.

So to steal from Chris Coons, who is the one person, I think, who knows Swahili in this Chamber, I would like to end with some Swahili words.

The Maasai warriors have this incredible tradition. These are the people who are most valued in their defense of those in the village who might not be able to defend themselves, who are powerful in their fierce fighting capabilities and fight for those who are powerless.

When they are out and about, they have a greeting that they say to each other, and the greeting, if I am pronouncing it right--and Chris Coons will correct me later--is ``Kasserian ingera.'' This is the greeting of two warriors. When they see each other, they greet each other: ``Kasserian ingera.'' The response is ``Sepati ingera,'' which means--one warrior says to the other ``How are the children?'' and the response of two warriors is ``The children are well.'' This is the indicator for the Maasai people of what the strongest, what the most powerful, what the fearsome fighters are most focused on, which is the children.

You, my friend, are one of the greatest warriors I have ever served with. I know your heart. I know your moral compass. I know how you live your faith every single day and how much you have deepened mine.

In the words of the Maasai, I have two words to say: ``Asante sana''--thank you very much.

(Applause.)

Madam President, I rise today to give a speech that I have never given before. It is really important that I do it on the Senate floor, but it is like I have never done it before because I am actually giving a speech to two young children who may not watch this for years, but I want them to hear it from me. These are two young boys--Azmir and Zaaran--and I write them. I give a sort of open speech to them tonight, really out of joy and faith that is untroubled by my hurt and my sadness.

You see, I think something about this country that so many people have come to know who have seen the worst of America but still love America. They know how these emotions sit side by side--that you could hold sadness and joy next to faith in this Nation, even though there is disappointment. And what I rise to talk to these two young boys about is their dad.

Their dad is a man named Adeel Mangi. He is an extraordinary man. I have met many people from New Jersey, but this man was so extraordinary that the President of the United States of America chose him, because of his qualifications, to be a justice on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. That was why he was chosen. But he also happened to be a glass ceiling breaker; he also happened to be somebody who

was going to make American history as the first ever Muslim judge--a man of Muslim faith--to be on the circuit court.

Now, this is extraordinary that it is 2024 and we have never had someone of the Muslim faith, especially because we are a nation that says there are no religious tests; that we are found on this ideal of religious freedom--but somehow, with the millions of American Muslims and with Muslims being here at our founding and all through American history and with Muslims fighting in every war in American history, we have never had a Muslim ascend to the circuit courts.

I would like to read from a letter that your father wrote. It is really powerful. I wish I could read the whole thing.

I ask unanimous consent that the whole letter by Adeel A. Mangi be printed in the official Record of the U.S. Senate.

So, here, he writes about his nomination:

When my nomination . . . came before the Senate Judiciary

Committee, I was prepared to answer any questions about my

qualifications, philosophy, or legal issues, [but] I received

none. Instead, I was asked questions about Israel, whether I

supported Hamas, and whether I celebrated the anniversary of

9/11. Even more revealing, however, was the tone. The

underlying premise appeared to be that because I am Muslim,

surely I support terrorism and celebrate 9/11. When I made

clear that all these claims are false--that I condemn the

Hamas attacks and all forms of terrorism, and indeed that it

was my city--[my city]--that was attacked on 9/11--the next

Republican Senators up just repeated their performative

outrage. There were children in the audience.

These attacks, nonetheless, continued endlessly for a

simple reason. As Senator Whitehouse revealed on the Senate

floor, this was an organized smear campaign fueled by dark

money. But it did not end there. After Jewish groups came to

my defense, these same attackers pivoted [their] focus to a

new absurdity, claiming that I supported the killing of

police officers--silently underpinned, in my view, by the

notion that as a Muslim I surely support violence, including

against law enforcement.

Now, your father goes on to detail not only how these incredible, outrageous smear attacks were false and that there was no basis for them but how he has actually been someone who has stood up in his legal career in pursuit of justice and has the support of dozens of police organizations, attorneys general from around the country, bipartisan groups of current and former attorneys general, law enforcement groups, and more.

He ends his letter with the conclusion that these tactics succeeded in stopping him from even getting a vote on the Senate floor, from ascending to the Third Circuit, and making history.

Your father--your father--concluded his letter by saying a truth: Our country faces an incoming tsunami of bigotry and hatred and discrimination. It targets Muslims, Arabs, Jews, Black people, the LGBTQ community, and many others.

And this is not in the letter, but I remind people that hate crimes are on the rise across our country.

Azmir and Zaaran, back to your father's letter:

And it always pretends to be something other than what it

is. These forces are fueled not only by their proponents, but

equally by the collaboration and silence of the spineless.

They can be defeated only by those who lead voters with

courage, not those who sacrifice principles for votes. But

courage can be found outside of politics. American Muslims

are part of this nation's fabric and will not cower. This

campaign was intended to make it intolerable for Muslims

proud of their identity to serve this nation. It will fail.

Our Constitution forbids religious tests for any Office of

the United States and American Muslims will cherish that

fundamental American value, even if others apply it only

selectively.

Your father continues:

I have battled for justice, even if it meant there would be

none for me.

I read that line, Azmir and Zaaran, and it gave me chills because it reminded me of my own family and stories of people who fought for justice that they would never enjoy. It reminded me of the history in this country when suffrage leaders fought for the vote for Black men, the vote for suffrage for Blacks, and they would not enjoy it as women. It reminds me of so many Americans who still stood up for principles and ideals that our country proclaims, even when they would not enjoy them.

Azmir and Zaaran, your father continues:

This unfortunate fact remains: We have a fundamentally

broken process for choosing federal judges. This is no longer

a system for evaluating fitness for judicial office. It is

now a channel for the raising of money based on performative

McCarthyism before video cameras, and for the dissemination

of dark-money-funded attacks that especially target

minorities. Nominees pay the price--and so . . . does our

nation. Who will give up the rewards of private sector

success for public service, if the added price is character

assassination and wading through a Senatorial swamp like this

one? This process must be reinvented to protect nominees from

threats both reputational and physical in an era of

Congressional dishonor where disinformation reigns and all

decency has been abandoned. I set forth this record of my

experience and my opinions so that this playbook will be

recognized the next time--

And there will be a next time--

a Muslim is nominated to a prominent position of service.

He ends with this:

To return to President Eisenhower's words, Americans must

now look at the story of this nomination, and ask themselves:

Is this who we are now?

To these two young boys he ends:

For my children, I hope America one day lives up to

President Eisenhower's promise, even if not today. For my

part, I entered this nomination process as a proud American

and a proud Muslim. I exit it the same way, unbowed.

Azmir and Zaaran, I remember this day and the excitement I felt when I walked into that hearing room, this wood-paneled historic chamber. I remember how it signaled to visitors the gravity of the business that was about to be conducted within the walls. And you two were seated in the front row, just behind your dad. I remember the joy that I felt when I saw the two of you, that you were going to witness the ascendency of your father to the highest court in the land, and you two were going to witness the smashing of a barrier and seeing your father--a proud American, who happens to be a Muslim--become the first.

I remember your smiles. I remember how they made my whole being smile. Your mother sat behind you beaming with pride. I sat on the dais so full of joy. And the hearing began.

I told your dad I didn't know why he asked you to leave the room. I wanted you to stay for the whole hearing. But

your mom and dad, wise beyond me, had you leave. At your young age then, I am glad you did not witness what then transpired. It was shameful. Not for your family, it was shameful for us as Senators. It was shameful for America.

You heard your father detail the remarks and the questions that were so degrading and demeaning. They weren't successful. They couldn't degrade or demean the character of your father, but they were degrading and demeaning--questions that have never been asked in all of American history to a nominee: ``Did you support 9/11, the terrorist attacks,'' that he witnessed. How insulting was that? And they were repeated over and over, demeaning and degrading--attempting to, but your father's character can never be demeaned, can never be degraded because he stood tall on that day.

In the history of this country of so many women and Black men and immigrants and Irish and Italian and Catholics and Asian Americans, Japanese and Chinese who have been insulted and looked down upon and faced bigotry, your father, like generations of other Americans who were told they weren't good enough because they were different, your father stood in the saddle and took the assaults, and he never ever, ever backed down.

Calmly and repeatedly, he answered the inane questions, the darkness directed toward him, and he showed his light.

I would be remiss if I didn't tell you over and over again how brilliant your father is, how he got to that seat. Amidst thousands of talented lawyers across the country, your father stood out to the President of the United States as one of the best. He is a top litigator. He is cherished by his colleagues.

His legal acumen and intellect were part of the reasons I recommended him because all throughout my State, on both sides of the aisle, people told me how amazing your father was, how talented your father was, how this was a layup for the court, how he would elevate the judiciary.

And what people said about him wasn't just his legal acumen; they also talked about your dad's character--a man who lives by his principles, how he even stood up to the government when it was discriminating against others because they were different, how he represented people who had no one to stand up for their values.

He stood up for a man named Karl Taylor, who was held in prison and beaten to death by correctional officers. Not only did your dad win that lawsuit for Mr. Taylor's family, but he helped protect other incarcerated people in New York by having all the prisons agree to install video cameras to stop attacks like that one from ever happening again to protect other lives.

Your father has this unrelenting commitment to the ideal of fairness and justice. He has modeled his life after that. He doesn't just believe these things, he acts in accordance with them.

New Jersey is lucky to have him on our State bar, and we would have been lucky to have him on the Third Circuit.

My mom said something about me that I think is funny. My mom says:

Behind every successful child is an astonished parent.

But I will never be surprised by the two of you. I think you two, knowing your parents, are going to grow up to be extraordinary lightworkers in this Nation.

James Baldwin said:

Children are never good at listening to their elders, but

they never fail to imitate them.

I have this faith in the two of you. And the reason why I am doing this, standing on the Senate floor talking to two New Jersey children, teenage boys, 14 and 13, the reason why I am talking to you is because I know who you are, with only meeting you on that day, because you were raised by these modeled citizens, by these great Americans whose character shines amidst the darkness of the storm that your family just went through.

Your father was professionally attacked. For months and months and months, he was trolled on the internet. He faced streams of hate as people built entire million-dollar campaigns to try to discredit him. Yet your dad and your mom never faltered and never flinched, told the President of the United States that they would continue in the process if the President believed that it was still possible for him to serve his Nation.

It is these attributes of your parents that I know live in you. I guess I want you all never to stop believing like your parents do and not just the attributes that mark your family and distinguish it but in those attributes of our Nation that we can never stop believing in.

This great body failed your father. It failed the American people. It is one of the most painful chapters I have had in public life.

The American people deserve a government that just doesn't function in accordance with fairness but upholds the ideals that are so core to this country; that everyone is created equal, that there should be liberty and justice for all.

That is not what happened in this episode. It is not what happened to your dad. He was treated differently because of his faith. Bigotry was used to attempt to demean him. Lies were used to discredit him. The broken political system was used to dissuade and intimidate people from standing up for him.

It was a dark moment in the Senate's history, I tell you this. But your father, whose character I believed in before the process, has shown a character that inspires me now more than ever.

I want to ask you two to never stop believing in the ideals of this Nation because it is why your father is who he is. Your parents told me their fealty to America, their love of this country, has not faltered. It is this great tradition of people who love America so much, even when America doesn't love them back. It is people in this country, from McCarthyism to the bigotry and hate of slavery, who kept working to change this country and make it better.

I ask the two of you to embrace your parents' way, to love America, to believe in her, and to know that this Nation needs you and your family.

I believe sometimes we have the most difficult moments to make way for better days ahead. I believe in people and their potential and ability to make a difference.

We are in a moment right now where too many leaders in our country subscribe to a politics of division. We are in a moment where we are seeing a rise of hate. I think it is an inflection point, and I think this is the point--and perhaps yours is the generation--to take our Nation in a better direction.

I believe, in many ways, your dad's steadfast love of country and the fact that he is unbowed by this process, I think that that is, in many ways, the foundation that is going to help us as a nation go forward.

I want to end with a poem my parents read me. I told your dad--and I got emotional when I talked to him earlier today--that when I looked at the two of you, I saw my brother and me.

Cary and I were raised by two parents, the first ever to integrate an all-White neighborhood. My parents faced the same kind of awful indignities as many people who are different in that they weren't allowed to buy their house. They had to get a White couple to pose as them--I was just a baby at that time--in order to be the first Black family to move in.

On the day of the closing on the house, when the White couple didn't show up and my father did, and a lawyer--like your father--the real estate agent didn't capitulate; he actually punched the lawyer in the face and sicced a Doberman pinscher on my dad.

We eventually got the owners of the home to sell us the house and moved in, but my parents were conscious my entire childhood that there is hate in this world, there is bigotry in this world. It was the tunnel that you had to come through to be in the very house where you lived. But they never wanted us to stop loving America and loving other people. They wanted us to know that there were going to be times in life when you are going to face hatred and that would never define you. What will define you is how you respond to it.

What your father gave America is a master's class on how to respond to lies, bigotry, and hatred--organized and financed. What your father showed

is, in that darkness, he could bring light.

So my parents wanted me to be like your dad in life; that if I faced the worst bigotry and hate, that I did not stop loving, that I did not stop loving others and loving Americans. And they would find ways to inspire me.

So I want to read you all one of the poems my parents shared with me--not the whole poem but a few sections. It is by a woman named Maya Angelou, and it is a poem called ``Still I Rise.''

You may write me down in history

with your bitter, twisted lies,

You may trod me in the very dirt

But still, like dust, I'll rise.

Just like moons and like suns,

With the certainty of tides,

Just like hopes springing high,

Still I'll rise.