Floor Statements

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I want to say a brief word about two subjects today:

First, hockey, a wonderful sport. It requires endurance, stamina, hand-eye coordination, balance. I have never played hockey. My son did in high school, and he was good. He was very good. Because he was interested in hockey, I learned a lot about it. I went to his games, his practices. I really learned to admire the sport and the talented people who play hockey. As an aside, I will tell you one lesson I learned about hockey through my son: You can't wash hockey gear. And as you probably know, Mr. President, you carry the hockey gear around-- hockey players do--in these big duffel bags, huge, which, of course, they zip up, and my son did that.

When he would come in from practice or a game--and I would help him with his bag full of gear that you can't wash. Be very, very careful when you unzip that bag because the smell will knock you cold.

Why do I mention hockey? Well, we just had a great hockey game. United States v. Canada. The United States won--men's hockey. The United States won, and I am very, very proud of our boys. It was a close, close game, 2 to 1 in overtime. And, of course, we celebrated that victory and congratulated our U.S. team at the State of the Union Address.

But I want to mention Canada. I think it is important to know that Canada has got a great team too. That was just a really good game, and it could have gone either way. And I so admire the people of Canada. Things get rocky a little bit between us--between America and Canada-- but deep down Americans love the people of Canada. They are smart and they are hard-working and they are industrious and they are our neighbors and, you know, we just appreciate them so much. And I just wanted to say to the members of the Canadian hockey team: Well played. Well, well played.

I am proud of America and our boys for winning, but I am proud of the young men who played for Canada as well, and I wanted to say that.

Netflix

The second thing I want to talk about, briefly, is Netflix--Netflix and lawfare. Permit me to explain.

I love Netflix. I don't get to watch a lot of television, but sometimes when I come in, in the evening and I want to relax, I will watch one of the shows on Netflix.

And, you know, they have shows like--I wrote a few down--``Godless,'' ``Adolescence,'' ``Ripley,'' ``The Queen's Gambit''--just wonderful, wonderful acting. I really admire Netflix. It is a great American company. The ingenuity, the creativity that its founders had to have to come up with this concept--you know, video demand through streaming.

Netflix is so successful today. They have 325 million subscribers. Their movies go out and their limited series go out all across the world; 56 languages, I think. Netflix has 16,000 employees. They generate about $45 billion a year in cashflow. It is just a great American company, and I am proud of them.

That is why I was so surprised to hear recently some of the things said by one of the Netflix board of directors. I don't know how many directors Netflix has. I think it is anywhere from 10, 11, 12, 13-- really bright people. You go through and read their resumes, you can't help but be impressed. They are well compensated. Now, just to be a board member, they pay you $300,000 a year.

But I was shocked to hear what one of their board members said. And I don't know if this board member was speaking for Netflix because she is so prominent. She is well-known, and it is well-known that she is on the board of Netflix. I think she was on the board of Netflix and then went into government.

I am talking, of course, about Ms. Susan Rice, who worked for President Obama and President Biden; a Stanford

graduate; a Rhodes Scholar; has a DPhil from Oxford. Ms. Rice--I guess I should say Dr. Rice--is absolutely brilliant.

But anyway, one of her paying gigs right now--I suspect she will go back into government. One of her paying gigs right now is she is a very prominent independent director for Netflix. And it is very hard to--I mean, when she is so prominent, and you have this extraordinary American company, it is--they are kind of joined at the hip. That is why I was so surprised. I want to read you what Ms. Rice said. I am going to quote. These are her words, not mine. This is what Ms. Rice said:

When it comes to the elites, you know, the corporate

interests, the law firms, the universities, the media . . .

it is not going to end well for them. For those that decided

that . . . [they] would act in their perceived very narrow

self-interest, which I would underscore is very short-term

self-interest, and . . . take a knee to Trump--

Not President Trump, not Mr. Trump--

take a knee to Trump--

As an aside, that surprised me because when I talk about President Obama or President Biden or President Trump, I am always very careful to call them President. Democrat or Republican, it is a matter of respect. But she said--I am going to repeat this sentence:

For those that decided . . . [they] would act in their

perceived very narrow self-interest--

Ms. Rice said--

which I would underscore is very short-term self-interest,

and . . . take a knee to Trump . . . they are going to be

caught with more than their pants down, they're going to be

held accountable by those who come in opposition to Trump and

win at the ballot box.

[I]f these corporations--

I don't know if she is talking about Netflix or not. I know she is on the board of Netflix.

[I]f these corporations think that the Democrats--

Ms. Rice, as you probably know, is a prominent Democrat.

[I]f these corporations think that the Democrats, when they

come back in power, are going to play by the old rules and

say, ``Oh, never mind, we'll forgive you for all the people

you fired, all the policies and principles you've violated,

all . . . the laws you've skirted,'' I think they've got

another thing coming.''

Because just like when Trump fought--

Once again, ``Trump,'' not President Trump--

Because just like when Trump thought, ``Ok, I will

redistrict, and the Democrats won't have the guts to play

hardball, they are going to be surprised.''

Democrats have had a bellyful, and we are not going to play

by the old set of rules when these guys are playing by a

different set of rules.

Ms. Rice talked about being surprised. I am surprised. I am shocked. What came to mind, initially, when I read these words, is: You can only be young once, but you can always be immature. You can only be young once, but you can always be immature.

What Ms. Rice is talking about is payback. What Ms. Rice seems to be saying is two wrongs don't make it right, but they do make it even. What Ms. Rice seems to be saying--and I don't know whether she is speaking on behalf of Netflix or not--but what Ms. Rice seems to be saying is that it is OK in America today to use the law to prosecute and harass your political enemies. I find that astounding coming from a person of her stature.

That is the sort of thing that doesn't happen in America. That is the sort of thing that is only supposed to happen in countries whose Powerball jackpot is 287 chickens and a goat, not America. We believe in the rule of law. We believe in equal protection. We believe nobody is above the law but nobody is beneath it. I can't think of a more irresponsible statement for somebody to make.

I remember when former President Biden started this lawfare business. Former President Biden, directly or indirectly, instructed Judge Merrick Garland, who was then-Attorney General, to prosecute a former President of the United States--a former President of the United States who had run against President Biden, Attorney General Garland's boss, and a former President of the United States who, at the time he was prosecuted by the Justice Department, was a current opponent against President Biden. And I remember thinking at the time: They have unleashed spirits they cannot control. That is not what America is all about.

And I know some are going to say: Well, President Trump is doing the same thing. If that is true, I don't like that either. In fact, when many of President Trump's nominees for the Justice Department came and appeared before us for confirmation in Judiciary, on which I sit, I talked to them about this. I said ``Two wrongs don't make a right, but they do make it even'' is wrong. It was wrong then, when President Biden did it, it is wrong now if people are doing it, and it is going to be wrong if Ms. Rice gets back into government. And it is wrong for her to advocate this, especially if she is doing it on behalf of Netflix, a great American company. Gosh. You can only be young once, but--man, oh, man--you can always be immature.

I suggest the absence of a quorum unless the Parliamentarian wants me to yield to somebody. She is pointing to Senator McCormick, so I am going to yield to my good friend, the distinguished, handsome Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, I have six requests for committees to meet

during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. President, with me today is one of my colleagues from my office, Ms. Candice Humble. She is a member of my communications team. She is not responsible for anything I say.

I am losing her. She is not leaving government; she is going to work for the White House. Today is her last day, and I asked her to come down so that I could thank Candice publicly for all of her extraordinary work and for giving so much to the people in Louisiana and to the American people.

Iran

Mr. President, about 90 percent of my personal and political philosophy is, don't hurt someone unless they are trying to hurt you first, don't take other people's stuff, and leave me alone--let me live my life, exercising the free will and responsibility that God gave-- which leads me to my first topic: Iran.

I am not talking about the people of Iran. I am talking about the political and religious leadership of the Government of Iran. I am talking about the Ayatollah and his followers.

In America, we separate government from religion. Not in Iran, thanks to the Ayatollah. The government tells you what religion to practice. The government is the religion.

Now, everybody has the right to believe what they want. I will tell you what the Ayatollah believes. He is Muslim, but his strain of Islam says

that if you do not agree with his interpretation of God, then you deserve to die. You do. And he acts on that belief.

Now, let me say again, the Ayatollah is entitled to believe what he wants. I was raised a Presbyterian. My parents founded two Presbyterian churches. When Becky and I got married, Becky was a Methodist, and I was a Presbyterian. We compromised: I became a Methodist. I am entitled to believe what I want. But the Ayatollah not only thinks that I am going to Hell because I don't agree with his religion; he wants to kill me. He wants to kill Americans and Israelis and anybody who does not believe in his jihad and drink our blood out of a boot. And he has acted on that. I don't need to tell the Presiding Officer. I don't need to tell the Presiding Officer. He has acted on that, and that is not acceptable.

Now, a lot of the people in Iran--the good people in Iran--don't agree with the Ayatollah. If they disagree with him too loudly, he just kills them.

The Ayatollah--it has actually been the case for the last--I don't know--10, 15, 20 years--the Ayatollah has decided he wants a nuclear warhead. Why should we care? I hear from some of my fellow Americans all the time: Why do we need to be involved in Iran? Why should we care?

Well, No. 1, we are not trying to start a war in Iran; the President is trying to end a war in Iran. If the Ayatollah gets a nuclear weapon, he will use it. He could use it against America. He could use it against Israel. I don't know who he will use it against, and I hope I am wrong, but he will use it.

Do you know what else will happen as soon as he gets a nuclear weapon? Saudi Arabia is going to get a nuclear weapon, and the UAE is going to get a nuclear weapon, and Japan is going to get a nuclear weapon, and South Korea, and I could go on and on and on. The more nuclear weapons you have in the world, the more likely you are to have a nuclear war.

But that is not the only thing the Ayatollah has done since he became the Ayatollah. He exports terrorism. He was the person behind Hamas and Hezbollah that have killed so many people throughout the world--not just in the Middle East but across the world--including but not limited to Americans. That is why we ought to care.

The Ayatollah also has conventional ballistic missiles and is building more as we speak. Now, those missiles can't reach America yet, but they are working on one. And they can sure reach our military bases in the Middle East, and they can sure reach Israel. Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am. That is why we should care.

Finally, the Ayatollah, if you disagree with him--and we have seen it happen on TV. We don't know how many people he has hung in the last 6 months. We don't know how many people he has tortured. I have seen estimates as high as 50,000.

So that is what this business with Iran is all about. We are not trying to be the world's policeman; we are trying to stop the Ayatollah from being the world's policeman. He is getting a lot of support from President Xi Jinping in China and Vladimir Putin in Russia and Kim Jong Un in North Korea. So that is where we find ourselves trying to stop this war.

To the Ayatollah, I would say: Ayatollah, you are entitled to believe what you want. You can hate me. You can believe that. I know you hate me and what I stand for. You know how I sleep at night knowing that you hate me? With the fan on. That is your right. But you can't act on that belief. Put down the nuclear weapons. Put down the nuclear enrichment. Stop exporting terrorism through Hamas and Hezbollah. End your missile program. Stop killing and torturing your people.

That is all we want, and he is doing that as we speak. He is at war; we are trying to stop it.

I am not about to give the President any advice. He has intelligence that I don't have, and I respect the fact that he is being very deliberate and careful in making a decision. If we make a deal with Iran, let's make sure we have a protocol to enforce it because, in my experience in watching the Ayatollah through the years, I wouldn't trust this man if he were 3 days dead. I wouldn't trust him if he were 3 days dead. Anybody whose religion tells them that in order to be saved, they have to go kill hundreds of millions of people--you can believe it if you want, but as far as I am concerned, it is time to get a new religion.

That is what we are doing in Iran. Let me say it again. We are not trying to start a war. This war began a long time ago. We are trying to end it. Our President presiding today knows exactly what I talked about. He served honorably--at great physical, mental, and emotional expense--in the Middle East. That is what we are trying to stop.

New Orleans

Mr. President, topic No. 2: New Orleans. I love New Orleans. I am not from New Orleans. I used to live there. I met my wife there. I used to live uptown. I used to practice law in New Orleans. I taught a little while in law school in Baton Rouge, but my first teaching job was going to be in New Orleans before I moved to Baton Rouge. I love New Orleans--one of the most unique cities in the entire world.

So what I am about to say, I say from my heart with love and affection and as a former resident and frequent visitor. Here is my message to the political leadership in New Orleans: Get your act together. Get your act together.

I don't go to New Orleans that I don't hear from my people down there: We need affordable housing. We need affordable housing. We need affordable housing.

Let me tell you something. We spend a lot of money on affordable housing in America, billions every year--the American taxpayer. Not State money. Not local money. This is American taxpayer money. We take that money and send it to States and local governments to build affordable housing for people who can't afford a home, because the American people are so generous.

We do that through what are called housing agencies. Every State that I am aware of has a housing agency, and many local governments have a housing agency. The State housing agencies and the local housing agencies take the Federal money and use it--given to them out of the goodness of the American taxpayers' heart--to create affordable housing.

We have been doing that for years in New Orleans. There is a local housing authority. We call it HANO, the Housing Authority of New Orleans. It is run by a board of commissioners appointed by the mayor. Last year, I think we gave them $70 million. By ``we,'' I mean the American taxpayer. They have been around since 1937.

The Housing Authority of New Orleans has a spectacular and impressive record of graft, corruption, mismanagement, incompetence, theft. Do you think I am kidding? I came with receipts. It got so bad from 2006 to 2009 that Housing and Urban Development in 2009 had to take them over-- the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development.

From 2006 to 2009, the chief financial officer of HANO stole $900,000 of taxpayer money. A few years later, the guy running HANO's section 8 voucher department just took a voucher for himself and paid his own rent. The skillethead got caught. Boy, that really gave us confidence.

In 2007, the Feds had to step in and investigate--I think in some cases, they prosecuted--a vendor kickback scheme. In 2014, the director of the Housing Authority of New Orleans was investigated for giving out $1 million in no-bid contracts. Guess who they went to. The director's friends. An audit in 2010 found--our auditors couldn't find $7.2 million.

I could go on. I could give you a list as long as King Kong's elbow.

Now I am going to tell you about the most recent episode that has made me want to stick my head in the oven. We have a housing project in New Orleans called the Guste Homes complex. It is in a part of our city called Central City. It is pretty big. It is not particularly well run, but it is pretty big. It has a 12-story building that houses apartments, and I think they have some townhomes as well.

We provide housing--``we,'' once again, being the American taxpayer-- to the elderly and the disabled. They can live there.

And the Guste Homes complex--I call it Guste Homes--is run by HANO, the Housing Authority of New Orleans, the board of commissioners appointed by our mayor.

The Housing Authority of New Orleans has an administrator--and I am not denigrating her. I don't know anything about her. I am just telling you what is going on. But the board and the administrator of the Housing Authority of New Orleans don't run Guste. They are supposed to. They went and hired a management company to run Guste. And the management company, its overhead is about $8 million a year. I am not kidding you. That is money that doesn't go to provide housing to people; it goes into their pocket.

I was looking up one of their consultants. They hired a consultant--I don't think she works there anymore--a Mrs. Sherri--I am going to mispronounce this name--Sengsouvanna. Never met her. I do know that from 2003 to 2024, HANO gave her $660,000 as a consultant. I looked her up.

Here is the way she describes herself:

I am an author, a grief mentor, and an entrepreneur who has

built a career around helping others navigate loss and find

spiritual healing.

Six hundred and sixty grand to her as a consultant; isn't that special?

Well, now, the management company and HANO, they stopped paying the water bill for the people who live in the housing. They have run up a water bill for $1.5 million. They say they don't have the money, and the water company predictably says: Well, hey, we are going to have to cut off your water.

What are we going to do with these 310 folks--elderly, disabled--that the American taxpayer gave money to for their housing?

And now HANO is saying, you know, don't pay the water bill. The water bill is wrong.

I don't know who is right and who is wrong, but I will tell you what else HANO was saying. HANO was saying the Guste project is a mess. Even though we have hired consultants out the wazoo and given them money, we have got a big vacancy rate--no kidding. They don't have running water. We have got a big vacancy, and there is too much deferred maintenance so we want to start over, and, by the way, we want the Federal Government to give us $60 million.

When donkeys fly.

Now, we have got a new mayor in New Orleans. I am delighted we got some new council people. They have got to do their job. I don't want to hear that we are not responsible for HANO. The mayor appoints them. Get rid of the thieves. Get rid of incompetence. Don't come back and ask for more money to fix your mistakes from the American taxpayer. The good people of New Orleans deserve that. They deserve better. Do better. The people living in this complex deserve better.

I have had enough. I have just had enough. Fix it. And if you say: Well, New Orleans--I know, it is a sanctuary city and they have their political beliefs and, by God, they are entitled to them. That is America. You can believe what you want. OK. And they may disagree with the current administration in Washington. That is fine too. This is America, and that has really got nothing to do with this.

But you need to clean up your own act first. I don't know how. I can't tell you how to do it, but the American people gave at the office. I can't tell you how to do it. Maybe you are going to have to borrow the money. Maybe you are going to have to actually raise taxes on the people of New Orleans; I hope not. But at some point--at some point--the money has got to come from somewhere.

Get your act together before you come back to me or anybody else in Washington, going: You got $60 million dollars lying around? Not only can we not pay the water bill, we want to tear the whole thing down and build a new one and have somebody else pay for it.

Gag me with a spoon.

Anyway, I am going to miss Candice. Thank you for your good work, Candice.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, since we have a little time, I know we have got the vote coming up, and I am certainly not going to delay that. I like my life too much. But I want to spend a few minutes talking about the Department of Commerce.

I had this discussion the other day with our Secretary of Commerce Mr. Harry Lutnick, for whom I have great respect. One of the Agencies in the Department of Commerce is an Agency called the Census Bureau. And I know that sounds like they count people--and they do--but they have a multitude of responsibilities. One of their responsibilities is to define the poverty level in America, tell us who is poor.

According to the Census Bureau, if you are single in America and you make $16,000 or less, you are poor; you are below the poverty level. If you are a family of two and you make $20,000 or less, you are at or below the poverty level; a family of three, $27,000; family of four, $32,000.

We take that seriously in America. Other countries let you die in a ditch. We don't do that in America. It is one of the reasons we spend $1.4 trillion a year helping our neighbors who are poor. In our country, if you are hungry, we will feed you; if you are homeless, we will house you; if you are too poor to be sick, we will pay for your doctor. That separates us from just about every other country in the world.

I have been all over this world. I know the Presiding Officer has too. In other countries, they will just let you die in a ditch. We don't do that in America. Mr. President, $1.4 trillion is how much we spend every year. That is taxpayer money. It didn't just fall from Heaven--we thank Heaven for it--it came out of people's pockets.

If you go talk to the Census Bureau--I pointed this out to Secretary Lutnick--if you go ask the Census Bureau how many poor people we have in America, they will tell you 11 percent--1 out of 10 Americans. It has been that way since 1974. We have been spending $1.4 trillion a year, and the poverty level hasn't budged. Eleven percent, they will tell you, and they will shout it from the rooftops.

When they get a letter from another Agency saying ``We need some help to research how many poor people we have in America today,'' they will tell you ``Eleven percent. Eleven percent.'' They are lying. It is a bald-faced lie. Do you know why? Because they don't count--they refuse to count all of the public benefits the American people give to the poor. According to the Census Bureau, the only thing that counts is if you get cash from the Federal Government. We call that welfare. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. We have another program I think that pays cash; it is called WIC.

But according to the Census Bureau, that is the way you define if somebody is in poverty. You look at how much money they make, and on top of that, we consider cash transfer payments from the Federal Government, and when you do that, 11 percent are poor. What planet and what solar system did these people parachute in?

Do you know what they don't count? I will tell you what they don't count. They don't count earned income tax credits. If I make a low enough income myself--let's say I make $15,000 a year. I have to pay tax on that, file a tax return, but if I do, I get an income tax credit. It is called--it is refundable. That means the IRS sends me a check. The American people pay for that, but the Census Bureau says that doesn't count in determining the poor.

Do you know what else they don't count? They don't count food stamps. Huh? Real strong drugs is the only possible explanation for them to not even count food stamps.

Do you know what else they don't count? Housing subsidies, section 8 vouchers, getting to live in a place for free.

Do you know what else they don't count? Utility bill subsidies. They don't count Medicaid. They don't count free school meals.

Do you know why? Because if they counted it, do you know how many Americans would be living in poverty? One percent. And that is an actual fact.

I am going to give you an example. Let's suppose you are a mom with two kids, and you are poor. You work, and you make $11,000 a year, OK? In determining whether that mom is poor, the Census Bureau counts her income and counts any payments she gets, as I said, from welfare. But that mom with

two children making $11,000 a year is going to get back from the Federal Government $4,100 in refundable earned income tax credits.

Remember what I just talked about? The Census Bureau says: Oh, that doesn't matter; not real money.

That mom is going to get back $3,400 in a check in child tax credits. That mom is going to receive $9,200 in food stamps. That mom is going to receive $9,500--or at least she will be eligible to receive it--in housing subsidies. That mom is going to receive $900 in utility bill subsidies, $16,000 in Medicaid for her and her two children, and $31 a year for free school lunches at school for her two kids. Let's suppose that on top of that, she gets $6,600 a year in welfare payments.

Remember, the Census Bureau says that all this stuff doesn't count. The only thing that counts is that the lady works and makes $11,000 a year, and she gets $6,600 in welfare payments, so her income is only $17,600, and she is below the poverty line.

Wrong. You don't have to be Euclid to be able to figure out that if you add up the TANF money and the $11,000 that she earns and the refundable child tax credit and the refundable earned income tax credit and the food stamps and the housing subsidies and the utility bill subsidies and the Medicaid and the free school lunches that I have just talked about--do you know what her income is? It is $64,100 tax free. Yet the Census Bureau says she is below the poverty line.

Now, look, I am not here to begrudge this lady, this hypothetical person. I am going to say it again: The American people are the most generous people in the world. We help our neighbors. But the American people put up this money, and they ought to get credit. And when the Census Bureau, which has been telling us since 1974--they have been lying to us. They have been lying to us. They learned to lie over there before they learned to talk.

They need to redefine the poverty level in America and the definition of ``poverty.'' It is the Census Bureau's job, and that is what I talked to the good Secretary Howard Lutnick about. I talked to him in committee, and he said he would work on it. I thank him for that, and I am going to chase him like he stole Christmas until he does. I am going to chase him like he stole Christmas and Thanksgiving. He can do it with a rule or regulation. I have introduced a bill.

Again, the purpose of this is not to take any money away from anybody; the purpose of this is to tell the American people the truth-- that they are the most generous people in the world and they should be proud of that.

This mother, this poor mom of two--she is not just getting around $17,000 a year; she is getting almost $65,000 a year tax free, but the American people get no credit. And do you know why? Because there are so many people in the bureaucracy--they want us to think everybody is poor so they can go back and back and back to the taxpayer.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary Lutnick, with all the respect I can muster, please fix this. Please fix this. And I am going to keep bringing it up until you do.

I will pass a bill if I can, but it is going to be kind of tough. The short way home here is to have the Secretary--I don't mean disrespect-- to have the Secretary do his job.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask that the scheduled rollcall begin immediately.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 15 minutes to make my remarks.

Mr. President, I want to spend a few minutes talking about a couple of different topics.

First, I want to try to explain to the American people what is going on around here. Some people are going to try to tell you American people that what we are engaged in is a rational discussion of how to use scarce taxpayer dollars to fund the Department

of Homeland Security. That is not true. I wish it were.

The Department of Homeland Security is about to shut down. We don't know how to get it back open. What does that mean? It means ICE will be shut down. We have some ideas about how to keep that operating. They have enough money. It means TSA will be shut down. They are not going to be paid. That will impact airport travel. The Coast Guard will be shut down. FEMA--God help us if we have a natural disaster--it will be shut down.

What is about to happen is top-of-the-list, king-of-the-hill, A-No. 1 stupid. And it is happening not just because of policy, it is happening because of raw, gut politics. If you could see what I see, your gag reflex would be permanently triggered.

Here is what is going on: The Karen wing of the Democratic Party is in control of the Democratic Party and the Karen wing of the Democratic Party--not all Democrats, but there is clearly a Karen wing; sometimes I call them the loon wing--they have gone to Minority Leader Jeffries and my friend Senator Schumer and said: Don't you vote for that Homeland Security bill.

Why? Because the Karen wing of the Democratic Party wants to defund

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I want to talk for a few minutes about national security and top-of-the-list, king-of-the-hill, a No. 1 stupidity.

These are the Chagos Islands. The Chagos Islands--there are 60 of them. They are here in the Indian Ocean. One of those islands is an island called Diego Garcia, on which the United States and our friends in Great Britain have one of the most--if not the most--important military bases in the world. It is jointly administered by both the U.S. and the UK--though, truth be told, most of the firepower is provided by the United States of America.

We use Diego Garcia to conduct training missions. We use it to reload submarines. In fact, it is one of the few military bases where we can actually reload submarines. We use Diego Garcia to respond to tensions throughout the Middle East, throughout Africa, and throughout Asia. Recently, we relocated several B-2 bombers to respond to Iran's aggression toward demonstrators.

There aren't words in English to overstate the importance of the Diego Garcia military installation.

Now, the United Kingdom owns the Chagos Islands. In 1814, the Chagos Islands were owned by France, and they were ceded to the UK.

The UK also owned another island down here called Mauritius.

For many, many years, the United Kingdom, which then owned and still owns the Chagos Islands and in 1814, was ceded Mauritius--for many years, the United Kingdom administered the Chagos Islands from Mauritius. Mauritius never owned the Chagos Islands. Mauritius and the Chagos Islands were owned--both--by the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom administered both islands or groups of islands from Mauritius.

Let me say it again. Mauritius never owned the Chagos Islands.

In 1968, the United Kingdom decided to give Mauritius its independence, but the United Kingdom kept the Chagos Islands. Subsequently, as I mentioned, the United States and the UK built one of the most important military bases in all of human history on Diego Garcia.

Why am I telling you this? Well, a few years ago, Mauritius filed a lawsuit with the International Court of Justice.

The International Court of Justice, as you know, Mr. President, is part of the United Nations, and I don't mean any disrespect, but nobody pays any attention to them. They don't have any authority. They certainly don't have any authority over the United States of America, and they don't have any authority over the United Kingdom either.

But Mauritius files this lawsuit with the International Court of Justice, and it says: The United Kingdom is a bunch of mean, old colonialists.

Now, remember, this is the United Kingdom that gave Mauritius its independence in 1965. Nonetheless, as soon as Mauritius got its independence, they filed a suit in the International Court of Justice and said: The UK is a bunch of mean, old, White, racist colonialists, and we want them to give us the Chagos Islands.

Huh? They actually said: Give us back the Chagos Islands.

Mauritius never owned the Chagos Islands.

But anyway, predictably, the International Court of Justice ruled in favor of Mauritius. I don't think anybody was particularly surprised, nor did anybody pay particular attention until, in recent years, United Kingdom Prime Minister Starmer--the current Prime Minister of the UK is leading the charge--came up with this idea. Why? I don't understand. I guess the Prime Minister feels guilty somehow.

He said: OK, we are going to give the Chagos Islands that we own back to Mauritius--even though Mauritius never owned them--we are going to give the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, but if the United States agrees, we are going to keep the military base here in the Chagos Islands, on Diego Garcia, and--get this; this is really special. Even though the UK owns the Chagos Islands, they said: We will give it to Mauritius, and we will pay Mauritius squillions of dollars to lease from Mauritius the military base for 99 years.

Now, I have thought about why they would do this. Real strong drugs are the only possible explanation for the Prime Minister of the UK to do this--to give away something that the United Kingdom owns to a country that never owned it and pay the country to lease what the United States and

the United Kingdom have already invested billions of dollars in. It has got to be drugs--real strong drugs. But anyway, that is what they did.

Now, as best I can tell, other than Prime Minister Starmer--I don't mean any disrespect; I just think he is wrong. The only person on this planet who thinks this is a good idea besides Prime Minister Starmer is Xi Jinping of China. He has been for years anticipating that this might happen, cozying up to Mauritius, and they have become best buddies.

In fact, China has convinced Mauritius to sign on to two Chinese- instigated--actually, Communist Party of China-instigated--two treaties. One is called the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty. This is a China-backed treaty. They convinced Mauritius to join it. It prohibits the research, stockpiling, and possession of nuclear weapons across the African continent.

OK, you say, what is the harm in that? Well, I am going to tell you in a second.

China also convinced Mauritius to become a partner in what is called the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation trade and security agreement. That is between China and 53 African nations. What does that do? That also maintains a commitment to building nuclear weapon-free zones.

Now, why did China do this, and why should we care? Because once Mauritius owns the Chagos Islands--even though they say they are going to sign a lease and allow the UK and America to continue to operate the military base, once Mauritius owns the islands, I can guarantee you that China is going to put the pressure on Mauritius to allow China to force inspections of military equipment on all of the Chagos Islands, including Diego Garcia.

Isn't that special? President Xi Jinping can't wait. He loves this idea of giving all this away to assuage Prime Minister Starmer's guilt. He loves this idea as much as the devil hates holy water.

Now, President Trump early in his second term--I have given several speeches about this--agreed to it. And I said at the time it was a mistake. A lot of people said it was a mistake.

He got some bad advice, and I know who gave him that advice. And they are no longer there. But be that as it may, I called the President and talked to him about it. And he said: No, I am going to listen to my adviser, and he agreed to it.

The President has recently changed his mind. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Many in the United Kingdom are starting to question the decision of Prime Minister Starmer.

The House of Lords, one of the legislative chambers in Great Britain, has started asking a lot of questions. The people of Great Britain have started asking a lot of tough questions.

Prime Minister Starmer--there will be an election soon. There may be a snap election in the UK at some point, but Prime Minister Starmer is polling right now--he is in a lot of trouble politically. He is polling right now right up there. I think he is just a little bit below toenail fungus among the people of the United Kingdom. He is in deep trouble politically.

Every prognosticator who studies UK politics says that the next Prime Minister and the next party in leadership will be the Reform Party.

And if the Reform Party takes over in the UK, the Reform Party has already announced publicly that the first thing they will do is stop paying money on the lease that Prime Minister Starmer has signed with Mauritius. What happens if the Reform Party does that? I tell you what happens: The lease becomes null and void.

Anybody who knows a law book from a J. Crew catalog knows that if you sign a contract, that is all a lease is. And if you stop making payments, the contract becomes void. And so Mauritius will have the right--they will probably go back to the International Court of Justice, since some people in the leadership of the United Kingdom love it so much, and get a judgment to declare the lease invalid. And then what?

And then Mauritius, which China is courting, is going to become the owner of a joint American-United Kingdom military base on Diego Garcia, one of the most important in the world.

I have got rocks in my driveway that are smarter than this. And many people in the United Kingdom--God bless them. I love the UK. They are our oldest friends in the world. I spent some time there. Went to school there. I love the people of Great Britain. But many of them are waking up.

And they are starting to say to the Prime Minister: This is just a terrible--terrible--idea. And they are saying to the Prime Minister, no disrespect: But, look, we understand that your testicles are on back order from Amazon, but in the meantime, you just can't do this just because you feel guilty--just because you feel guilty because the United Kingdom at one time owned other countries.

Now, look, I don't know what is going to happen. President Trump-- thank you, President Trump, for objecting to this. But I don't know what is going to happen if Prime Minister Starmer, who is polling right up there with fungal infections, decides to go forward and President Trump says no. I don't know what will happen.

If Prime Minister Starmer, because he feels guilty because the good people of Great Britain at one time owned other countries to which they have given their independence--if Prime Minister Starmer is determined to do this, here is what I hope he will do: Rather than giving up the islands to Mauritius, which eventually will end up giving our base to China, allow the United States of America to buy the Chagos Islands. Let's just buy them.

The United Kingdom will get money. The military base will become ours. China will not own the military base. And Mauritius, which has never owned any portion, not one square inch of the Chagos Islands, will not own them either. And the world will be safe.

I am going to end on this note. This is something that the Presiding Officer knows very, very well because I have talked to you about it.

This military installation is very serious. It is very important. Why? Well, President Xi in China and President Putin in Russia and the Ayatollah in Iran have formed a partnership, and the managing partner is Xi Jinping.

And their goal is to have Russia dominate Central and Eastern Europe, to have the Ayatollah in Iran dominate the Middle East, and to have China dominate the Indo-Pacific and be free to roam in Sub-Saharan Africa and South America.

And while they are doing this, Russia and China want to control both the Arctic and space. We all know that is what is going on. The Presiding Officer has seen the same classified information that I have. That is not a world that is safe for America. That is not a world that is safe for America.

I don't want America to be the world's policeman, but I will be damned if I want Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin or the Ayatollah in Iran to be the world's policemen either.

This military base is key. So I am asking you, Prime Minister Starmer--I shouldn't have said what I said. Your testicles aren't on back order from Amazon. I take it back. Please do the right thing here.

If you are determined to give away these islands to Mauritius, which never owned them, which inevitably is going to help China, if you are determined to divest the people of the United Kingdom of these islands, please sell them to the United States. I will sponsor the legislation happily, enthusiastically to appropriate the money to do it. And then the United Kingdom can be out of the picture, and the United States can continue to control one of the mightiest and most important military bases in all of human history.

Mr. President, I get it. I think most of us get it. A lot of moms and dads throughout America tonight are going to lie down and try to sleep and not be able to. And when moms and dads throughout America lie down to sleep and can't, more times than not in America today, they are worried about the cost of living. I get that.

These high prices started under President Biden. But that is not why I am here today. I don't want to blame this on anyone. It is what it is. I just know that you shouldn't have to sell blood plasma in America to go to the grocery store. I just know that you ought to be able to afford a home in America as part of the American dream. The costs have gotten way out of hand. When you are having to pay $500,000--if you can get a loan--to buy and live in a refrigerator box behind Outback, something is wrong in our country. And don't get me started on the cost of healthcare and health insurance and all the other daily expenses that moms and dads have.

They are worried, and I understand they are worried. That is why I want to talk for a few minutes, before I talk about Minneapolis-- because I do want to address that--that is why I want to talk for a few minutes about taxes.

I know some may be thinking, you know: Why does Kennedy--Kennedy just talked about the cost of living in America. Why does he want to talk about taxes?

I know people are thinking: I don't like paying taxes.

They are thinking: You know, I would rather have to listen to O.J. jokes for the rest of eternity than to have to pay taxes.

Nobody likes to pay taxes. It is the price we pay to live in a civilized society.

But this year, we have some good news with respect to taxes, and it is a

result of changes to our Tax Code--the Presiding Officer knows this well--that we made in the One Big Beautiful Bill.

We are told not to call it the One Big Beautiful Bill anymore. There is a new name for it. But, frankly, I think the American people are smart enough to know what we are talking about no matter what name we give to it.

As a result of the changes that we made, and when I say ``we,'' I don't take any joy in having to point out that this was done with only Republican votes. We tried to entice our Democratic friends to join with us. They chose not to. That is their choice. It is a free country. But the tax changes that we made were made solely with Republican votes, and I am proud of them. And I hope both Republicans and Democrats take advantage of them.

As a result of these tax changes, the American people are going to receive up to $100 billion in tax refunds--$100 billion--not million, $100 billion.

What am I talking about? Many people, as the Presiding Officer knows, who are in the hospitality business are no longer going to have to pay for their 2025 taxes, taxes on tips. Not everybody. I don't want to overstate the case, but many of our people in the hospitality industry who made most of their income from tips, as a result of the changes we made for 2025--``we'' meaning Republicans--are not going to have to pay taxes on a portion of those tips.

Many folks in 2025--not everyone, but many people in 2025 who worked overtime--are not going to have to pay taxes, income taxes, on that overtime. That also is contributing to this $100 billion that is going to be returned to the American people in tax refunds.

In our One Big Beautiful Bill, we also increased the standard deduction. For a two-income household, we increased the standard deduction by $1,500. It is going to mean a lot of money back in people's pockets. The standard deduction for joint filers is now $31,500.

As we were making these tax changes--and we, again, regrettably, did it with only Republican votes. We had to. But as we made these tax changes, we also put in a tax deduction for our seniors. People over 65--not everybody, but many Americans over 65--are going to get a new $6,000 senior reduction.

What else did we do? Well, if you pay State and local taxes, real estate taxes, for example, property taxes, we changed the deduction from $10,000 to $40,000. So that means you have a higher deduction on your taxes. It means your taxes are going to go down.

We increased the child tax credit. It is now $2,200 for every child you have. We increased it by $200 per child. Many folks, again, and I won't overstate the case, but many folks who have borrowed money to buy a car and are paying interest will get to deduct a portion of that interest that they pay on their automobile purchase as a result of the changes we made in the One Big Beautiful Bill. And I could go on about other changes we made for small businesses, one in particular. If you are a sub S corp, subchapter S corporation, or you are a limited partnership or what we call an LLC--in Louisiana, that stands for Louisiana limited liability corporation, which means that you are taxed directly on the income that your small business earns--we made permanent 20 percent reductions or distribution of business income for LLCs and LLPs and sub S corporations.

So if you add all of these tax changes up--and, again, I didn't talk about all of the tax changes in the One Big Beautiful Bill, but if you added the ones up that I talked about, that means an extra $100 billion in people's pockets throughout America, Democrats, Republicans, Independents.

And most people, most people have more money held out of their check than they owe the IRS, and that is not unusual, particularly when we make tax changes. I mention that because this means that $100 billion, people are going to get checks from the Federal Government. They are going to get money back. God bless them. They deserve it.

Now, I have got a couple of tips about how you can get that money back quickly, if you are able to do three things:

If you file early, file your tax returns--if you want your money back as quickly as possible, file your tax returns early.

No. 2, file electronically. I know for some that is a pain. I don't much like it. I like to file the paper return. But some people like to file electronically; some people don't. But if you do file it electronically, you are going to get your money back from the Federal Government more quickly.

The third thing you need to do is to tell the Federal Government that you don't want a paper check; you would like your money deposited directly into your bank account.

If you do those three things: file early, file electronically, and tell the IRS that you want the money sent directly, electronically, into your bank account, then you are likely to get your tax refund within 2 to 3 weeks, your portion of that $100 billion, thanks to the One Big Beautiful Bill that Republicans in the House and the Senate passed.

That is going to help a lot in terms of dealing with the cost of living in America, and I am very proud of our effort.

Department of Homeland Security

Mr. President, now let me say a word about Minneapolis. There is a lot we know; there is a lot we don't know. I want to talk about three things we do know.

No. 1, the loss of life in Minneapolis was a tragedy, and if you can't admit that, you have a padlock on your heart. It was a tragedy. We don't have all the facts. I know everyone has seen the videos, but the people involved haven't been interviewed. There are a lot of facts we have but a lot of facts we don't have, and I am not going to rush to judge. I am not going to rush to judge.

President Trump has promised a full and thorough and transparent investigation, and I thank him for that. But regardless of what we find out, we all have to concede, we all should concede that the loss of life in Minneapolis was a tragedy, and I am sorry it happened.

No. 2, this is the second thing that I know. You don't have to be Einstein's cousin, you don't have to be a senior at Caltech to know that illegal immigration is illegal. Duh. It is illegal.

And those of us who believe that no one is above the law--we all say we believe that, I believe it--those of us who say that no one is above the law have to concede that people in our country illegally are not above the law either. The law applies to them as well. Our immigration statutes are not second-tier laws. They matter just as much as the other statutes that have been passed by the elected Members of Congress. And just like the other laws, the immigration laws have consequences and should have consequences if you violate them.

Now, so I guess what I am saying is I support enforcement of our immigration laws. Now, how you enforce those laws, how you enforce those laws matters. Those laws, like all laws, have to be enforced in accordance with due process.

Those immigration statutes, like all laws, have to be enforced in accordance with equal protection. Those laws have to be enforced in accordance with a well-known Supreme Court case, 1968, called Terry v. Ohio, which sets forth the standards--reasonable suspicion is the standard chosen by the Supreme Court--by which someone can be stopped and questioned when a law enforcement official doesn't have probable cause.

Terry v. Ohio has to be followed. So No. 1, illegal immigration is illegal. We should enforce our immigration laws, but how we enforce them matters.

Third and final point, you have the right to protest in America. Let me say that again: You have the right to protest in America. You do not have the right to protest violently. And, in fact, violence as you protest undermines the morality of the thing that you are protesting over.

Let me say that again: Violence, if you choose violence when you protest, that undermines the morality of the movement that you say your movement is based upon. Do you know who else understood that? Dr. King. King understood it. Gandhi understood it. Mandela understood it. Violently protesting--not protesting--but violently protesting undermines the morality that you say your cause is built upon. It is also dangerous. It is dangerous, and it is stupid.

It is a 12-piece bucket of stupid because when you protest violently, when

you interfere with a cop or an ICE officer, it is not going to end well. It is not.

Under the best of circumstances, these officers are trying to enforce Federal law, and the people with respect to whom they are trying to enforce Federal law are, in most cases--I am not going to say all cases--but in most cases are criminals. Not criminals because they are here illegally, though that, too, is a violation of our law, but criminals because they have violated other laws. In many cases, felonies, and those ICE officials, those cops are scared. They are scared. They are dealing with someone who could be armed, someone who could be dangerous.

So you have got a powder keg, and when protesters choose to protest violently and harass those ICE officials and blow whistles in their ears and block their way and spit in their faces and curse them and curse their children, they are giving off sparks in a powder keg.

And it is not going to end well in many cases.

And the truth of the matter is, it has been my experience in life, most--I am not going to say all--most cops will leave you alone unless you do illegal stuff.

So as we go forward in America and try to enforce our laws in conformity with the U.S. Constitution, as we go forward together in America, and while we are respecting people's constitutional rights, we respect our law enforcement officials who are doing a very difficult job--as we go forward in America today, as the President has promised to have a full and fair and transparent investigation of the tragic loss of life in Minneapolis. I hope we can keep those three things that I think all of us can agree upon in mind.

I am sorry we are at this point, but I believe that our future can be better than our present and certainly than our past.

I yield the floor to my esteemed colleague.

Mr. President, I want to speak first for a moment about the Energy and Water Development bill that the Senate will shortly be considering.

As the Presiding Officer knows, our budget is so large that we divide our appropriations bill into 12 separate bills--many bills, if you will--and Members in some cases are assigned and in some cases choose to serve on these subcommittees to draft a portion of the appropriations bill. I have the privilege of serving as the chair of the Energy and Water Development portion of the larger appropriations bill. My ranking member--in other words, the ranking Democrat--is my friend Senator Patty Murray from Washington State.

We have conferenced that bill. What does that mean? Well, that means that all the Democratic members and all the Republican members of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee have worked out our differences. It doesn't mean we are all happy, but we have worked them all out. We also worked out our differences with the House--the Republicans and the Democrats in the House who sit on what we call Energy and Water. I am not saying everybody is happy, but they have accepted the bill. We have reached an agreement, and, in fact, the House has already passed it. We are going to be considering that bill, the Energy and Water bill, here in a couple of days. I just wanted to quickly--I will speak more later, perhaps--I just wanted to quickly highlight what we are going to be voting on here in the next couple days.

The bill is $58 billion. That is less than the current budget. I am very proud of that. I said at the very beginning of this process that I was not going to approve a budget that did anything but spend less. We have done that. Nominally, it is a $27 million reduction. Non- nominally, which means if you factor in inflation, it is a 2.8-percent reduction over the current Energy and Water bill. So in the new fiscal year, fiscal year 2026, we will be spending 2.8 percent less than we are spending on the Energy and Water bill right now. I am very proud of that.

We increased defense spending. As the Presiding Officer knows, the Energy and Water bill is divided into a defense portion and a nondefense portion. We increased spending dramatically for defense. In fact, we are spending $912 million extra on defense in the Energy and Water bill over the current budget--a 2.7-percent increase even though overall the bill is 2.8 percent less.

Well, obviously, we had to cut something. We did. We are cutting nondefense spending, the nondefense portion of the bill, by 3.8 percent. We took a meat ax to the Green New Deal provisions in the current Energy and Water budget. Now, not everybody is happy about it. I get it. But we have already spent a lot--a lot--of money on the Green New Deal--too much, in my judgment--so we reduced it in the new Energy and Water bill.

Moving back just for a second on defense spending, what are we spending that extra money on in defense? Well, I am not going to read everything to you, but suffice it to say we plussed up or increased nuclear weapons development, nuclear weapons sustainment. We are strengthening our nuclear weapons stockpile testing. We are strengthening its certification. We are continuing to provide money for a new nuclear warhead, for a sea-launched cruise missile. We are going to spend more money on plutonium pits and special explosive nuclear materials.

The final two points I will make about our bill: We have substantially increased spending for the Corps of Engineers-- substantially. In the new Energy and Water bill, we are spending $1.7 billion more on Corps of Engineers projects. That is a 19-percent increase. And we are also doubling our spending on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

So to sum up, the Energy and Water bill vis-a-vis the current budget cuts spending by 2.8 percent. We increased defense spending by 2.7 percent. We paid for that increase and accommodated the decrease in overall spending by cutting nondefense, mostly green energy, 3.8 percent. We have increased spending for the Corps of Engineers dramatically--$1.7 billion. That is a 19-percent increase. And we have doubled the amount of money for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

I will be happy, when the time comes when we take up the bill, to answer questions.

Housing

Mr. President, let me talk about another subject: housing. You can't talk about housing if you don't start with supply and demand and the cost of housing. What determines prices in America? In a free enterprise system, what determines the price of housing? A lot of things, but basically it is supply and demand. In a free enterprise system, supply and demand determines price.

Now, no free enterprise system is perfect. Ours is about as perfect as you

can get. In some economies that say they are free enterprise, they are really not. For example, the government will come in and put its thumb on the scale and affect supply and demand. The government might come in--China does this all the time--and say: We are going to favor or subsidize, either with direct money or special loans, solar panels. China does that. They wanted to dominate the world in solar panels. They do. The Communist Party in China went in and gave especially good treatment to the manufacturers of solar panels. I don't much like that. It is China's business. I don't like it when that sort of thing happens in America because it interferes with free enterprise. It is an illegitimate manipulating of price and supply and demand.

How else can prices be affected besides supply and demand? Well, you can have antitrust violations. If all the makers of microwave ovens get together in a back room over cigars and a sip of whiskey and say they are going to fix prices at a certain price, they can run the price of microwave ovens up. That is a crime too. It is illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act. You can go to the pokey for that.

So it is supply and demand. Well, what causes prices--specifically, the cost of housing--to go up? Well, it is when demand for housing is greater than the supply of housing. Duh. It is not complicated.

Remember when we had 9 percent inflation under President Biden--not just in housing but in everything else? I will tell you how that happened. President Biden used the pandemic as an excuse, but we were past the pandemic. He and my Democratic friends appropriated billions and billions and billions of dollars, in many cases directly to the American people, and people got that money and said ``Thank you very much,'' and they went out and spent it. They spent it on goods, and they spent it on services. The problem was the people who produced the services and made the goods were not prepared. Many of them had had supply lines during the pandemic that were affected.

So you had this huge amount of demand with the American people having a huge amount of money, and they wanted to buy, but the supply wasn't there. So what happened? Prices went up. At one point, prices went up to--inflation reached 9 percent.

Now, the good news is that it has come down. So we are better, but we are not well. Inflation--I think new numbers came out today. They are at about 2.7 percent. That means prices are still going up. Many of them have come down. Prices are still going up; they are just not going up as quickly as they were going up under President Biden, thanks to the new economic policies adopted by the Trump administration and the Republican Congress.

One of the things, though, that hasn't come down in price is housing. I don't need to tell the American people. It is just breathtaking. The average first-time home buyer in America today--let's just think about this. To buy a home, you have to save up a downpayment, and you have got to have enough income so they will loan you the money, so you can comfortably pay the mortgage. The average person today, first-time home buyer, doesn't reach those parameters until they are 40 years old--40 years old.

Owning a home is the American dream, and housing has gone up everywhere. It has gone up in my State. It has gone up in the Northeast, the Southwest. It has certainly gone up in California. Hell, a refrigerator box behind an Outback costs $500,000 in California.

Nobody can afford homes anymore; they just can't. Why is that? Well, you can hear a lot of experts talk about it. Some of them will say: Well, it is interest rates; interest rates went up. They did go up. And some will say it is this, and some will say it is that. But I will tell you the main reason housing has gone up so much and hasn't come down: because the demand for a house is greater than the supply. We don't have enough houses; we just don't.

You are probably thinking to yourself, boy, then why doesn't somebody build some? Well, the private sector is trying, but in many States--not all, but in many States and many cities, they are being stopped by local government.

And you say: Whoa. Why? Why would a councilwoman or a councilman in a city of 100,000 people in Colorado not want to see more houses built?

I will tell you why: because that city councilperson--man or woman-- controls the zoning laws and controls, for rules and regulations, housing starts.

A lot of the people--I am not just picking on Colorado; this is true in every State--a lot of the people don't want more houses built. Why? Because they already own a house, and it is worth a lot of money, and it is a big part of their nest egg. They know that if, in their area, more houses start being built, then the price of their home is going to go down and they are going to lose money.

Now, again, I am not picking on Colorado. That is true in Colorado. It is true in every State in our wonderful Union. It is called NIMBY-- not in my backyard. It is especially true in California, the most liberal State God ever put breath in. That is why we are not building more residential housing. That is why housing starts are not going up.

Now, what is Congress's usual reaction to that? Well, we start passing bills telling the folks in local government how to do their job. You won't find housing starts in the U.S. Constitution. You won't find the subject of housing in the U.S. Constitution. It is a State but it is really more of a local issue.

Zoning laws are local. Some States may have a statewide zoning law, but most zoning laws, which determine housing starts--who can build houses and who can't and what size they have to be and how big the lot is and what the streets look like--that is up to the local governments,

Mr. President, with me today is Mr. Nick Ayers, a colleague from my office.

I want to talk about a serious subject. I want to talk about welfare fraud, taxpayer money.

Now, I want to make it clear that I love Minnesota--I love Minnesota--but I do not like people, whether they live in Minnesota or elsewhere, who steal money from the poor. There ought to be a special place in Hell for them. By now, unless you are still living in your parents' basement, playing video games, you know that there has been massive welfare fraud in Minnesota. It is staggering. It is stunning. It is astounding. It may rise to the level of $9 billion of taxpayer money meant for the poor--$9 billion.

It is an uncomfortable truth that, at this juncture, most of that fraud appears to be centered in the community of Minneapolis among people of Somali ancestry. Some have said and suggested that it is racist to say that. Facts are not racist. What I just said is just a fact. So far, there have been 90 people charged, most of whom are of Somali descent. That is just a fact. There are over 100,000 people of Somali ancestry in Minnesota--most of them in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area--and the vast majority of them vote in a bloc, as is their right, and the vast majority of them vote in a bloc for Democratic candidates, as is their right. Some will say Kennedy is being a racist for pointing that out. Let me say it again: Facts are not racist. They are facts. It has already come out at some of the trials, and not all of the folks being charged are of Somali ancestry--I want to make that very clear-- but most of them are. Again, it is just a fact.

I apologize for my voice.

Let me explain what this thievery--this industrial-scale fraud--was just about. It was centered around Medicaid.

As the Presiding Officer knows, Medicaid is a Federal program administered by the States--we put up most of the money--to provide health coverage for poor people, for pregnant women, for children, and for disabled people. President Obama, through ObamaCare, extended Medicaid to some of the folks in the middle class, but, still, the main purpose of Medicaid is to help poor

folks and disabled folks because, in America, we help our friends.

You know, I was looking at a number the other day. In the last 50 years, the American economy has grown 142 percent over the last 50 years. The American economy has grown 142 percent over the last 50 years. It is a pretty extraordinary number. Welfare spending in America has grown 765 percent. So I get a little upset when some people say: Well, you know, the American people are selfish. We spend over $1 trillion a year helping our neighbors who are less fortunate than us, mostly the poor. In our country--I have said this before--if you are hungry, we will feed you. If you are homeless, we will house you. If you are too poor to be sick, we will pay for your doctor. Other countries let their fellow citizens die in a ditch. We don't do that in America. The American people have stepped up to the plate.

So, when people steal this money--this $1 trillion-plus a year that we spend in helping our neighbors--when people steal that money, it offends me. When they steal from the poor and they steal from the American taxpayer, it offends me equally.

As for the folks in Minnesota and elsewhere who stole this money, who took a giant whiz--a giant Great Dane whiz--down the leg of every taxpayer and poor person in America, every one of them ought to go to jail. It looks like, so far, there are four probes.

Let me just say the Federal Government puts up most of the money for Medicaid, not all of it. In some cases, the Federal Government puts up as little as 50 percent. In some cases, 90 percent of the money being spent on Medicaid comes from Federal taxpayers. We designed the rules at the Federal level. We put up most of the money, but the States are supposed to implement the program, and they are supposed to combat fraud, but many of them don't. The GAO says, of that $1 trillion I talked about that the American people spend on welfare, as much as a quarter of a trillion, maybe more--$250 billion or more--is stolen, and it has got to stop.

I am going to talk about a solution in a moment, but let me tell you what was happening in Minnesota.

One of the things Medicaid does, along with the Food Stamp Program, is to feed people, particularly children. So what these thieves in Minnesota were doing is they were setting up these fictitious corporations and applying to Gov. Tim Walz' Medicaid office for money to distribute to the poor. Gov. Tim Walz' welfare office would give them hundreds of millions of dollars. Of course, the thieves running these fictitious corporations sucked it up like a Hoover Deluxe.

Then these fictitious corporations would go to restaurants in the community--many of them in the Somali community--and say: Here is the deal. I want you to fill out a report saying you fed all of these poor people. Of course, you are not feeding anybody. Just lie and give me the report and I will give you a percentage of the money that I am stealing from the American taxpayers and the people of Minnesota.

That is what they did, but they didn't just limit it to food. It was industrial-scale fraud.

Next, they moved to healthcare. Some formed fictitious corporations, companies, saying: We are going to deliver--I said healthcare; I meant childcare--to poor people, homeless people.

So the fictitious companies run by these thieves would go to Governor Walz' agencies and say: Give us a bunch of money. We are going to house homeless people.

Governor Walz would give them the money, and these thieves sucked it up like a Hoover Deluxe.

Then they went to a bunch of folks in the community and said: Henceforth, you are in the housing business, and you need to fill out a report. It is a lie. Fill out a report saying you are providing housing for a bunch of people--of course, they weren't--and then we, the thieves who got the money from Governor Walz, will kick you back a little bit of the money.

Did they stop there? No.

They moved into--I just described housing. Then they moved into childcare. Under Medicaid, you can use money to provide childcare.

So the thieves formed a bunch of new fictitious companies and went to Governor Walz and his agencies and said: Give us a bunch of welfare money, Medicaid money, to give childcare to folks who are poor.

Then the thieves running the fictitious company went to families-- many of them in the Somali community--and said: Do you have a child who is autistic? If so, we want to sign him up.

But if some of the families said: No, we don't have a child who is autistic, the thieves said: Don't worry about it. Lie. Tell us you have a child who is autistic. Whether your child is autistic or not, we are not going to provide any services for your children, but we will kick you back some of the money.

It is disgusting. So it was in childcare, housing, autism, food--$9 billion and climbing.

Now, Governor Walz--in fact, I probably shouldn't repeat this, but I read something on the internet the other day. Somebody made an observation, and I don't want to paint too broad a brush because there are some fine childcare services in Minnesota as there are elsewhere, but the person on social media asked a question: How do you know if you have discovered one of these fictitious childcare services?

Well, you go there, and no one is inside, but the owner pulls up in a Lamborghini.

And that is what happened.

The people who were stealing the money directly from Governor Walz and then giving it to the folks who were helping them--the restaurants that were creating fictitious lists of people they fed and autistic children they were helping who weren't autistic--they took the money, too, and all of them had a big old party. They bought cars. They bought jewelry. They took expensive vacations. They sent money back to Somalia.

There is an investigation going on right now--I am not saying it is true--that some of the money might have gone to terrorist organizations in Somalia. This is American taxpayer money these people were taking out of the mouths of poor people.

Governor Walz--I know nothing about this man; it is news to me--said: In fact, I am taking some bold steps.

He said: First, I am not going to run for a third term.

I guess he needs more time--I hope he uses the time to prepare his defense because he has got a lot to defend here. He knew what was going on. In fact, one of the lawyers representing one of the thieves in this case said that many of the people--this was their excuse. He said that many of the people involved in the stealing thought that the State was OK with it. That is what he said. Here is his quote:

No one was doing anything about the red flags.

Red flags were everywhere. Nobody in State government, he said, was doing anything about the red flags.

It was like someone was stealing money from the cookie jar and they kept refilling it.

The State knew.

(Mr. HAGERTY assumed the Chair.)

And at one point, Governor Walz and some of his agencies said: Whoa, you know, maybe we ought to put a stop to this.

And they backed off. They said: No more money for a while.

Well, fresh hell broke loose. Do you know what happened? The largest, most powerful, fictitious company, run mostly by people of Somali ancestry, sent an email to the Minnesota State government, and they said that the State agency that was failing to promptly approve new applications and give us new money from ``minority-owned businesses''-- it was going to result in a lawsuit featuring accusations of racism that would be sprawled across the news.

If you don't give us our money, we are going to call you a racist.

They did it. It has all come out in evidence at trial. In fact, someone by the name of Kayseh Magan--he is one of the good guys. He is a Somali American who used to work as a fraud investigator in the attorney general's office, who, by the way, was just as involved as Governor Walz in turning a blind eye to all this. He says--and he said it in the newspaper--that elected officials, and particularly those who are part of the State's Democratic-led administration, were reluctant to take more assertive action in response to the allegations.

Why? Here is the quote.

There is a perception that forcefully tackling this issue

might cause political backlash among the Somali community,

which is a core voting bloc [for Democrats].

And he is among the few among many prominent figures in the Somali community who is speaking out against the fraud.

In fact, at one point, a bunch of State employees--I don't remember how many, but they posted a letter publicly on social media saying: Governor Walz and the attorney general knew about this all the time, and we told them. We warned them early on.

And you know what they did? They just stood there sucking on their teeth. They did nothing.

So you know what the State employees did? They went to the U.S. attorney. They went to the U.S. attorney, and the U.S. attorney jumped all over this and said: This is obvious fraud. And that is how all this got started.

Now, what do we do about it? Well, first, I don't think that the only place this is happening is Minnesota, and, certainly, there are people involved in welfare fraud besides the few Somali Americans in Minnesota. And I mentioned the Somali Americans because it is just a fact. I mean, it is a fact in the trial of these disputes, the politics of it and everything else, in the litigation. I think it is happening in various degrees all over America.

Let me say it again. We are spending a trillion dollars a year of American taxpayer money to help poor people, provide welfare, and the GAO estimates that at least $250 billion is being stolen every year.

We took some baby steps in the One Big Beautiful Bill, as the Presiding Officer knows. We tightened up eligibility requirements. We are requiring States to check twice a year to make sure people don't lie when they sign up for Medicaid or for food stamps or for housing assistance. We have implemented a work requirement.

But we need to do more. We need to do more. And that is why we need to do another reconciliation bill.

Now, I hope I am wrong when I say this. I hope I am wrong. I invite my Democratic colleagues in the Senate--I love them all--to come forward and help us. But I just know politics, and the Presiding Officer does too. A lot of them are going to be reluctant.

But we don't need their assistance. We can pass a welfare security bill with all Republican votes. If I could do it on my own, I would introduce the bill tomorrow. I would go and look at every single State and every single country and look for the best practices on presenting welfare fraud. I would cross-access a list of people who sign up for welfare to their tax records, if they have any. Sometimes, people lie. In Louisiana, we have caught people making a quarter of a million dollars a year getting Medicaid. But you have to check. Apparently, nobody was checking in Minnesota, and I don't think they are alone.

If it were up to me, I am drafting that bill now. I will look at every State, every country, and adopt the best practices. And my bill can be ready in 2 weeks, but I can't do a thing about getting it passed because I don't have the authority to bring it to the floor of the Senate. I don't. Only the majority leader can agree to bring a bill to be considered by the Senate. Those are the rules. If I were King for a day, I would change it in a nanosecond. I think every Senator ought to be able to bring his bills to the floor. And that is not a criticism of my good friend John Thune or my good friend Mitch McConnell or my friend Chuck Schumer. They are just following the rules. I would change them.

But we need to do another reconciliation bill to fix the welfare system and stop the stealing--stop the stealing. And we can do it with all Republican votes.

So, please, Senator Thune--pretty please, as I have said before. I am saying this. I will beg. I will get down on my knees. John, please bring another reconciliation bill. We can do so much, but we can start with fixing welfare fraud. Please, John. Please let us do the bill.

I don't want to end on a negative note. I might have hurt my back going down. I don't want to end on a negative note. I love this country. I just think America is the greatest country in all of human history; I do.

And the whole world knows it. Everybody wants to come here. When is the last time you heard of somebody trying to sneak into China? No, they want to come to America. And I believe, as much as I am standing here, that the future of this country can be better than the present or our past. It can be. I have always believed that we are only as good as our dreams; we are only as valuable as our children.

But I am not going to bubble-wrap it. We have $30-plus trillion worth of debt, and we have people stealing from poor people and laughing about it--and politicians participating in it. And Washington has to do its part to fix this. But the water is not going to clear up for America--the water is not going to clear up for America until we get the pigs out of the creek. Let's go get the pigs out of the creek.

Please, Senator Thune, please, let us do another reconciliation bill. Please, lead with welfare reform. We can do it. You can do it. I know you can.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to talk for a few minutes about money--money, money, money--people's money.

Like the Presiding Officer, I have learned a few things in life. I want to mention two. No. 1, money does not buy happiness. No. 2, poverty does not buy a damned thing, and that is the theme of my few minutes as I talk today.

This is about people's money, and it has to do with unredeemed, uncashed savings bonds.

Now, the Presiding Officer knows what I mean when I talk about a bond. Usually, when we are talking on the Senate floor, we are talking about Treasury bonds or Treasury bills or Treasury notes. I want to talk about a different kind of bond today. It is the same principle but a different animal. It is called a savings bond.

Savings bonds used to be very, very popular in America, particularly in the last century, particularly during World War II. They are less popular today because there are so many other ways to earn interest on your money, although many people still believe in savings bonds. I do. It is a great way to invest your money.

What am I talking about when I say a savings bond as opposed to a Treasury bond? Well, let's take the example of one particular savings bond. It is called an EE U.S. savings bond.

A savings bond is just a loan to the Federal Government. Suppose I have $1,000, and I want to loan it to the Federal Government because the Federal Government will pay me interest. I could go to the Federal Government and say: I am going to loan you $1,000.

The Federal Government would say: Thank you very much. Here is your EE U.S. savings bond.

This is how it would work: The Federal Government would guarantee me that after 20 years, my $1,000 would double. So I would hand them-- ``them'' meaning the government--$1,000, and 20 years from now, I would get back $2,000.

If I didn't really need my money after 20 years, I could let the government keep it--loan it to the government, if you will--for another 10 years, and they would continue paying me interest.

Now, there are two things you need to note about what I just talked about, this EE savings bond.

No. 1, unlike a regular corporate bond, when I loan that $1,000 to the Federal Government and get back an EE U.S. savings bond, I don't get periodic interest payments. The interest accrues and it compounds. When I give the government $1,000, I don't get quarterly interest payments, but at the end of the 20 years, I get back $2,000. Roughly, in today's market, I am making about 2.7 percent a year, but it is very, very safe. If you believe in the sovereignty of the Federal Government--our Federal Government being part of the wealthiest country in all of human history--then it is a pretty safe investment.

The other thing you need to note about the savings bond, in addition to the fact that they don't pay me periodic interest--I get all my interest

when I get my principal back at the end of 20 years--is that at some point, as in the example I just gave, after 30 years, the Federal Government stops paying me interest; interest stops accruing. So if I loan the Federal Government $1,000, and after 20 years, interest is accrued, if I want to, I can redeem my savings bond, and they will give me $2,000. Maybe I say ``OK, I will re-up another 10 years and continue to earn interest,'' but 30 years is the limit. After 30 years, if I don't redeem my bond, I am loaning money to the Federal Government interest-free, and that would be a dumb thing to do.

But not everybody redeems their bonds. A lot of people don't--more people than you would imagine. Life comes at us pretty fast. You know, you buy a savings bond or maybe your grandparents or your parents buy you a bond when you are young. You grow up, you get married, you have kids, and you get a job and then you change jobs. You move around the country. A lot of people forget those savings bonds. They still own the savings bonds, but they just forget to redeem them, so the government just has an interest-free loan.

Here is what I am driving at: Right now, over in the U.S. Department of the Treasury, there are 100 million unredeemed savings bonds. It is money that belongs to the American people. It is no longer earning interest. There are 100 million savings bonds. There are only 340 million people in America, so it is a little less than a third of the people in America--although I realize some may be deceased--who have one of these savings bonds, where the Federal Government owes them money, but the money is just sitting there, and the Federal Government is using it, and they are not paying people interest.

The total amount of these unredeemed savings bonds is $36.27 billion.

And that $36 billion has been there a long, long time because people have either died or they have forgotten that they have these unredeemed savings bonds.

Now, this is very uncool.

A few years ago, back in 2023, I introduced a bill which actually passed; I got it passed. It said to the Federal Government, specifically, the U.S. Department of the Treasury: You have got to give this money back. You have got the names of people on these bonds. In many cases, you have the addresses. In a lot of cases, you have the serial numbers.

Why are you just sitting on this $36 billion, these 100 million bonds? Why don't you contact people and give them their money?

And they said: Kennedy, you don't understand. First of all, they said, our records are a mess. Some of these bonds go back--I don't know--75 years before there were computers. The Treasury Department said to me: The records are not digitized. We would have to comb through boxes and boxes and boxes to get names and addresses, and it is just--it is just a lot of trouble.

I said: Well, I feel your pain, but you still ought to return the money to people.

So here is what I am going to do: I am going to introduce a bill--and I did, and I passed it--that says the Federal Government has got to return this money to the people to whom it is owed. In that bill, I provided money for the U.S. Department of the Treasury to digitize those records, to go out and hire a consultant to go through all the records and put them in the database so they can be easily searched.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury has done that. I want to thank them. Hasn't been the easiest thing I have ever done. I worked with Secretary Mnuchin first and then Secretary Yellen and now Secretary Bessent and all of the good women and men who work for them. But we finally have gotten it done.

Here is what we are ready to do. We are ready to turn the names and addresses and serial numbers over to the treasurer of every State--in Louisiana, in West Virginia, and every other State. We are going to give them the names and addresses and serial numbers so they can contact people in their State and say: The Federal Government has your money, and we want to get it back to you.

Why are we doing it that way through the States instead of just telling the U.S. Department of the Treasury to start calling people up? Well, because the States are very experienced.

Every State has what is called an Unclaimed Property Program. What is an Unclaimed Property Program? Well, every State has a law that says if a business--usually, it is a business, not always--but if a business has your money and it can't find you, that business can't keep it.

At the end of a certain period of time--usually 3 to 4 years--that business has got to turn that money over to the State--it is called unclaimed property--and the State has got to help give it back to people.

What am I talking about? Let's say a utility deposit--happens all the time. People move into an apartment. They post a utility deposit with the electricity company. They move. They forget to get their deposit back.

Apartment deposit works the same way. Tax refunds. Stocks. Maybe you own a stock, and it is being held by your brokerage company and you move and you don't leave a forwarding address or the forwarding address expires. That security company can't--that brokerage can't just keep that stock. That brokerage turns that stock over to the State treasurer of every State, and it is their job to return it to people.

Let me tell you something, the States do a marvelous job. You can go to every single State right now--just Google it--and find the State's unclaimed property program, and you can go spend a few minutes. You put in your name. You can put in your parent's name. You can put in your friend's name. You can put in the name of the town in which you were raised and find people who are owed unclaimed property. The treasurers do a great job of getting it back.

They not only have websites, but they advertise--and toll free numbers. They just do a wonderful job of getting money back to people. When I was State treasurer of Louisiana, I was in charge of Louisiana's Unclaimed Property Program, and I was there for 17 years. I think I returned $400, $500 million to the people of Louisiana. I had a whole unclaimed property section, men and women who would contact people all day long, and we had a very sophisticated database.

So that is why the U.S. Department of the Treasury, under my legislation, is not going to give this money back itself. It is going to return--or give the information to the treasurer of every State, and the treasurer of every State is going to be in charge of contacting people.

We have gone through this. We have been working on it. I passed the bill in 2023, I think, but we worked on it for 2 years prior to that. But we are almost home. What now we have to do is get the State treasurers to sign an agreement with the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

All the State treasurers have to do is sign an agreement with the U.S. Department of the Treasury to cooperate. The Treasury will send them the names, and we can start returning this money to people.

I am going to be sending another letter out in short order to all the State treasurers asking them to go ahead and sign that user agreement with the Treasury Department so we can start getting this money back to people.

It is free money. And remember, there are 100 million bonds, 340 million people in America, $36 billion that is owed to the American people that the Federal Government has just been sitting on that hasn't been returned. And now we are going to start doing it, if I can just get our State treasurers to turn in these user agreements. Some of them have but others have not yet. You may not get a check for Christmas, but if you hurry up, you can get a check in January or February so you can pay some bills.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two of my colleagues from my office, with whom I work, who are working with me for a few weeks, Colyn Lorey and John Tober, be granted floor privileges until December 4, 2025.

Mr. President, as you well know, the American people are the most generous people in the entire world. In our country, when you are hungry, we feed you; when you are homeless, we house you; when you are too poor to be sick, we will pay for your doctor. We spend trillions of dollars a year helping our friends and neighbors who are less fortunate than we are, and that is rare in this world.

I have been all over our wonderful world. You have, too, Mr. President. In many countries, if you get down on your luck, they will let you die in a ditch. But not in America. Not in America. We take care of our fellow citizens. But it is expensive. We spend trillions of dollars a year to do this, and that money we spend didn't just fall from Heaven. We thank Heaven for it, but it came out of taxpayers' pockets, and we shouldn't lose sight of that fact.

That is why I get so irritated--``irritated'' is the wrong word-- angry when I find out that people take advantage of the American people's generosity. It makes me want to knee someone in the groin. It just makes me furious, and I think the American taxpayers feel the same way.

What I am about to tell you, Mr. President--let me apologize in advance--is deeply disgusting. It is deeply disgusting. I mean, it is clown world on steroids. When I first read about this, I read it a second time because I experienced slack-jawed astonishment. When I read it a second time and I realized it was true, I just wanted to run away screaming.

What am I talking about? We have discovered--the Federal prosecutors have discovered that for the last 5 years, there has been massive welfare fraud in the great State of Minnesota--massive. Over $1 billion of American taxpayer money has been stolen--just stolen. They can call it fraud, but a better term would be ``stealing.''

This fraud has been centered in the Somali community in Minnesota. Now, I am not here to criticize the Somali community; I am here simply to describe what happened. The Somali community in Minneapolis is about 80,000 people. They are centered around Minneapolis. And let me say it again: I am not here to denigrate the Somali people or people of Somali ancestry just because of the actions of a few, but it is a fact that this $1 billion in welfare fraud occurred almost exclusively in the Somali community in Minnesota and was orchestrated by people of Somali ancestry. That is a fact. Facts aren't racist; facts are facts. So far, 59 people have been convicted, 86 have been charged, and 78 of them are of Somali ancestry. That is just a fact.

Now, what these criminals did was they had three very elaborate schemes. The first scheme was centered on supposedly feeding hungry children in the Somali community. A group, a nonprofit run by some people of Somali ancestry--the name of the nonprofit was ``Feeding Our Future.'' Feeding Our Future went to the welfare authorities in the State of Minnesota, which, of course, was administering Federal taxpayer money, and Feeding Our Future said: We want to feed hungry children in the Somali community.

The welfare people and State government in Minnesota gave them the money to do that. It started out very small. The idea was that Feeding Our Future, the Somali nonprofit organization, would take this Federal taxpayer money, American taxpayer money, and go to businesses--most of which were Somali businesses in the Somali community--and set up feeding sites where they supposedly would take children to get a hot meal.

On paper, it sounded great. As I say, it started out very, very small--just a few million dollars--but eventually it got bigger and bigger and bigger, and more businesses in the Somali community signed up to be feeding sites. Feeding Our Future, the Somali nonprofit, kept going back to the Social Services Department in Minnesota and saying: We need more money. We need more money.

At the height of the fraud, they were spending about $100 million a year--not over the lifetime of the program, $100 million a year.

There is just one problem: There were hungry children; they just weren't getting any of the money. The businesses, many of which were Somali-owned, which were getting some money to feed the children from Feeding Our Future, the nonprofit that was quarter-backing this whole thing, weren't giving any of the money to hungry children. They were spending it. These businesses were spending it on yachts and vacations and jewelry and furniture for their homes.

That was scheme No. 1. But it got worse. The second scheme was supposedly to help people who are homeless. Remember I said that in America, when you are homeless, we will house you? Well, that is what they were trying to do in Minnesota.

A nonprofit was set up--again, run by someone of Somali ancestry--and this nonprofit went to a bunch of providers who supposedly were going to provide housing, and they told the welfare authorities in Minnesota that they needed millions of dollars to house people who were homeless.

Once again, the program started out small. When they started it in 2020--these crooks started it in 2020--they said ``We only need $2.6 million,'' but then in 2021, they said ``We need $21 million.'' In the following years--they said ``We need $42 million'' the next year, then $74 million to house the homeless, and then $104 million a year--not the total scheme, a year.

There is just one problem: None of the money was going for housing. None of the money was going to help people who were homeless. These providers and this nonprofit that was coordinating it just put the money in their pockets.

But there is more. They came up with a third scheme. This one makes you want to throw up in a potted plant. This one is centered around autistic children. Once again, in this third program, a group of providers--supposedly medical providers--got together, and they went to the welfare authorities in Minnesota and said: We need money to help autistic children.

They said: Well, that is a wonderful thing to do.

Then these providers, once the welfare department at the State government in Minnesota gave them the OK, went out and started recruiting autistic children. They say: Well, OK. We have to get the word out somehow.

But they couldn't find very many autistic children, so they started going to parents in the Somali community and saying: Can we call your child autistic? Can we certify that your child is autistic? If you let us do that, we will pay you a bribe, anywhere from $400 to $1,500 a child.

Now, once again, the program didn't start big. These were sophisticated

crooks. Its leader was a woman by the name of Asha Farhan Hassan. She was also in, by the way, on the feeding of the children scam as well.

As best we can tell, they approached parents only in the Somali community, but once again, they couldn't find enough autistic children, so they bribed many parents in the community, gave them money to certify that their children were autistic.

In the first year, they were clever: They only asked for $3 million. The second year, in 2019, they asked for $54 million. Then in 2020, they went up to $77 million. Then in 2021, they really got greedy: They went to $183 million. In 2022, $280 million; and in 2023, $400 million.

All told, in these three fraud schemes, these crooks stole $1 billion of taxpayer money.

The worst part--what I started to say is the worst part, but let me amend it. The equally bad part: Hello, how could this happen? Why didn't the people in the Department of Social Services and the Welfare Department and State government, when they saw these claims arising, why didn't they say something? Didn't they go out and check these businesses that were supposedly sites to feed homeless children? Didn't they go talk to some of the children and their parents to see if some of the children really were autistic? Didn't the State authorities say: Show us one of the homes you are providing to the homeless people? After all, we are spending $1 billion.

They didn't because the politicians wouldn't let them. And the crooks who were setting all this up, they were pretty smart. I will give you one example. Remember, I talked about the nonprofit involved in feeding the so-called hungry children called Feeding Our Future. The rank-and- file employees in the Welfare office started getting suspicious when the claims went up, and they contacted Feeding Our Future. They said: Hey, what is going on here? We are going to start cutting off these claims because it is getting a little bit expensive.

You know what Feeding Our Future did? They threatened the employees. They said: If you cut off our money--they sent them an email, and they did it by phone. They told the State agency that failing to promptly approve new applicants from minority-owned businesses would result in a lawsuit--a lawsuit--feeding accusations of racism that would be scrawled across the news--scrawled across the news. Feeding Our Future went to the State and said: If you stop giving us this money, we are going to call you racist and we are going to sue you and you don't want to be in the news.

You say: Why didn't the employees do something? They did. They told the people higher up, the people with the flags in their office. And you know what they did? Nothing. Do you know why?

Well, here is what the legislative auditor in Minnesota said: He said that the threats of litigation and the negative press affected how the State politicians used their regulatory power. Here is what a fraud investigator in the attorney general's office said. She said:

There is a perception that--

I am quoting now.

--that forcefully tackling this issue would cause political

backlash among the Somali community, which is a core voting

bloc [for Democrats].

In fact, one of the other witnesses in the fraud investigation said: Look, you told the prosecutors--let me just give you a cold dish of truth--the 80,000 voting bloc of folks with Somali ancestry, you have to have their votes to win in Minneapolis. If you are a Democrat and you can't win Minneapolis, you can't win the State. So the politicians did nothing.

Don't just take my word for it, and don't blame the State employees. They tried. In fact, recently, the State employees, they just said: Look, we have had enough. They posted this. These are several hundred employees from the Minnesota Department of Human Services who administered this program, who just get up every day and go to work and do their job and want to help people. This is what they posted on social media. I am quoting now:

Governor Tim Walz is 100% responsible for massive fraud in

Minnesota.

I am sure he wasn't the only one because this fraud was an open secret. But I am quoting from what the employees said.

Governor Tim Walz is 100% responsible for massive fraud in

Minnesota. We let Tim Walz know of fraud early on--

That is the employees talking--

hoping for a partnership in stopping fraud, but no, we got

the opposite response. Tim Walz systematically retaliated

against whistleblowers using monitoring, [using] threats,

[using] repression, and did his best to discredit fraud

reports. Instead of partnership, we got the full weight of

retaliation by Tim Walz and an indifferent mainstream media.

It's scary, isolating and left us wondering who we can turn

to.

And now, there are reports coming out. I don't know if they are true, but I know the prosecutors are desperately trying to get to the bottom of it. And I don't want to say that this is true, but a report came out in a publication called City Journal, which is published by the Manhattan Institute. They are alleging that money--part of this billion dollars that was stolen--they are alleging at least a portion of it went to a terrorist organization in Somalia that we have all heard of. It is notorious. It is an organization called al-Shabaab. They hate Americans. They are terrorists. They want to kill Americans and drink their blood out of a boot. They were taking a cut, according to this claim.

Again, I don't know if it is true, but the prosecutors are trying to get to the bottom of it.

There have been a lot of allegations about racism in these reports. They are saying: Oh, you are just picking on the Somali community. I am not, and I don't think the American people are. I think what they are picking on are crooks. They are picking on crooks. Everything I just gave you is facts. It has nothing to do with race.

But it is a fact that these $1 billion schemes were cooked up by leaders in the Somali community in Minneapolis and in Minnesota. It is a fact that most of the businesses that participated in this fraud--in this thievery--were run by people of Somali ancestry. I am not saying that is a good thing. I am not saying that is a bad thing. That is just a fact. And I don't think we ought not to talk about it.

And it is a fact that the kickbacks paid to parents to allow their children to be signed up as autistic in order to get the Federal taxpayer money--the parents were of Somali ancestry. It doesn't give me any pleasure to say that, but it is a fact.

And it is a fact that the politicians, not the employees--the rank- and-file employees in the Welfare offices--but the politicians in Minnesota let this happen.

It is disgusting--disgusting.

We are trying to put together a budget right now, and we have State officials in Minnesota--because they wanted votes--that are allowing people in their State who are crooks to steal $1 billion from the American taxpayer, money that could have gone to people who really were homeless and children who really were hungry and kids who, through no fault of their own, really were autistic, instead of stolen--a portion of which allegedly was sent to a terrorist organization in Somalia.

Man, these people ought to all be put in jail, including the politicians. It makes me want to stick my head in an oven.

I want to end on a less negative note. I am sorry to talk about this, but the American people need to learn the truth. A lot of members of the media won't report this. They say you can't talk about it because it is racist. This has nothing to do with race. Everything I said is factual. What is racist about facts?

I don't want to end on that kind of note. I have been to this floor before. I will be back.

Mr. President, moms and dads across America are having a little trouble sleeping these days. And when moms and dads in America lie down to sleep at night and they can't, they are worried. They are worried about things like the cost of living. They are worried about things like the cost of housing. They are worried about things like their insurance premiums going up. They are wondering if it is ever going to get any better. They are tired of having to pay more, live worse. They are worried that eventually they are going to have to sell blood to go to the grocery store.

Why are they feeling that? It is called inflation. And the inflation started under President Biden. As we know, it got to 9 percent. I won't go into the reasons why. We are doing better. We got it down to 3 percent. When you get inflation down from 9 percent to 3 percent, that is called disinflation.

What is disinflation? It just means disinflation is when the rate of inflation decreases, in this case from 9 percent to roughly 3 percent. Disinflation doesn't mean prices are going down. It just means that prices are rising less quickly. Under President Biden, they were rising at 9 percent. Now they are only rising at 3 percent.

In order for prices to actually go down, we would have to have deflation--not disinflation but deflation. We have to be careful what we wish for because deflation comes with some pretty severe consequences. We can get prices down through deflation, if we go into a recession, if you raise unemployment, allow unemployment to rise to about 8 or 9 percent where people lose their jobs. We are witnessing deflation right now in China. For kids in China who just got out of college, their unemployment rate is 25 percent. That is why their prices are going down.

There is a better way to help people deal with disinflation. That is to get their incomes up through tax reform, through regulatory reform, through designing a healthcare delivery system that looks like somebody designed the damn thing on purpose. And that is what we ought to be working on. If we--I don't have control of the floor. If I had control of the floor, I would be here every single day introducing bills. I see Senator Reed here. He would be doing the same thing, introducing bills to help the American people. But I don't have control of the floor.

I am not criticizing the people who do. That is above my pay grade. I am labor. They are management. But I know this, first, if we will ever get to do that, I will ask our Democratic friends to join with us. They may or may not. I don't know. But if they decline to join with us, then through reconciliation, which is how we passed the One Big Beautiful Bill, we can pass these measures to increase wages for the American people with a majority vote. We won't need Democratic votes. That is what we did with the One Big Beautiful Bill, and we can do it two more times before the midterm elections. We passed the One Big Beautiful Bill on July 1.

In the meantime, I am not saying we haven't been doing important things, but we haven't been working on a plan to help people deal with the cost of living, and we should be.

So I am going to end like I ended the last time. I am saying to the powers that be: Pretty please, with sugar on top--I will add a cherry. I have even got an old McDonald's McRib coupon somewhere, and I will throw that into the mix too. Please bring another reconciliation bill. Please. Let's deal with the problems that are causing moms and dads to lie awake when they lie down to sleep at night and can't.

I went on too long. I apologize to Senator Reed.

I yield to my friend Senator Reed from the wonderful State of Rhode Island.

Madam President, with me today is one of my colleagues from my office Mr. Nick Ayers.

Every time I look at or read an article about the One Big Beautiful Bill, I am shocked--though that sounds pejorative, maybe ``impressed'' is the right word--at its breadth. It is such an expansive piece of legislation.

On the airplane flying back from our last break, I sat down with some of my notes and just made a quick list off the top of my head of some of the things that we did in the One Big Beautiful Bill. And I hate to read to people, but I will just read you from my notes--and I won't even read all of them--but this is what we did in the One Big Beautiful Bill.

We extended the 2017 tax cuts. We saved $1.3 trillion for the American people. We made them permanent. We cut taxes on tips. We cut taxes on overtime. We cut taxes on Social Security. We provided deductions for car loans. We increased the standard deduction. We continued the 20 percent income deduction for LLCs. We repealed the IRS reporting requirements for gig workers. Nobody ever talks about that. That was huge.

We passed school choice tax credits--first time Congress has ever done something like that. We enhanced 529 education savings accounts. We provided full expensing for research and development.

I mean, I could keep going here.

We reformed Medicaid. We ended Federal payments for abortion and gender surgery and sex change operations through Medicaid.

I could go on for 20 more minutes. It is just an extraordinary piece of legislation.

My only regret with respect to the bill is that we did it without Democratic votes. We did it with all Republican votes. I wish that hadn't been the case. I wish we had been able to convince some of our Democratic colleagues to join with us.

The obvious question while I make my statement is: How did you do that? How did you get past the filibuster? It takes 60 votes. You don't have to be an astrophysicist to know that about the U.S. Senate.

Well, as you know, Madam President, we did it under reconciliation.

Under reconciliation, only a majority vote is required--60 votes aren't required. You can do it with a majority vote. That is how we passed the One Big Beautiful Bill.

That is how President Biden passed much of his legislation. Reconciliation, as we know, is a creature of the Budget Control Act. I think of reconciliation as sort of a minibudget. That is a gross exaggeration and oversimplification, but I think of it as a minibudget.

Madam President, could we ask for order?

Madam President, I think of reconciliation as more of a minibudget. Now, that is an oversimplification and exaggeration, and we can't do everything in reconciliation, but we can do a lot--we can do a lot.

We passed the reconciliation bill on July 1, about 5 months ago. And something that even members of the media are not aware of is we have the authority before the midterm elections to do two more reconciliation bills.

The first one that we did--we can do two more--the first of three potential reconciliation bills we passed 5 months ago.

You know, you can do a lot in 5 months. Five months around here is a long time ago. In 5 months, you can learn a language. You have to work at it every day. In 5 months, you can learn how to play a musical instrument. In 5 months, you can write a book. In 5 months, you can start a small business.

In 5 months, during World War II, the United States defeated the Japanese in the Guadalcanal invasion. In 5 months, the Duke of Wellington defeated Napoleon after he escaped from Elba. In 5 months, a baby goes from gurgling and crying to saying mama and dada.

Five months is a long time.

How have we used that 5 months? Now, I am not putting anybody down. I want to say that. I am not criticizing any of my colleagues. I love my colleagues. I don't hate anybody. I love every one of my colleagues. And I am labor; I am not management.

But one of the reasons I came to the floor is to suggest to all of my colleagues--both my Democratic friends and my Republican friends--that time is wasting. The President has been pounding us. He has been criticizing us like we stole Christmas--like we stole Thanksgiving--for not getting rid of the filibuster.

Why does he want to get rid of the filibuster? Because he thinks we can pass a bill with 51 votes. We can already pass a bill with 51 votes. We just did it with the One Big Beautiful Bill, and we can do two more.

So why have we sat around for 5 months and not started on the second reconciliation bill? I just don't get it. I don't get it. I mean, in my opinion--and really I am not--I am just making an observation--to me, it is a 12-piece bucket of stupid not to do another reconciliation bill and to waste 5 months before we even start on a second reconciliation bill, assuming that we get started tomorrow.

I mean, humans are supposed to have evolved as a species. Why wouldn't we not do a second reconciliation bill? Think of what we could do. I mean, moms and dads all across America tonight are going to lie down to sleep, and they won't be able to.

What are they worried about? Well, they are worried about the cost of housing for one thing. They are worried about the cost of home insurance. They are worried about the cost of flood insurance. They are worried about the cost of health insurance.

We all know that.

They are worried about the cost of living. Now, I think President Trump has done a good job on inflation. At one point under President Biden, we experienced 9 percent inflation. We have got it down to 3 percent, and I think that is extraordinary.

But the American people don't understand--nor can they be expected to understand because they are too busy earning a living--they don't know the difference between deflation and disinflation.

What we have experienced is disinflation. When we went from 9 percent to 3 percent, all that meant was that prices were going up at 9 percent. Now they are only going up at 3 percent.

They are still going up.

What the American people are interested in is deflation, getting the high prices that we have as a result of the policies of President Biden's administration, getting those prices down, not stopping them from growing as quickly--getting them down. And the American people are worried about it.

And again, I applaud President Trump and his economic team for doing as well as they have, but we have got more work to do.

And reconciliation, assuming it could survive the parameters of the Budget Control Act, we could address rules and regulations. We spend almost $2 trillion a year--we, I say ``we,'' the business community does. It spends almost $2 trillion a year complying with Federal rules and regulations. They pass that cost on.

Why do you think goods and services cost more today? In large part, in substantial part, it is the result of rules and regulations. Through a reconciliation bill, we could pass measures to get the cost of those goods and services down and actually reduce those prices by getting a little government off the backs of businesspeople.

We could do all those things through reconciliation.

And so, the first reason I came to the floor tonight is to say to my colleagues: Pretty please, with sugar on top--I will even add a cherry, I will even throw in a coupon for a personal pan pizza--please, let's do another reconciliation bill.

And when I say ``we,'' I am saying the Republican majority. Let's invite our Democratic colleagues to join with us--and I hope after inviting them, I sincerely hope they will take us up on it.

But if they don't--and they don't have to; it is a free country--it only takes a majority to pass the reconciliation bill. And after we do the second one, we can do a third one before the midterms.

If we do not take advantage of this opportunity to lower the cost of living for the American people through reconciliation when we only need 51 votes to do it, it is legislative malpractice. It is legislative malpractice. It is dumb as a bowl of noodles.

So that is my plea to my colleagues tonight. I am not saying we have done nothing for 5 months. We have done a lot of other things in 5 months, but we haven't done anything to lower the cost of living for the American people, and we can't look back. We have lost 5 months, but we should get started tomorrow.