Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1546(a) and in accordance with section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act, I move to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from further consideration of S.J. Res. 181.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise in support of my legislation to end President Trump's unauthorized, illegal war with Iran. This war will go down in history as one of the greatest strategic failures in modern American history.

It was launched without a clear plan, executed without a coherent strategy, and has become a costly, self-inflicted disaster for the American people. Every justification that we were given for this conflict has proven hollow.

We were told that Iran's nuclear program would be eliminated. Instead, Iran still holds nuclear material, and its leaders may be more determined than ever to build a weapon.

We were told that the Iranian regime would crumble; instead, it now holds new leverage of the world's energy supply in the Strait of Hormuz.

We were told this President would bring peace and lower prices; instead, he has given us war, pain, and higher prices.

New York families are struggling to afford groceries and keep up with the rent, and what is President Trump doing? Pouring billions of tax dollars into an open-ended war in Iran. This reckless war is driving up monthly bills and making everyday life harder for working families.

This administration demands billions for wars abroad, then claims we can't afford to improve our schools or repair our roads or lower the cost of healthcare for millions of Americans.

President Trump has made it clear that he doesn't factor in how Americans are doing financially, but the families I represent feel it every single day. Every time they fill the gas tank and watch the numbers climb, New Yorkers are being forced to pay a premium for this President's instability.

According to data from the Joint Economic Committee, the average family has to pay an additional $432 on gas alone since this war began. Statewide, that is an extra $2 billion at the pump. Let me repeat that. That is an extra $2 billion at the pump.

Nationwide, Americans have paid $60 billion more on gas. Every time I go home, I hear from constituents about their concerns: the cost of healthcare, the cost of gas, the cost to keep lights on, and put food on the table.

Those are the conversations happening in kitchens across America. That is what we should be focused on here in Washington, not dropping bombs around the world. And let us not forget there is a human cost to this war that no dollar figure could ever capture.

Our servicemembers did not volunteer to be pawns in a chaotic, unauthorized war with no plan and no end in sight. Eighteen American heroes have already paid the ultimate sacrifice. Eighteen families have been shattered.

Just last week, New York lost one of our own: SGT Angel Rampersad of Queens.

Sergeant Rampersad was a true patriot who begged her mother to let her enlist the moment she was old enough. She served this country courageously and honorably for more than 6 years before she was killed in an Iranian attack in Jordan.

Our servicemembers take one of the most dangerous jobs there is. In return, we owe them a sacred obligation. We do not send them into harm's way without a clear mission, defined objectives, and the support of the American people. The President's war with Iran is a betrayal of that obligation. New Yorkers and all Americans deserve more. They deserve better.

So I ask my colleagues: How many more servicemembers will we lose? How many more billions of dollars must families pay at the pump? How many more empty promises must be made from an out-of-control administration before this body finally acts?

Under the Constitution, we have the power to end this war today. Let's use it. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this resolution.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to address the merits of this bill, per my colleague's request.

I rise to speak out against President Trump's un-American efforts to keep millions of eligible voters from the ballot box. The President is more focused on preventing Americans from voting than in lowering prices for working families who are suffering right now because of his economy and because of Trump's tariffs.

Make no mistake, the SAVE America Act is not about preventing voter fraud. It is a voter suppression bill designed to silence American voters. This legislation would virtually eliminate voter registration methods that 90 percent of Americans rely on. That includes mail-in registration, online registration, voter registration drives, and automatic registration at the DMV.

It would also require citizens to present documents like a passport or a birth certificate in person while registering to vote--and not just when they register for the first time. Every time someone moves or if a woman changes her name when she gets married or if a person wants to update their political party affiliation, they have to go back to the election office in person to reregister with those specific documents.

Up to half of all active registered voters--that is 100 million Americans--register or reregister to vote every Federal election cycle. While coming up with these documents may sound easy, the reality is that more than 140 million American citizens, including over 5 million New Yorkers, do not have a valid passport, and getting one for the first time costs $165 and takes several weeks, if not months. On top of that, nearly 70 million women who have taken their spouses' names do not have birth certificates that match their new legal married names.

The newest version of this bill also ends mail-in and absentee voting, with very limited exceptions, putting up a massive barrier to people's ability to vote if they work during the day or otherwise can't make it to the polls in person. That means, in practice, this legislation would disenfranchise millions of American voters.

It wouldn't just make it harder for new voters to register or for registered voters to change their information or for people to actually vote. The SAVE America Act would also force States to submit voter data to the Department of Homeland Security under the guise of verifying voter citizenship status. But here is the catch: Registered voters who are flagged by DHS, which has a history of misidentifying U.S. citizens as ineligible to vote, would then have to prove their citizenship or be removed from the voter rolls. That means that registered voters could be purged from the rolls, then face the additional burden of confirming their citizenship in person with an accurate passport or birth certificate. That is an extraordinary burden to put on working Americans who are just trying to exercise their right to vote. It is unacceptable.

Let me just put a finer point on this. If you take out your wallet and find your identification, it is going to be a driver's license. It is going to be an insurance card. It is going to be your military ID. None of those pieces of identification are valid. So the process that we have today for showing who you are is not valid under this bill.

The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy. It is the purist expression of what it means to be an American. From the founding of this Nation to the hard-won struggles of the civil rights movement, generations of Americans have fought, marched, and died to guarantee that every citizen has a voice in their government. That sacred promise should never be weakened, suppressed, or denied, but that is exactly what is happening right now.

So, as we prepare to vote for this legislation, I ask you all to consider what this means for your constituents.

Think about the servicemembers who have to move every few years when they get a new base assignment and would have to go through this onerous process of reregistering in person over and over again.

Think about those in the rural communities in your State, where it might take hours to get to the location where

they can appear in person to confirm their citizenship to maintain their registration.

Think about the seniors and the people with disabilities who are homebound and who rely on mail-in and online registration to make their voices heard.

Think about the nearly 70 million women, like me, who have taken their husbands' last names. The SAVE America Act would effectively block us from voting if you don't have a passport or didn't go to get a new birth certificate with your married name on it.

All of these American citizens would be disenfranchised by the SAVE America Act.

Make no mistake, this bill is not about preventing election fraud. If it were, I would be for it. It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in our elections, and numerous studies have confirmed that voting by noncitizens is extremely rare. Instead, this bill is a poorly concealed effort by President Trump to consolidate his own power and strip Americans of their constitutional rights.

The President himself said that, by passing the SAVE America Act, the GOP will ``never lose a race for 50 years.''

What do you think President Trump meant by that?

It is a blatant admission that this legislation is designed to subvert the will of the American people to keep President Trump's allies in power. We will not let them get away with that.

Whether you live in a rural town or in a major city, whether you vote red or whether you vote blue, whether you are old or whether you are young, whether you are rich or whether you are poor, your vote is your voice, and your voice deserves to be heard.

Here in Congress, we have a duty to protect and strengthen the right to vote for all Americans. This legislation does the opposite. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the SAVE America Act.

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

Mr. President, during World War II, Fort Ontario was the only U.S. refugee shelter for people fleeing the Holocaust. Let me say it again. Fort Ontario was the only U.S. refugee shelter for people fleeing the Holocaust.

After a perilous 2-week Atlantic crossing, 982 refugees arrived in Oswego, NY, seeking safety. At Fort Ontario, they found more than a shelter--they found hope and a chance to rebuild their lives.

Located along Lake Ontario, the Fort Ontario Holocaust Refugee Shelter was intended to be the first of many such havens across the country. But it was the only one that ever came to fruition, and it was one of the first places where American residents would hear firsthand accounts of the Holocaust.

We are in the midst of Hanukkah, a time that reminds us of the power of resilience and the importance of choosing light over darkness. As anti-Semitism continues to rise and Jewish communities around the world mourn the horrifying anti-Semitic attacks in Sydney, Australia, I am reminded constantly of how essential it is to seek out the light and to lift up the stories of Holocaust survivors who came to our shores in search of a better life.

For years, I have been working with local community members to honor and preserve this site. I have listened to their stories, and I have heard about the importance of the Fort Ontario Holocaust Refugee Shelter to them and their families.

I have seen how Fort Ontario stands as a testament to American compassion and to the strength of those survivors who found refuge there amid one of humanity's darkest, most evil hours. Its story deserves a permanent place in our national memory as part of the National Park System.

Establishing the Fort Ontario Holocaust Refugee Shelter National Historic Park would give this site permanent protection and make sure it is preserved for future generations so they can learn about its history of hope, compassion, and resilience.

I want to thank Congresswoman Tenney and former Congressman Katko for helping me lead the effort, for doing the work that was necessary in the House. I also want to thank Senator Hawley for his partnership here in the Senate.

I urge the unanimous consent for this extraordinary piece of legislation.

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 rise to support our legislation, which I just spoke on, about Fort Ontario.

I want to thank Senator Hawley for his leadership and making sure we had a bipartisan effort to get this done. With his collaboration, we have literally enshrined now, as a national park, a testament to Americans who supported and helped refugees who fled from the Holocaust. And it is an absolute testament to strength and light in darkness. Thank you, Senator Hawley.

Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 3759 and ask that it be reported by number.

Madam President, I rise in support of amendment No. 3759, the Comprehensive Operations for Unmanned-System Neutralization and Threat Elimination Response Act, or the COUNTER Act.

This is a commonsense amendment to mitigate threats to military facilities from unmanned aircraft systems. Hundreds of drones have been spotted in the vicinity of military installations over the past 2 years, including military sensitive sites like Langley Air Force Base.

But current laws give the Department of Defense quite limited authority to mitigate these threats, and the patchwork of interagency coordination required to address them leaves gaps that endanger our military bases and the men and women who serve there.

This is an alarming threat to our national security.

That is why this amendment is so important. It would give the DOD the authority to secure all of its bases, enhancing the protection against unmanned aircraft system incursions.

It would also allow the DOD to share information about threats posed by UAS with the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security to improve the interagency mitigation efforts.

Additionally, the amendment includes language that protects Americans' privacy and constitutional rights, while still meeting the needs of the military to protect our servicemembers and sensitive military sites.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment to strengthen our national security and protect our military facilities.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for yielding and thank both him and the Senator from New Jersey for their leadership on these issues. I rise today to reiterate my colleagues' clarification that the express congressional intent of section 9 of the GENIUS Act, as amended, is to ensure that FinCen shall issue guidance and notice and comment rulemaking. While the change from the ``or'' in prior versions of the bill text to ``and'' in the final version being voted on today was made in the text of section 9, it was inadvertently not made in the title thereof. With that, I reiterate my thanks to my colleagues for their work on this issue.

Vote on S. 1582

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Hagerty- Gillibrand substitute amendment to the GENIUS Act, legislation to regulate the cryptocurrency assets known as stablecoins.

Over the past several years, top U.S. financial regulators--both Democrats and Republican administrations--have repeatedly called on Congress to do their job: Regulate this new industry; do your work; do the oversight; do the accountability; write legislation; and pass a law.

They repeatedly called on Congress to regulate stablecoins, recognizing their global role in the global economy. Both administrations have recognized that for the United States to remain the financial capital of the world, Congress needs to pass clear regulatory rules that protect consumers and foster innovation here at home.

I started working on this legislation 3 years ago with Cynthia Lummis. This is not a bill written quickly for any reason but to regulate an industry that needs rules of the road.

To date, Congress's failure to act has left the digital asset space as a Wild West, where American consumers are vulnerable to scams, and businesses are desperate for the regulatory clarity they need to compete with foreign countries, foreign entities that do business in our markets effectively.

Doing nothing and protecting the status quo is not only irresponsible, it is unacceptable. Unlike the United States, our global competitors have moved to regulate the space.

In 2023, the European Union passed comprehensive cryptocurrency regulation, and numerous meaningful provisions went into effect last year. China's central bank has been promoting the digital yuan, which threatened the U.S. dollar's role as the global reserve currency.

Global commerce will soon be conducted using stablecoins. It is imperative to keep the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency of the world and stablecoins to be pegged to the dollar, not the Chinese yuan.

There is reason for both consumers and small retailers to be supportive of this legislation. Stablecoins offer faster, more affordable ways to settle transactions that will benefit everyone.

Earlier this year, Senators Hagerty, Alsobrooks, Scott, Lummis, and I introduced the bipartisan GENIUS Act, which is the strongest effort to date to regulate and create a clear regulatory framework for the payment stablecoin industry.

It has a number of commonsense provisions relating to consumer protections, reserve requirements, illicit finance, national security, foreign issuers, separating of banking and commerce rules--just to name a few.

It had an excellent markup in the Senate Banking Committee, where Senators had many of their concerns addressed, bipartisan amendments were accepted. The result was a true bipartisan product that passed with strong bipartisan support, including votes from five Democrats.

Over time and through subsequent negotiations, this bill has only become stronger with several additional improvements to strengthen consumer protection, clarify disclosure rules for Members of Congress, and implement other changes that close loopholes, prevent money laundering, and establish stricter and more specific standards.

The latest version of this bill earned support from a bipartisan majority of both Republican and Democratic members of the Senate Banking Committee.

The strong bipartisan nature of this effort has been demonstrated by the fact that the bill has continued to pick up new support with each additional vote.

I am very grateful Senator Hagerty is here. Together, we had a very strong bipartisan working relationship. If you could see a document itemizing every change that has been made since the minute we introduced this bill, it is volumes long.

It is extraordinary how open this process was; how many Senators were able to give serious critical thinking to the bill to make it better to bring bipartisan support behind this effort.

I can't thank Senator Hagerty enough for his leadership, his patience, and his willingness to create a bipartisan regulatory framework for an industry that desperately needs it.

I have been in the Senate now since 2009. I have never seen a more generous bipartisan process than I saw on this legislation. I have never seen a more serious group of Senators get together to try to write legislation of first impression than I saw in this process.

I know the people who are averse to this bill have their own political view. I think it is extremely unhelpful that we have a President who is involved in this industry, and I would love to ban his activity.

But that does not diminish the excellent work in this legislation. It does not diminish the hard work the bipartisan group of Senators put into this to make a difference and to write a law that can protect consumers, that can protect our financial services industry, that can protect the strength of the dollar, and that can protect people who would like access to capital.

Thirty percent of Americans are unbanked or underbanked. Many of those Americans have found access to the capital markets and access to capital through cryptocurrency and blockchain technologies.

This stablecoin bill represents the first incident that we are trying to make access to capital a reality for more Americans, to have our safety and soundness rules, our know your customer rules, our illicit finance rules, our protections of a one-to-one dollar banking.

None of that exists today. Because of the work of this legislation, we actually have a regulatory framework that can protect consumers in the future.

I just want to thank Senator Scott and Senator Hagerty for their extremely honest and thoughtful approach in working on bipartisan legislation, which I am very proud of the effort we have made.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Senator Booker, would you yield for a question?

Senator Booker, I have been listening to this debate all night, and I have got to say, you are on fire. And you are on fire because the American people are very, very angry about what is happening. They are not happy with what this administration has done. It is contrary to what was promised. It is contrary to what was expected.

And I know we are going to talk about national security in a few minutes, but can I ask a question about one of the topics you talked about last night? Because it was exactly what my constituents were talking to me about yesterday.

So I was in New York yesterday, and we talked about these cuts to Social Security. I have to say, I was stopped by a gentleman who worked at Amtrak and said: Madam Senator, Madam Senator, I just want to thank you for protecting my Social Security. That has never happened to me before. Never happened at Amtrak to be stopped by someone who worked there to thank me for one thing I had done that day.

But I am telling you, Senator Booker, when Elon Musk starts firing people in Social Security and tells the Social Security Administration, ``You cannot answer the phone,'' what are our mothers and fathers and grandmothers and grandfathers supposed to do? Many of them are not readily available to be on a computer. Many of them can't ask their question online. And, worse, Elon Musk is expecting them to show up in person at a Social Security office.

How many of our older Americans are not able to drive anymore or are uncomfortable driving? How many of our older Americans feel uncomfortable getting in the subway to get to a Social Security Administration because there are stairs or because the lighting is not good enough?

These are the challenges that our older Americans have, and so I just want to talk about the things you told us last night about the risk to Social Security.

Social Security is our seniors' money. It is not the government's money. It is their money. So what happens when you make it hard for a senior to call and make sure their check is on the way or their check never showed up, and they can't find it?

For a lot of older Americans, that Social Security check is the only money they have for that month. It pays for food, right? It pays for heating bills. It pays for their medicine. It pays for the rent. It pays for everything they need to survive. And Elon Musk's office doesn't believe anybody should be answering the phones. Who is he to tell America how to run its Social Security Administration when our seniors need those checks?

They have crippled the phone service, even though--get this one--they can't answer the phone, crippled the phone service. You can only make an appointment on the phone. So how are you supposed to make an appointment if you are going to go in? I mean, that is absurd. They plan to cut 7,000 staff. That is a lot of staff.

Seven thousand staff, even though the Social Security Administration staffing is already at a 50-year low. So they are lying when they are saying this is about efficiency. They just want the money, and what do they want the money for? Tax cuts for billionaire buddies of Elon Musk. It is an obscenity. It is an absurdity. It is an outrage, and everyone in America should be concerned. Hands off our Social Security, Elon Musk and President Trump. Hands off.

They are rallying all across the country to say: Hands off my Social Security, hands off my Medicare, hands off my Medicaid.

It is an outrage. And I don't think people should stand for it because your Social Security check is your hard-earned money. It is not for Elon Musk to play with, to shift around, or send it to tax breaks for his billionaire friends.

Now, I have to say, my office has been working closely with one senior. Now, she is a New Yorker with a disability, and she was told that she had to call a specific representative's extension by the end of March. Well, that was yesterday. And if she didn't get this person, her application could be denied.

She has called every day, sometimes more than once a day. She has been on

hold for 4 to 5 hours just to reach this representative. As of yesterday when we reached out to her, she had still not reached the representative.

So Americans across the country are panicked. They are stressed. They are worried that they won't get their hard-earned money back, their retirement, to pay for the things that they need.

Now, this is the money they spent their entire careers paying into. You know, every time you get a paycheck, Senator Booker, there is a line that says Social Security because that money has been taken out of your paycheck and put into Social Security so it is there for you when you retire. It is your retirement. The pages sitting here right here, you are paying into your Social Security.

Now, imagine, this is your first paycheck, isn't it? I bet it is your first paycheck. Your first paycheck, you are putting in dollars that, you know, you want saved so that when you--you can't even imagine what it is going to be like to be 65. But the day you are working here, the fact that you spent all night here supporting Senator Booker, that is your retirement. Wouldn't you be pissed off if Elon Musk took your retirement money? You should be. He doesn't have any right to it, and what he is doing is he is doing it by cutting staff.

So if you need help because your Social Security didn't arrive, then how are you supposed to get that check? They can't issue you a new one unless they know that it didn't show up in the mail like it is supposed to.

Ultimately, cutting individuals from Social Security doesn't just affect them; it affects the entire economy. So you can imagine if all our seniors are getting this Social Security benefit, you can't go then buy your groceries. You are not going to be able to then go buy whatever you need for your home. Those stores will get less money, and that means there will be less resources in the economy.

Social Security, if you didn't know it, is our country's largest anti-poverty program. It keeps people out poverty. That is what it does. When we designed Social Security, however many decades ago, it was so that our seniors don't die in poverty, because they were dying. About half of seniors, at that time, were dying in poverty. They didn't have enough food to live.

And so we created Social Security. It is one of the most popular programs. It is one of the most respected programs.

So reducing access to this key program, Senator Booker, is an outrage. It is harmful. It is cruel. It is hurtful.

So I know that this is something that you have really spent a lot of time on last night, but don't you think it is cruel to not allow phone service? Don't you think it is wrong to make it harder for people to get access to their hard-earned money? Don't you think this is something that America did not sign up for in this election?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, this affects everyone.

I have another question for you because I know you want to move on to some national security issues this morning.

Thank you, Senator Booker.

So the other thing that stressed out my constituents that I talked about this weekend is air safety. They are very, very stressed out about these cuts to the FAA.

You know, there was a plane crash not too far from here--a helicopter crash. Everyone in that helicopter perished.

We have been reading about stories across the country about flight safety and the fact that there are near collisions all the time.

We had a horrible crash in New York, in Buffalo, the Colgan Air crash. I have gotten to know the families over the last several years because they have worked together for legislation to make sure that we have pilot safety.

But what I have been watching in terms of this administration is they don't seem to care. They just have made up this idea that cuts across the board are necessary to get rid of fraud and waste in the budget.

And I agree we can make government more efficient, but the way you do that is at least learn what each of these Agencies does, study what is happening in them and how to make them more efficient. Make sure the right number of personnel are hired. Make sure the right training is offered. Make sure there are no wasteful programs. That is good government.

That is not what Elon Musk and his DOGE boys are doing. That is nothing like what they are doing. They are just cutting everything because they want to make space for these tax cuts for their billionaire buddies.

It is really disgraceful. It is something that I don't quite understand.

So over the past 2 months--just the past 2 months--we have seen horrifying accidents and near-misses at airports all across the country, and there was another close call just this past Friday, again, at DCA. Many of these accidents have been a result of chronic understaffing and antiquated technologies at the FAA.

But instead of fixing those problems, the first thing that the Trump administration did when it came to power was fire people.

I think he is kind of stuck in the loop of ``The Apprentice": You are fired. You are fired. You are fired.

I don't get it.

Good government is important, and I support efficiency. That is not what they are doing. It is like they are on a power trip, and they just want to fire everybody across the board--just fire them all.

So while the court forced the FAA to rehire workers--thank God for the courts. Thank God for the judges that are doing their jobs and looking at these lawsuits appropriately. Many Federal workers have simply moved on and found new jobs because these are highly skilled, highly sought-after employees, people that we really want working in the Federal Government to keep our country safe.

Now, just weeks after the horrific plane crash here, with 67 people getting killed in Washington, the administration fired hundreds of Federal Aviation Administration employees, jeopardizing the public safety and threatening our national security. So that made no sense. It was right on the heels of some horrific accident that we all witnessed.

Now, over 90 percent of U.S. airport terminal towers don't have enough air traffic controllers. Critical shortages remain for other aviation safety personnel, such as safety inspectors and mechanics, to make sure that, when we get on that plane, that plane is ready to go.

In New York, nearly 40 percent of positions are unfilled at two facilities on Long Island that direct air traffic for Newark, our shared airport, JFK, and LaGuardia. As a result, over these past few years, the United States has experienced a substantial and alarming increase in the number of near-misses.

According to an analysis in the New York Times, in 2023, close calls involving commercial airlines occurred, on average, multiple times each week, and the number of significant air traffic control lapses increased 65 percent over the previous year.

What did they cite as the major reason behind the increase? A shortage of air traffic controllers.

While the Trump administration claims no air traffic controllers or critical safety personnel were fired, we

know that many of those who were let go played essential roles in maintaining our air traffic control infrastructure. Others were responsible for maintaining navigational, landing, and radar systems.

We also know that safety inspectors, systems specialists, and maintenance mechanics are among the workers who were affected. And at least one of the employees fired worked for FAA's National Defense Program, which protects our air space from enemy drones, missiles, and aircraft used as weapons.

I want to talk about those missiles and drones as well. I really want to talk to you about what your thinking is here that we don't have a plan. You have the incursions in New Jersey and incursions in New York at the same time, and we don't have assurance that those drones aren't being operated by China or Russia or Iran or another adversary for a nefarious purpose. We have to get to the bottom of this, and that is something that, Senator Booker, you and I have been at the forefront when questioning the administration about what they are doing on this issue.

So the question I have is this: Why did the administration fire these workers and so easily part with them? Who will perform these duties going forward? What risk analysis was performed to ensure this won't make flying less safe?

Now, I asked these questions of the Secretary of Transportation in a letter on February 20, over a month ago. And what was their response? We don't know. They haven't answered my letter. They are not willing to engage the Senate in actual policy and decisions that keep our State safe.

What is worse is that we don't know if this is where it ends or if more reductions are coming and more reductions that allow for safety for our FAA.

Now, DOGE's so-called workforce optimization initiative--it is BS. They don't do the analysis first. They just make the cuts.

We need the Secretary and the Acting FAA Administrator to respond to Congress's questions and oversight. The American people deserve to have a Federal Aviation Agency that is dedicated to actually doing the job of protecting us, protecting this country.

The Trump administration needs to take immediate steps to address FAA staffing shortages across the entire Agency, not just air traffic controllers.

So, Senator Booker, the question I really want to ask you is this: For your State, for New Jerseyans, what are they thinking? How do they receive this information? What do they say when they read about drone incursions over one of your arsenals, over one of your sensitive military bases? What do they think about cutting staff at the FAA when they watch all this information about crashes?

I know my constituents are pretty stressed out about it. They don't understand why someone is making these cuts.

Again, the ``why'' is the most important question. It is not for efficiency. It is not to get rid of the fat. It is not to get rid of the fraud. Never heard an allegation that there is fraud in the FAA. Never heard an allegation that there is fat in the FAA. They have been understaffed forever. So they are lying about the purpose.

So what is the purpose? What is the purpose? What are they going to do with that money, Senator Booker? I would like to know.

I have another question before you start your letters, Senator Booker, if you will take another question, if you will yield.

So because you are going into the national security section, I want to give you a couple of questions to pepper your answers because I sit on the Special Committee on Intelligence in the Senate. I also sit on the Armed Services Committee. And so national security is an area where New Yorkers care a deep amount about, and I have been spending the last 15 years focused on how we keep this country safe and what we should be doing. And so I get a lot of questions from New Yorkers about this issue.

So I want you to address the drone issue, for sure, because that is something you and I have been working on continuously since we have seen these incursions.

And just to give a little more context for New Yorkers who might be listening to this debate, we have had drone incursions over sensitive military sites for quite some time now, and it is something that I have been working on on a bipartisan basis through the Intelligence Committee. Some of these incursions are every night, over and over again, over sensitive military bases. There was one over Langley. We have had them over arsenals in New Jersey, over sensitive sites in New York. We have had them over military bases across the country.

And, you know, I don't like it when the answer is, ``Oh, we know where most of this is. This is mostly FAA traffic.'' I don't like it when I hear it from this administration--or any administration--because it is not true. Some of the drone sightings are planes in the air, helicopters, you know, maybe weather balloons, maybe enthusiasts, but they do not know if all are. And with these specific incursions, they do not know the origin of them. They do not know whose they are. They do not know who is operating them. They do not know the purpose of these drones. These drones could easily be spying. They could be planning attacks. They could be doing anything nefarious. We have no basis to say it is all known, and we are not concerned.

So this is something we are going to get to the bottom of. I am very incensed about it. It does not leave our personnel safe. It does not leave our secrets safe. So drones is one issue.

The second issue, if you could address it, is on the national security side: cyber security. I think that--and election security.

One of the cuts that the DOGE boys made--which I literally cannot understand why they would ever do this. This is making us weaker. It is making us less safe. It is not good for America. It shows how ill- advised this process is and how uninformed this process is and how we can see through these cuts and how insincere this process is. This is not about waste. This is not about fraud. This is not about good government. This is about making massive cuts for tax breaks for billionaires because that is where they want to spend your tax dollars--New Yorkers' tax dollars and New Jerseyans' tax dollars. They want to take it and give it as tax breaks to billionaires.

OK. So this is the question. They have cut all of the personnel--or the main personnel--at an organization called CISA that we are supposed to be doing election security with. So the people who actually were working with the States to make sure our election system can't be hacked--they fired those people. They fired the senior personnel at the Department of Defense, our most experienced generals across the board, members from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They just fired them. For what reason? I don't know. No substantive reason was ever given, but these are the senior personnel who actually keep us from wars, who have the judgment and the experience to advise the President, to advise Congress, to advise us on how to keep us safe.

Then the last group they cut were the lawyers. Do you remember that Shakespeare play: The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers? Well, the context in which that was given was in order to have a coup. So Shakespeare, hundreds of years ago, said: If you want to have a coup, the first thing you do is you kill all the lawyers. Well, they fired all the lawyers--the senior lawyers--of the Department of Defense. They fired the generals who actually know how to keep us safe, and then they fired the personnel at CISA, who are responsible for election interference. They fired the people at the FBI, who were also responsible for election interference. So, again, these firings make no sense. I don't think they are making us less--I don't think they are making us more safe. I think they are making us less safe. When you fire the people who know what they are doing and are dedicated to keeping us safe, it doesn't make us safer.

What do you think, Senator Booker, about any of the topics that I raised, specifically on the drones, the firings of the election protection personnel at CISA, the firings of the generals, the firings of the senior lawyers at the Department of Defense, or the firings of the FBI personnel, who are also expert at election interference? These are the smartest, most capable, the most sophisticated, senior personnel who are there to help us keep this country safe. I really want to hear what you are hearing from your State and what you are thinking about this reckless, reckless approach to national security.

Mr. President, I want to tell you about an extraordinary woman, my senior adviser Geri Shapiro. Geri is in the final stages of a long battle with cancer, and so I wanted to express my deepest gratitude and thanks for her service to my office and to all of New York State.

Geri joined my staff in 2009 after having served as Hillary Clinton's Westchester regional director. But she is so much more than just a member of my staff, she is one of my closest confidants, mentors, and friends. She is truly one of a kind.

Geri is an institution in Westchester County, New York. She knows everybody, and everyone knows her name. Everyone knows that when Geri gives her word, it is as good as gold. She is an expert in so many important areas of policymaking. And the depth of knowledge she brings to any conversation is as impressive as her ability to make people feel at ease.

My staff, most of whom are decades younger, adore her energy and her spirit.

Geri is also one of the kindest people you are ever going to meet. She cares

deeply about all of her fellow New Yorkers. But don't let that fool you; she is also tough as nails. Geri tells it like it is and doesn't pull punches. She is fearless and formidable. And her family calls her ``the expediter'' because she gets things done. With Geri on your side, you know you can't lose.

A long-time resident who grew up in New Rochelle, Geri's first career as a homemaker and a mom, she devoted much of her time to caring also for her aging parents. During that time, she took courses at Columbia University and became a stockbroker to support her ailing father's business. She also volunteered at her daughter Leslie's school where she served as Edgemont PTA president.

In 2000, Geri was inspired to volunteer for Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign because she admired Hillary's passion for healthcare. Hillary immediately recognized Geri's talent and hired her as her Westchester regional director when Geri was already 59 years old. In Geri's own words, it gave her a whole new meaning to the term ``late bloomer,'' and she credits Hillary's young staffers for helping her learn the ropes.

To this day, Geri is among the oldest members of staff in Congress. She is proof positive that you can do amazing things at any age.

I first met Geri when I also volunteered on Hillary Clinton's Senate race. When I became Senator, I asked her to continue to serve as my Westchester County expert. I remember meeting her at the train stop in Westchester early in my Senate tenure and knowing then and there that I would have a friend for life.

Since then, Geri has led our community outreach in Westchester and has become a deeply valued member of our team. She is my go-to expert when it comes to anything related to Indian Point nuclear facility. She knows the ins and outs of policymaking and procedure better than most, and she has become an invaluable source for people working on nuclear energy regulation, especially with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its Indian Point decommissioning process.

But if it is not nuclear policy, it is something just as important, like her leadership on my aging working group or her work with healthcare and disability advocates. Geri understands the substance of the work, and she knows how to channel her experiences into bigger causes.

But what really sets her apart is that she understands how much relationships matter. Whether you are a neighbor, a CEO, a friend, a high-ranking elected official, Geri is the first person you turn to. Her instincts are spot on. She connects with people in ways that few others can, and she always brings a human touch to everything she does.

She mentors my staff on the importance of public service and the power of grassroots organizing. She emphasizes what it means to connect with a community and to understand the needs of our constituents, and she gives everything her full attention and effort and leads by example in everything she does.

She clearly sees her work not just as her job but as her personal calling.

Throughout my Senate career, Geri has not only been an outstanding strategic and political advisor, but also a dear, dear friend. She gives me heartfelt advice when I need it most and shows thoughtfulness and generosity to everyone who knows her. She is hard working, she is caring, and the most dedicated Senate staffer that I know by her years served and service given.

When Geri speaks, people listen. And when she gives advice, you know it comes from a place of deep knowledge and careful thought.

New York and this Nation need more leaders like Geri Shapiro. When asked what motivates her, Geri says: Do good. Feel good--a maxim that is evident in everything that she has ever done.

She is truly an inspiration to everyone who knows her, and I am so grateful for everything she has done for Westchester, for our great State, and for our country.

Thank you, Geri. We love you, and we will always remember how you made us feel.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to honor the late Dr. Hazel Dukes, who died earlier this month.

Hazel was not just my mentor and longtime friend, she was an extraordinary advocate for members of the African-American community across New York State. When I was first appointed to the Senate, Hazel took me under her wing. She helped me learn how to do my job well and how to serve my constituents effectively.

Hazel was a wise and generous soul. She was a trailblazer in the civil rights movement and the longstanding president of New York's NAACP. She fought housing discrimination on Long Island and was a tireless advocate for equal educational opportunities. Hazel's leadership shaped the NAACP, and she inspired future generations nationwide.

Hazel was truly a treasure, and I was devastated to learn of her passing. Her legacy will live on in the fight for justice she waged and the lives that she changed. May we honor her by continuing the work she so fiercely championed.

Hazel, we will miss you very much, and we will always remember you. May God bless you and keep you.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Thank you so much, Senator Warren, for your unbelievable tenacity and clear-eyed and thoughtful remarks.

I yield the balance of my postcloture debate time on the Vought nomination to Senator Schumer.

For older New Yorkers, I vote no.