Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a great American and an exceptional member of the U.S. Air Force, Maj. Michael P. ``Mikey'' Mason.

As a Department of the Air Force Senate Legislative Liaison Officer, from January to July 2025, Mikey performed his duties well and without reservation supporting the 119th U.S. Congress. Hailing from Scottsdale, AZ, and a graduate from the U.S. Air Force Academy, Mikey has served in the Air Force for over 13 years. Throughout his career, he has demonstrated exceptional and unrivaled officership. A graduate and former instructor at the U.S. Air Force Advanced Maintenance and Munitions Operations School--AMMOS--he brings extensive experience in both nuclear and conventional munitions, gained from diverse roles across Air Combat Command Air Education and Training Command, U.S. Air Force Europe and Air Force Materiel Command.

Major Mason distinguished himself through his professional character and dedication by serving this Nation in uniform as an Air Force Legislative Liaison to the Senate. In this role, he advised Department of the Air Force senior leaders and helped develop strategic engagement opportunities to advance U.S. Air Force and U.S. Space Force priorities. His leadership facilitated seamless collaboration on behalf of the Department of the Air Force across 62 congressional offices, serving as the principal Air Force liaison to 21 Senators and their respective staff. He supported numerous engagements and delegations for 109 Senators, Congressmen, and staffers to showcase Department equities in the United States and abroad. Most notably, Mikey spearheaded initiatives within Headquarters Air Force to effectively bridge the information gap between Members of Congress and the Department of the Air Force.

By fostering a shared understanding of congressional priorities and Departmental objectives, Mikey enabled the alignment of goals and fostered a cohesive, multifunctional approach to achieving them. Mikey's direct support led to the successful execution of nine Senate confirmation, posture, and subcommittee hearings while managing 32 congressional requests, directly shaping and advancing legislative priorities. Additionally, Mikey's diplomatic nature and commitment to enhancing global partnership was evident during four congressional and staff delegations planned and executed under his leadership. These trips, both within the United States and overseas, supported the Air Force Caucus, State delegations, key Senate committees, and our allies and partners. Through these interactions, he successfully strengthened international collaboration and cultivated relationships crucial for advancing shared defense priorities while showcasing select Department of the Air Force equities. Due to his direct involvement and oversight, Members of Congress were able to make informed decisions to ensure the Department of the Air Force possessed the right authorities and resources necessary to equip our warfighters and fulfill their role in the joint fight.

Finally, he led a pivotal congressional delegation to the Middle East to secure key regional partnerships, conduct vital oversight of U.S. military operations, and gain firsthand understanding of critical national security issues, including counterterrorism, the humanitarian crisis, and regional stability. Mikey's significant efforts led to numerous successful engagements between this governing body, current and former administration officials, senior military leaders, industry executives, technology innovators, and leading edge thought leaders. These interactions helped Senators and their staff advance the national security conversation and collaboration required to achieve our shared goal of peace through strength.

After serving in this crucial role and becoming a fixture on Capitol Hill, Major Mason has moved on to become the executive officer to the director, Air Force Legislative Liaison, Washington, DC, office. Mikey and his wife Carolyn have instilled a legacy of service for their two children Walker and Kinsley. They have sacrificed much as a family in service to our Nation. I am thankful for Mikey's service and his work with my office and the Senate over the past year on issues of vital importance to the defense of the United States. I salute this American patriot whose selfless service has kept our country safe and strong.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a visionary leader and a lifelong advocate for the Latino community Janet Murguia on the occasion of her 20th anniversary as president and CEO of the Nation's largest Latino civil rights and advocacy organization, UnidosUS.

Janet's leadership has transformed UnidosUS into a cornerstone of opportunity and fairness to help millions of Latino families across the country to get ahead. For two decades, she has championed education, healthcare, housing, immigration reform, and economic empowerment. Janet leads with a deep understanding that when Latino communities thrive, our entire Nation grows stronger.

Janet brings passion, purpose, and personal dedication to everything she does. Janet's career is a testament to her commitment to public service and her belief in the American promise. In August, her leadership is being celebrated as UnidosUS gathers in Kansas City for their 2025 national conference.

Her impact has been deeply felt in Arizona. The partnerships that UnidosUS has built with local community organizations have helped expand access to health services, workforce development, affordable housing, and educational opportunity for thousands of Latino families across the State. It is through this work that Janet is helping our communities address urgent needs and lift up voices that too often go unheard. Arizona is stronger because of that work, and because of Janet's leadership.

Under Janet's stewardship, UnidosUS has not only grown in scale and impact but has also become a trusted voice in national policymaking. Whether testifying before Congress or mobilizing civic engagement in every corner of the country, Janet has consistently reminded us that representation, inclusion, and equity are not just ideals; they are essential to how we lead, serve, and grow.

I have had the privilege of working alongside Janet and UnidosUS and witnessing firsthand the meaningful, measurable difference her leadership makes in Arizona and beyond. From supporting Latino-owned small businesses to expanding access to healthcare and education, her work touches lives every day.

Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Janet Murguia for 20 years of service and leadership. Her unwavering commitment to advocacy and to building a more inclusive and fair America takes persistence, integrity, and the kind of grit that makes America better. Folks like Janet don't just talk about change; they put in the work to make it real.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to my following interns and fellows for today: Abriana Ballesteros, Hayden Darst, Mina Hicks, Jackson James, Jargo James, Isaac Navarrete, Connor Swenson, Ethan Tacheene, and Colter Thomas.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2893 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, this whole thing is a bad deal for the American people. It is a gut punch to rural communities and makes us weaker and less safe on the world stage.

This amendment, though, dials back the worst of some of these cuts, especially for public broadcasting that is so important to so many Americans.

Now, this amendment was drafted by Senator Collins, and I understand she isn't planning to offer it. But I think it is worth seeing if a bipartisan majority of us can come together to support it. And this is a good amendment and it will protect important elements of our public broadcast funding and it will preserve the vital funding for Ukraine, NATO, and other items that have bipartisan support that otherwise would be cut in the Republican rescissions package.

Now, let's be clear, Senate Democrats oppose this rescissions package. But we are giving our colleagues yet another opportunity to make it less harmful as they claim they were willing to do. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes.

Mr. President, now is the time that we should be investing in the future of our country and helping American families get ahead, but what we have in front of us this week does the opposite. It is a bad deal that puts America in retreat at home and abroad. It makes our country poorer and less safe.

When I reviewed what we are about to vote on, I thought about my granddaughter Sage. She is 4 years old, and, like a lot of kids her age, she watches one of the many educational programs that air on PBS. Her favorite is ``Daniel Tiger,'' a show that teaches kids everything from treating others with kindness to brushing their teeth, with Daniel's friend Jodi Platypus. These are lessons every child should grow up learning no matter where they live or how much money their parents make.

But what is in front of us today is a proposal to totally decimate the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports local PBS and public radio stations. I don't get this. These are the stations that air children's educational programs like ``Daniel Tiger'' and ``Sesame Street,'' which help kids learn how to count and how to read and how to spell.

In an era where cable is getting more expensive and monthly subscriptions just add up, free educational programming like this is so important. It is how parents in Arizona and all across the country give their children a head start regardless of their ZIP Code or their income.

If anyone thinks this is just about cartoons, then they haven't spent enough time in rural America. In Arizona, my office is hearing from rural and Tribal leaders about how essential public TV and radio are in their communities. These are areas where broadband is still limited and cell phone service can drop out for miles.

In those places, public radio is often the only daily and sometimes even weekly news source, and it is certainly the most reliable way to receive emergency alerts. During wildfire season, which is raging right now in Arizona, those alerts can mean the difference between safety and tragedy. Public radio also delivers severe weather warnings, road closures, and critical public health information.

These cuts will lead to rural public radio stations laying off staff, reducing programming, or even shutting down entirely. Rural public radio stations are twice as dependent on Federal funding as nonrural stations are.

There are dozens of stations that rely on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for more than half of their funding. Three of them are in Arizona, and they are all on Tribal land--KNNB in Whiteriver, KGHR on the Navajo Nation, and KUYI on the Hopi Nation. Why on Earth would Washington take that away?

While this proposal rips investments out of rural America, it also makes us all less safe.

It is the right thing to do. It is also strategic. USAID and our international partners are often the first line of defense against pandemics, wars, and starvation. You can't put a price on

that good will and the stability that these programs create for America and the conflicts and humanitarian disasters and the refugee crises they prevent.

I saw that myself when I was a young midshipman at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy during my second year at sea. It was a voyage through the Red Sea, off the coast of Egypt, and I was carrying a load of grain on a 1,000-foot-long ship. These were taking crops grown by American farmers from the United States of America to feed starving children in North Africa.

Cutting this off doesn't just lead to starvation and disease and suffering, it also creates instability, a vacuum that gets filled by terrorist groups and warlords, a gap for China or Russia to take advantage of.

One way or another, we are going to end up having to pay for it, and tomorrow's price will be higher. In the meantime, America is weaker, and we are less safe.

This is not a serious plan for deficit reduction. What it really says is this: If you live in a rural area, your access to public safety information doesn't matter. If you are a child whose family can't afford streaming services or reliable internet, your education doesn't matter. If you are someone who wants a safer, more stable world, you are out of luck.

I don't accept that. Arizona doesn't accept that. We should be building a country where, no matter where you live, what you earn, or how connected your ZIP Code is, you can get the information and support you need to stay healthy and informed. All of us, Republicans and Democrats, should be able to work together on that.

I urge my colleagues to think about what is really at stake here, what is at stake for families, and what is at stake for our leadership in the world, and please vote no, because this isn't how we move forward, this is how we fall behind.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask that further reading of the motion be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I don't think we are looking to take any money out of Jelly Roll's pocket here, but giving a tax break to the richest people and most profitable corporations is a choice, and paying for it by kicking 17 million Americans off of their health insurance is a choice.

None of this is set in stone. Every one of us gets a vote here--a choice. We can help parents be able to take their kids to the doctor, we can keep seniors in their nursing homes, or some rich guy--not Jelly Roll--can get another private jet.

We can save healthcare for millions of Americans if we strip out tax giveaways for individuals who are making more than $100 million a year--yes or no.

Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?

Mr. President, what are we doing here? Seriously. I am still waiting for somebody to tell me how this makes sense. We are debating a budget that gives another round of tax cuts to billionaires and giant corporations on the backs of everyday Americans. And it also adds trillions of dollars to our national debt.

That doesn't make any sense to me. And it doesn't make sense to the Arizonans that I have been hearing from in every corner of our State. If you grew up in a household like mine where money was tight, you would know that budgets are about priorities.

I can still picture my mom sitting at the kitchen table trying to figure out which bills to pay. You take the money you have, and you put it where it is needed. This budget clearly tells the American people who President Trump and Republicans in Washington think need help.

If you are a billionaire, it says: We have got your back.

But if you are a parent trying to provide for your family, a senior in a nursing home, or a child who counts on school for your only hot meal, you are on your own.

This isn't about balancing the books. It is about picking winners and letting everyone else fall behind. And who loses? It is the Americans working two jobs, raising kids, caring for elderly parents, and just trying to stay afloat, because if you grew up in a family like mine, you also know how hard people work to reach their American dream--the promise that if you work hard, your kids will get a good public education, you will be able to put food on the table, you will be able to go to the doctor and stay healthy, and your kids will be able to grow up and achieve their own American dream.

This promise is already getting harder, and it is getting more expensive. We need to be working together across the aisle to ensure that everyone who works hard can have a brighter future. But that is not what my Republican colleagues are doing with this bill.

The plan that they are jamming through right now will put the American dream out of reach for more families. And for what? To hand out more tax breaks to people with more wealth than they could spend in 10 lifetimes.

Now, I have spent the last several months traveling across Arizona. I have been to our big cities Phoenix and Tucson. I have been to small towns like Clarkdale and Sierra Vista--talking to Arizonans face-to- face, listening to their stories, hearing what it would mean to them if Medicaid, food assistance, and other essential services got cut for them and their families.

What I have heard is clear: This budget is going to make it harder for them to stay afloat, let alone get ahead.

In Clarkdale, I met a guy named Christian. He is a rural hospital nephrologist. That is a kidney doctor. And he told me that his patients--many of whom rely on Medicaid for dialysis--are now considering stopping treatment altogether because they might not be able to afford it. He said:

Financially, none of the patients I serve can pay out of

pocket. It's a choice of either massive debt or death.

That is the reality to many rural communities.

Another woman told me about her friend, a survivor of two car accidents and a spinal injury. Her friend relies on Medicaid to help her deal with her chronic pain. Without it--meaning Medicaid--she said that her friend might end her life because the pain is unbearable.

She asked me to deliver this message to my colleagues. She said:

This is not a country that can't afford to care for people

like her. We can afford to care for everyone--if we change

our priorities from giving tax cuts to billionaires to taking

care of Americans who are in pain every day.

People across Arizona are pleading with us to get our priorities right.

In Sierra Vista, I hosted a Medicaid townhall, and that is where I met this woman named Tara. She told us how she was once a single mother and how programs like Medicaid and SNAP helped her raise her kid and build a stable life. Today, she works a good job. She doesn't rely on these programs anymore, but here is what she said:

I'm deeply concerned about the proposed cuts to Medicaid,

SNAP, and related programs. I know firsthand that they don't

just help families--they're often the only path to stability.

Just last week, I was in Tucson where I live--where Gabby and I live--helping distribute school lunches at a local high school. It is actually the high school that my wife went to. And I wanted to see firsthand what these summer meal programs mean for Arizona families.

These programs are funded through the United States Department of Agriculture, and they rely on data from SNAP and Medicaid to identify the children who need them the most. If this bill passes, a bunch of these kids that I served--I think it was last weekend--they won't be eligible for these programs anymore. It will be harder for them to access school meals which, I think we all know, compromises their academic performance.

That is the real cost of this legislation. It is not numbers on a spreadsheet. It is hunger. It is illness. It is fear. It is a bunch of folks who work really hard doing everything right, and they are still going to get punched in the gut.

And it is not just what I hear in person. My office gets hundreds of letters and phone calls every week from Arizonans. People are scared, and they want us to listen.

I want to share some of their voices.

Frank is a veteran on dialysis. He called this week, and he said:

The food bank and my SNAP benefits are the only way I eat

right now. I can't work. I'm not old enough to retire, and

I'm dipping into my retirement early just to keep up with my

mortgage. Without this help, I don't know what I will do.

Veterans should never have to say those words in this country. One of the most sacred promises we make to the men and women who serve is that we will take care of them when they return home. That promise doesn't end when they hang up the uniform.

It includes making sure that they can afford food, access healthcare, and live with some dignity. And yet here is Frank--sick, struggling, and wondering how he will survive because the programs he relies on are under threat.

Cheryl from Tucson, who is a 59-year-old widow, said:

I receive Disabled Widow's Benefits, Medicaid, Medicare,

and SNAP.

Get this. She said:

My rent and utilities eat all but about $300 of my monthly

income. SNAP and my healthcare card used to cover most of my

food costs. I used to have about $40 left over to buy some

extra groceries for the unsheltered in my area.

So here is a woman with $40 extra, and she is helping other people.

She also says:

Now, buying food for my household takes all of it. I'm

scared. If I lose even one of these benefits, I'll lose the

grip that keeps the roof over my head.

Karen from Scottsdale has worked for over 25 years helping veterans and people with disabilities. She wrote:

Many of the people I work with rely on Medicaid because

they can only work part-time or because their employers don't

offer benefits.

Cutting them off will just make healthcare more expensive

for everyone. The rich do not need an extension on tax cuts

at the expense of low-income and middle-class families.

These are my constituents. These are folks who, unprompted, took time to write or call their Senator. And every single one of them is saying the same thing: We are barely holding on, and we are scared this is going to put us over the edge.

Now, I wish I could say that these stories were met with compassion by everybody here. But, instead, one of my Republican colleagues apparently said:

They'll get over it.

And another, when asked whether cutting Medicaid would cost lives, said:

Well, we are all going to die anyway.

Now, I didn't come here to throw jabs. I am repeating those words because they reveal how this budget was written without any connection to the real-world consequences. This isn't about politics. It is about people.

So I ask again: What are we doing here? Who do we serve? Is it people like Tara and Cheryl and Crystal and Frank who are working hard and doing everything right to just try to get by? Or is it a bunch of billionaires who have already made it and who don't need another handout?

If my colleagues don't believe me, I urge them to go read some of the emails and listen to some of the phone calls that they are getting. Maybe hold a townhall, listen to those folks, really listen to what they are saying. Don't crush their American dream. Don't rig the system even more against them. Don't take a vote just because it is easy.

We can do better for the people we serve. Mr. President, they deserve that from us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, when the Senate considers the reconciliation

bill, H.R. 1, it is my intention to make the following motions to commit the bill:

A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance to

strike any provision which reduces the average tax liability

of individual taxpayers with income in excess of

$100,000,000.

A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation to ensure that the bill does not

result in the movement of any non-Federal users by the

Federal Communications Commission or the National

Telecommunications and Information Administration into

certain specified spectrum frequency bands without prior

written approval from the Secretary of Defense.

Mr. President, I have to say this week stood out for me personally with some positive notes and some real downers.

The week didn't start great. We saw the President of the United States--for the first time, I think, in possibly my lifetime--send troops without a request from the Governor into a State because people were protesting.

And, sure, some could make an argument that maybe a few protesters got over somebody's perceived line, but they were largely peaceful protests.

What the President did is beyond his authority. It is illegal. And it was not a good start to the week, I have to say.

I also have to say there was some positive things this week. I got to meet your grandson. I think he said he was 15 years old. He got to go to the Air and Space Museum, a place that I love, a place that makes our country stand out in the best of ways. It shows what we can do when we work together, when we bring the full force of the United States behind doing things that are positive.

We sent people to the Moon in the 1960s. Your grandson got to see some of that hardware over at the Air and Space Museum.

But I also have to say that the end of this week was rather outrageous and horrific, and it was brought to the American people, I strongly believe, because of the attitude of this President and his ability to just work outside of the boundaries of what most Americans feel are in accordance with our values and our ethics.

What happened today to Senator Padilla was outrageous. It was violent. It is a scary thing to see happen in the United States of America.

Alex Padilla is a great guy. He is thoughtful. He is passionate. He is just trying to serve his constituents in the best way he knows how by doing the thing that is in our Constitution--freedom of speech, article I--by exercising his constitutional rights and his rights as a U.S. Senator to ask some questions of government officials. He was doing his job.

His job is oversight, oversight of the Department of Homeland Security. This is in a Federal building, and this didn't happen in isolation. The Trump administration has arrested a mayor and a Member of Congress and a labor leader.

The other day, I think, I mentioned the one highlight of this week, which was your grandkid, and the low light--besides this, at the end of the week--is what happened at Fort Bragg the other day: the President of the United States going to a U.S. military base and using soldiers as political props.

That is not who we are as a country. And I have to say, what I saw today is leading us down a dangerous path, and we cannot retreat to partisan corners. Senator Schatz mentioned that, other than the Presiding Officer, I don't think there are any other Republicans

showing outrage for one of their colleagues on the other side of the aisle being violently handled by law enforcement.

This is wrong. This is not putting our country first. And I have to say, I hope we can turn things around here in the coming weeks. But in my lifetime, and certainly in my time in public office and in my time serving this country, I have never seen anything like I have seen this week.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a great American and an exceptional member of the U.S. Air Force, Lt. Col. Lauren Harrison.

As an Air Force Senate legislative liaison officer from April 2023 to May 2024, Lauren performed her duties well and without reservation supporting the 118th U.S. Congress. Hailing from Puyallup, WA, and a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy, Lauren has served in the Air Force for over 15 years. Throughout her career, she has demonstrated exceptional and unrivaled officership. She is a senior pilot with over 2,700 hours of flight time--1,200 of which are in combat. Lieutenant Colonel Harrison was formerly an E-3 formal training unit instructor pilot, where she developed highly-skilled and mission-ready aviators prepared to meet global challenges.

Lieutenant Colonel Harrison distinguished herself through her professional character and dedication by serving this Nation in uniform as a Department of the Air Force legislative liaison to the Senate. In this role she advised the Department's senior leaders and helped develop strategic engagement opportunities to advance U.S. Air Force and U.S. Space Force priorities. Her leadership facilitated seamless collaboration on behalf of the Department of the Air Force across 62 congressional offices, serving as the principal Air Force liaison to 20 Senators and their respective staffs. She supported numerous engagements and delegations for 150 Senators, Congressmen, and staffers, including my own staff, to showcase Department equities in the United States and abroad. Most notably, Lauren spearheaded efforts across eight organizations, leading a 28-person team to successfully plan and execute critical briefings for key lawmakers. These briefings, including the Secretary of the Air Force Imperatives Briefings for Members of Congress and the China Threat briefing for new Senate Armed Services Committee Members, effectively communicated the Department's modernization and resource requirements to address pacing challenges abroad. Her efforts helped ensured the Department of the Air Force's support of the National Defense Strategy in our return to Great Power Competition.

A skilled relationship builder, Lauren expertly conveyed Department of the Air Force positions on the Air Force Future Design. Responding to Senate staff feedback regarding the clarity of Air Force program messaging, Lauren drove a proactive collaborative effort to enhance communication with Congress. Working across six divisions, she organized a series of five targeted briefings for Armed Services Committee staff, fostering greater transparency and bolstering congressional support for the Department of the Air Force's modernization strategy and priorities.

Finally, Lauren cultivated strong relationships with Members of Congress through insightful and consistent engagement. She organized 9 trips showcasing 26 defense installations to 3 Senators and 46 staffers, demonstrating transparency and building understanding of Department of the Air Force operations. Lauren's significant efforts led to 79 successful engagements between this governing body and senior Department of Defense officials, including the Secretary of the Air Force. All of these engagements helped U.S. Senators and their staffs understand defense equities and their impact on national security. Due to her direct involvement and stewardship, Members of Congress were able to make informed decisions and ensured the Department of the Air Force was properly resourced and funded.

After serving in this crucial role and becoming a fixture on Capitol Hill, Lt. Col. Lauren Harrison will move on to attend the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies this summer, where she will learn to develop strategy and policy for the Air Force and the Nation. Lauren and her husband William, who is also a command pilot in the U.S. Air

Force, have together flown over 2,500 combat hours as Air Force aviators and have instilled a legacy of service for their children Lillian, Corrie, and Claire. They have sacrificed much as a family in service to our Nation. I am thankful for Lauren's service and her work with my office and the Senate over the past year on issues of vital importance to the defense of the United States. I salute this American patriot whose selfless service has kept our country safe and strong.

Mr. President, across Arizona, I am hearing from families who are doing everything right. They are working longer hours-- sometimes two or three jobs--budgeting carefully, trying to save for their families and their children's futures. But they are still paying more at the grocery store and more for rent and barely making it from one paycheck to the next. One emergency, whether it is a car repair or a medical bill, could throw the entire monthly budget out of whack. That is what people are living every single day.

So when they hear that Congress is once again debating another tax cut--but not for them, for billionaires and giant corporations--they wonder: Who in Washington really cares about me? Who is Washington working for?

This is a handout to a tiny fraction of some of the wealthiest people in the world, people who already have more money than they could spend in a lifetime. If you raise taxes on the billionaires and multimillionaires, which is what we should be doing, they would still be billionaires and multimillionaires.

But, once again, Republicans want to instead cut their taxes, and working families are going to be the ones left holding the bill because this debate is not about numbers on a spreadsheet. This budget is about what gets cut to pay for those tax breaks. It is about which kid doesn't get a meal at school, which family loses their home to cover medical care for their kid or their parent, which patient skips the medical care they need because Congress decided that billionaires needed a bigger tax break.

We don't need to guess what that looks like. Arizonans are already telling me.

Angela from Phoenix works in school nutrition. She called my office to speak out against these budget cuts, and I am going to quote her directly. This is a quote from Angela:

I work in school nutrition, and I see how many students

benefit from the school breakfast and national school lunch

program. The national school lunch program is actually the

second largest food nutrition assistance program behind SNAP.

And when students participate in these school meal programs,

their families benefit and the community benefits.

This is still Angela here:

If we keep making these cuts, we're going to harm people

that are already hurting. People are already struggling out

there--we're already struggling. We need these programs

invested in, not divested from. And for what? To give cuts to

rich people, to billionaires, while all of us suffer? It's

not right.

Mr. President, Angela is absolutely right.

And Desiree from Phoenix wrote to me. She said:

I am a hardworking Arizonan who is watching my family and

community struggle while the wealthiest Americans get even

richer. I have family members who are disabled and rely on

government assistance--programs like SNAP and Social Security

Disability Insurance. These aren't luxuries.

She said:

These are lifelines. And yet, their benefits are being cut

while billionaires and massive corporations get even more tax

breaks.

This is still a quote from Desiree:

Every time a tax policy favors the ultra-wealthy, it takes

food off the tables of families who are barely getting by. It

forces people with disabilities to make impossible choices

between rent, medication, and groceries. This is not the

Arizona I believe in.

She said:

This is not the America I want to see. We need leaders who

fight for us--the working people, the families who are doing

everything right and still falling behind. We need tax

policies that are fair, that hold the wealthiest accountable,

and that protect the programs that keep our most vulnerable

from being pushed even further into poverty.

This is story No. 3, from Nicholas. Now, Nicholas is a medical student from Arizona, and he wrote to me about what these cuts would mean for him and his partner, who are both about to graduate with hundreds of thousands of dollars in student debt.

Nicholas said:

Congress must pass a budget that benefits Americans instead

of slashing funds to essential life-saving programs like

Medicaid to finance tax breaks for the wealthy.

He said:

I would not have been able to afford healthcare during

medical school without Medicaid. My partner is in the same

position. Please consider people like us who rely on these

programs so we can stay healthy and continue serving our

communities as future physicians.

And Lexxie from Phoenix, who has had nine open-heart surgeries--she is now in heart failure, and she is disabled. Medicaid and SNAP are the only way that she can access the care, medications, and the food she needs to stay alive.

Lexxie said, in her letter:

Removing programs such as Medicaid and SNAP would be

terribly detrimental to people like myself, with

disabilities.

And she said:

I myself, along with other patients with Congenital Heart

Disease, whether they be adults . . . or young children

looking to stand a chance in the world, would pass away.

She said she and others will die.

She went on:

In a way, I feel as this letter will be pushed aside and

ignored. However, I am hopeful that this letter will actually

hold to something, for the members of the 119th Congress, to

actually take a stand against Mr. Trump and his

administration, and their life-threatening agendas.

Mr. President, every single one of these stories is a reminder of what is at stake here. These are the voices we should be listening to, not billionaire donors, not corporate lobbyists.

And, by the way, Elon Musk shouldn't be rigging the Federal budget to give himself another tax break. Why is he allowed to do that?

I would rather listen to Nicholas and Desiree and Angela and Lexxie. These are the people we should be listening to, not an unelected billionaire working for another billionaire, trying to get billionaires more tax breaks.

Arizona families, they are paying attention. I am sure Kansas families are as well. And they are asking us to do the right thing. These are the people who will pay the price if Senate Republicans move forward with this plan, and it is a steep price.

And let's be clear. This is not the first time that we have seen this playbook. This is a rerun. In 2017, President Trump signed into law the so-called Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. That is what they called it. It slashed the tax rate for big corporations. It showered benefits on the top 1 percent and promised big things. It promised higher wages for workers. It promised a manufacturing boom and stronger economic growth.

Do you want to know what really happened?

Workers didn't get big raises. There was no manufacturing boom. Instead, corporations used the money to buy back stock and enrich their executives and their shareholders--big surprise.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the top 5 percent of earners received nearly half of the tax benefits. Think about that. The top 5 percent, they got half. A family making $30,000 a year, do you know how much they got? They got 130 bucks. But those in the top 0.1 percent, the

ones making more than $5 million, they got a $278,000 tax break. The rich got richer; everybody else got screwed.

And now some of my colleagues, they want to do it again. They want to extend those tax breaks permanently, and they are trying to hide the true cost of this using a gimmick called--get this--the current policy baseline. This is a pretend way to make these tax breaks look like they don't cost anything. But we know better, and I think the American people know better.

According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, extending these tax cuts, like they are planning to do, would add over $4.5 trillion to the debt in the next 10 years, and that would add up to about, over the next 30 years, $37 trillion. That means doubling our current national debt--doubling it--just to give a tax cut to rich people.

(Mr. MULLIN assumed the Chair.)

And the Congressional Budget Office, which is the gold standard for this stuff, says that would push our national debt to 214 percent of GDP by 2054--214 percent. That is an economic disaster for our country.

And all of this for what? So someone with more money than they can spend in a lifetime gets even more money.

Let me put this into perspective here. The median household income in this country is about $80,000 per year. It would take 1,245 years, about 15 lifetimes, for someone making that much to earn $100 million-- over 1,200 years. And yet some of my colleagues think that those aren't the people who need a tax cut.

And this isn't just about tax policy. It is about the kind of country we want to be. Do we want to be a country that hands billionaires another break while a kid goes without lunch in school, where a retired veteran living on Social Security is told there is no money left for him, but there is plenty for the wealthiest Americans?

That is the choice in front of us because this budget doesn't just fail working families; it punishes them. It says: If you are doing everything right, if you are working hard, if you are raising your kids, if you are paying your taxes, you are on your own. That is not just bad policy; that is wrong.

And let's be clear. This Republican math is not fair, and Arizonans, my constituents, are seeing through this. I guess they probably are in Oklahoma as well.

Everyone in this Chamber should think about their priorities and the priorities of the people they came here to represent. So let's stop wrecking the finances of working families just to hand out more tax breaks for billionaires. Let's build an economy that actually works for the people who make the economy run instead of imposing tariffs that are actually just tax increases on everyday goods families depend on. Let's bring back manufacturing and support union jobs. That is what will make Americans better off.

And Arizonans didn't send me here to be a rubberstamp on a bad deal. They sent me here to fight for them and to stand up for them, and I am going to keep doing that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it has been just over a week since we learned that our top national security officials were discussing operational details before a strike on the Houthis, in Yemen on an unsecured platform.

The White House has said the case is closed, but the American people still haven't gotten the transparency and accountability about the national security breach that they deserve.

So I wanted to stress a few things. Now, let's start with how dangerous and irresponsible this was. This wasn't just a policy violation; it was a reckless breach of our operational security.

The information shared on this unsecured platform is some of the most sensitive information that our military has. We are talking about time on target, the weapons systems used, and other details about the strike over hostile territory.

This is exactly the kind of information you do not want in the hands of an adversary or an enemy, especially one that has a significant surface-to-air missile capability that can shoot our airplanes down.

They were discussing this information hours before these pilots took off of the deck of an aircraft carrier, and that is a big deal. It could have resulted in these pilots being captured or killed.

No one, especially the Secretary of Defense, should be discussing these things on an unsecured platform. This is personal for me. I flew combat missions off of the USS Midway in the first Gulf war. We treated this kind of information like lives depended on it because they did.

I had to walk out to my aircraft on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier dozens of times, often in the middle of the night, to carry out strikes just like this. And if I later found out that the Secretary of Defense had been this reckless with the details of my mission, I would have been pissed off.

Look, I mean, I use Signal too. It is a good app. I use it to schedule meetings or to say: Hey, Senator Schiff, remember that thing we talked about the other day, that thing? We need to talk about that thing again when we get down to the SCIF. That is the kind of thing you say on Signal.

But I do not use Signal to share realtime operational military plans or any sensitive or classified information. You just don't do that. It is not what the thing is for. And just for a second, just because Signal is encrypted does not make it secure.

We know this, and especially when you know that the device you are using it on is vulnerable. These are phones used sometimes during official travel but also personal phones, often used overseas, exposed to adversaries' WiFi and RF systems where they can attack these devices. They often also have physical access and other kinds of surveillance.

And once an adversary is in, hard to get them out. And if they had access to even one of those phones on this Signal chat, they saw everything. This wasn't just sloppy, it is a national security risk. This kind of breach endangers not just pilots but also intelligence sources, especially from our allies and their assets who risk their lives to share critical information.

It damages our relationships and trust with intelligence partners who now have to worry about whether their information that they are sharing with us is being handled properly. And it could burn sources entirely, meaning that we won't get valuable information anymore like the location of targets.

We also just happened to get a brief window into how these decisions are being made by this administration. And I have got to tell you, I wasn't impressed. The Vice President. The Vice President doesn't seem to understand that keeping global shipping safe is in our interest or how important our European allies are to our own national security.

And I also want to point out that our adversaries got this same insight. They saw not just the operation but they saw the personal dynamics of the decisionmakers, and they saw their internal discussions. That is exactly the kind of insight our intelligence Agencies are always trying to get on foreign powers. And this administration, they were just dumb enough to just give it away.

In my view, the Trump administration is reckless. We have seen this before. CIA officer names e-mailed on an unclassified system, Agency head counts leaked, sensitive site locations posted online. The use of Signal for a live military strike is just the latest in a long list of security failures.

This exposes how this administration makes decisions, and what I saw is alarming. But that is what happens when you put unqualified, unserious people into critical national security roles.

This wasn't a mystery. This was all exposed during their confirmation processes. Yet my Republican colleagues bowed to pressure from the President and confirmed these nominees anyway.

And this is what happened, the lack of accountability from the people in this chat and at the White House isn't just reprehensible, it is also dangerous, especially when it comes from the Secretary of Defense, the leader of our Armed Forces, who put the lives of these pilots at risk with his actions.

When you are in charge and you make a mistake, you have got to own up to it. Everybody knows that. That is what we do in the military; you fess up. Secretary Hegseth doesn't just owe that to the American people, he also needs to own up to this in order to maintain the good order and discipline of our forces.

How can anyone respect the Secretary of Defense who screws up like this and then can't take responsibility? And what message does that send to the next pilots who have to launch off the front of an aircraft carrier and into hostile territory?

Pete Hegseth needs to resign, and if he won't, the President should fire him. No accountability sends the wrong message.

Now, I asked the DNI, Tulsi Gabbard, and CIA Director Ratcliffe directly in a hearing, I asked them:

Was there discussions of targets in Yemen?

And the DNI, Tulsi Gabbard, said:

Yes.

And that is a big deal. And I also asked: Would they approve that chat for public release?

Neither would say yes, and that tells you all you need to know.

If anyone from the most junior enlisted servicemember to a four-star admiral had done this, they would be facing real consequences. They would be fired or possibly worse.

But here, these top leaders, the top leaders of our national security apparatus, are just making excuses.

My view is this Secretary of Defense must go. Two months ago, during Hegseth's confirmation vote, I asked: Is this really worth the risk to our servicemembers and our national security?

Well, I think we now have the answer. This is what happens when you put the most unqualified nominee in charge of life-and-death situations.

Now, we are lucky that this didn't result in American casualties. But the fact that it could have and the fact that he hasn't taken responsibility makes him unfit to lead.

He needs to resign. Again, if he doesn't, the President should fire him.

By the way, yesterday, he fired the wrong guy. The head of the National Security Agency, I think, had broad bipartisan support, in my opinion. He was doing an excellent job. The President is confused.

This is the kind of transparency and accountability that the American people deserve. This is not about politics; this is about keeping our country safe.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1737 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, this budget Republicans wrote would hand out massive tax cuts to the richest Americans and biggest corporations, paid for by blowing up our national debt and slashing programs that help working families, like cutting healthcare. Working families are struggling to make ends meet and get ahead, and the American people don't believe that any multimillionaire or billionaire or big corporation needs another tax handout. It is pretty simple.

So, before this budget to give the wealthiest more tax breaks moves forward, I think the American people deserve a debate about who in this country is so rich that they don't need this massive tax cut.

So here is my proposal to start:

Mr. President, can we agree that no one making more than $100 million per year--

--should have lower taxes?

These folks could pay a little more, and they are still going to be rich. Do they really need a tax cut? I don't think so. Vote yes if you agree.