Floor Statements

Madam President, in the Jewish faith, there is a concept known as Tikkun olam. It refers to our responsibility to heal the world through good deeds and devotion to others. I want to tell you about a man who devoted all 92 years of his life to healing our world. His name was Lowell Sachnoff. He was a man who found joy in life, the law, and the cause of equal justice for all. And he brought that joy to all of us who were lucky to count him as a friend.

Lowell passed away last month, peacefully, in his home in Evanston, IL. And saddened as I am by his loss, I am--above all--grateful that I got to know him. Lowell was a model of kindness, curiosity, and integrity. And in the words of his wife Fay, he was ``absolutely fearless when it came to representing the downtrodden, ignored, and abused.'' Our world is a better place because of his lifetime of service.

Lowell's commitment to serving others began where he was born and raised: on Maxwell Street in Chicago. He grew up in a community of hard-working, Jewish immigrants during the Depression. And even from a young age, Lowell had a hunger for healing our broken world. It is only fitting--Lowell was raised by a family whose own world had been shattered by hate and persecution. His parents and grandparents were forced to flee their ancestral homeland of Ukraine because of pogroms targeting Jews.

As a child, Lowell's grandparents would tell him stories about those dark days in Ukraine, about the relatives and friends who were tortured and murdered by the Russian regime, and the terrors of life in a ``lawless society.'' It was these conversations around the Sachnoff dinner table that inspired Lowell to become a lawyer--and to wield the law as an instrument for justice.

As a student at Chicago's Senn High School, Lowell excelled in and outside of the classroom. He was a star on the swim team--and was even offered a full academic scholarship at Harvard and, later, Harvard Law. But before beginning his legal career, Lowell decided to first serve his country. He enlisted in the military and served as a lieutenant commander and naval intelligence officer during the Korean war. It was an experience that led to Lowell discovering one of his many lifelong passions: the Russian language. At first, he learned Russian as part of his intelligence responsibilities--but he stuck with it.

In fact, I remember a conversation we had about 10 years ago. Lowell told me he was still practicing Russian--60 years later--through the online education platform Coursera. It is just one example of his boundless love for learning and discovery. And Lowell's curiosity--like his commitment to equal justice--only grew as the years went on.

After serving in the military, Lowell brought his fight for justice home. He graduated from Harvard Law, with honors, and soon emerged as a legal legend and a civil rights icon. Lowell always understood that the cause of civil rights and human rights never comes to a final verdict. Those dedicated to freedom and fairness forge new contests and take on new battles every day.

And for Lowell, the litany of causes began in the 1960s. In his pursuit of justice, he took on cases that most lawyers would never touch. One of them was a lawsuit against the Chicago Police officers who murdered two members of the Black Panther Party while they slept. One of the victims was Fred Hampton. It was the height of the civil rights movement, and tensions were even higher. But true to his fearless nature, Lowell took on the case--and won.

A few years later, Lowell scored another victory for justice. He won a jury verdict regarding the routine, unlawful strip-searching of women by Chicago Police. Years after that, he won another historic verdict protecting the rights of women seeking reproductive healthcare. Time and again, Lowell fought for equality in every form--racial, gender, economic, you name it. He made no exceptions--because he was on a mission to heal the world for everyone.

In 1981, Lowell's firm Sachnoff & Weaver represented a transgender pilot

who had been fired because of her gender identity. Today, nearly 40 years later, our Nation still has a long way to go in protecting the rights of transgender Americans. But with that case, Lowell helped introduce a legal rationale for enshrining transgender rights into the Civil Rights Act--which happened decades later.

During our many years of friendship, Lowell never once called me on behalf of a paying client. Others would speak for them. The one time Lowell did call me about a case, it involved a man who had no voice in our system of justice. He was an accused terrorist who had been imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay for 15 years with no formal charge and no hope for a trial. Many considered the case a lost cause. Others considered it too controversial to touch. But Lowell never gave up. He believed that, even though the road to justice may be long, he had a responsibility to reach the end of it. So he pushed onward, for years, with a group of lawyers who shared his belief that Guantanamo was a ``stain on our justice system.''

Lowell even traveled to Guantanamo Bay six times, when he was in his 80s, to meet with detainees. And eventually, he and his cocounsel negotiated the release of four men who had been held captive for years. Lowell poured his whole heart into the case, as he did with every case. When he saw injustice, in any form, he couldn't help but think of his family who fled Ukraine. And he couldn't help but act.

Really, there is a simple explanation for Lowell's long record of legal victories: He not only had a big, generous heart--but a big, sharp mind to match. In the words of the head of the Illinois ACLU, Colleen Connell, Lowell was a ``lawyer's lawyer . . . you could only be impressed [by] how he was able to conceptualize and bring a legal argument to life.''

And Lowell shared his wisdom and love for the law with everyone who worked with him. Perhaps his favorite part of leading Sachnoff & Weaver was mentoring younger litigators. He would take them under his wing and share whatever legal wisdom he could. These young lawyers became known as Lowell's ``ducklings,'' a nickname that has stuck even to this day, when said ducklings are now in their 60s and 70s.

It was while working at Sachnoff & Weaver that Lowell joined forces with his most powerful ally in the fight for justice: his wife Fay Clayton. They met while working as lawyers in the same department, and things remained strictly professional for a few years. But soon enough, the sparks flew. They fell in love and became quite the power couple, working together to build a more equitable system of justice for everyone.

Fay was captivated by the same qualities that so many of Lowell's friends loved: his zeal for life, learning, and creative expression. When they first started dating, Lowell would even surprise Fay with poems he had written for her. And his gift for writing was another of Lowell's passions that only grew as the years went on.

Lowell and Fay were true believers in the idea that, no matter how busy life becomes, we should always find time to engage with our lifelong passions and chase new adventures. And together, that is exactly what they did--from scuba diving off the coast of Mexico, to growing vegetables, baking challah, going to jazz and classical music concerts, and swimming.

Of course, nothing made the two of them happier than sharing their love for adventure with the children and grandchildren. As one example, Lowell and Fay made a promise to each one of his grandkids: Pick any place in the world you want to go, and we will take you. And they made good on that promise, traveling to Australia, Kenya, Peru, Greece, and Croatia. It was a true family world tour.

And in honor of Lowell's lifelong love for learning, his children have paid a fitting, final tribute. They created a writing prize, named in Lowell's honor, at his alma mater Senn High School. It is a gift that will support a new generation of changemakers, so they can follow Lowell's footsteps in the fight for justice.

I mentioned Lowell's love for poetry. One of his favorite poets was William Butler Yeats. Yeats once observed, ``The world is full of magic things, patiently waiting for our senses to grow sharper.'' Lowell lived his life sharpening and fine-tuning his senses to discover the world's magic things. He did it through the law, through his relationships, and through his voracious appetite for knowledge. And by devoting his life to healing our world, he uplifted countless others in their journey to discover those magic things. He set an example we would be wise to follow. The world has lost a good man.

Loretta and I join Fay; Lowell's children Scott, Marc, and Kate; his stepchildren Kim and Suzanne; his grandkids Allie, Sam, Joel, Monica, and Sasha; and his great-granddaughter Sofia in mourning his loss. We miss him dearly. And we send our love to you all.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) are necessarily absent.

Madam President, the decision last year by the Supreme Court's conservative majority overruling Roe v. Wade and the right to abortion marks the first time in our Nation's history that the Supreme Court has ever repealed a constitutional right.

One of the most striking features of the Dobbs decision was the almost complete absence of any serious discussion about the impact the ruling might have on the lives and health of women. In a 79-page ruling, women receive only a few paragraphs. Justice Alito, the author of the majority opinion, defended this disregard for women's lives and health by arguing that it is ``hard for anyone--and in particular, for a court--to assess . . . the effect of the abortion right on society and in particular on the lives of women.''

Perhaps the Court's conservative majority should have paid closer attention to amicus briefs filed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association, who warned that overruling Roe would unleash an immediate healthcare crisis across America. Ten months later, it is clear for anyone to see that the consequences of the Dobbs ruling are devastating. Instead of settling old controversies, the Dobbs decision has unleashed chaos for women and doctors. We are seeing a torrent of new State laws that aim to reduce abortion access by threatening to punish or criminalize those who provide abortions and, in some cases, those who help someone to obtain an abortion.

Nearly half of all States now impose severe restrictions on abortion--and at least a dozen States have enacted near-total bans. The laws surrounding abortion--and miscarriage management--seem to be changing by the week. A few weeks ago, a Federal judge in Texas issued a ruling that would ban the sale of mifepristone, one of the safest forms of reproductive care, nationwide--even in States where abortion remains legal.

Mifepristone was approved more than 20 years ago by the Food and Drug Administration as safe and effective. It is used in more than half of all abortions in the country. And it is used to help women suffering from a miscarriage. It has a better safety profile than penicillin, Tylenol, or Viagra. Thankfully, the Supreme Court issued a temporary reprieve by staying the decision. So, for the moment, mifepristone remains on the market while the case works its way through the legal system.

But the initial ruling by the Federal judge in Texas marked the first time that a judge has ever overruled the FDA to ban a medication deemed safe and effective by medical and scientific experts. And it is troubling confirmation that instead of ending the debate on abortion, Dobbs was actually the beginning of a different debate: How far will the war on women's healthcare go before we say enough is enough?

The number of horror stories that have emerged over the past year is staggering: stories of rape victims--as young as 10 years old--being denied healthcare because of laws outlawing abortion; an 11-year-old victim of sex trafficking--also denied a medically necessary abortion; stories of women being forced to flee their home States to access basic, reproductive care services; stories of pregnant women suffering miscarriages being turned away by doctors, until their lives are at risk, because healthcare providers are understandably afraid of facing criminal penalties and other serious punishments if their patient is not sick enough to receive abortion care.

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I chair, held a hearing in which we heard more about the horrific consequences of the Dobbs decision on pregnant women and the doctors who care for them. Let me tell you about one of our witnesses. Her name is Amanda Zurawski. She was one of the most profound and heartbreaking witnesses I have heard during my time in Congress.

Amanda lives in Texas, one of the first States in which a near-total ban on abortion took effect after Dobbs. Amanda endured 18 months of fertility treatments to get pregnant. When she finally did, she and her husband were over the moon. They named their soon-to-be little girl Willow.

Last August, in the second trimester of her pregnancy, Amanda felt something unusual. She called her doctor, who told her to come in as quickly as possible. After an examination, Amanda and her husband received a heartbreaking diagnosis: Her cervix had dilated prematurely. The loss of her baby was inevitable. Amanda asked what could be done to assure what she called ``the respectful passing'' of her baby and to protect Amanda from a possibly deadly infection.

To her shock, her doctors told her there was nothing they could do because of Texas's new anti-abortion laws--laws that threaten doctors with fines of up to $100,000, up to 99 years in prison, and loss of their medical license. Amanda's doctors tried to find another hospital nearby that could possibly help her--but those hospitals all had the same response: Because of Texas's new laws, they couldn't do anything.

Amanda told our committee: ``People have asked why we didn't get on a plane or in our car to go to a state where the laws aren't so restrictive. But we live in the middle of Texas, and the nearest `sanctuary' state is at least an eight-hour drive. Developing sepsis-- which can kill quickly--in a car in the middle of the West Texas desert, or 30,000 feet above the ground, is a death sentence, and it's not a choice we should have had to even consider. So all we could do was wait.''

After 3 agonizing days, Amanda developed a raging fever and dangerously low blood pressure. Sepsis had set in. Her husband rushed her to the hospital. Several hours later, her daughter arrived, stillborn. Amanda spent the next 3 days in the I.C.U. fighting for her own life. She has spent the last 8 months battling trauma and depression, as well as the medical fallout from her delayed treatment, including complications that may make it difficult to ever have children.

We also heard from an OB/GYN, Dr. Nisha Verma, who has chosen to stay and practice in Georgia despite knowing that, in her words, ``Georgia's law threatened to make [her] a criminal for providing life-saving care to [her] patients.''

Dr. Verma told our committee : ``Imagine looking someone in the eye and saying: `I have all the skills and the tools to care for you, but our state's politicians have told me I can't.'''

She reminded us that the U.S. already has the highest maternal mortality rate of any wealthy nation. Restrictive abortion laws, she said, are making pregnancy even more dangerous for women. Regrettably, some of our Republican colleagues on the committee tried to make the hearing about what they called late-term abortions and other abortion foes call ``partial birth'' abortions--both medically inaccurate terms.

They neglected to note that abortions after 21 weeks account for less than 1 percent of abortions in this country, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They also failed to acknowledge that in the very rare instances when an abortion happens later in a pregnancy, it is generally because the woman's life is in danger; a fatal fetal anomaly has been discovered, as in Amanda's case; or because a woman wasn't able to get an abortion earlier due to restrictive laws.

For nearly 50 years, abortion opponents said their only goal was to return the right to decide abortion laws to the State. It is now clear that was a trojan horse. Dismantling Roe was the first step. The real goal is to systemically strip away access to abortion nationwide. And that is exactly what they are doing. Last year, dozens of congressional Republicans proposed a bill that would ban abortion nationwide at 15 weeks--even in States that have chosen to protect access to abortion later in pregnancy. And one member of our committee noted yesterday: ``We're not going to back off.''

In addition, nearly 150 congressional Republicans joined an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the mifepristone case, arguing for the Court to keep in place the Fifth Circuit's stay that limited mifepristone access nationwide--even in States where abortion remains legal.

Congress needs to stop this chaos and needless, avoidable suffering by passing the Women's Health Protection Act to restore abortion access across the country.

Madam President, earlier this year, Chicago--and the entire legal world--lost a giant. John Devitt Cooney, Sr., a titan of trial law, passed away at the age of 68. He was a skilled litigator who used his brilliant legal mind, charm, quick wit, and sense of humor to help everyday ``Davids'' in the never-ending battle against corporate ``Goliaths.'' John may have been born for the role.

His father, Robert Cooney, Sr., served in World War II, returned home--GI benefits in hand--and attended Loyola University School of Law in Chicago. When he graduated from law school, Robert worked in the Cook County State's Attorney's Office before setting up a successful personal injury firm. John followed suit.

Born and raised in Oak Park, IL, John graduated from Fenwick High School and went on to attend Georgetown University for his undergraduate studies. During his years at Georgetown, he briefly worked on Capitol Hill. It was the 1970s: an era of disco, tie-dye, and Watergate. While John may not have been all that interested in politics at the time, his experience on Capitol Hill enhanced his interest in the law.

John finished his studies at Georgetown and moved back to Illinois to attend Loyola University School of Law in Chicago. His first job out of law school was as a Cook County Assistant State's Attorney, just like his father, where he worked within the Felony Trial Division. It was a formative experience for John. As a young lawyer, he developed a deep empathy for how wrongful acts hurt victims and their families. It was there where he honed his craft, spending invaluable time in the courtroom, selecting juries, developing trial strategies, and presenting cases to juries.

After 5 years, in 1985, John joined his father, his brother Robert, Jr., and his future partner Kevin Conway, at the Chicago personal injury firm, Cooney & Stenn. John made partner in just five years at the firm that would become Cooney & Conway, one of the leading personal injury and wrongful death firms in the United States. John excelled in cases related to construction accidents and product liability, and he had a strong commitment to helping individuals in asbestos exposure cases.

Some may have only heard of ``asbestos'' or ``mesothelioma'' through late-night television commercials or radio ads. If that is the case, they are fortunate. Asbestos is a strong, heat resistant fiber that can be found in many building materials, such as insulation, roofing shingles, and pipe coverings. Inhaling these fibers can have devastating health consequences. As early as the 1930s, public health professionals were sounding the alarm about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. Yet, for decades, some companies ignored the risks, putting profits above the health and well-being of employees and consumers.

Between 1940 and 1979, nearly 30 million workers were exposed to asbestos, and around one-third of those workers were veterans. To this day, exposure to asbestos is the only known cause of mesothelioma, an aggressive and incurable form of cancer in which a tumor develops in the protective lining of lungs, and slowly compresses until the victim suffocates. It can take years to discover mesothelioma, and by the time it is discovered, the victim often only has several months to live.

John and his team at Cooney & Conway focused on holding the companies that put profits over people accountable and doing right by victims and their families. And they were successful, obtaining more than $20 billion for victims and their families, including a $200 million asbestos exposure settlement that was the largest personal injury settlement in the history of Illinois. While compensation does little to ease the pain or the loss of a loved one to this devastating disease, John's efforts protected victims' rights to justice and gave them a voice against powerful corporations.

John's legacy goes well beyond the courtroom. In 2014, John became president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, an organization of more than 2,000 members that has served the interests of plaintiffs' attorneys and consumers since 1952. He also was the founding chairman of the mass torts litigation committee for the American Bar Association, and he served as an elected governor of the American Association for Justice, the leading voice for trial lawyers at the national level.

John and his firm also gave back. Cooney & Conway provided more than $1 million to support the work of Dr. Hedy Lee Kindler, one of the Nation's leading mesothelioma researchers at the University of Chicago Medicine Comprehensive Cancer Center, a leading mesothelioma research and treatment center. John also served on the boards of the University of Chicago Medical Center and Lurie Children's Hospital.

Holding large manufacturers and the wealthiest corporations accountable was not just a professional endeavor. For John, it was personal. Everyday folks--pipefitters, laborers, construction workers, members of ``The Greatest Generation''--those are the people for whom John gladly went to bat. He knew these were people whose only error was venturing into a hazardous workplace, putting in a hard day's work, and daring to breathe, to try to make a good life for themselves and their families.

Earlier this year, Loretta and I gathered with John's family and friends at Old St. Pat's Church in Chicago, to say farewell to John and celebrate the light that he brought into this world. John's many friends filled every pew.

Loretta and I extend our sincerest condolences to Barbara, his loving wife of 35 years; his daughter Elizabeth (Matt); his sons Devitt (Bess); and Bobby (Hutton); his brother Robert, Jr., (Loretta); his entire family; and his many friends and colleagues. John's legacy and contributions to the law, to Chicago, and to our Nation will not be forgotten.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Minnesota, and I especially thank my colleague from Maryland. The Senator from Maryland has been working on this issue for a long time.

Ben, thank you for your leadership,

I thank Lisa Murkowski for making it a bipartisan effort.

I have a good speech here, but I want to tell you a story. The story goes back to my graduation from law school and the first job I ever had.

I was working for the Lieutenant Governor of the State of Illinois--a man named Paul Simon, who went on to be elected to Congress and to the U.S. Senate. Simon, as the Lieutenant Governor of Illinois, presided over the Illinois State Senate. We had met one another. He said he was going to offer me a job when I graduated from law school, and lo and behold, I became parliamentarian of the Illinois State Senate. I was fresh out of law school. I skipped my graduation ceremony because I desperately needed some money to pay off some bills. I started working in Springfield, IL, as the parliamentarian of the State senate.

Simon mistakenly believed that there was a course in law school called parliamentary law. There wasn't. I had to learn it by just reading the rule book over and over again until it became familiar, but eventually I was pretty good at it. I needed to be because we had a big debate going on in Springfield, IL, in the early 1970s about something called the Equal Rights Amendment. It was different than the debate in many State capitols because there was a real confrontation. There was no party identity behind or for the Equal Rights Amendment. Some Republicans supported it, and many Democrats supported it, but there was opposition in both parties too.

What fired up the troops in that particular debate was the presence of a woman from Alton, IL, named Phyllis Schlafly, who was leading the national effort to stop the Equal Rights Amendment. I reflect on that this evening because I remember what she used to say: If you pass the Equal Rights Amendment, men and women are going to use the same bathrooms. Not only that, women are going to be forced to fight in combat in the military. They will be drafted, and they will all be fighting in the military.

I look back on those arguments now and say: Was that it? Was it really that the debate on the equality of women in America came down to those two issues?

I thought of it the other day when I went to a school that I was visiting that had a same-gender restroom. It was a single restroom, but either gender could use it. I thought, Phyllis Schlafly's dream came true in that we are sharing the same restrooms in some places. When it comes to combat in the military, many women across the United States fought for that right to do so and have served our country honorably.

But those were the arguments and the differences of the day which led to the debate and led to Illinois's not ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s. That didn't happen until very recently.

We had a hearing on this, as the Presiding Officer knows, in the Senate's Judiciary Committee, and I listened to the critics of the Equal Rights Amendment today. I didn't hear anything about same-sex restrooms and nothing about combat in the military, but one lady raised the prospect that if we pass the Equal Rights Amendment, it would ruin her daughter's field hockey team in high school because there may be some transgender individuals wanting to play on her daughter's team.

I thought to myself, so now it has come to that. It is no longer restrooms or combat pay; it is a question of field hockey for young ladies.

Well, I know that is an important part of their lives, and she told us as much, but when I reflect on what the reality of this amendment does, it seems that those things pale in comparison. The language of it is so expressed and so clear that most people in the United States really would be surprised to know it is not already in the Constitution: no discrimination against people on the basis of sex. Most people assume that is a fact, but it is not. We have to do something about it.

Tonight, we are seeing the Senate at its best--a bipartisan effort on the floor of the U.S. Senate to finally make this right by America. The Equal Rights Amendment is literally a century in the making, and over the years, generations of Americans have done their part to push it forward. They have marched on Washington, and they have met with Congressmen and Senators. As of 2020, they crossed a crucial threshold: the ratification of the ERA in 38 States. That is the exact number of States needed to certify it as the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

So now it is time for lawmakers in Congress to do our part in supporting the ERA. We need to clear a path for equality, and this proposal--this bipartisan proposal from Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska--is our chance to do it. It will remove the arbitrary deadline Congress imposed on the ERA ratification more than 50 years ago, and removing that deadline has never been more important.

As we learned over the past year, there is no room for uncertainty when it comes to protecting equal rights. Right now, women all across America are living with the reality that their fundamental freedoms are under attack. In the months since the disastrous Dobbs decision, millions of Americans have been robbed of their reproductive rights. Activist judges and far-right politicians have replaced the will of the people and the expertise of medical professionals with their own radical beliefs. Women living in States like Texas, Oklahoma, and most recently Florida and North Dakota have fewer rights today than their parents and grandparents did decades ago.

All of this chaos and confusion is jeopardizing the lives of women and upending our healthcare system. We had another hearing today. There was testimony in that hearing by a young lady from Texas who went through an awful ordeal at the end of a pregnancy--a pregnancy which she wanted desperately. It was her first child. It would have been her first daughter, and Willow was the name she had given her. Then, late in the pregnancy, complications arose. Willow, unfortunately, couldn't be born, and the mother almost died while waiting to comply with the new Texas law on abortion.

I am going to remember that testimony for a long time.

Without ERA protections, even basic rights like reproduction are on the chopping block. We need protection against discrimination in the workplace, in the classroom, even in the courtroom. Unless women's rights are explicitly protected under the Constitution, there is nothing stopping the rightwing majority on the Court from ripping them away. That is why Congress must restore and protect women's rights in all facets of life. We can do it this week by clearing the way and finally enshrining gender equality in the Constitution.

I had the honor of presiding over a hearing on this very proposal in the Senate Judiciary Committee several weeks ago. During that hearing, we heard from a young woman whose name was Thursday Williams--a first- generation American, a board member of the ERA Coalition, and a senior at Trinity College in Hartford, CT. Ms. Williams is planning on attending law school after she graduates from college. She says she developed a passion for the law when she ``fell in love with the U.S. Constitution in high school.''

In her words:

What I love the most about the Constitution is how

brilliantly it was designed to adapt to the changing needs of

its people, and, today, we deserve a Constitution that

guarantees equality regardless of sex, a Constitution that we

can use as a tool to fight discrimination.

That was her testimony.

Ms. Williams concluded by asking members of the committee a question. It is a question I would like to now ask every Member of the Senate: How can we be the beacon of freedom and democracy we claim to be if we do not declare that sex discrimination contradicts the American dream?

That was Thursday Williams' question to the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is my question to the Senate on her behalf.

If we want to live up to the promise of America, we need to protect the rights of every American. Let's start with the ERA.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have two statements for the Record that I want to enter into the Record, but I would like to say my debt of gratitude to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Members of the Senate go to parades and salute the military, and we give speeches on the floor about how much we appreciate them and their sacrifice. This is an illustration of the Senate at its worst. We should be standing behind these men and women who have given their lives to our country, who will risk their lives for our country, some earning Bronze Stars, Purple Hearts for doing it.

Listen, I want to tell you, if we are respecting these men and women, we should give them the promotions they have worked their whole lives to achieve and, in so doing, keep our military the strongest in the world. I respect these men and women, and I think what is happening on the floor of the Senate is not only dangerous but it is insulting. That is the only word that can be used for one Senator to hold up 184 men and women and their promotions in the military. I never thought I would see that day in the U.S. Senate.

Whatever the reason, it is time to bring the charade to an end. We can debate the policy in the committee and on the floor, wherever we wish; but when it comes to these individuals, do not hold these men and women in the military hostage to the political debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

I commend the Senator from Massachusetts for raising these issues.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, if you thought the dangerous theatrics of the Trump years were behind us, I have some bad news. This week, Speaker McCarthy plans to gamble with the paychecks of millions of families, as well as the stability of our Nation's economy.

Instead of accepting one of the most basic duties of government-- avoid default--Speaker McCarthy is choosing high stakes risk. He is threatening to default on America's debt for the first time in history unless Democrats agree to slash funding for working families, veterans, law enforcement, and small businesses across the country.

Now it goes without saying: This proposal is going nowhere in the Senate. And Kevin McCarthy knows that. So the fact that he is still moving forward with it shows that he does not know the damage he could inflict on the American people. He is willing to hold our entire economy--and the fate of millions of Americans--hostage because, as long as he keeps the most radical fringes of his party happy, Kevin McCarthy has nothing to worry about. But for everyone else, a Federal debt default would be disastrous.

It would wipe out trillions of dollars in household savings; it would lead to millions of Americans losing their jobs and businesses grinding to a halt; and it would crater our economy, likely throwing us into a recession.

Now all this chaos and destruction could be avoided today, if we wanted. Congress could pass a clean bill to pay our debts on time and uphold the full faith and credit of the United States. But of course, with the MAGA majority in the House, it is never that simple. Instead of sitting down with lawmakers across the aisle to find a sensible path forward, Speaker McCarthy is manufacturing a crisis. And really, he is giving the American people two unacceptable options: Either suffer the consequences of a disastrous debt default, or face devastating cuts to the services and programs millions of people rely on every day.

Just look at the proposal House Republicans will vote on this week. It is nothing more than a MAGA wish list that leaves every American behind, except the top 1 percent. To start, Speaker McCarthy's proposal would decimate funding for our Nation's veterans. It would cut hundreds of millions of dollars for expanding veteran's care, right after we just passed the PACT Act. And it would threaten housing and food security for our Nation's heroes.

And they are not alone because Speaker McCarthy's proposal would also gut funding for police officers and first responders. It would wipe out nearly 30,000 law enforcement jobs within the Justice Department alone. And it would require the government to furlough every single Border Patrol agent.

Can you imagine that? For years, Republicans have been saying Democrats want to defund the police and open our borders. And yet, here they are, supporting a proposal to abandon law enforcement and weaken border security.

Additionally, Speaker McCarthy's proposal would ship thousands of manufacturing jobs overseas, to countries like China. And perhaps worst of all, it would punish working families who are already struggling to get by. This Republican proposal would jeopardize healthcare coverage for 10 million Americans. And it could eliminate food assistance for more than 1 million families--including children--who are at risk of going hungry.

Now, this MAGA wish list is not bad news for everyone. In fact, there is one group of people in particular who would benefit from it. Can you guess who it is? I will tell you: the ultrawealthy. Speaker McCarthy's proposal would actually increase our deficit by allowing billionaires to avoid paying their fair share in taxes.

And it is not like they need any help. Today, there are a thousand billionaires in America who pay an average tax rate of 8 percent. Think about that. That is a lower tax rate than most school teachers and firefighters. Then again, it shouldn't be any surprise that Speaker McCarthy is siding with billionaires over working families.

After all, where was he just over a week ago? Was he meeting with working families and small business owners on Main Street who are worried about keeping their doors open? No. He was on Wall Street, meeting with wealthy traders and executives of big banks. And he personally assured them that Republicans will do everything they can to cut funding for hard-working families trying to make ends meet.

Now, here is the bottom line: We can--and should--have a debate on America's tax policy and Federal budget priorities. It is a debate Democrats win because we believe in investing in working families and ensuring the wealthy pay their fair share. Plain and simple. But now is not the time nor place for this debate because in the next several weeks, we have one responsibility: avoiding debt default--and the economic calamity that would follow. That is our obligation to the American people. And it is an obligation we have never once failed to meet in 230 years.

But today, sadly, many Americans are concerned that Speaker McCarthy is in over his head. Frankly, I share those concerns. He is leading a caucus that traffics in chaos and brinksmanship. And it is not clear that he can control the chaos.

So here is our promise, on behalf of congressional Democrats: We are ready to get to work. Let's avoid a disastrous debt default--as we always do. And then, let's engage in a fulsome debate on Federal spending priorities. The sooner we prevent a debt default, the sooner we can come together in good faith to work on behalf of the American people.