Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am afraid to report President Trump has broken yet another campaign promise to the American people.

This is from the New York Times. The headline: ``Trump, the Self- Declared Peace President, Goes to War Seeking Regime Change.'' The article goes on to say:

President Trump has become increasingly willing to assert

American power overseas, a decade after propelling himself to

the highest office by promising to focus on ``America

first.''

Throughout the 2024 campaign, President Trump promised there would be ``no new wars'' if he were elected, but early in the morning of February 28, Americans woke up to a video from the President announcing that the United States had begun ``major combat operations'' in Iran. President Trump took this drastic course of action without consulting with our allies, the U.S. Congress, or the American people.

The Constitution makes it clear--article I, section 8--that only Congress can declare a war. This President does not believe that.

President Trump has tried to position himself as the peace President, but his actions tell a different story. In the last year alone, he has conducted military operations across three continents and threatened to militarily take over several countries, including Greenland from our NATO ally Denmark.

With Iran, we have seen gas prices spike, American lives lost, and risk and uncertainty in a difficult region--all, I worry, without a strategy or endgame.

In the first 6 days of this war with Iran, the administration and the White House announced six different reasons for the war.

It is apparent when you look at reports of the countless Americans stranded in the Middle East that this administration did not prepare a proper evacuation plan. It is obvious in President Trump's rhetoric as well.

Just last week, when we asked if we should be worried about retaliatory attacks on America, he responded:

I guess.

This is a chillingly callous statement when faced with the prospect of American casualties.

Recent briefings from this administration did little to address the same concerns I had when I was one of 23 Senators in October 2002 to vote against our invasion of Iraq. When I listen to the rationale from the Trump administration for our invasion of Iran, it sounds like the echo of the argument made about Iraq. Remember when we were looking for weapons of mass destruction which threatened our allies and even the United States? We finally invaded the country, took a quick look around, and realized there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Now when it comes to Iran, five or six different rationales have been used to explain why we invaded this country.

First, they said to stop them from developing nuclear weapons. We are all for that. In fact, the inspectors who were making sure they didn't develop them were removed from Iran under the first Trump administration by orders of President Trump. It doesn't make any sense to argue we need inspectors when he removed them in the first place, which he never should have done.

Second, there is an argument that they are developing ballistic missiles that threaten the United States. Those are months, if not years, away from development. How do you justify this current invasion?

Regime change. If the President thinks he can use missiles and aircraft

to achieve a regime change, I think he is dreadfully wrong.

Finally, the notion that Israel is going to attack anyway, so we might as well join in.

When you listen to these rationales, they change by the day. Who was designing this scheme, this plan, this strategy? Simply, it is easier to get in a war than it is to get out of one. The President is going to discover that, I am afraid.

I served in this Chamber during the Iraq war. I visited Walter Reed Hospital many times to see soldiers who had just returned from combat. In fact, my colleague and my close friend Tammy Duckworth, the other Senator from Illinois, was one of those casualties. I will never forget the rows of beds of young men and women with terrible injuries from roadside bombs and IEDs in the Iraqi war. Many of these brave servicemen are sill grappling with the wounds of war, whether from traumatic brain injuries or PTSD they sustained in combat. That is the real cost of war--a war which this administration cannot explain the rationale for.

``When you go to war,'' the President said, ``some people will die.'' Sadly, he is telling us the truth--the reality of war. We should remind the American people literally that this President promised that would never happen, and yet it has.

Americans are not asking for another foreign entanglement; they are asking for a President who puts the American people first in terms of the real challenges in the cost of living they face every day. President Trump has found billions of dollars--we are spending over $1 billion a day in Iran to wage this war, but he cannot spare a penny to help Americans afford their groceries, mortgage, or health insurance. My constituents are already paying more on their gas and energy bills because of the chaos the President has created in the Middle East. That is likely to get worse.

There is no love lost between America and the Iranian regime. For decades, it has been a menace to the region and its own people. It is a worthwhile objective to prevent them from sponsoring terrorism and building nuclear weapons. But impulsive military attacks carry tremendous risk, uncertainty, and costs that may confront us and the region for months and years to come. That is a reality of war.

When I look back, there are three of us left in the Senate who voted against the invasion of Iraq. A recent article in the New York Times written by Carl Hulse asked Senators who voted for the war in Iraq whether they wish they had that vote to take over. Many of them said they did. They wanted to vote, as 23 of us did, against the invasion of Iraq.

As I said, and it is worth repeating, it is easier to get in a war than it is to get out. And in this circumstance, we don't have a clear mission or a clear commitment from our allies to stand by us.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Hassan) is necessarily absent.

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

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

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

Mr. President, my friend the Republican whip says that we have a ``clear and present danger'' in Iran. Well, we are in the fifth day of this war, and so far, we have five different explanations from the White House as to why we invaded Iran.

Iran is triggering turmoil and chaos in the Middle East, that is for sure, but when you listen to these explanations of why we are willing to risk American lives, you wonder if the White House has clearly made up their mind about a strategy.

Listen to them, starting with the State of the Union Address and the President saying we have to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. There is a bipartisan consensus for that position, but it is hard for this President to explain why, in his first term, he eliminated the international inspectors in Iran who were making sure that they didn't develop a nuclear

weapon. Those inspectors were eliminated by President Trump in his first term.

The second explanation of why we are at war in Iran was their development of ballistic missiles. Yet we know that this is reminiscent of the excuse given for the invasion of Iraq years ago. Remember the allegation that there were weapons of mass destruction which could harm our allies, even the United States? Ballistic missiles in Iran are not capable of reaching the United States. Using that as an excuse as a ``clear and present danger'' is hard to rationalize.

The third explanation of the five we have had so far from the White House is regime change. Regime change. Well, certainly, the Iranian people deserve a regime change, but are we willing to back them up? If they go in the streets and are being massacred and slaughtered like the previous administration in Iran was responsible for, what will we do? Send troops to the streets of Tehran? That has never been explained by this administration.

The fourth explanation for our invasion of Iran given by the White House in this early stage is that the Israelis were going to do it anyway and we probably would be dragged into the conflict. Really? So Israel is dictating America's foreign policy?

The fifth explanation that I heard on the radio this morning from the President last night: A nuclear war was about to be launched by Iran. Really? With what missiles? What capacity? What weapons? This is a theory that is not backed up by any type of fact.

Here is the reality. Five days into this war, we have had five different explanations of why we are in this war.

Let me tell you my experience, having been here on the vote to go to war in Iraq. It is far easier to get into a war than it is to get out of a war. I remember that vote, and I remember that night here, standing in the well of this body, when I was 1 of 23 Senators--1 Republican and 22 Democrats--who voted against the invasion of Iraq. We knew at the time that there was a possibility that a larger war would emerge rather than just a simple invasion, and it did. For 9 years, we fought on, American soldiers valiantly doing their duty and many of them losing their lives in the process. It is far easier to get into a war than it is to get out of one.

This scattershot explanation of why we are going into Iran does not give me confidence that this administration has a clear strategy, but it does confirm my fear that we have an impulsive Commander in Chief-- impulsive. Remember when he said he needed to have Greenland as part of the United States and he was willing to defy not only Denmark, a traditional ally of our country, but also the NATO alliance to do it? Our Commander in Chief in Greenland? Even worse, declaring that the nation of Canada should somehow become the 51st State of the United States. For goodness' sake, for decades, Presidents of both parties have been able to count on the friendship, support, and alliance of Canada. Now, they are in a position where they question whether the United States can be trusted to deal with. That has been achieved by this impulsive Commander in Chief.

And, of course, NATO. For 75 years, the strongest alliance on Earth, maybe in history, has kept us out of a third world war. What does this President, this impulsive Commander in Chief, do? He threatens the very basis of NATO and whether the United States has a future in it. I can't believe he did this. There are so many countries depending on the NATO alliance, and this impulsive President went to challenge them head-on and really destroyed the confidence which we have had with so many of these allies for so many years.

That is the reality of the Commander in Chief as we launched this war in Iran, and I worry about it--five different explanations in 5 days as to why we are there.

Before we ask the men and women of America, the families of America, to put their sons and daughters at risk in a war, shouldn't we have a fulsome debate here on the floor of the Senate? That is what the Republicans fear: a real debate on why this war is being launched. And that is why we have to remind them to pick up their copy of the Constitution and look at article I, section 8. It is only three words, but it is pretty clear--the powers of Congress: ``To declare War.'' ``To declare War.''

Many of my Republican colleagues would like to ignore that phrase and say it means nothing. They are prepared to say that we will not have a debate when it comes to this invasion of Iran. That is a mistake. It is a serious mistake. We learned that in Iraq. And credit President Bush at the time for at least allowing us to engage in that debate before there was an active invasion. This President has not. He launched a war, and now, he is saying to Congress: Step out of the way. You have no role in this.

Ultimately, the Constitution says the American people have a role through their elected representatives in the Senate and in the House.

I urge my colleagues to support Tim Kaine's effort today to establish again what this Constitution clearly says: The power to declare war is ours. If we give it up, then we are turning our back on the Constitution and our responsibility to the American people.

I yield the floor.

Vote on Motion to Proceed

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, over the weekend, President Trump launched a military attack on Iran. While there has been bipartisan backing for stopping Iran's development of nuclear weapons for many years and its support for regional terrorist proxies to also come to an end, there is no consensus in America for another interminable war in the Middle East.

A war in Iran could create another long-term military commitment with deadly consequences. Already, we see the tragic death of four U.S. servicemembers and serious injury of others, as well as attacks in nine countries around the region.

The impulsiveness of President Trump, particularly without congressional approval on matters of war, is of further concern. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says the American people should make this decision through their elected Members of Congress. The power to declare war in our Constitution is an explicit power of Congress.

I think back to a statement made on the floor by my colleague and friend Senator Tim Kaine when he discussed this section of the Constitution. He made note of the fact that the person who was leading that discussion at the time was George Washington, the most famous general in the history of the United States, a military leader whose prowess brought us to this moment of opportunity in history.

And yet, here was George Washington at the Constitutional Convention, endorsing a document which said, when it came to the decisions of war, it was beyond the President; it was for the American people to make through Congress.

Under the law, the President--Congress overwhelmingly affirmed this provision when it passed the War Powers Act of 1973, over the veto of President Nixon. I remember that era very well. It was the controversy of the Vietnam war and the decision of Congress to stand firm on the proposition that the Constitution would prevail and that Congress would ultimately make the decision.

President Nixon challenged that decision by Congress, vetoed the bill, and the Congress rallied enough troops--congressional troops, that is--when it came to Democrats and Republicans, to override President Nixon's veto of the War Powers Act.

There are many critics of the War Powers Act today. I am not one of them. Certainly, it can be improved, but it came at a time in our history when Congress stood up as an institution and said to the President: You are wrong. You are asking for more power than the Constitution gives you.

Under the War Powers Act, the President has the authority to approve military attacks as it responds to an imminent threat or with the expressed authorization of Congress. Neither of those things apply in the situation today with Iran.

Let me be clear: The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism, wants to destroy Israel, and undermines U.S. interests. They have pursued nuclear weapons, and they are guilty of brutal repression of their people.

These issues are troubling, but they don't result in our ignoring the Constitution. They shouldn't.

I support Senator Kaine's War Powers Resolution requiring congressional approval for any further war with Iran. Our Founders were very wise with this point: One should never send our sons and daughters into war without the consent of the people.

I have made this argument throughout my congressional career, regardless of whether the occupant of the White House was a Democrat or a Republican.

Department of Homeland Security

Mr. President, on a separate topic, tomorrow, the Senate Judiciary Committee will convene an oversight hearing where it will finally hear from DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. We have seen her on television. We have seen her on Capitol Hill. We have never seen her officially in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Tomorrow will be the first time.

I want to thank Chairman Grassley for holding onto the hearing after months and months of stonewalling by the Secretary. She said she was just too busy to come and appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

When I was chair of that committee, I restored the longstanding tradition of regular oversight hearings with the DHS Secretary because holding the executive branch accountable is one of our constitutional responsibilities.

Under Secretary Noem's leadership, DHS is operating without a moral compass or any respect for the rule of law. Tomorrow, she must answer for this recklessness.

The administration has claimed that it is targeting the ``worst of the worst.'' But DHS's own data shows that during the President's first year back in office, fewer than 14 percent of those arrested had charges or convictions for violent offenses.

Think of that. This is supposed to be an effort to stop deadly, criminal, illegal aliens--immigrants--in this country, and yet when we look at the record

of the ICE operation and DHS, in this current scene, what we find is that six out of seven people detained and arrested by this effort have no criminal record--six out of seven--including many who have been American citizens swept up in this paramilitary operation.

Here is the reality: The administration has not backed down from Stephen Miller's arbitrary quota of 3,000 arrests a day. A number like that cannot be met if you focus on stopping the ``worst of the worst'' living in the United States.

To meet that number, ICE is casting a wider net, sweeping up American citizens, people with legal status, Dreamers--DACA--and people with no criminal record--people who built their lives and raised their children here, becoming valued members of our communities.

The administration says it is going after the gangsters. They are going after the gardeners. Let's call this for what it is--political theater and deliberate cruelty intended to terrorize our communities.

My home State of Illinois saw it play out in the streets with dangerous consequences.

Last month, I met Marimar Martinez, a U.S. citizen and a teacher in a Montessori school in Chicago. On a Saturday morning in October, she was taking a load of clothes to her local church to share with people who needed them. She was stopped on Kedzie Avenue. During a Capitol Hill spotlight hearing, she told us the story of what happened next.

She didn't do anything provocative, and ICE agents turned their weapons on her and shot her five times--five times. Miraculously, she survived, but the agent involved in shooting her bragged about shooting her and covering up the evidence in his post to his friends.

The administration brought trumped-up charges against her. And what happened several weeks later? They dropped all the charges. After shooting this innocent woman five times in the streets of Chicago, saying that she was a domestic terrorist, they dropped every charge against her in the weeks that followed.

Judges appointed by both political parties have ruled against the government in thousands of cases, challenging detention of immigrants after these aggressive, many times unnecessary, enforcement options. But the administration continues to violate hundreds of court orders.

The American people are sick and tired of seeing this campaign of terror and lawlessness unfold before our very eyes. That is why Senate Democrats have drawn a hard line in the DHS funding negotiations, demanding commonsense, basic police reforms to rein in ICE's lawlessness.

These reforms include removing the masks, displaying identification, stopping roving patrols, obtaining judicial warrants to enter private homes, and following the same use-of-force standards that law enforcement agencies across America already follow.

Tomorrow, Secretary Noem will finally come in before the Senate Judiciary Committee and answer for what happened on her watch. Believe me, she has a lot to answer for. Under her leadership, DHS has become President Trump's de facto paramilitary force, an Agency determined to violate court orders, lie to the American people, disregard our amendments and the Bill of Rights, and racially profile immigrants and U.S. citizens alike with the Kavanaugh stops.

The American people are demanding answers. It is the duty of the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask these important questions. My Democratic colleagues and I intend to do just that.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Hassan), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Hassan), the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Hassan) and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Hassan) and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

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

Mr. President, one of the most important votes that I ever cast in the House or the Senate was the result of a challenge from a complete stranger. The year was 1986. I was running late to the airport, heading back to Chicago from Phoenix, AZ.

Now, those were the days when you could get a ticket at the airline counter at the last minute, but if you were too late, the good seats on the plane would all be gone. When I was handed my boarding pass in Phoenix, I saw that I was put in a middle seat in the smoking section at the back of the plane.

I asked the United Airlines attendant: Isn't there something you can do about this?

She looked down at my ticket and my title and said: No, but, Congressman, there is something you can do about it.

I thanked her and made the flight. As I squirmed in my seat to try to avoid the smoke clouds, I began to look around the plane. In front of me, only a few rows away, was an older person. Near him was a new mom with a baby. I thought to myself: This makes no sense at all. These people are supposed to be sitting in the nonsmoking section. I am in the smoking section, yet they are just a few rows ahead, breathing the same secondhand smoke that I am breathing.

When I got back to DC, I called my House staff together and told them I had an idea: I wanted to ban smoking on airplanes. My staff told me I was crazy. The tobacco industry was the most powerful lobby force in Washington, with support from the top leadership of both political parties.

I can remember going through orientation in the House when a leader who will go unnamed on the Democratic side in the House closed the door to the room for all 50 new Members of the House--Democrats--and said: Let me explain to you about tobacco and politics. Keep your hands off of it.

That was the advice.

Here I was, a relatively new Member of Congress who wanted to take on the tobacco lobby. Everyone said I didn't have a shot. With the leadership on both sides against me, I didn't have a prayer. But this was personal to me and to a lot of people who served in Congress. My father died of lung cancer when I was 14 years old. He was 53 years old. He smoked two packs of Camels a day. I thought of him when I was sitting on that flight from Phoenix, and I remembered him as I began to pursue this cause.

One thing I did have going for me was that the U.S. House of Representatives was, I thought, the largest frequent flyer club in the world. Many other Members told me privately they hated breathing in cigarette smoke on airplanes just as much as I did. But to pass the bill, we would need to overcome opposition from many of our colleagues who were avid smokers, including the then-chairman of the House Public Works Committee.

One of those colleagues was on the Appropriations Committee, where I served, the late Congressman Marty Sabo of Minnesota. He had the power to make or break our bill, and he was a chain-smoker. I went up to him, and I said: Marty, what is the longest you can go without a cigarette?

He told me: Two hours.

So I said 2 hours it will be. We introduced a bill that would ban smoking on all domestic flights that were 2 hours or less so I could clear the hurdle of Marty Sabo. We passed the bill in the House by some miraculous chain of events after the Rules Committee literally defied the Speaker and let me offer an amendment.

The chairman of the Rules Committee was a man named Claude Pepper. Claude Pepper was a legendary Congressman from Florida and a spokesman for senior citizens across the Nation. He had a unique way of speaking, and I won't try to imitate it. But when he voted for me over the Speaker and gave me a chance to bring my amendment to the floor, I went to meet with him personally afterwards and thank him. He said to me: You know I was a Member of the Senate at one time.

I said: Yes, I do. And you came back after you lost running for the Senate to serve in the House for many years.

He said: When I was in the Senate, I created the National Cancer Institute, so I wanted to give you a vote.

Thanks to his help and the help of the late Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, the bill cleared the Senate shortly thereafter.

It seems strange that major legislation can be determined by such minor personal details like how long a Congressman can go without a smoke, but the personal issue is everything in Congress. Pick any cause championed by myself or one of my colleagues, and there is a good chance there is a story behind it and a personal story it is. When we take the time to sit down with our fellow Members and hear their stories, their interests, their worries, we often can find a compromise that makes a difference. That is how we got the support we needed to ban smoking on airplanes.

The 2-hour ban became law in 1988. Two years later, it was expanded to all domestic flights. People had experienced smoke-free skies, and they were not going back.

Today is the 36th anniversary of that law prohibiting smoking on all domestic flights. It is also the anniversary of one of the biggest tipping points in the fight against smoking and Big Tobacco. After my ban passed, Americans started asking obvious questions: So if secondhand smoke is dangerous on an airplane, why isn't it dangerous in a bus or a train or an office building or a restaurant or a hospital? And as more Americans asked these questions, smoking disappeared gradually from public life.

I used to joke that when Members of Congress were elected back in the 1980s, one of their first stops was at the stationery store to buy a big, honking ashtray that they stuck on their coffee table in their office for all the visitors all during the day who came in with either a ``yes,'' a ``no,'' or a ``maybe'' and smoked their cigarettes. You can't even find those ashtrays anymore, thank goodness.

In the year 2000--listen to this--almost 30 percent of high school students smoked cigarettes--30 percent; today, 2 percent. And thousands of lives have been saved from deadly disease along the way.

This accomplishment is more than my own, and I am not taking personal credit for it. It is a culmination of work over decades from activists, lawyers, doctors, and so many other people who decided to fight Big Tobacco, against the odds. Their bravery and efforts deserve recognition. Their contributions are felt every time we take a breath of fresh air in public.

I tell this story because more Americans--essentially, young people-- feel they have no control over their destiny. They see endless doom on social media and feel as if their lives are controlled by powerful sources with the money, resources, and time to dictate policy. But that can be overcome. It may not feel like it, but in our democracy, there is no limit to what we can accomplish in defense of the public good.

The tobacco lobby was the big boy in town. They had billions of dollars, lawyers, politicians, and more money than friends and investigators who were ready to squash any threat. Yet I beat them. We beat them. They still lost. They lost to a group of concerned citizens who had fewer resources and far less power than they did, but these citizens had the truth, a noble cause, and resilience.

As we confront the big battles of today, may that spirit of resilience and justice propel us against those hoping we sit on the sidelines. It was a memorable day in my career that changed America, and, like Malcolm Gladwell writes, it was a tipping point. I didn't know it was coming. I thought we were just going to make the flight on airplanes a lot more comfortable for most passengers, but it changed America.

Now, that is not the end of the challenge. Many of those young high school students who no longer smoke tobacco cigarettes are into vaping and other things that are going to be dangerous

to them if they become addicted to it. So let's be vigilant, let's be realistic, but let's never give up.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last Friday, the Supreme Court ruled to strike down most--70 percent--of Trump's tariff taxes.

Tariffs can be useful when used strategically, but President Trump exceeded these authorities, as clearly defined by Congress, and the Supreme Court, by a vote of 6 to 3, told him as much. He defied basic economic sense. Just ask any American business or consumer who suffered under this chaotic policy.

Last year, the average American family paid more than $1,700 in tariff costs. A tariff tax, as described by the President, sounds like a problem for the exporter to the United States. It is not. It is paid by the importer. That turns out to be the American consumer.

So, at a time when families are struggling to make ends meet, when the cost of living is going up, the products that they are buying--many of them--are subject to Trump's tariff tax, and they have to pay it, how much does that mean for each American family? It means $1,700 a year.

A recent report from the New York Fed found that 90 percent of the economic burden of Trump's tariff taxes fell on Americans--not on foreigners but on Americans.

How did the Trump administration respond to it? They said the researchers needed to be ``disciplined.''

The chaos unleashed by this administration's attacks on American businesses and consumers also resulted in a massive decline in manufacturing jobs last year--jobs the President promised he would be creating and would be booming. In fact, U.S. factories employ 72,000 fewer people than they did in April of 2025, with more declines every single month.

The President has also broken his promise many times over to the farmers in Illinois. His tariffs have made farming in Illinois unprofitable--not just by making the fertilizer, seeds, machinery, and equipment more expensive but also by wrecking export markets like China for years to come.

I have met with these farmers throughout my congressional career. They are proud, hard-working people. They are the backbone of so many communities across our State.

I meet with them, and they say: Senator, all we want the Federal Government to do is get the heck out of the way. We grow the best crops in the world. We can compete with any country on Earth. Just don't make our job more difficult by government action.

The tariffs did make it more difficult for these farmers, and they told me as much.

Last week's decision was a victory for America and a defeat for this President. It was a victory for the rule of law. But the damage has been done to small businesses and balance sheets across this country.

But instead of reconsidering his position after a clear 6-to-3 loss in the Supreme Court, President Trump is whipsawing between new tariffs--new taxes--resulting in the European Union halting a trade deal with us as they consider their next steps.

Chaos, turmoil--the President thrives on it, but American families and the economy do not. It is up to Congress to reject those desperate gambles by the President. Congress must also act to ensure that small businesses across the country get their money back as soon as possible.

And how about the families who paid for these products that have been taxed by the Trump tariff tax? They deserve relief too. If we are concerned about the cost of living as it hits American families, they need to have some relief, too, and the President, after losing in the Supreme Court, should pay this money back.

Mr. President, on a completely unrelated topic, the year was 1969. I had just graduated from law school. I was working for the Lieutenant Governor of the State of Illinois, a man named Paul Simon. He sent me on a mission. He wanted me to go to my hometown--East St. Louis, IL--and then to Cairo, IL. Both communities were in desperate need of help.

The reason he asked me to go at that time was the fact that the Reverend Jesse Jackson, in 1969, was launching Operation Breadbasket. He was shining a light on the ravages of poverty and the failure of the government to protect those in need.

He went through these two communities to listen to the desperate, the damned, and the disinherited. Even then, Reverend Jackson exuded a warmth that could put even the most anxious person at ease. He spoke with eloquence that would stir a person's heart--always did.

As he continued his fight against poverty and injustice, Reverend Jackson became one of the founding voices of the civil rights movement in America. He inspired countless politicians, activists, and preachers to fight for the dignity in every person.

In his life, Reverend Jackson contributed to the benefit of so many people. He will continue to be a symbol of hope, endurance, and equality long after his death. I extend my sympathies to his wife, his family, his friends, and followers.

His Operation PUSH on the South Side of Chicago is a legendary venue. Everybody who is anybody in politics makes a stop there. Jesse Jackson for years--for decades--managed to be a leader in our community through Operation PUSH.

I am going to miss him. We had speed dial on one another's phones, and he wouldn't hesitate to call me with advice on a regular basis. Sometimes, I even took it, but I was always glad to hear it because it was always heartfelt and always focused on helping the little guy. That was his life, and he lived it so valuably.

Mr. President, on a separate subject, last week marked the season 13 premiere of late-night host John Oliver's ``Last Week Tonight.''

In the 30-minute monologue, John Oliver laid into the Department of Homeland Security which he says ``remain[s] a massive agency with unclear checks on its power, boatloads of money, and sweeping surveillance authority.''

John Oliver is right, but it is important to remember how we got to this

point. I am old enough to remember a time before the Department of Homeland Security. After 9/11, Congress created what would become the third largest Department of the Federal Government. The creation and existence of this Agency was defended, in part, by proponents who argued that immigration was primarily a homeland security issue.

But from the beginning, DHS and its various components have struggled to accomplish its many conflicting missions while spending hundreds of billions of dollars. In the wrong hands, this behemoth of an Agency could be weaponized for political purposes. Sadly, that is just what we are seeing today.

I warned the Trump administration about their militarizing Federal immigration raids that don't target the worst of the worst by any means and instead amount to political theater with the intent of sowing fear and meeting arbitrary arrest quotas.

This past Friday, I attended the funeral of Ofelia Giselle Torres Hidalgo. Tragically, she passed away at age 16 after a battle with cancer.

In October of last year, her father Ruben was detained in a Home Depot parking lot. They crashed through his driver's side window and detained him. At that time, he begged them to let him go home. His daughter Ofelia had just returned from the hospital and was at home waiting for some food from her father.

He was trying to do one more odd job so he would have some money in his pocket to buy that food. That is what he was up to.

So they checked the background of Ruben Torres, and you won't be surprised to know he had no criminal record whatsoever. None. That didn't stop the ICE agents. They ended up arresting him, detaining him, and shipping him off to a location in Texas for 2 weeks.

Finally, they dropped all charges against him and let him go home to his sick daughter and his family. He did go home, but his status on the immigration schedule was still uncertain.

He managed to schedule a court hearing just 2 weeks ago. In that court hearing, his daughter, too weak to attend it personally, followed it by closed-circuit TV. The judge ruled against the government in their detention of Ruben Torres, and his daughter got to see her father finally liberated from this outrageous conduct by ICE at the very last minutes of her life. She died 3 days later.

I think about that, and I think about what the President promised us. He was going to send ICE into our communities and make them safer. He was going to make sure that people who came into this country illegally were removed from this country if they were a danger.

Oh, you heard him say it over and over again ``the worst of the worst.'' That is what we are going after. Well, Ruben Torres was not the worst of the worst. He was a father who had been in this country for 20 years, working, paying taxes, raising his family, and his kids had no criminal records whatsoever.

Does a father standing by his dying daughter who is battling cancer sound like ``the worst of the worst'' to you? Would you arrest him and send him off to Texas for 2 weeks on a suspicion and then drop all charges against him when he is begging you for a chance to go home to his sick daughter before she dies?

The political theater extends to the rest of U.S. citizens as well.

Kyle Frankovich and Juan Munoz were arrested and detained during November protests outside the Chicago ICE processing center despite peacefully protesting in a designated free speech zone.

According to Mr. Kyle Frankovich:

Kristi Noem was . . . surrounded by photographers,

videographers, essentially just getting us in the background

as she walked by.

Later, social media posts from DHS showed Kyle handcuffed, dubbing him a ``violent activist.'' But after being detained for hours, Kyle and Juan weren't charged with any crimes. They were just being used as camera props for Secretary Noem's appearance.

These rogue immigration agents have not hesitated to round up American citizens, green card holders, and people with no prior criminal records. They have not hesitated to slap Americans with the label ``domestic terrorist.''

Now, they are building holding facilities--detention facilities--all over the United States--millions of dollars to hold thousands of these detainees for indefinite periods of time.

This is bound to get worse with the unprecedented funding surge of President Trump's ``Big Beautiful Budget Bill.'' Thanks to that bill, ICE--this one Agency, ICE--has more funding than the Coast Guard or U.S. Marine Corps--more funding than the U.S. Marine Corps, an extra $75 billion of taxpayer dollars to fund these ICE agents. We have seen plenty of them in the videotape.

That enormous pot of funding has been used in pursuit of the President's mass deportation agenda, while at the same time they are diverting money away from fighting drug trafficking and gun violence, ultimately making our country less safe. The funding certainly has not been used to improve hiring and training. Amid a hiring surge, ICE has reduced training requirements, waived age limitations, and bundled background checks, promising $50,000 bonuses to those who sign up.

They have sought to recruit new agents via a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign that evokes White nationalism leading to a real concern that America is intentionally enlisting unqualified people based on their animus toward immigrants.

That is why Senate Democrats, with the support of the American people, are demanding real reforms in ICE.

First, DHS must end roving patrols, including indiscriminate arrests and racial profiling. The cameraless stops have to stop. They need to obtain judicial warrants in order to enter private homes.

Second, there needs to be accountability, including new use-of-force standards. And the masks must come off. If the mask is such a darn good idea, then why don't the State troopers in my State and yours wear them? Why don't the county sheriff's deputies wear them? Why don't our police wear them?

Only ICE believes it is so unique and so vulnerable that they need masks. Of course, that vision of a mask-wearing policeman is a secret policeman that doesn't instill trust or confidence in the community.

In a press conference claiming the end of Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota, border czar Tom Homan said in response to protests:

If you want certain laws reformed, [then] take it up with

Congress.

Well, he is right. Congress ought to take this up on the agenda quickly.

He also said:

ICE . . . is enforcing laws enacted by Congress and signed

by the President.

If they are, it is time for us in Congress to change them.

Let me be clear: It is not legal to deploy paramilitary DHS agents to tear gas Americans in the streets or shoot innocent people, nor to allow immigration agents to break into homes without a judicial warrant or detain U.S. citizens based on their race.

Is there any standard when it comes to too much government that the Republicans are embarrassed about?

It is true that our system needs reform. Time and time again, Democrats in Congress have tried to pass laws that bring meaningful fixes to the immigration system.

Thirteen years ago, I was part of a Gang of 8, with John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Jeff Flake, and Marco Rubio on the Republican side; myself, Schumer, Menendez, and Bennet on the Democrat side. We worked for months every night of every week until we had it done, the comprehensive immigration reform.

It had the support of business; it had the support of labor; it had the support of the White House, and we brought it to the floor of the U.S. Senate. It had more than 65 votes in favor of it. I believe there were 15 Republicans who voted for it.

It was a good bill. It would have avoided all the mess that we are facing today. What happened to that bill? It was sent to the Republican-controlled House where they refused to even consider it, wouldn't even bring it up for debate or amendment. They stopped it cold, and they have done nothing ever since.

That serious bipartisan effort would have fixed our immigration system. It

was blocked by Republican obstructionists in the House of Representatives.

That bill included bipartisan provisions to secure our border and deport dangerous individuals. It provided the solution that many undocumented immigrants need today. For those who have no serious criminal convictions, paid their taxes, and followed all the rules, they are offered a path to citizenship.

It was over 20 years ago when I introduced a bill known as the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act said if you were brought to this country as a child, an infant, a toddler, and you were raised in America, pledged allegiance to that flag in your classroom every day, you deserved a chance to earn your way to citizenship. That is the DREAM Act in a nutshell.

That has never become law. It is passed in the Senate occasionally, but not in the House; passed in the House but not in the Senate. Here it sits today.

My guest at the State of the Union tonight is a young woman named Tereza Lee. She lives in the city of New York now, but when I first ran across her, she was in Chicago. She was brought to the United States by her Korean family and raised by a father who wanted to be a minister at a Korean church in Chicago.

As he would visit these churches, it was Tereza that would go from one church to the next hammering away at the local piano which was always on board at these churches. Over time, she became part of the Merit music program and became an accomplished pianist.

There reached a point where she graduated from high school, and they said: You ought to go to one of the best schools, Julliard or Manhattan conservatory. She started to fill out the application, but didn't know what to put when it asked for citizenship.

So she called our office--or at least a friend did--and said: What should Tereza put to fill in the blank? We basically checked and found out that because she was undocumented and overstayed a tourist visa at the age of 2--at the age of 2--that she had to leave the United States for 10 years and apply to come back in.

It didn't sound right to me. How could she be held legally liable for this situation? It was her parents' decision not to file the papers.

So I introduced the DREAM Act. We had a good run on it with over a half a million people protected by a version of it that was passed into law by Executive order by President Obama.

Whatever happened to Tereza Lee? Well, some families in Chicago thought she was pretty good, and she was. She went to college in Manhattan in the city of New York and played in Carnegie Hall. She went on to get a master's and a PhD in music and is now recognized as one of the outstanding teachers of music to kids from lower-income families in New York.

It is an amazing story. She got married to a jazz musician from the United States. They have three children. She is an American citizen today.

She got her chance because people cared. President Obama passed DACA which gave hundreds of thousands of young people just like her a chance to earn their way to citizenship.

Isn't that part of a good immigration system? It should be.

If it had become law, we wouldn't be here today. The provisions that were included in the overall comprehensive immigration bill would have avoided the conflicts we are facing.

The American people are calling for reform today. The time to rein in this terror campaign is now. Congress must act.

I yield the floor.