Floor Statements

Mr. President, I don't believe you can serve in the U.S. Senate without being, at least, an amateur student of history. You are overwhelmed in this Chamber, which is where the Senate has met since 1859, to reflect on all of the things that have occurred in the past, and you remember your own experience there as well. I certainly do.

This is my 29th year of service in the Senate, and I think back this evening to some of the things which I have witnessed and that still stick with me.

I can still see that door open and Ted Kennedy walk through it, summoned from his deathbed in Massachusetts to cast the deciding vote on the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare. He wouldn't miss it, even if it meant he was going to die in the process.

I think of that door over there, when President Trump, in his first term, tried to, basically, eliminate the Affordable Care Act, and it was saved at the last minute, at 2 in the morning, when John McCain came through those doors, stood in the well right by that table through the Republican side, and cast his vote no. He couldn't raise his arm, it had been damaged so badly when he served as a prisoner of war during Vietnam, but you knew how decisive his gesture was. And he saved healthcare for millions of Americans.

There were other moments as well that I can reflect on, but the point I would like to get to is this: There was a speech a few minutes ago on the floor of the U.S. Senate which every Senator should have heard, particularly every Republican Senator.

The Senator from North Carolina gave a speech--Senator Tillis--and explained why he decided to vote against this Republican budget plan, this reconciliation bill. He explained it in a thoughtful and comprehensive and convincing way. But before he made his decision, he turned to Republicans in the State and Democrats and a neutral third party to analyze the bill. He concluded, after that careful study, that this measure, the changes in Medicaid and Medicare and other health programs, would be a disaster for the State of North Carolina.

He had made it clear before tonight that he was going to vote against this bill, and he made it clear this morning that he is preparing to retire from the Senate.

I felt his statement was compelling, and I am sorry that there weren't other Members on the Republican side, at least one beyond the Presiding Officer, present to hear it.

It is seldom that you hear a speech on the floor of the Senate that you know is so personal and so heartfelt and so meaningful as the statement made by Senator Tillis earlier. He made a decision, which will be widely reported, I am sure, and showed a level of political courage which is seldom seen in this Chamber.

He basically said in a positive way that the President was wrong in believing that this wouldn't hurt ordinary people. This Republican measure, which is before us tonight and tomorrow is going to hurt a lot of people.

We estimate that 16 million American families will lose their health insurance as a result of this measure that is on the floor today.

I have said it before, but I want to repeat it. If you have ever been the father of a new baby with a serious medical problem and you have no health insurance, you will never forget that moment as long as you live. I know. I have been there.

I went to the charity ward at Children's Hospital as a student of Georgetown Law School with my wife and baby. We waited in line to see which doctor would walk through the door and see my baby and save her life. You feel that you have let everyone down in the world at that point when you don't have health insurance when you need it so badly. It means so much to you.

This bill is designed to take health insurance away from 11 million families in America. Eleven million families in America in a period of time will not have peace of mind that they have access to the best care because they will have lost their health insurance.

What is it about Donald Trump taking away coverage of healthcare? Why has this become the trademark of the Donald Trump Republican Party? He did it in his first term. He tried to, but John McCain stopped him, and now he is trying to do it again.

The question is whether Senator Tillis and his Republican colleagues can muster enough courage to step up and find four Republican Senators who will say: No. No. I am not going there. I don't want it on my conscious or my record that I took health insurance away from so many American people.

Now, you may argue: Durbin you are a Democrat--and I am--and your arguments have to be tempered because you are so partisan, so political. Surely it isn't as bad as you just said it was.

Well, let me read something to you. It is from a group called the American Cancer Society. I am sure you have heard of it. This is their Cancer Action Network, and it is a letter to the Senate from Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. Here is what she says about the measure that is pending before us now that we are being asked to vote on. It is from the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network:

History will be made with this vote. Congress has one last

chance to stop this unprecedented attack on access to

healthcare for millions of Americans, including cancer

patients and survivors. Congress can say `no' to terminating

health coverage for nearly 11 million people who will have no

other affordable option available to them if this bill

passes.

Currently, 1 in 10 people with a history of cancer have

Medicaid coverage, including 1 in 3 kids who are newly

diagnosed with cancer. We know having quality health coverage

is one of the most significant factors in whether someone

survives a cancer diagnosis. Voting for this bill means

voting to rip the chance of survival away from real people.

She goes on to say:

Simply put, this bill will mean more Americans are living

sicker and dying sooner.

Then she said:

Lives are on the line.

So if you are skeptical about anything that I say because of my partisan background, I understand. But for goodness' sake, when the American Cancer Society--they have such a definitive statement made that this measure we are being asked to vote on is going to harm innocent people--men, women, and children. That is a fact.

I might add another short message we received from the Children's Hospital Association. Matthew Cook is their president and CEO, and here is what he says about this bill that is pending:

The new version of the budget reconciliation bill is a

crisis for children's health care, hospitals, and providers

nationwide, and we ask Congress to oppose it as an act of

support for America's children. The bill goes

much too far. . . . The bill amounts to fewer doctors and

nurses to see your child, longer wait times, and sicker

children. We know that the impacts of poor pediatric health

care reverberate for a lifetime.

That is from the Children's Hospital Association.

Neither of these organizations is a partisan organization, and they have confirmed what Senator Tillis said earlier on behalf of the State of North Carolina and what those of us on this side of the aisle have been saying all along.

Why would we risk the lives and well-being of so many children, so many American families? What is it about the trillion dollars which we will take out of the healthcare system in America that is so pressing, so demanding that we are willing to make these big risks? I will tell you what it is. It is the extension of tax breaks--tax breaks for the wealthiest people.

Oh, Durbin, you Democrats always talk about billionaires and millionaires. It can't be true.

Senator Angus King is here. He told me that he did an analysis of the actual tax breaks. If I remember correctly, if you do a cut-off of income at $400,000 a year and say anyone over that figure is not going to receive any tax break, you would reduce the cost of this tax program by 60 percent or more--60 percent or more.

So when we talk about tax breaks for the wealthiest people in America, that is exactly what this is about. I want to give tax breaks, if we can, to working families that struggle paycheck to paycheck. For goodness' sake, a $346,000 tax cut for Elon Musk, the richest man on Earth? What are we thinking?

I just want to make quick reference to two States that have an experience coming with this bill, which will be dramatic. One is Kansas. In Kansas, 360,000 individuals rely on Medicaid coverage. Fifty-six percent of them are children. But with this bill, 89,000 people in Kansas are going to lose their health insurance.

In Kansas, Medicaid covers one-third of births and 58 percent of nursing home residents. What happens when Medicaid does not pay enough money to the nursing home to keep your mother in good care or your father or someone in your family? What do you do next? Well, you exhaust the savings that are available to your family. If that isn't enough, what is next? I don't know.

When I grew up, as a kid, there was a spare bedroom in my grandparents' home for brothers and sisters who had no place else to go. I suppose that is going to happen to some families.

Already, 28 rural hospitals in Kansas are at immediate risk of cloture. To think that this measure will have no impact on those families and those communities is just plain wrong.

In the adjoining State of Missouri--I grew up across the river, the Mississippi River; I grew up in Illinois; I grew up across the river from St. Louis, MO--1.2 million individuals rely on Medicaid coverage. Fifty percent are children. With this bill, 250,000 people in Missouri are projected to lose their health insurance. Medicaid covers 40 percent of births in Missouri and 65 percent of nursing home residents.

Already, 10 rural hospitals in Missouri are at immediate risk of closure. Mr. President, you know as well as I do what happens in smalltown America, rural America, when they close the hospital. It is devastating--not just because you don't have access to quality healthcare but because you just lost a major economic engine for that community. Try to attract a new business to that town after the hospital closes. Watch what you run into. It is that devastating.

That is the reality of this approach. And why are we doing it? What is the national energy that calls on us to make this change? Tax breaks for the wealthiest people in the America. That is what is motivating the Republicans now.

I want to close and just say thank you to Senator Tillis. He has shown extraordinary courage. The question is whether others will join him, whether four Republican Senators will step up and say: Enough. I have heard enough. I have seen enough. I believe this is wrong.

There are ways we can help people who need a tax break rather than the wealthiest people that won't damage some of these families. Eleven million, 16 million--whatever the number turns out to be--will lose health insurance.

I hope that we come to our senses and do it soon. I hope what Senator Tillis said on the floor will inspire Members of his own caucus to listen carefully, to know that he speaks the truth and has taken great political risk to say it.

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 to the bill:

(1) A motion to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on

Armed Services of the Senate with instructions to report the

same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on

which the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) restore funding for the Congressionally Directed

Medical Research Program of the Department of Defense to an

amount equal to not less than five percent real growth

annually over the fiscal year 2024 level through fiscal year

2029.

(2) A motion to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on

Armed Services of the Senate with instructions to report the

same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on

which the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) insert after section 20011 a new section appropriating

not less than $300,000,000 for the Ukraine Security

Assistance Initiative by using cost savings associated with a

prohibition on the procurement, modification, restoration, or

maintenance of an aircraft previously owned by a foreign

government, an entity controlled by a foreign government, or

a representative of a foreign government for the purposes of

providing presidential airlift options.

(3) A motion to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on

Finance of the Senate with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) strike provisions that would reduce funding that

supports biomedical research into cancer, amyotrophic lateral

sclerosis (ALS), Alzheimer's disease, congenital heart

defects, and other critical conditions.

(4) A motion to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on

Finance of the Senate with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that-

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee;

(2) would eliminate provisions that cut Medicaid payments

rural hospitals in Maine, Alaska, Missouri, Kansas, North

Carolina, Louisiana, or West Virginia need to stay open; and

(3) would ensure big corporations and the ultra-wealthy pay

a fair share in taxes.

(5) A motion to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on

the Judiciary of the Senate with instructions to report the

same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on

which the Senate is not in session, with changes that

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee;

(2) increase funding to ensure personnel at the Department

of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are

addressing the creation and distribution of child sexual

abuse material, the fentanyl crisis, violent crime, political

violence, and terrorism; and

(3) restrict the funds described in paragraph (2) from

being used for mass deportations.

(6) A motion to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on

the Judiciary of the Senate with instructions to report the

same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on

which the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) ensure that grant programs that fund victim service

providers or provide support or compensation to victims of

crime remain accessible or uninterrupted, and that any such

programs subject to administrative funding freezes or

terminations are restored.

Mr. President, Senator Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico and Senator Peter Welch of Vermont support the motion to commit bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and eliminate provisions that would cut Medicaid payments to rural hospitals in Maine, Alaska, Missouri, Kansas, North Carolina, Louisiana, or West Virginia and ensure big corporations and the ultrawealthy pay a fair share in taxes. Senator Lujan and Senator Welch know the existing challenges rural hospitals face and understand the profound harm that this Republican tax scheme will have on our Nation's rural hospitals. I hope my Senate Republican colleagues join us in standing up for the hospitals in their States that would suffer under this Republican legislation.

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

Mr. President, the late Jack Valenti, the once Special Assistant to LBJ turned longtime President of the Motion Picture Association, once said:

Every good speech contains six words: Let me tell you a

story.

I have taken Jack Valenti's advice to heart. I have often told stories that might otherwise have been ignored--stories of the most vulnerable members of our community, those who might not be able to obtain the services of communications agencies, white-shoe law firms, and high-profile lobbyists. For decades, I have been honored to

have one of the best storytellers on Capitol Hill helping me.

For more than 20 years, Molly Rowley, my director of speechwriting, has helped shaped some of my spoken words. Monday, June 30, will mark her final day on my staff.

Molly is not from Illinois. Her family hails from Missouri, and she is always happy to remind us and our colleagues that her Kansas City Chiefs are regular playoff contenders and repeat Super Bowl champions.

She began her career as a newspaper reporter, but she eventually found her way into public service, writing speeches from New Jersey Gov. Jim Florio, the late-Senator Harris Wofford of Pennsylvania, and Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota.

In 2005--20 years ago--Molly came to my office after working for Senator Daschle when he was the Democratic leader of the Senate. Before leaving Senator Daschle's office, Molly had written a compelling floor speech that caught my attention. I went over to Senator Daschle and asked if he had a staffer who helped him write that speech, and he mentioned Molly.

Fast-forward to 2005, when I was the brandnew whip of the Democratic caucus looking for staffers with leadership office experience. Molly was the perfect person to bring on board.

Speechwriting is part art and part science but really not either one. It is translating complex policy issues into a compelling narrative. That is not always an easy thing to do.

For Molly, her process starts with a simple question: How would this affect the average family in Illinois? She has a knack for turning arcane legislative text into poetry, and she often did so with little time and even less background.

If you were to strike up a conversation with Molly, it would not take long for you to notice her passion for language, creativity, and a deep pride in her Irish roots, like so many in my home State of Illinois.

She was able to add some special Irish charm to many of my speech materials over the years, from immigration events to Chicago's notable St. Patrick's Day celebrations.

Molly's source material knew no bounds. She would artfully weave into my remarks quotes from our Nation's Founding Fathers; landmark speeches of Presidents like Illinois' very own Abraham Lincoln; civil rights icons like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the late-Congressman John Lewis; prose of the Irish literary giants James Joyce and William Butler Yeats; and even hit Broadway musicals like Lin-Manuel Miranda's ``Hamilton.''

She excelled at uncovering obscure facts about a small town or community and using it as a centerpiece to tie a speech together. Whether ribbon cuttings for local health clinics, naturalization ceremonies, commencement addresses, or Senate floor speeches, Molly did so much more than prepare remarks; she found the heart of the story.

Molly's interest and commitment to social justice and civil rights has been evident not only in her work but in the way she participated in life on Capitol Hill.

A lot of history has been made in these hallways, and Molly has made herself a part of it, whether chronicling the lying in honor of Rosa Parks, State of the Union speeches by President Obama, or being seated in the middle of the room for the Judiciary hearings for the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to be a Justice of the Supreme Court.

I am grateful to have had Molly as a member of my team for all of these years and to help me tell these stories. I am confident she will use her gift of words to raise awareness of current events, not just in her community and country but globally.

But, first, she will take a well-deserved break and explore Europe with her mom before returning to spend time with her beloved four- legged roommate Liam.

I will miss Molly's wisdom, skill, and rhetorical flourishes.

I would like to close my remarks with her own words about leaving Capitol Hill. Molly wrote recently:

My favorite part of the Capitol has long been the soft dips

in the stairs where the hard marble has worn down by more

than a century and a half of footsteps.

Those indentations always remind me that we are part of a

great continuum.

We do our best while we are here to protect our beloved

democracy and then we move on, hoping and trusting that those

who come after us will also safeguard this priceless gift.

Molly, on your watch, you kept this gift safe. I am glad to be part of your career on Capitol Hill and a recipient of so much good work. I wish you the best.

Mr. President, we know that our men and women in uniform are vital public servants. They shoulder an immense responsibility when protecting and safeguarding our communities. Each morning, when our officers put on that uniform and badge, they head into the line of duty not knowing what the day may bring. They may be called on to run toward danger. Or they may be put in harm's way. But despite the knowledge of this looming risk, our officers selflessly show up in service to others day in and day out, driven by a sense of mission larger than themselves.

So I am confident I speak for all of us in this Chamber when I say a how incredibly grateful we are to our police officers for their service. This is also why it is especially painful and tragic when one of our officers is lost in the line of duty. And it is with a heavy heart and profound sadness that I speak about the passing of one of Chicago's own, Chicago Police Department Officer Krystal Rivera.

Officer Rivera was killed in the line of duty on Thursday, June 5 of this year. She was just 36 years old--her whole life still ahead of her--and leaves behind her 10-year-old daughter Bella. Officer Rivera was a 4-year veteran of the Chicago Police Department, but called the city ``home'' for much longer. The youngest of three sisters, she was raised in Humboldt Park by her loving and proud Puerto Rican parents Yolanda Rivera and Eduardo Miguel Rivera.

Those who were fortunate to know Officer Rivera described her as a passionately protective spirit who loved boldly--a trait she no doubt inherited from her beloved mother, with whom she credited as her greatest motivation and inspiration in life. Her father, too, shaped her immensely. A preacher, he imparted to Officer Rivera not just a deep love of God, but a profound sense of duty and devotion to family.

At 18, Officer Rivera initially planned to join the Army, but soon felt a strong calling to serve her community as a police officer--and serve she did. While she served and juggled the demands of motherhood, she also pursued a separate goal. Her dream was to become a forensic investigator, a dream she actively pursued. Because of the values she lived for, it should come as no surprise that, within the precinct, Officer Rivera earned the nickname ``Mama 2''--one of two mother figures on the team. And for Officer Rivera, family was family--blood or not. She had a loving heart and touched countless lives.

Officer Rivera's funeral was held earlier this week, and hundreds of her fellow officers, friends, and family came out to pay their respects--because that is the kind of person she was. That was the impact she left.

And while she held many titles in life--daughter, officer, and ``Mama 2''--none were more important to Officer Rivera than the one she cherished most: ``Bella's mom.'' Her daughter Bella was her biggest priority in her life, and she poured all of herself into being her mom. In doing so, she gave Bella those same values her parents gifted her-- values I am confident Bella will carry with her as she continues through life. And so I want to close with a story about Bella.

This story was originally shared at the service for Officer Rivera earlier this week where she was laid to rest; it is worth recounting.

On the night of her mother's tragic passing, Bella looked Chicago Police Superintendent Larry Snelling in the eye and asked him one simple question: ``Was my mom a good police officer?'' Officer Snelling responded, ``Your mom was an exemplary police officer . . . She was magnificent because, what I've often said about being an exemplary police officer, you first have to be an exemplary human being.''

To Bella, I would like to say: Your mother wasn't just a good police officer. She was a great one. And she wasn't just a good mother. She was an exceptional one. To lose your mother at that age must be an incredible pain. But, Bella, while painful, I hope you find comfort in her memory. Find comfort in remembering her kind smile and warm embrace. And find comfort knowing that, while she may be gone, she lives on through you--her sweet Bella--as you continue your own journey through this great ride called life.

My wife Loretta and I send our deepest condolences to Officer Rivera's family, including her mother Yolanda; her sisters Jacqueline and Yasmin; and her stepfather Roderick--along with Bella.

May God watch over you and wipe your tears during this difficult time, and may he continue to guide you today, tomorrow, and forevermore.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats have successfully challenged several controversial Judiciary provisions from the Republican so-called One Big Beautiful Bill. One example: The Republicans included a provision that would have limited the ability of individuals to challenge the Trump administration's Executive actions by potentially putting them on the hook for millions of dollars when they try to defend their constitutional rights and go to court. Fortunately, the Senate Parliamentarian struck this provision.

Now, I am proud of what we accomplished in eliminating some harmful provisions, but there are still a lot of problems with the Big Beautiful Bill. The more we learn about this bill, the worse it looks. Perhaps that is why there is a hurry to get this done before the Fourth of July and people can take a close look at the details. I cannot stand idly by as my Senate Republican colleagues try to steamroll this bill through Congress because the President wants to do something before the Fourth of July.

We all know the provisions relative to healthcare and what they mean. The version that came over from the House of Representatives would have stricken health insurance coverage for 16 million families in America. What a wonderful idea. What are the Republicans thinking? There must be some real emergency reason to take health insurance coverage away from 16 million families. Well, it turns out the reason is to give a tax break to the wealthiest people in America.

Oh, you Democrats; you always say that. It just can't be true.

Listen, it is true. If you take people making $400,000 a year, the tax breaks that are being given by the Republicans--60 percent of them go to people making more than $400,000 a year; and at the highest levels of income, the Elon Musk part of the world, $346,000 a year in tax breaks.

I have to say, I have met Mr. Musk. I don't know him very well, but I don't think he will miss it if $346,000 in tax breaks don't come his way. But I do think 16 million families will miss health insurance coverage. I know I would.

In 2021, when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Parliamentarian ruled against our efforts--Democratic efforts--to include immigration policy in a reconciliation bill even though the budget impact was more than $100 billion. At the time, the Parliamentarian wrote:

The reasons that people risk their lives to come to this

country . . . cannot be measured in Federal dollars.

That is still true.

Despite this precedent, Republicans' Judiciary title in the Big Beautiful Bill is a wish list of policy changes to help carry out mass deportations of immigrants who have lived in our country for years and pose no threat to our safety.

Let's get down to the bottom line here. If someone is living in this country, seeking citizenship, and they are dangerous, they commit a serious crime, as far as I am concerned, they are gone; they have forfeited any right to consider staying in this country or acquiring citizenship. But there are so many others who came to this country and overstayed a student visa, overstayed a tourist visa, and they are technically in violation of the law. What have they done with their lives? Look around, America. They are everywhere. They are working in your hospitals. They are working in your hotels. They are working in your restaurants. They are living next door to you, and they are going to church with you and your kids. These are people who are making America a stronger nation, and to brand them as criminals or rapists or terrorists without any proof whatsoever is just plain wrong. It is a shame that we have reached this point.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to what White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said: Wow. It is amazing what this bill, the Big Beautiful Bill, accomplishes--the full border agenda, the full immigration agenda.

These policies of mass deportation of immigrants are cruel and mean, and they go beyond any question of public safety.

This bill would impose exorbitant fees that would make it impossible for vulnerable immigrants to access humanitarian relief in the United States. This includes a $1,000 fee on asylum and a $5,000 bond for parents seeking to be reunited with their child. The fees also place barriers on due process: a $900 fee for an appeal in an immigration court. These fees are not just unconscionable, they are unfair.

The Republican reconciliation bill increases State and local law enforcement grants funding. That sounds good, doesn't it? Well, you are wrong. This provision specifically prohibits using grant funds for community violence intervention and prevention programs, which are proven, evidence-informed strategies to reduce violence.

We have a gun violence epidemic in America. Currently, guns are the No. 1 cause of death for American children and teens. Let me repeat that. In America, guns are the No. 1 cause of death for American children and teens. Not auto accidents, not cancer--guns.

We need to support and strengthen community violence intervention and prevention programs. I have seen them, and I have seen them work in the city of Chicago and all around the State of Illinois to stop violent incidents before they happen. And we need to connect people with treatment and tools that decrease the risk of future violence.

But instead of supporting valuable public safety measures, the Republican Big Beautiful Bill removes taxes and regulations on certain rifles, shotguns, and gun silencers. That is just what we need in America, isn't it--cheaper guns.

Combating this epidemic takes ingenuity and funding, not the reversal of lifesaving gun violence prevention policies. But Republicans' reckless reconciliation bill will jeopardize the progress that has been made in our communities.

To make matters worse, Senator Cruz of Texas has added a provision that would leave the U.S. AI--artificial intelligence--industry an unregulated Wild West. This provision would give

States the choice between regulating AI or accepting Federal funding under the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program. This means States would have to choose between freezing all regulations on artificial intelligence for the next decade or giving up specific Federal funding.

In addition to preventing new State regulations, it would make many of the laws already passed by States unenforceable regarding issues of AI, such as political deepfakes, face recognition, and algorithmic discrimination.

We are currently living with the results of our failure to regulate Big Tech when it came to social media. Let's not make the same mistake when it comes to AI.

This provision by Senator Cruz will allow Big Tech and bad actors to prey on the lack of regulations in the AI space and develop deceptive, biased, and potentially dangerous tools that hurt ordinary Americans and diminish trust in technology.

Senator Cruz claims the provisions would only affect a State's eligibility to receive a part of the $500 million Federal investment, but as my Democratic colleagues Senator Cantwell and Markey have pointed out, there is also a stipulation in the provision that would hold $42 billion in essential broadband program funding hostage. This would force States to choose between protecting consumers from AI- related harm or expanding critical broadband.

Senator Cruz's provision provides greater harm to the American people than good. And listen, it says that this will be for 10 years. I would like to say that I am confident the Federal Government would respond within 10 years, but there is still no guarantee.

I promise to support any amendment that will remove the AI pause provision from this bill, and I hope my Republican colleagues will do the same.

So now is the real test for my Senate Republican colleagues. Will they stand with President Trump and provide tax breaks for multimillionaires and billionaires or will they stand with their hard- working constituents and reject this betrayal?

What is more important, a tax break for Elon Musk or the health insurance of 16 million in America? What is more important, a tax break for the wealthiest people in America or your rural hospital?

I think people know that when it comes to the quality of life, the hospital is more important, and health insurance is critical.

I hope, for the sake of our country, four Republican Senators will have the courage to step up and choose their constituents over special interest groups.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Nevada (Mrs. Cortez Masto) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, we are here today to ensure the Senate fulfills its constitutional duties regarding the sole power to involve our Nation in war. An important briefing will take place tomorrow and, perhaps, a vote on this very issue.

Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution clearly states that the power to declare war is an explicit power of Congress. Three words: to declare war. Congress overwhelmingly reaffirmed this constitutional provision when it passed the War Powers Act in 1973 over the veto of President Nixon.

Under the War Powers Act, the President has the authority to approve military attacks as a response to an imminent threat or with the express authorization of Congress. Neither of these were the case with President Trump's decision to bomb Iran over the weekend. The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism; wants to destroy Israel and undermine U.S. interests; oppress its own people; and is interested in owning a nuclear weapon. But those are not justifications to ignore the Constitution. If the United States is to start a war with Iran over these or any other issue, the Constitution itself requires it must be with the consent of Congress.

Let me also add that we had an effective agreement that contained Iran's nuclear program--I remember it well under President Obama--that is, until President Trump, in his first term, abruptly withdrew the United States from this agreement, adding to the more volatile situation which we face today.

That is why I support the Senator from Virginia Tim Kaine's War Powers Resolution. It requires a prompt debate and vote prior to using additional U.S. military force against Iran. This Senate should not allow the country to be led into another Middle Eastern war without its consent.

When I reflect on the time that I have served in the Senate, one of the most memorable votes was on the question of the invasion of Iraq. If the Presiding Officer will recall that debate, the argument was being made by the White House that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that we had to preemptively start a war with that country to stop those weapons from being used against us or our allies. We know what happened. There was a vote on the floor of the Senate. It was about 11 o'clock or 12 o'clock at night. There were 23 of us who voted against the invasion of Iraq--one Republican and 22 Democrats. I believe it was the best vote I ever cast as a Senator. There were no weapons of mass destruction. We were invading a country under a false premise. We were going to wage a war there and, unfortunately, did at the expense of American lives for a long period of time.

This Senate should not be led into another war in the Middle East without the consent of the American people through Congress. Our Founders knew this point: One should never send our sons and daughters into war without the consent of the American people--an argument I have made regardless of who the President has been of either party.

We have already ceded too much congressional power on so many different subjects. I am almost speechless, which is something for a Senator. We are at a point where Congress continues to give away its power and its authority. I don't know how to explain it. I don't know why people would go through the awful challenge of running for office to serve in the U.S. Senate while each and every President tries to take away our authority to appropriate funds, for example; to make critical decisions. And so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are willing to give that away to their favorite President. Well, when you give away that authority, the next President may not be your favorite, but he will have the authority that you ceded and gave away to your favorite President. We have already ceded too much in appropriations and key items. Let's not do that when it comes to war.

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.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.