Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that DeNay Adams, Quentin Mansfield, Victoria Esparza, and Kelsey Handschuh be granted floor privileges until April 3, 2025.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Thank you. I first want to acknowledge this extraordinary moment in the history of the Senate. I believe you have been holding the floor now for more than 10 hours, and perhaps we will go on even longer.

You have been joined by your colleague and friend Senator Murphy of Connecticut. I am sorry to take the early morning shift, but I didn't want to miss this moment in history, not just for the historic nature of it but for the substance of it as well.

I just remind my colleague and fellow member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that it was only maybe 3, maybe 4 weeks ago that we had witnesses before the Judiciary Committee, and I asked a question. One of them is pending on the calendar, the Executive Calendar, on the floor. His name is Dean Sauer of Missouri. He is seeking the position of Solicitor General of the United States. Along with him was the lady aspiring to be the Assistant Deputy Attorney General for Civil Rights, Harmeet Dhillon, and Aaron Reitz, who has been approved by the Senate for a legal policy position.

The questioning went to the basics of our Constitution, which you have noted here today; that is, what is the check and balance on a President? What is the accountability of a President under the Constitution?

As I read it--and I don't profess to be expert; I am still learning-- as I read it, the accountability of the President is in article II--in article III, I am sorry, article III, the judiciary.

Ultimately, the President can be held accountable by impeachment in Congress or by decision of the court. Some of the orders that he is promulgating are inconsistent with law and the Constitution.

The question that was asked of the witnesses who are seeking positions in the Department of Justice: Can a public official defy a court order? It seems so fundamental and basic. The answer is no, of course, but these three witnesses all equivocated in their own ways, which raises a question: If this President is not held accountable by court order, what, then, can control a President who misuses their office, to the detriment of the Nation, of the people who live here? That, I thought, was a fundamental question.

It was interesting to note--you may remember--that one of our Republican colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, after hearing these witnesses equivocate on whether a public official can defy a court order, came to the committee and basically said: What are you saying? The answer is obvious.

You can criticize a decision of the court within the bounds of propriety as a member of the bar. You can appeal a decision of the court, but if that doesn't satisfy you, your recourse is to quit, resign, leave. The Constitution has the last word. The courts have the last word. And I think that is a question that you are raising today.

Where is the accountability of the President of the United States when he misuses the power of office?

In the cases that you have mentioned, the Alien Enemies Act--it is a law that has been around since 1807 or somewhere around that time--I think it is clear, unless you have declared a war or unless you are invaded, you cannot invoke the Alien Enemies Act as this President has done, and he is being challenged in that regard.

Yesterday, our friend Senator Grassley, who chairs the Judicial Committee--and I say ``friend.'' Some people back home say: Don't say that anymore. We don't talk to those people. They are wrong. This is a body where we do talk to one another, and we should for good reason.

Well, he raised the question yesterday, why is President Trump being challenged so often in court? Well, he has issued 102 Executive orders. I don't know if that is a record, but I will bet it is, 102 Executive orders. Questioning something as basic as birthright sovereignty, birthright citizenship.

And so the point that I am getting to is in obvious situations here where President Trump has gone too far, where is the accountability? It is not going to be an impeachment. We are realists. We know that the Republican House of Representatives is not likely to ever consider that. It could be in the courts.

And if it goes to the courts, the question is, Will this President follow a court order if it goes against his policy? And if he won't follow that court order, where is the accountability? Where is the check and balance? Where is the constitutional framework which is supposed to be at the foundation of this democracy?

I think you are raising important questions, and the Insurrection Act, the use of our military for political purposes, is a frightening prospect. It is something we have avoided throughout our history and should continue to.

And I just commend you for raising this point because I believe it is timely. It is timely as the questions that we ask of these Department of Justice nominees about the enforceability of court orders.

And the question is now, Will the American people speak up? I am counting on some of our Republican friends to speak up too. Throughout history, there have been moments when the party, other than the President's party, showed extreme courage, political courage, and spoke up. We need that kind of voice now. I thank you for raising it on the floor this morning. My question to you is, at this moment in time, as we ask these nominees whether they would follow a court order or defy a court order, doesn't that get to the basics of our constitutional democracy?

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) 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 unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for 10 minutes and that Senator Merkley be permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes prior to the scheduled vote.

Mr. President, the State of the Union Address was quite a performance by President Trump.

Maybe one of the highlights of humor was when he focused on the Social Security Administration. Remember what he told us? There were 4.7 million ``Social Security members''--that is the term he used--4.7 million Social Security members who were between 100 and 109 years old. He went on to say that 1.3 million Social Security members were between the ages of 150 and 159 and that 130,000 were over the age of 160. These were the President's words. He goes on to talk about 1,039 between the ages of 220 and 229--even one who is a 360-year-old person. The place was rocking with laughter to think that a Federal Agency as important as Social Security could be defrauded by people claiming to be this age and still receiving checks--what a great joke, what a misrepresentation of the truth. What the President said was not true. It was misleading. It was overblown. It was inaccurate. In fact, it was just plain wrong.

He delivered this address to a joint session of Congress to the American people--the one time each year when we are focused on the President's words--and he made these deliberate misrepresentations of the Social Security Administration.

He claimed that the unelected billionaire, Elon Musk, and his DOGE boys had identified ``shocking levels of incompetence and probable fraud within Social Security.'' Mr. Musk then claimed at a later point that tens of millions of dead people over the age of 100 were still receiving Social Security benefits.

Outrageous. Outrageous and untrue.

In his speech, President Trump claimed there was a 360-year-old somehow receiving Social Security benefits as a member. I am not sure what that means. Obviously, it raised eyebrows. How could somebody born in the 1600s be receiving Social Security benefits? It turned out it wasn't true. What the President said was misleading and untrue, not truthful.

The Social Security Administration has databases that include the information of millions of Americans. Some of those records lack a recorded date of death, but of course, that certainly doesn't mean that the people are still alive, and it certainly doesn't mean, further, that they are receiving any Social Security benefits.

The Washington Post obtained internal records which showed the Social Security Administration looked into this very issue last month. What did they find? Only 1,300 Americans over the age of 100 were still receiving benefits. That is far short of the ``shocking levels'' the President said ``of incompetence and probable fraud.''

The truth is, you would be hard-pressed to find another Agency that is more closely scrutinized than Social Security. It routinely audits benefit payments to make sure they are accurate. The Office of Inspector General conducted a report in 2024 which found that less than 1 percent of Social Security payments were improper--less than 1 percent--but President Trump's statement made it seem like Social Security is riddled with fraud and incompetence. Payments to a 360- year-old individual? Outrageous. Untrue.

You wonder why he said these things to the American people in his State of the Union Address. I believe President Trump and Mr. Musk are intentionally misrepresenting the challenges Social Security faces as the rationale to implement their harmful policies. The Trump administration's disdain for Social Security is clear.

Elon Musk, the President's unelected buddy, describes Social Security as the ``biggest Ponzi scheme of all time,'' said Mr. Musk, and shared a post on Twitter that called those who benefit from Federal programs-- get ready--the ``parasite class.'' The ``parasite class'' are Social Security recipients.

Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick called Americans who were calling in to report missing Social Security benefits ``fraudsters.'' This same billionaire, Mr. Lutnick, bragged that his mother-in-law wouldn't care if she didn't receive a monthly check from Social Security. Well, perhaps, if your son-in-law is a billionaire, you don't care, but most people don't live that kind of life.

These comments are not only wrong and misleading, they are sickening--sickening. These people work their

whole lives paying into Social Security with the promise that it will take care of them when they decide to retire, and now the question is being raised as to whether they were parasites throughout their lives.

First, this disdain for Social Security and the Americans who rely on it can be found in the policies that are being pushed by the administration. The President announced that 7,000 workers at Social Security will be terminated--7,000. That is 12 percent of the total Social Security workforce at a time when the Social Security Administration is facing a 50-year staffing low.

Second, the President announced that Social Security will limit 1-800 phone services. It already takes a half an hour to reach a representative at Social Security. Now there are reports it is taking several hours to get a call picked up if you have a question. Nearly 9,000 people become eligible for Social Security benefits every single day. They should not have to wait hours to speak with someone if they have a legitimate question.

Third, President Trump announced the closure of Social Security offices across America, including some in my State of Illinois. I ran into an individual in the coffee shop in Springfield a few weeks ago. He is retired now.

He said: Senator, it was smarter for me to get in the car and drive 40 minutes each way to Litchfield, IL, to the Social Security office rather than to wait in line for hours at the Springfield office.

Each one of the actions taken by the Trump administration has made it more difficult for seniors and people with disabilities to access their benefits. Americans are worried, some are even terrified, questioning whether or not they will continue to have access to earned benefits and essential services. How do I know? Many have written to me.

Carolyn from Chicago recently told me she tried to call Social Security to make an appointment. She was told the wait time on the phone was 120 minutes. She waited the 2 hours but still didn't get to speak to someone. She hung up and tried again later and was told again it was another 120-minute wait. Imagine waiting on hold for 2 hours for your phone call not to be picked up. Carolyn told me the level of service from Social Security right now is unacceptable. She is kind, and she is right. Americans depend on Social Security and its workers to pick up the phone, answer their questions, and help them secure their benefits.

Social Security is a bedrock of American society. It is a promise. Almost all of us contribute to it throughout our lives and expect it will be there when we need it, but as usual, President Trump is making the problem even worse.

Since 2010, Social Security's customer service budget has been reduced by 20 percent when counting for inflation. Staff has fallen by 11 percent while 13 million additional beneficiaries have started to receive benefits. For too long, we have asked the Social Security Administration to do more with less, and now President Trump is taking that to an extreme, so I am calling on him to abandon these plans.

If you actually want to make Social Security more efficient, it needs more well-trained people, more resources, more funding. We do not need the recent college graduates in the so-called Department of Government Efficiency to take Social Security for a joyride while their grandparents are in the back, holding on for dear life. We certainly don't need the sage advice of billionaires who cannot begin to understand what it means to live month to month while waiting for a Social Security check as so many Americans do.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, some people come to Congress to check a box, collect a credential, and then head to where the big bucks are: lobbying firms. For others, working as a Capitol Hill staffer is part of a lifetime of public service.

Kevin Cronin was one of the latter types. He believed in public service, and I consider myself lucky that Kevin chose to work for me. It was during my years in the House of Representatives. Kevin was my lead staffer on the House Budget Committee. He was hard-working, clever, and smart as a whip.

Sadly, Kevin passed away earlier this month in Cleveland, OH, the place where he grew up and where he first learned about politics and public service.

Kevin was the middle son in a family of proud Irish American Democrats. Both of his parents were involved in the civil rights movement during the 1960s and 70s. His mom also was quite active in the women's movement.

John Glenn, the astronaut hero turned U.S. Senator, was a family friend. So was ``Battling Bella'' Abzug. Kevin's father worked for Carl Stokes, the first Black mayor of Cleveland. His mother worked on campaigns for Jane Campbell, Cleveland's first woman mayor, and Mary Boyle, the first woman commissioner for Cuyahoga County.

Kevin received his own introduction to shoe-leather politics when he was in middle school. He and his two brothers would knock on doors seeking to turn out the vote in elections.

Kevin was also an avid tennis player in the National Junior Tennis League, a program founded by Arthur Ashe that used tennis to teach city kids important life skills.

He graduated from Columbia University with a double major in political science and fine arts and earned a law degree from the University of Wisconsin. After that, he came to Washington. He served as a congressional aide for a decade and worked for some giants, including John Conyers, chair of the House Budget Committee, and the late Senator Dianne Feinstein of California.

He was a whiz with budget details and parliamentary rules. He understood how to turn good ideas into good laws. Somehow, he always found time to encourage and teach younger staffers, including a Capitol Hill newbie named Pat Souders, who is now my chief of staff.

But Kevin's real passion was grassroots organizing, so he moved back to Cleveland and poured himself into civic campaigns and causes. He worked as a pro bono attorney for a group called Bike Cleveland that pushed successfully for new bike lanes to connect Cleveland and its suburbs. He also offered legal guidance to environmental groups working to expand the use of renewable energy sources, including harnessing the great wind power potential of Lake Erie.

He helped to preserve Cleveland's history, especially the city's links to the abolitionist and civil rights movements. He worked to raise awareness for the Cozad-Bates House, a stop on the Underground Railroad. He also was working to raise support to save Jesse Owens' childhood home and turn it into a museum.

His main job for 15 years was working as an ad litem attorney in the Cleveland City Courts, representing children who had been removed from their family homes and, very often, had suffered neglect and trauma. It was difficult, heart-rending work, but he did it because he believed the children needed someone on their side.

Kevin was diagnosed with severe aplastic anemia 15 years ago. It is a condition, similar to leukemia, in which one's body cannot produce enough white blood cells to protect against infection. He was able to lead a full life for years, thanks in part to an NIH clinical trial for a drug that kept his illness in check. But a few months ago, the drug stopped working. Kevin was 61 years old.

I want to offer my condolences to his brothers Kiely and Rob and their families, to Kevin's friends, and to the countless people whose lives he touched and enriched, from Capitol Hill to Cleveland and far beyond. He was a good man, and he will be missed.

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 Arizona (Mr. Gallego) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on the nomination of Aaron Reitz, President Trump's nominee for Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy.

Simply put, Mr. Reitz's nomination is a danger to the rule of law. At his confirmation hearing, I asked him a very simple question that should be a softball for any nominee seeking Senate confirmation.

When I asked him whether an elected official should be allowed to defy a Federal court order, Mr. Reitz said, ``There is no hard and fast rule about whether in every instance a public official is bound by a court decision.''

I was disgusted to hear these words come out of the mouth of a nominee aspiring to hold a key role at the Department of Justice.

Mr. Reitz's failure to unequivocally commit to following Federal court orders even prompted my colleague Senator Kennedy to admonish Mr. Reitz, ``Don't ever, ever, take the position that you're not going to follow the order of a federal court. Ever.''

I couldn't agree more.

Despite that sage advice, Mr. Reitz repeated this equivocation in answers to written questions, stating that, ``Parties to litigation are bound by the lawful holdings of their respective court in most circumstances,'' but not all circumstances.

This administration has continued to undermine our system of checks and balances by pushing the boundaries of executive power, and, in turn, chipping away at the authority and legitimacy of the judicial branch.

Mr. Reitz has made clear his intent to aid the President in pursuing this agenda, regardless of whether it is in accordance with judicial orders.

But that is not my only concern with Aaron Reitz. He has attempted to hide his disturbing views on many topics, deleting approximately 4,000 social media posts. Nothing was off-limits in the posts the Judiciary Committee uncovered.

Reitz has condemned millions of Catholics and Christians who supported President Biden, writing that there was, ``no excuse'' for their vote.

He openly opposes the legality of same-sex marriage, calling the Obergefell decision, ``anti-const[itutional]'' and a ``low point in SCOTUS history.''

Mr. Reitz also has aligned himself with Matt Walsh, a self-proclaimed ``theocratic fascist,'' who believes that, ``the LGBT left indoctrinates and recruits children.''

And despite the protections enshrined in the 14th Amendment, Mr. Reitz incorrectly wrote, ``Friendly reminder that `birthright citizenship' is not a thing.''

Before Derek Chauvin was convicted of murdering George Floyd and despite the video footage of Chauvin kneeling on Mr. Floyd's neck for over 9 minutes, Mr. Reitz wrote, ``No question in my mind that Chauvin is not guilty.''

That is simply an offensive statement. Several Republican Members of the Senate rightfully spoke out about this horrific crime.

Even after Chauvin was convicted, Mr. Reitz called the jury's decision, ``a bogus guilty verdict.''

I guess it should come as no surprise that Mr. Reitz's disrespect for the finality of court orders is matched by his disrespect for the finality of a jury's verdict.

Mr. Reitz's online commentary demonstrates his penchant for fringe policy positions and extreme ideologies.

His failure to comply with Federal court orders should cause great concern for all of us who believe in our constitutional order, built on the foundation of three coequal branches of government.

Failing to unequivocally commit to following Federal court orders should be disqualifying for any nominee before this body.

Mr. Reitz is not fit for a role within the Department of Justice, particularly not one in which he will be charged with developing and implementing the Department's legal policy initiatives and vetting candidates for Federal judgeships.

I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this nomination.

I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) is necessarily absent.