[Pages S1961-S2034]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page S1961]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, one of those other programs that is now in
crisis is what I want to switch to. I think my colleague was joking
with me because we have--for anybody who is watching--we have a whole
list of things we wanted to get to. My staff, now, seemingly very
ambitious--Medicaid, Medicare, healthcare, Social Security is coming up
now, tariffs and economic policy, education, national security, public
safety, immigration, housing--chapter by chapter, each one about an
hour or so. This would be enough to make it until tomorrow evening if I
can stand that long and who knows?
But we are behind schedule. So I am going to jump in to talk about
Social Security. I want to start because, as I said earlier, I get to
stand here. I get to come to this floor, but so many millions of people
don't. I want to elevate their voices tonight.
As I go across New Jersey, as I go across my Nation, I see
Republicans, Democrats, Independents--there are so many people stopping
me in airports, in the community, stopping me in the grocery store,
wanting to tell me that they are afraid, that they are angry, that they
are worried, that they believe we are in crisis, that our Nation is at
a crossroads. Whom are we going to be as a nation?
This topic, I don't know, maybe I will just let you all know that
this topic--my mom chewed into me about this topic. She lives in a
senior citizen retirement community, mostly Republicans. I visited her
many times. It is a great community. I hate how we go to this idea of
right or left. These are great seniors that live in a great community,
and they are talking about Social Security.
I want to read--start with this section by just reading--these are
people sending to me. This is a small postcard, handwritten from
somebody from Hamilton Square, NJ:
Dear Senator Booker, I am writing to ask you if my Social
Security is now in danger. Please let me know. It is very
important to me. Thank you.
I am going to try to answer that tonight fairly and candidly. Here is
another person who writes. My staff is protecting their identity. I
just want to say where they are from. South Plains, NJ:
I am one of your constituents and a proud New Jerseyan. I
am writing to let you know how upset, distraught, and worried
I am about the current state of our country. I hope you will
take time and read my letter as this is the first time I felt
compelled to write a government official.
I want to tell you, I am reading your letter again, and I am now
reading it on national TV, if C-SPAN can be--the Presiding Officer may
challenge me with a factual error, but C-SPAN is national TV, I think.
I want to start by telling you a little about myself. I am
64 years old and I am currently working full time. I am a
breast cancer survivor. My plan was to retire in the next 3
years, but with the current state of chaos and turmoil, I
honestly don't see how I can retire. I am concerned about
Medicare, which I will definitely need when I retire. I will
also need a supplemental plan for whatever Medicare does not
cover. I do not qualify for retirement benefits through my
job. With the cuts being made to Federal programs, Medicare
will not be enough. I would need a more expensive
supplemental plan to cover these cuts.
I am also concerned about Social Security. I have worked
since I was 16, except for 9 years when I was home with my
three children.
I have worked hard and paid into Social Security and
believed that the money was for my retirement. Now I hear
that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, and it may be
privatized. This is so unfair for people like me that worked
hard all their life and counted on this money to retire. I
was planning to work past 65 to get my full Social Security
benefits, but now I begin to wonder if it is worth it.
So, at this point, I am in a holding pattern due to the
unstable climate in which we are all living. As I said, I
have three children who are all adults now. My son has been
diagnosed with being bipolar. He has been hospitalized a few
times for this. He is currently on medication that he needs
to function and sees a therapist. He is in grad school and is
on Medicaid. He works part time since he is a full-time grad
student. So he does not qualify for benefits.
I worry about what these cuts will do to my son and others
like him. No one seems concerned with the people who rely on
these programs to live their best life. Someone needs to look
out and take an interest in helping people in these
circumstances.
My daughter is a teacher in a district that receives title
I funds. She works very hard as a teacher and is devoted to
her students. With the dismantling of the Department of
Education, I am concerned about what this means to the
education field, teachers, administration, and students. My
daughter's school is making a difference in the lives of
these students, and they need the funding that is received
from both the State and Federal Government. Programs like the
title I and other federally funded programs need to stay in
place.
On another topic--
This constituent is getting a lot into her first letter to a
government official, and I appreciate it.
On another topic, inflation: Increasing prices and the
overpriced housing market is a huge problem. Placing tariffs
on our biggest trade partners is beyond unfair. This drives
the cost of goods up, and the consumer is the one who ends up
paying the increase. A lot of families are food insecure,
wondering where their next meal is coming from. A lot of
parents go without so their children can eat. Food pantries
and banks are scrambling to meet demand. Something needs to
be done so families can survive.
The housing market is also an issue. Owning your own home
is now unreachable for most young people starting out.
Interest rates are high, and housing prices in New Jersey are
unaffordable.
Thank you for reading my letter. I am asking you, as our
Senator, please stand up for what is in the best interest of
families, seniors, adults, and children in your district.
Tariffs, dismantling Departments like Social Security,
Medicare, Medicaid, Education, and other services that are
important to the everyday person is not the answer. You are
our voice in the Senate. Please do the right thing, and speak
up, and continue to fight for everyday Americans.
This is why I am standing up. This is why I will stand here as long
as I am
[[Page S1962]]
physically able. This is why I continue to tell story after story.
But, first, a little important history: 90 years. Our country has
made a promise to people that, if you pay into the Social Security
Program your whole life, your money will be there for you when you
retire. Franklin Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law 84
years ago, and this is his quote. He called it ``a cornerstone in a
structure which is being built, but it is by no means complete.''
Social Security is still a cornerstone. It is still the bedrock
according to FDR. It is the bedrock of an edifice being built in a
nation where we belong to each other. We the people are building this.
That is our cornerstone. He called it Social Security. Today, 73
million Americans count on Social Security. Millions more than that are
planning on those benefits they earned being there for them.
You heard from the first letters I read that people are really
worried. The President of the United States stood up in the State of
the Union Address and talked about rampant fraud because payments are
going out. All from conservative papers to ones on the other side have
shown that what he was saying was not true. But they are sowing chaos.
They are attacking, delegitimizing it, and calling it a Ponzi scheme--
DOGE leader Musk and the President.
There are 73 million Americans who are counting on Social Security
benefits, and 1.6 million are in my State. Forty percent of the people
who rely on Social Security--40 percent--have no other source of
income. They live paycheck to paycheck--Social Security checks, excuse
me. Social Security checks.
Despite mocking Social Security and calling it a Ponzi scheme, people
in communities like my parents'--my mom's--are beginning to worry. They
actually took real actions to lay off thousands of Social Security
employees, making it harder to process Social Security applications and
troubleshoot questions from beneficiaries. They didn't roll out a plan
to say: Hey, this is how we are going to show that we can give the best
customer service ever. We are going to bring in some of the best
private sector people to advise on how we can use technology and
innovation to give the best customer service. Hell, roll in AI, and do
all of these things. We are going to make a model of responsiveness to
our seniors because we are a society that respects our elders, values
them, wants them to retire in dignity and security and peace of mind.
That is the big ambition.
No, that is not what was said.
Social Security employees, like many employees, got letters that they
didn't expect, saying they were laid off. It didn't matter how well
they performed, and it didn't matter what function they performed. It
put in jeopardy just trying to contact Social Security, if you are
retired or just trying to contact Social Security if you need to apply
for benefits. They tried to eliminate service by phone, saying that
they wanted to require in-person visits, which is absurd for many
seniors who don't have access to transportation or who live in rural
areas because--do you know what they are doing also? They are trying to
close down many Social Security offices, and I will get to the
specifics of that later.
These actions are harmful enough, but they are just the beginning of
what our President and Elon Musk are saying they want to do to a
program that, for millions of Americans, is their only check a week. It
is essential for them and for others. It is how they make their
retirement secure. You don't protect the future by punishing the people
who built this country. You don't fix America by throwing seniors or
veterans or Americans with disabilities under the bus. That is not how
we do things. That is not how we should do things. There are so many
hard-working families who believe in this idea of, if I work hard all
my life in America, I can make ends meet; I can raise my kids; and I
can retire with dignity.
Congress does have a responsibility to be good stewards of taxpayer
dollars. We should do more of that. I want to do more of that. I want
to help lead in that fight. But none of us were invited to the table
when it came to this. This congressionally established program--FDR I
read--but it was Congress that established it and is now not being
included in the planning or in the procedures to try to improve Social
Security or to make it more efficient or more effective. We haven't
convened hearings or task forces in a bipartisan way to find out what
we can do to better serve our seniors.
Instead, lies are being proffered about Social Security making
wrongful payments. Lies are being proffered by the highest office in
the land and by the most rich person in the land, who does not need
Social Security, who is calling it a Ponzi scheme, who is telling
people who are relying on it that they are part of a Ponzi scheme.
But remember this: Social Security is not the government's money to
spend. It is the hard-earned savings of working Americans, and it
belongs to Americans. The President and Elon Musk need to keep their
hands off of it. It is not theirs to take, and it is not theirs to
break.
It is their scheme. They are the ones who have a scheme, and it is
not about efficiency. It is not visionary. What we need in America now
are visionary leaders who have bold, exciting visions for things like
what Social Security can be. What they are doing is not only wrong, but
it hurts people; it scares people. And it is not just people but our
elders--the people who raised us, the people who built roads and
highways, the people who served food, made food, who started small
businesses, who raised generations. They are who we are disrespecting.
So what happens in this context? Why am I standing here?
It is because the people of New Jersey are saying: Why aren't you
doing more? This is unacceptable, Senator Booker. It is unacceptable.
Hear our voices.
My phones have exploded with people whom the President and Elon Musk
have made terrified about what is happening to the Social Security
service and what is happening to their checks. My staff said that we
were overwhelmed with phone calls and emails from people who were
worried about the direction that the President is taking Social
Security. The people who called were angry or terrified, and I want to
share some of these calls from my constituents.
Here is someone from the great Cherry Hill, NJ:
I am very concerned that the President, along with his
cruel and inept administration and DOGE, are working to
privatize and ruin the Social Security Program.
I am a constituent, Senator Booker. I live in Cherry Hill,
NJ, and I am a senior who relies on Social Security income
for my basic needs, food, and housing. The mere idea of not
having those funds has caused me sleepless nights and
wondering if I will become homeless.
I am going to stop there for a second.
I remember President FDR and growing up hearing that what he did was
get on the radio not to stir up fear, not to stir up chaos, but to
comfort people, to remind them that we are Americans, and you have no
need to fear. But this President, just with his rhetoric alone about
Social Security, is driving my constituents to write me notes like
this.
I continue with the letter from my constituent from Cherry Hill:
I hope you will convince both Democrat and Republican
colleagues to prevent this from happening. Trump lied when he
promised during his campaign he would not touch the Social
Security Administration, but now we see threats and already
some actions toward making severe cuts and making the program
less accessible. I urge you to continue to fight for us.
(Mr. CRAMER assumed the Chair.)
Pennington, NJ:
My sister and I are older Americans who are each disabled--
one from a severe accident because of a drunk driver and the
other from a life-changing illness. We are alone and take
care of each other. For me, SSDI is my one and only income. I
have a few years before I am at full retirement age. Even
with my check and splitting rent costs between us, it is
taking right under 50 percent of my monthly check for rent
alone.
Fifty percent.
This does not leave much to cover even the bare necessities
of health, vehicle insurance, utilities, food, medicine--even
a tight budget, especially with costs on everything
continuing to rise.
Senator, as seniors, we are petrified about what is
happening to SSA. I must ask you, Senator: What do we do if
our monthly SSA benefits are interrupted? How do we keep a
roof over our heads as disabled seniors? With very limited
savings, it would only take a few months before the roof over
our heads would be in jeopardy. We just spent a small
[[Page S1963]]
fortune for us to move into a smaller, lower cost apartment
because we could not afford significant ongoing rent
increases. I realize we are far from alone in our fears, but
that is of very little comfort as we spend our nights unable
to sleep, fearful we do not lose our only income along with a
roof over our heads.
These are our elders.
Here is a constituent from Egg Harbor Township:
My husband and I live Social Security check to Social
Security check. Without those checks we earned--without those
checks we earned--we are dead. Please don't let this
outrageous administration take our benefits away.
This is a constituent from Runnemede, NJ:
I am a 75-year-old New Jersey resident. I received my
working papers in 1964, at the age of 14. I worked
continuously until I reached the age of 70, in 2020. I
enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1967 and retired in 1999. I was
on Active Duty from 1970 to 1977. I finished my career in the
Naval Reserve. For 56 years, I paid my taxes and contributed
to Social Security.
I have collected my Social Security for 4 years, and as you
are no doubt aware, the amount of money paid me monthly by
the Social Security Act was calculated by them based on my
contribution.
I am currently a full-time, 24/7 caretaker for my invalid
wife and do not have the luxury of earning a supplemental
income. My sole income is from Social Security and a small
Naval Reserve pension. My total healthcare comes from
Medicare and TRICARE for Life.
The contract I made with the United States Government was
that they could use my money during my working life with the
understanding that they would take care of me when I could no
longer earn for myself. I have kept my part of this bargain
for 56 years. Now, after only 4 years, the government is
threatening to renege on our agreement.
Please, sir, do not let this happen, Senator Booker. That
is my money. I earned it. I earned my Social Security by my
contributions, and I earned my pension by my service.
Another constituent named Sara:
I have been a teacher in Atlantic County for 26 years. My
husband is a 100-percent disabled veteran who receives VA
disability payments as well as SSDI. We depend on the VA and
SSDI for approximately half of our income for our family of
five.
We are currently preparing our oldest for his first year at
college and are awaiting financial aid packages from several
schools. We are petrified that Trump and Musk's agenda is
dangerous and will have life-altering consequences for
families like ours.
We are counting on you, Senator Booker, to do the hard work
to protect the essential benefits.
The destruction of the Department of Education is another
completely horrifying situation. We need to protect our
special needs students and Federal financial aid for college-
bound students. We need to protect the idea that education is
for all--
Education is for all. Education is for all--
instead of a few elites who could just afford it.
Rosie is another constituent. She starts off proudly:
I am a senior, 84 years old.
God bless you, Rosie. My mom is 85.
My only income is Social Security--
She generously gives me confidential information.
My only income is Social Security, $1,179 per month, and I
am terrified that the current gang of thieves in the White
House will tamper with it under the guise of ``saving
money.'' If Social Security is cut off, I am on the streets.
I can't keep harping enough on the traditions of our country, where
Presidents, whether you agree with them or not, whether they are from
your party or not--Ronald Reagan didn't whip up fear in bedrock
commitments like Social Security or health. Barack Obama didn't shake
people so that Republicans and Democrats in my State would write me
letters using words like ``fear'' and ``terror,'' would worry about
losing sleep when they have enough things to stress over.
Here is Debra:
I am a retired widow. I depend on Social Security to pay
bills each month. I am concerned about the reports that Elon
Musk is to revamp and, in my opinion, ruin the Social
Security Administration. I am worried that payments will be
disrupted. There are many other things going on in the
government today that I am also concerned about. I hope that
the Senators and Congress people, along with the judicial
system, can stand up to him and take back control of
government.
She says this is going to revamp and ruin Social Security. This is
just somebody simply saying--it is like, be plain. Don't make up lies
about false payments. Don't call it a Ponzi scheme. Give us a bold
vision of how it is going to help more seniors, how you are going to
serve more seniors, how you are going to improve the system, how you
are going to make it better, how you are going to serve the dignity of
our seniors.
This is Holly. Holly is a constituent too.
I am one of your constituents who is retired and relies 100
percent in order to live on my earned Social Security benefit
in which I paid throughout my entire working career. I call
on you to maintain the Social Security Program as it stood
before the ascension of Trump and Musk. You must ensure that
there are no missed earned benefit payments or late payments
made to recipients; especially, accessible Social Security
offices must remain open and fully staffed with trained,
experienced Social Security employees in order to provide the
kind of regular, necessary customer service by phone, online,
and in person.
And the Trump-Musk administration's endless terrorist
threats of dismantling the Social Security Administration,
insidiously calling it a Ponzi scheme, working in order to
privatize it--it must cease and desist immediately.
Moreover you, Cory Booker, must reverse and/or stop
whatever draconian changes are being made to destroy the
Social Security Administration with thousands of cuts to
needed employees with almost no notice and no public input.
Social Security is being dismantled by an unelected
billionaire. At least for now, Musk and his band of DOGE
boys--not a real government department--who have illegally
and callously rifled through our most private, personal
information and done God knows what with it, with their
ultimate goal to risk and/or steal the retirement funds of
older Americans by placing the Social Security Trust Fund in
the hands of private corporate equity firms--seniors do not
agree to this. Seniors do not agree to this. Such action is
illegal and completely unacceptable!
This constituent continues:
Furthermore, I am deeply concerned that the ceaseless chaos
will invite criminals to exploit confusion around identity
verification. Ironically, while the administration claims
these changes are meant to combat fraud, they may very well
do the opposite. Hastily introducing new, unfamiliar
technology and verification steps without any real public
education campaign will create the perfect environment for
criminals to deceive and defraud.
This late and ill-conceived change also comes at a time
when the Social Security Administration is already struggling
with a customer service crisis, long hold times, low
staffing, delayed callback systems, confusing announcements
about possible office closures. This chaos has to be stopped
now, Senator Booker.
I urgently ask you to please use your congressional power
to reverse these changes which are creating more confusion
for older Americans. Senior Americans earned Social Security
through a lifetime of hard, honest work. I know I did. The
money is ours, and we deserve a properly run Social Security
Administration which continues to be administrated
honestly through the Federal Government, as established in
1935.
In fact, the narrative of the Social Security Act running
out of money could be easily fixed if Congress wrote laws
that slightly increased the amount that high-net-worth
individuals--the wealthiest of the wealthy--paid into the
program.
Holly, God bless you.
My mother, in her senior community, is seeing this rise in scammers
trying to steal people's money, and she is amazed at the technology
they are using. The scams involve the voices of their relatives asking
them for help during a crisis. All that technology and the wisdom of my
mom--she is like, why aren't we using the technology and innovations to
make Social Security easier to use and easier to engage with?
Commonsense questions.
Carli, a constituent from New Jersey:
Please include disabled people when you talk about Social
Security and Medicare, Senator Booker. You don't mention us
every time. I paid into Social Security for 16 years. I
worked full time. I was sick almost every day. I finally had
to leave my job in 2015. I was granted SSDI, and I am on
Medicare. And until I was injured last year, I had a part-
time job, where I continued paying into the system.
I fear that the first people they will go after are the
disabled. We are not as capable of fighting. People see us as
lazy or fakers, and we are almost never included in the
conversations about marginalized communities. Please don't
let me be erased.
Carli, you are not. I see you, and I am standing here for as long as
I physically can so that I can elevate your voice and others'.
Patricia, a constituent from New Jersey:
I am 65 years old, a senior. I have worked my whole life
and paid into Social Security. Will you please work hard and
push back to preserve these benefits? Without Social Security
money and Medicare as well, I will not survive. I am
outraged--
[[Page S1964]]
Patricia writes--
to see what is happening recently. Help. If there is anything
you request of me--
My constituent says: If there is anything you need of me, please let
me know.
That is one of the most beautiful sentiments in America, is that
people in crisis who are racked with fear and worry still are standing
up to volunteer, retired seniors.
I am always moved when a constituent not only tells me what is on
their mind, how they are angry, how they are worried, what their
concerns are, but they also say: Let me help you. Let me help you.
Patricia, it is late at night, and you are probably sleeping, but you
helped me tonight at 12:41 a.m.
The goodness and the decency of our seniors, the kindness and
generosity of our communities, and what does our President do to these
people? He spends time in the State of the Union Address not calling us
together, not calling us to a common cause, not reminding us that we
share common values and common virtues; he spreads lies about Social
Security and unleashes the wealthiest man in the world to cut before he
even understands the Agencies he is cutting--a guy who, with the same
kind of cynical nature--I can't even fathom being as wealthy as he is;
it is not what I have sought in my life--he calls it a Ponzi scheme
when constituent after constituent tells me that is their only source
of income, that they paid into it all of their lives, and now the most
powerful person on the planet and the richest person on the planet are
striking fear and worry into seniors.
Yet, with all of that power, all of that money, a constituent from
New Jersey tells me about what she is concerned with and then says:
If there is anything you request of me, please let me know.
I am here to help.
``I am here to help.''
That is the country I know and love, not the fearmongers and the
demagogues and the spreaders of lies but the good decency of Americans
who, even in their time of crisis, ask the question: How can I help?
How can I help.
Helen from New Jersey:
Senator Booker, please stand up to Musk and Trump to save,
protect Social Security and Medicare. My life and my
husband's life depend on it. We are senior citizens who
worked and paid our share of taxes for over 50 years. We now
need those benefits to survive.
Here is Janet, one of the hundreds--I am sorry to my staff--thousands
of people who have written, emailed, and called. One more. Janet:
I oppose the closing of Social Security field offices. If
anything, more field services should be opened if phone
support is cut back.
In 2022, while living in Wyoming, I started on Social
Security. There were issues, and thank God for the local
field office in Cheyenne because they were the only people
who could physically look at my documentation, realize what
was happening to me, submit corrections, and enter notes in
the system that the Social Security phone support could see.
It took four or five trips to my local field office to
resolve it.
I had previously gotten nowhere with Social Security phone
support. Today, I read the list of field offices that are
slated to be closed, and they appear to be in rural areas.
The people who live there might have to drive a full day's
drive several times to apply for and follow up on their
benefits. It is not fair. It is not fair. It is not fair. It
is not fair.
Across the country--my office hears from--it is not just New Jersey.
Across the country, people are frustrated and feel like nobody listens.
We get calls from across the country. My staff doesn't say: You are not
from New Jersey, so we are not going to talk to you. My staff is just
incredible people I have surrounding me in the office who remind me of
the values I treasure.
So they wanted me to include tonight people not from New Jersey
because, again, we hear from thousands of people in my State and so
many around the country.
Here is Maria Caranci from Springfield, Delaware County, PA:
My name is Maria Caranci.
Forgive me, Maria, if I am pronouncing your name wrong.
I am 78 years old and live in Springfield, Delaware County,
PA.
When I was 16, I received my first paycheck and saw money
was taken from my earnings. I learned that about FICA, the
special government savings account that I would put part of
my earnings into until I retired. This was how I could pay
bills in my old age. It was something I could always count
on. My earnings history shows the good and bad times,
including the gaps when I received unemployment.
My chosen career was in mortgage banking. Banking mergers,
dramatic changes to interest rates, and even bank lending
regulations meant times of unemployment with few options or
jobs or accepting temp employment. I had to make the choice.
Every paycheck withheld FICA. I was almost 65 when I began
my career at the bank offering decent pay with overtime. It
was 2010. I had two goals to meet for my retirement: a
mortgage-free home and working until I was 70, earning the
maximum benefit.
Underwriters that I worked with had shown me what they felt
added security to my personal finances. So I was diligent
with setting up my emergency savings account. It would be
there for anytime my Social Security check didn't cover my
expenses on my home or me getting older. So I often worked
until 10 p.m. at night, delayed taking days off, making goals
possible.
The Social Security Administration sent information about
my future benefit payments, so I made a budget and determined
my escrow for taxes, insurance, and home maintenance to be
taken from my benefit.
I knew how much I would have per week for my living
expenses once my mortgage was paid. I used the overtime
income from my emergency savings account. Everything relies
on my receipt of my monthly check from Social Security.
The recent assault on Social Security has me terrified.
People who were not elected, vetted, or made to swear an oath
to protect our U.S. Constitution have taken our personal
data, saying that they are searching for fraud. Errors are
being made with this new regime and no clear resolution in
sight.
Why do they need my personal information that includes my
Social Security number, work history, and bank information?
In February, my identity was stolen. When thieves moved my
mail using a postcard sent to USPS, my bank statement and a
copy of my paycheck were forwarded to the thieves before I
got the USPS notice of the change.
I froze my credit then and have done so later since
TransUnion has the Bose address listed as a fraudulent one on
part of their report but also has another address for mail
that have to be returned to the sender.
I have quit fighting the data entry mistake, but I remain
diligent and alert if mail is due and doesn't arrive. What
can I do about this new group of identity thieves known as
DOGE?
Until recently, I had confidence in my ability to provide
for myself because I lived in the United States of America, a
republic governed by the people, for the people.
My parents were children of the Great Depression. So they
instilled in me how to be financially solid and survive. Now,
at 78, I am learning everything that I hold dear is to be
attacked by the 47th President using a contributor to his
reelection as his adviser and the leader of a group named
DOGE.
I do not feel safe, due to cuts in so many that have kept
us safe--cuts in the CDC; cuts in the FBI; cuts in the EPA;
cuts in the FAA and Social Security.
I worry about losing our foreign allies and the release of
convicted domestic terrorists pardoned by the President while
suspected immigrants might be whisked away before anyone even
knows they are.
Everyone I know receiving Social Security benefits relies
on those payments for their daily life. As prices increase
under President Trump's leadership, many are not as fortunate
as me who had a solid plan for increased expenses. We worked,
putting into FICA with every paycheck that we received.
The thought of delaying payments or making errors so that
anyone must prove their right to receive their benefit is
stealing from people. Are we still the land of the free and
the home of the brave? I am counting on our elected officials
like you and the courts to preserve it.
Lisa Bogacki, Fleetwood, PA:
Hello. My name is Lisa. I live in Fleetwood, PA. 15 years
ago, my healthy 42-year-old husband was found deceased on our
couch by our then-13-year-old son. Our 10-year-old and 3-
year-old stood quietly crying on the stairs.
Sudden cardiac death was the cause. The same day, my
daughter asked if we would need to move to another house. I
promised her--promised her--that I would do everything I
could to keep them in the only home they had ever known.
Those early days remain blurred in my mind.
I remember my father taking me to the Social Security
office, and shortly thereafter, survivor's benefits for my
children began showing up in the bank account to assist with
their care. If not for these benefits, I would not have been
able to keep my promise to my children.
It is not much money, amounting to roughly the salary of a
minimum-wage job. Yet it was a lifeline to some piece of
normalcy for my family, not a Ponzi scheme.
My kids have now aged out of the system. I am about to
begin widow's benefits as my body cannot continue multiple
jobs as a physical therapist, which I needed to do to make
ends meet for myself and family.
Social Security benefits were essential to the care and
being of raising my children. It was a promise from their
father who had paid into the system his entire working life.
We must work on continuing to expand these essential benefits
and never consider dismantling or privatizing them.
[[Page S1965]]
Thank you, Senator Booker.
Here is Kayanna Spooner from Chippewa Falls, WI, who writes me:
My name is Kayanna Spooner, and I live in Chippewa Falls,
WI. I am 63 years old. My husband Joe and I have five
children and three grandchildren and live a wonderful life as
our family is growing.
God bless you and your family.
We own businesses and work to contribute Social Security
for ourselves and our employees. We did all the things we
could do to secure our future and contribute to the larger
community of those in need.
We felt that we were living the American dream until one
day in 2012--
I know this personally--my dad. I feel for you, Ms. Spooner--
until one day in 2012, I was diagnosed with Parkinson's
disease. Parkinson's disease is a degenerative brain disease
that progresses over time.
Sorry. I am thinking about my dad.
It is unrelenting and affects motor and nerve processes.
Loss of benefits will have a direct and daily effect on me
and my family as we navigate the medical needs we will be
facing. I will need comprehensive care as I age. I will need
medication every single day of my life, and I will need the
security of a generous society to care for me.
Millions of others join me there. Please, Senator Booker,
please protect my Social Security.
I just thank God that my mom had the resources to take care of my
dad, and I watched that degenerative disease take from his life 20
years and how much it cost--the thousands of dollars it cost my mom to
take care of him.
I know my friend Andy Kim, who is in the Senate right now, is facing
health challenges with his father. I know so many people personally
whose parents have Alzheimer's. I know so many Americans who are not
powerful. They are not rich. I know so many Americans who live in fear
every day that one little thing will happen to them that will
destabilize their financial well-being. And now those millions of
Americans, because a President and a man named Musk are striking fear
into them, are whacking away the people that answer phones, are firing
the people in an Agency that already was struggling with wait times,
already was struggling with slow response times--these people who are
hanging on by a thread in their lives or are facing the people they
love the most who are struggling with the diseases that so many of us
in this body have been affected by, they are now worried. They are
writing me letters with words like ``fear'' and ``terror.'' They are
talking about staying up at night and not being able to sleep because
they don't have a President who comforts them. They have a President
who talks down to them, who lies about the services that they rely on.
What is this? It is not normal. It is not normal. This is America.
How can the most powerful people in our land not comfort others, not
tell them they have nothing to fear, but fear itself? Not tell them to
have malice toward none but have charity toward all?
What kind of man is in our White House that makes fun of the
disabled, who lies so much that the fact-checkers lose count, who
minimizes the pain and the suffering? We have Cabinet Secretaries who
say--the billionaires themselves who say: If my mom misses a Social
Security check, ah. But if somebody else complains about it, they are
probably a fraudster.
These people are not fraudsters. They are hurting. They are afraid.
They are worried. For God's sake, this is America.
Every one of our Founders' documents is riddled with words that speak
to our commitment to each other. Yeah, they were imperfect geniuses,
but they were people that aspired to virtue. They read the greatest
philosophers of their times. They said: What does it mean to be good to
one another? What does it mean to create a society that is not run by
despots and dictators who are so disconnected, who talk down, ``let
them eat cake''?
They dreamed of a different country than this, folks. They dreamed of
a different country than this. They dreamed of a country that stood for
not just ``get all I can for me,'' the biggest tax cuts possible to the
wealthiest people. They dreamed of a nation where any child born in any
circumstance from any place could grow up and have their American
dream.
And God, it gut-wrenches me when I hear people not as privileged as
me--and I am not Musk and DOGE--but my mom had the resources and the
family to support her as she watched my dad die of Parkinson's disease.
But this person who is writing in, she herself has Parkinson's. She
underlines and bolds the part of her letter. She says--and I will read
it again because, Ms. Spooner, I want you--from Chippewa Falls, WI--to
know you are seen, to know you are heard, to know that maybe the
President will talk down and cut and malign your only paycheck, your
only hope, but I won't. I won't.
I see you. I feel you. You can't lead the people if you can't love
the people. And I am sorry our President is not showing that. He may be
saying those words.
She writes, with Parkinson's--I still remember my dad telling me he
had it. She writes about Parkinson's:
It is unrelenting. It affects my motor and nerve processes.
Loss of benefits will have a direct and daily effect on me
and my family as we navigate the medical needs we are going
to be facing. I will need progressive and comprehensive care
as I age. I will need medication every single day of my life.
I know this. I know you will.
I will need the security of a generous society to care for
me.
A generous society to do the basic for families in this kind of
struggle.
Millions of others join me there. Protect my Social
Security, Senator Booker.
I tell you, I am going to fight for your Social Security. I am going
to fight to protect the Agency. I am going to fight against unnecessary
cuts that hurt the service it gives. And today into tomorrow, I am
going to stand as long as I can. As long as I can, I am going to stand
and read stories like this because you are seen; you are heard. Your
voices are more important than any of the 100 of us.
More of your stories should be told on this floor. People that are
scared right now, terrified right now, people living in rural areas
that see their local Social Security Agency on a list that Elon Musk
made of places he is going to sell away to the private sector, and you
are going to lose your Agencies. Well, I will fight.
I am sorry.
Margaret Hebring from Chippewa Falls, WI. Chippewa Falls, two
letters, my staff is keeping me on my toes. This is another person from
Chippewa Falls, WI.
My name is Margaret Hebring, and I live in Chippewa Falls,
Wisconsin. I am 77 years old, and I am a member of the Lac
Courte Oreilles band of the Lake Superior Ojibwe. My husband
is a veteran and who is currently--
I am sorry, so sorry.
My husband is a veteran who currently has cancer, and he is
receiving chemotherapy at the VA hospital, which we have to
travel to, which is over 100 miles away. And without our
Social Security, I am not sure what would happen to us.
We would, for sure, have to sell our home. I have savings
that will last me one month. I have savings that will last me
one month right now. We live paycheck to paycheck. So please,
please protect our Social Security.
This is Judith Brown. We are moving away from the great State of
Wisconsin. We are going to the great State of North Carolina, where my
dad is from, up in Hendersonville--no, Asheville. But this person,
Judith Brown, is from Charlotte, NC, one of my top five favorite non-
New Jersey States.
I don't know if my friend Andy Kim has his top five favorite non-New
Jersey States. New Jersey is obviously the best. Don't look at the
Senator from Connecticut, and I hate to tell him that Connecticut is
not on my top five non-New Jersey States, even though I got educated--
Mr. MURPHY. You lived in Connecticut.
Mr. BOOKER. I am sorry about that. I am sorry about that. The
Presiding Officer is such a good man. His State is not on my top five
non-New Jersey States, but North Carolina is. And I am going to read a
letter from Judith Brown.
My name is Judith Brown. I live in Charlotte, North
Carolina. I was 17 when I started working and worked for
another 20 years as an administrator until I had to be
declared disabled. Without disability, I would not have been
able to see my specialist, get eye care, or any of the other
needs that I had. I was also the mother of two young sons who
are on the autism spectrum. Without disability, I wouldn't
have been able to take care of them and get the care they
needed to be independent young men.
God bless them.
I hear that they want to close the field offices and change
the customer service line.
[[Page S1966]]
As a person with mobility and vision impairments, this is
outrageous. I need to be able to access it the best way I can
on the times that I can access it. Please, Senator, fight to
protect Social Security for a senior like me and for young
people with disabilities like my son. Thank you.
No, thank you, Judith Brown. Thank you for writing a letter. Thank
you for speaking up. Thank you for not being silent. Thank you for
advocating, not just for your family but for the millions and millions
of other Americans who lean heavily not just on their Social Security
checks but on the incredible public servants that keep that Agency
working and who wish to have a President that said: I am going to bring
the best of business experience to my customer service. I am going to
bring the best of caring and technology and innovation. I am going to
call the best computer technologist scientists in the country. We are
going to make this the best Social Security in the history of our
country.
And you know what, my friends, the billionaires I had on stage with
me when I was inaugurated, I am just going to ask them to pay a little
bit more, .00001 percent more of their net worth to make sure Social
Security is safe forever.
I am sorry. It is crazy. I am going back to Pennsylvania. I mean, it
is almost like you can't make this up, honestly. I just know my
country. I know our character. I know how good of a people we are. I
know how much we love one another. I know our faith in red States and
blue States and right and left.
I have sat next to people on planes who introduced themselves to me
as Republicans from a red State, and by the end, we are laughing and
talking and sharing stories. We are a good nation. Together, we can be
so great and show them that.
But how can we have a President that in 71 days drives this much fear
into our country? It is absurd, everybody. It is absurd. This is why I
can't let this be normal anymore.
Michelle from Lancaster, PA:
My name is Michelle Gruver--
I love your last name, Michelle--
from Lancaster, PA, and I would definitely be impacted if
something would happen to my Social Security--
Michelle also has Parkinson's--
and I am on disability, and the money that I have goes pretty
much to most of my medications and foods that I need to eat
to keep myself going and strong. That is how it would impact
my family. I wouldn't be able to afford also my insulin for
my diabetes.
Parkinson's and diabetes.
So it is a challenge every month as it is even with the
amount that we have because of the cost of pharmaceuticals
and things to keep us going.
Yes.
So that is why Social Security is really important to us as
a family. It helps us get by every day. Thank you.
This is Patricia Heaney Porter from Johnstown, PA:
My name is Patricia Heaney Porter. I reside in Johnstown,
Pennsylvania. My work is varied. I have been employed as a
secretary in the private sector, as a statistician for a
government agency, as a real estate agent, and most recently
as a legal secretary. This is my story of how Social Security
has affected my life. My mother passed away in 1956. My
sisters and I--
God bless you--
were 8, 10, and 11.
My maternal grandparents stepped in, and they raised us
with the help of Social Security survivor benefits, resulting
in good education and other needs to be met. We had almost
normal lives due to these benefits.
While raising two children, I worked as a real estate
agent. My income was based on commissions rather than salary,
so I made entire Social Security payments based on my income.
We had a roof over our heads, healthy food on the table. One
of my children had serious medical issues. And I paid for her
bills out of pocket, never asking for a penny from any
government agency. These expenses were paid for from my
income, and I paid taxes every year.
I waited until I was 70 to collect my Social Security
benefits as I realized the later you collect, the better the
benefits. I have no pension, and I live almost entirely on
Social Security benefits. I am always looking for part-time
work, but few people want to hire me as I will be 80 in June.
God bless you, God bless you.
Based on the benefits I receive, I am able to pay my
mortgage and all monthly expenses. I receive Medicare which
helps pay the medical bills.
Should Social Security and Medicare be taken from me, I
will likely lose my home. I could no longer afford medical
costs, groceries. I have a medical condition which requires
regular visits with a specialist who is 70 miles away.
Without Social Security and Medicare, I would no longer be
able to see him, and my condition would result in death
sooner rather than later.
Thank you for all you are doing to see that the benefits
received from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will
continue.
Senator Murphy and I were talking. It is all interrelated, right?
This is somebody on Social Security, but they have to drive for medical
attention. We are in a hospital crisis in America. There are so many
rural areas where rural residents of our country have to drive so far
just to get to a hospital.
And cuts in Medicaid, we heard it from the letters I read in the last
section, will endanger those hospitals' survival.
Charlotte, NC, again, Kevin Woodson. I get a lot of letters, my
staff, from Wisconsin and Charlotte, NC. OK.
My name is Kevin Woodson. I am a 69-year-old retiree living
in Charlotte, North Carolina. I worked 38 years for two
Fortune 50 companies, and I thought that I would have a fully
funded pension plan to live off of in my retirement. However,
I never got to 25 years in, so only got partial pensions.
This is why I need Social Security. It covers the holes the
pensions don't cover in terms of medical benefits. It allows
me the freedom to enjoy my life, take care of activities that
I need in order to keep myself healthy. Social Security is
dependable, something I rely on--
Not a Ponzi scheme--
and I hope that we don't touch Social Security and we don't
have any issues trying to keep that money flowing. It is
money I paid into.
Margaret Silva from Surprise, AZ. I love that name. Surprise, AZ.
Hello, my name is Margaret Silva. I live in Surprise,
Arizona, with my husband. I started working at the age of 15
doing volunteer work as a candy striper at the hospital where
my mother worked. I did not get paid. After that, I started
working as a waitress earning .50 cents an hour. After
graduating from high school, I took various jobs earning a
little more, and then I started working at Mountain Bell, and
I retired after 30 years from Qwest. So if they do Social
Security cuts, I don't know what I am going to do.
I will be forced at the age of 74 to look for a job. So
those are my hard-earned benefits, I worked for that. More
than 30 years I worked for that. Thank you.
Wayne Behnke from Chippewa Falls, WI. I need to go to Chippewa Falls,
WI. This is the third letter you guys are having me read, including
people reaching out to me from Chippewa Falls. God bless you. I need to
visit your community.
Hello, I am Wayne from Chippewa Falls. Soon to be 69 years
old. I have been on Social Security for a couple years, my
wife and I. I spent years in the service, Navy, and, again,
like I said, my wife and I are going to have been on Social
Security. Saying that, we would, if we lost our Social
Security tomorrow, we would lose our house, our cars, and
pretty much our livelihood because this is what we have
worked for, and we don't need to lose it.
Why do you work for 55 years and pay into Social Security
and then lose it? Recently, I tried to get back online and
get on my Social Security account. I wasn't able to. Because
of that, I went down to the Social Security office in Eau
Claire, Wisconsin, and they said they couldn't do anything
for me that I had to set up an appointment. So I come home
later, called, set up an appointment, and it is still three
days out before I can get my appointment. And they don't know
if they can help me. So at this point in time, I really need
to know what is going on with Social Security, Senator
Booker, because if we lose it, everybody else that is on it
loses it. We are going to be in a really sorry state.
Those folks who answer phones and set appointments, they are sure
important. When somebody is in crisis, they have to wait a few days,
their check is missed, and it is real consequences for real people.
Hello, my name is Manuel. My wife and I live--
Surprise, surprise--
in Surprise, Arizona. We are both on Social Security. That is
what we depend on to live our lives in our retirement years.
We have to pay our bills, we have to buy food, we basically
have to live off of that. So if they take our Social
Security, what are we going to live off? Are you going to
take care of us? You know, we are American citizens, and we
deserve, and we have paid into it, and we have earned it. And
it is not just something given to us. So leave our Social
Security alone. Let us live our lives. Let us live our lives
out the way they should be. And we are supposed to be in our
golden years, so it is important to us. It is important to
all Americans out there that are seniors. Let us live our
lives. Thank you very much, Senator Booker.
Patricia Naughton from Pittsburgh, PA, I lift your voice.
[[Page S1967]]
My name is Patricia Naughton, and I am from Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. I have been paying into Social Security since I
was 16 years old. I am currently 70 and have been collecting
Social Security for the last 5 years. Without Social
Security, I wouldn't be able to pay my mortgage, utilities,
food, medicine, copays, and many other things. I would not be
able to survive without Social Security. There is no reason
that seniors should be held hostage over Social Security.
This is our money, our money that we put into the Social
Security system for many years. We deserve not to be
threatened by the loss. Thank you.
Kathleen Woverding, from Hanover, PA.
Hello, my name is Kathleen Woverding, and I currently live
in Hanover, Pennsylvania. I am originally from New Jersey and
taught in the public school system for 29 years as a school
librarian. When I retired, I decided to move to Hanover,
Pennsylvania--
Kathleen, you are missed in New Jersey--
and at the age of 62, I started collecting Social Security
because of COVID. I needed the extra stability that Social
Security provides. I no longer have to work a full-time job
because of Social Security, although I do work a part-time
job and still pay into the system. Social Security provides
me with stability, financial stability. It helps pay the
bills, and I really don't have to worry about my finances
because it is Social Security.
If Social Security is taken away, I will lose everything I
have worked for the last 60 years. I feel that Social
Security is a godsend. Protect it, Senator Booker. Thank you.
Cynthia Marino from Pennsylvania:
My name is Cynthia Marino. I am a retired registered nurse
from Lancaster, PA. My husband--
I am sorry, Cynthia.
My husband died in 1990, and two of my children received
survivor benefits for 8 years, during which time I was able
to get my bachelor's degree in nursing and work part-time.
All three of my children went on to get college degrees.
When I was 61 years old, I went on Social Security
disability, having a hip replacement. I was switched to
regular Social Security when I turned 65. I now depend mostly
on Social Security for my husband and myself, with small
pensions from both of our jobs supplementing Social Security.
I am now able to live independently in a handicap mobile
home thanks to the money from Social Security in the past and
present. It is much cheaper than Medicaid funds to keep me in
a nursing home. Thank you, Senator Booker. Protect it.
Thank you, Cynthia, for your story.
These are just some. These are just some. I lift their voices. I lift
their voices with mine.
I want to go to the Detroit Free Press, but before I read this
article, I know my Senator from New Jersey is here. I am going to read
this article, and if he is interested in our sixth hour, if he has a
question, I will yield for a question while retaining the floor. But I
am going to read this article, and then we will go.
This is from the Detroit Free Press. My mom was born in Detroit. I
love the city. My family owes it a lot. It is where my grandfather went
to find a job on the assembly lines in Detroit, building bombers during
World War II.
It says:
Kathie Sherrill has been retired for about 10 years now and
typically didn't think twice about whether she'd receive her
Social Security payments on time.
For the first time ever, the 74-year-old Troy retiree went
online in March on the very day that $2,800 was to hit her
bank account through direct deposit. She suddenly felt
compelled to make absolutely certain that her Social Security
money was there when it was supposed to be.
Sherrill and other retirees are on edge. Big. Time. Call it
Social Security insecurity.
``I have never really worried about it as much as I have
this year,'' Sherrill said. The money, thankfully, was
sitting in her account in March and she knew her checks and
payments for her ongoing bills would not start bouncing.
``I think anybody, future or current people on Social
Security, are definitely targeted,'' she said. ``It's a worry
that I'm sure everybody is having right now.''
I know it because I heard from my mom and her whole senior community.
Seniors are uncertain of what is next for Social Security.
Since early February, AARP has seen nearly double the calls
to its customer care line at 888-687-2277 as more people
began being troubled about Social Security, and it has shown
no signs of abating, according to an AARP spokesperson.
Since Feb. 1, AARP said it has been receiving more than
2,000 calls into its call center per week on concerns
relating to Social Security.
``Social Security has never missed a payment and AARP and
our tens of millions of members are not going to stand by and
let that happen now,'' said John Hishta, AARP senior vice
president of campaigns, in a statement last week.
While those words sound reassuring, it's frankly not
comforting to realize that seniors need to hear that their
monthly Social Security payments will arrive as usual. I
don't imagine anyone had this one on their bingo cards for
March 2025.
This kind of worry and stress.
On social media, I spotted one comment that said: ``Folks,
the federal workers began advising last month that all
Americans remove all funds from the account where they
normally receive any federal payments (Social Security,
federal tax refunds and the like). Keep the account but only
use it as a place for feds to transfer money. Immediately
move all transferred cash to a separate account.''
The concern, according to the post: ``DOGE can declare you
dead and force your bank to send back any funds paid to
you.''
Whoa, a lot of retirement angst there and, yes, some wild
notions and really bad advice. Moving Social Security money
around to hide it in another account, different from where
it's directly deposited, actually could put more of your
money at risk when it comes to some debt collection.
Anyone who has tracked retirement policy, as I have, knows
that the potential unraveling of the Social Security system
has been discussed for decades. Many retirees just never
imagined a convoluted scenario where someone would think
Social Security, possibly, could implode in a few days.
The health of Social Security, which marks its 90th
anniversary this year, isn't all that makes many retirees and
those about to retire nervous. Their anxiety can go into
overdrive watching the stock market slide on Trump tariff
news--and seeing all the political ping-pong with Social
Security money that belongs in their pockets.
The Trump administration has maintained that it wants to
cut costs and fraud when it comes to the Social Security
program, not benefits. But people remain skeptical, and some
commentary isn't helping.
Acting Social Security Commissioner Leland Dudek in
interviews last week, including one with Bloomberg News last
Thursday, actually threatened to temporarily shut down Social
Security after a federal judge temporarily stopped members of
Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency from digging
through personal data at the Social Security Administration.
The DOGE operatives, according to the court, will first
need to receive proper training on handling sensitive
information, which some might say is the least they could do.
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, or AFSCME, Alliance for Retired Americans, and the
American Federation of Teachers filed a motion for emergency
relief on March 7 to halt DOGE's ``unprecedented, unlawful
seizure'' of sensitive data regarding millions of Americans.
No surprise, Dudek soon found it politically prudent to
back off from his threat.
``I am not shutting down the agency,'' Dudek said in a
statement, indicating he had received clarifying guidance
from the court about the temporary restraining order.
President Trump supports keeping Social Security offices
open and getting the right check to the right person at the
right time,'' [Dudek said].
Financial tech CEO Frank Bisignano, who was nominated by
President Donald Trump to lead the Social Security
Administration, ended up being grilled by Democrats about the
bedlam during confirmation hearings before the Senate Finance
Committee on Tuesday.
The angst isn't about to go away, particularly if people
continue to face even longer waits on the phones or see
Social Security offices closing in their communities, thanks
to some key changes being made now [by Trump's
administration].
Customer service is on the chopping block, as the Social
Security Administration reduces the number of employees,
restricts what services can be handled by phone and shutters
some local offices where people could talk to someone face-
to-face.
On Wednesday, the Social Security Administration announced
that it would initiate a two-week delay for implementing a
highly criticized move to end phone services and require in-
person visits for some services.
``In-person identity proofing for people unable to use
their personal `my Social Security' account for certain
services will be effective April 14,'' according to the
announcement.
But individuals applying for Medicare, disability and
Supplemental Security Income who cannot use a personal ``my
Social Security'' account can complete their claim entirely
over the telephone without the need to come into an office,
according to the March 26 announcement. That's good news for
many.
Even so, merely delaying the change doesn't help others
and, frankly, customer service could still suffer longer
term.
And it will get very ugly if current Social Security
recipients miss out on even one dime of their benefits.
At one point last week, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard
Lutnick suggested that his 94-year-old mother-in-law wouldn't
complain about missing a Social Security check for a month or
so. Only fraudsters would call, he said during an ``All-In''
podcast.
My thought: Have you ever watched an exchange where someone
on Social Security is being denied a coupon or a senior
discount at
[[Page S1968]]
a store or restaurant? It is not pretty. Worse yet, has
Lutnick ever talked with a friend or relative in his or her
70s or 80s who depends on Social Security to cover basic
bills?
Social Security provides retirement, survivor and
disability payments to 73 million people each month. That
number includes about 56 million people who are age 65 or
older.
Some people--and even Sherrill includes herself in that
group--are better off than others. They won't miss paying an
electric bill or the rent because they can turn to retirement
savings or money from a traditional pension. Even so, Social
Security remains an integral source of income each month for
all retirees and others who receive benefits.
``I'm concerned about my financial future,'' Sherrill told
me.
Social Security now represents about half of her monthly
income.
She never imagined that any Social Security fix would
involve cutting benefits for existing retirees. . . . Some
GOP proposals have suggested increasing the age for full
retirement benefits from 67 to 69 over an eight-year period
beginning in 2026.
But she now fears that it's possible her benefits could get
cut at some point down the road.
Overall, Sherrill has had fun in retirement.
She has nine grandchildren and 12 great-grandchildren and
wants to spend more time with them, not less.
Sherrill and her friends who are retired are cutting back
on eating out and entertainment, just in case something
happens to Social Security. Higher prices for many things put
pressure on fixed incomes, too.
She wants to take less money out of her retirement savings
now, so she has more money sitting on the sidelines in case
her Social Security benefits are cut in the future.
Even so, she's staring at an unexpected $600 new monthly
car payment ahead because she needs to replace a car that was
in an accident a few weeks ago.
If her Social Security payments are cut or stopped . . .
``I may be selling it.''
The wild swings for the stock market--and 401(k) plans--
only created more jitters.
The economy seems uncertain. Consumer confidence is in worse of a
place. Leaders are threatening Social Security services. Offices are
being cut. People are being laid off. So people are worrying.
Taking a rough guess, she estimates that she has lost about
$30,000 on her retirement investments as the stock market
tumbled in early 2025.
Over the years, she said, cuts to Social Security were
always part of the political realm. But she felt that
Congress provided a stopgap to any drastic moves. And she
doesn't believe that's true anymore.
``I'm hoping that Congress wakes up, looks in the mirror
and decides they don't like what they see,'' she told me.
One big problem with fueling an atmosphere of chaos is that
many people do start worrying about everything, including the
possibility that Social Security isn't a system that they can
depend on anymore.
Sherrill said she just took a call from her college
roommate who mentioned that she was going to look at her bank
account online to see whether her monthly Social Security
payment was stopped or had arrived as usual.
``I said, `You're OK. I got [mine] this month.' ''
So many people are afraid right now.
Mr. KIM. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. Yes, I will yield for a question while retaining the
floor.
Mr. KIM. Thank you, Senator Booker, and thank you for coming to the
floor tonight and speaking up. I have a few questions for you. So why
don't you catch your breath.
I wanted to start by saying how proud I am of you to represent our
great State of New Jersey, alongside each other. And it is not just me.
I want to tell you--because I know you have been here in this Chamber
nonstop for hours--but I want to tell you that people are paying
attention, and they join me in thanking you in this moment. In fact, I
saw a few posts I thought I would share.
Stacy from Bayonne said on Facebook:
I couldn't be prouder to be a life-long New Jerseyan than I
am tonight. Keep it up. Get in that good trouble. Lead the
way and hopefully others will follow.
Janie in Princeton said:
Thank you. Proud that you are my Senator and that you are
bringing ``Big Jersey energy'' to DC tonight.
Vicki in Ewing said:
We are sending our strength to you. Medicare and Medicaid
should not be touched.
And someone on Reddit even said:
I hope he wore the most comfortable and supportive shoes he
could find.
In your opening, you said something that resonated with me. You said:
Our constituents are asking us to acknowledge that this is
not normal, that this is a crisis.
I can't tell you how important it is to internalize it. That is why
we are here at this late hour in the U.S. Senate. That is why you are
leading here to make the case to the American people that this is a
crisis. That resonated with me because I hear this over and over again.
I hear it from people all over our home State, whether at townhalls or
other rooms that are packed with people saying this moment is not
normal; this moment constitutes a crisis. I am glad you are speaking on
the floor and said that because what you said isn't just Cory Booker
saying that; it is that millions of New Jerseyans we represent are
saying it. And you are lifting up their voice. It is not just you are
saying that; it is that millions of Americans who see something
fundamentally wrong, and they are angry about it.
I have some questions for my colleague. But I want to add some
context for this because I want to dig in a bit on why people are so
angry at this moment and why what with we are seeing from Donald Trump
and Elon Musk isn't in response to that anger; it is the cause of it.
A common refrain in the townhalls that I held are that people feel
like nothing is working for them. There is a promise, a uniquely
American promise that is simply going unfulfilled for too many. That
promise is simple: Your government will work for you; your economy will
allow you to advance if you work hard and give your kids a better
future; and your country will keep you safe by ensuring the world is
stable and secure.
Senator, you and I are here because we know that this promise is
going unfulfilled. To say that the American promise is going
unfulfilled would be a tragedy in its own right. It would be something
that we as a Congress should put our entire focus into restoring. But
the sad fact is that this isn't just about a promise unfulfilled; it is
about a promise that has been hijacked. It is about a promise that has
been distorted to work for those who have been paid to play to be
denied for everyone else.
Let's start with the promise that your government will work for you.
This is the basis of our democratic Republic. We are public servants in
that we serve the people. It is the people's priorities that we put
first. It is their lives that we work to make better every day. It is
their futures that we are endeavoring to brighten.
But when the people look at Donald Trump and his administration, they
don't see that. They see Elon Musk who donated nearly $300 million to
buy his way into a seat in power. The world's richest man has been
handed the keys to our government. And the same person who has been
handed nearly $40 billion in your taxpayer dollars to prop up his
corporations is now working to fire veterans from their jobs, make the
Social Security Administration less responsive to seniors, and make it
harder for your government to work for you. That is what we have seen
in the collection of billionaires that buy their way to fulfill their
own American promise--a government that works for them and only them; a
government that keeps them rich and at a cost to your Medicaid, to your
Social Security, to the food you put on the table; government where
they pay and they benefit and if you can't, you are left behind.
That is not the government our parents were promised. That is not the
government we were promised. That is not the government we want to pass
down to our kids.
As Senator Booker mentioned, our Nation is in crisis. Bedrock
commitments are being broken. That starts with the first American
promise. We can rebuild and restore that promise by actually working to
make our government work for the people. Where we see corruption, we
must call it out and combat it. And the corrupting power of money in
our politics is one example. And the extreme wealth of billionaires
like Elon Musk is drowning out working Americans, and that must be
addressed.
And as we approach the 250th anniversary of the independence of our
country, we have an opportunity to remind people that the promise of
America is something bigger than ourselves. And that public service,
not private enrichment for those at the very top but
[[Page S1969]]
public service is core to what makes this country special.
So let's talk about that second American promise. This is the promise
of the American dream, that Rockwellian notion of the house and the
white picket fence and the kids in the yard only works if you can pay
for that house. It only works if you can afford childcare and
healthcare for those kids. It only works if you can work hard and
deliver something bigger and better than you are handed. And right now,
that is not happening.
While we are fighting to bring change to our economy to make life
more affordable and the middle class more accessible, what we are
seeing from Donald Trump and Elon Musk is another promise hijacked for
those at the very top.
Senator Booker, I want to just take a step back as I get into these
questions here because you are talking about Social Security, talking
about Medicaid, talking about so many of these other issues here. But
in that broader context, what we have situated here is the recognition
that we live in the time of the greatest inequality in our Nation's
history.
So it isn't just about these programs and how we rely on them, it is
that we are seeing the wealth gap widening, and it is happening faster
and faster.
In many ways, I consider this to be the great fragility of America
right now. We are the greatest, richest, most powerful country in the
world but not for everybody. And what we see right now, it is not just
about Social Security; it is not just about the checks, but as you
mentioned, Social Security offices are closing, worry about customer
service, people call on the phone lines. And it feels like efforts are
on the way to try to sabotage our Social Security, our Medicare, our
Medicaid, and then have people say: Hey, look, it is not working, and
that is why we need to get rid of these things.
And that sabotage is something people see right before their very
eyes. I mean, you heard the Commerce Secretary talk about how seniors
won't mind if there are late payments. He said those that complain are
fraudsters, as you mentioned. That is directly trying to undermine
people who are working hard over the course of their lives.
I have to say, it is a great irony in many ways, this idea that the
richest man in the world is criticizing the hard-earned savings of
seniors that are just getting a little bit every single month for them
to just try to get by, and then he calls it a Ponzi scheme.
My father, as you mentioned, is one of those that depends on Social
Security for his entire livelihood right now. I heard another person at
a townhall describe the feeling that she has right now, and I think you
can connect with it. She says it feels hard to breathe right now
because there is so much anxiety in the American people. I am glad you
are shining a light on this because people are scared and they are
worried and they want to know what comes next.
My question to you here is something that was actually shared by a
constituent of both of ours talking about all the concerns of Social
Security of this time.
But I thought it was very poignant in pointing out that what we also
need to put forward to the American people right now is a vision going
forward of how to not just restore and protect this promise but how
we take it to the next step. If we live in a time of the greatest
amount of inequality, not just to think about how we hold on to a
receding tide but how to try to put forward some vision that can try to
inspire the same way that Social Security did and put forward
generational change--I wanted to ask you that sense.
Do you believe in that sense that right now, more than ever, as
people are faced with this anxiety that is hard to breathe, that, yes,
we will stand here on the floor of the Senate and do everything we
humanly can to be able to protect what they have. But do you agree that
we also have to put forward that positive vision of where do we take
Social Security, where do we take Medicaid, Medicare; where do we take
our economy to better work for everybody so we are not just trying to
figure out how to better divide and hold on to the pennies that the
billionaires are willing to share with the rest of us while they don't
give us anything else to be able to move forward on.
And how do we come up with a vision that tries to shrink that
inequality and live in a society that is willing to share that wealth
and recognize there is more than enough to go around? And that is not
zero-sum and that we can be stronger together in that way.
I would love to hear how you can paint that vision for the American
people.
Mr. BOOKER. I will answer your question. But knowing that my mom is
watching right now, before I answer the question, I want to tell the
folks who may not know about the relationship with my other Senator
from New Jersey--it is probably one of the more interesting
relationships in here.
I always tell New Jerseyans, I voted for Andy Kim before anybody else
did because I was on an interview committee for the Rhodes Scholarship
in New Jersey. I was a former Rhodes, and I really wanted the
experience of what it was like to be on the other side because my
experience was quite interesting.
These incredible folks came in, young people from New Jersey who were
amazing, applying for this extremely competitive scholarship. Andy Kim
was one among that number, and he blew the committee away. So way
back--I am going to retain the floor but ask you a question. What year
was that?
Mr. KIM. That would have been 2004. Twenty-one years.
Mr. BOOKER. How many years?
Mr. KIM. Twenty-one.
Mr. BOOKER. Twenty-one years ago. In 2002, I lost a run for mayor and
in 2006, I ran again. I was in between trying to do my work in Newark.
Andy blew me away. I knew then that he was this extraordinary man of
character and brilliance, this great mix of heart and head, this great
mix of honor, and a fierce ambition to make a contribution to the
world. And if you follow Andy's career, he has been a public servant in
some of the highest levels of the administration.
But then he ran for Congress, and I remember that race. You
electrified, not just the district you represented but really the whole
State of New Jersey. And then he came here.
But the moment that I remember most was during the January 6 attack.
I was here on the Senate floor in this very seat. I will never forget
how back here, Mark Kelly, an unbelievable Senator--he and I were two
of the last people off the floor, along with one of our Republican
colleagues, trying to make sure if anybody broke through we would be
there. I can't believe as a Senator I was thinking how to fight my way
off the Senate floor.
But I remember we got to an undisclosed location. A lot of Senators
were in safe spots, a lot of House Members were in safe spots debating
about what to do. I am so happy we came back late and continued the
business of government, transfer of power.
While all these Senators were dealing with big issues, whatever,
Andy Kim took a broom, plastic bags, and began cleaning up under the
Capitol dome--remarkable humility shown in a humble gesture about his
love of country.
Now, here we stand on the Senate floor at the earliest hours of the
morning, closing in on 2 a.m. You asked me this question I didn't
expect which is: Hey, Cory, this now seems to be a time where Democrats
are finding themselves about what they are against; shouldn't we be
talking about a vision of what we are for? I am very upset watching
what is happening to Social Security, watching what is happening to
insinuate fear amongst seniors who should be retiring with security and
peace, cuts undermining thousands of people being laid off--all of that
is worthy of us standing here and the things we are reading.
But what I think Senator Kim is really pointing to is the fact that
there are bold visions for whom we are going to be as a country. He is
one of these big believers that we can be a nation that boasts about we
are a country where somebody doesn't retire and lives on such a meager
check that they are technically at the poverty line. ``Senator Booker,
we have more wealth than nations all around the globe--stratospheric
wealth in this country, GDP growth, and can't we design a system that
doesn't have seniors stressed out and living--those that live off of
their paychecks--living there?''
[[Page S1970]]
The other thing I know you know about--and I recently did a talk with
a Republican friend of mine, Senator Young--we worked on a bill
together because we both recognize we are in a grip with seniors--that
generation, baby boomers, a generation ahead of me--I almost said us,
but you are technically a millennial.
Mr. KIM. That is right.
Mr. BOOKER. I am an Xer. But the generation ahead of me is so big
that we are seeing this massive group of Americans, soon to be
retiring, and lots of people recognize it, calling it the ``great
retirement crisis,'' not because Social Security checks won't be there.
You were asking me: Cory, what is the great vision for them to be
there? But because just the reality that the Social Security checks
themselves are so meager, and many other people don't have jobs where
they have 401(k)s and the like. Senator Young--again, this is not a
partisan speech.
Later, I will be quoting from the Cato Institute, the Wall Street
Journal, where there are lots of conservatives who point to this not
being a normal time in America; this being a crisis moment in America,
not just people on my side of the aisle but Republican Governors,
Republican thought leaders--a lot of folks are saying there is a real
crisis in our country being caused by the current President, who, in 71
days, most people can't say yes; most people say no to the question,
Are you better off than you were 71 days ago?
So I want to answer your question by saying this: Everyone should
retire with a secure Social Security. I believe there are ways to
secure the programs by asking the wealthiest people who pay the
smallest percentage of their income into Social Security to pay a
little bit more in Social Security taxes on their income, which is
minuscule. As you said, there is a gravity of wealth that is being
created in this country, which is, again, something I am not against in
terms of just being successful. But this idea that we have a system
that creates a fair retirement is one thing we can do.
I think, also, one of these things we should be talking about right
now is how do we make the Social Security system not frustrating for
people who complained before Donald Trump laid off tens of thousands of
people with Musk, who complained about wait times, and other things.
There are ways we can improve Social Security services as well.
So I think we can do things to secure Social Security in the long
term with a simple fix, not by raising the retirement age for people
who are struggling but by doing things by simply saying: Do you know
what? Social Security taxes are already regressive because they cap out
at a certain amount. Maybe skip some of the people in the middle, under
$400,000 or $500,000 a year, and make people who are the wealthiest in
the country pay a little bit more. That would be my vision. A very
small amount would create a secure system. I think we can also do a lot
to improve the Social Security services.
Then what I did with Senator Young--this is what is special about
this place when it happens. It is for people to reimagine what economic
security could be about. I am now very quietly--I think I have told you
about this. I have this great idea that I have been talking about for
years called baby bonds, or that every child born in America--and this
is not a new idea. We actually scraped it from people years and years
ago on both sides of the aisle in here, who had this idea that why not
in a capitalist society have every child be born with a savings
account--excuse me--a growth account. The government seeds it with some
money, and through their entire lives, people can contribute into that
tax-free, and it can grow, so that by the time--not by retirement--but
by the time they are 20, 25, 30, they have thousands, if not tens of
thousands, of dollars to invest in things that create wealth, because,
right now, lots of people are working paycheck to paycheck and don't
have stock accounts or the kinds of things that could actually produce
a lot more wealth.
I am just throwing that out as one idea, Andy. I am going to pause
because I know you have another question, and I am going to yield to a
question while retaining the floor. But I just want to say there are so
many bipartisan ideas with which to deal with wealth inequality. I
mean, the child tax credit was, unfortunately, not made permanent. It
cut child poverty in America in half. It worked for an entire year. I
remember some of my colleagues, from Marco Rubio to Mitt Romney,
talking about: Hey, we should be expanding the child tax credit. We
should be having a bolder vision for America--for retirement security,
for wealth creation, for economic security.
But we are not talking about those bold ideas.
We have a President who has come in, and one of the first things he
has done in 71 days is insinuate fear and insecurity about Social
Security by threatening it, by creating and telling lies about it, and
by having somebody like Elon Musk calling it a Ponzi scheme. That is
why we get fear. Then they take a hatchet to the actual Agency that
undermines its ability to deliver service in a good way.
Mr. KIM. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BOOKER. I will yield to a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. KIM. What you raised is absolutely right, and it is front and
center in everyone's mind.
You know, when my parents immigrated here 50 years ago, they didn't
know anybody in the entire Western Hemisphere of planet Earth. But
America called them. It inspired them.
I asked them once: What was it that drew you here?
And they said that they felt that, here in America, they could
guarantee that the family that they raised, that their kids--me and my
sister--would have a better life and more opportunities than they did,
and that was the sense of that generational progress that is made.
But now, you know, I am standing here with a 7-year-old and a 9-year-
old--I am hoping fast asleep right now--and I don't know if I can make
that same promise to them right now, that I can guarantee them that
they will have a better life and more opportunities.
So, you know, there is that growing cynicism and pessimism about that
American promise I talked to you about, and I just feel like there is
an unraveling happening here, where we see this sense of concern, and
it is being weaponized by some who create that sense of zero sum to
push us away from this idea that we are a part of something bigger than
all of us and that we can all lift each other up in that great American
project.
It is sad because, as we were getting to that 250th anniversary, you
know, it should be a time when we rededicate ourselves to the American
project--right?--like recommit ourselves to what the next 250 years
will be. But we are entering it now with a sense of pessimism on that
front. So, you know, I guess my question to you here is, how do we
break out of that tailspin on that front?
Mr. BOOKER. So, Andy, you have gotten me really excited--
Mr. KIM. Yes.
Mr. BOOKER.--because I love that you are a millennial. I am X
generation. I love the baby boomers, but they are quickly leaving
Congress. This is the last baby boomer President you will ever have. I
am confident of that. And new generations are coming forward to lead in
America.
It is time that we dream America anew. It really is. It is time that
we revive and redeem the dream. I just am one of these people who
thinks, like: OK, guys, we have some of the brightest minds on the
planet Earth. Some of our Founding Fathers said we need a little
revolution every once in a while, like we need new thoughts and new
ideas and new visions that energize people, that take a lot of the old
divisions in our country and erase them and remind people we have
common cause and common purpose. I want to get people excited again
about the American dream. I want to renew the dream, to redeem the
dream. We can do that. I am so excited about it.
And on financial security, it is absurd that we don't have the
greatest plan to create wealth, not for the favored few simply--again,
the top quartile in America has crushed it over the last 25 years.
Under Obama alone, the stock market doubled. But most Americans don't
own stocks. So people who are sitting on passive wealth were able to
grow and grow and grow and grow, while working Americans saw their
prices going up, housing becoming
[[Page S1971]]
unaffordable, and the idea of the American dream under assault.
It ticks me off that other countries are trying to out-America us.
They are trying to take our secret sauce that we seem to be turning our
back on: affordable higher education, apprenticeship programs. I mean,
with some of our European competitors, a job just appears before you,
and you can go right into an apprenticeship program where you can earn
and learn and end up in a career that gives you not just success but
that you thrive in.
There is no idea that we can't conceive of as a country. This is an
idea and a time that I just think that we need to start being bold
again in our visions for collective prosperity, for everyone to
thrive--not just the favorite few but the many. I am telling you that
those ideas are out there, whether it is baby bonds or the child tax
credit or investing in science and research. There are so many things.
But you are--can I say this to you affectionately? You are a nerd as
am I. We are two guys who love to read, who love American history. We
are two guys in this body--go back a century. They never imagined that
we would be here. OK?
One of my favorite speeches of all time was when Daniel Webster got
on Bunker Hill, and he delivered a speech--I am going to read the
introduction to it--to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the
Revolutionary War battle at Bunker Hill, in which the outnumbered
colonists inflicted such heavy losses on the mighty British forces
attempting to invade. I love one of the quotes. I can't remember it
exactly, but the general--the person who was leading the British
attack--wrote in their diary.
He wrote back to the King: We won the battle, but a few more
victories like this and we are going to lose the continent.
That is how great these people were, and this is what I want you to
know: It is a new generation, right?
Mr. KIM. Yes.
Mr. BOOKER. Those leaders are no longer around. I read this, and I
get excited by the possibility for our generation and for the new
leaders who are emerging in America. They have to. It is their
obligation to not let the dream die and to redeem the dream.
So here it is. I am just dying to read this to you. Here it is, Andy.
I don't want to read too much of it to you.
OK. Here we go:
If in our case the representative system is ultimately to
fail, this idea of a democratic government, popular
governments must be pronounced impossible.
He is saying:
We have an obligation to make a more perfect Union. No
combination of circumstances more favorable to this
experiment can ever be expected. The last hopes of mankind,
therefore, rest with us. Can we make this democratic
experiment work?
And it should be proclaimed that our example had become an
argument for the experiment. The principle of free government
adheres to this American soil. It is bedded in the soil. It
is as movable as this Nation's mountains. And let the sacred
obligations--
This is the part, Senator Kim.
And let the sacred obligations which have devolved on this
generation, and on us, sink deep into our hearts [the sacred
obligations]. Those are daily dropping from among us who
established our liberty and our government. The generation
that established this Nation are now dying. The great trust
now descends to our hands. Let us apply ourselves to which is
presented to us as an appropriate object. We can win no
laurels in our generation in a war for independence. Earlier
and worthier hands gathered [all of those laurels]. Nor are
there places for us by the sight of Solon and Alfred and
other founders of our state. Our fathers have filled them.
But there remains to us a great duty of defense and
preservation, and there is open to us also that noble pursuit
to which the spirit of the times strongly invites us. Our
proper business is improvement. Let ours be the age of
improvement. In a day of peace, let us advance the arts of
peace and the works of peace. Let us develop the resources of
our lands, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote
all its greatness, and see whether we also, in our day and generation,
may not perform something worthy to be remembered. Let us cultivate a
true spirit of union and harmony. In pursuing the great objects which
our condition points out to us, let us act under a settled conviction,
and an habitual feeling, that these twenty-four states are one country.
Let our conceptions be enlarged to the circle of our duties. Let us
extend our ideas over the whole of the vast field in which we are
called to act. Let our object be our country, our whole country. . . .
And, by the blessings of God, may that country itself become a vast and
splendid monument, not of oppression and terror but of wisdom, peace,
and liberty upon which the world may gaze with admiration for ever!
That is a bold vision--this bold vision that doesn't give up on
America, that doesn't surrender to cynicism about America. That is who
you are, Andy Kim, and that is what gets me excited.
Right now, we are fighting against what I think are tyrannical
forces. I am sorry. When a leader stands up not with humility like in
George Washington's Farewell Address or like some of the great Founders
in their inaugural addresses, but who stands up and says, ``Only I can
solve these problems,'' but who doesn't use his speeches to heal and to
comfort but to talk about the enemies he is going to pursue--and those
enemies are not the adversaries who seek to destroy us but are the
enemies who are other Americans--and to create an environment where our
seniors, who should be retiring in security, are fearful that their
Social Security or their Medicaid or their Medicare is going to be
under threat, that is insidious to me.
This is an un-normal time. This is why I am standing here. But you,
my friend, my partner in the Senate--God, this partnership. I am so
excited about the future. I am so excited about the promise. Let us
fend off all attempts to cut Social Security and Social Security
services. Let us fend off all attempts to cut Medicaid and Medicaid
care and CHIP and all the other things that we rely on.
But let us also not forget that our obligation is not to defend what
it is but to have a vision for what can become. We now, when so many
people are giving up on the American dream, on the idea of America, on
which you said so wonderfully that my children will do better than me--
that basic bedrock that our children, generation after generation, will
do better and better and better--it is time to redeem the dream and
dream America anew with bold visions. It is not how we will just help
people survive in retirement, but they are visions of how we can all
thrive in this great Nation that has enough resource and enough
abundance--abundance--to provide for everyone's hopes and dreams.
(Mr. McCORMICK assumed the Chair.)
Mr. KIM. Thank you so much. Keep up your energy.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BOOKER. Thank you. You have given me energy. I am sourcing my
energy from you.
I don't want to just cast aspersions on--and we are saying things
that I just want to back up in fact. All of those letters--all of those
letters from seniors--I see my dear friend from Pennsylvania is now the
Presiding Officer. He missed all of the letters I read from
Pennsylvania. In all of those letters, people were using the words
``Ponzi scheme.'' Where did that come from? I just want to read from
``The Joe Rogan Experience.'' I actually liked it. I enjoy listening to
Joe Rogan.
Elon:
Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time.
Now, that is a big statement. It is the biggest Ponzi scheme of all
time, Elon says.
And Joe Rogan says:
Why? Explain that.
Elon says:
Oh. So, well, people pay into Social Security, um . . .
and--and the money goes out of Social Security immediately.
But the obligation for Social Security is . . . uh . . . your
entire retirement career. So you're . . . you're paying . . .
uh . . . with your, the kind of people . . . you're paying .
. .
And I am reading this verbatim.
You're paying . . . uh . . . with your, the kind of people
. . . you're paying . . . like--like--if you look at the
future obligations of Social Security, it far exceeds, uh,
the--the tax revenue--uh . . . far.
If you've looked at the debt, the debt clock.
Rogan says:
Yes.
OK. There's, there's, there's--
Three ``there's.'' I am reading it verbatim--
our present-day debt, but then there's our future obligation.
So when you look at the future obligation of Social Security,
um, uh, the actual, uh, national debt is, like, double
[[Page S1972]]
what--what people think it is because of the future
obligations.
Rogan:
Uh.
Elon:
So, uh, basically, people are living way longer than
expected.
That was the evidence of a Ponzi scheme.
Now, let's correct something. The reason why we have a massive debt
in America--lots of people should take ownership over it. But the
biggest debt creator in the last, say, 25, 30 years, is the President
of the United States, the current one, in his first term, by blowing
massive holes in our deficits to give tax cuts that went way
disproportionately to the wealthiest Americans and corporations. And he
wants to renew those tax cuts that independent budget folks are saying
could add trillions of dollars to our national deficit.
So if he is talking about the debt clock or whatever he is talking
about, he is part of an administration--even though he is not elected
and not approved by Congress and whatever, he and his President--the
richest man in the world and the most powerful man in the world--
together they are driving an agenda that is going to drive this deficit
much bigger. And they are going to try to pay for some of it--not all
of it because it is trillions of dollars of projected debt. They are
going to try to pay for some of it by cutting NIH grants, by cutting
Medicaid, by cutting staff at Social Security.
So, no, Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. People paid into it.
And as Andy Kim and I just talked, there are ways to preserve it,
strengthen it, and make it better.
It is a program that pays benefits after a lifetime of work. It has
never missed a payment. It has never run out of money. It is an
insurance program. But don't take my word. Here is Current Affairs
magazine editor Nathan Robinson writing on March 7: ``Why Social
Security Is Not a Ponzi Scheme.''
That is a great title.
Old age insurance is not a scam, and it's not destined to
collapse. Proponents of privatizing or eliminating Social
Security are constantly telling lies about it.
Here is the article:
Elon Musk has called Social Security a ``Ponzi scheme,''
comparing it to a scam in which a con man must keep finding
new suckers in order to disguise the financial
unsustainability of his enterprise. [The] term has also been
used by libertarian commentators at Reason and the Hoover
Institute, who try to convince people that the program is
fundamentally broken and unsustainable. Because both Social
Security and Ponzi schemes take money in from new
contributors which they pay to old ones, it is easy to craft
a superficial resemblance between [the two]. But Social
Security is not a Ponzi scheme, and it's important to
understand why, because the comparison is used to generate
the illusion of a Social Security ``crisis'' that can be used
to justify major benefit cuts or even the elimination of the
program altogether. [Under the Ponzi scheme,] the differences
between old age insurance and Ponzi schemes, we can train
ourselves mentally to resist the propaganda that is used to
try to convince the public to support undermining one of our
most important social welfare programs.
Let's think about a few different cases in which money is
pooled and paid out. First, let us imagine a company has a
pension scheme. (I realize this may be difficult to imagine
these days, but stick with me for a minute.) Workers pay 5
percent of their income. The employer pays in an amount
equivalent to 15 percent of the worker's income. When the
worker retires, they get a fixed benefit every year for the
rest of their life, equivalent to some percentage of what
their salary was. [Let's call that] Scenario A.
Now let us imagine a different scenario: Five (uncommonly
astute) middle schoolers create a rudimentary insurance
scheme to guard against being punished by their parents. The
children all go to the mall every week to play arcade games
together. They each get an allowance of $10 per week, which
they spend at the arcade. What they decide to do is spend $9
each week instead and put $1 per week into a fund. If one of
them has their allowance taken away by their parents, the
fund will pay their arcade money for the week. That way,
nobody in the friend group is ever deprived of the ability to
go to the arcade. We are going to call [that] Scenario B.
Finally, let us imagine a scenario in which a fraudster
tricks a group of old people into giving him their money.
He says that if they invest their retirement money with
him, he can guarantee them a 20 percent per year return,
risk-free. They invest. He provides them with statements
showing that their money is indeed growing at 20 percent
[a] year. When they ask [him] to pull a portion of their
money out so they can spend it, he disburses it. But what
he [is actually] doing is spending all of their money and
providing fake statements. He is able to keep paying
withdrawals because he is constantly recruiting new
suckers, just enough to cover what people are withdrawing.
Eventually, people get suspicious, too many try to
withdraw their money at once, and he flees the country.
This is a Ponzi scheme, named after the Italian con [man]
Charles Ponzi, who fleeced people in this way. We will
call the Ponzi scheme scenario C.
Notice that there are similarities and differences between
[the] three scenarios. A similarity is that there is a fund
that some people are paying into while others are being paid.
Another similarity is that all three are potentially
unstable. . . . In Scenario A (company pension), employees
start living a very long time in [their] retirement, the
amount of money in the pension fund might not be able to
cover the promised benefits, necessitating an adjustment of
the contributions from the next generation of workers. . . .
Or if, in Scenario B (middle school arcade . . . insurance),
one of the kids might be so unruly that his parents are
suspending his allowance every other week, requiring an
adjustment of the rules for payouts or contributions . . . to
keep the fund sustainable. Scenario C [the] (Ponzi scheme) is
the most unstable of all, because it depends on an elaborate
fraud, on fake accounting that disguises the fact [that]
nobody has the amount of money that they are being told they
have. It . . . only last[s] until people try to actually use
the money. . . . But scenarios A and B could also collapse if
they are not managed well.
We can see that despite the commonalities . . . there are
fundamental differences between scenarios A . . . B and
scenario C. The first two are legitimate ways for people to
pool and distribute money, and they can work just fine . . .
accomplishing their intended purpose. The third is a fraud in
which people's money is being stolen. The difference is more
important than the similarities.
I have laboriously laid out these examples in . . . hopes
that we can better understand why Social Security can be made
to look like a ``Ponzi scheme'' but [it] isn't . . . one at
all. ``Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme of all
time,'' said Musk. ``People pay into Social Security, and the
money goes out of Social Security immediately. But the
obligation for Social Security is your entire retirement
career.'' Now, it's true that in an insurance system, the
incoming payments from new people might be used to fund
outgoing payments to people who were already part of the
[Ponzi scheme.] But that's not what makes a Ponzi scheme a
Ponzi scheme. Musk, not for the first time, doesn't know what
he's talking about.
One of the reasons Social Security can be made to seem like
a Ponzi scheme is [because] people may misunderstand how it
works. People might think that Social Security saves their
money over time, and then when they retire it pays ``their''
money back. That is not how it works. It's not like a savings
account. The money I pay in is not saved up for me, it's paid
out to today's beneficiaries. When I retire, my benefits will
be paid by the money coming in from the next generation of
workers. Discovering this fact can make people think [that]
Social Security is [a Ponzi scheme, but it is not.]
. . . . a Ponzi scheme is a fraud in which the returns are
fake. There is nothing fake about Social Security. As long as
enough money is in the pool to pay out the beneficiaries, the
operation is sustainable, and perfectly honest. The only
reason it matters that retirees do not pay for their own
benefits, but depend on the payments of the next generation
of workers, is that if there isn't a next generation of
workers, we . . . have [got] a problem. But fortunately,
there is every reason to believe that human beings will
continue to exist, work, and pay Social Security taxes.
Now, what Musk and others who claim Social Security is a
``scam'' or in ``crisis'' say is that in the future, there
will not be enough workers [to pay] retiree[s] . . . the
promised benefits. Musk says: ``If you look at the future
obligations of Social Security, it far exceeds the tax
revenue . . . There's our present-day debt, but then there's
our future obligations . . . So, when you look at the future
obligations of Social Security, the actual national debt is
like double what people think it is because of future
obligations. . . . Basically, people are living way longer
than expected, and there are fewer babies being born, so you
have [many] people who are retired and that live for a long
time and get retirement payments . . . However bad the
financial situation is right now for the federal government,
it'll be much worse in the future.''
But while he's trying to get you to think this is a major
problem or some deep fundamental flaw with . . . Social
Security, it isn't. Every insurance plan has to make
adjustments over time. If there are a lot of wildfires
burning down houses, a company selling fire insurance might
have to raise premiums. . . . The increased premiums might be
small, but without them the program would go bankrupt. [This]
doesn't mean, however, that we'd be justified in saying . . .
fire insurance plans are a ``Ponzi scheme'' destined to go
bankrupt.
The adjustments needed to make Social Security sustainable
in the long term are minor. Yes, people are living longer and
having fewer babies. That means there ultimately has to be
some kind of adjustment to
[[Page S1973]]
either how much is being paid in, how much is being paid out,
or both. Republicans want to cut benefits. Defenders of
Social Security, instead, want to raise the money going into
it by increasing taxes paid by the wealthy.
It is so interesting that we just saw that in the dialogue with my
ideas with Andy Kim.
The amount of taxes that would need to be raised in order
to make Social Security solvent is negligible (the Social
Security Administration has estimated that ``increase in the
combined payroll tax rate from 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent''
to make the program sustainable for the next 75 years). As
Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot put it in the introduction to
1999's Social Security [book entitled]: The Phony Crisis:
``The only real threat to Social Security comes not from any
fiscal or demographic constraints but from the political
assaults on the program by would-be `reformers.' If not for
these attacks, the probability that Social Security `will not
be there' when anyone who is alive today retires would be
about the same as the odds that the U.S. government will not
be there.''
Of course, in the 25 years since this was written, the
chances that the U.S. government itself someday ``may not be
there'' could conceivably have gone up.
This is a funny author.
Musk is certainly trying to make sure as little of it
remains as possible. But the point remains. The theory behind
Social Security is sound. It is not . . . like an
unsustainable con, although it's also not like a savings
account. It can easily be sustained indefinitely, with some
minor adjustments to ensure that enough money is coming in to
keep it going. (It is also the case that even the need to
keep enough money flowing in is artificial. As Stephanie
Kelton explains, the restrictions on Social Security's
ability to pay out are created by a legal choice, not an
actual financial constraint facing the U.S. government, which
could keep paying benefits even when Social Security's
funding ``runs out'' if it was authorized by Congress to do
so.) Beware the rhetoric of those who describe it as in a
``crisis'' or being a scam. They either do not understand the
fundamentals of how it works or they are deliberately trying
to deceive you. (I cannot say for certain whether Musk is
knowledgeable enough to understand the basics and is lying or
simply cannot wrap his head around the basic way an old age
insurance program works.)
The author continues:
As Alex Lawson of Social Security Works explained to me,
the right has been trying to destroy Social Security since
its inception. This is for a few reasons. First, a lot of
vultures stand to benefit from privatization, just as the
privatized ``Medicare Advantage'' program has enriched
insurers like UnitedHealth. Second, the right, believing that
individuals should be responsible for their own fates, has an
ideological opposition to government social welfare
programs--even if this results in a bunch of old people being
poor. They see Social Security as an offensive ``Big
Government'' intrusion into the free market, something that
compels people to put money into a retirement program whether
they want to or not. The problem is that most of the public
doesn't share this hatred for the concept behind Social
Security, and the program is overwhelmingly popular [on both
sides of the political aisle.] Because they have failed to
win the ideological argument, the right must therefore
convince the public of a different argument: That the program
is collapsing and doomed and can only be ``saved'' through
major benefit cuts, which will be stated as the euphemism of
``raising the retirement age.''
Hence the propaganda about unsustainability and Ponzi
schemes. This can be effective because if you don't know much
about how Social Security works, it's easy to be convinced
that there's something fishy about its payment structure or
that it is heading for some dire financial apocalypse. But
this is not the case. Baker and Weisbrot are right that the
threats to Social Security come from those who say they are
trying to ``save'' it from a crisis. We need to have a clear
understanding of what is going on so that we can fight to
save a program that works just fine and can easily be made to
continue providing retirement benefits to every subsequent
generation of Americans, ideally ensuring that nobody has to
endure old age in poverty.
So why are they cutting Social Security staff? Thousands of people.
Again--I say this time and time again--I am standing here because this
is not a usual time. I think our country is facing a growing crisis.
But I am quoting so many Republicans because a lot of us who have run
stuff know that you don't just fire people and then realize the
mistakes you have made and beg them to come back to work. They know
that you don't just fire people that do essential functions in a
program before you have even done assessments of what your goals and
ambitions are for Social Security.
It is clear that their goal and ambition isn't to invest in customer
service to improve the complaints that I have heard over the years
about waits, unreturned calls, challenges at Social Security offices.
That is not their ambition.
We have missed a big opportunity to come together in this Nation and
start to really reimagine our government that works for people, that
can do big things and serve folks. Instead, we are trying to demonize
people; we are trying to lie about critical programs, calling this a
Ponzi scheme; make up out of thin air that somehow we are paying
thousands of people that are over 150 years old, fraudulently. We are
better than that.
To that point, I just want to again make my facts clear. Here is an
Associated Pressed fact-check from the President's speech: ``Tens of
millions of dead people aren't getting Social Security checks, despite
Trump and Musk claims.''
The Trump administration is falsely claiming that tens of
millions of dead people over 100 years old are receiving
Social Security payments.
Over the past few days, President Donald Trump and
billionaire adviser Elon Musk have said on social media and
in press briefings that people who are 100, 200 and even 300
years old are improperly getting benefits--a ``HUGE
problem,'' Musk wrote, as his Department of Government
Efficiency digs into federal agencies to root out waste,
fraud and abuse.
It is true that improper payments have been made, including
some to dead people. But the numbers thrown out by Musk and
the White House are overstated and misrepresent Social
Security data.
Here are the facts:
What has the Trump administration said about payments to
centenarians? On Tuesday, Trump said at a press briefing in
Florida that ``we have millions and millions of people over
100 years old'' receiving Social Security benefits. ``They're
obviously fraudulent or incompetent,'' Trump said.
``If you take all of those millions of people off Social
Security, all of a sudden we have a very powerful Social
Security with people that are 80 and 70 and 90, but not 200
years old,'' he said. He also said that there's one person in
the system listed as 360 years old.
Late Monday, Musk posted a slew of posts on his social
media platform X, including: ``Maybe Twilight is real and
there are a lot of vampires collecting Social Security,'' and
``Having tens of millions of people marked in Social Security
as ``ALIVE'' when they are definitely dead is a HUGE problem.
Obviously. Some of these people would have been alive before
America existed as a country. Think about that for a second .
. . ''
On Wednesday, Social Security's new acting commissioner,
Lee Dudek, acknowledged recent reporting about the number of
people older than age 100 who may be receiving benefits from
Social Security. ``The reported data are people in our
records with a Social Security number who do not have a date
of death associated with their record. These individuals are
not necessarily receiving benefits.''
``I am confident that with DOGE's help and the commitment
of our executive team and workforce, that Social Security
will continue to deliver for the American people,'' Dudek
said.
How big of a problem is Social Security fraud?
A July 2024 report from Social Security's inspector general
states that from fiscal years 2015 through 2022, the agency
paid out almost $8.6 trillion in benefits, including $71.8
billion--or less than 1%--in improper payments. Most of the
erroneous payments were overpayments to living people.
In addition, in early January, the U.S. Treasury clawed
back more than $31 million in a variety of federal payments--
not just Social Security payments--that improperly went to
dead people, a recovery that former Treasury official David
Lebryk said was ``just the tip of the iceberg.''
The money was reclaimed as part of a five-month pilot
program after Congress gave the Department of Treasury
temporary access to the Social Security Administration's
``Full Death Master File'' for three years as part of the
omnibus appropriations bill in 2021. The SSA maintains the
most complete federal database of individuals who have died,
and the file contains more than 142 million records, which go
back to 1899, according to the Treasury.
Treasury estimated in January that it would recover more
than $215 million during its three-year access period, which
runs from December 2023 through 2026.
So are tens of millions of people over 100 years old
receiving benefits?
No.
No. No. But the letters I read from scared people across the country
show what happens when a President lies and when his unelected, biggest
campaign contributor, the richest man in the world, just continue to
make public statements to insinuate fear and doubt and chaos and then
make announcements that they have to take back that they are going to
end the call-in service, which so many seniors rely on.
Then they create more fear when people see that posted government
buildings that are going to be sold at auction to the private sector
are actually the addresses of their Social Security offices.
[[Page S1974]]
Why?
Everywhere I am going around my State and everywhere I have gone
around the country in the last few weeks and my mom and her mostly
Republican senior community are all up in arms and feel this fear--or
the people that we have read about who write letters about losing
sleep--and it is because of the chaos, the crass cruelty, the
unjustified cuts and attacks on a program that is a bedrock between
security and financial ruin for so many Americans.
Here is the Wall Street Journal writing about this, how Trump and
Musk are undermining Social Security:
Dealing With Social Security Is Heading From Bad to Worse.
The agency that administers benefits is cutting staff and
restricting services as part of a Department of Government
Efficiency review.
The Wall Street Journal writes:
The federal agency that administers Social Security
benefits is facing a customer-service mess. The Social
Security Administration is cutting staff, restricting what
recipients can do over the phone and closing some local field
offices that help people in person. The number of retirees
claiming benefits has risen in recent years as baby boomers
age.
Few federal agencies reach as far into Americans' lives as
the Social Security Administration, which delivers a monthly
check to some 70 million people. Many fear that the changes,
part of President Trump's push to overhaul the federal
government through the Department of Government Efficiency,
are eroding confidence in the nearly 90-year-old program.
The Wall Street Journal continues:
Agency officials have acknowledged that because of a
planned reduction in services over the phone, there will be
longer wait and processing times. An estimated 75,000 to
85,000 additional visitors a week could show up at local
field offices, according to an internal memo sent by Doris
Diaz, the acting deputy commissioner for operations. (Details
of the memo, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal,
were reported earlier by the Washington Post.)
That is likely to tax the agency's 800 number, where people
typically make appointments for office visits. Already,
Social Security recipients have long complained about
customer service.
Holly Lawrence, 64 years old, made several unsuccessful
attempts to reach a human before she filed her Social
Security claim online. The Washington, D.C.-based freelance
journalist said she called the agency's 800 number several
times starting in February. Each time, she got an automated
voice that warned of a two-hour wait. Her calls were
disconnected before she could leave a message or request a
callback.
She gave up trying to reach a customer-service agent and
created an online account on the agency's website on March 3.
She had to wait two weeks for an account activation code to
arrive in the mail before she could submit her claim. She is
now waiting for that claim to be reviewed and processed.
Lawrence said she has virtually no retirement savings.
``I'm financially strapped and cannot afford to get a
financial adviser. It was important to me to be able to talk
to someone at Social Security,'' she said, adding that she is
concerned the customer-service delays she encountered could
negatively affect others ``who don't have the strength to be
persistent.''
The Wall Street Journal continues:
Social Security has a reputation as the ``third rail'' of
American politics, a benefit to which elected officials make
cuts at the risk of their own re-election. President Trump
has vowed not to cut benefits. But he and DOGE's leader, Elon
Musk, have made unfounded claims of widespread fraud in the
program.
I am going to repeat that sentence by the Wall Street Journal:
[H]e and DOGE's leader, Elon Musk, have made unfounded
claims of widespread fraud in the program.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in a recent podcast
interview that if Social Security checks were hypothetically
delayed, it might catch those guilty of fraud because they
would make ``the loudest noise screaming, yelling and
complaining.''
Critics say turmoil at the agency is undermining trust in
the safety-net programs.
``They're killing these programs from the inside,'' said
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat. ``The result of which
is, we don't know what they are doing to tear down the
scaffolding that holds Social Security together.''
DOGE has gained access to systems containing personal
information but a federal judge has temporarily blocked those
efforts. On Friday, Leland Dudek, acting Social Security
commissioner, threatened to shut down the agency because of
the order, but later reversed course.
Dudek, the acting commissioner, said the changes ``are
designed to make sure the right payment is to the right
person at the right time. It's a common-sense measure.''
Even before DOGE's plans went into motion, the agency's
customer-service operation had been showing signs of strain.
Roughly 47% of the quarter million people who call Social
Security's 800-number on an average day have gotten through
to a representative this year. That is down from nearly 60%
in 2024. The average time to wait for a callback is over two
hours.
There has been a steady decline in the agency's staff, and
DOGE plans to cut employment by another 12% this year. That
would bring the total number of employees to about 50,000,
from about 57,000 today and nearly 68,000 in 2010.
``Customer service has been going downhill for years,''
said Bill Sweeney, senior vice president at AARP. ``It's
going to get worse.''
Some of the Social Security Administration's changes amount
to cuts in services.
The Wall Street Journal continues:
Starting March 31, people who want to file for retirement,
survivor or disability benefits or change their direct
deposit information can no longer complete the process by
phone, the agency said Tuesday. Instead they must do so
online or at a field office.
The agency said it is stopping phone claims as part of an
effort to reduce fraud and strengthen identity-proofing
procedures. The Social Security agency has estimated that
improper payments represent 0.3% of total benefits.
Dudek acknowledged that recent changes, including the shift
away from claiming on the phone, are likely to drive up the
numbers making appointments at field offices over the next 60
days. He said field employees would be trained over the next
two weeks to respond to the changes.
``We're going to adjust our policy and our procedures to
adapt to that volume,'' he said in a recent call with
reporters. ``These changes are not intended to hurt our
customers.''
Dudek said Monday in a call with advocates that the phone
service policy change and quick timeline were directed by the
White House, according to people familiar with the call.
Directed by the White House.
Kathleen Romig, director of Social Security and disability
policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, says it
isn't clear why the agency chose to discontinue identity
verification over the phone, while allowing it online and in
person. She and other advocates say that by discontinuing the
phone option, the agency is creating hurdles for those who
lack internet service or live far from a field office.
The agency has also largely stopped serving walk-in
customers in field offices, said Maria Freese, senior
legislative representative at the nonprofit National
Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare. Most
wanting in-person service must book appointments on the 800-
number.
In February, 45% of people who scheduled a phone or in-
person appointment to file a claim got one within 28 days.
DOGE plans to close nearly 50 of the agency's approximately
1,200 field offices, according to Social Security Works,
although a spokeswoman for the nonprofit said some of the
offices on the list ``don't seem to exist.''
Frank Bisgnano, chairman and CEO of Fiserv, Inc, has been
picked by Trump to serve as [Social Security's] commissioner
and will appear before the Senate Finance Committee on
Tuesday.
I mean, this is the Wall Street Journal pointing out utter
incompetence, utter incompetence. And they are rolling back, trying to
catch up, but they don't seem to care, and the way they are going about
this they are hurting seniors. They are undermining the security of the
program.
The title of the Wall Street Journal's article is the best, it is
taking services, Social Security services are now going from bad to
worse, under this leadership, who promised they were going to serve
people.
I see the Senator standing, and I will yield for a question while
retaining the floor, if he has one.
Mr. MURPHY. Senator Booker, I am going to pose to you a pretty simple
question here, but, first, let me lay down a little bit of a predicate.
You know, we have heard already some talk tonight about this
extraordinary statement, but not terribly surprising, from the
Secretary of Commerce, who is a close friend of the President, somebody
who is very close to all of the decisions being made in the White
House, where he said, you know, that if a Social Security recipient
misses their check for a month, then they should not complain.
My mother-in-law wouldn't complain.
That is easy for him to say, you know, maybe you wouldn't complain if
your son-in-law was a billionaire. You probably are not going to be
harmed by missing a Social Security check if you have got a billionaire
in the family.
But 99.99 percent of Americans do not have a billionaire that they
can get on the phone if they miss a month, and 1 month's Social
Security check disappearing is a cataclysm for a lot of families.
As I was listening to you, I just did a little bit of, you know,
easy, back-of-
[[Page S1975]]
the-napkin math. So the average Social Security check, on a monthly
basis, in this country is somewhere around $2,000. Obviously, it varies
based on how much money you put in and what your income was, but, on
average, it is about $2,000.
Now, some Americans have supplemental retirement income, but fewer
and fewer do today because it is just not the case any longer that
employers are going to provide for you a defined benefit plan. So if
you were working minimum wage your entire life or if you were working a
low-wage job, you are not going to have money to put away in Social
Security.
I remember during one of my walks across the State of Connecticut,
spending about half an hour walking with an elderly gentleman in
Willimantic, CT, and he told me a story that is not atypical. He worked
his entire life. Most of his adult life he worked for Walmart. He was
really proud of working for Walmart. He helped a whole bunch of people
in his community. He was working for a great American company, a
company he was proud of. He was helping people every single day that
lived in his neighborhood get what they needed when they came into the
store.
But you know the wage he was making at Walmart. He was making very
little, and they didn't have any defined benefit plan. They would let
him save a little bit of money if he could find the means, but he
couldn't because every single dime that he made from Walmart had to go
to rent and groceries and medicine and cell phone bill and
transportation.
And so he worked for 20 years at Walmart, and when he retired, do you
know how much he had in savings? Zero. Zero. And he felt like he had
done everything people had asked him for. He worked for a great
American company. He helped people. He worked full time. He didn't miss
time. He didn't goof around.
And when he retired, he had nothing--nothing--saved. So the Social
Security check, which to him was probably about $2,000 a month, was
everything he had. And he is walking with me explaining to me what his
life is like today. He was coming out of the liquor store, and that was
one of the things he did every day was go down to the liquor store and,
you know, buy a nip or two and, you know, just pass a couple hours. He
didn't like to spend a lot of time in his house because he has
roommates.
He lives in a small apartment with two other guys, strangers. He
doesn't know them. And he says to me as we are walking: This is not how
I expected my life to go. I thought if I worked my entire life and I
played by the rules and I worked hard, you know, I would have a little
bit more dignified retirement than this. I share a room with two other
guys that I don't know.
And that is the reality for a lot of Americans. That is the reality
for a lot of retirees. You know, $2,000 is the average Social Security
check. I don't know why I picked Tallahassee, but I just picked
Tallahassee. I said what is the average one-bedroom rent in
Tallahassee? It is $1,200, utilities are probably a couple hundred
dollars, the average senior citizen spends $500 a month on food. Rent,
utilities, food, that is it. That is your $2,000. You have nothing left
if you are 1 of the 7 million Americans who rely only on Social
Security like my friend from Willimantic.
You have nothing left for medicine, for transportation. You have got
nothing left for a cell phone. You have nothing left to go to the
movies once a month. You have nothing left for presents for your
grandkids for Christmas or for their birthday. If you are relying on
Social Security--and many people who have worked their entire life
are--you go without that check for 1 month, your whole life falls
apart.
And so this ``cavalierness'' that Musk and Trump have about Social
Security, that the billionaires that advise them have about Social
Security: Don't worry about it if you miss a check for a month or 2
months. You are a fraudster. You are trying to defraud the government
if you complain about missing a Social Security check. It is so
disconnected from reality.
I know we are going to talk later today about the plans to shut down
the Department of Education. It shows this similar disdain for public
education, the way that they are showing a disdain for working
Americans who are relying on Social Security as their primary means of
retirement income, the disdain for the 40 million working Americans who
rely on Medicaid.
And it is not hard to understand why, because if you are a
billionaire, if you are Elon Musk, if you are Donald Trump, you don't
have to rely on the public school system. Your kids go to fancy private
schools. You will never need to rely on Medicaid. You have lived
fortunate lives--in Donald Trump's case because he was born into
wealth. You will get a Social Security check, but that is not going to
be your primary retirement.
And so you can understand, if you put a bunch of billionaires in
charge of the government who don't lead lives that are remotely
connected to how average people live, they will say things like Social
Security is just one big Ponzi scheme, and that is the big one to
eliminate or, you know what, America will be all right if we impose
$880 billion in cuts to the insurance program for 24 percent of
Americans or let's shut down the Department of Education because, I
don't know, public education doesn't matter to me.
So I think it is just the reality that we are living in today in
which we have people who are making these decisions who just don't
understand how normal people's lives work and, in particular, how a
person's life falls apart if they have any diminution in their Social
Security income, when the average check is $2,000 a month and the
average expenses in most cities for a senior citizen who relies on
Social Security are going to be far higher than $2,000 a month.
Here is my question for you. You laid out what is going on with
Social Security today. It is like the opposite of efficiency. It is
called the Department of Government Efficiency. And what we know for
certain in the Social Security system is that everything they are doing
has the intent of making the system less efficient, right? You don't
just close dozens of offices and shut down the phone system to make the
system more efficient. You do that to make the system less efficient.
And so I am trying to figure out why, right? I am trying to figure
out why. And I will give you, you know, two theories and then let you
tell me if you think I am right or I am wrong. It could be a pretext to
eradicate the whole system.
What did they say about USAID? They said that USAID was a corrupt
enterprise. It was corrupt. No evidence of corruption in USAID. No
evidence of corruption, no allegations of specific corruption, but they
just made these accusations that USAID was criminal. Musk and Trump
said this: It is a criminal enterprise. It is a corrupt enterprise. And
that became their justification to eliminate it. Within weeks, USAID,
one of the most important vehicles of U.S. national security was gone--
was gone. They didn't run on that. Nobody saw that coming.
It was 2 weeks of allegations about criminality and corruption, and
then USAID vanished. And people were like looking around, what
happened? They didn't tell us they were going to do that, and now it is
gone. They certainly didn't run on eliminating Social Security or
cutting people's benefits. But, boy, the playbook seems a little
familiar here that all of a sudden there are these lies being told.
Lies being told. Let's say what it is about the corruption inside
Social Security.
As you said, the improper benefit payments are minuscule, right, .3
percent of overall payments.
And so is this a pretext to ultimately make big cuts in Social
Security or, alternatively, is it just part of a plan to just sort of
put the entire country on edge, right? To just make everybody wake up
in the morning wondering whether they are next, right? Is it my
Medicaid benefit that is going to be cut? Is Social Security going to
be there for me if I am a Federal employee? You know, is my job here
next week?
And is that a means of distracting you from the corruption, the
thievery that is happening at the highest levels of government? Is that
in service of an agenda to try to convert this country from democracy
to something else, if everybody is just so focused on the next hit,
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, my son losing his Federal job? Is
that a means to ultimately try
[[Page S1976]]
to drive an agenda through the back door while people are looking at
the threats coming at them through the front door? It is clearly not
about efficiency. I mean, that is what we know. The changes they are
making to Social Security are not about efficiency, so the question is,
What is the agenda here if it is not efficiency?
Mr. BOOKER. And, again, you and I and the Presiding Officer, there
are a lot of people here I know that operate from just a place of just
like decency. There are problems with government. We need to fix them.
We need to make government more efficient. We need to deal with the
national debt.
There are so many things that people on the right and the left don't
agree on. You and I can agree that, God bless America, the government
could be a lot more efficient.
But the question is, They are not playing on the level. There are
lies about USAID like, I don't know, 5 million condoms going to Gaza or
something outrageous and easily proven false, time and time again. The
President of the United States, again, this doesn't shock people
anymore, he is a President, more than any other modern President, by
independent fact-checkers, has been proven to lie over and over again.
But as I sat there listening to his speech, and he just goes on and
on about transgender mice when that was proven to be utterly a lie or
else somebody just misreading the kind of mice that are used in medical
experiments which have a similar word.
So are they lying in order to attack these programs? DOGE is
insidious in the fact that they keep posting things and then having to
pull them down because, just, independent folks.
And I have article after article--we are so far behind on this agenda
of things to get through, I am not going to read them all, some of them
I will submit to the Record--but not people on the left calling them
out for what they are doing and saying being a lie about Social
Security.
So you are pointing out a pattern. First, they tell terrible lies to
try to whip up public sentiment against entities created in a
bipartisan way, by the way.
Mr. MURPHY. Right.
Mr. BOOKER. Using congressional powers, approving spending, approving
programs, approving Agencies. Let's create incredible lies. Magnify
them on social media, try to spread them with our influencers and
everybody. So now people believe that somehow, oh, the President talked
about all this money going to transgender mice. That is a lie.
But we are going to use that as an excuse to attack the scientific
funding. We are going to use that as an excuse to attack Medicaid. We
are going to use that as an excuse to pull the people fighting Ebola
out of East Africa.
And so I was told by a colleague of mine, a Republican colleague of
mine: When you come here, don't try to get in the head of your
colleague and understand what their motivations are.
But this, to me, is a pattern in which they are trying to undermine
public confidence. And the result of this pattern has seniors--letter
after letter I wrote--using things like ``I am losing sleep.'' ``I am
terrified.'' ``I am scared.'' ``Help me, please.'' Telling the most
painful stories about retirement insecurity, about health challenges.
And so, again, I have this expectation, whether you are a Republican
or Democratic President, you don't insinuate fear amongst vulnerable
communities. You don't insinuate fears amongst our elders who deserve
respect and deserve to retire with dignity. You don't do that. You
stand boldly in front of them and say: Do you know what? There are some
things we are going to improve. We are going to try to bring the best
minds in America to make the best customer service because every
independent group has been saying that the customer service is failing.
Yeah, we want to go after fraud and abuse. We are not going to do it.
The first thing we are going to do is fire the inspectors general who
have a better record than Elon Musk does over this last decade rooting
out fraud and abuse under Democrat and Republican Presidents. It just
doesn't add up. It is not on the level.
So before I allow you to ask this next question: What does this
amount to, Senator Murphy? Ultimately, what this amounts to is an
attack on the programs, the healthcare, the services, the retirement
security that millions of Americans rely on. And often, for them, what
they are relying on is the difference between safety and security and
chaos and destitution. I am not exaggerating that.
When somebody's Social Security check is the only income they have
and they have already downsized--as you said, brought in roommates--
doing everything they can to cut costs because, under this President,
costs are going up.
This is why we have to stand and not let this happen.
Mr. MURPHY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOOKER. Yes, I will yield for a question while retaining the
floor.
Mr. MURPHY. So there is also a third agenda here. We were not
necessarily both here at this time, but a few Republican
administrations ago, there was an attempt to privatize Social Security,
to take, you know, the corpus and move that money into the hands of the
private sector for them to manage the money and, of course, charge a
fee or a commission for the management of the money. The Social
Security trust fund, if sort of fully handed over to investors on Wall
Street, could make a lot of money for that industry.
The American people rose up against that. It was stopped in its
tracks. But that is still a priority for a lot of allies of the
President, to get their hands on that money inside Social Security.
And, again, I am previewing a future conversation, but I keep on
making the analogy to what is happening inside the education space
because those same industries--whether it was the investment banks or
private-equity firms--get wide-eyed at our public education dollars as
well because they would love to get their hands on those public
education dollars and have private equity companies running our
elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools and skimming a
little bit of money off the top to pay back their investors.
And so, you know, the other potential agenda here is to attack the
public administration of Social Security, attack the public
administration of our public schools in order to shift that
administration--and the oversight of the investments in the case of the
Social Security--to the private sector so that the President can hand
those functions and that oversight to friends in the private sector.
And, once again, it just becomes a money-making vehicle for folks who
are already doing very well instead of an exercise in just trying to
promote governance.
Instead of the agenda simply being the education of our kids or the
administration of a benefit program, it just becomes about making
somebody else money.
I pose that as a question to my friend because we saw this attempt to
try to privatize Social Security, and you can certainly see at the end
of this assault, this false assault on the inefficiency of the public
administration, the solution being to turn the program over to the
private sector, the privatization of Social Security that many
Republicans have wanted for a long time finally coming to fruition.
Mr. BOOKER. Right. But that is the problem, right? Is that if you
have an idea, bring it. Let's have an actual debate. Let's bring in
experts. Let's have a debate.
The person you are talking about, Bush, who had that idea, he had the
good sense to say: Do You know what? I am not going to try to kill the
Agency. I am not going to lay off thousands of their employees. I am
not going to drive the services it provides, make them worse, to be
called out by right-leaning newspapers and right-leaning writers. I am
actually going to bring my idea forward, and let's have the debate in
Congress. Let's bring people together. Let's hold the hearings. Let's
have the conversation.
I can deal with that because--this is going to surprise you, Senator
Murphy--I have had conclusions about policy positions that I have
changed over the years. When I had a debate, I had a contest of ideas,
people have persuaded me.
But that is not the way Trump operates. He tried to kill healthcare
without a plan. The powerful letter I read by John McCain about why he
voted
[[Page S1977]]
no, it was because it was first: Kill this thing that people rely on.
Don't worry. Trust me. We will figure it out later.
That is what is happening with Medicaid right now. There is no
conversation about how to better provide healthcare to the tens of
millions of people that rely on Medicaid, from our seniors to expectant
mothers to people with disabilities--no conversation. They are just
sending people into dark rooms and saying: Here is $880 billion I need.
Find a way to cut it. Let's kill it and see what happens.
Mr. MURPHY. Ready, fire, aim.
Mr. BOOKER. Ready, fire, aim.
Senator Murphy, I prepared for so many days on this, and we are
talking about the points so I am going to submit--there are lots of
articles here that I am going to submit to the Record.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a Washington Post article about ``Long waits, waves of calls, website
crashes: Social Security is breaking down.''
There being no objection, the materia1 was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Long Waits, Waves of Calls, Website Crashes: Social Security is
Breaking Down
(By Lisa Rein and Hannah Natanson)
The Social Security Administration website crashed four
times in 10 days this month, blocking millions of retirees
and disabled Americans from logging in to their online
accounts because the servers were overloaded. In the field,
office managers have resorted to answering phones at the
front desk as receptionists because so many employees have
been pushed out.
But the agency no longer has a system to monitor customers'
experience with these services, because that office was
eliminated as part of the cost-cutting efforts led by Elon
Musk.
And the phones keep ringing. And ringing.
The federal agency that delivers $1.5 trillion a year in
earned benefits to 73 million retired workers, their
survivors and poor and disabled Americans is engulfed in
crisis--further undermining its ability to provide reliable
and quick service to vulnerable customers, according to
internal documents and more than two dozen current and former
agency employees and officials, customers and others who
interact with Social Security.
Financial services executive Frank Bisignano is scheduled
to face lawmakers Tuesday during a Senate confirmation
hearing as President Donald Trump's pick to become the
permanent commissioner.
For now, the agency is run by a caretaker leader in his
sixth week on the job who has raced to push out more than 12
percent of the staff of 57,000. He has conceded that the
agency's phone service ``sucks'' and acknowledged that Musk's
U.S. DOGE Service is really in charge, pushing a single-
minded mission to find benefits fraud despite vast evidence
that the problem is overstated.
The turmoil is leaving many retirees, disabled claimants
and legal immigrants who need Social Security cards with less
access or shut out of the system altogether, according to
those familiar with the problems.
``What's going on is the destruction of the agency from the
inside out, and it's accelerating,'' Sen. Angus King (I-
Maine) said in an interview. ``I have people approaching me
all the time in their 70s and 80s, and they're beside
themselves. They don't know what's coming.''
King's home state has the country's oldest population.
``What they're doing now is unconscionable,'' he said.
Leland Dudek--the accidental leader elevated to acting
commissioner after he fed data to Musk's team behind his
bosses' backs--has issued rapid-fire policy changes that have
created chaos for front-line staff. Under pressure from the
secretive Musk team, Dudek has pushed out dozens of officials
with years of expertise in running Social Security's complex
benefit and information technology systems. Others have left
in disgust.
The moves have upended an agency that, despite the
popularity of its programs, has been underfunded for years,
faces potential insolvency in a decade and has been led by
four commissioners in five months--just one of them Senate-
confirmed. The latest controversy came last week, when Dudek
threatened to shut down operations in response to a federal
judge's ruling that Dudek claimed would leave no one with
access to beneficiaries' personal information to serve them.
Alarmed lawmakers are straining to answer questions from
angry constituents in their districts. Calls have flooded
into congressional offices. The AARP announced on Monday that
more than 2,000 retirees per week have called the
organization since early February--double the usual number--
with concerns about whether benefits they paid for during
their working careers will continue. Social Security is the
primary source of income for about 40 percent of older
Americans.
Trump has said repeatedly that the administration ``won't
touch'' Social Security, a promise that aides say applies to
benefit levels that can only be adjusted by Congress. But in
just six weeks, the cuts to staffing and offices have already
taken a toll on access to benefits, officials and advocates
say.
Creating a fire
With aging technology systems and a $15 billion budget that
has stayed relatively flat over a decade, Social Security was
already struggling to serve the public amid an explosion of
retiring baby boomers. The staff that reviews claims for two
disability programs was on life support following massive
pandemic turnover--and still takes 233 days on average to
review an initial claim.
But current and former officials, advocates and others who
interact with the agency--many of whom spoke on the condition
of anonymity for fear of retribution--said Social Security
has been damaged even further by the rapid cuts and chaos of
Trump's first two months in office. Many current and former
officials fear it's part of a long-sought effort by
conservatives to privatize all or part of the agency.
``They're creating a fire to require them to come and put
it out,'' said one high-ranking official who took early
retirement this month.
Dudek, who was elevated from a mid-level data analyst in
the anti-fraud office, hurried to cut costs when he took over
in mid-February, canceling research contracts, offering
early-retirement incentives and buyouts across the agency,
and consolidating programs and regional offices. Entire
offices, including those handling civil rights and
modernization, were driven out. The 10 regional offices that
oversee field operations were slashed to four.
``I do not want to destroy the agency,'' he said in an
interview Monday. ``The president wants it to succeed by
cutting out the red tape to improve service while improving
security.''
Musk's DOGE team began poring through Social Security's
massive trove of private data on millions of Americans,
working in a fourth-floor conference room at the Woodlawn,
Maryland, headquarters, with blackout curtains on the windows
and an armed security guard posted outside.
Their obsession with false claims that millions of deceased
people were fraudulently receiving benefits consumed the DOGE
team at first. Then came new mandates designed to address
alleged fraud: Direct deposit transactions and identity
authentication that affect almost everyone receiving benefits
will no longer be able to be done by phone.
Customers with computers will be directed to go through the
process online--and those without access to one to wait in
line at their local field office. A change announced
internally last week will require legal immigrants with
authorization to work in the United States and newly
naturalized citizens to apply for or update their Social
Security cards in person, eliminating a long-standing
practice that sent the cards automatically through the mail.
``We realize this is a significant change and there will be
a significant impact to customers,'' Doris Diaz, the deputy
commissioner of operations, told the field staff on Monday
during a briefing on the changes, a recording of which was
obtained by The Washington Post. She said the agency was
``working on a process'' for homeless and homebound customers
who cannot use computers or come into an office--and
acknowledged that service levels will decline.
In the weeks before that Monday briefing, phone calls to
Social Security surged--with questions from anxious callers
wondering whether their benefits had been cut, if they would
be cut and desperate to get an in-person field office
appointment. That is if they could get through to a live
person.
Depending on the time of day, a recorded message tells
callers that their wait on hold will last more than 120
minutes or 180 minutes. Some report being on hold for four or
five hours. A callback function was only available three out
of 12 times when a reporter for The Post called the toll-free
line last week, presumably because the queue that day was so
long that the call would not be returned by close of
business.
The recording that Kathy Martinez, 66, heard when she
called the toll-free number two weeks ago from her home in
the Bay Area said her hold time would be more than three
hours--she was calling to ask what her retirement check would
come to if she filed for benefits now or waited until she
turns 70. She hung up and tried again last week at 7 a.m.
Pacific time. The wait was more than 120 minutes, but she was
offered a callback option, and in two hours she spoke with a
``phenomenally kind person who called me,'' she said.
Martinez said she wants to wait to file for benefits to
maximize the size of her check. But ``I'm kind of thinking, I
wonder if I should take it now. When I apply, I will do it
over the phone. But will there still be a phone system?''
not acceptable
Aging, inefficient phone systems have dogged Social
Security for years. A modernization contract with Verizon
started under the first Trump administration suffered from
multiple delays, system crashes and other problems. As
commissioner during the last year of the Biden
administration, former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley
moved the project to a new contractor, Amazon Web Services,
and data shows that the average wait time for the toll-free
line was down to 50 minutes, half of today's average time on
hold. But O'Malley ran out of time to switch the new system
to field office phones, he said.
[[Page S1978]]
Now a perfect storm has overtaken the system. Turnover
that's normally higher than 10 percent has worsened at the 24
call centers across the country. Some employees took early
retirement and buyout offers--a number Dudek said was ``not
huge,'' but that current and former officials estimate could
be significant.
Shonda Johnson, a vice president representing 5,000 call
center staff at the American Federation of Government
Employees Council 220, said the job's low pay--starting
salary is $32,000 a year--anger at a return-to-office mandate
after years of telework, rapid policy changes and frustration
with how the Trump administration is treating federal
employees have hurt morale to the point that people aren't
giving their all to the job.
``When you're facing threats yourself, it kind of prevents
you from being totally there for the public you're
servicing,'' she said.
Asked about degrading phone service, Dudek told reporters
in a call last week that ``a 24 percent answer rate is not
acceptable.''
``I want people who want to get to a person to get to a
person.'' He said ``all options are on the table'' to improve
phone service, including outsourcing some call center
service. On Monday, Dudek said the agency is working with
U.S. Postal Service on an agreement to take on new
requirements to verify claimants' identities.
The new limits on phone transactions don't take effect
until next week, but field offices have been deluged for
weeks, even as DOGE is targeting an unspecified number of
field and hearing offices for closure over the next three
years.
In one office in central Indiana, the phone lines are
jammed by 9 a.m. with retirees by the hundreds, taxing the
beleaguered staff of less than a dozen who were already
responsible for nearly 70,000 claimants across the state,
according to one employee, who like others spoke on the
condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. The employee
said the questions have become predictable: What is the U.S.
DOGE Service doing to Social Security? Will the office close?
Will my benefits continue?
The employees, with no new training yet on the impending
changes, have few answers. ``I hope we're going to be here,''
the employee tells caller after caller. ``But I can't
guarantee anything.''
Complicated benefits cases are falling by the wayside, the
employee said. Online claims, which are completed by field
staff, are backed up. ``There is just no time to breathe or
get anything else done,'' she said. ``We used to be
efficient.''
Another employee in a regional office said the staff was
told at a recent briefing that field offices across the
country are seeing ``exponential growth'' in foot traffic.
The elderly are not only calling, but showing up at brick-
and-mortar buildings to ask about the DOGE-led changes. In
one Philadelphia office, the federal government's mandated
return-to-office edict has left 1,200 staffers competing for
about 300 parking spots each day, according to an employee.
Staff wake up as early as 4:30 a.m. to try to snag a space,
but many still fail, leading some to buy backup spots for
$200 a month nearby.
As morale has cratered, some employees have stopped wearing
business clothes to the office and now come to work in jeans
and a T-shirt because, as they tell colleagues, they no
longer take pride in their work, the employee said.
Off the charts
Scammers are already taking advantage of the chaotic
moment, according to internal emails obtained by The Post.
Last week, staff in several offices warned employees that
seniors were reporting receiving emails from fake accounts
pretending to be linked to Social Security. The messages
asked recipients to verify their identity to keep receiving
benefits, per the emails.
``Sounds like scammers are jumping on this press release to
trick the elderly,'' one Social Security staffer wrote to
colleagues on Thursday, referring to the agency's
announcement of the in-person verification program.
In Baltimore, an employee who works on critical payment
systems said nearly a quarter of his team is already gone or
will soon be out the door due to resignations and
retirements. Talented software developers and analysts were
quick to secure high-paying new roles in the private sector,
he said--and the reduction in highly skilled staff is already
having consequences.
His office is supposed to complete several software update
and modernization processes required by law within the next
few weeks and months, he said. But with the departures, it
seems increasingly likely that they will miss those
deadlines.
His team is also called on to fix complicated cases in
which technology glitches mistakenly stop payments. But many
of the experts for those fixes are exiting.
``That has to get cleaned up on a case-by-case basis, and
the experts in how to do that are leaving,'' the Baltimore
employee said. ``We will have cases that get stuck, and
they're not going to be able to get fixed. People could be
out of benefits for months.''
Meanwhile, a DOGE-imposed spending freeze has left many
field offices without paper, pens and the phone headsets
staff need to do their jobs communicating with callers--at
the exact moment phone calls are spiking, the employee in
Indiana said.
The freeze drove all federal credit cards to a $1 1imit.
Social Security saw the number of its approved purchasers
reduced to about a dozen people for 1,300 offices, said one
agency employee in the Northeast.
Each of these purchasers must seek green-lighting from
higher-ups for anything other than a list of 12 specific
preapproved transactions, according to emails obtained by The
Post. The list includes ``shipping costs,'' ``phone bills,''
``Legionella testing'' and ``services to support fire safety
and emergency response.'' It does not include basic office
supplies.
The field office in Portland, Oregon, is so slammed that
the claims staff has told advocates to send questions or
information by fax because they can't get to the phones,
according to Chase Stowell, case management supervisor for
Assist, a nonprofit group that helps the disabled apply for
benefits, many of whom are homeless.
``The attrition rates in Portland are off the charts,''
Stowell said. ``They just don't pick up the phone. They were
already short-staffed. They've told us they just don't trust
that there's a reliable system to get ahold of them by
voicemail.''
The service issues keep bubbling up to members of Congress.
Hundreds of Maryland residents turned out for a town hall
meeting last week hosted by Baltimore County Council member
Pat Young about a mile from Social Security headquarters.
Asked by one retiree in the audience to provide ``a little
bit of hope'' that his Social Security benefits would not be
cut, Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Maryland) conceded, ``The
truth of the matter is that we don't know what they intend.''
Mr. BOOKER. Thank you to the Presiding Officer and my friend whom I
am keeping up at 3 a.m. He is a kind and generous man to be here.
Here is a closure of Social Security offices, 47 closures across the
country in red States and blue States, everywhere between. Closures of
Social Security offices. I know everybody is talking about cutting
Social Security, but what they are doing right now--right now--is
grinding the services of Social Security, grinding them down.
The article from the Associated Press, ``A list of the Social
Security offices across the US expected to close this year,'' can be
found online at https://apnews.com/article/social-securi ty-offices-
closures-doge-trump-b2b1a5b 2ba4fb968abc3379bf90715ff.
I want to read some of the places: Alabama, 634--this is without the
rest of the language I just put in the record, but just for folks out
there who are watching. These are the places, Social Security offices
that provide really important services to your community, that this
administration and Elon Musk are closing: Alabama, 634 Broad Street;
Arkansas, 965 Holiday Drive, Forrest City; 4083 Jefferson Avenue,
Texarkana.
In the great State of Colorado, they are closing 825 North Crest
Drive, Grand Junction. In Florida, they are closing 4740 Dairy Road in
Melbourne. In Georgia, they are closing 1338 Broadway in Columbus. In
Kentucky, they are closing 825 High Street in Hazard. In Louisiana,
they are closing 178 Civic Center Drive, Houma.
In Mississippi, there are three places they are closing: 4717 26th
Street, Meridian--Meridian, excuse me, to the great people who live
there--604 Yalobusha Street in Greenwood, 2383 Sunset Drive in Grenada,
MS. In Montana, they are closing 3701 American Way.
They are closing Social Security offices in North Carolina: 730
Roanoke Avenue, Roanoke Rapids. They are closing 2123 Lakeside Drive in
Franklin, NC. They are closing 2805 Charles Boulevard in Greenville,
NC--I know that town. They are closing 1865 West City Drive, Elizabeth
City, NC. North Dakota, they are closing 414 20th Avenue SW--forgive me
the great people who live in this community--Minot. I am sure I am
butchering it.
In Nevada, where my mom lives, in the city my mom lives, they are
closing 701 Bridger Avenue, Las Vegas.
In New York, 75 South Broadway, White Plains--my mom worked there--
and 332 Main Street in Poughkeepsie, NY. In Ohio, 30 North Diamond
Street, Mansfield. In Oklahoma, 1610 SW Lee Boulevard. In Texas, they
are closing two offices: 1122 North University Drive. I know the people
are going to write me letters that I am mispronouncing their town
names. Nacogdoches?
Anyone from Texas here? No?
I am sorry. 8208 NE Zac Lentz Parkway. In West Virginia, they are
closing 1103 George Kostas Drive. In Wyoming, they are closing 79
Winston Drive, Rock Springs, WY.
They are cutting the Social Security staff. How deeply are they
cutting?
[[Page S1979]]
They are cutting thousands. We have already talked about it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
an article from the Associated Press, ``Social Security Administration
could cut up to 50% of its workforce.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[February 27, 2025]
Social Security Administration Could Cut up to 50% of its Workforce
Washington (AP)--The Social Security Administration is
preparing to lay off at least 7,000 people from its workforce
of 60,000 according to a person familiar with the agency's
plans who is not authorized to speak publicly. The workforce
reduction, according to a second person who also spoke on the
condition of anonymity, could be as high as 50%.
It's unclear how the layoffs will directly impact the
benefits of the 72.5 million Social Security beneficiaries,
which include retirees and children who receive retirement
and disability benefits. However, advocates and Democratic
lawmakers warn that layoffs will reduce the agency's ability
to serve recipients in a timely manner.
Some say cuts to the workforce are, in effect, a cut in
benefits.
Later Friday, the agency sent out a news release outlining
plans for ``significant workforce reductions,'' employee
reassignments from ``non-mission critical positions to
mission critical direct service positions,'' and an offer of
voluntary separation agreements. The agency said in its
letter to workers that reassignments ``may be involuntary and
may require retraining for new workloads.''
The layoffs are part of the Trump administration's
intensified efforts to shrink the size of the federal
workforce through the Department of Government Efficiency,
run by President Donald Trump's advisor Elon Musk.
A representative from the Social Security Administration
did not respond to an Associated Press request for comment.
The people familiar with the agency's plans say that SSA's
new acting commissioner Leland Dudek held a meeting this week
with management and told them they had to produce a plan that
eliminated half of the workforce at SSA headquarters in
Washington and at least half of the workers in regional
offices.
In addition, the termination of office leases for Social
Security sites across the country are detailed on the DOGE
website, which maintains a ``Wall of Receipts,'' which is a
self-described ``transparent account of DOGE's findings and
actions.'' The site states that leases for dozens of Social
Security sites across Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Florida,
Kentucky, North Carolina, and other states have been or will
be ended.
``The Social Security Administration is already chronically
understaffed. Now, the Trump Administration wants to demolish
it,'' said Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works,
an advocacy group for the popular public benefit program.
Altman said the reductions in force ``will deny many
Americans access to their hard-earned Social Security
benefits. Field offices around the country will close. Wait
times for the 1-800 number will soar.''
Social Security is one of the nation's largest and most
popular social programs. A January poll from The Associated
Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that two-
thirds of U.S. adults think the country is spending too
little on Social Security.
The program faces a looming bankruptcy date if it is not
addressed by Congress. The May 2024 Social Security and
Medicare trustees' report states that Social Security's trust
funds--which cover old age and disability recipients--will be
unable to pay full benefits beginning in 2035. Then, Social
Security would only be able to pay 83% of benefits.
Like other agencies, DOGE has embedded into the Social
Security Administration as part of Trump's January executive
order, which has drawn concerns from career officials.
This month, the Social Security Administration's former
acting commissioner Michelle King stepped down from her role
at the agency after DOGE requested access to Social Security
recipient information, according to two people familiar with
the official's departure who were not authorized to discuss
the matter publicly.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in a statement that ``a plan
like this will result in field office closures that will hit
seniors in rural communities the hardest.''
Other news organizations, including The American Prospect
and The Washington Post, have reported that half of the
Social Security Administration's workforce could be on the
chopping block.
Mr. BOOKER. Thank you. The article that I won't read out of
generosity to my dear friend that is presiding, but it details in
painful ways what these cuts could mean to people in the country.
Just trying to move a little quicker through my documents because I
am way behind.
The impact of these cuts--one of the big places they are going to
impact is in rural America, already suffering so much. There is a lot
of sources that are talking about the rural areas of our Nation they
are going to cut.
And I would like to enter into the Record another Associated Press
article entitled ``New Social Security requirements pose barriers to
rural communities without internet, transportation.'' A new requirement
where Social Security recipients go online or in person to a field
office to access key benefits instead of just making a phone call will
be difficult for many people to meet.
This is an article from March 22, which can be found online at
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/new-soci al-security-rules-present-
barriers-rural -communities-120054669.
Thank you very much to the kind friend who is up with me late--or
early, I should say.
One more article I want to ask for the Record. I feel like I can take
liberties with the Presiding Officer because I have known him for 20-
plus years, consider him a real friend. He married up, and he is going
to teach me how to do that.
I guess I am not allowed to insult a colleague on this. That is a
violation of rule 19, I think, but that is a joke.
But you did marry up. You know that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I did.
Mr. BOOKER. So this is former Social Security officers who are
speaking out about what is happening. People who worked at the Agency
see what is happening. Two former senior officials at the Social
Security Administration--one under a Democratic President, one under a
Republican President--wrote this column published in The Hill. The
title of the column is ``Social Security faces a crisis with staff
cuts, closures.''
Again, these are folks from both sides of the aisle yelling into the
wilderness, hoping that more people will understand what is happening
to Social Security, what these cuts in staff are actually going to do
to the quality of life for millions of Americans who rely on Social
Security, disproportionately impacting people that are living in rural
areas.
Red States, blue States, Republicans, Democrats--this is not a normal
time, America. The bedrock commitment made is being undermined by the
most powerful man in our country and the richest man in the world.
The title of the article, ``Social Security faces a crisis with staff
cuts and closures,'' written by, again, somebody who worked under a
Republican, somebody who worked under a Democrat.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Social Security Faces a Crisis With Staff Cuts, Closures
(By Jason Fichtner and Kathleen Romig)
The Social Security Administration is in crisis, and
people's benefits are at risk.
We do not say this lightly. We both served in senior roles
at the Social Security Administration--one of us under a
Democratic president and the other under a Republican. Both
of us have decades of expertise on Social Security and
related systems. We know from experience that our Social
Security system is resilient and has overcome many
challenges. The administration of the programs Social
Security delivers is in greater danger now than ever before.
Over the last month, the Social Security Administration has
announced plans to cut at least 7,000 staff and consolidate
service delivery by closing six regional offices. According
to the Trump administration's acting Social Security
commissioner, these cuts are driven by Elon Musk's Department
of Government Efficiency.
The Social Security Administration was already facing
serious customer service challenges, even prior to these
cuts. These sudden, seemingly indiscriminate cuts would risk
jeopardizing Americans' access to the benefits they have
earned.
When Americans claim their benefits, or want to resolve an
issue, they have three options: Go to a field office, call
Social Security's 800 number or go online to SSA.gov. These
cuts will affect all three options. It will mean lines around
the block at field offices, even longer wait times on the
already overburdened 800 number, and possibly even a slower,
glitchier website.
Also, due to a newly announced policy, millions of people
won't even have the option to use the phone and will have to
go to overcrowded field offices instead.
Compromising customer service and access to benefits is
more than an administrative issue. It is a de facto cut to a
program Americans across the political spectrum support and
rely on for financial security. Americans
[[Page S1980]]
will find it far more stressful and time-consuming to access
the Social Security benefits they've earned. Some may not be
able to claim benefits, or resolve issues, at all. People may
have to wait on the phone for hours to claim retirement
benefits. Widows and widowers with young children who just
lost their spouses may struggle to claim survivor benefits.
These cuts will hit people with disabilities hardest.
Already, 30,000 Americans a year are dying while waiting for
a hearing on Social Security Disability Insurance benefits,
which can take months or even years. These cuts are likely to
make that wait even longer. Any one of us could get hit by a
car tomorrow and need those benefits as soon as possible--not
years from now.
Degraded customer service isn't our only concern. Due to
the enormous loss of institutional knowledge and expertise
from recent staff departures and more to come, Social
Security may experience catastrophic system failures.
Social Security's infrastructure is antiquated and complex.
For example, key systems use COBOL, a programming language
developed in the 1950s and 1960s, with which many computer
engineers are unfamiliar. If Social Security's computer
systems experience an outage, which has happened twice in
recent years, the agency may lack the expertise to resolve
it.
Social Security has never missed a payment in its nearly 90
years. Unless Congress acts soon, that could change in the
near future. This is not a partisan issue. Democratic,
Republican and independent voters all greatly value and need
Social Security. In red states and blue states alike,
Americans want access to their hard-earned benefits. The
Trump administration's own acting Social Security
commissioner has stated publicly that the DOGE-led cuts could
``break things,'' and that the recent changes are being
effectuated by ``outsiders who are unfamiliar with nuances of
SSA programs.'' The Social Security commissioner from
President Trump's first term has also raised concerns, as
have a growing array of Social Security experts across the
political spectrum.
We urge Republicans and Democrats in Congress to work
together to protect Social Security. The time to act is now,
when it is still possible for the agency to reverse course on
at least some of the staff cuts and access to sensitive data
and systems. If members of Congress wait any longer, they
will soon find their phone lines and district offices flooded
with furious constituents who can't access benefits. Service
delivery delayed can turn into service delivery denied if
Congress doesn't stand up and act soon to prevent a collapse
of the Social Security Administration.
Mr. BOOKER. I want to end with what I have been trying to do since I
started some, I think, about 8 hours ago--yeah, 8 hours ago, I began. I
want to begin by doing what I said I was going to do, is not just lift
my voice but lift the voice of New Jerseyans and Americans. And so here
are some words.
This is one employee from New Jersey who contacted me to say that the
teleservice center has received many calls from the public from New
Jersey to Georgia and other States. What they all have in common is the
fear of losing their livelihood as a result of identification
verification, in-person visits. Seniors, disabled, and others that are
economically disadvantaged need a voice, Senator Booker. And the voice
I hear all throughout the day from seniors are voices of fear. Please
review any policy of in-person identification for the public.
A person from my State begging because they are hearing the fear of
the seniors that they pledged themselves to serve.
Another Social Security employee from New Jersey contacted me and
said:
I worked at Social Security for almost 19 years. I was
approaching my 19 years in July. However, I took the early-
out retirement because there is a lot of uncertainty within
the agency.
The resignation of others also brings additional phone
calls and workloads into the office. This adds additional
stress and no additional bodies to handle the workloads. It
also provides poor, unfair service to the public.
Here is another story from a Social Security employee in New Jersey:
I am a claims representative for our Social Security field
office. The most dramatic changes I have noticed from our
recent change in operations is that our appointment calendar
seems to be filling up more quickly for simple post-
entitlement changes that were formerly handled over the
phone. This occupies appointment space for most urgent and
critical issues that would warrant an office visit.
We have identified verification protocols already in place
to keep identity thieves in check. To the extent that some
fraudsters are still getting through requiring people to come
to our office and verify their identities is obviously a less
efficient solution to the problem. A better solution to
enhance security is to use two-step verification systems and
document fraud attempts in our technician dashboards so
scammers can't just shop around for field offices to fool.
Regarding the in-person identifying policy, I believe that
it is causing more harm than good. I've had claimants
appearing in person frantic that they will lose their
benefits because of this.
My office lost four staff members. Two are members of
management. This is nothing but chaos here. I can foresee
more loss and further decline and poor morale.
That is from a Social Security employee in my State describing what
is going on in their office.
Another New Jersey Social Security worker:
I work in one of the smaller offices in New Jersey, and we
are currently combined with another office that is undergoing
renovations, which has caused the number of claimants coming
into the office to double over the last few months.
Although we do have extra staff because the staff have been
deployed to our location, it doesn't change the
infrastructure of the building, such as the number of desks
available to do in-person interviews and provide adequate
waiting space for double the amount of claimants. In our
office, we only have nine desks where we can interview the
public safely and use safety protocols. Three of these are
front windows where we can do quick changes and six of them
are where we could do short interviews for benefit
applications.
Right now, being that most interviews are being done over
the phone, we have over 20 people interviewing at a time now.
Imagine having to do these interviews in person. We can only
have six to nine interviews at a time instead of 20-plus
because there are only six to nine desks available. This
doesn't seem very efficient.
Maybe they should--too bad they can't call the Department of
Government Efficiency, which caused the problem.
Here is another Social Security worker and their story:
Foot traffic in a field office on a daily basis is already
overwhelming. The public coming in randomly to show their
identity would be a disadvantage for the elderly, people with
vision issues, disabled, and someone with no car.
This really hits home with me. My older brother lost his
right leg to diabetes, is legally blind, unable to drive. He
called me concerned about this, knowing there is no way he
can get to his field office and cannot afford to lose his
retirement. I am hoping this is reconsidered.
Social Security is not a program; it is a promise. We owe it to
seniors and working people who paid into Social Security their whole
lives to make good on the promise of a secure retirement, not to attack
Social Security, to drive them to fear and worry, and when they call
for help, to put them on hold for hours or drive them to offices that
may be closing or are overcrowded or are unable to help our elders.
Does this sound like America at its best? Does this sound like
America being made great again? This is outrageous. These are our
elders. They deserve dignity, respect, and they deserve their Social
Security.
I am going to move on to the next item, but I want to reiterate again
that I am determined to stand here as long as I physically can. We are
8 hours into it. Dozens and dozens of people--I read their stories. As
I have gone around the country and I have gone around my State, there
is this growing anger and rage and fear. There is chaos. There is
confusion.
They read the newspapers and see that programs are helping them when
an unexpected disease or cancer or crisis hits them, and they see that
a bunch of folks are trying to figure out how to cut $880 billion from
things like Medicaid.
The stories got me a little emotional just because I am hearing about
so many people who--not to their fault, not to their problem--are hit
by a crisis, a challenge, an accident at work are now sitting back and
are going to see what we do.
People have told us that their whole delicate, fragile world works
because they have a transportation program that could be on the blocks
of cuts in Medicaid or their home healthcare worker or their
medications.
Even while these big issues are being discussed, we are seeing, as we
have been documenting here, again, from Republicans and Democrats, how
the administration is already taking steps to roll back programs, to
seize funding that people have used to access the ACA or to lower their
prescription drug costs or that is funding the research that we are
competing with China on through the NIH. Republicans and
[[Page S1981]]
Democrats, we have read already, have been saying: Hey, wait a minute,
you shouldn't cut things that produce money for your country in the
long term.
But now here is something that I want to get into, which is education
in our Nation. I believe that genius is equally distributed in the
United States. There are as many geniuses being born in the wealthiest
parts of New Jersey and Pennsylvania as are being born in the lowest
incomes.
In a global knowledge-based economy, the most valuable natural
resource any nation has is the genius of its children. One genius--one
Einstein, one Madame Curie--one genius could change humanity forever.
I hear the stories about China graduating more people in STEM than we
have total graduates in our entire country. It is a global competition.
If we are to be this Nation that Andy Kim talked about where every
generation has the right as an American to expect that the next
generation will do better, not worse, so much of this revolves around
what we all know: how important education is to a democracy
especially--the best ideas, the best innovations, the best artists,
innovators, entrepreneurs, scientists, doctors, teachers. We need to
invest in the best pipeline possible.
But now, not with Congress, which established the Department of
Education, but by Executive fiat undermining separation of powers, the
administration wants to dismantle, defund, destroy the Department of
Education, scatter its responsibilities across Agencies that themselves
are going through massive personnel cuts and are not equipped to handle
it.
This is ultimately about whether or not we as a nation believe that
every child deserves an education. We should organize ourselves to meet
that calling. Our Nation's children are that precious resource. One of
the most noble professions are people that teach our children.
So let's go right into it. At the signing ceremony to commemorate the
establishment of the Department of Education, President Jimmy Carter
said:
Today's signing fulfills a longstanding personal commitment
on my part. My first public office was as a county school
board member. As a state senator and governor, I devoted much
of my time to education issues. I remain convinced education
is one of the most noblest enterprises a person or society
can undertake.
Pastor Carter also said that the Department of Education was created
because education is so important to our Nation's future that it must
have a robust level of national support.
Here is a letter I really wanted to read. I am a member of a Baptist
church with the great Pastor Jefferson, but I actually studied Torah.
In my Torah study with Rabbi Davidson, when I heard about all these
cuts in the Department of Education, he wanted me to hear from a great
rebbe, Rebbe Menachem Schneerson, a Lubavitch rebbe who in 1979 wrote a
letter not in support of religious schools but wrote a letter in
support of public education, in support of the creation of a special
Department of Education.
He wrote this letter in 1979. I was so moved by it--thank you, Rabbi
Davidson--I want to read it here.
This is the rebbe:
I am certain that you will agree that the state of
education in this country, as many others, leaves much to be
desired;--
He was not happy--
that the status quo (as reflected in juvenile delinquency,
[et cetera]) is far from satisfactory, and, what is worse,
has been steadily eroding; and that some determined nation-
wide effort is called for to upgrade the quality of public
education in this resourceful country.
I trust you will agree that such an enormous effort, which
is surely in the highest national interest, can come only
from the Federal government with the fullest cooperation of
State, County and City.
In my view, a separate, adequately funded Cabinet-level
Department of Education, subject to legislative safeguards to
ensure that the traditional primacy of States and localities
in education affairs would not be jeopardized, could well
meet the challenge.
The main reasons why I support said proposal are as
follows:
1. The creation of a distinct Cabinet-level Department of
Education would have a salutary impact on all who are
involved in education, particularly parents, teachers, and
students. The very innovation of upgrading the status of
Education from that of an adjunct to, or division of, another
national agency, would pointedly underscore its proper place
among the Nation's priorities.
Look how prescient the rebbe was and what he might say if he was
alive today.
2. The workshops of child education are the school and the
home. For various reasons, which need not be discussed--
``I am worried about the home,'' he basically says. Too much of
school is left to the streets.
Insofar as the street is concerned there is very little we
can do as things now stand. More can be done, and needs to be
done. . . . But in the final analysis it is the public school
where the greatest improvement can and must be achieved.
3. Among the factors that lie at the roots of shortcomings
of public education, two--in my opinion--command primary
attention: One has to do with the general curriculum, which
should place much greater emphasis on character building and
moral and ethical values. The other has to do with the
quality of teaching--by qualified, dedicated and motivating
teachers. The latter point requires the upgrading of
teachers' salaries on par with comparable professions in
other fields of science and relieving them, as far as
possible, of other frustrations and stresses.
I want to do a side note here. I am a big believer that we should
slash public school professionals' tax rates. We need the best minds
coming into the profession. Why not as a country say: If you are going
to take a job as a teacher--which, unfortunately, pays too low in our
country--let's do that instead of, again, giving these massive tax cuts
disproportionately to the wealthiest in our country.
The upgrading of the Nation's educational system will, of
course, require considerable Federal [investment]. But this
is one area where spending has built-in returns, not only in
the long term, but also in . . . immediate gains in terms of
diminishing expenditures in the penal system, crime
prevention, reduction in vandalism, drug abuse. . . . In the
longer term, it would also bring savings in expenditure on
health and welfare, and--one may venture to say--even in the
defense budget, since a morally healthy, strong and united
nation is in itself a strong deterrent against any enemy.
5. The creation of a separate Cabinet-level Department of
Education, as I understand it, has been conceived not for the
purpose of merely improving administrative efficiency, nor
merely as coordinator of existing programs, or for similar
technical reasons. The main purpose is to breathe new life
into the whole educational system of this Nation, and to
involve the whole Nation, through its Federal government, in
this massive and concerted effort. As such--I am convinced--
[a national Department of Education, Cabinet-level] deserves
everybody's support.
Thank you, rebbe.
Unfortunately, this administration has not listened to the rebbes.
What does the Department of Education do, and how is this
administration attacking it? Let me read you an excerpt.
The New York Times: ``Can Trump Really Abolish the Department of
Education?'' March 20:
President Trump signed an executive order on Thursday that
directs the federal Department of Education to come up with a
plan for its own demise. Only Congress can abolish a Cabinet-
level agency, and it is not clear whether Mr. Trump has the
votes in Congress to do so.
I will tell you, in the Senate, if he needs 60 votes, he doesn't.
But he has already begun to dismantle the department,
firing about half of its staff, gutting its respected
education-research arm, and vastly narrowing the focus of its
civil rights division, which works to protect students from
discrimination.
Mr. Trump's long history of attacking the Department of
Education represents a revival of a Reagan-era Republican
talking point. It has unified Democrats in fiery opposition.
Yeah.
But is shuttering the department possible? And if not, how
has Trump begun to use the agency to achieve his policy
goals?
What does the department do?
Founded in 1979, its main job is distributing money to
college students through grants and loans. It also sends
federal money to K-12 schools, targeted toward low-income and
disabled students, and enforces anti-discrimination laws.
The money for schools has been set aside by Congress and is
unlikely to be affected by Mr. Trump's executive order.
I don't agree with the New York Times because time and time again,
the money set aside by Congress is being clawed back by the President
against the people that the Constitution of the United States of
America says has spending power.
Those federal dollars account for only about 10 percent of
K-12 school funding nationwide. While Mr. Trump has said he
wants to return power over education to the states, states
and school districts already control
[[Page S1982]]
K-12 education, which is mostly paid for with state and local
tax dollars. The federal department does not control learning
standards or reading lists.
The agency does play a big role in funding and
disseminating research on education, but those efforts have
been significantly scaled back by the Trump administration.
It also administers tests to track whether American
students are learning and how they compare with their peers
in other states and countries.
God forbid we measure people's performances.
It is unclear whether those tests will continue to be
delivered given the drastic reductions in the staff and
funding necessary to manage them.
Still, closing the department would not likely have much of
an immediate effect on how schools and colleges operate. The
Trump administration has discussed tapping the Treasury
Department to disburse student loans and grants, for
instance, and Health and Human Services to administer funding
for students with disabilities. . . . Any effort to fully
eliminate the department would have to go through Congress.
Republican members would mostly hear opposition from
superintendents, college presidents, and other education
leaders in their school districts; schools in Republican
regions rely on federal aid from the agency, just as schools
in Democratic regions do.
``They are going to run into opposition,'' says Jon Valant,
an education expert at the Brookings Institution. ``They have
a laser-thin majority and a filibuster to confront in the
Senate.''
Even if congressional Republicans stuck together . . . Dr.
Valant predicts their constituents would protest, given the
department's role in distributing money in programs like Pell
grants, which pay for college tuition, and I.D.E.A., which
provides support to students with disabilities.
``It's a very hard sell. . . . I am . . . skeptical.''
Efforts to eliminate the Department threaten the enforcement of
critical laws. There is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
which has supported school districts since 1965 in low-income areas;
the Individuals with Disabilities Act, which ensures 7.5 million
students with disabilities receive an education; the Higher Education
Act, which helps more students afford college; and title IX protections
to guard against sex discrimination. This doesn't just hurt our
country, but undermining those resources for our students hurts
generations to come.
I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article entitled
``Trump Firings Gut Education Civil Rights Division'' be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[Mar. 13, 2025]
Trump Firings Gut Education Department's Civil Rights Division
(By Michael C. Bender and Rachel Nostrant)
Decades ago, Congress guaranteed all students an equal
opportunity to an education. But now the office created to
enforce that promise has been decimated.
The Education Department's Office for Civil Rights was
slashed in half on Tuesday as part of President Trump's
aggressive push to dismantle the agency, which he has called
a ``con job.'' The firings eliminated the entire
investigative staff in seven of the office's 12 regional
branches, including in Boston, Cleveland, Dallas and San
Francisco, and left thousands of pending cases in limbo.
The layoffs struck every corner of the department, which
manages federal loans for college, tracks student achievement
and supports programs for students with disabilities.
But education policy experts and student advocates were
particularly distressed about the gutting of the civil rights
office, which fielded more than 22,600 complaints from
parents and students last year, an increase of more than 200
percent from five years earlier.
Some voiced particular concern about what could happen to
students with special needs, whose access to education is
often left to the federal government to enforce. Many
questioned how the Trump administration would be able to
handle the office's case load moving forward--or if it would
at all.
``The move to gut this office and leave only a shell means
the federal government has turned its back on civil rights in
schools,'' said Catherine E. Lhamon, who led the office as
assistant secretary for civil rights in both the Obama and
Biden administrations. ``I am scared for my kids and I am
scared for every mother with kids in school.''
The Office for Civil Rights, established by Congress,
opened along with the rest of the Education Department in
1980. One of the office's first leaders was Clarence Thomas,
now a Supreme Court justice. It is relatively inexpensive
compared with other agency programs, with a cost of about
$140 million in the department's $80 billion discretionary
budget.
The majority of civil rights complaints typically involve
students with disabilities, followed by allegations of racial
and sex-based discrimination. Many of the disability cases
involve complaints that schools are failing to provide
accommodations for students or that schools are separating
disabled students from their peers in violation of federal
law.
Mr. Trump and the education secretary, Linda McMahon, have
maintained that staffing cuts at the department will not
disrupt services for the 50 million pupils in elementary and
secondary schools or 20 million college students.
But the only preparation the Trump administration announced
before the layoffs was that the department's Washington-based
headquarters would be closed on Wednesday as a security
precaution.
``We'll see how it all works out,'' Mr. Trump said of the
layoffs while speaking to reporters at the White House.
Madi Biedermann, the Education Department's deputy
assistant for communications, said changes were underway in
the civil rights office to process cases and praised the
remaining staff members for their commitment and years of
experience.
``We are confident that the dedicated staff of O.C.R. will
deliver on its statutory responsibilities,'' she said.
One civil rights investigator wept in an interview on
Wednesday as she spoke about the abrupt firings and what they
would mean for parents fighting for fairness for their
children.
This investigator, who requested anonymity out of fear of
retribution, had talked to parents on Tuesday morning about a
possible resolution to a yearslong push to have their
disabled son's needs met at school.
In the afternoon, the investigator prepared a new case
about a school retaliating against a Black student who had
complained about racial slurs from classmates and reviewed an
offer from another school to resolve a complaint from a
student whose wheelchair had been repeatedly stuck--and
occasionally tipped over--from crumbling walkways on campus.
In the evening, the investigator was fired. With work
access cut off, there was no way to follow up with any of the
parents she had spoken with that day, or to contact the
witnesses she was scheduled to interview on Wednesday about a
college student's discrimination complaint.
``I was really trying to help, and now I can't even talk to
them, and I'm so sorry,'' the investigator said. ``I would
never treat anyone like this. I would never just not show up
or stop talking to someone, but I have no way to reschedule
or let them know what's going on.''
Disability rights advocates said that any impediment to the
department's ability to enforce civil rights laws would cause
widespread harm to the nation's education system.
Zoe Gross, the director of advocacy for the Autism Self
Advocacy Network, said that she was particularly concerned
about what might happen to the office's data collection
efforts, which have been used to spot potential red flags and
identify trends.
For example, when some states reported zero instances of
disabled students who had been restrained or separated from
their peers, O.C.R. investigated and found that cases were
not being reported because school officials had
misinterpreted rules for disabled students. The federal
government then intervened.
``All of these kinds of things you need the department to
do and help with,'' Ms. Gross said. ``And without the
Department of Education and the Office for Civil Rights,
we're going to see basically states left on their own to
navigate that.''
Many of the office's past cases have served as catalysts
for broader change.
During the Obama administration, the office's
investigations into sexual assault and harassment identified
more than 100 colleges and universities that were
inadequately reporting and responding to allegations.
As a result, many schools adopted internal enforcement
policies that have made it easier for students who have been
sexually assaulted to receive large damage awards. These
investigations have also been routinely referred to as
validation for the collegiate #MeToo movement.
Sex-based cases also include harassment involving gender
identity, an issue that fueled Mr. Trump's campaign last year
and motivated executive orders early in his administration
aimed at preventing schools from recognizing transgender
identities, barring transgender girls and women from
competing on girls' and women's sports teams and terminating
programs that promote ``gender ideology.''
Restrictions during the coronavirus pandemic led to their
own genre of discrimination complaints as schools closed,
struggled to carry out online learning and then were slow to
reopen.
Department officials said they still intend to pursue civil
rights complaints and have discussed relying more on
mediations as a way to quicken the pace of investigations, as
well as other available legal tools to rapidly resolve cases.
The office had already moved to align with Mr. Trump's
priorities. It paused ongoing investigations into complaints
of schools banning books and dismissed 11 pending cases
involving schools that had removed books from their
libraries. The cases primarily delved into issues of gender
and racial identity.
Under the Biden administration, the office vigorously
investigated complaints of racial discrimination amid the so-
called racial
[[Page S1983]]
reckoning in the aftermath of the death of George Floyd. Some
complaints reflected the debate about schools' roles in
addressing systemic racism or charged that certain
programming was exclusionary of non-minorities. Several
longstanding diversity and inclusion efforts--which Mr. Trump
has now ordered ``illegal'' and ``harmful''--came under a
microscope.
The civil rights office has also seen a rise in allegations
of antisemitism, particularly on college campuses, and other
religious-based discrimination. The Trump administration has
supported those investigations, which they have used to strip
federal funding from one university and threaten dozens more
with similar consequences.
Before firing 1,315 employees on Tuesday, the Trump
administration had already encouraged 572 workers to quit or
retire early and had let go 63 employees who did not have
union protections.
Taken together, 47 percent of the department's work force
had been eliminated in the first 50 days of Mr. Trump's
return to the White House.
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that ``How
Education Department Cuts Could Hurt Low-Income and Rural Schools in
Particular,'' an article of March 21, 2025, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[Mar. 21, 2025]
How the Education Department Cuts Could Hurt Low-Income and Rural
Schools
(By Jonaki Mehta)
President Trump's efforts to shutter the U.S. Department of
Education are in full swing.
On Thursday, he signed an executive action instructing U.S.
Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to ``take all necessary
steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of
Education,'' and to do so ``to the maximum extent appropriate
and permitted by law.''
Before that, the department had already announced it was
shrinking its workforce by nearly half, with cuts to all
divisions.
On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive
action to begin dismantling the U.S. Department of Education.
Meanwhile, the administration has promised that ``formula
funding'' for schools, which is protected by law, would be
preserved. That includes flagship programs like Title I for
high-poverty schools, and the Rural Education Achievement
Program (REAP), which sends money to rural and low-income
schools.
But nearly all the statisticians and data experts who work
in the office responsible for determining whether schools
qualify for that money will soon be out of jobs, making it
unclear how such grants would remain intact.
At the start of the year, the National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) employed more than 100 people. On Friday,
all but three employees will be placed on administrative
leave, and eventually laid off. That's according to multiple
NCES employees, who asked that their names not be used
because they feared retaliation for speaking out. An internal
email obtained by NPR also confirmed how many staff would
remain.
``That will have an absolutely devastating impact,'' says
Matthew Gardner Kelly, who studies the country's K-12 funding
systems at the University of Washington. Since 1867, NCES has
been a central, reliable source of information that helps
educators, researchers and the public understand the state of
education in the United States.
Gardner Kelly says the loss of NCES staff will hit low-
income schools especially hard.
``It's not just that loss of information, it's what will
happen to a school district's budget in the absence of funds
that can't be allocated without the necessary staff at
NCES.''
NPR reached out to the Department of Education for comment
and did not hear back.
The federal government only provides a fraction of the
money that goes to schools--states and local governments are
responsible for the lion's share of that funding. But the
federal government plays an outsize role in helping high-
needs schools get the money they need to stay afloat.
Congress established Title I to provide money to K-12
schools in low-income communities. In the current fiscal
year, the Department of Education set aside more than $18.38
billion for Title I. Nearly 90% of U.S. school districts
benefit from the program, which has historically enjoyed
bipartisan support among lawmakers.
The Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) awards money
to low-income and rural school districts. More than a quarter
of the country's public schools are in rural areas. And while
REAP is a fraction of the size of Title I--$215 million for
the current year--Amy Price Azano of Virginia Tech's Center
for Rural Education says those dollars stretch much further
in rural communities.
``We work with school districts that have 10 people in a
graduating class. So when you're talking about enough money
to get the one student who needed a paraprofessional to walk
across that stage,'' a little bit goes a long way.
These federal grants can pay for things like school staff
salaries, supplies, technology, tutoring programs and a range
of basic services that low-income schools may not otherwise
be able to afford.
NCES employees told NPR that the cuts to the Education
Department likely won't impact REAP or Title I grants for the
2025-26 school year, but the fate of these grants beyond that
seems incredibly uncertain.
For grants that go to rural schools through the REAP
program, NCES plays a direct role in creating the relevant
data and providing assistance to local school leaders.
But by the end of the day on Friday, all but three NCES
staffers will be locked out of their computers and on
administrative leave.
``The key issue is that--as things stand now--the data
needed to drive the next round of Title I, and grants to
rural schools, and grants to other programs, isn't going to
happen as a result of the cuts to NCES staff and contracts,''
said one former NCES employee.
Several employees told NPR that, after the layoffs, it is
unlikely the REAP program will be able to get money to
schools for the 2026-27 school year.
The same goes for Title I, with an added challenge: The
Trump administration is poised to shrink the ranks of the
Census Bureau. A reduction in its staff could further
complicate the distribution of Title I funding.
Thursday's executive action lays out the Trump
administration's goal of returning ``authority over education
to the States and local communities.''
But one of the key benefits of grants like Title I and REAP
is that while the federal government, including NCES,
determines which school districts are eligible, it is
ultimately up to local leaders to decide how best to use that
money.
NCES staff also provide expertise, oversight and guidance
to ensure those leaders have what they need to plan budgets
effectively for each school year.
William Sonnenberg, who is now retired, spent nearly five
decades working on Title I for NCES until 2022.
``I don't think it's an exaggeration to say in a given
year, I would get thousands of calls from local
superintendents or other kinds of people at the school
district or at the state level in Title I offices, asking for
guidance,'' he says.
One NCES employee said, ``Everyone acknowledges three
people cannot come anywhere close to fulfilling statutory
obligations.''
Without data oversight and guidance from NCES, Sonnenberg
worries federal grant money may not reach the low-income
students who need it most.
Rural education expert Amy Price Azano says, while rural
schools are used to having fewer resources, the loss of REAP
funds will strain them even more.
``They're doing more with less anyway. And so the risk now
is that they will have to be even more resilient. They will
have to do even more with even less.''
Mr. BOOKER. Again, rural communities are really taking a hit.
If I can give disability rights testimonials: Gutting the Department
of Education will be devastating for students with disabilities. Right
now, the Department of Education--the Individuals with Disabilities Act
guarantees more than 7 million students in America the right to a free,
appropriate public education. It ensures that--it provides services
like speech therapies, counseling, and personalized learning plans.
Without Federal oversight, these protections could disappear; schools
could delay evaluations, cut corners, or deny support altogether for
parents.
Consider Kathryn, a resident of Westwood, NJ, right by Harrington
Park, where I grew up. Kathryn has 7-year-old twin boys who receive
special services. They currently attend an out-of-school-district
specialized program but are very much a part of the Westwood Regional
School District and may even one day transition back into the school.
In her words:
The Department of Education plays a critical role in
enforcing the IDEA and ensuring that students with
disabilities receive the accommodations and support they need
to succeed. Without this oversight, many students risk losing
essential services, widening existing gaps and disparities,
and they will face greater barriers to academic success and
reaching their highest potential.
This is not a partisan issue; it is a matter of assuring that all
students, regardless of ability, have equal access to education.
Her story is one of thousands of parents, educators, and advocates
across the country who are standing up for children's rights to an
equitable education. Kathryn's family is for her boys, and every child
deserves a fair shot at success. Their fight for inclusive education is
essential.
Here is Ashley from Wayne, NJ, who knows firsthand how important the
Department of Education's funding is. Her daughter, who is legally
blind, relies on Bookshare--an online learning tool--that provides
successful materials to students with print disabilities
[[Page S1984]]
at no cost to schools or families. Without it, her daughter would be
left behind.
As Ashley put it:
This is a service she absolutely needs in order to access
information that regularly sighted people do not even have to
think about. Cutting programs like this isn't just
irresponsible; it would be cruel.
Kimberly from Dumont, NJ, the mother of twin boys with nonverbal
level 3 autism:
They attend an amazing school in Nutley because of IDEA.
Without it, their future would be uncertain.
In her own words, she says:
It was not long ago that kids like them would have had to
have been institutionalized. Now they are able to have a
beautiful life and go to school. I am terrified of the future
if IDEA is eliminated. I am begging you. Please consider
families like mine.
Kimberly, I see you.
Michelle from New Jersey shares this fear. Her daughter, who has
neurofibromatosis, who is 1--excuse me--and has apraxia, depends on in-
class support to succeed. She knows firsthand how essential the
Department of Education is in protecting students with disabilities.
These are her words:
Gutting, weakening, and ultimately closing the Department
of Education is disastrous and dangerous for the disabled
students who depend upon it.
She reminds us that education is a civil right and that laws like the
IDEA and section 504 ensure that students with disabilities receive the
support they need to succeed.
Alana from my State is deeply concerned about her 20-year-old son,
who depends on the protections of section 504 to have a fair shot at
the future. Her 10-year-old child with autism relies on these
protections every single day. She is asking for help because, as she
put it, ``Section 504 and its rules are very important to the
disability community. We need your help to save it.''
Roger, who is a grandfather from New Jersey, is also pleading for
action. His granddaughter has relied on a 504 plan since the seventh
grade and will continue to need it as she applies to college. He raises
the essential question: Which programs are directly helping students?
The answer is clear: Laws like IDEA, IEP, and section 504. They are not
luxuries; they are lifelines.
Again, this is not about politics, and, as we see from various
writings, people from both sides of the aisle are worried and
concerned.
I ask unanimous consent that this article from one of the
publications in my State--``What happens to special education programs
in New Jersey if Trump shuts down the Department of Education?'' by
Gene Myers--be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[Mar. 21, 2025]
What Happens to Special Education Programs in NJ if Trump Shuts Down
the Dept. of Ed?
(By Gene Myers)
President Donald Trump's drive to shut down the U.S.
Education Department could reverberate through one community
in New Jersey like few others: students and families who rely
on special education programs for children with disabilities.
While the federal department has limited involvement in
funding and standards for the general education population,
it administers $15 billion a year that helps pay for classes,
therapies and other resources for special education. It's
also the chief enforcer of laws that guarantee students with
disabilities the right to a public education tailored to
their needs.
The Trump administration has promised to preserve those
functions in other parts of the government. But in New
Jersey, advocates have raised alarms about shifting back to
an era when state and local government often shortchanged the
education of their most vulnerable students.
``Families are terrified. Educators are worried,'' said Peg
Kinsell, policy director at SPAN Parent Advocacy Network in
Newark, which works with the disability community. ``Nobody
knows what's happening next, and that's a scary place to
be.''
Trump on Thursday signed an executive order that seeks to
eliminate the DOE, two weeks after letting go about half the
department's staff. The move is likely to set up another
legal challenge testing the bounds of Trump's power, with
critics arguing the president can't shut down the agency
without approval by Congress.
Harrison Fields, White House principal deputy press
secretary, said in a statement to USA TODAY that the order
``will empower parents, states, and communities to take
control and improve outcomes for all students.'' He said
recent test scores on the National Assessment of Educational
Progress exam ``reveal a national crisis--our children are
falling behind.''
Federal funding for students with disabilities under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Title I funding
for low-income schools and federal student loan payments will
remain unchanged under the order while Education Secretary
Linda McMahon works on a plan to ``bring these funds closer
to states, localities, and more importantly, students,'' a
White House official said.
About 7.5 million students rely on special education
services in the U.S. The number has nearly doubled since the
1976-77 school year, the year after the IDEA was adopted and
declared that schools had a legal responsibility to provide a
``fair and appropriate'' public education to students with
disabilities.
New Jersey is home to one of the largest such populations
in the country, according to Rutgers University's New Jersey
State Public Policy Lab. Among Garden State public school
students, 18%, about 240,000 in total, are served under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, according to the
Lab.
New Jersey's proposed 2026 budget anticipates $457.7
million in federal funding allocated to local school
districts for special education services. At the local
level, the money pays for staff as well as occupational
and physical therapies and services required by students'
individual education plans, according to the federal
Education Department.
While it's still early, advocates say a sharp reduction in
federal staff could weaken enforcement of IDEA and other
disability rights laws and jeopardize funding and oversight.
Who'll enforce civil rights laws?
The Department plays a role in enforcing civil rights
protections under IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act, a 1973 law that prohibits discrimination based on
disability in programs receiving federal funding. Under the
legislation, schools are required to provide equal access to
education through accommodations such as extended time limits
for tests and accessible transportation .
Kinsell said that handing enforcement back to the states
would be a dangerous step backward.
``Giving it back to the states brings us down a really dark
path,'' she said. ``Before IDEA was passed in 1975, many
states simply refused to educate kids with disabilities. They
segregated them, or didn't let them attend school at all.''
Before the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was
enacted, just one in five children with disabilities were
taught in public schools, the federal DOE says on its
website.
Dismantling the department would fulfill a goal long sought
by the political right. The Heritage Foundation, a
conservative Washington, D.C.-based think tank, contends that
education policy should be made by states and local
communities, not the federal government. The federal agency
adds a layer of expensive bureaucracy that doesn't directly
educate students, the Foundation's Jonathan Butcher and
Lindsey Burke argued in a paper last summer.
Local control would allow for more innovation and
flexibility in how education is delivered, they added,
arguing the DOE imposes a one-size-fits-all solution that
often doesn't suit local needs.
But the National Education Association, the union that
represents 3 million teachers and other educational
professionals in the U.S., cautions that without the
department's oversight, inequities in special education
services across states could grow significantly.
States already vary in how they implement IDEA, but federal
monitoring helps ensure some consistency, the Association
said. Without that safeguard, some states, especially those
with tight budgets, might restrict eligibility or cut
services, the NEA said in a statement.
Some Republicans would like to see federal education
funding turned into block grants, in which states would get a
lump sum to spend as they choose. Kinsell worries that would
undermine services further for disabled students.
``Right now, IDEA funds are designated for special
education students,'' she said. ``If it's block-granted,
states could take that money and spend it on something else,
like building a gym, instead of serving kids with
disabilities.''
In addition to funding and legal enforcement, the Education
Department collects and monitors data on how schools serve
students with disabilities, tracking issues such as
disproportionate discipline and lack of inclusion. Without
DOE leadership, Kinsell said, such problems could go
unchecked.
Cuts could affect not just enforcement but also vital
programs like technical assistance, professional development
and research, she argued. ``There's a lot of parts of the law
beyond enforcement--training, curriculum development,
research--that help states implement appropriate education,''
Kinsell said. ``If those are gone, the whole system
suffers.''
Further complicating matters, Kinsell said, are proposals
to split up existing federal offices. ``They're talking about
moving
[[Page S1985]]
the Office for Civil Rights to the Justice Department,
disability programs to Health and Human Services, and
vocational rehab to the Department of Labor,'' she said.
``That would scatter programs that need to work together.''
While no one knows what's next, Kinsell said she expects
that reducing or eliminating the department will have real
impacts on families.
``The state of confusion is palpable--for advocates, for
families, for educators,'' she said. ``It's like watching the
floor get pulled out from under everyone who relies on these
supports.''
Mr. BOOKER. I want to say something about student loans too.
The Department of Education is also responsible for operating the
$1.6 trillion Federal student loan program, which benefits 42.7 million
borrowers in America, and it allows students to access higher
education--something that is shown unequivocally to strengthen our
economy.
This administration plans to move student loan funding to the Small
Business Administration--a plan that even some of my Republican
colleagues in Congress have expressed serious concerns about.
Here is an article: ``Republicans hesitant to stand behind Trump's
plan for student loans.''
Although SBA . . . managed a wealth of COVID relief
programs, it normally runs a much smaller operation than
[the] student debt [program].
President . . . Trump has yet to win over his own party
with his push to ``immediately'' transfer the Education
Department's massive student loan operation to another agency
slated for deep staff cuts.
Trump was expected to propose moving the agency's $1.6
trillion portfolio to the Treasury Department--a concept
long-discussed on Capitol Hill and suggested in Project 2025,
The Heritage Foundation's conservative policy blueprint.
Instead, the president announced this month that the [SBA]
would get it, surprising many lawmakers and conservatives who
track the issue.
Although the SBA, which provides financial support to
companies for disaster relief, training and other needs,
managed a wealth of COVID relief programs, it normally runs a
much smaller operation than student debt. It is also slated
to lose 43 percent of its staff.
Now . . . Republicans are worried about the size of the
debt and the staffing needed to manage the complex system of
servicers, borrowers, and loan applications. And with about
43 million borrowers--and a record number of them starting to
fall behind on their payments since the pandemic-era hiatus
ended in 2023--transferring this work may be one of the most
challenging hurdles for unwinding the agency President Trump
has pledged to close.
``A lot of us were thinking it would go to Treasury. We are
talking about the huge nature of student loans,'' House
Education and Workforce Chair Tim Walberg said in an
interview. ``They have much larger staffing capabilities
right now than the SBA, but the president may have something
specific in mind that I'm not aware of.''
Early legislation from Senator Mike Rounds . . . aimed at
dismantling the Education Department also recommended the
Treasury Department for the job. And at a recent House Rules
Committee meeting, Walberg suggested that moving the
portfolio to the SBA--which likely requires an act of
Congress to complete--might not be ``permanent.'' Some
Republican lawmakers have been hesitant to say the move is
official.
Neither the Education Department's Federal Aid office,
which manages the loan program, nor SBA have provided a
timeline or detailed plans to move the portfolio. But
Education Department officials skeptical of Trump's SBA plan
met the week after his announcement to discuss if the
Treasury Department should manage this massive portfolio
instead of the SBA, according to a person granted anonymity
to discuss the matter.
Some conservatives are concerned about the SBA's lack of
experience with colleges and universities and the time crunch
its staff will be under to learn the complex student loan
system.
The plan to move the portfolio ``sounds rushed, it sounds
like no one has been briefed on it, and it is not clear what
the purpose is,'' said Jason Delisle, who served on the
Education Department's review group on Trump's presidential
transition team.
FSA largely works with direct loans, meaning that instead
of a bank lending the money, the Education Department
disburses the funds directly to the institution in the
student's name. Colleges and universities, however, aren't on
the hook if the loan isn't repaid--the borrower is.
SBA only started working with direct loans at a massive
scale in the aftermath of the pandemic.
``They're laying off 43 percent of the SBA staff at the
same time [SBA is] being handed a $1.6 trillion portfolio
that is three times the size of what they have,'' said
Michael Negron, who worked on small business and student
loans for the National Economic Council during the Biden
administration.
The administration has not clearly stated whether FSA
workers who have expertise on the student debt system would
be transferred to the SBA, which is a concern for Negron.
That doesn't mean it's impossible. SBA could be a good fit,
he said, but the conditions need to be right.
``There is a world where this could work,'' he said optimistically.
He is now a fellow at Groundwork Collaborative, a leftwing think tank.
The White House did not acknowledge questions about how it
would transfer.
``President Trump is doing everything he can within his
executive authority to dismantle the Department of Education
and return education back to the states while safeguarding
critical functions for students and families,'' press
secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement. The President
has always said Congress has a role to play in this
effort, and we expect him to help the President deliver.
You know, that sounds like a President who doesn't care about
Congress, who cares about what he is trying to do. He hasn't approached
this in an intelligent way, making grand statements and opinions
without considering the Department you are transferring loans to might
actually be incapable, with a severely diminished staff, of doing the
job.
Here is an incredible article by Fareed Zakaria about what is really
going on and how it affects the United States, especially relative to
other nations:
There is no area in which the United States' global
dominance is more total than higher education. With about 4
percent of the world's population and 25 percent of its gross
domestic product, America has 72 percent of the world's 25
top universities by one ranking and 64 percent by another.
But this crucial U.S. competitive advantage is being
undermined by the Trump administration's war on colleges. Hat
tip to the New York Times's Michelle Goldberg for raising
this issue as well.
``We have to honestly and aggressively attack the
universities in this country. . . . The professors are the
enemy,'' said JD Vance during a speech to the National
Conservatism Conference in 2021. The administration has put
those words into action. The most dramatic assault has been
financial: a freezing or massive reduction in research grants
and loans from the federal government. Some of these efforts
are under court review, but the cumulative impact could be
billions of dollars in cuts to basic research, much of it
disrupting ongoing projects and programs.
High quality research in the United States has emerged in a
unique ecosystem. The federal government provides much of the
funding through prominent institutions such as the National
Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.
Private foundations and companies account for most of the
rest. Professors at universities, both public and private,
use these funds to conduct the research. No other country has
a system that works as well. What is at risk now is what
Holden Thorp, the editor in chief of the Science family of
journals, calls, ``the social contract that the federal
government and institutions have had to enable the scientific
research enterprise in America in the last 80 years.''
That is what is at risk.
Take Duke University, which ranked No. 11 in total grants
received from NIH last year. Of its $1.33 billion research
budget, $863 million came from Washington, according to the
[AP]. That includes funds for critical research projects on
cancer and other diseases but also support[s] . . . more than
630 PhD students at the medical school. If the cuts go
through, those projects and students will have to be pared
back substantially. Just on Thursday, Johns Hopkins . . .
announced huge layoffs, saying it would let go of more than
2,000 employees after losing $800 million in federal grants.
One crucial mechanism to cut funding is through a massive
reduction in the overhead, or indirect, costs that
universities get reimbursed for by the federal government.
Overhead often makes up 40 percent or 50 percent of a grant,
but last month, NIH ordered that it be capped at 15 percent.
[That] sounds more rational than it is. Universities divide
their costs on science grants into research costs (the
salaries of the professors and graduate students) and
overhead (the costs of the buildings, labs, energy and
utilities and administrative staff). When you are building a
complex lab to conduct experiments, the structure and
equipment is often far more costly than the salaries and
stipends of the researchers. Michigan State University has
declared that these cuts could make it stop construction of a
$330 million research building for cancer, cardiovascular
disease and neuroscience studies.
Government funding plays a unique role [in America]. It
often supports basic research, the kind that companies have
less incentive to do, and its results cannot be hoarded by
any one company but rather are provided free to the entire
scientific and technological community so that all can use it
to experiment and innovate.
It is an American system that has reaped billions and billions of
dollars in rewards to our economy.
The mapping of the human genome cost less than $3 billion
and took 13 years. Because it was government-funded, one of
its
[[Page S1986]]
key requirements was that the research should be made
publicly available for all within 24 hours of being
generated.
The other assault on the universities is a strange new
attack on free speech.
Fareed writes:
It began from a principled critique that bureaucracies,
universities and elites had all become too woke. But the
government's response to this problem has been Orwellian,
searching through these institutions for any mentions of the
words ``diversity'' or ``identity'' or ``inclusion'' and then
shutting down those programs without any review. Worse, it
now punishes universities for having on their campuses people
who might espouse certain views on topics like Israel and
Palestine--and now is punishing the protesters themselves. I
have long argued that universities have a huge problem: They
have far too little intellectual and ideological diversity--
which is the most important kind of diversity on a campus.
But the way you fix that is not to restrict radical left-wing
speech but to add voices and views from other parts of the
spectrum. The answer to censorship by the left is not
censorship by the right.
The fury with which the Trump administration has turned on
academia resembles nothing so much as the early days of the
Cultural Revolution, when an increasingly paranoid Mao Zedong
smashed China's established universities, a madness that took
generations [in China] to remedy. Meanwhile, in Beijing last
week, the Chinese government announced its intention to
massively increase its funding for research and technology so
that it could lead the world in science in the 21st century.
So, as America appears to be copying the worst aspects of
China's recent history, China is copying the best aspects of
America's, striving to take the edge [away from] . . . the
United States [as though we are going] through [our] . . .
own cultural revolution.
Learn from the fascists in China. Fareed's article is over. This is
me now.
Learn from the fascists in China and don't do what the Chinese did.
What America has done to lead humanity in the sciences, in innovation,
in research, in breakthroughs, in science--we are the global model. And
one administration, in 71 days, has our best universities cutting the
number of Ph.D. students they bring in, cutting the research that they
are doing, cutting the planned development of research buildings. This
is insanity, insanity.
We are America. Why is the President of the United States attacking
the science and the research at the top universities on planet Earth,
bullying them, undermining them?
I have had universities from my State. I have had universities from
my neighboring State--not Connecticut, New York. And I have had my
college, Stanford, come to see me--top researchers. The academic
community--not the political community, not the history majors, not the
political scientists, not the literature students, not the Af-Am
departments--the scientists of America have been coming to the Senate
to say: What the heck? What is going on? How could you take America's
edge, America's advantage, America's strength, America's brilliance and
undercut it in 71 days of your administration?
We are killing the golden goose. Why? Because we have a President who
is taking money that we already approved--the article I branch of
government--and claiming that he could claw it back, all on some
trumped-up charge that these institutions are too woke. The solution to
that is not to cut science funding.
This should make people mad. But more importantly, it should make
people stand up and not be bystanders and wait until we lose our edge
because our adversaries globally are smiling as we destroy our
institutions, from Duke to Rutgers, to the University of Michigan, to
Berkeley, to Stanford.
This is madness. This is insanity--and one of a dozen reasons why we
are going through this, a dozen reasons why I am standing here, that we
should not be doing things normally. If we are complicit in what Trump
is doing--I am hearing it not from political people but from scientists
who show up in my office from Cornell, medical researchers who show up
in my office from our research hospitals in New Jersey and are saying--
they are not political. They are just saying: What the heck? You are
undermining the research of today that will affect the breakthroughs 5
years from now, 10 years from now.
What is China doing while we are doing this? They are investing in
record numbers, record levels. The country of Tiananmen Square,
cracking down on college students, is now trying to act like America,
while America is acting more like them because our President is
violating the separation of powers, taking away the money we approved.
And we are letting it happen by doing things normally here and not
holding one hearing.
Here is another example of what Fareed was talking about. It is an
article entitled: ``Graduate student admissions paused and cut back as
universities react to Trump orders on research.'' Again, this is not
from a political magazine. It is not from the New York Times or the
Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal. This is from STAT News.
When did science become political?
Acceptances for biomedical graduate students and
postdoctoral scholars are being cut back at some universities
and medical centers across the country as many grapple with
the potential impact of the Trump administration's order to
cut National Institutes of Health research funding.
That paragraph alone should have people--all in this Chamber--upset.
Let's just give European universities, Australian universities,
Canadian universities, Chinese universities a leg up because we are
going to cut the number of graduate students and postdoctoral students.
The geniuses in our country will have less opportunity.
The cuts come even as the proposed reductions to funding
for overhead expenses, set to start Feb. 10, were temporarily
halted last week by a federal judge, at least until a court
hearing this Friday. Universities appear to be exercising
caution, with some freezing positions and not taking new
applications, or accepting fewer students than normal,
according to interviews, public announcements, and internal
emails obtained by STAT. The abrupt narrowing of training
opportunities is leaving many future researchers at the start
of their scientific journey in limbo.
The academic calendar runs to the rhythm of its own
seasons; right now is typically the time of year when offer
letters for Ph.D. programs and postdoc positions in labs
start hitting inboxes. Universities and academic medical
centers were in the thick of that process when the NIH--
Under President Donald Trump--
policy about overhead costs, known as indirect costs, landed.
``This couldn't be worse timing for doing this,'' said
Waverly Ding, an associate professor at the University of
Maryland who studies the biomedical sciences workforce.
``It's creating a jolt in the market that is going to be
disabling for labs, especially the smaller ones, because they
won't have the human capital to do their science. It's also
going to create chaos for Ph.D.s. It's going to be a
cascading kind of chain effect through the entire
ecosystem.''
I know we don't read science--actually, we have a few doctors in here
that do--but look at the alarm that they are sounding that this is not
normal.
The slowdown is happening at some universities and not at
others; some students may be unaware of the issue as they
anxiously await acceptance letters without fully
understanding the role national politics is playing in those
decisions. Some faculty are grappling with admissions that
are paused and then unpaused, while others say they are
receiving little information or guidance from leadership.
At the University of Southern California--
And as a former Stanford football player, it is hard for me to talk
about USC. I had to jab them, Senator Murphy.
At the University of Southern California, faculty in some
departments were told last week to pause admissions, and not
formalize offers to students--even those who had visited and
been given verbal acceptances. ``The awkward part is that we
already told these applicants that they were provisionally
accepted and invited them to an in-person recruitment day;
many have already purchased flight + hotel reservations''--
I mean, that is just cruel--
one professor said in a faculty discussion list-serve
observed by STAT.
I know Senator Murphy hangs out in faculty discussion list-serves.
That pause on admissions, in psychology, was lifted this
week, STAT was told.
Jennifer Unger, a professor who runs a doctoral program in
health behavior research in the department of population and
public health sciences at the University of Southern
California Keck School of Medicine, said Wednesday she was
still not able to admit the six graduate students her
department had accepted after a visit day on Feb. 3.
``We had just flown them out, we told them we love you, we
want to admit you, and then everything just stopped,'' Unger
said. ``On the day Trump announced they were cutting indirect
costs . . . USC paused all Ph.D. admissions.''
``I just don't know what to tell them,'' Unger said of the
students. ``Some of them
[[Page S1987]]
have other offers and will likely go somewhere else. We've
probably lost them.''
Despite USC's ``unpausing'' of admissions in many
departments, Unger said Wednesday she was still not able to
admit students. She hoped her portal to admit students would
open soon, but said the disruption was coming at a time when
her field, public health, was already reeling from the
actions of the Trump administration, something affecting
potential graduate students as well.
``It's very stressful for them, this is a major life
decision,'' she said, adding they were already worried about
their futures. ``They were asking, `Do you think we'll be
able to get a job in this environment? Do you think we'll get
grants?' ''
The dean of the Graduate School at USC told STAT late
Friday that the university briefly paused Ph.D. admissions to
``assess the uncertainties around federal funding,'' but that
the admissions process was now open.
Some schools were continuing to accept students or had
accepted graduate students before the recent turmoil and said
those offers are intact.
``We have no knowledge of any disruptions to graduate
student admissions in the science fields . . . ,'' Rachel
Zaentz, senior director of communications [said].
In some cases, the pauses to hiring and admissions were
implemented ahead of the NIH policy change--evidence of how
quickly the Trump administration's threats to withhold
federal research dollars over diversity, equity, and
inclusion efforts are shifting the financial footings of
universities.
On Feb. 6, faculty at Vanderbilt University were instructed
to reduce graduate admissions by half across the board,
according to an email obtained by STAT.
Reduce graduate admissions by half.
On the same day, faculty at the University of Washington
School of Public Health received an email to pause offers to
doctoral students as well as offers of financial support to
graduate students. Faculty hiring was also frozen, the email
said. This Tuesday, the public health school sent out another
email informing the community that some faculty hiring and
Ph.D. student offers would continue, but at a greatly
diminished level.
The school is also planning to take more ``cost containment
measures,'' including hiring freezes and reappointment
freezes . . . through the end of the academic year due to
the volatility caused by the Trump administration.
Existing offers will be honored, wrote Hilary Godwin, dean
of UW's school of public health.
Marion Pepper, chair of UW's immunology department, said
she was instructed by university leadership to keep her
program's next graduate cohort smaller than the usual five to
nine students admitted each year. That's easier said than
done, because the proportion of students who accept offers of
admission varies year-to-year. Pepper told STAT that while
she expects the incoming class to be slightly smaller than
normal, she has spoken with program heads at UW and elsewhere
who are reducing class sizes by half or more.
``I know for other programs, they're feeling very bleak
about how they're going to keep labs running without funding
or students,'' Pepper said. ``It's pretty overwhelming.''
Medical schools are hit hard. Medical research is hit hard.
It's unclear how many other universities are taking similar
preemptive belt-tightening measures, but schools of public
health and medical schools are particularly vulnerable,
because they tend to have many faculty, postdocs, and
graduate students supported by grants.
Boston University School of Public Health has also ordered
an across-the-board hiring freeze on all new faculty and
staff positions--including student workers and postdocs. In a
campus-wide announcement, Dean ad interim Michael Stein said
the move was being made due to ``the uncertainty of the
moment.'' A spokesperson for the school told STAT that
graduate admissions are unaffected by the freeze.
Unger said USC had cut funding for some [teaching
assistants] in her department earlier this year before the
new executive orders, which reduced the number of graduate
students her program could accept from 10 to 6.
On Feb. 11, Columbia University's medical school faculty
were told that the school was putting a temporary pause on
hiring as well as other activities like travel and procuring
equipment, according to an email obtained by the Columbia
student newspaper, the Columbia Spectator. A spokesperson for
Columbia declined to comment on the pause.
In other cases, schools may accept fewer graduate students
than they had planned, not because of an overt directive from
university leaders, but because faculty feel unsure about
future funding, given the Trump administration's intent to
cut billions of dollars in overhead funding.
At the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 25% fewer
graduate students will be admitted this year--
Twenty-five percent fewer--
based on a survey of faculty members taking new students,
said Mark Peifer, a professor of cell biology there. This
means the school will admit about 75 students across the
biomedical sciences. He noted the numbers of graduate
students vary each year so the decline was not unprecedented.
And the numbers continue to go down.
In an interview with STAT, Robert Ferris, the director of
UNC's Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, said that
hiring freezes, fewer Ph.D. student offers, and other similar
cost containment measures are being considered as the center
is eyeing the same financially turbulent waters as other
research institutions. ``Every one of those things is on the
table, unfortunately,'' Ferris said. ``There's so much
uncertainty. Can we hire this faculty member? Can we purchase
this equipment?''
They just don't know exactly what or how many measures the
center may have to take, he said, as there are simply still
too many unknowns--for instance, the outcome of the NIH
indirect rate cut policy is still up in the air. ``Not
knowing how it's going to shake out,'' he said, ``it just
freezes everybody into inaction.''
Adding to the uncertainty is disruptions to key parts of
the NIH approval process for proposed research grants.
Although some meetings of study sections--in which grant
applications are reviewed--resumed at the start of the month,
meetings of advisory councils have not. Each of the 27
institutes of the NIH has its own advisory council, which
meets three times a year to issue final funding
recommendations on new research projects. None of these
councils--
None--
has met since the Jan. 22 communications freeze was ordered
across all federal health agencies.
A law called the Federal Advisory Committee Act requires
that advisory councils post meeting details in the Federal
Register 15 days prior to their scheduled date. But because
submissions to the Federal Register have been put on hold
indefinitely, these meetings can't take place. And without
these meetings, no new grants can be funded.
According to one NIH employee, at least one NIH meeting
scheduled for this Friday to allow an institute director to
provide updates that could proceed because it had been posted
to the Federal Register was nonetheless canceled Wednesday.
This was because the meeting specified it would include a
session open to the public--but because a ban remains in
place on any public communications, meetings with open
sessions cannot be held. ``And they can't update the federal
registry with a revised agenda stating no open session
because the federal registry is closed.''
Principal investigators who had been counting on awards to
pay the salaries of new graduate students and postdocs are
now left wondering if their labs will be able to make it
through the summer, let alone take on new members.
Referencing the hold on submissions to the Federal
Register, MIT neuroscientist Nancy Kanwisher posted on social
media Wednesday: ``So much for the grant I submitted last
September, which was supposed to be reviewed next week.
Hardly the biggest tragedy on the current scale of things,
but it will force me to severely downsize my already small
lab.''
Fears were similar for one computational genomics
researcher at a prominent East Coast institution who asked
for anonymity for fear of being targeted by the new
administration. ``We have people coming to visit the lab next
week, and these are students we haven't made offers to yet
because we can't,'' he said. ``I don't know what I'm going to
tell them.''
Beyond the immediate harm to young scientists, he worries
about the long-term damage to fields like computer science
and biomedical engineering--areas where the U.S. has long
been the world leader. ``If we stop training students, we're
going to lose that lead very quickly,'' he said. ``It's not
clear anyone else is going to pick up the ball. We're just
going to be worse off and people won't even be aware of it--
it's hard to notice when it takes 20 years instead of 10 to
get a cure.''
Cuts within NIH are also adding to the rapidly constricting
pool of places prospective scientists can go to train. Since
the 1960s, the NIH has provided opportunities for recent
college graduates to spend one or two years in a full-time
research position within one of the institute's labs, which
many scientists see as a key tool for recruiting young people
into biomedical fields. On Feb. 1, a notice appeared on the
NIH website announcing that all training programs had paused
recruitment ``pending guidance from Health and Human
Services.''
The NIH's Postbac Program, which provides recent college
graduates with research positions and career advising and
last year admitted roughly 1,600 people, will not be
accepting any new applicants for 2025, according to an NIH
employee who asked for anonymity for fear of repercussions.
Of course, that is my add.
``It's a vital link in the training of doctors and
biomedical scientists in the country,'' the NIH employee
said. ``You can't find a medical school or biomed program
that doesn't have students from the postbac program.''
And it is ending.
While the Trump administration may be hoping that the
headwinds it's creating for academic hiring may push recent
graduates or newly minted Ph.D.s into private industry, it's
unlikely to play out that way because of the speed and scale
of the disruption. ``Pharmaceutical firms are not going to
suddenly open up more jobs for graduates to
[[Page S1988]]
adapt to this situation,'' said Ding. More likely is that
people will start looking for opportunities outside the U.S.,
or wind up without jobs altogether, she added.
At this point, it's still too early to say if these are the
first signs of losing a generation of American scientists.
But even people like Ding, who track the data that could
provide clues about how extensive the damage will be, are
facing uncertainty about their ability to continue their own
work.
Her plans to hire a postdoc are currently on hold as she
waits to find out if a grant she has through the National
Science Foundation--which is facing its own drastic cuts--
will come through.
(Mr. HUSTED assumed the Chair.)
I mean, honestly. I am here because I said at the beginning, some 9
hours ago, that I was going to stand here because what is going on in
America is not normal. We have gone through healthcare cuts. We have
gone through Social Security being attacked and undermined and slashed,
and the Department of Education. But if those things don't worry you,
statements like this should:
It is still a little too early to say that these things are
the first signs of losing a generation of American
scientists.
I know this. I have been privileged. I studied at Oxford University
overseas. I have studied at Stanford University in Silicon Valley, and
I have studied at Yale.
I watched friends get degrees in the sciences and things I couldn't
spell, and they had options, not just in America. But for the brightest
minds on the planet Earth, there is a global competition going on for
them from Canada to Oxford, to countries in Asia.
If you are telling me that thousands of people, right now, 71 days
into the Trump administration, are losing opportunities in the sciences
to do research in the most important areas of human endeavor can't get
hired, they will go elsewhere.
For over a generation, America has led the planet Earth because of
this combination between research universities, private sector
industry, and government. How do I know this? Because I am here because
of it. The whole computer revolution in America was because incredible
computer science researchers at academic institutions were partnering
with industry and being funded in many ways by the government, and it
helped companies like IBM with their mainframes dominate.
My dad was one of IBM's first Black people hired as a salesman in the
Washington, DC-Maryland area. My parents were IBMers because when
scientific endeavor explodes into new industry, new ideas, new
biomedical breakthroughs, it creates a ripple effect in our economy
lifting so many people up.
And in 71 days, Donald Trump's actions have led scientific articles
like this to talk about a postbac program that provides bright recent
college graduates--brilliant people, 1,600 of them--to usually get jobs
to be canceled.
And this article laments from scientists--not political people, not
politicians--that this is a crisis. It is a crisis in America, and we
haven't held one hearing on this in Congress.
Yet university after university--I can't be the only Senator having
this happen--not just from my State. The universities are coming from
New York to California, sounding the alarm that we are going to lose
our competitive edge against one of our greatest competitors, China,
which is doubling down, as the article said, in research on the
sciences.
But let me just give you some examples, and then I will yield for a
question. I want to talk about some New Jersey institutions that have
written me:
Rutgers has been a partner in the Air Force Research
Laboratory Minority Leaders Research Collaborative Program, a
grant which has been led by the Ohio State University and is
on pause.
God forbid they use the word ``minority.''
And the annual program review and summer internship
programs are not expected to happen this year.
Rutgers School of Nursing has been working with the
Institute of Human Virology in Nigeria on an action to
sustain precision in HIV response toward epidemic control,
and they were funded through a CDC and PEPFAR grant. A stop
work order came in.
Multiple Rutgers entities have received communications from
Federal Agencies related to DEIA cancellation of
apprenticeship programs.
Many conferences have been canceled that are trying to find the best
minds wherever they might be because there is many geniuses at Howard
and Fisk and Morehouse that are often overlooked.
Annika Barber, a faculty at the Rutgers department of molecular
biology and biochemistry writes me this:
Rutgers holds an NIH initiative for maximizing student
development training grant that supports an additional five
doctoral students. This grant expires in January 2026, and we
put in for renewal this fall, for which I wrote a letter of
support. However, it seems likely that this grant proposal
will not even be reviewed.
I just completed the first year of funding on my NIH
Maximizing Investigators' Research Award and put in my
progress report for the next years of funding. These are
noncompeting renewals, which means they don't go through peer
review. In the past, they were reviewed by the NIH program
officials to ensure the funds were being managed in
accordance with the approval grant and the research funds.
However, NIH has been extremely slow to process even these
noncompetitive renewals. This type of grant requires a plan
for enhancing the work.
I want to read this last letter. It is handwritten:
I am writing you not only as a concerned parent that
believes in progress, education, and the power of science to
improve lives.
My daughter is a Ph.D. in neuroscience, dedicating her life
to research that has the potential to save countless lives.
As a minority in science, she has worked tirelessly to
overcome barriers in a field that is already competitive and
abandoned.
Watching the current political attacks on research funding
is devastating not just her future but the future of the
American country. Science is not political. It serves all
people.
Yet funding cuts to Agencies like NIH and the National
Science Foundation threaten to halt critical research that
leads to medical breakthroughs. These cuts will not only slow
progress in fighting diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's, and
Parkinson's, but they will also discourage young, diverse
scientists, many of whom have already fought hard to be in
these spaces, from staying in the field. This is not just
about scientists. It is about every American.
Diseases do not know political parties. Without adequate
research funding, we are all at risk of losing the chance for
better treatments, new cures, and improved healthcare. If we
truly want a stronger and more innovative America, we must
invest in science, not abandon it.
Defunding research will also harm our economy. Scientific
innovation drives job creation, medical advancements, and
global progress. A country that does not invest in science is
a country that falls behind.
Mr. MURPHY. Does the Senator yield?
Mr. BOOKER. I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. MURPHY. I thank the Senator.
What the Senator is outlining is an extraordinary assault not just on
education but on the knowledge economy.
I want to bring manufacturing jobs back to this country, but I
understand--I think everybody understands--that we are not going to be
a nation filled with low-skilled manufacturing jobs. We are going to be
a nation that does high-skilled manufacturing. We are going to be a
nation that invents things. We are going to be a nation that is
dependent on engineering and on invention. We are going to be a
knowledge economy.
We are today, but we are going to be even more reliant on maintaining
and expanding our knowledge edge on the rest of the world, given the
fact that the pace of change and the oncoming transformation that will
come from robotics and AI will make it even more important for a nation
to have the most highly skilled, most highly educated workforce
possible in order to stay ahead of the curve and not have employment be
buried by automation and artificial intelligence.
So this is a moment in which we should be doubling down on our
support for the knowledge economy, on an integration of public sector
research and private sector research, which has always been the genius
of American economy. We did that integration better than anybody, and
it is not coincidental that we leap-frogged the rest of the world when
it came to that innovation economy.
But what the Senator is explaining is that the Trump administration
is waging a war on the knowledge economy. It is literally signing our
economic death warrant by coming after the foundational strength of our
Nation, which is that public-private sector integration.
I just checked in with the University of Connecticut, which is going
to lose $165 million because of this illegal
[[Page S1989]]
change that the Trump administration has implemented, dramatically
cutting the amount of research dollars that go to institutions with NIH
grants.
I will just read half their list. They gave me a list of all their
research projects that are going to either be eliminated or slowed for
diminished:
A project for improving physical and cognitive function in
aging; a project for improving outcomes for people with
autism; a project for understanding neural mechanisms for
language and reading, including people with dyslexia; funding
for prevention and care for HIV patients; projects for
studying the leading causes of death and disability in the
United States, including cancer, obesity, Alzheimer's
disease, and substance abuse; projects studying treatments
for rare diseases and genetic disorders with specific impacts
on health, including sickle cell, mitochondrial disorders,
Rett syndrome, Prader-Willi syndrome, muscle and bone
regeneration research, tick-borne diseases.
The University of Connecticut faces the same crisis as all the other
institutions listed in that incredibly long STAT news article.
And as you mentioned, research is not going to wait around for this
crisis to pass. They are going to accept offers from research
institutions in other countries, from our European allies to our Asian
competitors. We are going to lose our competitive edge when it comes to
research.
It is worth noting that this change in research funding is illegal.
Article I vests the spending power of the Federal Government in
Congress. That is plain and simple, and there are lots of good reasons
why our Founding Fathers did that, Senator Booker. They were determined
to keep the spending power out of the hands of the executive branch
because they had seen how the British King used the Treasury in order
to compel loyalty and to punish opposition: You get money if you are
loyal to me.
You get money if you are loyal to me; I withhold money from you if
you are disloyal to me.
And so Congress got the spending power. We decided the exact rate of
reimbursement for medical research. We were very specific about it in
the statute that we passed, Republicans and Democrats.
This cut in funding for institutes of higher educations' research
that has been implemented by the administration is illegal on its face.
Congress said exactly how research funding should be allocated; the
President is ignoring that statute and implementing a unilateral cut.
It has been enjoined by the Federal court. Hopefully, if the courts
follow the law, it will be permanently stopped.
But it is important to note that it stands in a larger context of the
Federal Government using its spending power--excuse me--the Trump
administration trying to seize control of Federal spending in order to
do that work that our Founding Fathers were so worried about.
We have seen over the past several weeks the administration march
through school after school, trying to cut individual deals with
institutions of higher education. We will release your funding only
after you sign a bilateral agreement with the administration lining
your institute of higher education's priorities up with the political
interests of the administration.
This is exactly what our Founding Fathers were trying to avoid: the
Executive using the spending power to compel loyalty from individuals
and institutions. What they are doing is illegal.
And it is beyond me why my Republican colleagues, our Republican
colleagues, stand idly by while the spending power vested in Congress
by the Constitution is ripped from us.
But, Senator Booker, I guess I am going to ask you the same question
I did when it came to this assault on Social Security, and it is a
simple question. And I will lay out a little bit of a predicate. The
question is: Why?
What the administration has done is extraordinary, proposing to close
the Department of Education--wildly unpopular. Nobody is asking for
that--waging this illegal and unconstitutional assault on our knowledge
economy, suspending funding for institutions of higher education,
research budgets, when, plainly, the statute says they cannot do that.
So why engage in this extraordinary action to essentially destroy
America's knowledge economy from elementary school all the way up to
graduate education?
Well, as we have talked about, as you laid out, it can't be because
you are trying to help the economy. This destroys the economy. I mean,
this is the worst thing that you could probably do for the economy is
to wage this open, transparent, proudful assault on research because we
will not survive as an economy unless we are the place where cutting-
edge research and invention happens. We just won't.
And so researchers now, who are having all of their offers suspended
by major colleges and universities, they are looking elsewhere. Maybe
they are hoping that the offer still comes through, but they are
dialing up other competitors, many of them outside of the United
States.
There was a story out of the University of Cambridge in England a
couple weeks ago in which their administrators were talking about the
bounty that they are receiving as some of the highest class researchers
in the world are coming to them because they don't believe that they
will have any source of stable funding from the United States.
Mr. BOOKER. Wow.
Mr. MURPHY. So it can't be about helping us create jobs or supporting
our economy. This is, no doubt, an assault on the economy.
One of the complaints that I hear often about elementary and
secondary education is that the Department of Education was engaged in
micromanagement, right? That it was a Federal school board, and we want
to get the Federal Government out of the business of dictating what
local schools will do.
Well, that is not a credible explanation for what is happening
because, in fact, the Trump administration is telegraphing that they
are going to actually jump into the micromanagement of our local
schools.
Nobody has any idea what ``DEI'' means. Let's just be honest. It
means something different to every single official in the Trump
administration. It is just a proxy to impose a set of reactionary,
rightwing values on our schools or on our Federal Agencies.
I asked a question of the nominee to be the alleged last Secretary of
Education as to whether or not African-American history could be taught
in our high schools any longer, and her answer was essentially maybe
not. I don't know, but DEI might mean that you can't teach African-
American history. It might mean that the Federal Government is going to
comb through every syllabus in every high school in the entire country
and tell you what courses you can teach and what courses you can't. And
if there are any words in there that our AI algorithm doesn't like--
like ``African''--can't teach it. That is a level of micromanagement
never seen before in the Federal Government.
And so the reason that they are cracking down on the Department of
Education or eliminating funding for research is not because they are
trying to get the Federal Government out of the management of our
schools, because they are doing exactly the opposite. They are telling
you that your school is not going to be able to make decisions on what
classes it offers its students. It is going to be Linda McMahon, the
former CEO of the World Wrestling Federation, that is going to be in
charge of whether your school can teach African-American history. OK?
So then what is the reason, Senator Booker? And I will, you know,
just give you a couple suggestions: Well, maybe it is just to compel
loyalty, right? Maybe it is just to use that money to compel loyalty so
that boards of education or colleges are only teaching conservative or
right-leaning curriculum.
Maybe it is to try to quell protests on campuses so that there isn't
an ability for students to robustly protest the policies of the regime.
Maybe it is just to destroy the idea of objective truth. I mean, this
whole scandal over Signal has lots of elements to it, but I think one
of the most worrying things for the American public, why it is still a
story a week later, is because the Secretary of Defense looked the
American public in the eye and said: 2 plus 2 equals 9. Right? He said:
Those Signal texts you saw did not involve war plans, did not involve
classified information.
[[Page S1990]]
The American public was like: Wait a second. We read them. I am not
dumb. I know those were war plans. I know that that was classified
information.
But if you are in the business of trying to unwind democracy, you
have to destroy objective truth. You have to make everything political.
You have to make everything subjective.
Where is objective truth midwifed? It is in our education system.
That is where we learn 2 plus 2 equals 4 every time. But if you want to
undermine the foundation of a democracy, then you undermine the place
where truth happens.
Mr. BOOKER. Yes.
Mr. MURPHY. OK. Maybe it is the same agenda with Social Security,
just come up with an excuse to privatize it all. Just take all the
money that is going to good, public sector research and just move it
all into the private sector so it can be a source to reward the friends
of President Trump. That could be a rationale as well.
Or maybe it is even simpler. Maybe it is just to own the libs. Maybe
it is just that, historically, Democrats on the left have maybe talked
about education more than Republicans have, even though, to me, it was
always something we both cared about. Whether or not I agree with
George Bush's ``No Child Left Behind'' plan, at least he was walking
into the Capitol with a plan to try to improve education.
But maybe it is just that Democrats on the left have historically
talked more about education. And if you believe, as Donald Trump does,
that all politics is zero sum, anything the Democrats are for must be,
by definition, bad for America. And Democrats seem to like college, and
they seem to really support our schools, so we have to destroy our
colleges, and we have to destroy public education. Because if the left
is for it, it must be evil. Maybe that is the reason they are doing it.
But that is the question I pose to you because it has nothing to do
with our economy. It has nothing to do with getting the Federal
Government out of the management of schools and colleges. There is
another agenda here, and it doesn't seem to be an agenda that squares
with anything that the American people have been asking, Senator
Booker.
Mr. BOOKER. I just want to answer you. Again, I would drive myself
mad trying to understand what the ambitions of Trump were or the
ambitions behind some of the crazy stuff in Project 2025 that he said
wasn't there, and he tried to run away from it because it was so
unpopular, and now so much of it is being done. It almost sounds too
partisan, too insane.
What I do want to do, Senator Murphy, in answer to your question--all
I can do is try to be as fair and factual in describing what is
happening in our country and appeal to people who are moderates in this
country, the people who are fair arbiters of what is happening, to try
to appeal to them that this is a crisis.
So when university after university after university is cutting
scientific research, stopping bringing in the best minds, Ph.D.
candidates, post-docs, when they are telling you that they are stopping
investment in state-of-the-art research buildings, when they are
telling you that they are shutting down programs to bring the youngest,
brightest minds in and our competitor China is doing the exact
opposite, flowing money through because China understands if we get two
steps ahead of America on quantum computing, we can break all kinds of
encryptions. We can locate every submarine they have. China understands
if we can get two steps ahead of America on artificial intelligence, it
is an endgame for them.
This is a global competition, and a President, in 71 days--if you are
a moderate in America and just want America to win in human endeavor,
look at what the President is doing. And here is to the point you were
driving, Senator Murphy. It is Orwellian.
The bastions of freedom that are our universities, as an article from
Fareed Zakaria has said, even if universities got too woke and too
excessive, the antidote to that isn't to try to shut down the thought
of the left. It is to try to make a fair, more competitive marketplace
for ideas from all around the political spectrum.
But this isn't about politics; it is about science; it is about
research; it is about cutting NIH funding, science funding. But I want
to stick with that because that is the controversial nub, right?
Like, we need to go after DEI programs. I am hearing it all the time.
It was like the confusion I had 5 years ago when people were asking me:
Oh, the Republicans are talking about critical race theory. As my
father says, I have more degrees than the month of July, but I am not
hot. But I had to go back and research: What is critical race theory?
Oxford, Stanford, Yale grad, I wasn't sure what they were talking
about. And this is the rub on that because I don't want to just talk
about what is obvious, which should enrage people on both sides of the
aisle, not just enrage people on both sides of the aisle because of the
China outcompeting us, but because we allocated this money in a
bipartisan way that he is now trying to pull back. That should raise a
violation of article I of the Constitution.
But I want to stick in this more controversial era that you talked
about that has, all across the country, people banning books. When I
heard Toni Morrison's ``The Bluest Eye'' was being taken out of
libraries, when I heard my favorite author James Baldwin was being
taken out of libraries--what kind of world do we live in where,
somehow, studying what they call Black history is something that we
have to--that Trump feels like it is a rally for people to stop, where
a person working for the Department of Education can't look you in the
eye and say: Yes, we need to study Black history? Black history is
American history.
I had a brilliant friend of mine, brilliant. He looked at me with
deadpan embarrassment and told me he just found out that year about the
bombing in Tulsa, OK, something I worked with Senator Lankford to do
more to memorialize, but he just never knew about it; that this
thriving African-American financial community was the first recorded
aerial bombing--not Pearl Harbor--in the United States of America, and
he was never taught it.
Is that Black history or is that American history?
Why do these people who attack our history think they have to
sanitize, homogenize, ``Disneyfy'' American history to make us proud? I
am more proud of our country when we tell the truth about what
happened, when we learned from the wretchedness and the difficulties
and the bigotries and the hates and demagogues who pit us against each
other and how we all overcame that. That is our greatness. How the
genius of inventors that were women or Blacks in the most oppressive of
times still manifested their genius that transformed humanities. These
are stories that should make every American more proud.
So, yes, when you have a President now that is making people scrape
through programs that they don't even know what they are doing, but if
there were more diversity in it, that is bad? That is insanity.
My mom worked for IBM before they used words like ``DEI.'' One of her
jobs was to find a bigger pool of highly qualified applicants. You know
what she did is what is being stopped by the Trump administration. She
just made sure that they were going to HCBUs to find the brightest
students so that their applicant pool would be better. This isn't about
preferential treatment for one group over another; it is about trying
to create a more competitive pool where we get the best of the best. It
is about merit-based.
And this President talked about merit--and I watched Senator
Whitehouse ask one of the top lawyers of the EPA if he ever brought a
case, if he ever had a hearing, if he ever did a deposition--no, no,
no. Wait a minute. How are you qualified for this job?
And that is the conflict in the logic that I am observing. In one
sense, they are exalting the wealthy elites. I have never imagined that
I would see a Presidential inauguration where the billionaires, leaders
of tech companies, would sit in front of Cabinet members, many of whom
were billionaires themselves--but that kind of elitism. Yet they call
academic excellence, brilliance, and achievement in the sciences at
these universities the elites we need to go after.
If we start going after our educational institutions and weakening
their ability to advance excellence in human endeavor, we are injuring
ourselves, and we have models for that. As
[[Page S1991]]
Fareed Zakaria says, the best example was Mao Zedong and the cultural
revolution where one of the first groups they went after were their
universities. Now they are reversing that. They watched what we did so
well. They are doubling down on their funding of universities. They are
taking their best scientists and taking away their passports because
they don't want them to come here and study. They are trying to get
ahead of us in DeepSeek and AI. They are trying to get ahead of us in
quantum computers. They are trying to get ahead of us in robotics. They
are trying to get ahead of us in biomedical engineering. They are
trying to get ahead of us in all of these things. They know the way
they do it is do what America did in the sixties, seventies, eighties,
the nineties, the aughts, 2010--to do what they did all those times and
look at them now.
Mr. MURPHY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BOOKER. I will yield while still retaining the floor.
Mr. MURPHY. I take the Senator's point, my friend's point. I am
probing tonight for the why because it is the obvious question. It
doesn't make sense, right? On its face, this intentional chaos--this
intentional chaos in Social Security, in Medicare, in higher education,
it doesn't make sense. It is not about efficiency. It is not about
jobs. So what is it about?
But your point is a good one. That may not actually be the
conversation that a lot of apolitical Americans are asking. They may
just be looking at this on the face and say: How does this impact me?
It doesn't matter to me why it is happening; it matters how it is going
to impact me.
There is no doubt that this assault on higher education has none; it
does. We are, as you said it better than I have, we are just in a race.
Mr. BOOKER. Yes.
Mr. MURPHY. We are just in a race, and we just decided to slow down
to a walk, which is a shame because we are fast. We are fast. This
country is quick. And our coach just told us, start walking while the
other guys speed up.
This is why we have urgency because the race--this one is not. Maybe
it is a marathon. But it is one of those races where if the other team
gets too big a lead, it is going to be hard to catch up.
So in the next 3\1/2\ years, if we just stand down in terms of
supporting the knowledge economy, we are going to shed millions of
jobs--millions of jobs. And once those centers of excellence, research
excellence are outside the United States, it is not like the next
President can just come back in and fix it. That becomes a permanent
liability for us.
The reason that I am here on the floor with you, Senator Booker, is
because I agree with you that this is not normal. But I also agree with
you that we have to wake our colleagues up fast because like a second
ago, I thought we all agreed on the fact that we need to support the
knowledge economy. Like 2 seconds ago, we were all raising hands
together, Republicans and Democrats, that we finally started putting
big new dollars into NIH. We did a $2 billion increase, I think, a few
years ago, and it was a big bipartisan achievement. And all of a
sudden, just because Donald Trump is in the White House, we have lost
the bipartisan consensus of the knowledge economy.
Mr. BOOKER. I want to interrupt you before you go to your last
question. I know you want to get your last question out before I get to
the next area so related to this, immigration. I mean, the brightest
minds on the planet Earth are coming here.
Mr. MURPHY. I am good. I made my point.
Mr. BOOKER. I want to say something to you. You got me triggered when
you said we had some consensus over the last 4 years. I love how you
say just yesterday. I remember the CHIPS and Science Act. That was a
bipartisan bill. I was sitting in a SCIF with all of us, and I watched
a whole national security apparatus talk about why science endeavors
and chipmaking and the breakthroughs that are happening on chips are so
essential for our national security and how we had to stay ahead of the
competition. And we marched out of that meeting in a bipartisan
fashion. We saw this in the bipartisan work we have been doing on AI
here, talking about how America has to lead in this area.
And with all of that bipartisan vigor, we let a President come in and
in 71 days, halt scientific research, pausing literally experiments in
their tracks, halting researchers in their tracks, shaking universities
to the core that are afraid of free expression for getting on the wrong
side of ``Dear Leader'' that it might cost them their science funding.
So you are putting your finger on it.
But can I just say something on a personal level because I just want
to remind folks, as we are closing in on the 10th hour, that you and I
were here for 15, and you are here because you agree with me. You agree
with me that from science and research to higher education, Department
of Education, Social Security, to healthcare in America, we are at a
crisis. Any one of those alone should have Americans--but the case we
are making going through all these, we are pulling from people on the
left and the right. We quoted Republican Governors. We have quoted
Republican mayor organizations, represented by organizations. We quoted
Republican business people. We quoted the Wall Street Journal. This is
not a partisan crisis that people across the spectrum are pointing to.
But I do want to point out, you have been such a good friend to me to
spend 10 hours, almost, on the floor, and it means a lot to me tonight.
Thank you for that.
As I switch to immigration, I appreciate the sentiments that you have
and that you had after the Pulse shooting that you were so worried
about when I listened to your maiden speech when you first got here in
the Senate that we would normalize gun violence in this country. What I
am worried about--I share your worry there. I grew up in a time where
fire drills were the big thing. And the space between people ducking
and covering because of nuclear fears and left school before we were a
country that had more active shooter drills than fire drills, and we
just sort of are normalizing this terror in our country and haven't
stepped up to the challenge of really doing something about it.
This is one of these crises where if we act like business as usual,
71 days so far of the Trump administration, when we get to 100 days,
catastrophic things could have happened to Medicaid and healthcare,
crashing of research for science, attacks on programs our senior
citizens rely on. We, as a country have to, as I said at the very
beginning 10 hours ago almost--we have to do what John Lewis challenged
us to do: To stand up, to speak up, to get in good trouble, necessary
trouble.
And tonight, my friend, in the wee hours--there are so many songs
about 4 o'clock in the morning. It is like the hour nobody should be
awake. I want to thank the Presiding Officer for being here. I want to
thank the clerks and parliamentary staff and the impositions. But the
cries of American citizens for their leaders to do something different,
to stand up, to speak up--I felt like this has to be done. Let's keep
going. Almost 10 hours in, I am thankful.
We are going to start the next session. Like I am trying to do in all
of these, I am trying to elevate the voices that don't get to come to
this place--voices I am hearing from, voices that identify themselves
as a Republican veteran, a Democrat. Most of them are just people
saying this is not normal. Many of them are saying, ``Do something.''
Some of them get me very emotional saying, ``What can I do?'' I get
that question a lot: ``Tell me what I can do to try to stop this.''
We are going to take this issue of immigration. And here is--I am not
sure where this person is from. My staff has covered it up, probably to
protect the person's identity. I am going to read this handwritten
note. It is from New Jersey.
Thank you, Senator Booker. Please continue to fight the
good fight against the injustices being done by the current
administration. I am the pastor of Emanuel Lutheran Church in
New Brunswick. As a faith leader and your constituent, I am
deeply concerned about the treatment of LGBTQ people and
immigrants by this administration. The demonization and
marginalization of these groups is unchristian and deeply
offensive to the values of my faith. I ask that you continue
to oppose all Executive orders and legislation that targets
these groups. You have been a consistent ally. Please
continue to be a champion for justice for all people, but
especially the most vulnerable.
Another person, late yesterday, in fact:
[[Page S1992]]
Court filings of the Trump administration reveal that a
mistakenly deported Maryland father with protected legal
status to this horrific prison in El Salvador--Abrego Garcia
is married to a U.S. citizen and has a 5-year-old disabled
child who is a U.S. citizen. He has no criminal record in the
United States. Despite receiving a legal status call
withholding of removal where a United States immigration
judge found that he would more likely than not face
persecution if deported to El Salvador, the Trump
administration deported him, where? The very country from
which he fled gang violence.
Here is a story that was written about him in The Atlantic.
The Trump administration acknowledged in a court filing on
Monday that it had grabbed a Maryland father with protected
legal status and mistakenly deported him to El Salvador. It
was said that U.S. courts lack jurisdiction to order his
return from the mega prison where he's now locked up.
The case appears to be the first time the Trump
administration has admitted to errors when it sent three
planeloads of Salvadorian and Venezuelan deportees to El
Salvador's . . . ``Terrorism Confinement Center'' on March
15. Attorneys for several Venezuelan deportees have said that
the Trump administration falsely labeled their clients as
gang members because of their tattoos . . . But in Monday's
court filing, attorneys for the government admitted that the
Salvadorian man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, was deported
accidentally. ``Although ICE was aware of his protection from
removal to El Salvador, Abrego Garcia was removed to El
Salvador because of an administrative error,'' the government
told the court. Trump lawyers said the court has no ability
to bring him back now that Abrego Garcia is in Salvadorian
custody.
Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, Abrego Garcia's attorney, says
he's never seen a case in which the government knowingly
deported someone who had already received protected legal
status from an immigration judge. He is asking the court to
order the Trump administration to ask for Abrego Garcia's
return and, if necessary, to withhold payment to the
Salvadorian government, which says it's charging the United
States $6 million a year to jail U.S. deportees.
[The] Trump administration . . . told the court to dismiss
the request on multiple grounds, including . . . Trump's
primacy in foreign affairs.
``[P]rimacy in foreign affairs.'' I am not going to stop now, but I
ask anybody who has read the Constitution to understand that the
President of the United States is not King. He does not have primacy in
foreign affairs.
I continue with the article:
``The claim that the court is powerless to order any
relief,'' Sandoval-Moshenberg told me, ``if that's true, the
immigration laws are meaningless--all of them--because the
government can deport whoever they want, wherever they want,
whenever they want, and no court can do anything about it
once it's done.''
Court filings show Abrego Garcia came to the United States
at the age of 16 in 2011 after fleeing gang threats in his
native El Salvador. In 2019, he received a form of protected
legal status known as ``withholding of removal'' from a U.S.
immigration judge who found he would likely be targeted by
gangs if he was deported back.
Abrego Garcia, who is married to a U.S. citizen and has a
5-year-old disabled child who is also a U.S. citizen, has no
criminal record in the United States, according to his
attorney. The Trump administration does not claim he has a
criminal record, but called him a ``danger to the community''
and an active member of MS-13, the Salvadorian gang that
Trump has declared a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
Sandoval-Moshenberg said those charges are false, and the
gang label stems from a 2019 incident where Abrego Garcia and
three other men were detained in a Home Depot parking lot by
a police detective in Prince Georges County, Maryland. During
questioning, one of the men told officers Abrego was a gang
member, but the man offered no proof and police said they
didn't believe him, filings show. Police did not identify him
as a gang member.
Abrego Garcia was not charged with a crime, but he was
handed over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after
the arrest to face deportation. In those proceedings, the
government claimed that a reliable informant had identified
him as a ranking member of MS-13. Abrego Garcia and his
family hired an attorney and fought the government's attempt
to deport him. He received ``withholding of removal'' six
months later, a protected status.
It is not a path to permanent U.S. residency, but it means
the government won't deport him back to his home country
because he's more likely than not to face harm there.
Abrego Garcia has had no contact with any law enforcement
agency since his release, according to his attorney. He works
full time as a union sheet metal apprentice, has complied
with requirements to check in annually with ICE, and cares
for his five-year-old son, who has autism and a hearing
defect, and is unable to communicate verbally.
On March 12, Abrego Garcia had picked up his son after work
from the boy's grandmother's house when ICE officers stopped
the car, saying his protected status had changed. Officers
waited for Abrego's wife to come to the scene and take care
of the boy, then drove him away in handcuffs. Within two
days, he had been transferred to an ICE staging facility in
Texas, along with other detainees the government was
preparing to send to El Salvador. Trump had invoked the Alien
Enemies Act of 1798, and the government planned to deport two
planeloads of Venezuelans along with a separate group of
Salvadorians.
Abrego's family has had no contact with him since he was
sent to the megaprison in El Salvador, known as the CECOT.
C-E-C-O-T.
His wife spotted her husband in news photographs released
by Salvadorian President . . . Bukele on the morning of March
16, after a U.S. District Judge had told the Trump
administration to halt the flights.
``Oopsie,'' Bukele wrote on social media, taunting the
judge.
Abrego Garcia's wife recognized her husband's decorative
arm tattoo and scars, according to the court filing. The
image showed Salvadoran guards in black ski masks frog-
marching him into the prison, with his head down--
Shoved down--
toward the floor. The CECOT is the same prison Department of
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem visited last week,
recording videos for social media while standing in front of
a cell packed with silent detainees.
If the government wants to deport someone with protective
status, the standard course would be to reopen the case and
introduce new evidence arguing for deportation. The
deportation of a protected status holder has even stunned
some government attorneys I've been in touch with who are
tracking the case, who declined to be named because they
weren't authorized to speak to the press. [One of those
people texted me: ``What'' period ``the'' period
``explicative'' period.]
Sandoval-Moshenberg told the court he believes Trump
officials deported his client through extrajudicial means
because they believed that going through the immigration
judge process took too long and feared that they might not
win all of their cases.
Officials at ICE and the Department of Homeland Security
did not respond to a request for comment. The Monday court
filing by the government indicates officials knew Abrego
Garcia had legal protections shielding him from deportation
to El Salvador.
``ICE was aware of this grant of withholding the removal at
the time [of] Abrego Garcia's removal from the United States.
Reference was made . . . on internal forms''. . . . Abrego
Garcia was not on the initial manifest of the deportation
flight, but was listed as ``an alternate,'' the government
attorneys explained. As other detainees were removed from the
flight for various reasons, Abrego Garcia ``moved up the
list.''
The flight manifest ``did not indicate that Abrego Garcia
should not be removed,'' the attorneys said. ``Through
administrative error, Abrego Garcia was removed from the
United States to El Salvador. This was an oversight,'' [the
government admitted.] But despite this, they told the court
that Abrego Garcia's deportation was carried out ``in good
faith.''
I am going to go into a section now, and I am going to read things by
conservative Justices and liberal Justices to some of the most
conservative Supreme Court Justices who say that this is outrageous in
this Nation.
There are parts of this Constitution that I am going to talk about
that talk about due process, that talk about fundamental American
ideals. But this is a story and a few others I have heard where
Americans who have the status to stay here, who have an American spouse
and American children who will be traumatized by this--in this case, a
disabled child whose working father is struggling to take care of one
of our children, an American child with an American mother--we were
told that the President said he was going to be focusing on criminals,
and these trumped-up charges, where they admit in court they made a
mistake but write such mocking things to judges like ``Oopsie'' on
social media, this cruelty--this is not who we are.
So let's talk about the Constitution first, the Fifth and the 14th
Amendments.
The Fifth and 14th Amendments say that no one should shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law.
The central promise of those words is an assurance that all levels of
the American Government must operate within the law and the bounds of
this Constitution. Everybody in this Chamber swears an oath to uphold
the Constitution.
But every single day, it just seems our President is challenging
constitutional principles. He is pushing past constitutional
boundaries. Every day, we are hearing new stories of immigrants--some
here illegally, some awaiting trial, most charged with no
[[Page S1993]]
crime--being rounded up, detained, arrested, deported, and often just
``disappeared.'' This is happening without charges, evidence, trials,
hearings--without, as the Constitution says, due process.
This is what other governments have done. We have talked about it. On
the Foreign Relations Committee, we complain about it to nations across
the Earth when they do not show due process, when they disappear
people. Maybe you are an immigrant who has never broken the law. Maybe
you are a citizen. Even if you think the administration's immigration
agenda doesn't apply to you, please know that the reckless behavior we
are seeing erodes all of our rights.
As for the American mother and the American child right now whose
husband was unjustly and illegally deported and is right now in an El
Salvadorian prison, think about that.
Denying due process is a slippery slope. We have seen it in other
countries. With democratic backsliding, it is a slippery slope. If
people can be detained and deported without a hearing, detained and
deported without due process, without seeing a judge, nothing will stop
them from slipping toward deporting others and making mistakes with an
American.
I am one of these people in this body who think our immigration
system is in desperate need of reform. It was last updated 40 years
ago, so 40 years ago was the last time we acted to update our
immigration laws. The failure to update our laws has resulted in our
country's inability to manage unprecedented levels of immigration--not
just affecting our country but affecting others. It is an unprecedented
influx of applications to enter the United States, which has put
pressure and strain on our immigration system and has slowed down the
processing times for millions of people trying to immigrate or
naturalize legally and made it more difficult to incentivize the
world's brightest minds to come here to contribute to our country's
long-term success.
For millions of Americans, immigration is not a political issue; it
is a personal one. There are immigrants around my State and in every
State who have waited year after year for Congress to find a bipartisan
agreement to improve our system in ways that most Americans agree on,
whether you are right or left. They have been waiting for people in
Congress to fix our outdated immigration laws, to secure our borders,
to dedicate the resources necessary for USCIS to fix the outrageously
long processing times for immigration and provide a pathway to legal
status for long-term American residents who have followed our laws and
have contributed to our society. Some of them know no other country
because they came here when they were just months old.
Our immigration laws are so outdated that even the conservative Cato
Institute published a comprehensive policy analysis in 2023, titled
``Why Legal Immigration is Nearly Impossible.'' In it, the Cato
Institute explains:
Today, fewer than 1 percent of the people who want to move
permanently to the United States can do so legally. Legal
immigration is less like waiting in line and more like
winning the lottery. It happens, but it is so rare that it is
irrational to expect it in any individual case.
The Cato Institute continues:
For some immigrants, this restrictive system sends them
into the black market of illegal immigration. For others, it
sends them to other countries, where they contribute to the
quality of life in their new homes. And for still others, it
requires them to remain in their homeland, often
underemployed and sometimes in danger. Whatever the outcome,
the system punishes both . . . prospective immigrants and
Americans who would associate, contract, and trade with them.
Congress and the administration can do better.
I have met with conservatives, I have met with business groups, and I
have met with agricultural leaders who all talk to commonsense things
we should be doing to improve our immigration system--to protect our
borders, yes, but to improve our economy, to improve our scientific
research, and to improve our quality of life.
The only way to fix our broken immigration system is for Congress to
fix it, to pass comprehensive immigration reform. But instead of a
leader--strong leaders who go before Congress taking on the most
complex issues but yet have the courage to stand before Congress and
pull them together to do hard things--instead of doing that, the last
time we made progress in this body, President Trump actively blocked
bipartisan legislation. Now he has imposed policies that aren't just
going after criminals; they are dragging in so many others.
When President Trump stopped Republicans from voting on the
bipartisan bill that was negotiated in the Senate last year, he stopped
us from making strides towards the larger fixes we need.
The administration's immigration plans are not helping American
citizens who are submitting applications so that their spouse or fiance
who is waiting in another country can finally join them in the United
States.
The administration right now is not helping American citizens who
have been waiting for years for a visa for their brother or their
sister or their mother or their father. Uniting families is an American
value.
Americans aren't getting any relief from these extraordinarily long
wait times. On the USCIS website, you can check the average processing
time for these cases, and most Americans would be shocked--maybe even
horrified--to learn just how long it will take for you as an American
citizen to bring a husband or a wife or even a child back to the United
States with you.
We checked this past weekend, and here are the numbers. For the I-129
fiance visa, the processing time for 80 percent of the cases is 8
months to 3 years. For an I-130 visa, if you are a U.S. citizen
petitioning for your spouse, parent, or minor child, then the wait time
is anywhere from 17 months to 64 months. That is an average from
anywhere from a year and a half to over 5 years. For an I-90, if your
green card is destroyed in a flood or a fire, 80 percent of people will
be waiting for almost a year and a half--17 months--to just get a new
copy.
These numbers are shocking, and they don't even take into account
long wait times for visa appointments at the U.S. consulate or
Embassies. In India, for example, the average wait time for an
appointment is well over 400 days.
American citizens, including thousands of my constituents in New
Jersey, are so angry. They are waiting far too long for their cases to
be prioritized and adjudicated.
But when Trump reallocates all the resources within our immigration
system to conducting the largest mass deportation of people in history,
American citizens are paying the price not just from USCIS processing
times; we pay the price because to do this, he is diverting actual law
enforcement resources away from solving crimes and stopping terrorism.
His actions are actually making us less safe. We pay the price because
these policies are eroding constitutional principles as well as making
us less safe by taking law enforcement away from their efforts.
This plan is about conditioning Americans to the suspension of due
process, first for immigrants. If we let due process erode for
immigrants, it erodes for Americans.
Let me outline a little bit about how this is happening and why this
is a crisis.
Two weeks ago, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act. The Alien Enemies
Act of 1798 allows the President to detain or deport the natives and
citizens of an enemy nation that we are at war with--the 1798 Act. The
President can detain or deport these immigrants without a hearing, with
no due process, even ones who are lawfully present in the United
States.
The Alien Enemies Act was last used during one of our country's
darkest moments--the internment of Japanese, German, and Italian
nationals during World War II--but even then, we still ensured that due
process was followed.
Prior to detention, people subjected to the Alien Enemies Act in the
1940s appeared before the alien enemy hearing board, where they could
at least present evidence that they had no ties to Axis powers.
As one circuit court judge recently said of Trump's use of the Alien
Enemies Act:
There's no regulations, and nothing was adopted by the
agency officials that were administering this. [The] people
weren't given notice. They weren't told where they were
going. They were given those people on those
[[Page S1994]]
planes on that Saturday and had no opportunity to file habeas
or any type of action to challenge the removal.
The standards of 1940 during World War II were higher than the
standards of this President.
The following are people who Trump has targeted and removed without
criminal charges, without a hearing, without evidence, to a prison rife
with human rights abuses in El Salvador. These are the people he has
sent there: a tattoo artist seeking asylum who entered the country
legally; an aspiring pop musician with a tattoo of a hummingbird; a 24-
year-old who used to teach swimming classes for children with
developmental disabilities and has a tattoo of an autism awareness
ribbon in honor of his brother; a Venezuelan who had fled violence in
Venezuela last year and came to the United States to seek asylum. His
lawyer wrote on social media:
ICE alleged that his tattoos are gang related. They are
absolutely not. Our client worked in the arts in Venezuela.
He is gay, LGBTQ. His tattoos are benign. He has no criminal
record.
Another Venezuelan removed to the El Salvador prison is a barber with
no criminal history. Another is a professional soccer player, has a
tattoo with a soccer ball and rosary closely resembling the logo of his
favorite soccer team.
This is stunning what we are doing. These people were swept up and
sent to another prison known for its human rights abuses because they
were Venezuelan and had tattoos, benign tattoos.
An article was published in one periodical about the anguish from
families. Here are a few excerpts from the article:
`` `You're here because of your tattoos.' The Trump
administration sent Venezuelans to El Salvador's infamous
prison. Their families are looking for answers.''
On Friday, March 14, Arturo Suarez Trejo called his wife,
Nathali Sanchez, from an immigration detention center in
Texas. Suarez, a 33-year-old [male] native of Caracas,
Venezuela, explained that his deportation flight had been
delayed. He told his wife he [still] would be home soon.
Suarez did not . . . go back to Venezuela. Still, there was
at least a silver lining: In December, Sanchez had given
birth to their daughter, Nahiara. Suarez would finally have a
chance to meet [their] three-month-old baby girl he had
[never] . . . ever seen.
But, Sanchez told [the outlet] she [had] not heard from
Suarez since. Instead, last weekend, she found herself
zooming in on a photo the government of El Salvador published
of Venezuelan men the Trump administration had sent to
President Nayib Bukele's infamous Terrorism Confinement
Center, or CECOT. ``I realized that one of them was my
husband,'' she said. ``I recognized him by [his] tattoo . . .
by his ear, and [a scar on] his chin. Even though I couldn't
see his face, I knew it was him.'' The photo Sanchez examined
. . . a highly produced propaganda video promoted by
Secretary of State . . . and the White House--showed
Venezuelans shackled in prison uniforms as they were pushed
around by guards and had their heads shaved.
The tattoo on Suarez's neck is of a colibri, a hummingbird.
His wife said it is meant to symbolize ``harmony and good
energy.'' She said his other tattoos, like a palm tree on his
hand--an homage to Suarez's late mother's use of a Venezuelan
expression about God being greater than a coconut tree--were
similarly innocuous. [Needless to say], they may be why
Suarez has been effectively disappeared by the US government
into a Salvadoran mega-prison.
We must keep our country safe from violent criminals, people with
long criminal records who are not citizens. I think every American
would agree they should be deported. Immigrants to this country,
surprisingly, have a much lower rate of breaking laws. But if they
break laws, I agree.
Maybe you are an immigrant who has never broken a law. Maybe you are
a naturalized citizen. Maybe you were born here. The problem with this
idea of disappearing people with no due process is that once that
foundation is laid, if they are able to defend that lack of due
process, to use that law from the 1700s, we begin a process in this
country that even conservative Justices of the Supreme Court said is
unjustifiable.
Denying people due process pushes us down a road where more
exceptions can be made. You cannot deny fundamental rights to another
and not endanger them for yourself.
We have created a system now, if Trump is successful, where you can
just say, you can just claim, you can just point to someone and say
they are from X country or claim that they are part of a gang, and
without any due process, without any vetting, without going before any
independent arbitrator, you are disappeared because there is just no
way to challenge them. No due process for noncitizens means that we are
a country in violation of those ideals I talked about from here that
say at the beginning of this country, very simply, no one shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or the pursuit of property--no one--without
due process of law. As soon as we break that, as soon as we violate
that, we are going down a road.
Antonin Scalia--I confess, I have disagreed with him on so many
things, but this conservative Justice once sat in an interview with
Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They had a relationship that I think was special,
and it shows that even people who have distinctly different views can
still make real human connection in our country. They were asked by an
interviewer whether undocumented people have the five freedoms--freedom
of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of
assembly, and freedom to petition the government--and here is what the
conservative Justice Scalia said:
Oh, I think so. I think anybody who is present in the
United States has protections under the United States
Constitution. Americans abroad have that protection. Other
people abroad do not. They don't have the protections of our
Constitution, but anyone who is present in the United States
has the protections of the United States Constitution.
Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative members of the highest
Court in our land.
And, of course, Ginsburg--his ideological opposite--she concurred
when she said:
When we get to the 14th Amendment, it doesn't speak of
citizens as some constitutions grant rights to citizens, but
our Constitution says ``persons'' and that the person is
every person who is here in our country, documented or
undocumented.
Our Constitution is clear on the face. If you are an originalist like
Antonin Scalia, and you read the Constitution's words, you have to
stand for the idea that no one should be denied due process; that the
government can't walk up to a human being and grab them off the street
and put them on a plane and send them to one of the most notorious
prisons in the world and just say, as one of our authorities did,
``Oopsie.''
Think about that. And that happened to a father of an American child.
Think about that. It happened to a husband of an American woman. Think
about that. That happened to a man who a judge already said he had the
right to stay.
When the rights of some are violated, it is a threat to the rights of
all of us.
In January, ICE agents in New Jersey raided a small business without
a warrant and detained a Puerto Rican military veteran, a Boricua, an
American citizen--detained him even after he presented his valid ID to
those ICE agents. This is one example of so many.
Some Americans Have Already Been Caught in Trump's
Immigration Dragnet. More Will Be.
An article by Nicole Foy.
About a week after President Donald Trump took office,
Jonathan Guerrero was sitting at the Philadelphia car wash
where he works when immigration agents burst in.
The agents didn't say why they were there and didn't show
their badges, Guerrero recalled. So the 21-year-old didn't
get a chance to explain that although his parents were from
Mexico, he had been born right there in--
The ``City of Brotherly Love.''
An agent pointed his gun at Guerrero and handcuffed him.
Then they brought in other car wash workers, including
Guerrero's father, who is undocumented. When agents began
checking IDs, they finally noticed that Guerrero was a
citizen and quickly let him go.
``I said, `Look, man, I don't know who these guys are and
what they're doing,'' said Guerrero. ``With anything law-
related, I just stay quiet.''
Less than two months into the new Trump administration,
there has been a small but steady beat of--
More and more--
reported cases like Guerrero's.
In Utah, agents pulled over and detained a 20-year-old
American after he honked at them. In New Mexico, a member of
the Mescalero Apache nation more than two hours from the
border was questioned by agents who demanded to see their
passport. Earlier this month, a Trump voter in Virginia was
pulled over and handcuffed by gun-wielding immigration
agents.
It's unclear exactly how many citizens have faced the Trump
administration's dragnet so far. And while previous
administrations have mistakenly held Americans too,
[[Page S1995]]
there's no firm count of those incidents either.
The government does not release figures on citizens who
have been held by immigration authorities. Neither Customs
and Border Protection nor Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, which handles interior immigration enforcement.
Experts and advocates say that what is clear to them is
that Trump's aggressive immigration policies--such as arrest
quotas for enforcement agents--make it likely that more
citizens will get caught up in immigration sweeps.
``It's really everyone--not just noncitizens or
undocumented people--who are in danger of having their
liberty violated in this kind of mass deportation
machinery.''
Asked about reports of Americans getting caught up in
administration's enforcement policies, an ICE spokesperson
told--
The outlet--
in a written statement that agents are allowed to ask for
citizens' identification: ``Any US immigration officer has
authority to question, without warrant, any alien or person
believed to be an alien concerning his or her right to be, or
to remain, in the United States.'' The agency did not respond
to questions about specific cases.
The U.S. has gone through spasms of detaining and even
deporting large numbers of citizens. In the 1930s and 1940s,
federal and local authorities forcibly exiled an estimated 1
million Mexican Americans, including hundreds of thousands of
American-born children.
That is our past: An estimated 1 million Mexican Americans, including
hundreds of thousands of American-born children, swept up and deported.
[A] U.S. Government Accountability Office report found that
immigration authorities asked to hold roughly 600 likely
citizens during Trump's first term. The GAO also found that
Trump actually deported about 70 likely citizens.
The GAO report did not get into any individual cases. But
lawsuits brought against federal immigration agencies detail
dozens of cases where plaintiffs received a settlement.
This will accelerate if there is no due process. In its first
administration, there was some process, but this will accelerate if
there is no due process.
I live in Newark, NJ, and there are dozens of languages spoken in my
city. And some of the elders from some of these many different ethnic
groups--from European folks who don't speak English to folks from Asia
that don't speak English--imagine one of these Americans gets stopped
and doesn't have papers on them, and they see a tattoo and, next thing
you know, they are sent to Louisiana or Texas. The next thing you know,
they are on a flight.
That is not hyperbole. That is not some impossible thing. We know,
once due process is eliminated in this country for some, all are in
danger. It is a constitutional slippage that Scalia and conservatives
who believe in the Constitution nobly object to.
Canadian citizen Jasmine Mooney was detained by ICE for 2 weeks. I
saw an interview of her, this White woman, stunned. Here is what she
wrote, this Canadian:
There was no explanation, no warning. One minute, I was in
an immigration office talking to an officer about my work
visa, which had been approved months before and allowed me, a
Canadian, to work in the US. The next, I was told to put my
hands against the wall, and patted down like a criminal
before being sent to an ICE detention center without the
chance to talk to a lawyer.
I grew up in Whitehorse, Yukon, a small town in the
northernmost part of Canada. I always knew I wanted to do
something bigger with my life. I left home early and moved to
Vancouver, British Columbia, where I built a career spanning
multiple industries--acting in film and television, owning
bars and restaurants, flipping condos and managing Airbnbs.
In my 30s, I found my true passion working in the health
and wellness industry. I was given the opportunity to help
launch an American brand of health tonics called Holy!
Water--a job that would involve moving to the US.
I was granted my trade . . . work visa, which allows
Canadian and Mexican citizens to work in the US in specific
professional occupations, on my second attempt. It goes
without saying, then, that I have no criminal record. I also
love the US and consider myself to be a kind, hard-working
person.
I started working in California and travelled back and
forth between Canada and the US multiple times without any
complications--until one day, upon returning to the US, a
border officer questioned me about my initial visa denial and
subsequent visa approval. He asked why I had gone to the San
Diego border the second time to apply. I explained that that
was where my lawyer's offices were, and that he had wanted to
accompany me to ensure there were no issues.
After a long interrogation, the officer told me it seemed
``shady'' and that my visa hadn't been properly processed. He
claimed I also couldn't work for a company in the US that
made use of hemp--one of the beverage ingredients. He revoked
my visa, and told me I could still work for the company from
Canada, but if I wanted to return to the US, I would need to
reapply.
I was devastated; I had just started building a life in
California. I stayed in Canada for the next few months, and
was eventually offered a similar position with a different
health and wellness brand.
I restarted the visa process and returned to the same
immigration office at the San Diego border, since they had
processed my visa before and I was familiar with it. Hours
passed, with many confused opinions about my case. The
officer I spoke to was kind but told me that, due to my
previous issues, I needed to apply for my visa through the
consulate. I told her I hadn't been aware I needed to apply
that way, but had no problem doing it.
Then she said something strange: ``You didn't do anything
wrong. You are not in trouble, you are not a criminal.''
I remember thinking: Why would she say that? Of course I'm
not a criminal!
She then told me they had to send me back to Canada. That
didn't concern me; I assumed I would simply book a flight
home. But as I sat searching for flights, a man approached
me.
``Come with me,'' he said.
There was no explanation, no warning. He led me to a room,
took my belongings from my hands and ordered me to put my
hands against the wall. A woman immediately began patting me
down. The commands came rapid-fire, one after another, too
fast to process.
They took my shoes and pulled out my shoelaces.
``What are you doing? What is happening?'' I asked.
``You are being detained.''
``I don't understand. What does that mean? For how long?''
``I don't know.''
That would be the response to nearly every question I would
ask over the next two weeks: ``I don't know.''
They brought me downstairs for a series of interviews and
medical questions, searched my bags and told me I had to get
rid of half my belongings because I couldn't take everything
with me.
``Take everything with me where?'' I asked.
A woman asked me for the name of someone they could contact
on my behalf. In moments like this, you realize you don't
actually know anyone's phone number anymore. By some miracle,
I had recently memorized my best friend Britt's number
because I had been putting my grocery points on her account.
I gave them her phone number.
They handed me a mat and a folded-up sheet of aluminum
foil.
``What is this?''
``Your blanket.''
``I don't understand.''
I was taken to a tiny, freezing cement cell with bright
fluorescent lights and a toilet. There were five other women
lying on their mats with the aluminum sheets wrapped over
them, looking like dead bodies. The guard locked the door
behind me.
For two days, we remained in that cell, only leaving
briefly for food. The lights never turned off, we never knew
what time it was and no one answered our questions. No one in
the cell spoke English, so I either tried to sleep or
meditate to keep from having a breakdown. I didn't trust the
food, so I fasted, assuming I wouldn't be there long.
On the third day, I was finally allowed to make a phone
call. I called Britt and told her that I didn't understand
what was happening, that no one would tell me when I was
going home, and that she was my only contact.
They gave me a stack of paperwork to sign and told me I was
being given a five-year ban unless I applied for re-entry
through the consulate. The officer also said it didn't matter
whether I signed the papers or not; it was happening
regardless.
I was so delirious that I just signed. I told them I would
pay for my flight home and asked when I could leave.
No answer.
Then they moved me to another cell--this time with no mat
or blanket. I sat on the freezing cement floor for hours.
That's when I realized they were processing me into real
jail: The Otay Mesa Detention Center.
I was told to shower, given a jail uniform, fingerprinted
and interviewed. I begged for information.
``How long will I be here?''
``I don't know your case,'' the man said. ``Could be days.
Could be weeks. But I'm telling you right now--you need to
mentally prepare yourself for months.''
Months.
I felt like I was going to throw up.
I was taken to the nurse's office for a medical check. She
asked what had happened to me. She had never seen a Canadian
there before. When I told her my story, she grabbed my hand
and said: ``Do you believe in God?''
I told her I had only recently found God, but that I now
believed in God more than anything.
``I believe God brought you here for a reason,'' she said.
``I know it feels like your life is in a million pieces, but
you will be OK. Through this, I think you are going to find a
way to help others.''
At the time, I didn't know what that meant. She asked if
she could pray for me. I held her hands and wept.
[[Page S1996]]
I felt like I had been sent an angel.
I was then placed in a real jail unit: Two levels of cells
surrounding a common area, just like in the movies. I was put
in a tiny cell alone with a bunk bed and a toilet.
The best part: There were blankets. After three days
without one, I wrapped myself in mine and finally felt some
comfort.
For the first day, I didn't leave my cell. I continued
fasting, terrified that the food might make me sick. The only
available water came from the tap attached to the toilet in
our cells or a sink in the common area, neither of which felt
safe to drink.
Eventually, I forced myself to step out, meet the guards
and learn the rules. One of them told me: ``No fighting.''
``I'm a lover, not a fighter,'' I joked. He laughed.
I asked if there had ever been a fight here.
``In this unit? No,'' he said. ``No one in this unit has a
criminal record.''
That's when I started meeting the other women.
That's when I started hearing their stories.
And that's when I made a decision: I would never allow
myself to feel sorry for my situation again. No matter how
hard this was, I had to be grateful. Because every woman I
met was in an even more difficult position than mine.
There were around 140 of us in our unit. Many women had
lived and worked in the US legally for years but had
overstayed their visas--often after reapplying and being
denied. They had all been detained without warning.
If someone is a criminal, I agree they should be taken off
the streets. But not one of these women had a criminal
record. These women acknowledged that they shouldn't have
overstayed and took responsibility for their actions. But
their frustration wasn't about being held accountable; it was
about the endless, bureaucratic limbo they had been trapped
in.
The real issue was how long it took to get out of the
system, with no clear answers, no timeline, and no way to
move forward. Once deported, many have no choice but to
abandon everything they own because the cost of shipping
their belongings back is too high.
I met a woman who had been on a road trip with her husband.
She said they had 10-year work visas. While driving near the
San Diego border, they mistakenly got into a lane leading to
Mexico. They stopped and told the agent they didn't have
their passports on them, expecting to be redirected. Instead,
they were detained. They are both pastors.
I met a family of three who had been living in the US for
11 years with work authorizations. They paid taxes and were
waiting for their green cards. Every year, the mother had to
undergo a background check, but this time, she was told to
bring her whole family. When they arrived, they were taken
into custody and told their status would now be processed
from within the detention center.
Another woman from Canada had been living in the US with
her husband who was detained after a traffic stop. She
admitted she had overstayed her visa and accepted that she
would be deported. But she had been stuck in the system for
almost six weeks because she hadn't had her passport. Who
runs casual errands with their passport?
One woman had a 10-year visa. When it expired, she moved
back to her home country, Venezuela. She admitted she had
overstayed by one month before leaving. Later, she returned
for a vacation and entered the US without issue. But when she
took a domestic flight from Miami to Los Angeles, she was
picked up by ICE and detained. She couldn't be deported
because Venezuela wasn't accepting deportees. She didn't know
when she was getting out.
There was a girl from India who had overstayed her student
visa for three days before heading back home. She then came
back to the US on a new, valid visa to finish her master's
degree and was handed over to ICE due to the three days she
had overstayed on her previous visa.
There were women who had been picked up off the street,
from outside their workplaces, from their homes. All of these
women told me that they had been detained for time spans
ranging from a few weeks to 10 months. One woman's daughter
was outside the detention center protesting for her release.
That night, the pastor invited me to a service she was
holding. A girl who spoke English translated for me as the
women took turns sharing their prayers--prayers for their
sick parents, for the children they hadn't seen in weeks, for
the loved ones they had been torn away from.
Then, unexpectedly, they asked if they could pray for me. I
was new here, and they wanted to welcome me. They formed a
circle around me, took my hands and prayed. I had never felt
so much love, energy and compassion from a group of strangers
in my life. Everyone was crying.
At 3am the next day, I was woken up in my cell.
``Pack your bag. You're leaving.''
I jolted upright. ``I get to go home?''
The officer shrugged. ``I don't know where you're going.''
Of course. No one ever knew anything.
I grabbed my things and went downstairs, where 10 other
women stood in silence, tears streaming down their faces. But
these weren't happy tears. That was the moment I learned the
term ``transferred''.
For many of these women, detention centers had become a
twisted version of home. They had formed bonds, established
routines and found slivers of comfort in the friendships they
had built. Now, without warning, they were being torn apart
and sent somewhere new. Watching them say goodbye, clinging
to each other, was gut-wrenching.
I had no idea what was waiting for me next. In hindsight,
that was probably for the best.
Our next stop was Arizona, the San Luis Regional Detention
Center. The transfer process lasted 24 hours, a sleepless,
grueling ordeal. This time, men were transported with us.
Roughly 50 of us were crammed into a prison bus for the next
five hours, packed together--women in the front, men in the
back. We were bound in chains that wrapped tightly around our
waists, with our cuffed hands secured to our bodies and
shackles restraining our feet, forcing every movement into a
slow, clinking struggle.
When we arrived at our next destination, we were forced to
go through the entire intake process all over again, with
medical exams, fingerprinting--and pregnancy tests; they
lined us up in a filthy cell, squatting over a communal
toilet, holding Dixie cups of urine while the nurse dropped
pregnancy tests in each of our cups. It was disgusting.
We sat in freezing-cold jail cells for hours, waiting for
everyone to be processed. Across the room, one of the women
suddenly spotted her husband. They had both been detained and
were now seeing each other for the first time in weeks.
The look on her face--pure love, relief and longing--was
something I'll never forget.
We were beyond exhausted. I felt like I was hallucinating.
The guard tossed us each a blanket: ``Find a bed.''
There were no pillows. The room was ice cold, and one
blanket wasn't enough. Around me, women lay curled into
themselves, heads covered, looking like a room full of
corpses. This place made the last jail feel like the Four
Seasons.
I kept telling myself: Do not let this break you.
Thirty of us shared one room. We were given one Styrofoam
cup for water and one plastic spoon that we had to reuse for
every meal. I eventually had to start trying to eat and, sure
enough, I got sick. None of the uniforms fit, and everyone
had men's shoes on. The towels they gave us to shower were
hand towels. They wouldn't give us more blankets. The
fluorescent lights shined on us 24/7.
Everything felt like it was meant to break you. Nothing was
explained to us. I wasn't given a phone call. We were locked
in a room, no daylight, with no idea when we would get out.
I tried to stay calm as every fiber of my being raged
towards panic mode. I didn't know how I would tell Britt
where I was. Then, as if sent from God, one of the women
showed me a tablet attached to the wall where I could send
emails. I only remembered my CEO's email from memory. I typed
out a message, praying he would see it.
He responded.
Through him, I was able to connect with Britt. She told me
that they were working around the clock trying to get me out.
But no one had any answers; the system made it next to
impossible. I told her about the conditions in this new
place, and that was when we decided to go to the media.
She started working with a reporter and asked whether I
would be able to call her so she could loop him in. The
international phone account that Britt had previously
tried to set up for me wasn't working, so one of the other
women offered to let me use her phone account to make the
call.
We were all in this together.
With nothing to do in my cell but talk, I made new
friends--women who had risked everything for the chance at a
better life for themselves and their families.
Through them, I learned the harsh reality of seeking
asylum. Showing me their physical scars, they explained how
they had paid smugglers anywhere from $20,000 to $60,000 to
reach the US border, enduring brutal jungles and horrendous
conditions.
One woman had been offered asylum in Mexico within two
weeks but had been encouraged to keep going to the US. Now,
she was stuck, living in a nightmare, separated from her
young children for months. She sobbed, telling me how she
felt like the worst mother in the world.
Many of these women were highly educated and spoke multiple
languages. Yet, they had been advised to pretend they didn't
speak English because it would supposedly increase their
chances of asylum.
Some believed they were being used as examples, as warnings
to others not to try to come.
Women were starting to panic in this new facility, and
knowing I was most likely the first person to get out, they
wrote letters and messages for me to send to their families.
It felt like we had all been kidnapped, thrown into some
sort of sick psychological experiment meant to strip us of
every ounce of strength and dignity.
We were from different countries, spoke different languages
and practiced different religions. Yet, in this place, none
of that mattered. Everyone took care of each other. Everyone
shared food. Everyone held each other when someone broke
down. Everyone fought to keep each other's hope alive.
I got a message from Britt. My story had started to blow up
in the media.
Almost immediately after, I was told I was being released.
My ICE agent, who had never spoken to me, told my lawyer I
could have left sooner
[[Page S1997]]
if I had signed a withdrawal form, and that they hadn't known
I would pay for my own flight home.
From the moment I arrived, I begged every officer I saw to
let me pay for my own ticket home. Not a single one of them
ever spoke to me about my case.
To put things into perspective: I had a Canadian passport,
lawyers, resources, media attention, friends, family and even
politicians advocating for me. Yet, I was still detained for
nearly two weeks.
Imagine what this system is like for every other person in
there.
A small group of us were transferred back to San Diego at 2
am--one last road trip, once again shackled in chains. I was
then taken to the airport, where two officers were waiting
for me. The media was there, so the officers snuck me in
through a side door, trying to avoid anyone seeing me in
restraints. I was beyond grateful that, at the very least, I
didn't have to walk through the airport in chains.
To my surprise, the officers escorting me were incredibly
kind, and even funny. It was the first time I had laughed in
weeks.
I asked if I could put my shoelaces back on.
``Yes,'' one of them said with a grin. ``But you better not
run.''
``Yeah,'' the other added. ``Or we'll have to tackle you in
the airport. That'll really make the headlines.''
I laughed, then told them I had spent a lot of time
observing the guards during my detention and I couldn't
believe how often I saw humans treating other humans with
such disregard. ``But don't worry,'' I joked. ``You two get
five stars.''
When I finally landed in Canada, my mom and two best
friends were waiting for me. So was the media. I spoke to
them briefly, numb and delusional from exhaustion.
It was surreal listening to my friends recount everything
they had done to get me out: Working with lawyers, reaching
out to the media, making endless calls to detention centers,
desperately trying to get through to ICE or anyone who could
help. They said the entire system felt rigged, designed to
make it nearly impossible for anyone to get out.
The reality became clear: ICE detention isn't just a
bureaucratic nightmare. It's a business. These facilities are
privately owned and run for profit.
Companies like CoreCivic and GEO Group receive government
funding based on the number of people they detain, which is
why they lobby for stricter immigration policies. It's a
lucrative business: CoreCivic made over $560m from ICE
contracts in a single year. In 2024, GEO Group made more than
$763m from ICE contracts.
The more detainees, the more money they make. It stands to
reason that these companies have no incentive to release
people quickly. What I had experienced was finally starting
to make sense.
This is not just my story. It is the story of thousands and
thousands of people still trapped in a system that profits
from their suffering. I am writing in the hope that someone
out there--someone with the power to change any of this--can
help do something.
The strength I witnessed in those women, the love they gave
despite their suffering, is what gives me faith. Faith that
no matter how flawed the system, how cruel the circumstances,
humanity will always shine through.
Even in the darkest places, within the most broken systems,
humanity persists. Sometimes, it reveals itself in the
smallest, most unexpected acts of kindness: A shared meal, a
whispered prayer, a hand reaching out in the dark. We are
defined by the love we extend, the courage we summon and the
truths we are willing to tell.
That is the end of the article.
The stories continue. A 10-year-old citizen in Texas recovering from
brain cancer was detained at a Border Patrol checkpoint and,
eventually, the American citizen was deported to Mexico with her
undocumented parents, even though they were in need of medical
attention for their brain cancer.
Here is the article from NBC: ``U.S. citizen child recovering from
brain cancer removed to Mexico with undocumented parents.''
A family that was deported to Mexico hopes it can find a
way to return to the U.S. and ensure their 10-year-old
daughter--
My fellow American--
who is a U.S. citizen, can continue her brain cancer
treatment.
Immigration authorities removed the girl and four of her
American siblings from Texas on Feb. 4, when they deported
their undocumented parents.
The family's ordeal began last month, when they were
rushing from Rio Grande City, where they lived, to Houston,
where their daughter's specialist doctors are based, for an
emergency medical checkup.
The parents had done the trip at least five other times in
the past, passing through an immigration checkpoint every
time without any issues, according to attorney Danny Woodward
from the Texas Civil Rights Project, a legal advocacy and
litigation organization representing the family. In previous
occasions, the parents showed letters from their doctors and
lawyers to the officers at the checkpoint to get through.
But in early February, the letters weren't enough. When
they stopped at the checkpoint, they were arrested after the
parents were unable to show legal immigration documentation.
The mother, who spoke exclusively to NBC News, said she tried
explaining her daughter's circumstances to the officers, but
``they weren't interested in hearing that.''
Other than lacking ``valid immigration status in the
U.S.,'' the parents have ``no criminal history,'' Woodward
said.
Protection, which detained and deported the family,
according to the lawyer, said in an e-mail Wednesday:
For privacy reasons, we do not comment on individual cases.
On Thursday, a CBP spokesperson said via email that the
reports of the family's situation are inaccurate because
``when someone is given expedited removal orders and chooses
to disregard them, they will face the consequences'' of the
process.
They reiterated that they couldn't speak about the
specifics of the case for privacy reasons.
The 10-year-old girl was diagnosed with brain cancer last
year and underwent surgery to remove the tumor. Doctors
``practically gave me no hope of life for her, but thank God
she's a miracle,'' the mother said.
The American citizen is a miracle.
The swelling on the girl's brain is still not fully gone,
the mother said, causing difficulties with speech and
mobility of the right side of her body. Before the family was
removed from the U.S., the girl was routinely checking in
with doctors monitoring her recovery, attending
rehabilitation therapies and taking medication to prevent
convulsions.
``It's a very difficult thing,'' the mother said. ``I don't wish
anyone to go through this situation.''
``What is happening to this family is an absolute tragedy and is
something that is not isolated to just them,'' said Rochelle Garza,
president of the Texas Civil Rights Project.
``This is part of a pattern in practice that we've seen in the Trump
administration,'' Garza said, adding that she has heard of multiple
other cases concerning mixed-status families. But for now, this is the
only case of this nature the organization has taken on.
The Trump administration's border czar Tom Homan has said,
``families can be deported together,'' regardless of status.
Homan said it would be up to the parents to decide whether to
depart the U.S. together or leave their children behind.
But undocumented parents of U.S.-born children, if picked
up by immigration authorities, face the risk of losing
custody of their children. Without a power-of-attorney
document or a guardianship outlining who will take care of
their children left behind, the children go into the U.S.
foster care system, making it harder for the parents to
regain custody in the future.
According to the girl's mother, she recalled feeling like
she could ``not do anything,'' she said in Spanish, ``You're
between a rock and a hard place.''
NBC News is withholding the name of the mother and the rest
of the family members, since they were deported to an area in
Mexico that is known for kidnapping U.S. citizens.
In addition to the parents and their 10-year-old sick
daughter, four of their other American children, ages 15, 13,
8, and 6, were also in the car when they were detained. Four
of the five children were born in the U.S.
According to the mother, the family was taken to a
detention center following the arrest, where the mom and
daughters were separated from her husband and sons and she
realized she wouldn't be taking her daughter to her doctors.
``The fear is horrible. I can't explain it, but it's
something frustrating, very tough, something you wouldn't
wish on anyone,'' she said, adding that her sick daughter was
laying on a cold floor beneath incandescent lights.
Hours later, the family was placed in a van and dropped on
the Mexico side of a Texas bridge. From there, they sought
refuge in a nearby shelter for a week.
Mom said that safety concerns keep them up at night and the
children haven't been able to go to school.
The 10-year-old daughter and 15-year-old son, who lives
with a heart disorder known as Long QT syndrome, which causes
irregular heartbeats and can be life-threatening if not
treated well, have not received the healthcare they need in
Mexico. The teen wears a monitor that tracks his heart rate.
``The authorities have my children's lives in their
hands,'' she said in tears.
The authorities have my children's lives in their hands.
Both parents arrived to the U.S. from Mexico in 2013 and
settled in Texas hoping for ``a better life for their
family,'' the mother said. She and her husband both worked a
string of different jobs to support their six children. The
couple also has a 17-year-old son they left behind in Texas
following their deportation.
Just two weeks ago, another undocumented mother in
California caring for her 21-year-old daughter, a U.S.
citizen undergoing treatment for bone cancer, was detained by
immigration authorities and later released under humanitarian
parole.
[[Page S1998]]
``We are calling on the government,'' Garza said, ``to
parole the family in, to correct the harm . . . and to not do
this to anyone else.''
Mr. MURPHY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BOOKER. I think I need to. I will yield to a question. I will
yield to a question while retaining the floor. And I thank my brother,
I thank my friend who has now stood with me for almost 11 hours.
Mr. MURPHY. Those are hard stories to read, Senator Booker, but I
appreciate your showing the coldness of this current administration's
immigration policy.
The tragedy to me is that there is an opportunity to fix what is,
undoubtedly, a broken immigration system, and yet we are into day 71
and Donald Trump has not proposed to us any proposals to fix the broken
system. Instead what he is doing is spending like a drunken sailor on
an enforcement system that wastes tens of millions of taxpayer dollars.
You described this harrowing experience that this Canadian woman had,
and as I was listening to this 2-week ordeal that she went through,
being transported from site to site, being processed and reprocessed,
as the top Democrat on the Homeland Security Subcommittee of
Appropriations, I am just cataloging in my brain how much money that
cost us. Ultimately, this was somebody working in the United States,
this was somebody that posed no threat to the U.S. citizens, but we
probably spent several million dollars on that 2-week ordeal.
Overall, the Trump administration is going to blow through all of the
money allocated to Border Patrol. They are going to have to come back
to Congress for a massive additional appropriation, all at the same
time that they are shuttering medical research in this country; they
are closing down Social Security offices. There are measles outbreaks
all across the country. Planes seem to be falling out of the sky as the
FAA is enduring layoffs. There are consequences to these spending
decisions.
The amount of money that is being spent at the border, much of it
wasted in a showy, ineffective response, the consequence of that is
that the services that the average, everyday Americans need, like help
on their Social Security claims, are being impacted.
But we need to fix the broken immigration system, and we had an
opportunity to do that last year when Republicans and Democrats came
together and wrote a bipartisan border security bill that, frankly,
would have allocated tens of billions of additional dollars that would
have fixed our broken asylum system, would have given the President new
authorities, and Donald Trump instructed all the Republicans in this
Chamber to oppose it.
In the end, I think four Senators, including the author, Senator
Lankford, supported it, but every other Republican here opposed it. And
the reason Donald Trump told them to oppose it was that he would fix it
when he became President. But we are now in day 72, and there has not
been a single proposal from Donald Trump to fix the broken immigration
system, just a whole bunch of spending, essentially money down the
drain because the system itself needs to be reformed.
And so it speaks to my confident belief that Donald Trump does not
want to fix our immigration system. He wants to keep this issue open as
a sore in our politics. If I were wrong, he would have proposed
legislation here to deal with the underlying inefficiency of the
system, instead of just throwing money at the problem.
And so we will see what the result of this campaign is. We were told
that immigrants to this country represented a very specific national
security threat; that we needed to crack down on immigration, including
expelling from this country legitimate asylum seekers because that was
what was necessary to protect the Nation. Well, we will see what the
crime data tells us for the first few months of this administration.
I have a feeling I already know what the story is; crime is not going
to have gone down. Why? Because, in fact, whether people want to
acknowledge this or not, natural-born American citizens commit crimes
at rates higher than first-generation immigrants or people born outside
of the United States of America.
But Senator Booker, I guess the question I want to ask you is this: I
think you and I agree that Americans right, left, and center
acknowledge that the immigration system is broken. They didn't love it
when they saw thousands of people crossing on an average day. And they
know that when it takes 10 years to process an asylum claim, something
is wrong, and that it then just provides incentive for people to come
here without documentation. But my impression is that the cross section
of Americans that believes that the existing immigration system is
broken also believes three other things: One, that the way to fix it is
to change the laws, and they believe that we have not done our job
until we have changed the laws; for instance, building a better asylum
system. And once again, not a single proposal from the Trump
administration on how to fix our broken immigration system, not a
single proposal.
Second, I believe that they understand that immigration is a core
strength of this Nation, not a liability, and that if we want to thrive
as an economy, we are going to have to bring people to this country
legally. But to turn our backs on immigration as a mechanism to grow
economically, that is not in line with what Americans believe, even
those that think the existing system is broken.
And then, lastly, I just don't believe this country is as mean as
Donald Trump thinks it is.
Mr. BOOKER. Yes. Yes, yes.
Mr. MURPHY. I get it that everybody wants this Nation to be a nation
of laws, but when an American citizen looks at a child with a medical
condition, when an American citizen looks at an individual who will
face certain death from a drug gang if they stay in their home country,
when they look at individuals in war-torn nations overseas, they
believe that America is strong enough, is big enough, is generous
enough to be able to protect those people from harm. Why? Because that
is what America always has been.
And so this idea that President Trump has that Americans are mean and
spiteful and don't want to help people just because they were born
outside of the United States or their parents were born outside of the
United States, I just don't think that is right. It obviously betrays
the best traditions of this Nation, but I think it also fundamentally
misreads the American people.
So I think people want our immigration to be fixed, the system to be
fixed, but I think they want us to do it. They understand the laws are
broken. They do not want to abandon America's tradition of bringing
people here from all around the world.
They understand that our economy and our economic prosperity is
linked to our ability to bring hard-working immigrants to this country,
and they are just not as mean as Donald Trump thinks they are.
Mr. BOOKER. Senator, I appreciate your question, but I just have to
say this to you. You worked so hard with Senator Lankford, and one of
the things I have to say--and I hope I don't hurt his politics by
telling people how much I love Senator Lankford. We disagree
fundamentally on a lot of issues, maybe that will help. We both are
people, though, of faith. We just recently worked together in a
massive--I think there must have been like a thousand people there,
maybe 500 at least, at a National Prayer Breakfast event. He is such a
man of character. What I like about him, I know his values because
every day, he tries to be a good Christian.
(Mrs. MOODY assumed the Chair.)
And this idea of love thy neighbor or you are a stranger in a strange
land--I just took a lot of pleasure watching you, my friend, whom I
have known for the last 12 years, and sitting down in this honest,
sincere negotiation.
Let's be real. Everybody on your side of the aisle didn't agree with
you, and everybody, before Trump's involvement, on his side of the
aisle didn't agree, but you guys had the makings of a comprehensive
bill that would have passed.
I tell you also I came in here in 2013 right after the Gang of 8.
They did the same thing. They got the bill out, and it died in the
House.
There are people in America, despite Lankford and you--who many
people would put on opposite sides of the political spectrum--on these
issues, they
[[Page S1999]]
agree. Why do they agree, Senator Murphy? Because our economy is
dependent upon immigration.
You want to talk about a conservative-leaning group, Senate moderate
Republicans, the national chamber of commerce will tell you that our
economy will be crippled if we don't find a way to bring more people in
legally to work on work visas.
When I go to the tech community or the biotech community or the AI
community or the community that is trying to go forward in quantum
computing, all of them are saying this is crazy that we are not
allowing the brightest minds on the planet--when they get here and get
Ph.D.s and have things half of Congress can't spell, that we drop kick
them out of the country.
There are so many points of agreement. Take Dreamers, who people on
both sides of the aisle held up as a group of people that are Americans
in every way except for a piece of paper.
I could go through everything in the immigration world we need to
improve on, including the need to secure our southern border. I
listened to you on this section, and I look at you, and I remember your
frustration. You are standing up in front of our caucus saying: We are
so close.
Mr. MURPHY. Can the Senator yield?
Mr. BOOKER. I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. MURPHY. I just want to drill down on this for a moment. It gets
back to a theme that you have been hitting on throughout the evening
and early morning, and that is that not everything has to be zero-sum
politics. This is part of what is so exhausting about the last 71 days
for many, many Americans. I think it is part of why Donald Trump's
approval ratings are tanking by the day.
You and I are pugilists when we need to be, right? We fight when we
think that there is a worthy fight. That is what this is today--it is a
fight. We understand it is a fight for our values. But we don't think
everything has to be a fight. We see our jobs as standing up for our
convictions but then finding that common ground.
I did not expect to be in that room with Senator Lankford. I was
surprised, pleasantly, when we came to an agreement. You spent months
and months hammering out really difficult criminal justice reform with
a colleague of yours that you have equal numbers of disagreements with
because we feel like we have a call from our constituents to fight but
then find the common ground.
But this administration has zero interest in common ground. Every
single day, they wake up thinking only about conflict, thinking only
about defeat of their opposition. And they have been frustrated because
they have been trying to do a lot of illegal things, and the courts
have been telling them no. They are now talking about extraordinary
measures, like impeaching judges or defunding the courts.
Instead, they could reach out to Democrats. They could decide to do
what every previous President has tried to do, which is, instead of
ramming through a one-side-only policy on immigration, for instance,
come to people of good will on the opposing party and try to work out a
compromise.
This is what exhausts the American people, is this administration's
complete and total unwillingness to find common ground on anything.
That is not where the center of this country is.
On the issues of immigration, we found common ground last year. It
was hard. It did not satisfy everyone. But we have proven that on this
issue--it is hot. It is difficult for even family members to talk about
it sometimes. Even on this issue of immigration, we can find that
common ground.
So we are here--you are here because there is a fight to be waged,
but I think we both wish on a litany of these topics that we were
instead sitting down with our colleagues. But that is just not in the
DNA of this administration. That is part of why this President is
becoming more and more unpopular by the day, is because they expect any
President--any President--to make at least a minimalist effort to try
to reach out and find compromise, and that never happens from the Trump
administration.
Mr. BOOKER. I thank you for the question I see in there.
Again, great Presidents have great ideas they bring to Congress, and
they fight to pull together and cobble together legislation that will
last. The problem we have right now is this whiplash between Trump's
Executive orders and Biden's Executive orders and Trump's Executive
orders, and it is not solving the problems. We have shown there is
enough common ground to do something on it.
I don't want to stick with common ground now, actually, because there
are some things in here that are not common ground, like private
prisons.
I am one of these folks that don't want to criticize. I have flown
out to a private prison down south to get a tour. I met really kind and
nice people. But there is something problematic to me about a profit
motive for imprisoning, shackling, detaining, and holding people and
this combination of that and a corporate reality where you are giving
campaign contributions to people that will then turn around and give
you government contracts to restrict the liberties of human beings.
The story that I read about this woman feeling like they lied to her
lawyer and said if she had only said she could pay for her own flight
home, and they were keeping her. Every day they were keeping her, they
were getting more money from American taxpayers.
This isn't a system designed for justice. This isn't a system
designed for the rights of human beings in our country. This is a
system that has every day an incentive to deny liberty, to hold people.
It is wrong. It is wrong. It is broken.
With a President that doesn't care about these things, that is giving
greater latitude so that more stories like the Canadian woman's story--
it is stunning.
I want to keep moving, though. I just want to talk about children and
the way this system is extended to children. Last week, the government
canceled a contract to provide legal services to 26,000 unaccompanied
immigrant children.
Remember what Anton Scalia said about due process in his strict
interpretations of the literal writings of our Founders.
So 26,000 unaccompanied migrant children no longer have legal
representation. We started on that idea. We started on that idea. We
started on the idea--the 15th and 14th Amendment--that ``no one shall
be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process,'' and
our country has now rolled back.
Trump got rid of a policy that prevented ICE from arresting kids at
schools and people from their places of worship. Now, every day,
families face the impossible choice of whether to send a kid to school
and risk permanent separation from their families.
There is a story from New Jersey. Recently when I was home in Newark,
NJ, a woman in my neighborhood came up to me to tell me a heartbreaking
story. One morning, she was on her way to walk to school, and a mom of
other children--I won't make this anonymous. One of my closest
friends--she is like a sister to me. She lives in The Ironbound in
Newark. She was very emotional because her neighbors were so terrified
that they came to her and asked her to walk their children to school.
They were American children.
There are so many teachers and school administrators who are speaking
out now that they have been ordered that they must allow ICE to enter
their schools.
Trump has plans to revoke temporary protected status protection for
hundreds of thousands of people from various countries--from Venezuela
to Haiti--paving the way for those deportations. We know who they are.
He has done this despite the State Department maintaining a ``Level 4:
Do Not Travel'' warning for Haiti and Venezuela due to widespread
violence, danger, sexual assault, kidnappings, and more.
He claims that he is tough on crime because he wants to go after
child sexual abusers, but you are sending children running into schools
and churches and sending them back to environments that are known for
sexual assaults on young girls.
The Department of Justice Office of Civil Rights recently dropped its
case that it filed against Southwest Key, the Nation's largest provider
of housing for migrant children, in which the DOJ alleged sexual abuse
and neglect perpetrated against undocumented
[[Page S2000]]
children in Federal custody. It was a case DOJ brought against this
company, which housed migrant children, because of alleged sexual
abuse.
What did our government do under Trump? They dropped charges. They
dropped charges. Why? Why? Children being sexually assaulted--it is not
worth an investigation? Is it because the administration thinks that
pursuing the lawsuit and holding perpetrators accountable will somehow
interfere with their immigration agenda? They literally let alleged sex
abusers go free with no explanation--the hypocrisy.
Family detentions have restarted. They failed in the past to meet
basic child welfare standards and exposed children to trauma. The
President's own Department of Homeland Security concluded in 2018 that
family detention centers posed a high risk of harm to children and
families. Despite his own Department of Homeland Security back in 2018
saying that, they have restarted.
One of the points I want to make is on crime. I was a mayor. The No.
1 issue my residents were concerned about was fighting crime, fighting
crime, fighting crime.
I went back to Newark recently for a horrible, tragic death of a
police officer by a 14-year-old with a ghost gun. It was horrible. The
sendoff--hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of police officers from all
over our State, from New York. This police officer was murdered by a
14-year-old. I still pray for his family, his mom.
As I was standing there looking at this parade of police officers who
were waiting for the casket, I had police officers come to me and
complain that they are having a harder and harder time in New Jersey
solving crimes because now victims of crime--victims of sexual assault,
victims of robbery--who happen to be undocumented are afraid to go and
talk to local police because of all this rhetoric that is creating the
fear that they will be turned over to ICE.
Imagine, in our country there are people out there who are sexually
assaulting people but who are getting away with it because they are
targeting immigrants. And if you don't think that hurts Americans'
safety, you are wrong.
When you are afraid to go and talk to police officers to report
crimes, when you are subverting people's constitutional rights and
incarcerating people in foreign prisons with no criminal records, it
does harm to children.
We talked about all of the diverting of law enforcement resources
away from investigating national security threats, terrorism, drug
smuggling, human trafficking, illegal arms exports, financial crimes,
and sex crimes. It is taking law enforcement away from investigating
those crimes and forcing all Federal law enforcement Agencies to
enforce boat-level immigration crimes or, I should say, undocumented
people with no criminal activity beyond their being in our country.
Reuters wrote about this misguided redirection of Federal resources.
I will read their article:
Federal agents who usually hunt down child abusers are now
cracking down on immigrants who live in the U.S. legally.
Homeland Security investigators who specialize in money
laundering are raiding restaurants and other small
businesses, looking for immigrants who aren't authorized to
work.
Agents who pursue drug traffickers and tax fraud are being
reassigned to enforce immigration law.
As U.S. President Donald Trump pledges to deport ``millions
and millions'' of ``criminal aliens,'' thousands of federal
law enforcement officers from multiple federal agencies are
being enlisted to take on new work as immigration enforcers,
pulling crime fighting resources away from other areas--from
drug trafficking and terrorism and sexual abuse and fraud.
This account of Trump's push to reorganize federal law
enforcement--the most significant since the September 11,
2001, terrorist attacks--is based on interviews with more
than 20 current and former federal agents, attorneys, and
other federal officials. Most had first-hand knowledge of the
changes. Nearly all spoke on the condition of anonymity
because they were not authorized to discuss their work.
``I do not recall ever seeing this wide spectrum of federal
government resources all being turned toward immigration
enforcement,'' said Theresa Cardinal Brown, the former
Homeland Security official who has served in both Republican
and Democratic administrations. ``When you are telling
agencies to stop what you are doing and do this now, whatever
else they were doing takes a back seat.''
In response to questions from Reuters, Homeland Security
Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said the U.S.
Government is mobilizing federal and state law enforcement to
find, arrest, and deport illegal aliens. The [FBI] declined
to respond to questions about its staffing. In a statement,
the FBI said it is ``protecting the U.S. from many threats.''
The Trump administration has offered no comprehensive
accounting of the revamp. But it echoes the aftermath of the
2001 attacks, when Congress created the Department of
Homeland Security and pulled together 169,000 federal
employees from other agencies and refocused the FBI on
battling terrorism.
Trump's hardline approach to deporting immigrants has
intensified America's already stark partisan divide. The U.S.
Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin, described the crackdown
as a ``wasteful, misguided diversion of resources''. . . . It
is ``making America less safe'' by drawing agents and
officials away from fighting corporate fraud, terrorism,
child sexual exploitation, and other crimes.
The focus on immigration is drawing significant resources
from other crime-fighting departments, according to the more
than 20 sources who spoke.
Until January, pursuing immigrants living in the country
illegally was largely the job of two agencies: Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, and Customs and Border
Protection, with a combined staff of 80,000. Other
Departments spent . . . [on crime].
In Detroit--where immigration prosecutions have been rare--
the number of people charged with immigration offenses rose
from 2 in February . . . to 19 last month.
Case managements records from the Justice Department show
that fewer than 1% of the cases brought to prosecutors by the
DEA and ATF over the past decade involve allegations that
someone had violated immigration law.
Since January, however, DEA agents have been ordered to
reopen cases involving arrests up to five years old, where
prosecutors have declined to bring charges.
As Trump and billionaire Elon Musk flash the size of the
Federal Government bureaucracy, jobs that deal with
immigration enforcement appear largely exempt.
In a January 31 email to ICE employees, a human resources
official told them they wouldn't be eligible for retirement
buyouts offered to some 2.3 million Federal workers. ``All
ICE positions are excluded,'' said the previously unreported
email.
Mr. WELCH. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question.
Mr. BOOKER. Yes, I will yield for a question while retaining the
floor.
Mr. WELCH. Thank you.
Senator, I have been listening to many of your hours of speech. You
are talking about immigration now, and I have another question about
the immigration policy.
You know, I think all of us understand that it is absolutely
essential that our country secure its borders, and, from time to time,
the country forgets that. But I think we have had this debate about
immigration that has been going on for several years.
I don't know if the Senator had an opportunity to address the
opportunity we had in the Senate when, last year, there was a
realization on the part of both the Republicans and Democrats that the
only way we were going to get a secure border and a beneficial,
sensible immigration policy was to work together. I know the Senator
was watching that very carefully when we had the terrific work of
Senator Lankford from Oklahoma, Senator Murphy from Connecticut, and
Senator Sinema, of course, from Arizona.
Despite the enormous political tension that surrounds the immigration
issue, but for understandable reasons, the three of them worked very
hard and came together for a tri-partisan proposal, in effect--Senator
Sinema, of course, being the Independent, who always played a
constructive role in trying to bring the parties together. What was
included in that legislation was a major commitment--embraced by
Senator Murphy on behalf of the Democrats--for border security. There
was an acknowledgment that we have to control our borders. It is really
that simple.
Mr. BOOKER. Yes. Yes.
Mr. WELCH. But when you control your borders, you also have the
opportunity to have an immigration policy that the Congress and the
President think will benefit the American people. That benefits us, of
course, if there is security at the border, but it also benefits us if
we have legal immigration that is controlled by the American people.
Of course, you know, I have noticed that Elon Musk, who is against
immigration and is for everything that
[[Page S2001]]
President Trump is for--he likes having very highly educated computer
people who can help him go from very rich to even richer. So he carves
out an exception for people who will be beneficial and helpful to him
in his various enterprises.
But, you know, we have got in Vermont a lot of dairy farms, and we
have a tourist industry, and we have a really hard time filling those
jobs. So legal immigration can really be helpful and constructive and
beneficial to the people of the State of Vermont.
I know, in talking to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, many
of us in our States have tourist industries, and we have agricultural
enterprises, just to mention two, where the reality is we don't have
the number of people we need to fill those jobs. You know, it is not
just a matter of paying more, because I do think we have to be very
mindful that we want to do every single thing we can to help elevate
the wages of American workers.
And, by the way, this is a little bit of an aside. Why in the world
haven't we raised the minimum wage?
I mean, I know, Senator, you are for that, and I certainly am. But it
astonishes me that we still have it at--what is it?--$7 or $7.50? I
mean, it is unbelievable what the minimum wage is. A lot of States have
raised it. Vermont certainly has.
But we, on immigration, had the opportunity and the bill and the will
to make enormous progress so that we would have an immigration policy
that secured the border, had the validation of bipartisan majorities in
the House and in the Senate, would have also addressed the issues about
legal immigration that would help us strengthen our economy, and also
would have included a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers--folks who
were brought here by their parents when they were 4 or 5 or 6 years old
and whose only country they know is the United States itself. You know,
my understanding from talking to my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle is that there is an enormous amount of respect for many of these
Dreamers, many of whom have been heroes for us in the military.
So this is not a Republican--in my view, it is not a Republican-
Democratic situation. It is a desire on the part of almost everyone in
this body to accommodate the reality of a child's being brought here by
his parents, going to school, getting an education, serving his
country--firefighters, marines, teachers--doing all these things that
are really helpful to our country, and are here through absolutely no
fault of their own. If we were to require them to be deported--and that
is an effort that the current administration is making--you literally
would be taking people who might be 30 or 40 years old now, who have
families, and send them back to the country from which their parents
brought them. And they don't even speak the language, and, you know,
that obviously makes no sense.
When I talk to Vermonters who have very, very strong views of having
a strong border and I ask them about this situation, they think: Wait a
minute. Well, that is different. You know, that is a person who lives
here. That is like my neighbor.
So I was so disappointed when we were on the cusp of being able to
get this legislation passed when then-Candidate Trump, in his candid
way, said, ``Kill it,'' and he was candid about why. It would ``give
the Democrats a win.''
I never saw this as a win for Democrats. You know, I saw this as a
win for America.
The reality is that, when we have to do really hard things here--and
we are not doing hard things these days, but when we are trying to do
hard things that are really important for the American people--my
experience is you really do have to get to a bipartisan place because,
you know, we have lost elections, and we lost the last one, and that is
on us. It is not on the voters. They made a decision. That is their
right to do, and we have to learn, and we have to listen. But when we
were listening and hearing loud and clear from the American people that
we want a secure border and then we worked with our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle to get a secure border, why in the world would
the leader of the party kill it? Why? I mean, we know the reason. He
thought it was good politics.
But this is not about what is good partisan politics. It is about
what is good policy that is going to help the American people.
So among the many things you are focusing on, of course, is this
question of immigration, and this is incredibly important. But I wanted
to be clear that I, as one Member of the U.S. Senate, am absolutely all
in for the immigration reform that we need. And that is a secure
border. That is legal immigration as we determine the type of
immigration that would be beneficial to the American people and
sustainable, and it also includes a pathway to citizenship for these
children who, in many cases, were brought here by their parents, who
had no agency, no involvement whatsoever in the decision to come here,
how they got here.
Pardon me. For those of us who don't stay up all night, some of us
use alarms to wake up. So pardon me for being here earlier than I
thought I would be here. And you are here maybe later than you thought.
But you know, it is such a privilege for you, and it is such a
privilege for me. It is such a privilege for the other 98 citizens of
this country who serve with us in the U.S. Senate that any chance we
get--any chance we get--to do something that is helpful to the people
we represent, don't we want to grab it? Don't we want to do it?
And does it matter if our name lives in memory that we were here? It
doesn't. What matters is what we do here and whether, when we leave, we
can look back and have the satisfaction of knowing we gave it our best.
There is enormous pressure on folks in this job from the
crosscurrents of the political world that we live in. And all of us are
fallible. All of us have plenty of opportunity to get it wrong, and we
do. But what I have seen in the people I have admired on both sides of
the aisle--and I think of Senator McCain, whom Senator Murphy worked
with so much. There was a heart and soul to that man, and it was the
heart and soul and his spirit that guided him.
And when I think about immigration, and we are talking about how
tough it is, he worked together with the so-called Gang of 8 to come up
with a reform that this Senate passed years ago.
I was in the House then, and I remember being so excited--so
excited--when I heard that the Senate had actually come up with a
proposal that just made sense. It wasn't perfect. What is? You know,
Senate to Earth: What is perfect? We do the best we can, but that is
about it.
But do you know what? When I say ``that is about it,'' that is what
life is. Do your best and then move on.
By the way, that is one of the reasons why I think, Senator, the
bipartisanship, which we don't have now at all, but it has to
ultimately--we have to have enough humility to understand that neither
side has the answers. And where we try in earnest to come up with the
best solution we can at the moment, where we listen to each other, what
happens is that if we didn't get it fully right--and we never will--we
understand that we have an opportunity to fix it and make it better
based on that experience.
When there is just our way or the highway, there is no resolution and
no progress. No. 1, you don't get the bill passed, as we saw with the
immigration bill. Then, No. 2, if you get it passed, the other side
just tries to tear it apart and repeal it as opposed to improve it.
Every single one of us knows that the American people want progress.
But when what we are talking about is something that is hard--and it
truly is hard, the issue of immigration--we are talking about something
that is hard politically, that spirit of wanting to get to a solution,
that was what animated the work of Senator Lankford, Senator Murphy,
and Senator Sinema. They wanted to get to a solution, even though they
had significantly different points of view going in on what was the
right outcome. But they wanted to get to a solution where they
represented the points of view of the disparate views of our caucus,
and they came up with a compromise that, by all accounts, would be such
a better place for us to be now than what we are in: no progress.
We haven't been able to act on that immigration bill since the Senate
acted, with the leadership of Senator McCain and others.
[[Page S2002]]
I was mentioning how excited I was. I was in the House at the time,
and I was so excited that this bill came over. You know, Vermonters
were asking me all the time: Peter, we have got to do something about
our borders. We have got to do something to make sure our farmers don't
fear having their farms raided and them not being able to milk their
cows. It is that essential, right? And I am talking about a lot of
pretty conservative people, politically, who politically sometimes
agree with me, sometimes don't. But what was so exciting to me was that
on the cusp of this coming to the House, I was thinking: I am going to
have a chance to vote for secure immigration, securing our borders, a
rational immigration plan, and I am going to be able to give fairness
to the Dreamers. I was so excited about that.
Then what happened is it was announced that the House would not even
take up the bill. Why? It was the same reason that then-Candidate Trump
proposed to his colleagues or to his party members in the Senate: Kill
it. And why was that?
Really, in all candor, it is the most cynical of all reasons.
Sometimes people in politics prefer to have the issues that they can
fight about rather than use the responsibility and opportunity they
have to solve the problem.
That is pretty much what happened with that. And here we are, and we
are seeing it again.
You know, there is another thing that is happening with the
immigration policies of the current administration. There is a lot of
cruelty, this part of it. Yes, we have to have a secure border. Yes,
criminals who came here illegally should be deported. But should the
consensus that we have about a secure border, about the legitimacy
of deporting criminals who are here illegally be used to justify a
wholesale roundup, where the people who are rounded up are almost
randomly picked up on the basis of good information, but it is clear in
this roundup, where so many people were flown to the jails in El
Salvador, that the minimal amount of due process, which is inquiry into
who is this person, where are they from, does this tattoo mean they are
in a gang or is that a tattoo of Mom--are we a society where we don't
provide that minimal inquiry that is called due process, that our
country was founded on? It appears, in many cases, we haven't done
that.
Then, what we are seeing also is that a number of people are being
rounded up who are here legally. They are here on a student visa, and
they published an opinion in a school newspaper expressing their point
of view about the suffering in the Middle East. This country, of
course, is founded, among other things, on the First Amendment right to
free speech. It is a pretty astonishing thing that people who express
that, who are here legally, by the way--legally, legally, legally. I
want to emphasize that--are suddenly confronted by people who are
essentially bearing masks, put in handcuffs, taken away, and then put
in a jail at some unknown place until some maybe days later when you
find out where they are. How does that solve the border crisis? How
does that protect the liberties that have been the hallmark of the
United States of America since the Constitution?
It is cruel to have a person who essentially ``disappears.'' That is
the term I know Senator Murphy used once and, I think, unfortunately,
accurately.
We have a challenge. It is really not who wins this vote, who wins
that vote. And it is not even who is in the majority and who is in the
minority because this country only works and this Senate only works
when whatever your political views are, you approach the problems that
America has from the perspective of your obligation as a U.S. Senator
to make progress, to make it better.
I was in the State senate for 13 years. I am not going to say my life
has been downhill since then, but what I so appreciated about the
Vermont Senate--and I learned, working with other people, that
``bipartisan'' doesn't have a meaning almost now because it is like you
have got to be on one side or the other.
But I remember when I first went to the State senate, Senator Booker,
I won an election that was an upset. So I was feeling pretty good about
myself. When I got there, it was a majority in the Republican Party,
and I was ready to cause trouble--not necessarily in the John Lewis
good way. It might have been more of a Peter Welch ego way. I had a lot
to learn.
What every member who was showing up--and these two Republican
Senators who were just really icons for me in my life, as it turns out,
they and the Lieutenant Governor made decisions about who would be on
what committees. And I really wanted to be on the Finance Committee,
but that is not a committee you get on when you just show up and you
have won an election and you are acting like you are more important
than you are. They put me on the Finance Committee, and I said: I am
doomed.
The reason is, I know I had to cooperate. They had been so good to me
and so generous. They gave me a seat at the table. It was such a thrill
for me to be able to actually sit at the table with these people whom I
held in such high regard and who knew so much more than me. But they
invited me in. They didn't push me aside just because I had different
points views and was from a different party.
A few years later, I became Senate president, so I had a lot to do
with who was on what committees. And I remembered I started then the
process that we still do in Vermont, and I appointed a number of
Republicans to chair committees.
I was in the Senate a second time with the now-Governor of Vermont,
Phil Scott, and he became the chair of the Institutions Committee. That
is a big deal in Vermont. When I tell folks we did that in Vermont,
where sometimes you would appoint somebody who is from the other party,
they want me to have a mental status exam around here. You know, you
just don't that kind of thing.
What I do know and what I do see is that there are a lot of people
here who do have that--I will call it the Murphy-Lankford-Sinema
attitude: Let's solve the problem. Let's make progress. Let's find a
way where we can move ahead.
You are talking about immigration, which because we have been going
around and around on this for so long without making progress, it is
almost creating this cul-de-sac or this sinkhole where people think it
is pointless; why even talk about it; why try to solve it.
It can't be done. But we know it can be done because we are the
people here, 100 of us, that actually have the ability to do it. And I
would say we have the responsibility to do it because it is a serious
issue that faces the American people, and they are entitled to the
safety of a secure border. The Dreamers are entitled to some justice
and respect for the commitment they have made to be fully participating
citizens here in the United States.
So I just applaud the efforts of my colleagues who, despite all of
the outside noise, do want to make some progress. When we don't make
progress, we descend into a bad place.
You know, yes, deport a criminal. Our people are entitled to safety.
People are not entitled to come here illegally, and people who are
illegally here certainly are not entitled to commit any crimes.
But when we go round and round and just use the challenge of
immigration reform as a political cudgel, we end up going into some
pretty dark places. And that is where we are heading now, where a
person gets rounded up who is legally here because the administration
doesn't like the opinion they expressed. It is not that their opinion
was necessarily subversive. It is not even wrong; it is debatable. You
and I would have an opportunity to debate, you know, what should be our
policy in the Middle East, what should be our policy on immigration.
But the administration decides: That speech, I don't like. Arrest
that person. Disappear that person.
And then we get into debates that are really not about making
progress but mutual recrimination.
So I am just very delighted that you are focusing a good part of your
effort here on the vital question of immigration.
I do hope--I haven't been watching everything, but if it is OK, I
just want to direct your attention to these tariffs that are happening
a little bit. I know you are going to have an opportunity to talk about
a fair number of things;
[[Page S2003]]
you already have. But I have never seen anything so dumb and reckless
as these tariffs on Canada.
We have a library in Newport, VT--Derby Line, actually--the Haskell
Free Library. And half of it is in Vermont, and half of it is in
Canada. Is that cool or what? Canadians come in what I call the
backdoor but they call the front door, and we come in the front door
which they call the backdoor, and we read books together. We have had
this library for decades.
We had a roundtable up on the Canada-Vermont border, and the Member
of Parliament from Stanstead, which is the town next to Newport, Madam
Bibeau, was with us. And we were with some folks who ran businesses on
the Vermont side and on the Canadian side and some of whom had
operations on both sides. Most of these were family businesses; some
were very large, some were small. They ranged from, like, farmers on
the Vermont side, who got a lot of their fertilizer from Canada. And
that is true, by the way, all across the northern border. It can be
Minnesota. It can be Idaho. So many of our farmers all along the
Canadian border have cross-relationships with Canada. They get their
fertilizer. It is going to cost 25 percent more.
We all know how hard our farmers work. Nobody works harder. The
margins of what they make are tiny. And you add a 25-percent tariff,
and these people are just--they don't know what is going to happen.
Our maple syrup makers, back and forth. We get a lot of syrup from
Canada and blend it and make it into products with Vermont syrup.
Canada is the biggest producer of the second best maple syrup in the
world. Vermont is the biggest producer of the best maple syrup in the
world--in the United States. But the equipment that our sugar makers
use is largely manufactured in Canada. A 25-percent tariff on that,
that is going to hammer the Vermont maple producers. Again, they
operate on a small margin.
A lot of these farms, as you know, and the sugar producers--or, we
have got a family company up there, a second generation, that makes
high-quality furniture--these are family businesses, and they have
tight margins. They are competing. They are really working hard. The
Northeast Kingdom is really a pretty low-income part of Vermont, with
wonderful, incredibly hard-working people who are very proud of where
they live and who they are and who their neighbors are.
They are asking really tough questions about how they can make it and
whether they can stay in business. And this is not the same as
immigration, but there is an element here that is the same as
immigration.
Shouldn't any policy that we pursue start with the premise that we
will do no harm? So it might be a policy the Presiding Officer is
advocating. And I know when the Presiding Officer served in your
previous job, you would be wanting to make certain that what you did,
did no harm. In fact, you would be insisting that it did some good.
And my question with the tariffs is whether the administration is
starting out from the premise that I think all of us should start with:
Yeah, we may have an idea. We hope it might work. But we have to make
sure it does no harm.
Mr. BOOKER. I was going to ask a question. Did the Senator finish his
question?
Mr. WELCH. That is a long question, and I am waiting for a long
answer.
Mr. BOOKER. I want to first start by saying that the Senator has a
reputation around this place; that there is a deep, penetrating
goodness that is in you. I love to watch my Senate colleagues when
other people are not--it is a habit of mine--because I think what you
do when no one is watching is really telling. There is a belief I have
that someone who is nice to you but not nice to the waiter is not a
nice person.
And we have a body full of people that show some deep, decent
goodness. You are one of those people. And what I love about watching
you is that it could be the farthest ideological person away from you,
and you just have this--like, you look at people like you see their
divinity, whether it is the person at the highest position, a leader of
the Senate on either side, or someone who holds the door.
What I love about you is, when I watch you, you are one of the
Senators--some people just keep to their side of the aisle--I always
look up, and I find you over there talking to somebody. And I just rely
on that decency in you as a friend, and I have come to love you like a
brother, and I want to thank you for being here before your alarm in
the morning goes off. It really touches me.
And I don't know if you remember this, but about 12 hours ago, you
sat right here and you embraced me in a hug, and I leaned on that hug
because I wasn't sure that I would even make it 12 hours. I take
strength from you, my friend. And I take strength from you to hold to
my kindness, to look for it everywhere.
This is a story I don't think I have ever shared with you, but it
speaks to how we get things done and how we should get things done.
When I first got to the U.S. Senate, my mentor, Bill Bradley, gave me
three real lessons for me to learn. I think I have obeyed two out of
the three. One was to know the rules of procedure really well. That is
the one I have probably failed. I am still learning things, 13 years
into this, about the rules of procedure. The second one was become a
specialist in some areas; don't be a mile wide and an inch deep. I feel
like I have done a pretty good job on that.
But the one that he told me that was most fruitful--I already
mentioned one of the benefits I had in doing this with John McCain
earlier in this 12 hours--he commanded me to go and meet with all your
Republican colleagues; take them out to dinner, sit with them for
lunch, whomever they are.
I went out to dinner with Ted Cruz. It was hard--to find a
restaurant--because I am a vegan and Ted Cruz is from Texas. But I
still remember that we went out and how people were sort of shocked
just to see two human beings breaking bread.
But the story I want to tell my friend about is when I went to see
Jim Inhofe, a Republican from the same State as Lankford. And I
couldn't get him to meet with me. I couldn't get on his schedule.
And I found out that he had Bible study in his hideaway, and so I go
up to his hideaway for Bible study. Thune was there. And we all have
implicit biases. We all have implicit biases. My implicit bias was that
I did not expect of this older, conservative man that I would walk in
and see on his mantle this beautiful picture, centered, of him hugging
a little Black girl. I am embarrassed by that, that it so surprised me.
And I--especially in those days, I didn't talk to, like, the senior
giants in the Senate. I didn't call them by their first names. I still
have a problem calling Senator Durbin by his first name, for example.
He is a lion of the Senate, in my opinion, and one of the kindest
people to me since I have been here.
So I go to him--I go to Jim Inhofe. I go, ``Mr. Chairman, sir,'' and
I look at the picture and I go, ``Who dat?''
And he smiles and chuckles, and then he tells me the most beautiful
story of his family adopting this little Black girl out of some of the
most terrible circumstances. And I was so moved.
And thinking about my friend Bill Bradley, I would have never known
this incredibly beautiful thing about someone who is my--ideologically,
we disagreed on so many things, but knowing this personal moment, it
created this thread between us--not a rope, not a cord, but a thread--
that connected me to him, and it created a deeper affection.
So fast-forward many months in this body, and there is a big
education bill, which Chris Murphy referenced earlier. A big education
bill was going through the Senate because No Child Left Behind--we were
going back the other way. Senator Durbin has told me about this
pendulum that sometimes swings and swings back in its place. And it was
a deal.
Lamar Alexander was in the well of the Senate. He was the manager of
the bill. And there were no amendments allowed. No amendments allowed.
Of course, I am sitting back here. This is where I sat. And you talk
about egos. My ego--I had this great amendment, and I was frustrated
that they were having this rule--no amendments--but I have a great
amendment to do something about homeless and foster children, who have
the worst educational
[[Page S2004]]
outcomes, and I thought I had a modest amendment to try to make a
difference for American children who are in foster care or that were
homeless.
And I am frustrated. I am sitting back here, something that I dream
of doing again one day--sitting--and just kind of upset. And then I
see, walking through those doors, Senator Jim Inhofe, and he walks to
the well kind of talking. And I remember the story he told me about
this little Black girl in his family, and something tells me to get up.
And I walk into the well, down these steps, and I say to him, ``Mr.
Chairman, sir, I know how much you care for children in tough
circumstances. I have an amendment.''
And I explained my amendment to him, and he looked at me and gave me
the Senate version of no, which is, ``I will think about it.''
And I got frustrated, and I said, ``Thank you, sir, for considering
it,'' and I walked back and I sat down right here. And then when I
picked my head up, he is marching into our side--like you do on the
other side--like his GPS coordinates were off. He marches up to me and
just sort of grunts at me, ``I'm in,'' and then turns around and starts
walking away from me.
I step up and I say, ``Wait. Excuse me. What do you mean?''
He goes, ``Cory, I am going to cosponsor your amendment.'' And I was
so happy.
And now I go over to Senator Grassley and say the same thing to him--
a relationship that, thanks to Dick Durbin, I really bonded; I have a
sweet relationship with him even though, again, we disagree on so much.
He doesn't even make me wait. He looks at me, and he goes, ``You got
Inhofe?'' And he signs on my amendment.
(Mr. YOUNG assumed the Chair.)
By the time I go to Lamar Alexander, I look up and I am like, I got a
full house. Sorry, I got no other Democrats, but I got all these
Republicans. He looks at me, and he laughs. He goes ``Really?'' and he
puts the amendment on the bill. It is the law of the land right now.
So what you said in the beginning of your long windup question, my
dear friend, my dear brother, is how real change is made.
That man, Dick Durbin, when I first got to the Senate, he knew how
much I cared about criminal justice reform. He brought me to the table.
I started working--as I presided, I started working in conversations
with Mike Lee, in conversations with Chuck Grassley. We cobbled
together a bill. It wasn't done by Executive fiat; it was done in the
Senate--87 votes. It is the law of the land. Thousands have been
liberated from unjust incarceration.
So my point to the Senator is that his spirit is so right, is so true
about what it takes to make real change, but the President we have
right now doesn't seem to be coming to this body with any kind of bold,
bipartisan legislation to solve the problems of our Nation, to cobble
together the common ground of this country on immigration. No. He is
not acting like that. He is using language like ``Presidential
primacy.'' He is defending his corrupt practices in immigration by
saying things like ``Presidential primacy.'' He is invoking the Alien
Enemies Act. He is invoking the Alien Enemies Act--an act from the
1700s--to deny due process, and Antonin Scalia, a textualist, said that
whether you are born in this country or not, you have due process here.
The Constitution states only one thing twice: Both the 5th and the
14th Amendments say that no one--not no citizen--no one shall be
deprived of liberty or property without due process of law. Yet this
President is disappearing people and, as we documented here,
disappearing the wrong people; as we documented here, unjustly
detaining Americans, separating families--all while pushing his agenda
and doing things that the values of people on both sides of this aisle
don't believe in, like stopping the investigation of children for
alleged sexual molestation. This is wrong.
I sat down with some of the advocates who were telling me and who are
trying to fight to stop the law from being broken, and they scared me,
Dick Durbin, because they said what I said on this floor: If someone is
willing to violate the Constitution for some, it endangers the
constitutional rights for us all. Do not think this is, oh, those
people. If they are violating the rights of some, it is a threat to the
rights of all.
I am standing here because of a national crisis that is growing. We
talked about Social Security. We talked about healthcare. We talked
education. This is a crisis for us.
This is what the person said. They talked about the Insurrection Act.
They have been hearing people in the administration talk about the
Insurrection Act.
Every person in this Congress and across this country wants a safe
and secure border, but scapegoating immigrants to erode basic
constitutional freedoms does not make America safer, does not make our
communities safer, does not reform our immigration system like we
should be doing in a bipartisan manner like Lankford and Murphy. It
does not stop our longstanding problems in our agricultural industry
and our tech industry.
History has shown that when due process and basic constitutional
rights are eroded for some people, it does not stop. It continues to
erode. The shoreline that kept you safe will shrink until it reaches
you.
I am reminded of German Pastor Martin Niemoller's quote about fascism
in Germany:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak
out--because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak
out--because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak
for me.
Well, everything that has happened in the last few months contradicts
American values, shared values. I am most concerned about what this
signals for the future and the potential indication of this President
of the Insurrection Act.
Some of our country's most prominent lawyers have warned that the
invocation of these two antiquated laws--the Alien Enemies Act and the
Insurrection Act--may result in the true erosion of our constitutional
rights.
Trump's recent indication of the Alien Enemies Act is the first step
to securing people without due process, which Justice Scalia said is
wrong, and then on the first day in office, Trump directed the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security--Trump
directed them to initiate a 90-day review to determine whether the
President should invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807. That 90-review--
when do the 90 days come up, folks? This month. In 19 days. April 20.
The President of the United States has already invoked a 1780-
something law and also asked his immigration folks, his homeland
security folks, to do a 90-day review about the Insurrection Act of
1807.
Now, there are probably people watching and saying: What is the
Insurrection Act? I had to look up what the Alien Enemies Act was. So
let me tell folks what the Insurrection Act that our President on his
first day in office--of all the things a President has to do, he turned
to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to
initiate a 90-day review of the Insurrection Act.
America, what is the Insurrection Act of 1807? It is among the
President's most powerful authorities. He can deploy the U.S. Armed
Forces and militia during a national emergency. He can declare a
national emergency.
This President has already wrongfully declared national emergencies.
He declared a national emergency on energy. Senator Kaine talked about
the outrageousness of somebody declaring a national emergency on energy
when we are at the highest level of petrol chemical extraction in our
country's history. Until he started rolling back what we were doing on
wind and solar, we had an all-of-the-above strategy. Nobody ``drill
baby drilled'' more than Joe Biden.
The Insurrection Act gives the ability of the President to declare a
national emergency to suppress insurrections, to quell civil unrest or
domestic violence, and to enforce the law when he believes it is being
obstructed.
When can the President invoke the Insurrection Act? Well, nothing in
the text of the law defines insurrection, rebellion, or domestic
violence. Those are prerequisites for deployment, but they don't define
those things.
[[Page S2005]]
One of Trump's first Executive orders signed the evening he took
office on January 20 was titled ``Declaring a National Emergency at the
Southern Border of the United States.'' In that order, he said
``America's sovereignty is under attack.'' He has already declared a
national emergency.
Neither Congress nor the courts played a role in deciding what
constitutes an obstruction or a rebellion. If Trump does unlawfully
invoke the Insurrection Act, he can conceivably use our military to
carry out his deportation agenda within our country's borders, all
without any due process or opportunity to prove that their presence in
the U.S. is lawful or even that they are a citizen.
Trump himself said he wants to deport American citizens to foreign
countries. Trump himself has said: I want to deport American citizens
to foreign countries.
On February 4, he said:
I am just saying if we had a legal right to do it, I would
do it in a heartbeat. I don't know if we do or not. We are
looking at it right now.
This is what he has asked his Secretary of Defense and his Secretary
of Homeland Security to say: Can I invoke the Insurrection Act?
So don't be mistaken. This is not just about immigrants. This is not
just denying immigrants the due process that Antonin Scalia said that
immigrants have a right to so you don't disappear the wrong people like
the Trump administration has done, that you don't wildly disagree with
what a citizen is saying and use that as a pretext to disappear them.
He is creating the pretext to invoke that 1807 law, the Insurrection
Act, and if he does that, when they came for the immigrants and denied
them due process, he is trying to get us to surrender our commitment to
the constitutional guarantees that Americans have. He has said he would
invoke--he would deport Americans if he could.
When the President denies due process to some in America, it
threatens the due process of all.
Let's see what happens on April 20 if this President, who has already
invoked the Alien Enemies Act, follows through and invokes the
Insurrection Act. But why wait until April 20? Raise your voice now.
Stand up now. Do something now. Cause some good trouble now. Let this
President know that if he does ever do that, there will be a rising up
of people's voices, a rising up of good trouble, as John Lewis would
say, to say: Not in my country. This is unacceptable.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. To Senator Dick Durbin, to somebody who has been my
mentor and friend, I will yield for a question while retaining the
floor.
Mr. DURBIN. 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?
Mr. BOOKER. Yes, yes, yes, it does. I mean, you put forth this litany
where what we have to ask ourselves is at what point do my colleagues
in the House and the Senate and the Republican Party say enough?
Enough. God bless John Kennedy for calling out the
[[Page S2006]]
absolute absurd. I was in that hearing where you have nominees for some
of the highest positions in the administration failing to say that they
will abide by a court order.
I mean, that is something we haven't heard people on either side of
nominees just say so bluntly now, not, yes, I will follow the orders of
a court. They are equivocating. And God bless one of my colleagues,
John Kennedy, who said: That is absurd. You either obey the order or
you resign because we have a Constitution.
And so when is it enough? When is it enough? This is the week, this
is the month of Passover, and there is a wonderful song I love singing
when I am at a Pesach seder--the Dayenu. ``It would have been enough,''
is the song, if God just delivered us from Egypt. It would have been
enough if he parted the seas. Dayenu. This is kind of a twisted version
of that. When is it enough when the President of the United States
starts a meme coin on his first day, violating the emoluments clause
immediately and enriching himself?
When is it enough when he takes an Agency that is on the frontlines
of stopping infectious diseases, like Ebola or drug-resistant
tuberculosis, from coming here? Is that enough? When we created that in
Congress, and he has no right to stop that Agency, would that have been
enough?
When is it enough for him to issue Executive orders that trample on
the highest ideals of this land, when he mocks members of the courts so
badly that even the current Chief Justice admonishes him? When is it
enough when Elon Musk is indiscriminately firing people and then
realizing oops, we need the FAA safety folks; oops, we need the nuclear
folks who are helping us keep our regulations? When is it enough that
you will say: ``OK. I will call them in and have a hearing to create
some transparency in what he is doing''?
When is it enough when he activates the Alien Enemies Acts and starts
disappearing human beings without due process? When is it enough?
Well, it is enough for me. It is enough for me. Twelve hours now I am
standing, and I am still going strong because this President is wrong.
And he is violating principles that we hold dear and principles in this
document that are so clear and plain. The powers of the article I
branch are spelled out, and he is violating them. Don't take my word
for it, Republican-appointed judges, Democrat-appointed judges are
saying it and stopping him, and then he maligns the judge that did
that.
When is it enough for people to speak out and not just fall in line,
to put patriotism over a person that is in the White House?
So to your question, sir, to my friend, and I am sorry to get a
little animated at this early morning hour, but I am so frustrated and
not just because of that, but I am reading the stories.
We are going into the next section, which is national security, and I
am reading the stories of our citizens of this country, not just New
Jerseyans, there are a lot we have read in these 12 hours, but there
are people from all over the country who are reaching out to my office.
And I know they are yours, Senator Durbin. You are the second highest
ranking Democrat in here. I know they are reaching out to you because
you are a man that stands for justice. I know they are reaching out to
your office, too, because you are one of the outposts for sanity in a
Congress that is being too complicit to an Executive that is
overstepping his authority and violating the Constitution and hurting
people who rely on healthcare and Social Security.
I am reading these stories, sir, because of the voices of the
Americans that don't have the privilege of the 100 of us, who don't get
to stand here, but I believe the power of the people is greater than
the people in power. Those are the ideals of our democracy and our
Constitution.
So I am rip-roaring and ready. I am wide awake. I am going to stand
here for as many hours as I can, 12 hours, and I recognize that my
other friend, another person I consider more than a friend, like a
sister to me, from the State of New York, my neighbor.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Senator Booker, would you yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. My sister, for you I will yield for a question while
retaining the floor.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Senator Booker, I have been listening to this debate
all night, and I have got to say, you are on fire. And you are on fire
because the American people are very, very angry about what is
happening. They are not happy with what this administration has done.
It is contrary to what was promised. It is contrary to what was
expected.
And I know we are going to talk about national security in a few
minutes, but can I ask a question about one of the topics you talked
about last night? Because it was exactly what my constituents were
talking to me about yesterday.
So I was in New York yesterday, and we talked about these cuts to
Social Security. I have to say, I was stopped by a gentleman who worked
at Amtrak and said: Madam Senator, Madam Senator, I just want to thank
you for protecting my Social Security. That has never happened to me
before. Never happened at Amtrak to be stopped by someone who worked
there to thank me for one thing I had done that day.
But I am telling you, Senator Booker, when Elon Musk starts firing
people in Social Security and tells the Social Security Administration,
``You cannot answer the phone,'' what are our mothers and fathers and
grandmothers and grandfathers supposed to do? Many of them are not
readily available to be on a computer. Many of them can't ask their
question online. And, worse, Elon Musk is expecting them to show up in
person at a Social Security office.
How many of our older Americans are not able to drive anymore or are
uncomfortable driving? How many of our older Americans feel
uncomfortable getting in the subway to get to a Social Security
Administration because there are stairs or because the lighting is not
good enough?
These are the challenges that our older Americans have, and so I just
want to talk about the things you told us last night about the risk to
Social Security.
Social Security is our seniors' money. It is not the government's
money. It is their money. So what happens when you make it hard for a
senior to call and make sure their check is on the way or their check
never showed up, and they can't find it?
For a lot of older Americans, that Social Security check is the only
money they have for that month. It pays for food, right? It pays for
heating bills. It pays for their medicine. It pays for the rent. It
pays for everything they need to survive. And Elon Musk's office
doesn't believe anybody should be answering the phones. Who is he to
tell America how to run its Social Security Administration when our
seniors need those checks?
They have crippled the phone service, even though--get this one--they
can't answer the phone, crippled the phone service. You can only make
an appointment on the phone. So how are you supposed to make an
appointment if you are going to go in? I mean, that is absurd. They
plan to cut 7,000 staff. That is a lot of staff.
Mr. BOOKER. Seven thousand.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Seven thousand staff, even though the Social
Security Administration staffing is already at a 50-year low. So they
are lying when they are saying this is about efficiency. They just want
the money, and what do they want the money for? Tax cuts for
billionaire buddies of Elon Musk. It is an obscenity. It is an
absurdity. It is an outrage, and everyone in America should be
concerned. Hands off our Social Security, Elon Musk and President
Trump. Hands off.
They are rallying all across the country to say: Hands off my Social
Security, hands off my Medicare, hands off my Medicaid.
It is an outrage. And I don't think people should stand for it
because your Social Security check is your hard-earned money. It is not
for Elon Musk to play with, to shift around, or send it to tax breaks
for his billionaire friends.
Now, I have to say, my office has been working closely with one
senior. Now, she is a New Yorker with a disability, and she was told
that she had to call a specific representative's extension by the end
of March. Well, that was yesterday. And if she didn't get this person,
her application could be denied.
She has called every day, sometimes more than once a day. She has
been on
[[Page S2007]]
hold for 4 to 5 hours just to reach this representative. As of
yesterday when we reached out to her, she had still not reached the
representative.
So Americans across the country are panicked. They are stressed. They
are worried that they won't get their hard-earned money back, their
retirement, to pay for the things that they need.
Now, this is the money they spent their entire careers paying into.
You know, every time you get a paycheck, Senator Booker, there is a
line that says Social Security because that money has been taken out of
your paycheck and put into Social Security so it is there for you when
you retire. It is your retirement. The pages sitting here right here,
you are paying into your Social Security.
Now, imagine, this is your first paycheck, isn't it? I bet it is your
first paycheck. Your first paycheck, you are putting in dollars that,
you know, you want saved so that when you--you can't even imagine what
it is going to be like to be 65. But the day you are working here, the
fact that you spent all night here supporting Senator Booker, that is
your retirement. Wouldn't you be pissed off if Elon Musk took your
retirement money? You should be. He doesn't have any right to it, and
what he is doing is he is doing it by cutting staff.
So if you need help because your Social Security didn't arrive, then
how are you supposed to get that check? They can't issue you a new one
unless they know that it didn't show up in the mail like it is supposed
to.
Ultimately, cutting individuals from Social Security doesn't just
affect them; it affects the entire economy. So you can imagine if all
our seniors are getting this Social Security benefit, you can't go then
buy your groceries. You are not going to be able to then go buy
whatever you need for your home. Those stores will get less money, and
that means there will be less resources in the economy.
Social Security, if you didn't know it, is our country's largest
anti-poverty program. It keeps people out poverty. That is what it
does. When we designed Social Security, however many decades ago, it
was so that our seniors don't die in poverty, because they were dying.
About half of seniors, at that time, were dying in poverty. They didn't
have enough food to live.
And so we created Social Security. It is one of the most popular
programs. It is one of the most respected programs.
So reducing access to this key program, Senator Booker, is an
outrage. It is harmful. It is cruel. It is hurtful.
So I know that this is something that you have really spent a lot of
time on last night, but don't you think it is cruel to not allow phone
service? Don't you think it is wrong to make it harder for people to
get access to their hard-earned money? Don't you think this is
something that America did not sign up for in this election?
Mr. BOOKER. I read last night--thank you for the question, my friend.
I read last night some of the most painful letters of people over and
over again, from throughout my State and throughout other States, who
are living in fear, who use words like ``terrified'' and told stories
that they couldn't sleep because of the rhetoric of this President, the
rhetoric of Elon Musk calling it a Ponzi scheme, telling lies during
the joint address.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Yes.
Mr. BOOKER. And then I read stories from people that work in Social
Security. They are telling about not having desks and the waiting lines
and inefficiencies that this has created, and the horrible,
deteriorating customer service.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Yes.
Mr. BOOKER. And I have been trying, as much as I can, during these
last 12 hours, to read stories of Republicans.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Yes, this affects everyone.
Mr. BOOKER. To read editorials from the Wall Street Journal, to just
show that this isn't a partisan thing. This isn't about left or right.
It is about right or wrong. It is about will we, as a country, honor
our commitments that we made.
And then I read from independent folks that are saying: This is crazy
that this program is even in jeopardy.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I have another question for you because I know you
want to move on to some national security issues this morning.
Mr. BOOKER. And I will yield for a question while retaining the
floor.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Senator Booker.
So the other thing that stressed out my constituents that I talked
about this weekend is air safety. They are very, very stressed out
about these cuts to the FAA.
You know, there was a plane crash not too far from here--a helicopter
crash. Everyone in that helicopter perished.
We have been reading about stories across the country about flight
safety and the fact that there are near collisions all the time.
We had a horrible crash in New York, in Buffalo, the Colgan Air
crash. I have gotten to know the families over the last several years
because they have worked together for legislation to make sure that we
have pilot safety.
But what I have been watching in terms of this administration is they
don't seem to care. They just have made up this idea that cuts across
the board are necessary to get rid of fraud and waste in the budget.
And I agree we can make government more efficient, but the way you do
that is at least learn what each of these Agencies does, study what is
happening in them and how to make them more efficient. Make sure the
right number of personnel are hired. Make sure the right training is
offered. Make sure there are no wasteful programs. That is good
government.
That is not what Elon Musk and his DOGE boys are doing. That is
nothing like what they are doing. They are just cutting everything
because they want to make space for these tax cuts for their
billionaire buddies.
It is really disgraceful. It is something that I don't quite
understand.
So over the past 2 months--just the past 2 months--we have seen
horrifying accidents and near-misses at airports all across the
country, and there was another close call just this past Friday, again,
at DCA. Many of these accidents have been a result of chronic
understaffing and antiquated technologies at the FAA.
But instead of fixing those problems, the first thing that the Trump
administration did when it came to power was fire people.
I think he is kind of stuck in the loop of ``The Apprentice": You are
fired. You are fired. You are fired.
I don't get it.
Good government is important, and I support efficiency. That is not
what they are doing. It is like they are on a power trip, and they just
want to fire everybody across the board--just fire them all.
So while the court forced the FAA to rehire workers--thank God for
the courts. Thank God for the judges that are doing their jobs and
looking at these lawsuits appropriately. Many Federal workers have
simply moved on and found new jobs because these are highly skilled,
highly sought-after employees, people that we really want working in
the Federal Government to keep our country safe.
Now, just weeks after the horrific plane crash here, with 67 people
getting killed in Washington, the administration fired hundreds of
Federal Aviation Administration employees, jeopardizing the public
safety and threatening our national security. So that made no sense. It
was right on the heels of some horrific accident that we all witnessed.
Now, over 90 percent of U.S. airport terminal towers don't have
enough air traffic controllers. Critical shortages remain for other
aviation safety personnel, such as safety inspectors and mechanics, to
make sure that, when we get on that plane, that plane is ready to go.
In New York, nearly 40 percent of positions are unfilled at two
facilities on Long Island that direct air traffic for Newark, our
shared airport, JFK, and LaGuardia. As a result, over these past few
years, the United States has experienced a substantial and alarming
increase in the number of near-misses.
According to an analysis in the New York Times, in 2023, close calls
involving commercial airlines occurred, on average, multiple times each
week, and the number of significant air traffic control lapses
increased 65 percent over the previous year.
What did they cite as the major reason behind the increase? A
shortage of air traffic controllers.
While the Trump administration claims no air traffic controllers or
critical safety personnel were fired, we
[[Page S2008]]
know that many of those who were let go played essential roles in
maintaining our air traffic control infrastructure. Others were
responsible for maintaining navigational, landing, and radar systems.
We also know that safety inspectors, systems specialists, and
maintenance mechanics are among the workers who were affected. And at
least one of the employees fired worked for FAA's National Defense
Program, which protects our air space from enemy drones, missiles, and
aircraft used as weapons.
I want to talk about those missiles and drones as well. I really want
to talk to you about what your thinking is here that we don't have a
plan. You have the incursions in New Jersey and incursions in New York
at the same time, and we don't have assurance that those drones aren't
being operated by China or Russia or Iran or another adversary for a
nefarious purpose. We have to get to the bottom of this, and that is
something that, Senator Booker, you and I have been at the forefront
when questioning the administration about what they are doing on this
issue.
So the question I have is this: Why did the administration fire these
workers and so easily part with them? Who will perform these duties
going forward? What risk analysis was performed to ensure this won't
make flying less safe?
Now, I asked these questions of the Secretary of Transportation in a
letter on February 20, over a month ago. And what was their response?
We don't know. They haven't answered my letter. They are not willing to
engage the Senate in actual policy and decisions that keep our State
safe.
What is worse is that we don't know if this is where it ends or if
more reductions are coming and more reductions that allow for safety
for our FAA.
Now, DOGE's so-called workforce optimization initiative--it is BS.
They don't do the analysis first. They just make the cuts.
We need the Secretary and the Acting FAA Administrator to respond to
Congress's questions and oversight. The American people deserve to have
a Federal Aviation Agency that is dedicated to actually doing the job
of protecting us, protecting this country.
The Trump administration needs to take immediate steps to address FAA
staffing shortages across the entire Agency, not just air traffic
controllers.
So, Senator Booker, the question I really want to ask you is this:
For your State, for New Jerseyans, what are they thinking? How do they
receive this information? What do they say when they read about drone
incursions over one of your arsenals, over one of your sensitive
military bases? What do they think about cutting staff at the FAA when
they watch all this information about crashes?
I know my constituents are pretty stressed out about it. They don't
understand why someone is making these cuts.
Again, the ``why'' is the most important question. It is not for
efficiency. It is not to get rid of the fat. It is not to get rid of
the fraud. Never heard an allegation that there is fraud in the FAA.
Never heard an allegation that there is fat in the FAA. They have been
understaffed forever. So they are lying about the purpose.
So what is the purpose? What is the purpose? What are they going to
do with that money, Senator Booker? I would like to know.
Mr. BOOKER. So I appreciate this more than you know, and there is a
line threaded throughout your entire question about the way they are
going about doing this from so many Agencies. First, they are trying to
kill certain Agencies--the Department of Education, which they can't
legally do. USAID, they can't legally do. We created that--the article
I branch of government.
But on some of these other Agencies like Social Security, where you
started, we know it is: Ready, fire, aim. And actually the ``aim'' part
never happens. They are savagely cutting personnel and organization
after organization.
Seniors, thousands of them, are already writing in about the
undermining of service. The Wall Street Journal article we read last
night said that the customer service at Social Security is going from
bad to worse and painted horrific pictures that are putting seniors in
crisis, not to mention the closing of Social Security centers in rural
areas, where people have to now drive hours and hours and hours.
And so at the FAA, it was one of the early outrages that they fired
people that they then realized they needed and tried to find some way
to pull some of them back.
And you and I both know the way they talk about government workers--a
large percentage of them are veterans--the way they demean and degrade
them, the way they accuse them of being parts of corruption, fraud, or
fat, when the stories we have been reading of what some of these folks
do is extraordinary.
And so your question, though, brings up a lot of national security
issues, and I am going to bridge to that because you and I both were
really, really incensed that we weren't getting enough information when
we had these incursions. And I want to start--what I have been doing in
other sections is just reading, elevating on this floor the voices of
people from our country, trying to elevate more of the voices to let
people know we see you, we hear you. Your outrage, your hurt, your
fears--they have value.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I have another question before you start your
letters, Senator Booker, if you will take another question, if you will
yield.
Mr. BOOKER. I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. So because you are going into the national security
section, I want to give you a couple of questions to pepper your
answers because I sit on the Special Committee on Intelligence in the
Senate. I also sit on the Armed Services Committee. And so national
security is an area where New Yorkers care a deep amount about, and I
have been spending the last 15 years focused on how we keep this
country safe and what we should be doing. And so I get a lot of
questions from New Yorkers about this issue.
So I want you to address the drone issue, for sure, because that is
something you and I have been working on continuously since we have
seen these incursions.
And just to give a little more context for New Yorkers who might be
listening to this debate, we have had drone incursions over sensitive
military sites for quite some time now, and it is something that I have
been working on on a bipartisan basis through the Intelligence
Committee. Some of these incursions are every night, over and over
again, over sensitive military bases. There was one over Langley. We
have had them over arsenals in New Jersey, over sensitive sites in New
York. We have had them over military bases across the country.
And, you know, I don't like it when the answer is, ``Oh, we know
where most of this is. This is mostly FAA traffic.'' I don't like it
when I hear it from this administration--or any administration--because
it is not true. Some of the drone sightings are planes in the air,
helicopters, you know, maybe weather balloons, maybe enthusiasts, but
they do not know if all are. And with these specific incursions, they
do not know the origin of them. They do not know whose they are. They
do not know who is operating them. They do not know the purpose of
these drones. These drones could easily be spying. They could be
planning attacks. They could be doing anything nefarious. We have no
basis to say it is all known, and we are not concerned.
So this is something we are going to get to the bottom of. I am very
incensed about it. It does not leave our personnel safe. It does not
leave our secrets safe. So drones is one issue.
The second issue, if you could address it, is on the national
security side: cyber security. I think that--and election security.
One of the cuts that the DOGE boys made--which I literally cannot
understand why they would ever do this. This is making us weaker. It is
making us less safe. It is not good for America. It shows how ill-
advised this process is and how uninformed this process is and how we
can see through these cuts and how insincere this process is. This is
not about waste. This is not about fraud. This is not about good
government. This is about making massive cuts for tax breaks for
billionaires because that is where they want to spend your tax
dollars--New Yorkers' tax dollars and New Jerseyans' tax dollars. They
want to take it and give it as tax breaks to billionaires.
[[Page S2009]]
OK. So this is the question. They have cut all of the personnel--or
the main personnel--at an organization called CISA that we are supposed
to be doing election security with. So the people who actually were
working with the States to make sure our election system can't be
hacked--they fired those people. They fired the senior personnel at the
Department of Defense, our most experienced generals across the board,
members from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They just fired them. For what
reason? I don't know. No substantive reason was ever given, but these
are the senior personnel who actually keep us from wars, who have the
judgment and the experience to advise the President, to advise
Congress, to advise us on how to keep us safe.
Then the last group they cut were the lawyers. Do you remember that
Shakespeare play: The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers? Well,
the context in which that was given was in order to have a coup. So
Shakespeare, hundreds of years ago, said: If you want to have a coup,
the first thing you do is you kill all the lawyers. Well, they fired
all the lawyers--the senior lawyers--of the Department of Defense. They
fired the generals who actually know how to keep us safe, and then they
fired the personnel at CISA, who are responsible for election
interference. They fired the people at the FBI, who were also
responsible for election interference. So, again, these firings make no
sense. I don't think they are making us less--I don't think they are
making us more safe. I think they are making us less safe. When you
fire the people who know what they are doing and are dedicated to
keeping us safe, it doesn't make us safer.
What do you think, Senator Booker, about any of the topics that I
raised, specifically on the drones, the firings of the election
protection personnel at CISA, the firings of the generals, the firings
of the senior lawyers at the Department of Defense, or the firings of
the FBI personnel, who are also expert at election interference? These
are the smartest, most capable, the most sophisticated, senior
personnel who are there to help us keep this country safe. I really
want to hear what you are hearing from your State and what you are
thinking about this reckless, reckless approach to national security.
Mr. BOOKER. I am so grateful for the questions from my colleague and
my friend.
I want folks to know, probably the best dinner I had here when I came
here was with the Senator from New York, who really gave me a quick
rundown on how to get things done in this body. I have watched her work
on both sides of the aisle, relentlessly, to get things over the finish
line and to help people in our region--from the 9/11 folks, who were
our first responders, to get their healthcare; to fight to support the
military, to empower the military; but to fight against sexual assault
in the military. She is one of these phenomenal people.
A lot of the questions we are going to get to, including that
question that was obviously painful about national security, is like,
hey, one of the strategies of Russia--and we know this--is to attack
the elections of other democracies, to try to sow discord, to try to
undermine the very voting process, and the Trump administration pulled
away a lot of the people from the DOJ and elsewhere when their sole
purpose was to fight against foreign election interference.
So how can we have a nation where the President is in charge of
national security and is not doing things to address the issues that
were in your questions?
I want to start by reading a couple of constituent letters. I know we
want to step back and talk a little bit about immigration, as my
colleague and my friend and my partner in leadership in the Senate Tina
Smith is here, but I want to get into some of these letters because I
said over 12 hours ago that we were going to continue to elevate the
voices of people out there.
So this is coming from--I just want to--from someone from New Jersey.
They are writing:
Dear Senator Booker, I am writing to express my deep
concern regarding the current state of our Nation and the
lack of response to the looming constitutional crisis. It is
becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the actions of a
President who routinely lies and makes outrageous proposals
such as annexing Greenland, Mexico, and Panama or even
renaming the Gulf of Mexico. Those proposals not only
undermine our international standing but also disrespect the
foundations of our country.
Furthermore, I am alarmed by the growing threat to press
freedom. Recently, for example, the Associated Press was
barred from the White House press room simply for referring
to the Gulf of Mexico rather than the Gulf of America--a
clear sign of the President's disregard for free speech
and a free press's role in holding power to account.
The President is actively trampling on the Constitution and
blatantly ignoring the rule of law--
As Senator Gillibrand was saying:
He has taken steps to slash vital Federal Agencies and
disaster relief programs, undermining our Nation's capacity
to respond to crises. His decision to appoint unqualified
individuals to high positions for the purpose of following
his will is another example of how our democratic systems are
being systematically weakened.
Additionally, his reckless and irresponsible approach to
foreign policy is making the world more dangerous. His
insistence on blaming Ukraine for Russia's invasion and
ongoing war is not only historically inaccurate but also
deeply damaging to our allies and global stability. Even
worse, his administration has entertained so-called peace
settlements that exclude Ukraine from the process entirely,
effectively allowing Russia to dictate terms without any
Ukrainian input. Such actions betray our commitments to
sovereignty and democracy and embolden authoritarian regimes
worldwide.
Domestically, his agenda is destructive. His administration
has pursued the withdrawal from the USAID, the gutting of
critical global humanitarian and development efforts that
have long served U.S. interests abroad.
At home, he is enabling tech billionaires like Elon Musk to
take a chain saw to government Agencies, arbitrarily
dismantling institutions that provide essential public
services. His attacks on the NIH and its funding jeopardize
critical medical research and public health initiatives,
undermining scientific progress for purely ideological
reasons.
Beyond these threats, his treatment of our closest allies
is both reckless and embarrassing. His taunting of Canada,
whether through inflammatory rhetoric or deliberate policy
snubs, weakens our diplomatic ties and disregards the
importance of maintaining strong relationships with our
neighbors. This petty, shortsighted approach to international
regulations has isolated the United States at a time when
global cooperation is more critical than ever.
My greatest frustration, however, is the lack of action
from our Representatives and Governors. Too many are cowering
in fear of the President's authoritarian tactics. I am
troubled by the absence of pushback. I am troubled by the
absence of pushback. I am troubled by the absence of
pushback. We are witnessing the erosion of checks and
balances, and the consequences could be dire.
I was heartened by Governor Janet Mills, of Maine, standing
up to the President's orders. Unfortunately, his response was
a threat to her political future--further evidence of the
intimidation tactics being employed.
I implore you, Senator Booker, to show some moral courage
and take meaningful action to stand up to this growing threat
to our democracy. Please let me know how you are responding
to the situation and what steps you, Senator Booker, are
taking to defend our Constitution and the rule of law. Thank
you for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you
soon.
I hope at this early morning hour, at almost 8 o'clock, that maybe
you are listening, because I hear you; I see you; and I am standing
here because I am part of letters like yours. This is not normal. These
are not normal times, and we must begin to do as John Lewis said: Get
in good trouble. Get in necessary trouble.
I want to read from another constituent. I just want to see where
this person is from. I am not trying to violate the privacy, which my
staff doesn't want me to do.
Mr. MURPHY. Chippewa Falls.
Mr. BOOKER. What's that?
Mr. MURPHY. Chippewa Falls.
Mr. BOOKER. We know Wisconsin is getting a lot of love here. I told
my colleague I kept seeing folks from two towns--one in your State and
one in the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, but this person, alas,
is from Jersey.
I wrote to ask you to do all you can to resolve funding for
the National Institutes of Health and USAID. I work in
information technology at Princeton University, and I have
seen firsthand the destruction the termination of funds is
causing to research and education. We are losing the momentum
of research and causing a deep and lasting loss of
educational resources. The NIH and the National Science
Foundation provide funds for basic research as well as
applied topics. The benefits of this research will be long
lasting, and the cost of disruption will be very high.
Similarly, the disruption of USAID is tragic. My daughter
works for an organization
[[Page S2010]]
working with USAID on climate mitigation and adaptation. She
has lost job security as a result of the Trump
administration's actions. Work she has built on in Ethiopia,
Kenya, and elsewhere will be disrupted due to lack of
funding.
Thank you for your leadership as our Senator. I am proud to
be represented by you as well as our new Senator, Andy Kim.
The promise of our country is great, but we must redefine
our purpose and imagine a new future. Your experience and
knowledge will be critical to our country's success.
Let me go with two more and then turn to my colleague. This is a
short one.
I am writing to express my concerns about the chaos and
lawlessness coming out of the White House. USAID must be
restored. Please use powers to restore democracy to the
United States of America. This is not what democracy looks
like. Thank you.
Somebody from New Jersey.
And one more. One more. One more voice.
As a parent of a USAID Foreign Service Officer recently in Ukraine
and now in Kenya, I am outraged and horrified by the coup now being
staged by Elon Musk under the authority from the President. To be
called ``criminal'' after putting your life at risk in the service of
America's interests is itself to be a victim of criminal-like behavior.
I have seen the beautiful roads and railroads in Africa,
built by the Chinese. In one fell swoop, Trump has given that
continent to the Chinese and the Russians. He did the same
thing years ago by canceling participation in the Pacific
free trade pact, forfeiting our power and our good will,
making China the largest player in the region. I saw the good
will in the eyes of passersby from the Philippines to Georgia
to Tajikistan. Now I hear it turn to hostility.
Think of sports fans in Canada, booing our National Anthem.
Think also of the infants who will now die of AIDS because
USAID's treatment program was abruptly stopped, along with
vaccinations programs and programs for stopping diseases such
as Ebola, monkey pox, hemorrhagic fever. These diseases will
come home with even a 90-day pause of workers in these
programs. We will lose jobs, and rent, and some never will
return. Refrigeration of medicines will be at risk. Clinics
and offices will become unavailable. Humpty Dumpty will not
be quickly put back together again.
Some of what Trump wants to do will ultimately need
approval of Congress. I urge you to fight every one of his
proposals and appointments. Slow the legislative process as
much as you can, please. I hope Trump will lose his majority.
Thank you for your attention.
I will be of service in any way possible to right these
wrongs.
I love when constituents don't only point out what is wrong but stand
up and say: I will be of service. Let me know how I can help.
Your voice is helping tonight. Speaking to these issues is helping
tonight.
I know my Senate colleague is here. She has a question. I will yield
while retaining the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, thank you, and thank you to my colleague
from New Jersey for yielding for a question.
I want to just start by thanking my colleague, who is one of my
dearest friends in the Senate, for using your voice in such a powerful
way over the many, many hours that you have been holding the Senate
floor. I know you well enough to know that you are not doing this
because of your belief in the power of your voice; you are doing this
because of your belief in the power of all of the voices that you have
been amplifying all through the night and your belief of the importance
of the millions of Americans who are so frightened and concerned and
horrified by what they see this administration is doing and wanting to
feel like there is somebody here who is fighting for them and who is
listening to them.
The way in which you are reading these letters today and all through
the night, Senator Booker, I think is a tribute to your respect for all
of those Americans. So I am so grateful for that.
I wanted to take a moment, if I could, to ask you to yield for a
question related to what you have been talking about.
You know, I certainly agree with you that these are not normal times
in our Nation. As elected officials, it is our duty to speak up and to
fight back against the abuses and the overreach of this administration
and to raise up the voices of our constituents who, as I said, are both
frightened and furious about what is happening.
My question to you, Senator Booker, is about some of the Trump
administration's recent actions regarding immigration. My question is
in three parts.
First, I think that we can all agree that our current immigration
system in this country is broken. It is not working well for anyone. It
is not working well for American businesses that depend on a global
talent pool. It is not working well for families who want to reunite
with their loved ones. It is not working well at all for those who seek
refuge from persecution and believe in the promises that are carved
into the Statue of Liberty.
To my colleague, I ask these questions, and I think about the issues,
about the shortcomings of our immigration as the Senator from
Minnesota, where our meat processing sector relies so much on immigrant
labor, where the University of Minnesota is a beacon for international
students studying science and technology and agriculture, where the
resorts in Minnesota rely on folks from all over the country to come
and make them work as little mom-and-pop, 12-cabin operations up on
lakes in northern Minnesota and the manufacturers rely on, as I said,
the best and the brightest from all over the world coming to serve in
our State and serving our economy.
I think we know, my colleague from New Jersey, that there have been
real and serious bipartisan attempts at comprehensive immigration
reform debated in this body. While I might not have agreed with
everything in these proposals--I suspect you might not have as well--I
think we both, I am sure, strongly believe that immigration is an issue
that merits real debate and real policy solutions. Our colleague who
was here on the floor with us this morning, Senator Murphy from
Connecticut, has worked so hard to find real, bipartisan solutions.
I believe that comprehensive immigration reform needs to ensure our
national security. It needs to provide a fair and workable path for
immigrants who want to come and contribute to the American dream, which
is what truly makes this country great.
But here is the rub: The Trump administration's recent actions show
that they are not interested in serious policy reforms that would make
Americans safer or make our immigration system work more efficiently
and fairly. Instead, what I think we can see is that this President has
prioritized using our immigration system as a tool to restrict First
Amendment freedoms, to subvert due process, and to further weaken
America's global standing with our allies and our regional partners as
he seeks to emulate the authoritarian regimes he so openly admires.
As just one example, in recent weeks, we have seen a number of
international students targeted for arrest and deportation merely on
the basis of their pro-Palestinian advocacy. These are young people who
played by all the rules. They entered this country with permission in
order to further their education and have not been accused or charged
with any criminal activity.
Their views on the war in Gaza may differ sharply from mine or
others, but I believe that the First Amendment guarantees them the
right to express those views without facing punishment or reprisal from
our government.
Nonetheless, the Trump administration has admitted that they are
doing exactly that--seeking to punish lawfully present immigrants and
in some cases even green card holders because of the political views
they have expressed. The Secretary of State has invoked a rarely used
section of statute that allows him to unilaterally designate for
removal any alien who may cause ``potentially serious adverse foreign
policy consequences.''
As if that is not enough, many of these arrests have been carried out
in a manner that seems calculated to maximize fear and intimidation in
immigrant and activist communities. Here is an example for my colleague
to respond to. I want to take the case of the recent arrest of Rumeysa
Ozturk, a Turkish graduate student at Tufts University who was studying
the relationship between child development and our social media-
saturated, globally connected world. She is here on a valid student
visa, she is not accused of any crime, and by all accounts, she is a
loved and valued member of the Tufts community. Her only purported
offense was being one of four coauthors of an
[[Page S2011]]
op-ed in the student newspaper that urged the administration of Tufts
to engage with students' calls to divest from businesses with ties to
Israel and the IDF. For that offense, her visa was revoked with no
notice, and she was arrested on the street and spirited more than 1,500
miles away, which is likely a violation of a judge's order, to await
her probable deportation.
I am sure many of my colleagues, including my colleague from New
Jersey, have seen the video of her arrest, which was captured by a
neighbor's security camera. It is utterly chilling. She is surrounded
by officers in plainclothes, with no visible insignia, no markings at
all on their clothing. She is handled roughly. Her belongings are taken
away from her and her hands are cuffed before being loaded into an
unmarked car.
It is no exaggeration that her arrest looks like a kidnapping--one
that you might expect to see in Moscow rather than the streets of
Boston.
Of course, the terror of what she experienced is horrible to think
about, but I also think about the thousands and thousands and thousands
of other students here with a student visa or, you know, other lawful
immigrants who see this and think to themselves: This could happen to
me. This could be something that happens to my roommate or my student
or anybody.
It seems like such a breakdown in the rule of law and the way our
country should operate.
So I would like to ask my colleague: Does this seem normal or
appropriate, for Federal law enforcement officers of the United States
to conduct routine arrests in plainclothes, with unmarked cars, and
with this overwhelming show of force for individuals who pose no
obvious physical threat to those law enforcement?
Furthermore, is this not exactly the sort of operations that you
would order if your goal is to intimidate and dissuade immigrant and
activist communities from exercising their constitutional rights to
free speech?
Does punishing people for their political speech seem consistent with
American democratic values? I can't believe that we would think that it
would be consistent.
I wonder if my colleague from New Jersey would like to respond in any
way to this.
Mr. BOOKER. I want to respond deeply. I, first, want to thank my
colleague for being here in the morning. She is one of my colleagues
that I confided in when I told her it was enough for me, I needed to do
something different, and she readily encouraged me to be here on the
floor for what is now about 13 hours. She has encouraged me. She has
encouraged my heart and is just one of my dear friends. I am just so
grateful to see her this morning.
I want to say something before I begin answering her question. In my
hometown where I grew up in Bergen County, there is a family, the
Alexanders, whose son Edan is an American who is being held by Hamas.
He is being likely tortured and in trauma and in pain. He is a U.S.
citizen. He is an American.
I had a friend with me just recently, a man who was driving me
around. I have this ribbon that I often use that I keep in my pocket.
It reminds me of him and my determination to bring him home--bring him
home. I want his family to know that, as a State Senator, he is in my
thoughts.
I also feel there are so many New Jerseyans who are affected by this
crisis, who lost family members in the region. We must bring peace.
Then my friend Senator Smith asked this question about--which is a
real test because when you disagree with someone's statements so much,
but the very nature of the First Amendment--what makes this document so
precious is that it says that no matter how reprehensible your speech
is, this document says you have the right to say it.
I remember the controversy over an NFL player who kneeled. One of the
voices that sticks in my head is a White guy from the military who just
said: I fought battles--I think it was Afghanistan--and I am offended
by his taking a knee, but the very reason I fought was so that he would
have the freedom to do it.
So I came back. I was there on October 7. I have very hurt, strong
feelings about what is going on over there and urgent desires to end
the nightmare, to bring people like Edan home, to end the nightmare for
so many Israelis and Palestinians. I find so many things people are
saying so unhelpful to the crisis and to the moral truth that I believe
in. But I will fight for people's rights.
So here is a situation where you see a video, and it just doesn't
seem like who we are. If you are revoking somebody's visa, make a phone
call. Tell them: You have 30 days to leave. But there should be due
process. You should have to prove your claims in court. If this person
is somehow aligning with some kind of enemy, prove it. But what I saw
there doesn't reflect the highest ideals.
God, if this Constitution was easy, it wouldn't be worth the paper it
is written on.
So I love my friend because she wades into some difficult waters, but
she is guided by the oath that she took to defend the Constitution, and
in these complex and difficult times, she is standing up.
And I tell you, when we were in the immigration section last night--
or earlier, I should say--we read the most painful stories. My brother
over on the other side of me--I have got some of my really dear friends
on the floor right now: Senator Murphy, Senator Warnock, Senator Smith.
My brother Senator Warnock knows that we are a nation that is paying
hundreds of millions of dollars over the years of the Trump
administration to fund private prisons that are being paid,
incentivized, to take away people's liberties. We read stories in the
immigration section about people that got trapped in those systems that
should never be there--horrible stories, painful voices I have read,
about folks who were caught up in a system.
And I just loved that one article from the Canadian who was, for
weeks, put in a private prison. And suddenly, when she heard the lies
of the people who found ways to keep her there--the ``aha'' moment that
she realized: These people, every day I am there, they get profit. They
are not incentivized by justice; they are incentivized by profit.
I read stories, Senator Smith, of people who were sent to that
horrible jail in El Salvador that the government admitted they made a
mistake. They disappeared someone who has American family members.
Story after story I read that just are such a betrayal not of
democratic values but of American values because we all in this body
know we need to do more to protect our borders, to keep us safe, to
arrest criminals, be they undocumented or documented. That is an
urgency we all feel.
But when you sacrifice your core values, when you sacrifice them to a
demagogue who says, ``This is all about your safety,'' when you
sacrifice your core principles for your safety, you will achieve
neither. You will neither be safe nor morally strong.
The true leaders on both sides of the aisle that I have heard over
the years talk on these issues say we can do both; we can make our
country safe, and we can abide by our values. And in a complex world
where country after country disappears people, when authoritarian
countries disappear their political enemies, their political
adversaries, disappear people who say things they politically disagree
with--those countries are looking to us.
Did you know, when Donald Trump started using that phrase ``fake
news, fake news, fake news,'' that in Turkey, Erdogan started arresting
people on charges of fake news--because we are looked to. I believe,
like Reagan said, we could be that city on the hill, but we are up
high, and folks are going to look to us.
But what is the world order going to be? What is democracy globally
going to look like? Are we going to defend democracy and democratic
principles or will we behave like the authoritarians that we should be
against?
So this is a fundamental question you ask, and it has been resonating
all these 13 hours. We keep coming back to the Constitution because so
many things the Trump administration is doing, from the separation of
powers to violating the very first words of our Constitution, the very
first words, this commitment we make when we swear oaths, all of us:
``We the People of the United States'' of America--this is our
mandate--``in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice''--
it
[[Page S2012]]
comes really quick. It comes really quick. Is it just to disappear a
human being with no due process?
I quoted Antonin Scalia, this conservative that was sitting on a
stage with somebody he had a lot of affection for, Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
and this moderator asked him: Does somebody in our country have the
rights of this document? And he said: Yes, especially the 14th
Amendment that doesn't say any ``citizen''; it says no ``person,'' no
body.
So where do we stand when our Founders, those imperfect geniuses,
say: ``We the People . . . in Order to form a more perfect Union''--
``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity''--what Nation are we turning
over to the next President, to the next Congress, when this Congress is
sacrificing the powers that are given right underneath that preamble?
It is article I which spells out: ``All legislative Powers herein
granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall
consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.''
And then it goes on to talk about what we have the power to do. We
set the laws.
This President is invoking emergency powers like the alien
insurrection act, a 1790-something law that the last time it was used
was in World War II to detain Japanese Americans--something so
shameful--to put them in concentration camps here in America.
He wants to take power from our Congress. And the thing that is
killing me, that is actually breaking my heart, Brother Warnock, the
thing that is actually breaking my heart is that we are letting him,
that we are letting him take our power.
If Elon Musk were a Democrat and Joe Biden said, ``Hey, go after the
spending power of Congress,'' all the things that they approved--it is
hard to do bipartisan things here. God bless Patty Murray and Susan
Collins coming together and getting spending bills--hard work--done.
Lord knows, I sometimes play a little Motown in here. I ain't too proud
to beg. I go to the Appropriations leader and say: Hey, my New
Jerseyans in this county need this. We work on all these--I fight for
programs with Lindsey Graham and USAID with now-Secretary of State
Marco Rubio, programs that he approved.
The Department of Education. I have worked with Republicans to put
things in the Department of Education. There are people here that
worked in a bipartisan way to try to simplify the FAFSA forms. I could
go through all the work we have done that now this body--the article I
branch of the Constitution, right under the mandate of the United
States of America, as Tina Smith is telling us, right after ``We the
People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice''--the Senator, my friend, and so that is why we are
here. That is why, now, the Senate is filling up. It is friends galore.
We have Amy Klobuchar now on the floor.
That is why we are here. No business as usual. No business as usual.
We are not doing the usual order. We are talking about these things. We
are making the case. We talked about immigration. We talked about
Medicaid. We talked about Medicare. We talked about healthcare. We
talked about medical research. We talked about Social Security. We are
marching through. We are marching through. Thirteen hours. I have more
in the tank.
And so I thank you for that question. It brings up very emotional
things for me; I will be honest. It brings up pain and frustration and
hurt. It brings up, for me, the pain of so many New Jerseyans that have
reached out--the Palestinian doctors in my State who worked with my
office to get Palestinian babies into America for care. It brings up
the hurt of being there and seeing the worst slaughter of Jews since
the Holocaust.
So many things are painful, but if we sacrifice our values, it
reminds me of the mosque being built, 9/11. It reminds me of all these
difficult points: the marchers in Skokie, of KKK--all these difficult
points where the values of this Constitution were tested, where we were
being measured.
But I have to say, what this President is doing with the alien
insurrection act, what this President is doing with no due process,
what this President is doing with flushing the Department of Education,
with getting rid of the USAID, with attacking thousands of people that
serve our veterans and that serve our Social Security--those things
should be obvious to this institution, to the Senate, that that is
wrong, that they have unelected--the biggest campaign donor, unelected,
who is getting our personal information, and there is no transparency.
Nobody in this body can say they know what confidential information was
let out, Elon Musk has, and knows what they do with it because they
didn't bring him here to answer for it.
So I thank my colleague for the question. And I know Reverend Warnock
is going to ask me one. I just want to take us a couple pages into this
for a second.
The American people alone, our approach to foreign policy practiced
by the President--what the President has done is left our allies
feeling abandoned, feeling degraded and insulted. He has left our
adversaries feeling emboldened and has done things that have hurt our
national security, that has made Americans less safe.
In the short time President Trump has been in office for a second
term, Americans have already been put in harm's way because of the
reckless approach of the administration. It all begins, in fact, with
his extremely poor judgment. This administration has prioritized the
obsequiousness to Donald Trump over the expertise when it comes to some
of the most important national security jobs, and it has sidelined
dedicated professionals who have devoted their lives to keeping our
country safe.
This administration has also demonstrated an inability to distinguish
between America's adversaries and America's allies and a disturbing
failure to understand how America's partnerships and investments abroad
protect and benefit communities here.
I am reminded of General Mattis saying: If you are cutting things
like the USAID or the State Department, buy me more bullets.
But this is something that folks on the floor have talked about. I
see one of my friends and somebody I really look up to--I see Tim
Kaine--who sits a little bit higher up on the dais than I on the
Foreign Relations Committee, somebody I have turned to many times. And
he was astonished by this. And I know he, like me, has had private
conversations with our Republican colleagues about this. But this body
has not called for one hearing or one investigation. No accountability.
What am I talking about? It is when, last week, we learned Vice
President JD Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of
State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard,
Director of the CIA John Ratcliffe, Trump's National Security Advisor
Mike Waltz, Special Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff, and
several other high-ranking officials in the Trump administration
discussed attack plans against the Houthis in Yemen in a group chat
over the commercial messaging app Signal.
We learned of this because the President's National Security Advisor
mistakenly invited the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey
Goldberg, on the text chain. And after Jeffrey Goldberg published a
story describing this jaw-dropping national security failure where they
could have broken at least two laws that I am aware of just by doing
that--from the preservation of public records all the way to disclosing
national security, highly classified information--the President and his
Cabinet members didn't step up and say, ``We made mistakes,'' didn't
step up and say, ``This is clearly abjectly wrong,'' didn't step up and
say, ``There will be accountability,'' didn't step up and say, ``We
will take actions.'' No.
What they decided to do when they were exposed is actually target the
reporter with a barrage of insults and not acknowledging any
wrongdoing. Unsurprisingly, the Trump team's response led Jeffrey
Goldberg to publish the rest of the Signal chat messages, which exposed
more administration lies.
We are going to go into that, but I really want to turn to my
brother. And
[[Page S2013]]
I said earlier about Senator Murphy's speech, one of my favorites I
have ever actually heard when I was in the Senate--Brother Warnock gave
a speech that was one of my favorites in the Senate, too, when he
talked about the difference between January 5 America and that fateful
day, January 6.
He has been a friend of mine for a long time. I think he might be the
only person in this body--I started this talk 13 hours ago by talking
about getting into good trouble. I think you might be the only person
in this body that was arrested in this building for protesting before
you came to serve in this building as a U.S. Senator.
I am going to stick to what I am told to say. If you ask me that you
would like to speak--you have to say, ``I would like to ask you a
question.'' I think that is how this goes.
Mr. WARNOCK. Will the Senator from New Jersey yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. Why, yes. I will yield for a question while retaining the
floor.
Mr. WARNOCK. Good morning, and let me just say, Cory Booker, how
very, very proud I am of you. It is a real honor to serve in this body.
I know that all of my colleagues who are here agree that it is an
honor for the people of your State to say that when we take stock of
all the issues that we wrestle with, as we look into the eyes of our
children and consider what we want for them, and into the eyes of our
aging parents as they deal with the blessings and the burdens of
getting older, since all of us can't go to Washington, we are going to
send you.
And we are going to trust that, in rooms of power where decisions are
being made, you are going to center the people and not yourself. You
are going to be thinking about ordinary people.
And so Cory Booker, I want to thank you for holding vigil. As I
prepare to ask you a question, I just want to thank you for holding
vigil for this country all night.
Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel said that when he marched with Dr. King,
he felt like his legs were praying.
So in a very real sense, your legs have been praying as you have been
standing on this floor all night. And thank you for praying not just
with your lips but with your legs for a nation in need of healing.
I just got off a prayer call that I do every Tuesday morning at 7:14
a.m.
That is 2 Chronicles 7:14:
If my people, who are called by my name, will humble
themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their
wicked ways; then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive
their sin, and will heal the land.
The Nation needs healing. We need spiritual healing. We need moral
healing.
But, literally, there are people all across our country who need
healing, who need healthcare. So that is why I was so proud to come to
this Senate after being arrested in the Rotunda a few years before
that, proud to join you in the Senate, proud that we were able to pass,
just a couple of months after I got here, the American Rescue Plan,
which did so much incredible work.
In that American Rescue Plan, there was the expanded child tax
credit, which literally cut child poverty more than 40 percent in our
country. I wish we could get it extended.
One of the other things we did was we lowered Georgians' and
Americans' healthcare premiums by hundreds of dollars on average.
We passed a tax cut--and that is so relevant in this moment because
that is what this body is prepared to do, I guess, in the next few
days--pass the tax cut, but that tax cut is literally going to be for
the richest of the rich, the wealthiest among us.
But we passed a tax cut that brought healthcare into reach for tens
of thousands of Georgians and millions of Americans in the American
Rescue Plan. These tax credits are so critical that the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office said that the number of Americans without
healthcare would grow by 3.8 million people in just 1 year if the
premium subsidies were allowed to expire.
Forgive me for my phone ringing. My 8-year-old and 6-year-old are
calling me. They are not impressed with what I am doing.
Mr. BOOKER. That is an important phone call.
Mr. WARNOCK. They are not impressed.
But we know that this would impact thousands of Georgians who have
only recently been able to receive healthcare. We passed in that
American Rescue Plan these tax credits, which put healthcare in reach,
and now they are set to expire if we don't do our work. That is why
what you are doing, Cory Booker, is holy work. It is within a political
context, but this is holy work.
If these tax credits are allowed to expire, a 45-year-old in Georgia
with $62,000 in annual income would see premiums go up by $1,414 a
year.
A 60-year-old couple in Georgia with an $82,000 annual income would
see premiums go up by a staggering $18,157 a year. Think about that.
Nearly one-third of Americans have less than $500 in savings in their
bank account. Imagine the healthcare costs for a 60-year-old couple
going up by more than $18,000.
A health insurance premium hike like this would be more than an
inconvenience. It wouldn't just be a nuisance. It is literally the
difference between having healthcare coverage and not having healthcare
coverage.
So I am thinking about people like that. I am thinking about my
constituent Cassie Cox from Bainbridge, GA. She wasn't able to afford
healthcare on the Affordable Care Act marketplace until the premium tax
credit brought healthcare into reach.
Shortly after she became insured, she severely cut her hand, which
landed her in the emergency room with 35 stitches. With insurance, it
still cost her about $300. Had it not been for the tax credits
that allowed her to get healthcare, she could have been in financial
ruin.
She is one of the hundreds of thousands of Georgians at risk of
losing their coverage if these tax credits are allowed to expire, if we
don't do our work, if we are more focused on the wealthiest of the
wealthy rather than the concerns of ordinary people.
Senator Booker, should Democrats and Republicans come together to
extend the premium tax credit for hard-working folks in New Jersey and
in Georgia? What do you think?
Mr. BOOKER. That is my easiest colleague's question I have gotten
within these 13 hours.
Yes, they should. I was talking in the healthcare section about,
while there are these big issues that we should be concerned about--
$880 billion for Medicaid--cutting all of that out to give to the
wealthiest, as you said--God bless them; they don't need our help; they
don't need more tax cuts--to give them tax cuts, and explode the
deficit, this is literally taking from working Americans.
The letters we read, the voices of Americans, the fear, the anguish,
the hurt, the worry, people who were suffering from Parkinson's, who
had children with disabilities, who had elder parents living with them,
so many people telling them--not $880 billion, their whole financial
well-being was hanging on a thread and just cutting transportation
programs involved.
But I said, while all that was going on, the Trump administration was
still doing other things to attack ACA enrollment, to attack the tax
credits that people are relying on, and doing other things to drive up
costs.
I know some of my colleagues are on the floor, like Amy Klobuchar. We
have centered the lowering prescription costs, and he is doing things
to drive out-of-pocket costs up. There is a cruelty in that.
And I intend to still be standing at noon, when we have the pause in
the Senate for the Pledge and the prayer.
And, Pastor, I want to talk to you in the way that you talked to me
last night.
I called my brother, I called my friend, and told him I was doing
this--and Warnock shifts gears a lot in my life. Sometimes, he is my
colleague. Sometimes, he is my brother. Sometimes, we talk about the
state of unmarried guys in the Senate. I won't put you on blast, sir.
Mr. WARNOCK. The bald-headed caucus.
Mr. BOOKER. The bald-headed caucus.
But the one time you shifted gears into being my pastor and my
friend, we prayed together last night. And most Americans identify in
our faith--the Christian faith. And you and I know--I would yield for
you to ask a question,
[[Page S2014]]
but I am yielding just to have you talk about Matthew 25.
Mr. WARNOCK. Right. Right. I am a Matthew 25 Christian.
Mr. BOOKER. You and I both. That is what we hold in common.
Mr. WARNOCK. It is a long chapter, but in the section we are talking
about, in Matthew 25, Jesus says: I was hungry and you fed me. I was
thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was sick.
Mr. BOOKER. What were you?
Mr. WARNOCK. I was in prison, and you came to visit me. And someone
asked: Lord, when were You sick? When were You in prison? When were You
an undocumented immigrant?
Mr. BOOKER. Yes. Yes.
Mr. WARNOCK. And the answer comes: In as much as you have done it to
the least of these, you have done it also unto me.
Another part of that text says: And when you don't do it for the
least of these, you don't do it for me.
The Scripture says that the one who gives to the poor renders to the
Lord. This is holy work.
Mr. BOOKER. Sir, my friend, I don't understand how a nation could
allow a President to be so cruel that he would take away healthcare
from people struggling with children that are facing the worst of
health challenges, people who have a spouse like the person who wrote
to me--no, it wasn't a spouse. She wrote me herself. She had
Parkinson's.
I got upset because that is how my father died. I watched, year after
year after year, how it affected my family, how it demanded from my
mother, how it cost thousands of dollars for his care. And thank God we
have the privilege. But this person was writing because they were
afraid, and they didn't know what the costs would be.
How can our country say that kind of cruelty--how could a nation
where the majority of its people are people of faith, be they Muslim or
Jain or Baha'i or Hindu or Jewish--how can the central precept of our
country, founded on principles that are reflected in the Good Book--how
could we say that we should cut healthcare from the sick and the needy
to give bigger tax cuts to Elon Musk?
Mr. WARNOCK. Will the Senator from New Jersey yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. I will yield to you, my brother, while retaining the
floor.
Mr. WARNOCK. You know, this is the reason why every Sunday and every
weekend, when I leave here, I return not only to Georgia, but I return
to my pulpit. Some folks ask: Why do you continue to lead Ebenezer
Church?
I return to my pulpit every Sunday because, notwithstanding wonderful
people like you, I don't want to spend all my time talking to
politicians. I am afraid I might accidentally become one.
So I want to connect and check in with ordinary folks because I was
focused on this healthcare issue long before I came to the Congress.
Dr. King said that of all injustices, inequality in healthcare is
``the most shocking and the most inhumane.''
Mr. BOOKER. I read that last night, Pastor. I read that last night.
Mr. WARNOCK. ``The most shocking and most inhumane.''
It is the reason why, as a pastor, inspired by Dr. King, leading the
congregation that Dr. King led--way back in 2014, when the Affordable
Care Act was passed, were you here? You came after.
Mr. BOOKER. I came after.
Mr. WARNOCK. You came right after that.
I got arrested in the Governor's office in Georgia, fighting for
healthcare.
Mr. BOOKER. I didn't know you were a two-time arrestee, man.
Mr. WARNOCK. I got a long record, brother, but, also, good trouble.
Mr. BOOKER. Oh, good trouble.
Mr. WARNOCK. Good trouble.
We had a 1960 sit-in in the Governor's office. Waves of us got
arrested. They arrested one wave. Then another wave came, and another
wave came. We were trying to get Georgia to expand Medicaid.
Mr. BOOKER. Yes, I remember that.
Mr. WARNOCK. We passed the Affordable Care Act here, but Georgia was
digging in its heals, and said: No, we are not going to expand
Medicaid.
So when I got here, Senator Klobuchar, I made it a priority of mine
to get incentives for Georgia to expand Medicaid. And you remember, I
went to our caucus and I said: Look, Georgia and about 9--then 10--
other States have not expanded. They should have done it a long time
ago. Let's see if we can make it even easier for them.
As a freshman Senator, I was able to convince our caucus to give
$14.5 billion for nonexpansion States, which includes $2 billion just
for Georgia to incentivize Medicaid expansion.
Why? So that working people in the gap, people who literally go to
work every day, can get healthcare. Georgians left at $2 billion
sitting on the table and almost 600,000 Georgians in the gap. The
Governor's plan has literally enrolled a whopping 6,500 people in
healthcare, but we got nearly 600,000 people in the gap. This is not
theoretical stuff.
Every time I talk about this, I have to talk about Heather Payne,
because Heather Payne is a resident of Dalton, GA. She spent her career
taking care of others. She is a traveling nurse. Heather worked
throughout COVID as an ER and labor and delivery nurse, yet, often, she
did not have healthcare coverage herself because she fell into the
healthcare coverage gap. Sometimes she had health insurance coverage;
sometimes she didn't.
She made too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but the only
coverage options available to her were unaffordable, costing anywhere
between $500 and $1,000 a month. And so about 2\1/2\ years ago, Heather
Payne, a traveling nurse, noticed that something was wrong in her body.
And even though she noticed that something was wrong, Senator
Klobuchar, she literally had to wait for months before she could see a
doctor, to save up her money.
And then she finally went and saw a neurologist who said: Do you know
what? You have actually had a series of small strokes. And even after
getting that diagnosis, she had to put off serious medical procedures
because she cannot work as an ER nurse anymore and is still waiting to
get approved for disability so she can get Medicaid coverage.
And so this nurse, who has spent her whole life healing other people,
can't get healthcare. I think it is wrong that in the richest country
on Earth, we don't want to lower the cost of healthcare for people who
are working hard in our communities every day, literally keeping us
healthy.
I am going to ask you another softball question, Senator Booker.
Should people like my friend Heather Payne have access to affordable
healthcare?
Mr. BOOKER. Yes.
Mr. WARNOCK. In the first few months of the Trump administration, it
has been clear that this administration is not working for--
Mr. BOOKER. I am going to just say this just to try to stay in the
parliamentary--I yield for a question while retaining the floor. I
yield for another question while retaining the floor.
Mr. WARNOCK. The administration is working for the billionaires. They
are working for people like Elon Musk. Healthcare is a human right.
Healthcare is basic. And while we are speaking about health, we have
got to cheer on our Federal workers who are keeping us healthy. And
there are folks in this administration who say that they want to make
them the villains. That is what Russell Vought said, that ``when they
wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work,'' our
Federal workers, ``because they are increasingly viewed,'' he said,
``as the villains.''
I have got news for Russell Vought. The people who staff our VA
hospitals are not villains. The people who keep our food safe and our
water clean are not villains. The people who keep our military bases
operating are not villains. And so we stand with them in this moment
because they are keeping all of us healthy.
And so in closing--and nobody believes a Baptist preacher when he
says in closing--let me say that, again, you are doing holy work here,
brother, by holding this floor.
You are literally holding vigil for our Nation. We are beset by the
politics of fear. The scripture tells us that perfect love casts out
all fear. We are witnessing, again, this ugly game, the politics of us
and them.
Mr. BOOKER. Yes.
Mr. WARNOCK. And there are a lot of folks who, because so much of
what
[[Page S2015]]
has been going on in our Nation across Republican and Democratic
administrations--let's be honest--has not been working for ordinary
people. And the gap between the haves and the have-nots has gotten
larger and larger. And when people are vulnerable, sometimes they give
in to the politics of fear, somebody telling them that they have got
all the answers.
And so we saw this in this last cycle; we are seeing it in this
moment in our country--the politics of us and them. And sadly, hard-
working, working-class people are waking up this morning, and they are
discovering that they thought they were in the ``us,'' and they are
discovering that they are in the ``them.'' That the ``them'' is larger
than they thought.
And so we have got to hold vigil for each other, for workers, for
women, for immigrants, for immigrant families, for our sisters and our
brothers, red, yellow, brown, Black, and White; for the aging who need
Social Security; for the working poor who need Medicaid; for those who
are seeking asylum and they just need a dignified path; for those who
have been working here for years and they need a dignified path to
citizenship. We have got to hold vigil for each other.
And so thank you for this work. This is not the end, but the
beginning. The struggle continues. Dr. King said that the true measure
of a person is not where he stands in moments of comfort and
convenience but where he stands in moments of challenge and
controversy.
So thank you for praying for this Nation with your lips and with your
legs. I am going to ask you one last question. Do you intend to keep
praying?
Mr. BOOKER. Amen, hallelujah, yes, I do. Thank you for that question.
I know there is going to be a question coming to me, I just want to
say pray Isaiah 40:31 for me.
Mr. WARNOCK. Got it, got it. I am going to ordain this man.
Mr. BOOKER. All right. The article I was going to start reading--
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Senator Booker.
Mr. BOOKER. I yield for a question while retaining the floor. The
Senator asked a question. I yield for a question while retaining the
floor.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. So you will yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. Yes, while retaining the floor, yes.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Very good. I want to, first of all, thank you, thank
you for waking us up this morning, literally. All night as Reverend
Warnock would tell you, I know you were in here doing your work, but it
was raining, there was thunder, it was really bad. And then when we
woke up this morning, you were still talking. You were still talking,
and the sun was out, and you are giving people hope.
When I think about what you are doing, you are like an alarm clock
right now for this country, and, slowly but surely, we have seen people
realize, this isn't just a bunch of campaign rhetoric that is going on,
this is actually happening. And people are stepping up. They are
fighting it in the courts. They are fighting it in Congress. With what
you are doing today, with what--as you know, last week when we got the
horrible news that the Defense Secretary of the United States was using
an unauthorized line to just talk with his friends like he was spiking
a football, about putting the lives of our servicemembers at risk,
people stood up. Democrats stood up. They asked the tough questions.
And one of the things that bothers me is that it is so hard to see
your way out of it. A lot of people feel like we are just wallowing
right now. But what you are telling us today is there is another way.
Because if we just wallow, these guys are going to continue to cut
kids' cancer treatment. If we just wallow, they are going to cut
Medicaid when one out of two seniors in my State who are in assisted
living are on Medicaid, or they are going to continue to mess around
with these tariffs, which really are national sales tax, something like
$2,500 for every single family.
They are going to continue to be callous. I had someone say to me
last night: Do they care? Do they care when those USAID workers who
devoted their lives to feeding the hungry around the world, when they
have to stand outside the building and watch them literally take the
name of their life's work off the brick on that building? Do they care?
And one of the things that we have done--the Democrats have done--has
stood up. And what is coming upon us in these next few weeks is this
tax bill that, basically, will give billionaires tax cuts on the backs
of regular people--ransacking the government, firing veterans, messing
around with Social Security.
I had a guy tell me that he spent 3 days after his wife died in
Minnesota--3 days--just trying to figure out how he gets the death
benefit, why did this dang check show up at his door? He is trying to
do the right thing. He calls, he gets put on hold. He sends an e-mail,
no one writes him back. He drives into Brainerd, MN, 30-mile drive. He
is like 80 years old. He drives in there, and then they finally help
him. Then he gets back, and something else goes wrong. Then he tries to
call again. Finally, ends up at our door at our office, and we figure
it out for him.
There is 70-some million people that that is going to happen to if
these guys don't get their act together. So it is a real good question:
Do they care? But when we have this tax bill coming up in front of us
in these next few weeks, I think people have got to understand what is
going on.
They have to understand that even--the thing, the House budget that
came out that will be the subject of this, it is over $2 trillion tax
cuts for people making over $400,000 a year like Elon Musk, that don't
need it.
And so there is actually a way to stop it that is in the hands of the
Republicans right now.
If just two or three of them stood up on the House floor and did what
you did--Senator Booker, if they said no, and if four of them in the
U.S. Senate, four of them stood up, four Senators stood up, then we
could have the discussion about, OK, let's make government work, we are
all in, but let's not do it on the backs of regular people. Let's not
do it on the backs of kids that are in cancer research or veterans who
are trying to simply get their well-earned benefits because they put
their lives on the line in the battlefield. Or let's not do it on the
backs of farmers in Minnesota and Georgia who simply have these small
farms and they are trying to get by. And then, suddenly, wham, Donald
Trump decides shock and awe, let's do a tariff and let's get mad at all
our allies across the country like Canada. Oh, that is a good idea.
Those are the things they are doing. So my question of you is, how
many people need to stand up in the U.S. Senate to make this happen?
Because I know Democrats are united. I know we are all standing up, but
tell me how many people need to stand up on the other side, if they
joined up and joined you, what a difference it would make?
(Mr. RICKETTS assumed the Chair.)
Mr. BOOKER. So I want to thank the Senator for the question, and when
I think of people who stand in adversity, I still see you standing in a
snowstorm and the strength that you have had and stood up to fight for
affordable healthcare, stood up and fought for affordable prescription
drugs, stood up and fought for farmers and police officers and
communities.
You are that kind of person that gives me strength that I have
learned so much from. And you have brought this issue up, what you just
said on the floor, to let you know, this is not performative for her.
She has brought this up in our small meetings with Chuck Schumer. She
has brought this up in our caucus meetings. I have seen her talk about
it in her own State. This question of what will it take?
And here is something that pains me to hear, that Elon Musk is
calling Republicans up and saying: If you take this stand, I am going
to put $100 million in a primary against you, that they are bullying
people who dare to stand up and say, maybe this appointee is not the
most qualified person you could find to lead this Cabinet position, or
maybe it is wrong to cut this Agency that we together created in
Congress.
There are people who are asking those questions, but we have seen
them get dragged through X, mob attacked when it comes to their virtual
presence, and threatened to be primaried.
But we know, because you are somebody that works on both sides of the
aisle, that there are really good people of conscience on both sides of
the aisle.
[[Page S2016]]
And as the great pastor said: There are enough sins in this body to go
around for all of us.
But this is not a partisan moment; it is a moral moment. This is not
a left or right moment; it is a right or wrong moment.
Mr. WARNOCK. Right.
Mr. BOOKER. We have a President that is shredding the very Agencies
that Americans who are struggling are relying on.
Working people that, over the last 71 days, are finding higher
prices, that are finding housing prices go up. Farmers in your State--
my State too; it is our fourth largest industry. I have had farmers
come to me from as far away as Texas and tell me: They are clawing back
these contracts that we have already relied on to buy things, and now
you are putting me in a situation where I might lose my farm.
You see veterans who come to our offices--I know they come to your
office, Senator Klobuchar; you are a Senator from Minnesota, but you
are a national figure, so I know they are coming to your office--and
they are saying things to me like: I am a veteran. I could go do other
jobs. I wanted to work on suicide prevention and mental health issues,
and I am being fired?
And you said it right. I have heard you say it in private. I have
heard you say it in public. I know it irks you because you are one of
those sort of balanced people. OK, we have a big deficit. That is a
real problem. Maybe they are trying to lower the deficit, but they are
not. That is the irony. They are not. They are about to explode
trillions of dollars, most of which disproportionately goes to the
wealthiest people, as you have been pointing out in our private phone
calls over and over again, Senator Klobuchar.
So your question to me is spot on. It is spot on. And it is why I am
standing here right now at the top of another hour, because of what you
are saying relentlessly, persistently, and unyieldingly.
Why are we hurting American farmers? We just talked about rural
hospitals here for about 20, 30 minutes and what the threats are to
them. We talked about rural Social Security centers and the threats
that are to them. We talked about communities all over our country that
are being hurt. And your question, why? To give tax breaks that will
disproportionately go to the wealthiest Americans.
You and I are not those people that demonize wealth. We don't
demonize success. I want more people to start businesses. I want more
people to dream of moving on up like the Jeffersons. I want more people
to have that vision. I am not one of those people that are going to be
mad at you because you are very successful. I am going to be one of
those people that say: You don't need more tax cuts.
We as a society have an obligation to each other, to those farmers,
to those rural folks, to the cops I stood with at the funeral of one of
their colleagues in Newark 2 weeks ago. We have an obligation to them
to help them get equipment to protect themselves.
This country cannot do something that is so monumentally fiscally
irresponsible.
Who was the one person in the House that voted--a Republican that
voted against it? A guy named Massie? And I watched. I had to smile and
laugh because he said the quiet part out loud. He was sitting there
looking at something. I saw him in an interview. He said: By their own
numbers, this doesn't add up. They are adding to our deficit by the
trillions.
He stayed true to his principles.
What happened to all those mighty deficit hawks in the House of
Representatives on the Republican side that caved to the pressure of a
President?
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BOOKER. So happy you asked it in the right fashion.
I yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Very good. That was perfect.
So I think one of the things you talked about was just this deficit
and what is happening and what we are seeing with their proposal that
is going to come right before us. By some estimates, it is going to add
$37 trillion--$37 trillion in 30 years as we go ahead. I mean, I
literally cannot believe that when, in fact, we could step back now,
and we can say: What things can we do? What things can we do on the Tax
Code? There are a whole lot of things we can do to strengthen Social
Security, strengthen what we have in our government.
When you step back and look at the economy--and I heard this the
other day on a business channel. Just about a month or two ago, man, we
were coming out strong. We are a country that came out of the pandemic
in a stronger way than so many other countries did around the world. We
are ready. Inflation was at least steady, and it was starting to come
down here. Now, all of a sudden, we see chaos is up, corruption is up,
and, yes, costs are up. Ask anyone at the grocery store.
One of the problems when you look at what we could be doing to
address the debt is that the proposals out there are just going to make
it worse. That means more interest payments. That means more interest
payments on the backs of regular people. That means there is less we
can do to help them as we look at what is happening now.
One of the things you raised, Senator Booker--and I appreciate how
much you know about this--is just this prescription drug negotiation
and Medicare. So what do we finally do?
Decades before you or Senator Murphy or Senator Warnock got here,
before I even got to this place, they made a sweetheart deal with the
pharmaceutical companies, and they actually baked in so they didn't
have to negotiate prices for 73 million people on anything. They could
just charge whatever they wanted for these prescription drugs.
What happened? Well, guess what happened. Suddenly, the drugs for
seniors are 2 to 1 what they are in places like Canada--our neighbor,
our friend--2 to 1 what they are over there. You have people driving up
to Canada from Minnesota because we can see Canada from our porch, and
they are going up there, trying to get less expensive drugs.
What is going on? So a whole bunch of people started to say: Let's
look at this. It took years to get this done. Finally--finally--we
passed a bill that said they have to negotiate, and we took the first
10 drugs. The last administration got to pick those drugs, and they
picked blockbuster drugs--drugs like Eliquis, drugs like Xarelto, drugs
like Januvia, Jardiance. I memorize them because I can always find
people that take them. I don't make them raise their hands if they take
them. But these are blockbuster drugs, and they reduced the price by
like 70 percent for our seniors. That is going to kick in soon, but not
if this administration messes it up.
What we have seen is everything from giving Signal lines about secret
battle plans to reporters to deciding they are going to shut down the
people that worked on protecting our nuclear facilities and then, oops,
we made a mistake. How about when they said: We want to do something
about avian flu, but we are going to fire all the people that work
there. Oh, no, we are going to hire them back. That is what has been
going on right now.
So when I look at this really complicated prescription drug
negotiation where you are taking on some of the biggest companies in
the world, I look at it and say to myself: OK. So our Secretary of
Health, Kennedy--he won't even agree when he is asked under oath if he
is going to keep this up. They fired a bunch of people that would work
on it. They haven't shown they are going to keep this negotiation
going.
Meanwhile, we have put in place a $2,000 cap for our seniors out-of-
pocket on drug costs under Medicare. That is really good. We put in
place that insulin limit, 35 bucks a month.
We thank Reverend Warnock, and we thank you, Senator Booker, Senator
Murphy, and everyone that worked on that. We got that in place.
So now we have the big thing, which is the negotiation of all these
drugs, because 15 more drugs are coming our way for negotiations, again
blockbuster drugs--Ozempic--blockbuster drugs. Those drugs are coming
their way for negotiations, but they have not committed to do that.
They have not committed to do that. Even if they did commit to do it,
do they even have the people to negotiate, to take on these major
companies?
[[Page S2017]]
So my question to you, Senator Booker, after being up all night,
after getting us through the storm of last night and into the bright
sunshine of today, after holding the floor all this time--I can't even
imagine how much your feet must hurt, but those hurting feet are
nothing compared to why you are doing it, to how the rest of the people
in the country--how they are hurting.
My question is, How can they move forward without trying to save
money for the people of this country? Because what I see happening--and
there are so many signs. You see it every single day. When they are
getting rid of some of the people who work on it, then you are not
going to be able to get the Social Security for my friend that I met
from Crosslake, MN; then you are not going to be able to get that stuff
done.
But I think, as we look at those cuts, it is not just the word
``cut''; it is, what effect does it have on real people when they can't
get their services, when our veterans, who also have complex ways that
they have to deal with the government, have no one answering the phone,
when they have gotten rid of veterans that have actually done the work?
So my question here for people who translate this into the real world
is, What is all this going to mean for people in the real world, what
they are doing right now?
Mr. BOOKER. Thank you for the question, Senator Klobuchar. I love
that you are bringing it back to real people and what effect it is
having.
What you are spelling out is something that is really important.
There is a strategy that they have expressly said: They want to
overwhelm you--not us. They want to overwhelm the American people. They
want to flood the zone.
So I see a whole bunch of trying to do things to distract us: Gulf of
Mexico, Gulf of America, Greenland--all these things to try to whip us
up and not pay attention to what most Americans are concerned with: Can
they make ends meet?
Even the big reconciliation bill that they are going to try to do
that we have to find a way to appeal to a small group of Republican
Congresspeople to stop the cutting of $880 million out of Medicaid--we
went through in great detail at length last night why that is bad, but
you are pointing to something even more insidious, which is that big
things are going on. They actually are cutting the support to get more
people signed up with the ACA--already happened. Make it harder to sign
up for the ACA. They have already cut the tax credits that are helping
people that are in the ACA get resources to help with their healthcare
costs. They are going after these things.
Here is one that you know really well. They are going after--as we
talk about all of these parents struggling with children and family
members with chronic diseases, we know one of the things that help
people with chronic diseases is having access to fresh, healthy foods.
But they are cutting access to that for our kids going to school.
This administration has not only overseen in 71 days a rise in
inflation, a rise in the cost of groceries, a lowering of people's
401(K)s with the stock market going on; it is not only bringing
economic chaos, but they are already hurting people on the basic
delivery of their services--from taking thousands of jobs out of Social
Security, making it harder for people who have some problem to get it
solved, to the VA, to the ACA.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. I will definitely yield for a question while retaining
the floor.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I was thinking--as you talked about the Affordable
Care Act and all the work that went into it and what came out of it, I
was remembering the constant attempts to repeal that bill. I was
remembering when Senator John McCain--I think you were here for this--
came in and kind of did the unexpected, right? He came in here, he
bucked his party, and he said no. He didn't agree with Donald Trump
about this. He didn't agree with his leaders on this. He did what he
thought was right.
My issue is that we all have those moments where we have to make
decisions about what we think is right.
And I think about Donald Trump and he is--just now, just this week,
he said he wanted to violate the Constitution, which he said
practically every single hour, but he said that he would try to serve
another term and that he would do this, he would do that. He is
literally treating this Presidency like he is the King, and I guess
Elon Musk is the court jester at his side or the White House IT guy.
But the point is that he is treating this like a King.
You serve on the Judiciary Committee, and you are a student of
history. You are also a scholar in terms of understanding this
government and how it works. I think one of the things that are most
unsettling for people, that they just don't understand, is, how you
could have a President in place that doesn't respect that democracy?
I remember when we all gathered for the inauguration, and I had 4
minutes, because of my job with the Rules Committee, to address those
gathered in that Rotunda. I noted that our democracy can be a hot mess
right now, but it is still the best form of government that we have,
that our democracy is truly our shelter in the storm. It is our shelter
in the storm, to quote a great songwriter from the State of Minnesota.
The reason we don't have--I know you may have a few songwriters from
there. If the Senator could yield for one question, who is your best
songwriter and singer from the State of New Jersey? Just to make clear
who it is.
Mr. BOOKER. Is that your question?
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Do you yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. I will answer that question by avoiding it because in New
Jersey, there are so many great patron saints, from the great Bon Jovi,
to the great Bruce Springsteen, to the incredible Queen Latifah, to the
``Chairman of the Board'' from New Jersey, the great Frank Sinatra. So
I am not going to pick. We have so many great singers, rappers like
Redman. We are just a thriving State of--Count Basie. There are just
too many. I would not force you to do that. Of course, if it is
Prince--
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Prince and Bob Dylan. But that aside, I am very
impressed, Senator Booker, that after, what, 12 hours now, 13 hours,
you still are able to make sure that you mentioned every songwriter.
But that aside, Bob Dylan once had that great line, ``shelter in the
storm.'' Our democracy is a shelter in a storm.
Then I noted that in some countries, Presidential inaugurations are
held in gilded palaces--not in the United States of America. In the
United States of America, it is held in the people's House.
That is what you are doing right now, Senator Booker. Because the
people's House is where the action should be. That is article I, and
the Constitution specifically says here that we have equal branches of
government.
And the final thing is that the power in that Rotunda that day--and
this is where we get into Donald Trump thinking he is King. The power
of that Rotunda didn't come from the people in there. It came from the
people outside. That is why you see the people standing up right now--
our constituents going to these townhalls, standing up, breaking the
phone lines in the U.S. Senate, sending in the emails with their
stories that you have heard from the Senators and that have read on the
Senate floor about things that have happened to your constituents. That
is the power from the outside.
The question that I ask of you is just tell me what you think people
can do when you have a President in there that he thinks he is King and
he thinks that a democracy is just something that he can shove aside
and say whatever he wants and break every rule that people depend on,
that they depend on to be able to vote and participate and have their
case made. Tell me what you think. What is the answer to that?
Mr. BOOKER. Thank you, Senator. I will answer that.
I see Ron Wyden has come to the floor--for both Amy and me, one of
the chair people or, at this point, the ranking member of one of the
great committees.
To Amy Klobuchar's question, I read a lot of angry letters--people
who were demanding of me to do something to stop them--do something
different: Stand up. Speak up, Senator. I am afraid.
[[Page S2018]]
Stand up. Speak up, Senator. I am so angry.
Stand up. Speak up, Senator. The services for my disabled child are
threatened.
Stand up, speak up.
That is one of the reasons I am doing this, why my staff and I talked
about this for so many days. Do something to show, to let our
constituents know, to elevate their voices on the floor, to read their
letters, to read their statements. It is not just New Jerseyans like
you, but hundreds and hundreds of people who are calling us from other
States.
But I am most moved by the letters that tell me about their pain or
their challenges or their fears. But they end that question with your
question: I am here to help. Tell me how I can help.
I am here to help. Tell me how I can help.
And you said it, Senator.
I read the letter of John McCain last night, his letter explaining
his vote. It was so beautiful. It was tough, like he was. It was hard
on the whole body. But he called to principles. Senator Schumer was
here when I read it. It was eerie because he was describing what was
wrong then, which is the same thing here--that we do need to make our
country better. We do need to have a bolder vision for healthcare, a
bolder vision for Social Security. We need to make them work for the
people, but we are not doing it here in this body.
And this man who is not acting like a President but is trashing our
constitutional traditions, violating our laws, as he is getting tied up
in court but ignoring court orders--and when he gets a decision he
doesn't like, he trashes the judges so badly that the Supreme Court
itself finds that it has to go out and tell him to stop it.
What stopped healthcare from being taken away the last time wasn't
the persuasive powers of anybody on this side of the political aisle of
the Senate convincing anybody over there. I would like to think it was
my eloquence for Lisa Murkowski. I would like to think it was my high-
minded intellect that, somehow, was damaged playing too much football,
but that, somehow, I got the right argument to Susan Collins. That
wasn't it. I would like to think it was my ability to stand up to John
McCain, himself. No, none of that. It was the people. It was the
people.
You remember the little lobbyists in their wheelchairs, rolling up to
Senators and speaking their heart, telling them their pain, their fear.
It was people coming here and marching; people coming and flooding the
calls, like they are doing now; people writing letters; people
marching; people in their States, from all political spectrums, coming
in and saying: This is wrong. This is wrong. This is wrong.
And so if you are asking me what we can do, I know what we can do,
but we have to, as the great song--Senator Klobuchar, I had my staff
print a bunch of statements I sent them. I sent them because I knew
they were some of my favorite people from history. There is one here by
Webster, one by Jefferson, ``Letter from Birmingham Jail,'' Langston
Hughes, something by Harper Lee, Emma Lazarus.
But here is one. Here is the answer in a poem. And forgive me for
reading this. I wanted to do it at some point today. This is perfect. I
see my Senator here may have a question. But I love this poem. It was
written and put to song by a man named James Weldon Johnson. He was an
educator, a poet, a civil rights activist. He was born in the great
State of Florida. He said that this is what we have to do: ``Lift Every
Voice and Sing.''
Lift every voice and sing,
Till Earth and Heaven ring,
Ring with the harmonies of Liberty;
Let our rejoicing rise
High as the list'ning skies,
Let it resound loud as the rolling sea.
[We must] sing a song full of the faith that the dark past
has taught us,
Sing a song full of the hope that present has brought us;
Facing the rising sun of a new day begun,
Let us march on till victory is won.
It doesn't ignore the wretchedness of our history. It speaks to the
truth and the excitement and the hope about that past and the virtues
that our ancestors gave us. It goes on:
Stony the road we trod,
Bitter the chast'ning rod,
Felt in the days when hope unborn had died;
Yet with a steady beat,
Have not our weary feet
Come to the place for which our fathers sighed?
We have come over a way that with tears has been watered.
We have come, treading our path through the blood of the
slaughtered,
Out from the gloomy past,
Till now we stand at last
Where the white gleam of the bright star is cast.
The last stanza:
God of our weary years,
God of our silent tears,
Thou who has brought us thus far on the way;
Thou who hast by Thy might,
Led us into the night,
Keep us forever in the path, we pray.
Lest our feet stray from the places, our God, where we met
Thee,
Lest our hearts, drunk with the wine of the world, we
forget Thee;
Shadowed beneath Thy hand,
May we forever stand,
True to our God,
True to [this] our native land.
What can we do? Do like our ancestors did. What can we do? Do like
the people who never gave up, even when this country they loved didn't
love them back. They kept fighting, kept pushing.
Senator Klobuchar, in my time in the Senate with you, we have seen
some of the most amazing, shocking moments with the Obergefell case in
the Supreme Court recognizing the humanity, the dignity, the equal
rights of the LGBTQ Americans to have love and marry.
We have seen fights, in this time that we have been here, where we
have seen victories on healthcare that made such a difference in
people's lives. We have seen the fights while we have been here, some
of the most painful moments, where we have seen the arc of the moral
universe bent not by the people here, not by the people in this body.
Do you think we got suffrage because a bunch of men on the Senate floor
said: OK, guys, come on. Put your hands in here. Ready to give women
the right to vote on three. Ready, break.
That is not how it happened. That is not how it happened. The power
of the people is greater than the people in power.
Do you think we got civil rights because one day, Strom Thurmond,
after filibustering for 24 hours--do you think we got civil rights
because he came to the floor one day and said: I have seen the light.
Let those Negro people have the right to vote.
No, we got civil rights because people marched for it, sweat for it,
and John Lewis bled for it.
So I am scared too. But fear is a necessary precondition to courage.
I am angry too. But my mom told me: Never let your anger consume you.
Channel it. Fuel it so it can help your love be greater and stronger.
Amy Klobuchar, that is what this moment needs. Our job in this body
is to be truth tellers. Our job, just as you said so brilliantly, is to
elevate the voices of the people of the country.
You are right, Amy Klobuchar. This is the people's House. It is
article I of the Constitution, and it is under assault. Article I is
under assault. Our spending powers, our budgetary powers, the power to
establish Agencies like the Department of Education and USAID--it is
under assault by a President that doesn't respect this document.
And how do we stop them? I am sorry to say, we hold powerful
positions. We were elected by great States, but we are in the minority
right now. You spelled it out in the beginning of your questions to me.
It will take three people of conscience on that side. It will take four
here.
I am going back to my book because there is somebody that you know--I
don't know if my staff put it in at the last moment. Yes, they did--
Margaret Chase Smith, whom you know.
Margaret Chase Smith, a U.S. Senator from Maine, a Republican. When a
demagogue rose in the land exploiting people's fear, deporting Jews who
were not citizens of this country because they were accusing them of
being Communists, at a time that this body was being twisted and
contorted to the will of a demagogue, where nobody had the courage to
stand up, it was a woman from the Republican Party that stood--I don't
know--somewhere in this body.
Her feet might have been tired. Her heart might have been hurt. She
might
[[Page S2019]]
have been afraid of the consequences to stand up to people preaching
the Red Scare. But this woman in this body, a rare thing in those
years--this woman in this body, which our Founders--to those imperfect
geniuses who wrote this Constitution, a woman in this body wasn't
imagined by our Founders. Thank God they called upon us to make a more
perfect Union. And generations of activists finally made it real that
women could serve in this body. She had the courage, the audacity to
call her own party to task.
I read her words. She said:
I don't believe that the Republican party is in any sense a
party of fear, but I do believe that the Republican Party has
made an alliance with the Four Horsemen of fear--the fear of
communism, the fear of labor unions, the fear of the future,
the fear of progress. I think it is high time that we
remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the
Constitution.
She continues:
I think that it is high time that we remembered that the
Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of
speech but also the freedom of trial by [jury].
This great Senator, this great Republican, said:
Whether it is criminal prosecutions in the court or
character prosecutions in the Senate, there is little
political distinction when the life of a person has been
ruined.
Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in
making character assassinations are all too frequently those
who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic
principles [of what it means to be an American]--the right to
criticize.
Without thinking the President is going to drag you from the Oval
Office for criticizing him.
The right to hold unpopular beliefs.
That if you have a belief I find contemptible, it does not mean I can
disappear you from a city street.
She goes on:
The right to protest.
That just for assembly and speaking up, that is not a right to cut
hundreds of billions of dollars for universities' science funding.
The right to independent thought.
The exercise of these rights should not cost one single
American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood
nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or
livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who
holds unpopular beliefs.
Like a law firm that represents suing the President and now has their
very firm, their very livelihoods, the legal secretaries and others
come after them.
Margaret Chase Smith goes on to call her party to be a woman of
conscience; to stand up and say ``the American people are sick and
tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically
smeared as `Communists' or `Fascists' by their opponents. Freedom of
speech,'' she says, ``is not what it used to be in America. It has been
so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.''
Dear God, if I stand up in this body and say it is wrong to put Pete
Hegseth in the Cabinet as Secretary of Defense because he is
unqualified--he is unqualified; he is unqualified--look at a Signal
chat to see how unqualified he is.
Margaret Chase Smith continues:
As a Republican, I say to my colleagues on this side of the
aisle that the Republican party faces a challenge today that
is not unlike the challenge it faced back in Lincoln's day.
The Republican party so successfully met that challenge that
it emerged from the Civil War as the champion of a united
nation--in addition to being the party which unrelentingly
fought loose spending and loose programs.
I doubt if the Republican Party could--simply because I
don't believe the American people will uphold any political
party that puts political exploitation above national
interest. Surely we Republicans aren't that desperate for
victory.
I don't want to see the Republican Party win that way.
While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican
Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American
people. Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the
Republican Party and the two-party system [itself] that has
protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a
one-party system.
You ask me, Amy Klobuchar, what do we need to do? We need to call to
the conscience of our comrades in the people's branch and say: How
could you go along with a reconciliation that will put trillions of
dollars of debt on our children and our children's children? How could
you go along with cutting $800 billion for Medicaid only to give tax
cuts to the wealthiest, to disproportionately go to the wealthiest? How
could you, in good conscience--if you are a fiscal hawk, if you are a
Christian conservative, how could you hurt the weak to benefit the rich
and powerful? That is the answer to your question.
The people of the United States of America--all of us--have to stand
up and say: No, not on my watch. I am a Republican; I am a veteran; I
am a police officer; I am a firefighter; I am a teacher--not in
America. We won't allow this. We won't allow this. We won't allow this.
Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator from New Jersey yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague.
I have been listening to this, a Herculean presentation, for hours
and hours. Your remarks reflect the urgency of our times, Senator
Booker, and I thank you for it.
Let me frame the question this way: I hold open-to-all townhall
meetings in every county in my State each year. I have had more than
1,100 of them. And since Donald Trump took office, what we have seen in
these townhall meetings is fear and terror, and, I might add, record
turnouts.
I was in a small town in central Oregon recently, Sisters. We had
almost 1,400 people there. And what people asked about and you have
touched on this morning, is, of course, Medicaid and Social Security
because these are programs involving healthcare and retirement that are
really the connective tissue between the government and our people.
These programs make it possible for people to pay for essentials.
They are not going to fancy places. They are buying groceries. They are
paying rent. They are buying medicine.
We had one separate townhall meeting, I say to my colleague, just
with Federal employees whose goal is to get out in the woods and help
prevent fire in Oregon. I organized this meeting. They, too, are
terrified. They have dedicated their lives to trying to help.
We serve the American people. And I am telling you, I have seen
service in action over the last few hours with your reflecting the
urgency of our times. Our salaries are paid for by taxpayers, and I am
particularly troubled by the fact that we are getting all these reports
that many Senators are saying: I am not going to do townhall meetings.
They are on the other side of the aisle. As I said, I have had 1,100
of them, 10 of them so far this year. It seems to me, that is refusing
to answer to constituents.
You have been here all night, and you are setting a very clear
example about what it means to push back against authoritarianism.
So just like I have townhall meetings, my question to my friend from
New Jersey is, What are you hearing from home? It is a pretty
straightforward question, but it sure as heck is what the times are all
about because people are saying: What are you doing back there? What is
important to you?
I talk about town meetings. I had a tele-townhall, I say to my
friend, during the speech that was being made on the floor of the
House. I had 30,000 people participating. That is a lot for my small
State. So I know what I am doing, and I think the American people would
like to hear a bit about what my colleague is hearing from his State
and why it is so important that he is out here mopping his brow today
trying to stay on his feet, making the case for the urgency of our
time. What are you hearing?
Mr. BOOKER. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.
I am hearing a lot of fear, a lot of anger. I am hearing heads of
hospitals say that this is outrageous, the threats to our hospitals in
New Jersey. I am hearing heads of critical health services tell me what
the Medicaid cuts will mean to their organizations. I am hearing from
Catholic priests who are doing extraordinary things in service of their
communities. I am hearing from citizens who are veterans who got fired
from their jobs.
I am hearing from people, as I read letters, who work in the Social
Security Agency and the chaos that has been created and the
deteriorating service to seniors. I have heard from seniors who are
terrified about what is being done to Social Security and how it might
affect their lives.
[[Page S2020]]
I am hearing demands from our constituents, people demanding,
Senator, that we do something about the outrages they are seeing.
I think that when I hear New Jerseyans, by larger and larger
numbers--and I will be back in my State. I know we were planning
meetings and a townhall and a lot more this weekend. But I have to say
now, more than ever, we need more of it. We need more of it.
And one of the reasons I am here is because I want to elevate those
voices of my constituents. I want to tell the stories that my
constituents are writing in about and lift their voices and tell them
that they are seen; they are heard.
I have been going through section by section, as you pointed out:
Social Security, a section on healthcare, a section on education and
the Department of Education and the work that it does. I have been
going point by point through.
This is the agenda. I didn't know how much of it I could get through.
But we laid it out. We have binders for each one of these issues.
Immigration, we went through. We have housing, the environment, farmers
and food, veterans, the corruption that has been normalized by this
President, the rule of law, public safety--all the ways that we know
that there is a crisis in our country, and we, as a nation, need to be
more attuned to it and doing more to meet this crisis, to rise up and
defend our country, defend our well-being.
And all the while, things are happening that you know. You are the
chairman of the Finance Committee, and you have these insights. We have
talked about them, about what is about to happen in this reconciliation
process. I mean, that is one of the more stunning things that is almost
immediate on this floor.
I think we are going to see about the tariffs tomorrow and see how
far the President will go. But we do know, whatever it is, it is going
to affect prices that are going to continue to go up for Americans.
This inflation has continued to go up for Americans as the stock market
continues to go down, as people's 401(k)s have lost so much money.
The uncertainty I am hearing from businesses in New Jersey, the chaos
that they feel about the economy--the consumer confidence in this
country has gone way down.
If you ask the question: Are you better off than you were 71 days
ago, not many Americans could say that they are better off. Their costs
are higher. Their groceries are higher. They are soon to see everything
from car prices to food go higher. Their retirement security is under
attack. Their healthcare is under attack. They are losing their
Department of Education. They are less safe from infectious diseases
abroad. There are so many things that we have to talk to and try to
stop.
You are our leader on the Finance Committee, and you know that the
tax thing they are trying to run through now. I am trying to get my
head wrapped around these whacky parliamentary things that even the
podcast I listen to in the morning to inform me say they even spoke
about this years and years ago. But they said, oh, this is too crazy.
We can't do this, to try to tell the American people somehow that the
trillions of dollars of tax cuts that we are going to give
disproportionately to the wealthiest people of all, oh, there is
nothing to see here; that has a zero impact on the budget, so we can do
it through reconciliation. That is the biggest hocus-pocus,
manufactured artifice that I have ever seen to obscure the truth in
America.
What the Republicans are trying to do is cut massively into
healthcare for Americans in order to give tax cuts disproportionately
to the wealthiest who don't need it and to drive up the deficits,
making our children and our children's children have a more dangerous
economy and higher and higher debt payments to make--debt payments that
will skyrocket higher than any expense the government makes.
We are literally about to see something go through reconciliation
that threatens to sacrifice our children's future so that the richest
of the rich can get richer.
I know there are a lot of people who are angry, who are worried, who
are feeling overwhelmed, who are struggling to make ends meet. But I
know of only one way to do this--and I am trying to do it myself--is to
do things differently, to stand up, to speak up, to not act like this
is just normal in our country.
There is not a President, from Eisenhower to Reagan to Bush, on the
Republican side who could ever imagine a day where, in a U.N. vote, we
side with Russia and China against the Western democracies that we
saved in World War II; that we stormed the beaches of Normandy for;
that we did the Berlin airlift for; that we did the Marshall Plan for.
We designed the world order, and now we are turning our back on it.
We designed the rules-based world order, and we are turning our back on
those organizations, from trashing NATO to getting out of the World
Health Organization, to getting out of the group of countries coming
together to deal with climate change.
We are not leading the planet Earth anymore. Our allies are saying
openly they can't trust us. The quotes are unbelievable by our allies:
Generations of Americans all know one thing: Russia is our
adversary. This principle was reinforced after Russia's
brutal, unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February of 2022.
The American public knows a lot about Putin and his cronies and what
they have done to the brave people of Ukraine. Russia has abducted over
19,000 children, taking them from their families and homeland.
Russia has targeted civilians, bombing hospitals and schools,
including a strike on a children's hospital during the supposed cease-
fire negotiations just a few weeks ago.
Russian forces have raped and assaulted Ukrainian civilians, and
Russia has tortured prisoners of war.
One would think, given all the horrors inflicted by Russia, that the
United States would continue to treat Russia as the adversary and the
pariah as other Western democracies treat it. But that is not what
Trump has done. He has done the opposite.
On the third anniversary of Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine,
the administration joined Russia and North Korea in voting against the
resolution condemning the innovation that has killed over 12,000
Ukrainian civilians and injured 30,000. Imagine that.
I had the Foreign Minister of a great ally in NATO in my office
looking at me and saying, basically, What the heck?
My friend Chris Murphy, on the floor, we sit close to each other. He
is further up the dais than I in Foreign Relations, and this stuff is
insanity.
Here is NBC News:
President Donald Trump has said Ukraine--not Russia--
started the war. He's called [the] Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelenskyy--not Vladimir Putin--[he called
Zelenskyy] a dictator. Meanwhile, Trump's administration is
standing down on a suite of tough anti-Kremlin policies.
In just over a month, Trump has executed a startling
realignment of American foreign policy, effectively throwing
U.S. support behind Moscow and rejecting the tight alliance
with Kyiv cultivated by former President Joe Biden.
The extraordinary pivot has upended decades of hawkish
foreign policy toward Russia that provided a rare area of
bipartisan consensus in an increasingly divided nation.
Trump's recent moves have drawn international attention,
unsettling U.S. allies in Europe and thrilling conservative
populists who favor a turn away from Zelenskyy.
The new posture was put in stark relief on Friday during a
tense Oval Office meeting--
We all remember this--
between Trump and Zelenskyy. The leaders clashed in front of
the press, raising questions about the future of American
support for Kyiv.
Alliances and partners around the world are our biggest strength
against any U.S. adversary or competitor, from China to Russia to Iran
to North Korea. We are the strongest Nation on the planet Earth, but
our strength is multiplied and magnified when we stand in alliance with
those nations that share our values and are bonded to us and are
committed to us.
In fact, the only time article 5 in the United Nations--that article
that says that if one person in NATO is attacked, everyone is attacked
and they all join together--that one time it happened was 9/11, when
our NATO allies stood up with America.
And so look at NATO. It has been the bedrock of the international
order for 80 years. It was created in 1949 by 12 countries, including
the United States,
[[Page S2021]]
to provide collective security and, in many ways, provide collective
security against the Soviet Union. Since then, 20 more countries have
joined NATO through 10 rounds of enlargement, bringing the total number
of NATO countries to 32. The most recent additions were Sweden in 2024
and Finland in 2023, who applied to join NATO in 2022 after Russia
invaded Ukraine, because those countries are realizing that the
authoritarian dictator that Putin is--who threatens his smaller
neighbors--those other nations have realized they should be standing
with NATO; that we have a principle of collective defense, as I said,
enshrined in article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. ``Collective
defense'' means an attack on one ally is considered an attack against
all allies.
A strong NATO has made America safer and stronger and more
prosperous. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize this. I
have been in this body for 12 years. I have been told by people who I
have learned from about foreign policy when I came here as a mayor and
leaned on people like Chris Coons and leaned on people like Chris
Murphy, leaned on people like John McCain, leaned on people like
Lindsey Graham, leaned on people like Senator Rubio.
We helped pass a law that enshrined congressional action before the
President can withdraw from NATO. That law passed with overwhelming
bipartisan support--87 Senators voted yes.
Senator Rubio, now Secretary of State, said:
NATO serves as an essential military alliance that protects
shared military interests and enhances America's
international presence. Any decision to leave the alliance
should be rigorously debated and considered by the U.S.
Congress with the input of the American people.
Two weeks ago, though, on March 19, 2025, in response to news that
the Pentagon may give up the role of supreme allied commander in
Europe, a position held by an American general since the NATO alliance
was formed in 1949, Republican Senator Wicker and Representative Rogers
signaled their opposition in an extraordinary joint statement warning
Donald Trump that that change would ``risk undermining American
deterrence around the globe.''
I want to read some of the comments of NATO partners about the damage
that has been done in just the last 71 days of Trump's leadership in
upending the world order that has helped to keep America stronger and
safer and more prosperous.
The EU's top diplomat said ``the free world needs a new leader.''
Think about that. Think about that. The EU's top diplomat has said, in
response to Donald Trump, that now the free world needs a new leader.
Every President of my lifetime was seen as the leader of the free
world, and now the rest of the free world, its top diplomat, is saying
it is time for that to change.
The new German Chancellor said:
My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as
quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really
achieve independence from the USA.
He went on to say:
I never thought I would have to say something like this on
a television program. But after Donald Trump's statements
last week at the latest, it is clear that the Americans, at
least this part of the Americans, this administration, are
largely indifferent to the fate of Europe.
Our ancestors saved Europe. Our ancestors stormed beaches in
Normandy, paratrooped into Europe, liberated concentration camps. Our
ancestors sacrificed blood and treasure for Europe. It turned Germany
from one of history's worst despotic states into a global economic
power and a democracy.
We were there at the Berlin airlift. We were there for the Marshall
Plan. And now Europe is saying:
It is clear that the Americans, at least this part of the
Americans, this administration, are largely indifferent to
the fate of Europe.
That is not true. That is not true. And as long as I have breath in
my body and blood in my veins, I will join with the other people on
both sides of the aisle--God bless you, Roger Wicker--for standing with
the understanding that America is the strongest Nation in the world,
but our strength is multiplied and magnified when we stand with our
allies, from Germany to Japan, from Australia to Iceland; that when our
country stands up, we don't bully our neighbors like Canada. We don't
threaten our allies like Iceland, like Greenland. We don't threaten
smaller, weaker nations like Panama. We don't upend the world order.
Donald Trump does not speak for me. He does not speak for the
traditions of this body. He doesn't speak for the people that are
buried--Americans that are buried in fields in Germany and in France
and all over Europe.
Here is former Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin's speech to NATO and
the Atlantic Council.
On April 4, 1949 . . . 12 democracies came together in the
wake of two world wars and at the dawn of a new Cold War.
They all remembered, as President Truman put it, ``the
sickening blow of unprovoked aggression.''
That is what Truman said. They were coming together against the
sickening blow of unprovoked aggression.
Do you hear that, Putin?
So they vowed to stand together for their collective
defense and to safeguard freedom and democracy across Europe
and North America. They made a solemn commitment, declaring
that an armed attack against one ally would be considered
``an attack against them all.''
Now that commitment was enshrined in Article Five of the
North Atlantic Treaty. It was the foundation of NATO. And it
still is.
On that bedrock, we have built the strongest and most
successful defensive alliance in human history.
And, I will say, one of the most prosperous blocs of democratic
countries.
Throughout the Cold War, NATO deterred Soviet aggression
against Western Europe--and prevented a third world war. In
the 1990s, NATO used air power to stop ethnic cleansing in
Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Kosovo. And the day after
September 11, 2001, when al-Qaeda terrorists attacked our
country, including slamming a plane into the Pentagon--
Not far from here--
NATO invoked Article Five for the first and only time in its
history.
Mr. COONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. I yield for a question. While retaining the floor, I
yield to one of my best friends in the Senate. I yield to one of the
smartest guys I know. I yield to the guy who handed me the chairmanship
of the committee that oversaw world public health and Africa and still
reminds me that he knows more Swahili than I will ever know.
I yield to the guy who when he speaks up in the Senate, people on
both sides of the aisle listen. I yield to my friend who has real
friendships, who when I came to him and said: We are seeing the worst
famines on the planet Earth; that Joe Biden didn't put enough money
into the World Food Programme, he went to another appropriator over
there, another friend of ours, Lindsey Graham, and together we got
billions of dollars of more that saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
You are a prince of a man. You are my friend. You are somebody that
is a hero, who folks don't know their name and the countries that you
have affected with your strength on foreign policy.
Dear God, my friend, I yield the floor for a question, while
retaining the floor. Excuse me. I want to say that correctly. I yield
for a question while retaining the floor. I do not yield the floor.
Mr. COONS. I ask my friend and colleague from New Jersey if he is
familiar with Psalm 30:5.
Mr. BOOKER. Not at this moment.
Mr. COONS. And if not, I offer to repeat it because I think it speaks
to this moment.
Weeping may endure for a night, but joy comes in the
morning.
Now, this is a holy month. It is the month of Lent. It is the month
of Ramadan. It is the period of reflection preceding Passover. And my
question to my colleague is rooted in a scripture in the Psalms known
to both of us, one widely engaged in, in these days:
Weeping may endure for a night, but joy comes in the
morning.
This is a reminder both of the possibility of redemption, of the
urgency of hope, and of your nightlong sacrifice on this floor.
Let me ask, if I might, two more questions of my friend and
colleague. To my colleague from New Jersey: Are you familiar with a
front-page story on the Washington Post entitled ``Trump's USAID cuts
cripple American response to Myanmar earthquake,'' an article running
today in the Washington Post?
Mr. BOOKER. I have not read the paper this day.
[[Page S2022]]
Mr. COONS. I had suspected that that might be the case, given that my
colleague from New Jersey has dedicated his night to standing tall and
fighting hard to make sure that the people of the United States know
what is going on.
I will share with you, just for a moment, that it hurt my heart to
watch the national evening news last night and see a Chinese
humanitarian emergency response team celebrated as they pulled
survivors out of the earthquake rubble in Myanmar. It did not hurt my
heart that there are Chinese nationals providing emergency relief, but
it hurt my heart that exactly those people who are the very best in the
world at responding to humanitarian crisis, exactly those people had
just received termination letters and their work with USAID had just
been suspended.
Normally, in every humanitarian crisis I have known in my lifetime,
the first in are the men and women of USAID and the U.S. Armed Forces.
Whether a tsunami, a tornado, wildfires, or an earthquake, we had
world-leading humanitarian response capabilities.
And I think it is a tragedy--and it is reflected in both this article
that I have asked my colleague about and in the response of the world--
that we have created an enormous opening for the PRC to come in and do
what we previously did so well.
Let me ask another question, if I might, of my colleague: Are you
familiar with what has just happened to food banks all over our Nation
in terms of an announcement about impending deliveries of badly needed
surplus food? This, I suspect, will be the focus of your future
comments on agriculture, but I mention it as something that has
impacted my State and, I suspect, yours as well.
Mr. BOOKER. First of all, I want to say this is when, when you ask me
a question--to yield for a question--I want to say I yield for a
question while retaining the floor, and I want to say to my colleague,
I am familiar with some of this, but I--if as a part of a question to
me and not anything resembling a colloquy, I will yield for a question
while retaining the floor if you have another question.
(Mr. MORENO assumed the Chair.)
To my colleague, are you familiar with an article ``USDA halts
millions of dollars worth of deliveries to food banks''?
Mr. BOOKER. I pretty sure I am. I am.
Mr. COONS. I will simply, then, ask my colleague a question.
Mr. BOOKER. Therefore, if you are going to ask me a question, I yield
for a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. COONS. To my colleague, I ask the question: Are you familiar with
the cuts that have been imposed on the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
suspending hundreds of millions of meals to Americans in need and the
justification for that being offered?
Mr. BOOKER. I am familiar. I have mentioned it earlier in these last
15 hours, so thank you.
Mr. COONS. Last question.
Mr. BOOKER. I yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. COONS. To my colleague from New Jersey, I ask the question: Are
you familiar with when, whether, and why NATO has invoked article 4 and
how the service and the sacrifice that followed reinforces exactly the
point I believe my colleague was beginning to speak to, which is the
common cause and the common purpose shown by all of our NATO allies in
America's greatest moment of need in recent decades after the attacks
of 9/11?
Mr. BOOKER. I am very familiar with that. It haunts me that when
America was in crisis--I live 11 miles from Ground Zero.
Mr. COONS. To my colleague, are you aware which of our European NATO
allies lost per capita the highest number of their soldiers in combat
serving alongside American servicemembers, a nation I visited, a nation
whose servicemembers I visited, a nation that is today aggrieved by
comments made recently? Are you familiar with our trusted ally Denmark?
Mr. BOOKER. Yes, I am. That country that has shed more blood than any
of our allies, side-by-side, fighting with America is Canada--is
Canada.
Mr. COONS. Denmark.
Mr. BOOKER. Oh, it is Denmark.
Mr. COONS. Denmark lost per capita, I believe--excuse me. Let me
simply ask of my colleague one more question.
Mr. BOOKER. Thank you very much. I yield for a question while
retaining the floor.
Mr. COONS. Is my colleague aware that broadly distributed across our
NATO allies is service and sacrifice, including the loss of their
troops in combat and that every single loss in combat was a loss of
great service and sacrifice by our NATO allies?
Mr. BOOKER. Yes, I am familiar. And I am grateful for your making
those points.
As we threaten Greenland, Denmark tried to bully them in a way that--
with rhetoric that fashions more after the behavior of Vladimir Putin's
threatening before the Ukrainian invasion, as opposed to what allies do
who are grateful for shared sacrifice, who are grateful for shared
honor, who are grateful for shared prosperity.
What is happening right now, to me, is shameful. How we are treating
our allies is unacceptable. And the tariffs that will be imposed will
indeed hurt Canada and other NATO allies, but they will hurt us in the
long run more, not only with the immediacy of the driving up of prices
for Americans, but what the President is doing as he turns his back on
Republican traditions and Democratic traditions, it is going to hurt us
more as a nation in the long run as other countries look to other
places for leadership of the free world.
Mr. COONS. Will my colleague yield for another question?
Mr. BOOKER. I yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. COONS. Is my colleague familiar with the testimony of Gen. Jim
Mattis, a decorated four-star Marine Corps general who served as
Secretary of Defense in the previous Trump administration who testified
about what the consequences would be if we were to defund development
and diplomacy?
Mr. BOOKER. I hope that the colleague of mine who, again, has been a
mentor, a friend on all they things foreign policy, my belief is that
he is referring to when General Mattis sat before the United States
Senate and said very pointedly: If you cut the foreign aid, if you cut
organizations like USAID, if you cut programs in the State Department,
then buy me more bullets.
Mr. COONS. Will my colleague yield for a final question?
Mr. BOOKER. I yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. COONS. Does my colleague have an opinion about whether it
strengthens or harms America in our national security to have an earned
reputation as a nation of compassion, a nation that comes to the aid of
those suffering through humanitarian disasters, a nation of compassion
that provides healthcare and access for retirement in decency, a nation
that cares for the least of these on the margins of the world and that
has a just and inclusive society at home? Does my colleague have an
opinion about whether it strengthens or weakens our Nation at home and
abroad to earn a reputation for compassion and reliability or instead
to deserve a reputation for unreliability and cruelty?
Mr. BOOKER. So this is the powerful thing about my friend whom I went
with on my first trip to the continent of Africa as a Senator, and I
remember flying into Zimbabwe. The leader of that country had passed
away, and you always correct me on my pronunciation so I am going to
try my best pronunciation--Mnangagwa.
Mr. COONS. Mnangagwa.
Mr. BOOKER. Thank you, sir.
The alligator was his reputation--had taken over as his leadership.
And we, this bipartisan merry group of Senators were going there to sit
there in a unified, bipartisan way and say to this new leader: You need
to honor democratic principles. You need to honor free and fair
elections, that we want to be your partner, we want to be your friend,
but it is time for a new peaceful democratic Zimbabwe.
And as we landed--I don't know if you remember--he was landing, too,
in the airport. And he was coming from China. He was coming from China
which has different values than we have.
In fact, you and I both see now all over the continent of Africa a
competition. We come with USAID. We come with PEPFAR. We come with a
program called AGOA, helping with economic development. We come with
scientists that stand in the breach against the worst infectious
diseases.
[[Page S2023]]
One of the most courageous things I saw Chris Coons do in my life was
when the Ebola scare was happening 8 years ago and was starting to show
up on our shores, you did something that people were afraid to do.
You went to Africa to visit with the people from our country that are
there fighting Ebola. You had to come and quarantine when you came back
to make sure you didn't have it. It was amazing because you were going
there to say to the world, I, Chris Coons, Senator from Delaware, is
here, but America is here. America knows that an infectious disease
anywhere is a threat to public health everywhere. America knows that
when it comes to the globe, Martin Luther King was right in his
spiritual proclamation in the ``Letter from the Birmingham Jail'' that
we are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a
common garment of destiny, that injustice anywhere is a threat to
justice everywhere.
I have been to where you have been, Kenya to Tanzania, traveling with
you to Ouagadougou. You used to make me smile when I used to say the
capital of Burkina Faso. Ouagadougou, my friend.
There is a word I learned from a language, the Bantu language. It
basically roughly translates into this:
I am because we are. I am because we are.
America has learned the power of soft power. General Mattis knew much
cheaper investment, much more success, string of successes we have had
in the last 25 years have been with our soft power, not with our 20-
year wars in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
General Mattis knew that. He gave wisdom. He said: Do not cut the
State Department. Do not cut USAID. They are making an invaluable
contribution to fighting terrorism, to fighting instability, to
spreading democracy, to fighting infectious diseases when we go and
stand.
But now, we are shrinking. We are retreating. We are pulling back. We
are cutting aid. And when crises are happening like we are seeing in
Myanmar right now, we don't even have the personnel to be there to help
people. But you know who does? China. And they show up, and they
leverage influence--you and I know this--to the continent of Africa.
Here, take our money, take our money. Be in debt to us now. We have
control. By the way, we want a military port here like they have right
next to us in Djibouti. The Chinese are playing the long game, and
Trump is playing into their hands and weakening our Nation, not just
against infectious diseases, not just against the global fight against
climate change, not just against the economic opportunities that we are
missing out in the Continent of Africa.
Guess what, if you don't know this: By 2050, one out of every four
people on the planet Earth will live on the continent of Africa. One of
three working-age people on the planet Earth will be on the continent
of Africa. China is playing the long game, not only critical rare earth
minerals but the economic power of the most populous continent on the
planet.
And what are we doing with Trump? We are doing the Michael Jackson.
We are moonwalking away from that continent, saying: China, go ahead.
I love you Chris Coons. I am the ranking member of this subcommittee
inspired by you, Chris Coons, and the work that you and me and Lindsay
Graham and John McCain did over the last 10 years is being swept away
as our allies are saying frightening things; that they have to look
elsewhere for leadership and not to the people who saved the free
world.
It is a shame what we are doing to my grandparents' generation, with
my grandmother with her war bonds and her victory garden and my
grandfather building bombers at the Willow Run bomber plant in
Michigan. All the country came together and sacrificed for the war
effort.
We saved Europe. We bled and died on that European Continent. There
are--and you have seen them--these fields of crosses and you see some
Stars of David and you see some Muslim graves. You see it all.
Our American boys died. And yet we still invested in that continent.
We still invested with the Marshall Plan. We still invested with the
Berlin Airlift. We still stood up to communism. And a great Republican
President--a great Republican President--who stood up in front of a
Russian autocratic leader and said: Gorbachev, tear down this wall.
And what is Trump going to be remembered for? I really love Vladimir
Putin. Zelenskyy is a dictator. You are my friend.
You and I both visit VA halls, and occasionally, we meet a World War
II veteran. In my State, there are some incredible men that still wear
their hat. If they can, they stand with pride. They are called the
``greatest generation.''
And what are we doing to their legacy? What are we doing to their
legacy, Chris Coons?
I am going to keep talking unless somebody wants to say: Will the
Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MARKEY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. I yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. MARKEY. First of all, thank you so much for what you are doing,
Senator Booker. You are drawing our Nation's attention to what Donald
Trump and Elon Musk and DOGE are seeking to do to our country,
especially the most vulnerable in our society.
You, Senator Booker, you have been a champion for the poor, for the
sick, for the disabled, for those most in need throughout your entire
life. That is who you are. You are absolutely a champion for those who
need help the most.
So as we look at what Donald Trump is proposing, to destroy the
Department of Education, just to level it, knowing that title I money
goes to the poorest children in Newark, in Boston, so that they can
have as close to an equal footing as is possible so they, too, can
compete to ensure they enjoy the American dream.
To dock Medicaid, knowing that there are 338,000 people just in
Massachusetts alone who are on disabilities, who need Medicaid in order
to deal with those afflictions, which their families need a little bit
of help to deal with, to begin a process of saying that Social Security
is a Ponzi scheme and knowing that, ultimately, they need the billions
of dollars for their tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, and
they have to get it out of education. They have to get it out of
Medicaid. They have to get it out of veterans' benefits. They have to
get it out of Social Security.
We know what the plot is. The plot is to get $2 trillion out of
programs that affect ordinary people in order to have tax breaks for
the wealthiest people in our Nation. And most of it will come out of
healthcare. It will come out of Medicaid, ultimately, out of Medicare,
out of the Affordable Care Act, out of veterans' benefits--healthcare,
healthcare, healthcare, healthcare for every family, for the wealthiest
in our society who don't need a tax break.
The one thing they don't need right now is a tax break, especially
when Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg now control more
wealth than the bottom 50 percent of our Nation combined. Do they
really need a tax break? I mean, I know the President put them right
behind him at his inauguration, but oh my God, the Cabinet sits behind
billionaires? The Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves
thinking about how they have perverted what is supposed to be the way
in which our government, our country works.
So I thank you for your incredible leadership. You are putting the
spotlight on what is going wrong in this country right now, this
oligarchy seeking to take over our Nation.
So I thank the Senator for what he is doing, and he is just so
consistent with his whole life, what he stands for. What he stands for
on this on the floor of the Senate today is a conscience--a conscience
for the Nation.
Can the Senator tell the Senate today--the Nation--what does it mean
if we continue down this path of Donald Trump and Elon Musk and DOGE
for those families who need help the most in our society?
Mr. BOOKER. I so appreciate the Senator, and I want to tell folks
that when I wrote my book, I thought I knew this man here. I did a lot
about environmental justice in my book. I did a lot about these toxic
chemicals out there that are threatening our people.
I came to the office of the Senate one day so humbled because I told
him: I
[[Page S2024]]
knew you as my colleague. We both got here around the same time. But I
had no idea of the kinds of things you did in the U.S. House of
Representatives, how many bills that made a difference in people's
lives in Boston, in Newark, in Camden, in Passaic. You are one of the
people that, after a few years here, I discovered in 2015, writing my
book, how amazing your career is. And now having served in the Senate
about the same amount of time, I am so grateful for you.
You have been so consistent in why you came here, not forgetting the
people you have been fighting for for your whole career. So your
question is right aligned with that point.
It was said earlier about things that humanity's biggest fight,
humanity's biggest consistent theme is us versus them or just us. I
don't like when you pit one group in this country against another
group. It is not us versus the billionaires or us versus the
Republicans; it is understanding what is best for ``we the people.''
How can we create a more perfect Union?
I will tell you this right now, we are a Union in trouble. Compared
to our global peers, we have higher disease rates, higher diabetes
rates, higher cancer rates, higher maternal mortality rates, higher
premature birth rates, and higher infant mortality rates.
There are so many things going on in this country that should not go
on. But yet we are a nation of utter abundance. We are a nation of
incredible wealth and resources, and we have proven in our past to be a
nation of incredible vision. That is why I don't understand why we are
playing so small, why we have a President that is playing so small. It
is not coming here like Presidents of the past and saying ``We
together,'' from Reagan, to Clinton, to Obama. There is a big
challenge, America, and we together are going to get into the room and
do sausage making, Republicans and Democrats, and we are going to find
a way to write great legislation.
Whatever you want to say about Joe Biden, he was a big President
because he didn't try to do things by Executive fiat or this quote of
Donald Trump's I put here, ``the primacy of the Executive,'' ignoring
our Constitution.
Do you know how many bipartisan bills were hammered out here? I see
another dear friend of mine, Mark Warner. Do you know how many
bipartisan bills Mark Warner was at the table for, my senior Senator
who was chairman of Intelligence? We did a bipartisan infrastructure
act when Trump, in his first term, had infrastructure week every other
week. We did a Chips and Science bill. He is trying to claw back the
money. But we, together--I still remember that classified SCIF where
the whole Senate was there and our national security team, and Gina
Raimondo put forward the crisis in our country, the vulnerabilities,
and we came out of that room, we got into our rooms, and we hammered
out a great Chips and Science bill.
Decades went by in this body with doing nothing on gun violence--
decades. Courageous people on the Republican side, friends of mine that
surprised me that stood up--like Senator Cornyn--and said: We are going
to do something. I have my lines, you have your lines, but let's find
space in the middle.
We did programs. If you come to New Jersey, the community violence
intervention money is lowering murder rates in places like Newark by
over 50 percent and helping to get it done, along with our great law
enforcement officers.
The incredible thing about that now is Trump is trying to claw back
that money, violating the separation of powers because we decide how we
are spending money in America, not the Executive. Read the
Constitution.
So you and I both know that a big President would come here and say:
Let's do some legislation.
But John McCain--and I read it in the middle of the night--but John
McCain--it is really important--John McCain--I won't read it, but I
will tell it--voted against the healthcare last time, the taking away
of healthcare from millions of Americans, and said that it is because
of the dysfunction of this body that we don't come together and do
something bigger and bolder to provide better healthcare, to bring the
ideas from both sides and expand the opportunities for Americans and
replace the imperfections of the Affordable Care Act with smarter and
better things.
Not Donald Trump. He is repeating--why?--the mistakes, but not with
the ACA, which affects tens of millions of Americans, with Medicaid,
which affects 70 to 100 million Americans. Why? You ask why. Well, we
know why. There are two things that this will achieve--two things. One,
as you said, it is because he wants to not just renew the Trump tax
cuts but expand them to have disproportionate benefits to the
wealthiest.
I wish the wealthiest in the country, names that we know, people like
Elon Musk, would say: I don't want a tax cut. I wish he would say the
truth: I don't need a tax cut.
But that is one of the reasons. He wants to renew a program that gave
disproportionate money. But that is not the only reason. There is a
cruelty in what he is doing. It is so offensive. He seems to have no
respect for people with disabilities. He made fun of a journalist with
a disability once. He seems to have no respect for people who are
working hard and struggling but still can't make ends meet, no respect
for people that are afraid of his language, of his threats. They think
that what he is doing to Social Security might mean they don't have it.
What he is saying about Medicare and Medicaid are lies. He has more
registered lies than any President of my lifetime. They don't think
they can trust this President not to hurt them because he already is.
I was told by my parents that what defines you as a person is not
what happens to you but how you choose to respond.
What happens to us as a nation is not what defines us. They can bomb
us at Pearl Harbor and attack us on 9/11. The American character was
defined by how we responded to those crises. Yes, there have been major
political crises before, but we responded by bending the arc of our
Nation more towards justice, taking care of more and more people,
saying that we belong to each other in America. It is ``we the
people.'' It is ``we the people.''
I see the standing of my friend Mark Warner. I don't know if he has a
question, but I know what I am told to say if he asks me to yield for a
question.
Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. I yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may join my friend and colleague from
Massachusetts, one, to celebrate the Senator from New Jersey's
endurance, his willingness to continue to make his case in as clear
terms as possible.
Not having been here last night at 6:30, I do wonder, when he started
this speech-a-thon at 6:30, whether the bob and the weave and the move
were quite as strong or was he firmly attached to the podium.
The fact that you are going on more than 12 hours now and you look
like you have hours ahead and hours before you sleep and knowing that
there are other Members who have a question, including the majority
leader, I just want to be brief with mine.
You have talked a lot with great passion about the damage done
domestically. As chairman of the Intelligence Committee and now vice
chairman, I have been aghast at the sloppiness of this administration
time after time after time in terms of their treatment of classified
information.
In the first 2 weeks of the administration, strangely, a couple
hundred CIA agents' identities were revealed on a nonclassified chain.
These probationary employees, these new employees--the American
Government had spent a couple hundred thousand dollars on each of them.
You have to get a security clearance. You have to get them trained.
Unfortunately, these folks can't deploy abroad. They can't deploy
undercover because their names were carelessly put on an unsecured
channel.
You say, well, that was just a one-off. Well, what about a week or so
later? The DOGE boys print a whole list of Federal properties that
should be for sale. They quickly take it down a few hours later,
realizing they once again have screwed up. But in putting up that list,
they put on classified dark sites that the American Government, again,
spends millions of dollars to protect.
[[Page S2025]]
More recently as well, the DOGE boys, either ignorantly or
maliciously, either one--just plain stupid--put out the list of a
classified Agency, its budget, total head count--again, all classified
information.
Senator, one thing I can tell you, and I know you know this as well,
if this had happened to a line intelligence officer or a line military
officer, there would be no question--your butt would be fired.
As a matter of fact, we got information yesterday that there had been
a DHS employee who had inadvertently--inadvertently--put a journalist
on a chatline. Guess what happened. The guy was fired.
So when it came to this incident now called Signalgate or the
Signalgate fiasco, where you have the leading members of this
administration debating where and how we should bomb the Houthis,
including specific information of who will be hit and when, I was--
Senator Booker, I was down in Hampton Roads this week, and these were
the communities that surround the Norfolk Naval Station. The Norfolk
Naval Station is where the Truman, the aircraft carrier, has been
deployed from. It is the aircraft carrier that the flights that
attacked the Houthis flew off of.
I can tell you one thing, Senator Booker: These people were pissed
off that there had been this level of carelessness about their loved
ones, that if it had gotten in the wrong hands, it would have cost
American lives.
So, Senator Booker, as you put down the litanies of all of the
challenges that have been raised by this administration, I will ask you
a simple question: Do you agree that this pattern--not a one-off--
Mr. BOOKER. Yes.
Mr. WARNER.--this pattern of sloppiness endangers our national
security?
Mr. BOOKER. Yes. Absolutely, yes.
I love that you gave that litany, Senator.
I benefited from your leadership on the Intel Committee. You are one
of the people that--when things go down on planet Earth, you are one of
the small handful of people with the highest security clearance here.
You know before rank-and-file Senators do. We have had so many
conversations about threat matrices and what our enemies are doing. You
have sent me to the SCIF and said ``I can't talk to you about this; go
down to the SCIF and ask for the information'' and helped me to fill
out my understanding of national security.
But I am stunned by this President. All that I have read in the SCIF
about what Russia is doing to this country--I am stunned and angry at
this President and what he is doing to us by cozying up to Putin and
turning his back on our allies.
But the sloppiness, the unqualified leaders that he has put in
place--it has caused us to be more at risk. And Signalgate--you said
it. If that had happened under any other President, Republican or
Democrat, whoever controlled the Senate would have hearings. They would
want to know: Was this pattern and practice? Did these Signal
conversations happen before and we only know about this one because
somehow you pulled in a journalist?
Well, that is a violation of the law because their disappearing
messages were destroying government documents that the executive branch
has a legal obligation to keep. And classified materials--putting it
out there saying there was nothing classified about that, lying, then
they put up the actual--if there is nothing classified, then release
the whole thing.
To the wisdom of people like you--again, more wisdom and experience
at intel than me--it is clear that was sensitive, probably classified.
But we should be having hearings and accountability.
I keep going back to how this document is being undermined and
attacked by this President. And one of the powers and responsibilities
that we swore to uphold--every one of us swore to uphold that we are to
be a check on the administration.
Before I yield to the next question from Senator Schumer, I want to
talk about Senator Schumer. I want to say something and get it off my
chest.
Senator Murphy, we passed the 15-hour mark. I want to thank Senator
Murphy in particular because he has been with me the whole night. He
hasn't left my side. In some ways, that repaid the 15 hours because we
called Chuck Schumer 9 years ago--9 years ago. I remember exactly where
we were standing when the three of us were on the phone. We asked Chuck
to help us, for you to take the floor right down there and do a
filibuster. We didn't know how long it was going to last. I committed
to you I would be your aide-de-camp. And 15 hours you stood, Chris
Murphy, saying this Nation shouldn't do business as usual for the
Postmaster. The leader of the Senate, 9 years ago, said, ``I support
you guys. Go ahead.''
So one of the first people I called was Senator Schumer and talked to
about this--actually, it was Murphy. He did full circle for me and has
been with me the whole 15 hours. The debt is paid, but I have fuel in
the tank, man. The only reason you stopped wasn't because you couldn't
go on anymore. We got a concession from Mitch McConnell. We got a
concession to get two votes on commonsense gun safety that Republicans
had put forward, like universal background checks in the past. But we
lost that vote. On both occasions, 9 years apart, once when Murphy was
the principal and now here, we had a leader who said: Yes, how can I
help?
I want to thank Senator Schumer before, I suspect, he might ask and
yield for a question, for being a friend, a partner, and one of the
first people I turned to with this idea and encouraged me to go for it.
``Go for it, Cory.''
Thank you, Chuck Schumer.
Mr. SCHUMER. Would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. I yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. SCHUMER. I have two questions, frankly, one on Medicaid cuts,
which we talked about last night, and one on tariffs.
First, let me say before I get to this question that your strength,
your fortitude, your clarity has just been nothing short of amazing.
And all of America is paying attention to what you are saying. All of
America needs to know there are so many problems because of the
disastrous actions of this administration in terms of how they are
helping only the billionaires and hurting average families.
You have brought that forth with such clarity. People from one end of
America to the other admire you. Our whole caucus is behind you. And we
admire your stamina, your strength, your passion, your intelligence.
The list of adjectives could go on.
My first question relates to the Medicaid cuts. As we talked about
last night, I visited three Republican districts--one in Staten Island,
one right on the border of two Republican districts in Long Island--
yesterday to talk about Medicaid cuts. I went to nursing homes. It was
clear that the Medicaid cuts that are proposed in this proposal--$880
billion in the House--would be devastating.
On Staten Island, the nursing home we visited--they love it, Silver
Lake nursing home--would close. Three hundred people would lose their
jobs; hundreds would be thrown out. And most of them said their
children can't take care of them. It is too--their needs are more
advanced. Even some who said their children might be able to take care
of them didn't have room in the house, et cetera. So it is affecting
Staten Island, middle class, voted for Trump.
But we made a plea to their congresswoman to not vote for any bill
that had these Medicaid cuts in the tax breaks for billionaires. A lot
of the people there were--it was bipartisan, both parties there. We
estimated that about 18,000 people total would lose their jobs with
these Medicaid cuts, creating a recession on Staten Island. We
estimated the harm that it would cause. So this was devastating.
Same thing on Long Island. Again, Republican areas with Republican
Congress people who hold the balance. If those three Congress people
alone would say: I am not voting for a bill that cuts Medicaid to give
tax breaks for the billionaires, the bill would fail.
I know that you in New Jersey and my colleagues in Massachusetts,
Connecticut, and elsewhere are doing the same thing, Congressmen and
Senators. I talked to Leader Jeffries. He is doing the same with his
folks.
So my question to you is very simple. If these people in New Jersey,
in New York, across America are kicked out of
[[Page S2026]]
nursing homes and assisted living facilities and healthcare facilities,
what would they do? How could they--and how does the Senator, with his
passion and everything else, feel when the only reason they are doing
this is to give tax breaks to the wealthiest of Americans?
Would you please answer my question, sir?
Mr. BOOKER. Yes, I will, Leader Schumer. Earlier, or late last night,
rather, I read dozens and dozens and dozens of letters from terrified
people. The stories were heartbreaking as people rendered their pride
and gave us insights into the more painful aspects of their lives.
I got emotional over one about a person talking about being diagnosed
with Parkinson's and knowing the disease would be more and more
debilitating, like I saw with my father, and demand more and more help.
And she was paranoid that the burden on her family, they couldn't
afford it.
I had these amazing--this one amazing letter about a person who said
they were in a sandwich generation--two 90-something-year-old parents
they were taking care of and two adult men--children--with
disabilities. For all these people, like you saw in the nursing homes,
Medicaid wasn't a plus or some kind of abundance heaped upon their
lives. It helps them keep the fragile financial world they were living
in stable. And it is not just the $880 billion cuts, Senator Schumer.
Half of that or a quarter of that would cut services that would pull
apart their whole lives--their ability to care for their loved ones,
their ability to still work.
One person just said the transportation we get through Medicaid for
my disabled child is the link that holds it all together. And callously
and cruelly, they are talking about this, not in any kind of insightful
way, not in any kind of ``here is how we can make it more efficient and
help keep it.'' There is none of that thought or logic, bringing in
experts because we read page after page after page from rural hospital
leaders, of urban hospital leaders and more and more.
Your question is clearly that it is this crazy scheme right now to
expand the Trump tax cuts that overwhelmingly disproportionately go to
the wealthiest of us in America who need not our help; that would still
yet expand the deficit by trillions of dollars, which means your
children--and I know how proud a grandfather you are--your
grandchildren would have to pay for that debt. They are stealing from
your grandchildren so that the wealthiest amongst us could get bigger
tax cuts and, at the same time, taking away medical coverage from the
most vulnerable.
What is that? It is not who we are. It is not who we are, America.
And as much as people--thousands depended on us to save the ACA--
Medicaid affects millions and millions of more people. Wake up. They
are coming after a vital program for American expectant mothers, for
American children, for American disabled, for seniors like the ones you
visited.
I have one more thing to get off my chest, sir. This is a little
lighter. You heaped so many kind things on me, I don't know if you
realize that never before in the history of America has a man from
Brooklyn said so many complimentary things about a man from Newark.
Mr. SCHUMER. I would remind my colleague that we are both New York
Giants fans.
Mr. BOOKER. Who play where? In New Jersey. This is not a colloquy. I
hold the floor. I do not yield. Brooklyn stole the Nets--it is an
injustice--from Newark. They stole the Nets. I do not yield the floor
for a rebuttal. And the Giants and the Jets play in New Jersey. There
is only one football team in New York, and that is the Bills.
I do not yield, but I do love and respect you. When I have the floor,
I don't have to yield. The one time in my life I get the last word with
my much more senior, much wiser friend and Senator.
Mr. SCHUMER. My colleague, I do have another question on an unrelated
subject.
Mr. BOOKER. OK, unrelated. As long as you give me that commitment, I
yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. SCHUMER. First, let me say before I ask my question, Go Bills.
Second, given the 15 hours which you have shown such amazing strength
of an all-American athlete who could probably, given what you have
shown tonight, be a star on our Giants--so I will not even try to rebut
where the Giants are.
Mr. BOOKER. Thank you.
Mr. SCHUMER. I will ask this question. Going back--before I get to
tariffs--one of the leading hospitals in New York told me if there were
only a 20-percent cut of Medicaid, less steep than they show, that they
would close. They are the only cancer care place in the Bronx, 1.3
million people, and they give great care. They are the only ones. They
would close.
So the devastation of these cuts, the American people should realize,
is just enormous from one end of the country to the other--middle-class
communities and upper middle-class communities like Long Island,
middle-class like Staten Island, and poor communities like the Bronx.
On tariffs, let me ask a question. So here we are, right on the edge
of April 2. Today is April Fool's Day, but the tariffs the President is
proposing, unfortunately, are not part of an April Fool's trick. They
are real, and they are devastating. My question to my colleague is:
With these tariffs, which is estimated would cost the American families
$6,000 more on average, would raise costs on everything across the
board, and would throw devastation into our economy--look at the stock
market. It goes down when Trump is serious about tariffs, then goes up
when he says maybe he is not so serious. And with the chaos that it has
caused so businesses which love certainty--small businesses, medium-
sized businesses, large businesses need certainty.
So my questions are these. Does the great Senator and great Giants'
fan from Newark agree that prices could go way up, all the way up to as
much as $6,000? And does he agree that the chaos from Trump's tariffs
is discombobulating the economy in very serious ways? And, again, does
he agree that the reason they seem to be doing this, they count the
revenues. This guy Navarro seems to have no sense of reality, yet he
seems to be in charge. And they count the revenues to help them get
more tax cuts for the wealthy.
Almost everything they do, including tariffs, it seems to me, is
aimed at getting those tax cuts for the wealthy. God bless the wealthy,
as I heard you say last night when we spoke. We are not against people
who make a lot of money. God bless them, but they don't need a tax
break.
Mr. BOOKER. No, they don't.
Mr. SCHUMER. They should realize the beauty of America helped them
become or stay billionaires. The money we invested in education and
roads and schools and helping kids get food makes a better workforce.
So my question to my colleague on these tariffs, A, does he agree
that it could raise the price on an average family thousands of
dollars--it is estimated $6,000. Does he agree that the chaos caused by
Trump's on-again, off-again, this-country, that-country, this-much,
that-much, this-product, that-product is hurting the economy and
hurting business people doing their jobs? And does he agree that it
seems the motivation is tax breaks for the wealthiest people?
Will you please answer my question?
I yield back to the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BOOKER. I will.
So you and I both know that in 72 days now--it is the next day--that
of the 72 days that Trump has been in office, he has caused havoc on
the American economy, especially given the economy he inherited.
Inflation is up. Prices are up. Consumer confidence is down. The stock
market and people's 401(k)s--their retirement plans--are down. He
continues to do things to rattle confidence, to raise prices, and to
hurt not the billionaires--the people who can afford these things--but
to hurt average Americans, who find housing prices too high and
difficult to make ends meet.
Every time--and I have looked at the tariffs throughout history. In
fact, one of my friends sent me this really funny clip I hope somebody
will put up for me from, I think it was ``Ferris Bueller's Day Off''
where he was talking about tariffs and was like ``Bueller! Bueller!''--
or maybe it was another
[[Page S2027]]
movie. I am mixing it up. It shows my--
Mr. SCHUMER. You are entitled.
Mr. BOOKER. What is that?
Mr. SCHUMER. You are entitled.
Mr. BOOKER. Thank you.
But the tariffs haven't worked out for Republican Presidents who
tried them during the Depression. The evidence is here. Learn from our
history.
Mr. SCHUMER. Sorry. Does my colleague remember the names of Smoot and
Hawley?
Mr. BOOKER. Smoot and Hawley. Yes, sir, I definitely remember those
names from high school history.
God bless you, Mr. Al Gore and Mr. Perot.
So, yes, what he is going to do tomorrow is going to rattle the
markets. What he is going to do tomorrow is raise prices for Americans.
What he is going to do tomorrow is lie to folks and say this is
something that China will pay or whoever will pay when actually it is
the American consumers who will pay with higher prices and more
economic insecurity.
This man--I will tell you this quote that Frederick Douglass once
said. This I do remember.
He said:
The limits of tyranny are prescribed by the endurance of
those whom they oppress.
How much more will we take of this? How much more will we as America
say ``Cut our Medicaid to give tax cuts to the billionaires. Take the
Affordable Care Act, and take away tax credits. Take away enrollment
support. Hey, come after Social Security. Cut thousands of people. Make
customer service get worse,'' as said the Wall Street Journal? How much
more of these indignities will we take as he turns our back on our
allies? How much more will we take--how much more?--of a person who is
doing tyrannical things as he takes our Constitution and continues to
trash it as he is running into judge after judge after judge who is
trying to stop him? But we have already seen that he wants to ignore
judges or if he gets rulings he doesn't like, he trashes the judges,
and even the Chief Justice, appointed by a Republican, says: No, no.
This is not right. This is not who we are. This is not how we do
things in America.
How much more can we endure before we in the collective chorus of
conviction in our country say: Enough is enough. Enough is enough. You
are not going to get away with this.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator for his fortitude, his strength, and
the crystalline brilliance by which he has shown the American people
the huge dangers that face them with this Trump-DOGE-Musk
administration.
I yield the floor back to my colleague from New Jersey.
Mr. BOOKER. Thank you. Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts, but I think
you have to ask him to yield for a question.
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. I yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Ms. WARREN. I am very grateful to the Senator from New Jersey for
coming to the floor for such an extended period of time to give voice
to all of those around this country whose voices evidently are not
heard by the Republicans in the U.S. Congress.
I wanted to ask a question for the 73 million people who are
beneficiaries of the Social Security System and for their families--for
the people whose grandmas are getting Social Security, for the people
whose cousins or whose dads died who were getting Social Security
benefits, about what is happening right now between Donald Trump and
Elon Musk, our current co-Presidents, and what they are trying to do to
the Social Security System.
So I start this question with just a basic observation. Social
Security is not charity. It is not something we give away to those who
are less fortunate and we do this out of the goodness of our hearts.
Social Security is a contract that people who work in America pay into;
it is the system for all of their working lives. When the time comes
that they retire or something happens to them and they are not able to
do that work, they can count on the Social Security System and the
payments they are legally entitled to. I want to underscore here
``legally.''
Now, if America wanted to change that contract, the place they have
to go is right here, to Congress.
Mr. BOOKER. Yes.
Ms. WARREN. They have to come to the U.S. Senate or they have to go
to the U.S. House of Representatives, and they have to say: We actually
want to change benefits for Social Security recipients.
By the way, that has happened dozens and dozens of times in our
history, up through the late 1980s, when we made adjustments in the
Social Security benefits--for example, for the fact that people lived
longer, for the fact that people worked longer, and so we made minor
adjustments in the system. We also made adjustments to make sure that
there were cost-of-living changes in how much Social Security would pay
out.
So anyone who wants to change the benefits that people are legally
entitled to has to come here to Congress and make that happen.
But it appears that Elon Musk and Donald Trump have tried to figure
out an end run, and the end run is to say: OK. We can't directly change
benefits, but what we can do is we can effectively cut off benefits.
Now, how can they do that? Well, one way is to fire all the people
who help people get their Social Security benefits. Think of it this
way: There is someone who wants to collect Social Security. Let's just
say, at age 66, they decide, ``I am ready. It is time for me to retire.
I can't do this anymore. I want to collect my Social Security
benefits,'' and they try to fill out the form. It turns out it gets
rejected. There is a number off somewhere in the system. Somebody has
gotten confusion on what the name is or where somebody worked or an
employer from decades back failed to fill out the right form, so now
there is a problem in the system.
So what does a person do? Well, first, they might try calling, but if
you fired the people who answer the phones, that is not going to work.
OK. So what is the next thing you do? You go to your local Social
Security office. Oh, but if they close the Social Security office near
you, that is not going to work. So what do you do? You go to the Social
Security office that you can find that is 2 hours away, 3 hours away, 4
hours away. You finally get through to that Social Security office, and
when you get there, if they have fired most of the people, you may
encounter what? Two people working the desk to help straighten out
problems and a line that is 50 people long.
By the way, these come from real stories. People are telling us what
is happening out there.
So by the time the day is over, our example here hasn't even made it
to the front of the line. So he doesn't get the question answered. He
doesn't get the problem resolved. He has to go back home again and has
to find somebody who can maybe take him to the Social Security office
that is hours away and start this process over and over and over.
If this person--let's just say for example it takes 3 months to get
this problem ultimately resolved by the Social Security Administration.
They don't get the money. That money is lost. It just simply is gone.
They do not get the money they are legally entitled to, and they have
no right to go back and collect it, even pointing out that it was
Social Security's error.
So the failure to correct these errors or to give people an
opportunity to correct these errors is effectively the same as having
cut their benefits. When you do that for 1 percent of the people, you
drive up your error rate. When you do that for 5 percent of the people
or when you do that for 10 percent of the folks who are getting Social
Security--and, man, those cuts really start to add up--they really
start to add up for the people whose benefits are cut. They really
start to add up for Donald Trump and for Elon Musk.
Let's look at another possibility here, and that is just simply
delay. Checks don't go out on time. When checks don't go out on time,
then the promise that people relied on that that check would come on
the 3rd of the month is what they count on for rent. That is what they
count on to put groceries on the table. That is what they count on to
support themselves. It is gone.
So maybe he will get the check next month. Another billionaire
Republican,
[[Page S2028]]
Howard Lutnick, said: Don't worry about it. His mother-in-law would
simply count on the fact that they would straighten the problem out,
and maybe next month, she would get her payment. I suppose if your son-
in-law is a billionaire, you can count on the fact that somebody will
make sure your rent gets covered and groceries are on the table, but
for the 70 million Americans who rely on that check coming in every
month, it is not so clear what you are going to do.
So what do you do? Do you borrow money to make rent? Do you call on
relatives if you have them? Whom do you go to to be able to make it to
the end of this month and, if the problem persists, to the next month
and the next month? Where do you go?
That is, in my view, as much a benefit cut as Congress's having voted
to say: We are just going to give a 10-percent across-the-board cut to
everyone who receives Social Security benefits.
There are a lot of ways to cut benefits, and breaking your promise to
73 million Americans is a benefit cut. It is not a legal benefit cut,
but it is an effective benefit cut.
I admire the Senator from New Jersey for being here today to speak
out for those Americans who face these kinds of cuts and have no
recourse. I admire him for standing up and saying to the Republicans
who won't go do townhalls and who won't go out and meet with these
people and listen to them: Listen to their concerns. Listen to their
fears. Listen to their stories about what happens as thousands and
thousands more Social Security employees are fired. Correcting problems
and straightening out your benefits gets harder and more out of reach
for more and more Americans. That is what we face right now.
So the question that I want to pose to the Senator from New Jersey is
this: At a time when Donald Trump and Elon Musk are looking for an
indirect way to cut Social Security benefits--and let's just pause
here, if I can, to say, Why?
Mr. BOOKER. Yes.
Ms. WARREN. Why go out of your way to cut Social Security benefits?
Come on now. There are 73 million Americans who rely on this. This
has been the backbone of America's promise to its own people that you
did the work, you put in the money, and now you are entitled to the
benefit on the other side.
Why are they doing this? Because they want to reduce the amount of
money that is available for Social Security and instead take that money
over so that they can advance tax cuts for billionaires and billionaire
corporations. They are just trying to grease the skids here for the
billionaires to get even richer and ask the 73 million Americans who
rely on Social Security to pay for it out of their own hides.
So the question I have for the Senator from New Jersey is, When Elon
Musk and Donald Trump are determined to try to use a backdoor way to
cut Social Security benefits, A, are they acting legally, and B, how do
we put a stop to this?
(Mr. SHEEHY assumed the Chair.)
Mr. BOOKER. Amen. Amen.
You know, Reverend Warnock was here earlier and was preaching and
quoting Scripture, but you are preaching the gospel of truth, my
friend, from a civic gospel that speaks to the cares and the concerns
of American hope and of the American dream and of the American
Constitution, because you and I both know the answer to the question.
I have to say, for the folks who are watching, she is the great
Senator from Massachusetts, but she used to be a professor in New
Jersey.
Ms. WARREN. That is true.
Mr. BOOKER. She was a Rutgers professor. I was listening to her way
before I got to the Senate when she was fighting for the CFPB, when she
was fighting so people would not be taken advantage of. She established
the first-ever Agency whose sole purpose was to stand up to the Big
Bs--to big banks, to big corporate powers--and defend people. It is an
institution that got billions and billions of dollars back into the
pockets of the American consumers.
What did Donald Trump and DOGE do to an institution that we set up in
Congress in a bipartisan way? They did something that is against the
Constitution. They went after it to hack it to pieces so that it is no
more.
But to add insult to injury, down here, we just had a vote on
overdraft fees that was stunning to me because there is just no defense
of it. It was a clear thing.
Some of the big banks said: Do you know what? We don't need those
usury fees. It is actually wrong. Those are the big banks that stood up
and did the right thing. But a handful of others were still taking
advantage of people, and this Senate got to vote on which side are we
on. And we failed.
So your question is right. You detail what is right about how people
are getting hurt already, how the benefits of Social Security are
already being affected, how rural Social Security offices are being
closed already. And the question is why, under the guise of efficiency,
but you are hurting our elders who deserve dignity in their retirement.
It is stunning to me, Senator Warren--stunning to me--that we are
actually even having this discussion and having this debate when there
has been not one congressional hearing about what Elon Musk is doing.
The letters I read earlier about Social Security were painful because
people wanted to know what was being done with their most confidential
and private information.
I want to continue because we were working through national security.
And given the time, I want to rush to just read some stories of voices.
I wanted to come to the floor and read people's voices, elevate voices.
So here is a voice, a statement from Julia Hurley from Bergen County,
NJ.
Thank you, Julia. I see you.
My family's roots are deep in New Jersey, all the way back
to my great-grandparents, with my mom's side from Bogota,
Fair Lawn, and Upper Saddle River and my dad's side from
Spring Lake and Wall Township. I have north and south roots.
My grandfather started a manufacturing company that my
cousin still runs, and my other grandfather ran a trucking
company based in New Jersey. I was born and raised in Park
Ridge and learned from a very young age about the importance
of serving and community.
Both of my grandfathers served in World War II.
What a family.
My family was always involved in charity and our churches.
And ever since I can remember, I wanted to help people, doing
my first fundraiser for homeless people in Bergen County,
when I was maybe 8 or 9.
The passion for service took an international bend after I
went abroad for the first time during an exchange trip to
Germany with Park Ridge Junior-Senior High School in 2001 and
fell in love with travel.
Shortly after that, September 11 happened. Seven people
from my little town were killed in the towers, and we could
see the smoke from Ground Zero from a hill the next town
over.
For those of you who don't know, Park Ridge is very close to where I
grew up, and my childhood best friend died in the Towers.
This was when I learned how my little suburban bubble could
be impacted by things worlds away. I became obsessed with
trying to help and wanting to drive a career that would be in
service to my country and people elsewhere so that those
people would be more inclined to work with us than against
us.
I went on to study diplomacy and international relations at
Seton Hall University, graduating magna cum laude and
determined to work for the State Department at some point.
My 15-year winding career path after that took me into the
advocacy space and onto humanitarian and peace-building work
in Gaza with the U.N., as well as in Tunisia and Egypt.
In 2022, after years as a policy advisor with the
International Committee of the Red Cross, I was recruited to
join USAID. And I couldn't have been more excited. This was a
dream job, an opportunity to serve my country and impact
policy in a real way, sharing what I had learned from working
abroad and at home to shape U.S. foreign policy and efforts
to advance development and humanitarian assistance on the
ground.
I was eventually promoted to a senior policy advisor role
in USAID's Office of Policy, where I was developing policy
that was shaping the way USAID worked, trying to break down
silos across the Agency, to be more effective and efficient
in our response to some of the toughest crises in the world.
I got the opportunity to not only prepare talking points
for high-level events and for our leadership but even brief
the administrator a couple of times.
That all came crashing down around January 28, as my
colleagues began being terminated and furloughed.
I went into the Trump administration like any other
bureaucrat, ready to engage and help because I want every
administration--I
[[Page S2029]]
want every administration--to succeed and lean on us as
experts to help advance American policy. I worked with our
team, and I briefed our political appointee director, who
started on Inauguration Day, and hoped to see what I could do
to continue building on the reform work I had been doing for
a year at that point.
Instead, everything quickly unraveled. Elon Musk called
USAID a criminal organization that should die, he said. And
the President of the United States deemed us radical left
lunatics. I was terrified, afraid of what people might do
when two of the most powerful men in the world were saying
things like that.
Our jobs were then in question, and the USAID offices were
quickly closed, with our belongings still in them. We were
left not knowing what our fate would be for weeks.
As DOJ dismantled USAID, I watched in horror as the program
shut down. The people we served suffered, and friends and
colleagues from the Agency, and our partner organizations
lost their livelihoods and their mission-driven careers.
On March 14, I was finally terminated. I have been
heartbroken since, shifting between deep depression and rage.
Because of the sledgehammer approach that DOGE took, the
entire foreign assistance architecture was broken.
Organizations I would have gone on to work for are going
bankrupt, cutting staff, and definitely not hiring.
I spent 15 years building up this career that I loved
beyond words. Every time I would leave my late father while
he was dying in a hospital in 2012, he would tell me to go
save the world. This wasn't just a career; it was a calling
to serve.
I have no idea what I will do next. In some ways, I feel
lucky, because I got married last May--
God bless you--
and I am on my husband's health insurance.
Thank God.
But he also works for the government, and he could be RIFed
within a moment's notice. I also have supportive family who
will help me if it really gets bad.
But the uncertainty has probably been one of the most
painful parts of all of this, not knowing what will come next
and just fearing it will be worse than the day before. All we
wanted to do was serve.
I want to say thank you to Julia Hurley from Bergen County--my home
county--New Jersey. Thank you for your voice. Thank you for making your
pain plain and your anger, making it real in my heart, as I know it is
in yours. I stand for you today.
A personal statement from Catherine Baker from Neptune, NJ:
I have been furloughed from my job at my USAID implementing
partner since February 14, 2025. I have 13 years' experience
supporting USAID contractors and business development and
recruitment efforts, mostly in conflict and post-conflict
settings.
The following is how I got here today: I was born in
Neptune and raised there until I went to college. My father
is a lifelong Neptune resident whose Jersey roots date all
the way back to early 1700s--
Wow--
when my Scottish ancestors came here in search of religious
freedom and economic opportunity to help build much of what
is Gloucester and Mercer Counties.
My mother is an immigrant born in Coro, Venezuela, to
refugees escaping fascism bombs and economic ruin in Spain
and Sicily. Every summer, my mom and I traveled to Venezuela
to see her mother, my aunts, and uncles, and countless
cousins. Coro, the capital of Venezuela State, responsible
for most of oil refining, sits on the Caribbean coast and is
about a 15-minute plane ride from Aruba, surrounded by sand
dunes.
Our family friends lived in homes with dirt floors,
corrugated aluminum roofs, and a hose out back you would use
to shower while fending off the chickens that roamed freely.
Coro is a city in constant drought. We would get water
every other day, and you would use a trash bin filled with
water and a ladle to shower on your nonwater days. Coro, as
you could imagine, couldn't be more different from Neptune,
NJ.
I went to St. James Elementary and Red Bank Catholic High
School in Red Bank from kindergarten through 12th grade. If
13 years of Catholic school teaches you anything, it is the
importance of taking care of one another, especially those
that are suffering from poverty, famine, and disease.
I remember being given small cartons where we were tasked
with filling with spare change so we could ship them off to
some faraway place, where we were told stories of children
just like us who were facing unimaginable hardships. I was so
moved by the notion that a child, not so different from
myself, didn't have enough to eat or had lost their parents
in a conflict, I couldn't begin to understand.
My senior year at RBC, I took a class called Globalization
and Social Justice. The class was taught by a longtime family
friend, Marianne Logan, herself a former nun. Ms. Logan
taught us about the Rwandan genocide and had us watch ``Hotel
Rwanda'' as a class. She made sure we knew the reasons why
this happened, understood how dehumanization and hatred can
lead to mass torture and executions and critique the
international response to the genocide that led to nearly 1
million deaths in 100 days.
That year, Ms. Logan took us to King University to see Nick
Kristof speak about Darfur and made sure we knew the signs of
genocide when we saw it. How can we let this happen again, we
asked her. I wore my ``Save Darfur'' green rubber bracelet
and T-shirt everywhere I went.
What could I, a kid living at the Jersey Shore, do to help?
During this period of enlightenment, led by Ms. Logan, the
Maryknoll missionaries-funded school in Kibera, Kenya, that
we were supporting was threatened by electoral violence in
December of 2007. We received letters from the nuns there,
who were Ms. Logan's personal friends, about how the fires
nearly reached the school and the children, who were already
living in Africa's largest slums, stood poised to lose the
little they had, including their lives.
Upon returning from Christmas break, Maryknoll Affiliate's
club sprang into action. We raised awareness and funds and
proudly sent money from bake sales and doorknocking to our
friends in Kenya. We received media attention from WCBS in
New York, and our story got picked up by other channels and
newspapers.
I was amazed that my efforts in Monmouth County were having
such meaningful and real impact on a crisis happening
thousands of miles away. I was passionate about this work. I
was seemingly good at it, or as good as an 18-year-old could
be. Could I actually turn this into a career? Could I help
even more people across the world?
I'd like to think I did that. I'd like to think I did that.
And I am crying as I write this because I wonder if I ever
will do it again.
The past 10 years, I focused on conflict prevention,
stabilization, preventing countering violent extremism, and
citizen insecurity, conflict, or post-conflict areas. Not
only did I conduct desk research and analyzed problem sets
from behind a desk, but I got to travel to those countries
and meet with local governments, civil society organizations,
and advocacy groups to hear from them about the issues and
discuss solutions.
I spoke to survivors of the devastating 2004 tsunami in Sri
Lanka and Tamil. Fathers and brothers disappeared during the
civil war and are likely burned in unmarked graves somewhere
on the island.
I worked closely with a woman my age whose families fled
Kosovo to the United States during the war when we were about
9 years old and returned as soon as she could to her home
country to promote continued peace between Albanians and
Serbs.
My recent trips to Kosovo were so illuminating not because
of the pain or struggle of these people but because of the
respect and admiration and gratitude they had toward the
United States of America.
Anyone who has been to Pristina knows of the Bill Clinton
and Bob Dole statues--
I didn't know about that--
as well as the Hillary Boutique.
A few years ago when I was negotiating an employment offer
with a Ghanaian candidate for a USAID-funded preventing
violent extremism program, I couldn't meet his salary
expectations. He said to me, ``That is OK. I will take
whatever you can give me. If the United States will make
sacrifices for the people of Ghana in support of this
program, I am willing to make a sacrifice too with a pay
cut.''
He proudly accepted the offer. The recognition that these
funds could be spent elsewhere was not lost on him.
Generosity and kindness are always more greatly appreciated
by those who have less. All but one of my company's USAID
contracts, which totaled nearly $400 million, were terminated
almost overnight by DOGE. Over 80 percent of our Virginia-
based office was laid off or furloughed.
I bought my first condo last year--a milestone we all
strive for but too few people my age are able to achieve. I
applied to 60 jobs in 1 month, all of which I am qualified
for, before I received two interview requests--this after
being a sought-after professional in my industry with a
strong network cultivated through years of hard work. This
has ruined me.
My mortgage payment isn't what makes me cry, though; it is
our local staff and partners that come to mind every night as
I say my prayers. My colleague, a Sudanese refugee living in
Kampala, working on a terminated USAID peace-building program
from Sudan, texts me every week to ask how I am doing. He
called me to make me smile because he knew I was crying. He
now calls me ``sad eyes'' and has made it his mission to
never see tears fall from these lashes again. I obviously lie
to him and say ``mission accomplished,'' but it will never be
true.
Not only is the United States not stronger, not safer, not
more prosperous, but the beacon of our democracy grows dim
across the globe. Without leadership, other countries hostile
to the United States will step in, and innocent people will
continue dying.
When I close my eyes, the specter of very real people from
my travels and projects appear, and I hear the echoes of
suffering they shared with me, suffering they were sure to
know was alleviated, however temporarily, by the United
States of America through USAID.
And wherever they could, they would thank me. Whenever they
could, they would thank me and America. They would thank me
and America for it.
Thank you, Catherine Baker from Neptune, NJ. And Catherine, I see
you.
[[Page S2030]]
I see you, Catherine. I hear you. I stand for you. But I want to share
something with you.
One of the most extraordinary trips I have had as a U.S. Senator was
to Chad, to go up to the border of Chad and Sudan and see the horrors--
I have been to refugee camps all around the globe, but to see the
horrors of what was happening again in Sudan.
You wore that ``Save Darfur'' T-shirt in your earlier days, but the
ethnic cleansing is going on right now. I have never seen so many
malnourished babies, barely able to hold up their heads, people fleeing
tyranny. And they fled across the border to meet Americans because we
were there. With less than 1 percent of the American budget, we were
there, standing for our values, our highest ideals, our faith
traditions--the understanding that when we are out there making the
world safer, responding to crises, not only were people seeing the help
they need, but they saw the light and the beacon of this democracy.
And it pains me that Chris Coons comes down here and shares the
headlines from today's newspaper that in Myanmar, in this horrific
earthquake, the Agency that used to respond to that tragedy, that human
tragedy, doesn't have the resources. America is not there. It is a
void.
And then Chris Coons says, in the article I am surely to read today
or tomorrow, whenever I can't stand anymore--he says: Who fills that
vacuum? Who showed up but the PRC. China showed up.
Less than 1 percent of our budget. Less than 1 percent of our budget,
and people like the folks I read from--whose whole life all they wanted
to do was to be the light of the American torch of freedom and hope to
the world--had the rug pulled out from under them.
But here is what is worse, because we have had, Chris Murphy,
meetings with some of the people behind the scenes that they are
savagely cutting, and the stories are horrible: people in dangerous
places that we sent there having their emails cut, having their phones
turned off; pregnant women who don't know how they are going to get out
of those areas.
And James Mattis, as we discussed, said: If you cut these kind of
programs, buy me more bullets because there will be more instability;
there will be more political democracies being overthrown; there will
be more terrorism; there will be more violence.
And we are old enough as a nation at 250 years to know that if we
don't meet these terrorists abroad, they will visit us at home. As
Chuck Schumer said, I was there watching the towers come down. And in
the Sahel before, in Africa, that is the threat--in Togo, in Ghana, in
Benin. In northern parts of the country, they are fighting terrorism.
Mr. MURPHY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. Oh, God, yes, I will. I yield for a question while
retaining the floor, Chris Murphy.
Mr. MURPHY. We have a few more colleagues who are going to join us
before the top of the hour, but I just wanted you to round this out and
ask you the question this way.
Often, when we talk about the withdrawal of USAID from the world, the
withdrawal of the United States from international bodies like the WHO,
the beneficiary is China. But I think you were hinting, as you talked
about the African continent, that the threat is much broader than that
because USAID is not just doing counter-China programming; it is also
doing counter-extremism programming. In Lebanon, for instance, it is
doing the primary work to push back against Hezbollah's political
influence there. It is doing work to counter Russian influence around
its periphery.
And so isn't it the case, Senator Booker, that as USAID is pulled off
the playing field, for reasons we still don't understand, that it is
all of our adversaries--state adversaries and nonstate adversaries--who
are, tragically, celebrating at this opening that we have given them to
gain additional influence?
Mr. BOOKER. Senator Murphy, that is correct. You have been one of the
most articulate voices for this decision--I shouldn't even call it a
decision--this reckless trashing of USAID, this vilification of the
proud men and women that stand in Ebola outbreaks, that stand in
terrorism, that stand against hardships and ethnic cleansing, that
stand against malnutrition.
You are so good at pointing out that those are American interests and
that not to do that makes this a more dangerous and unsafe world, a
world where countries like ours want to lob missiles into Yemen, post-
facto of crises.
So I hear you, Chris Murphy, and I answer your question with a simple
understanding that what you are saying is right. And I am going to tell
you that I have got so many others to read, but we are way
behind schedule of where we wanted to be at this point. We are way
behind at about 16 hours and 24 minutes.
And so, to obey my staff, as Senators are told to do, I want to move
quickly to just the housing issues. So I want to move quickly to
housing and start, really, with the theme of affordable housing.
Again, we keep returning to the economy and how the Trump
administration is making things worse in every area, especially for
people struggling. And so let me be clear that, for decades, under
Democrat and Republican Presidents, it has become increasingly
difficult for working-class Americans to afford a home.
In recent years, this nationwide housing affordability crisis for so
many Americans has nearly reached a breaking point. The crisis now
impacts nearly all Americans, shared across all demographics.
Regardless of partisan identification, race, age, gender, education, or
whether you own or rent your home, we in America are in a housing
crisis.
According to the Center for American Progress, 80 percent of
Americans living in rural communities believe housing affordability is
getting worse, while 72 percent of residents in urban areas feel the
same way. In October 2024, the Center for American Progress found, no
matter your ZIP Code, the goal of homeownership in America is drifting
further out of reach all across the country.
Over the past two decades, housing costs have dramatically outpaced
income growth in the United States, increasing the rent burden,
heightening barriers for homeownership. The Housing Price Index, a
gauge of how selling prices for single-family homes have changed over
time, was more than 50 percent higher in July 2024 than it was in July
2019.
According to the Brookings Institution, the U.S. housing market was
short 4.9 million housing units in 2023 relative to the mid-2000s.
Decades of policy at the Federal, State, and local levels have all
contributed to this reality. Let's not blame some rank partisanship; it
has been decades in the making.
There are far too few homes in the United States, and there are far
too few homes being built in the United States. The cost of housing
keeps rising. Rents continue to skyrocket. Median home prices are on
the rise, which makes it harder and harder for families to make ends
meet.
The vast majority of young Americans are hard-pressed to save for the
chance of one day having enough for a downpayment to buy a home. Almost
half of all renters in America struggle to pay their rent. Almost half
of all renters are struggling to pay the rent, devoting more than one-
third of their income to housing costs.
Since the pandemic, rents have jumped more than 12 percent year over
year. Hidden rental fees and other expenses on already cost-burdened
tenants continue to mount as landlords assume more and more power and
leverage, leaving tenants and prospective home buyers with nowhere to
turn.
Last year, NPR methodically walked through the supply shortage that
is impacting our country.
But before I read this article, I see that my colleague, my friend,
the extraordinary leader from Maryland, is here, and I think he has a
question for me first.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I want to thank my friend, and I want to start by
thanking the Senator from New Jersey, the senior Senator from New
Jersey, for shining a spotlight on what is happening in our country at
this moment
[[Page S2031]]
and specifically what is going to be happening here in the U.S. Senate
later this week or next.
And I have a question for the Senator, but I want to take some of the
threads of what you have been saying as I put this to you because you
are shining a light on the great betrayal. And that is, Candidate Trump
went all over the country saying that he was going to be a President
for the forgotten Americans, that he was going to be a President that
looked out for working people, and he said he was going to focus on
bringing costs down and prices down in the United States of America.
And yet, ever since he was sworn in, he has done just the opposite.
Prices are going up--including, as the Senator was talking about,
housing prices. Affordable housing is a crisis in this country, and yet
we see Elon Musk and his DOGE cronies cutting deeply into affordable
housing programs over at the Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
We see also--and tomorrow, he calls it Liberation Day; it is actually
going to be Sales Tax Increase Day--there was testimony that we got in
the Banking and Housing Committee that when you increase these tariffs
on Canada, as he has proposed to do--not in a targeted way but in an
across-the-board way--according to the National Association of Home
Builders, that will increase housing prices for Americans up to 10
percent more at a time when we are already facing an affordable housing
crisis.
And, of course, the folks who benefit the most are those billionaires
who are part of his Cabinet and others in the hedge fund industry who
are going out and buying up a lot of houses, not because they need the
house for their family but because they want to flip it at a big
profit, making it even less affordable to the American people.
So the housing crisis is one part of what is getting even worse
because of the actions of Donald Trump and Elon Musk. And it is part of
this greater theme of the great betrayal.
Later this week, Republicans here in the Senate say they are planning
to bring to the floor what we call a budget resolution, which is a
framework that will be providing for very big tax cuts for the ultra-
rich Americans, tax cuts for big corporations, some of which are
offshoring all of their profits.
Senator Wyden and I were on the floor, just last week, talking about
how Pfizer has half of its sales revenues here in the United States but
books none of its profits here, and, therefore, by this scheme called
round-tripping where you sort of push your money around the world, they
lower their taxes, which means the American people get shortchanged.
So all of this is part of a scheme to provide tax cuts for the very
wealthy at everybody else's expense.
The Senator from New Jersey has been shining a light on what it means
when we say this will come at the expense of other Americans, that this
tax cut for the very rich and big corporations will come at the expense
of the rest of America. I want to amplify that as I do a windup to the
Senator.
No. 1, it is Elon Musk and the DOGE operation. Let me be very clear
that this is part of the most corrupt bargain we have seen in American
history. Elon Musk spent $280 million to help elect Donald Trump
President, and Donald Trump has turned the keys to the Federal
Government over to Elon Musk, not for efficiency but to rig the
government in favor of people like Elon Musk.
That is why they want to get rid of the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau. This is a Bureau that has returned billions of dollars to
Americans who were cheated by scam artists, and they are coming in to
dismantle the CFPB because they want to be on the side of the scam
artists and deny American consumers the benefit of getting their
dollars back when they have been cheated.
So this has nothing to do with government efficiency. It has to do
both with rigging the government for people like Elon Musk and trying
to lay the groundwork claiming lots of cuts that they will then use to
pay for, they say, tax cuts for the very rich.
So who is being cut by Elon Musk?
I don't know, Senator, if you saw the other day in the sort of spin
room at the White House--did you catch that, where Elon Musk and some
of his folks were explaining the work they did?
They said: We are really doing this with a scalpel.
Well, the reason that is especially interesting is it was just weeks
earlier when Elon Musk brandished a chain saw, right?
Mr. BOOKER. Yes. Yes.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. At CPAC, which is actually--they met over here in my
State of Maryland.
That is what they are doing. They are taking a chain saw, and they
are taking a chain saw to Departments that help our veterans. These are
people who care for our veterans, and our veterans are being especially
hard-hit, including when they did these firings--arbitrary firings,
right?--of probationary employees, and veterans were saying: Why are we
being hit so hard?
The White House spokesperson said:
Perhaps they are not fit to have a job at the moment.
That was the response from one of the White House spokespersons, as
if the individuals who served our country in the military were not fit
to serve our government as civilians. That is the kind of attitude we
have got.
We just learned today that the RIFs--the reduction-in-force letters--
were received by the folks in the Department of Health and Human
Services.
So these are people who help with the public health of all Americans.
And they do important work at FDA, or the Food and Drug Administration.
They make sure that the foods we eat and the medicines we take are safe
and that they do what they say they are going to do in the case of
medicines.
They do work at NIH, the National Institutes of Health, to develop
cures and treatments for diseases that hit every American family, and
they are cutting there.
They are cutting in these places not for government efficiency but to
create what they believe is the space for tax cuts for the very rich.
We talked about what they are doing over at the Department of Health,
at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
At the Social Security Administration--which, by the way, has its
headquarters in my State of Maryland--we have thousands of workers who
were there to deliver hard-earned benefits to the American people. And
the reality is that the Social Security Administration operates
incredibly efficiently.
You know the former Commissioner for Social Security, Martin
O'Malley, reminds us that Allstate Insurance Company operates at an 11-
percent overhead. Liberty Mutual operates at a 23-percent overhead. The
Social Security Administration: .5 percent overhead.
The Social Security Administration workforce is now at a very low
level in terms of personnel, compared to what it was years ago. And yet
they are serving a record number of Americans--73 million Americans--
and they have never missed a payment. They have never missed a payment.
So this talk about going after Social Security and that they are
going to somehow make it more efficient--and, of course, Elon Musk
called it a Ponzi scheme, when the Senator and I know it is not a Ponzi
scheme. It is a promise to the American people.
So, first, they discontinue telephone service, as if all the seniors
could, somehow, just connect, you know, by Wi-Fi, or whatever it may
be. A lot of people, of course, rely on telephones. So they cut that.
They said: Well, if you have trouble, go to one of the local regional
Social Security offices. Well, they are cutting regional Social
Security offices--lots of them.
And then, when you go there and you don't find many people there--you
know, whoops, we just cut 7,000 people from Social Security. So a
benefit is meaningless if you can't actually access the benefit. And
what they are doing is making it harder for Americans to get those
benefits.
So when we hear about the Musk-DOGE operation, make no mistake, it is
not about efficiency. It is about trying to put together some kind of
savings that they then want to use to at least just partially pay for
tax cuts for the very rich.
Another way they are doing that--we have heard a lot about that; the
Senator spoke about it--is cutting Medicaid and food nutrition
programs. In fact, I think we recall, a number of weeks ago, that we
had a couple of
[[Page S2032]]
amendments here on the floor of the Senate, saying: OK, if you are
going to do these tax cuts, at least don't cut Medicaid or Medicare or
food and nutrition programs.
Every Republican Senator voted against those amendments--in other
words, not to protect those programs--meaning they are fair game for
big cuts to pay for tax cuts for the very wealthy.
So that is another area where they are very focused, which is cutting
important programs that benefit millions and millions of Americans.
There is another way they are doing it--and to the Senator from New
Jersey, again, thank you for shining a light on all this; he has talked
about it--which is these across-the-board tariffs.
So I think all of us know that strategically targeted tariffs can be
useful, at certain points in time, to protect strategic American
industries. I am for those. But across-the-board tariffs and across-
the-board tariffs on a friend and ally like Canada or Mexico--all that
is, is a tax increase on the American people. Let's be clear.
So these are the areas where Donald Trump, having said that he was
going to be there for working people, is doing the opposite, right?
These across-the-board tariffs are going to increase costs and prices
for the American people. Cutting Medicaid and food nutrition programs
is going to hurt the very people that Donald Trump on the campaign
trail said he was fighting for.
And the DOGE-Musk operation is taking a chain saw to important
services and important consumer protections that benefit all Americans
in order to claim that they are providing some savings for tax cuts for
the rich.
So it wasn't that long ago that, just down the hall here, Donald
Trump was sworn in as President. And I remember what he said. He said:
This is going to be a golden age for America.
And who was sitting right behind him? Elon Musk, the richest person
in the world, and other billionaires in the Trump Cabinet, including
one who just said, not that long ago, that Americans on Social Security
wouldn't miss one of their Social Security checks; only the fraudsters
would notice that.
Say that to the 73 million people who get Social Security. But that
is the attitude of the billionaires in this Trump Cabinet, the people
he is really looking out for.
So when he says ``a golden age for America,'' that is who he means.
He means Elon Musk and the billionaires--Elon Musk, who is rigging the
government for the billionaires and all the others in the Cabinet who
don't think Americans would miss a Social Security payment that they
earned.
So my question to you--and I want to, again, thank the Senator from
New Jersey. I know it has been a long day's journey into the night, but
it is important that we address these issues in the courts--and the
courts are upholding the rule of law--that we address these issues and
then fight them in Congress, and that we do so in communities across
the country, and people need to understand what is happening.
So the core issue here, is it not, my friend, that Donald Trump
really is betraying the people he said he was going to fight for, and,
at the end of the day--and we will see that later this week in the
Senate--the goal is to provide these big tax breaks to wealthy people
at the expense of everybody else in America. That is the big betrayal.
So if you could just zero in, once again, on the central narrative
that we are seeing play out in the Trump administration.
Mr. BOOKER. You are putting it right. Donald Trump made commitments
to America. We have quotes of him at rally after rally. He said:
``Grocery,'' that is a really great word, he said. I am going to bring
down grocery prices.
Well, grocery prices are up dramatically. The American dream, many of
us see that as owning a home. Well, you said it: Home prices are
already up, but with these tariffs, they can go upward of 10 percent or
more. You can be sure that the Canadian lumber coming down here is
going to be expensive.
You can see Donald Trump making it more difficult to access
healthcare, and this massive reconciliation is going to be a direct
attack on working-class healthcare, on healthcare of expectant mothers,
on healthcare of Americans with disabilities, on healthcare of the
majority of seniors in nursing homes.
I am about to go to my next chapter. It is all going to be about how
Trump is rolling back commonsense protections for clean air and water.
Elizabeth Warren said it very powerfully: He is reducing services,
which is a service cut to people with Social Security. In so many ways,
Americans should see these crises looming--these attacks--but ask
yourself one economic question: With the stock market, which just had
its worst quarter in years, and people's retirement savings, if they
have it in 401(k)'s, is going down--ask yourself this question. I ask
Americans, please, ask yourself this financial question: Am I better
off than I was 71 days ago? Am I better off or worse off?
And this is before he has even gotten going, because we see what is
about to happen with this whole sham reconciliation process. They are
already trying to change the rules to obscure what they are doing.
This is what they are doing. Three things you should take home:
Are we going to let them again--like they did with the ACA, with the
Affordable Care Act--come after healthcare for 70-plus million
Americans by doing their proposed $880 billion cuts?
Are we going to allow them to blow a hole so big, in the trillions of
dollars? They are going to push it out over 10 years. They are going to
create such a deficit in our country that our children's children--they
are stealing from our children's children and putting on a deficit that
they are going to have to pay for.
No. 3, are they going to let them do all of that to renew tax cuts
that the Congressional Budget Office, a very independent Agency, says
very clearly would give trillions of dollars of tax cuts that go
disproportionately to the wealthiest in our Nation.
That is the addition. That is what we know. And it doesn't account
for the things he is doing to our allies. It doesn't account for how he
is turning his back on NATO. It doesn't account for how he is praising
Putin and calling Zelenskyy a dictator. It doesn't account for how he
is giving advantage to China around the world, from the region in
Southeast Asia all the way to Africa. It doesn't account for how he has
already made it harder to enroll in the Affordable Care Act. It doesn't
account for all the other things he is doing that we wake up and hear
every day, not to mention trying to threaten Greenland, trying to
threaten Panama, trying to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico.
All these things he didn't tell us he was going to do, didn't
promise. He promised to lower your grocery prices; they are higher. He
promised to be a better steward of the economy; it is worse than what
he inherited it. Over and over, he is breaking promises and doing
outrageous things, like disappearing people off of American streets,
violating fundamental principles of this document, invoking the Alien
Enemies Act from the 1700s that was last used to put Japanese-Americans
in internment camps.
Do we see what is happening? How much is enough? We have to stand and
do something different not just in this body but in America because--
you know this--how we stopped him in his last term was the American
people rose up, spoke up, stood up, rose up in the most extraordinary,
nonviolent demonstrations and demands.
So thank you.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the Senator yield for another question?
Mr. BOOKER. Yes, I will yield for a question while retaining the
floor.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. And I see my friend and colleague Senator Alsobrooks
from the great State of Maryland is on the floor, so I am going to be
very brief with this question.
I want to thank you for reminding us, of course, of the other great
betrayal that has been going on over the last 70-plus days. There is
the betrayal against the American people and working people here at
home, but there has been a betrayal of our allies, like the Ukrainians,
whom Donald Trump is throwing under the bus as we speak, and other
close partners and allies around the world.
I have to depart here for a moment because we have a hearing in the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and
[[Page S2033]]
I am privileged to serve on that committee with the gentleman from New
Jersey. One of the people before the committee is their nominee to be
our Ambassador to Turkey.
Now, of course, Erdogan just locked up his major opponent, the
popular mayor of Istanbul. We have not heard a peep from the Trump
administration about the question of how this undermines democracy.
But I want to close on the point that you just raised. It is kind of
hard for Donald Trump to complain about Erdogan disappearing people
when right here in the United States of America, you had a Turkish
student at Tufts disappeared by people who showed up without any
identification, some with hoods on, and sent her apparently to
Louisiana because she spoke out on an important issue of national
concern.
The First Amendment is pretty clear that you can engage in
controversial speech that someone may like or dislike, but you are
protected. That includes everybody here in America because that is an
important value to us. Apparently, it is not an important value to
Donald Trump, who, like Erdogan, essentially wants to whisk away
anybody who disagrees with him.
I again thank the Senator from New Jersey and just ask him, you know,
to elaborate on that. But I also see my friend and colleague the
Senator from Maryland.
Mr. BOOKER. I will give a short answer to your question, then, which
is the irony--the irony that this President is remaining quiet about
folks that are violating international law in many ways.
So I think it is absurd, and you are right. It is another betrayal.
Ms. ALSOBROOKS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. I yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Ms. ALSOBROOKS. First, I would like to commend my colleague. I want
to thank you first of all for your spiritual obedience. I want to thank
you so much as well for your commitment and your dedication. I want to
thank you as well for your courageous leadership.
I want to thank you also, Senator Booker, for your recognition of the
times that we are living in. These are times that we will recount and
our children will recount, and I think all of those of good conscience
who watch during this time and say nothing will also be held to
account.
As the Senator has eloquently remarked, these are not normal times.
We are watching an administration that is drunk with vengeance, hatred,
and surrounded by incompetent people who are taking callous actions,
who are inhumane, and, because of their incompetence, are making costly
mistakes that will harm the American people and denigrate the hard-
working people of this country by proposing tax cuts.
These tax cuts are not designed to help the average American person;
they are designed to help billionaires. They are doing so by firing
thousands of middle-class workers and more.
What we are seeing before our eyes is not only unconscionable; we
know as well that it is deeply immoral, that it is inhumane, it is
wicked.
We are seeing--with glee--the actions of people who are so happy to
tear down, but I am watching and waiting to see what it is they intend
to build in this country.
In your remarks over these hours, you have made that plain for the
American people to see. You have uplifted the stories of everyday
people. And what we recognize as we hear about the firings and we hear
about the devastation and chaos is that we are not talking about
numbers, we are talking about humans, about people. These are our
friends. These are our family members. These are our neighbors. These
are our church friends. These are our colleagues this administration
has harmed.
So my question today centers around the topic of housing. We have a
housing crisis in this country. That is no secret. In fact, we
recognize that, through the actions of this administration, what is
harmful will be exacerbated.
Maryland is nearly 100,000 housing units short, and as you know, it
is both about affordability and a supply problem. We need to make home
ownership, which is part of the American dream and how the average
American builds wealth in this country, accessible to more Americans.
I think about my parents, Mr. Senator, who married at 21 and 22 years
old. At the time that they married, although my father was a car
salesman and selling newspapers and my mother was a receptionist, 5
years into their marriage, they could afford to buy a home.
This is no longer the expectation of the average American family. My
own 19-year-old daughter doesn't have the realistic hope that she can
follow even her grandparents. This problem affects red States, and it
affects blue States, which is the theme that you have hit on in all of
these hours of speaking.
When this President acts against the interests of the middle class,
we recognize that he is not just harming Democrats, as he intends, but
unfortunately his actions harm everyday Americans. It affects those who
voted for him, it affects those who didn't vote for him, and it affects
those who did not vote at all. He is harming Republicans too. He is
harming Americans.
This administration is slashing funding and personnel at the very
Agencies that are tasked with addressing this crisis. He is illegally
firing HUD employees. This administration has stalled millions of
dollars in previously allocated funding intended to help those who need
affordable housing. Again, his actions are so indiscriminate, so
immoral, so callous, so heartless that he is impacting the very people
who supported him as well as those who didn't.
This administration has effectively ended enforcement of the Fair
Housing Act, one of the most important American civil rights laws. This
administration is considering privatizing the Federal Housing Finance
Agency, which guarantees over half of the U.S. mortgage market. To make
matters worse, this administration is proposing sweeping tariffs on our
allies, driving up the cost of home construction.
Let's be clear. Absolutely none of this will help to build homes.
None of this will make home ownership more accessible to Marylanders or
Americans. In fact, we understand that it is not the intention of this
administration to do so; it is for the billionaires, to be able to
afford their tax cuts.
(Mr. CURTIS assumed the Chair.)
So I have heard from people all across my State--blue areas, red
areas, purple areas, every area--who are concerned about this.
So I have a question for you, and I want to thank you as I ask the
question, for sacrificing your own body today to bring attention to
this. What are you seeing in the State of New Jersey about how this
administration's unconscionable actions are making housing less
affordable and home ownership less accessible?
Mr. BOOKER. I want to thank the Senator for the question. I want to
thank her for being my colleague. But more important than even being my
friend, she is a spiritual sister of mine and was very kind to me when
I was telling her that I was going to do this and gave me so much
encouragement and prayer.
And I just love you, and I am grateful.
You read a litany of things. I had a whole section, a whole binder
that my staff told me to skip to go to this one about all the things,
going in deep, in-depth to all the things the Trump administration is
doing to make housing more unaffordable, more inaccessible, more
expensive, more discrimination in housing, which we know is still a
problem, more challenges, more pain heaped upon rural areas, and more
complications and problems for building affordable housing in all
areas.
It is so frustrating to me that this is a problem. We cannot lay the
crisis of housing at one administration in the United States. We need
to have bold visions and ideas to address this. I am so excited about
this next generation of Americans that are rising up with bold visions.
I want to give a shout-out to Ezra Klein. His book is a must read--
``Abundance.'' This is a vision of doing great things again, of
building housing, of redeeming the American dream.
But to have a President that is dead set on, for the next 4 years,
doing the kinds of things that you made a litany of and now, tomorrow,
is going to bring tariffs that are going to raise the price even more
on housing is outrageous.
[[Page S2034]]
Where are his promises to make this country more affordable and more
accessible?
You heard the data that I read about how we have so many millions of
Americans--close to the majority of renters now spend more than a third
of their income on rent, which is the very definition that our
government has of housing insecurity.
So it should anger people in this country. Even if you own your home,
have paid off your mortgage, you should be angry about what they are
doing to the American dream and that there are no bold ideas coming
from this administration to help. In fact, they are hurting it. They
are hurting it.
So thank you very much to my colleague. Thank you for giving me
strength, as you did, and prayer. I thank you for the question that
should anger people, that should inspire people, that should activate
people, that should engage people, that should demand from us that we
take our country away from those who want to do so much harm.
I want to start by reading until someone--I know the prayer. I am
going to keep going. I want to talk about environmental protections and
how this country is becoming less safe for people with emphysema or
with asthma because Donald Trump is rolling back commonsense
environmental protections, threatening our children's future, and
hurting our Nation's economy.
Energy costs in America are continuing to rise, making it harder and
harder for working families to pay their bills. At a time when we
should be investing in clean energy, this administration is canceling
projects that would create more jobs for Americans and lower energy
prices. He claims he supports an ``all of the above'' strategy, but
that is clearly not what we are seeing, and there is too much silence
about it.
All Americans, regardless of where you are born, deserve safe
drinking water, clean air, and equal opportunity for a healthy and
fulfilling life.
President Trump promised America the cleanest air and the cleanest
water, but on entering office, he immediately instructed the EPA--the
Environmental Protection Agency--to cut a long list of commonsense
environmental protections. This administration is rolling back efforts
to reduce emissions from powerplants. He is letting polluters pollute
our air more. That affects the health of Americans. It drives up the
aggravating of the rates of asthma and emphysema, weakening rules that
keep our rivers and water systems clean as well.
____________________