[Pages S2034-S2084]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Trump Administration

Mr. BOOKER. I am going to continue until one of my colleagues asks me
a question.
Ms. DUCKWORTH. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. One of my heroes in the Senate--a living legend, my
partner on some bills that I am so passionate about, expanding IVF--
someone that is just freaking awesome, I yield for a question while
retaining the floor.
Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Senator Booker, for taking this important
stand and for doing so much to make it clear how much pain Donald Trump
and Elon Musk are inflicting on the American people in every sector of
our society.
I am going to be asking you a question about what you heard from
agriculture businesses in your State about the damage this
administration is doing and the jobs that either have been or will be
lost as a result. I thought I would give you some background on what I
am hearing as well.
I want to focus this body's attention on our Nation's farmers and
ranchers who seem to be getting punched day after day, week after week
by the Trump-Musk oligarchy. Whether it is their harmful tariffs that
hurt our soy and corn farmers, canceling and freezing more than $1
billion in funding for schools and food banks that purchase food from
local farmers, or halting reimbursement and contract payments that our
farmers already owed.
The Senator from New Jersey and I are both working together to undo
some of the most harmful impacts of these disastrous decisions,
including joining forces to push his Honor Farmers Contract forward. We
are starting to hear reports by farmers how damaging the Musk-Trump
dismantling of USAID is to jobs and businesses right here in America.
For example, I don't know if the Senator has heard, but in North
Carolina, they had $2.2 billion in USAID awards, including for 27
large-scale farmers who were fulfilling orders to humanitarian food
assistance and four universities who were receiving agriculture
research funding. More than 300 North Carolina workers have lost their
jobs as a result of this freeze.
In Georgia, they had over $389 million in USAID awards, including
nine large-scale farmers fulfilling orders for humanitarian food
assistance and six universities receiving agriculture research funding.
Arkansas had over $210 million in USAID awards, including purchases
of rice, grain, and beans from our farmers.
Florida has lost $91 million in USAID awards, including $38 million
for the University of Florida to improve livestock productivity and
food security in developing countries.
Texas lost over $48 million in USAID awards, including nine large-
scale farmers fulfilling orders for humanitarian food assistance and
eight universities receiving agriculture research funding. The list
goes on and on.
My neighbors in Iowa, over time now, have lost over $4 million in
USDA food commodity sales. They have gained--they had a total of over
$149 million in purchases through USDA and other programs for USAID.
Illinois has lost $245 million in aid that--in farm income, that would
go toward USAID and aid programs.
I think that our farmers have been hit with body blow after body blow
from this administration, an administration that in their first term
and even in the second term promised they would look out for America.
I have to say to my friend from New Jersey, I don't think that this
administration has lived up to their promises to farmers. Remember that
a Nation that cannot feed itself--if we lose those family farms, if we
lose our ag sector--we cannot lead the free world if we cannot feed
ourselves. And, frankly, farmers have been hit over and over again.
These incoming tariffs are going to be a disaster for our farmers. I
was in south central and southern Illinois across the river from
Missouri talking to our farmers in St. Clair County, IL. They tell me
the tariffs are going to affect their products being sold overseas. Our
top products in Illinois: corn, soybean, pork.
We are also the largest grower of pumpkins. If you get the Libby can
of pumpkin at Halloween time and Christmastime, Thanksgiving, that is
thanks to Illinois. If you ever want to come, I will take you out to
the pumpkin fields. They are the best pumpkins in the country.
But frankly, they are being hurt over and over again. So they are
going to see the prices on their commodities affected. They can't sell
their products overseas to the top countries that purchase their
product. At the same time,

[[Page S2035]]

their inputs--the fertilizer and the equipment that they need--will be
more expensive.
Tariffs against Canada, in terms of steel and aluminum, is affecting
John Deere. John Deere--hundreds of years old, an American company
founded in the heartland of this great Nation laying off people.
We have to do better by our farmers. Our farmers have been betrayed
time and time again by this Trump administration. They promise big
things and come in cutting programs like USAID. They hurt our farmers,
their bottom line.
I sat down and met with many farmers who are seventh generation,
eighth generation, watching the teenage son of the farmer and they are
afraid they are not going to have a farm there anymore. Their products
and margins are so tiny, they don't think they are going to make it.
My question to my colleague from New Jersey is what are you hearing
from farmers and why do you think this administration is taking so many
actions that hurt them and hurt American jobs?
Mr. BOOKER. I love my colleague--I love my colleague--I love how she
has been standing up, quite figuratively, time and time again on
issues. She really inspired me. I told folks on social media, I have
been celebrating, elevating, liking her content. She is truly fierce
and is a voice that gives me strength.
Today, she is asking me about one of my favorite subjects. A lot of
people are surprised. My staff knows this story well that I am on the
Ag Committee. When one of my staffers, a guy sitting over here, Adam
Zipkin--who has been with me since 1998--came to me and said you should
go on the farm committee--this is going to get me in trouble. I laughed
at him. It is one of the committees I love. What is the old saying?
First, they laugh at you, then they fight you, then they finally accept
it. He told me all the issues I care about intersect with our farm and
food system; that our farmers are such vital parts of America, they
need more people standing up and fighting for them.

The American farmers are getting screwed. We are losing thousands of
farms in this country, family farmers are going belly-up. The math
doesn't work for them. And this President, as you have pointed out--oh,
gosh. President Trump is causing an unprecedented amount of chaos,
instability, and harm for farmers.
Farmers already deal with so much uncertainty from prices, weather,
pests, and more. They should not have to deal with uncertainty that our
government won't follow through, as you said, on contracts. I had
farmers from New Jersey to Texas coming to my office about this
President freezing contracts that we approved in a bipartisan manner,
putting them in financial crisis.
One of the first things that Trump and Musk did was freeze thousands
of contracts and agreements that have been already made with our
farmers, farmers applied to grant programs and were selected on their
merit. They made legally binding contracts. Yet starting in late
January, farmers found themselves not getting reimbursed, sometimes
reading in the news that a particular grant was frozen or sometimes no
information at all other than they were not getting their payments
processed.
Ms. DUCKWORTH. Would the Senator yield for another question?
Mr. BOOKER. I yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you. I think the issue of contracts is
especially important because so much of these cuts are claimed to cut
waste in government spending. But we have a law on the books that says
if we don't make payments according to existing contracts, then we have
to pay the interest on those payments that we are late in providing. So
if we, for example, cut $2 billion or freeze funding payment on $2
billion in contracts as we did with USAID, that means we are going to
have to pay, say, 2-percent interest rate, $16 billion in interest. I
don't see where that is a saving for taxpayers. That is a waste of
taxpayer dollars.
I think that is something we should be talking about, and I also
think that, as you were mentioning, the issue with our farmers, they
are important to our national security.
The SNAP program is a good example of it. That program was instituted
after World War II. We had the very famous example of Audie Murphy, who
was the most highly decorated soldier coming out of World War II. He
could not pass initial tests to enlist into the Army during World War
II. He didn't weigh enough due to malnutrition post the Great
Depression. He created the SNAP program to make sure America's young
people were fed, were no longer malnourished, so they could get food in
our schools while going to school because it was good for the U.S.
military to have a workforce that could enlist in the military and meet
the standards. That is the SNAP program, and that has been a program
that has sustained our farmers over time. I think that we are losing
sight of that.
So my question to the Senator from New Jersey is to hear a little bit
more--have you heard about the SNAP program and also the work the
farmers in New Jersey have been doing in terms of organic and
sustainable farming, which is really where the beginning of the organic
and sustainable farming movement has begun in this country?
Mr. BOOKER. I am aware of one of our colleagues.
I just want to say, yes, I am aware of that. The way that Trump--I am
just going to summarize--contract freezes, this is one of the ways
Trump and Musk are causing havoc. Program cuts. They have eliminated
programs that you said support local food systems, including those that
connect farmers with food banks and schools and promote regenerative
practices. It is stunning.
USDA destabilization. Trump and Musk have laid off USDA employees,
closed USDA offices, hindering the Agency's ability to provide
essential services to foreigners.
Tariff policies. Trump's tariff policies implemented without
consultation with or support from farmers will increase farmer costs
and consumer food prices.
And, finally, general chaos, which seems to be something you are
pointing out that they are very good at. Farmers already deal with so
much uncertainty from prices, weather, pests, and more. They should not
have to deal with uncertainty from Donald Trump's administration that
will undermine everything that they do.
Ms. DUCKWORTH. I have a further question for the Senator from New
Jersey.
Mr. BOOKER. I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Ms. DUCKWORTH. I would like to ask the Senator from New Jersey a
question pertaining to the farm bill. You speak to uncertainty. One of
the things I heard from my agricultural sector and my farmers, the Farm
Bureau in Illinois, is that desperate need to pass--for this body to
pass a farm bill, especially when it comes to the Crop Insurance
Program, as well as, again, retaining SNAP benefits.
I do think that crop insurance is something that our farmers care
deeply about. It is a tool that they use to make sure that they are
able to survive when there are bad crop years, whether that is through
disease, whether that is through drought or floods. Our farmers
certainly--this is a program for them to sustain themselves and be able
to look out for themselves.
So it is a personal responsibility on the part of farmers. It is
especially important for young farmers who are just running out. Those
margins are just so tiny. And when you take away the commodity program
and USAID, when you take away the SNAP program, then you don't provide
them with crop insurance, you are going to lose those family farms.
What is going to happen? Large agriculture businesses are going to take
over.
Mr. BOOKER. Yes.
Ms. DUCKWORTH. They don't have the well-being of the American people
at their heart.
What I would love to hear from the Senator from New Jersey is, would
you agree that what we should be doing right now is not attacking
farmers and cutting commodity programs and cutting and freezing funding
for USAID that provides a market for farm product, but we should be
working on passing a farm bill?
Mr. BOOKER. I love you. I love you. I love you for bringing these
things to point because we--by the way, with Adam Zipkin, we did a farm
tour. We

[[Page S2036]]

were in southern Illinois, meeting with Republican farmers--this is
before the pandemic--and you see them give so much common cause as they
are trying desperately to hold on to their farms. So, with the Crop
Insurance Program, we need to reimagine it so it is more accessible to
independent family farmers and not just big agribusinesses. We need to
be visionary about our farm bill. We need to create a food system so
that the farmers will want to help them be better stewards of the
land--the oversubscribed programs for regenerative farming and cover
crops and environmental practices. They want those things to preserve
their soil and to reduce their dependence on chemicals. They want those
things. They want a farm bill that works for them, and we should be
delivering that in a bipartisan way. So you are right on point. But do
you hear that from the White House? Not at all. Not at all.
Ms. HASSAN. Would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Ms. HASSAN. Well, Senator Booker, I have a question for you about
Medicaid and Medicaid expansion, but I want to start with a little bit
of background.
Mr. BOOKER. Please.
Ms. HASSAN. As you may recall, when I was Governor of New Hampshire,
thanks to the Affordable Care Act, the program Medicaid expansion
became an option for my State, and I worked with people of both
political parties to make sure that the people of New Hampshire could
actually get the benefit of Medicaid expansion.
Expanded Medicaid meant that for the first time, working adults who
couldn't earn enough money to actually buy insurance themselves but who
were working and single could actually get healthcare coverage.
Medicaid expansion meant that people with mental illness who wouldn't
be covered by traditional Medicaid actually could get healthcare and
could get coverage. People with substance use disorder--with
addiction--could finally get Medicaid coverage and get better.
We worked across party lines. It took a few tries, but we got
Medicaid expansion done in New Hampshire, and today, Medicaid covers
more than 180,000 people in my State, including more than 90,000
children, more than 15,000 people with disabilities, and nearly 10,000
seniors.
Here is another number that people don't always think about: It
covers 10,000 people who are getting addiction treatment. My State, as
you know, has been very, very hard hit by the fentanyl crisis, and you
know, when the President gave his joint address in March, I brought a
woman from New Hampshire with me who had been suffering from addiction.
Medicaid expansion covered her treatment. She got into recovery. She is
now working in the private sector but also offering counseling and peer
recovery services to people who are trying to get their addiction
treated through Medicaid expansion, and she is now on private
insurance.
I remember talking to another Granite Stater while we were working to
pass Medicaid expansion. She had been laid off from her job as part of
the great recession, right? She had had an ongoing, chronic stomach
condition. As she got laid off, her health insurance went away, too,
and she couldn't afford the COBRA fee to keep her health insurance. She
couldn't get healthcare, so she got sicker and sicker, and she couldn't
go to work. But because she was a single adult, she couldn't get
Medicaid coverage. So here is somebody who has been working, who wants
to work, who has a chronic illness and can't get to work. We passed
Medicaid expansion. She got coverage, she got treatment, and she got
back to work.
The other great benefit of Medicaid expansion covering people with
addiction in New Hampshire has been that, as people have gotten better
and as more and more physicians have learned to integrate addiction
care into primary care, we have a lot more people in recovery.
Like many of our States, we also have a workforce shortage. What has
been happening now? New Hampshire is a leader in recovery-friendly
workplaces so that people who got this Medicaid expansion coverage got
their addictions treated, got better, can go to work in the private
sector, and get private insurance. That is some of the benefit of
Medicaid expansion.
But, of course, what we are hearing about now from the House and
Senate Republicans is their desire to make massive cuts to Medicaid,
including Medicaid expansion, and they are doing it. They want to rip
away healthcare from millions of Americans so that they can pay for big
tax breaks for billionaires and corporate special interests.
The Republicans have proposed cutting up to a third of Federal
funding for Medicaid. If those cuts go into effect, that could mean
30,000 children in my State will lose their healthcare coverage. That
means one in five seniors in New Hampshire could lose their nursing
home care. All told, that could mean 60,000 people cut off from
Medicaid, including, for instance, a young man whose parents I just met
at the airport, actually, who has autism. Medicaid pays for his
healthcare, but he could be cut off too.

So if Republicans continue with this plan, I am really, really
concerned about what is going to happen to the millions of Americans
who currently get their healthcare through Medicaid.
Senator Booker, can you address the ways in which Medicaid helps
provide healthcare for Americans and the disastrous impact it would
have if Republicans proceed with their plan to take coverage away from
up to 25 million Americans just so that they can pay for big tax
breaks, by the way, for people who are already billionaires?
Mr. BOOKER. Before I answer the Senator's question, I just want
anybody who is watching to know that--and I will put it bluntly--this
is one of the baddest ass human beings serving here in the Senate. You
have been the Governor of a State with all the challenges. You are
beloved. I have spent a lot of time in New Hampshire.
Folks, after New Jersey, it is one of my favorite new States. No
disrespect to New Mexico over here on my right. But I love your State.
I love the people of your State, and they love you.
You were an extraordinary Governor. You were a trailblazer, a glass
ceiling breaker, a name-taker. You are a bad ass. And to have served
with you as my colleague, you have the kind of leadership in the Senate
that it needs more of, that of somebody who stands in the middle and
draws people together to common sense and pragmatism.
I started on healthcare--
Ms. HASSAN. Yes.
Mr. BOOKER.--you know, some 16 or so hours ago, and you would be
proud of me because she is one of these voices who comes to me and
says: Hey, Cory. Let's bring people together.
I know that the Presiding Officer is new here, but he has the same
spirit of trying to bring people together. This might be like the third
time I have seen him in the chair over the last hours--17 hours.
Thank you, sir.
But you whisper in my ear all the time, like we have got to find a
way to do this together. We have got to find a way to put more
``indivisible'' into ``one nation under God.''
So I hope that you would be proud because I told my staff, who
prepared for days--they spent days preparing all these sections, from
farming to the environment and all the ways that Donald Trump is
betraying his promises, betraying America, driving up costs, wrecking
our economy, endangering us globally and here at home, and turning his
back on a lot of our values, all while disrespecting this document more
than any President I have seen.
But I wanted to make sure--I told the instructions to my staff to
pull from all the Republicans you can. We want to use the Wall Street
Journal. We want to use the Cato Institute. We want to bring this
together because why we are standing up here is not to talk about left
or right; we are talking about what is right or wrong. I do not want to
talk about this being a Democratic moment; it is a moral moment.
You are the perfect Senator to be asking these questions about
healthcare to, to me, because of what you stand for. You got elected as
Governor--twice, I think. When you get elected to the Senate here, you
have to get votes from Democrats, Independents, and Republicans or you
can't win in New Hampshire. I have been in your State, and I have met
the people. God, you have a very participatory democracy up there.
Ms. HASSAN. Yes, we do.

[[Page S2037]]

Mr. BOOKER. People feel like, if you are not going from north to
south to house parties, you have to engage directly with the people.
They don't care what party you ascribe to; they want to feel you, see
you. They don't care how much you know until they know how much you
care. That is why I think you are such a bad ass leader.
So you would have been proud of me when I did the healthcare section
because I read from Republican Governors and Democratic Governors.
Forty States have expanded Medicaid, and all of these Governors and all
of these voices said exactly what you are intimating here, which is, do
not let Donald Trump cut $880 billion out of Medicaid. It will crush
rural hospitals. It will crush level I trauma care centers. It will
crush organizations that deal with beautiful disabled children. It will
crush people who are struggling for healthcare. It will crush nursing
homes. It will hurt red counties and blue counties. It will hurt
America. Republican voices were saying that.
To have a bipartisan Senator who embodies the spirit this place
should ascribe to more say these things is affirming the truth.
Why? Why are they rushing to cut $880 billion, which voice after
voice whom I read said that it would do so much damage to people's
lives, so much damage to healthcare providers, so much damage to
hospitals. Why? The only two things that will result from that are that
they will extend the Trump tax cuts, where the disproportionate
benefits went to the wealthiest among us, who are doing better than
they have ever done in this country--they don't need it. Taking money
from struggling folks and giving it to them is not the answer.
The other thing is, to a person who, like me, when we were
executives--you were a Governor, and I was a mighty mayor. We had to
balance our budgets. But they are not balancing the budget. They are
not lowering the deficit. They are increasing it by trillions of
dollars. This makes no sense to a pragmatic person who has balanced
budgets, who expanded healthcare access, who made her State work, and
who has loved and respected votes, frankly, from Democrats and
Republicans. You know this makes no sense.
So if you are standing up and colleagues of mine further to the left
of me, then why aren't other people standing up? Why did only one
Republican in the House vote against it? He told the truth. Massie.
I see some of my Republican colleagues here.
He is a fiscal hawk. He told the truth. This budget is going to
explode the American national debt, stealing from future generations. I
can't vote for this. He was not bullied, like other people in the
House, into doing what dear leader Donald Trump says.
So, my colleague, you are on the money. I have internalized your
voice as there are only a few people's voices I have internalized. One
of them is my mother's, but you are more my peer. You are one of those
voices in America right now who we need who does not slip into a
partisan argument but makes the pragmatic argument that what Donald
Trump is trying to do, with the aiding and abetting of congressional
Republicans, is wrong. It is fiscally wrong. It is morally wrong. It
will hurt Americans. It is not for the common welfare. It is not for
the common defense. Read the start of the Constitution, please. I beg
of you. You all swore to uphold it.
How do our Founders begin?

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.

Trillions of dollars of deficit doesn't secure the blessings of
liberty; it endangers our country. The common welfare is this idea that
everybody should have access to what makes us free. What makes us free
is not having medical debt. What makes us free is not being chained to
the uncertainty and insecurity that if someone in my family gets sick,
I would not be able to afford it. Still the majority or close to the
majority of bankruptcies in the United States of America are of people
who can't afford their healthcare bills. We need to find better ways to
expand access and not cut more people off.
You know this, former Governor: There are a number of States that
have these things called triggers, automatic triggers, in that if the
funding for Medicaid reduces to covering 90 percent of the costs, what
happens in those States? Boom! Medicaid expansion goes offline. So if
you don't even cut it $880 billion and maybe you say we will just do
$250 billion of an ax, States are going to lose their expansion, and
people are going to suffer and get hurt. Why? You said it. You said it.
You said it.
You and I are the two people who want to see entrepreneurs make
money. You and I want to see small business people thrive. We don't
hate rich people. We think that is great. It is often, not always--
Donald Trump--it is often a sign of people in America who are using the
ingenuity, applying it, and being successful. But you and I both know
that the richest people in this country don't need more tax cuts. It is
morally wrong. It is fiscally wrong. It is wrong in the Name of God and
America. How could we be doing this to ourselves?
Ms. HASSAN. Will the Senator yield for another question?
Mr. BOOKER. I can't call you one of the baddest ass people I have
ever worked with and not yield to your question, but I have to read the
words: I yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Ms. HASSAN. Well, thank you for yielding the floor for a question
while retaining the floor, and thank you for the very nice compliments.
I do have a question for you about Social Security, and then I think
another colleague of mine has additional questions.
But, look, as you know, we just talked about my wonderful State, New
Hampshire. You also just talked about your mother. And I should just
also let you know that my mother always made me memorize the preamble
to the U.S. Constitution. So as I listened to you read it, I thought,
Mom--
Mr. BOOKER. Shots fired on the Senate floor. Where is the
Parliamentarian?
Ms. HASSAN. I hope my mom is watching right now.
Mr. BOOKER. Rule XIX her.
Ms. HASSAN. But here is my question. And just by way of background,
as you know, New Hampshire is a small State. It is a very rural State.
And, recently, the Trump-Musk forces have announced that they want to
close a Social Security office in Littleton, NH.
Now, in Littleton, NH, that Social Security office, which takes
applications and provides technical assistance for people who need
Social Security or need Medicare or who have questions about their
current coverage--it is the northern-most office in New Hampshire.
So they close that office, and now my folks in the North Country--and
there are about 334,000 in New Hampshire with Social Security. My
people in the North Country will have to drive as far as 100 miles to
go to another New Hampshire Social Security office.
And, meanwhile, of course, they are laying off people from Social
Security offices, and they are making it harder to get assistance via
the telephone, which, as you know, many people who are on Social
Security find the telephone the easiest way to make a connection to get
technical assistance.
Elon Musk has called Social Security a Ponzi scheme. He says he wants
to cut $700 billion from Social Security and Medicare. So my question
to you, as we are looking at an administration that says that it wants
to make things more efficient but is actually laying people off,
closing offices, making it harder for people to actually connect with a
Social Security office--my concerns, of course, are that this is just
going to delay claims, delay coverage, make it harder for people to get
on Social Security because, actually, Trump and Musk want to cut Social
Security. Trump said, of course, that he was going to protect it when
it he was running for office, but now he is letting Musk do his cuts.
So, Senator Booker, can you speak to the ways in which seniors across
the country count on the Social Security benefits that they have paid
into?
This is not charity. People pay into the Social Security system. They
earn the benefit.
And can you talk about the disastrous impacts if this administration
takes benefits--Social Security, Medicare--away from our seniors?

[[Page S2038]]

Mr. BOOKER. Last night, I had a whole chapter on Social Security,
outlining not just what you said, my colleague, my friend, but stories
from seniors. And some of them really got to me. They were hard to read
through.
I have to say, I have prepped this by reading a lot of them, but
somehow on the floor, when I read about the woman who had Parkinson's,
when I read about the person taking care of their elderly parents, a
spouse with dementia, children with special needs--and Social Security,
it helps a lot of folks. But here is the craziness--the craziness--of
the Trump attacks on the Social Security Administration: First, he
makes people insecure about it.
My mom lives in this amazing senior home, Las Ventanas, in Las Vegas,
NV. Most of the people there--first of all, I love them all for who
they are, not their party affiliation. But it is more Republicans than
Democrats. And the story my mom tells me about just the worry that they
or other people in their family have because of Elon Musk calling it a
Ponzi scheme, of Donald Trump talking about utter lies from the highest
post in the land, during a joint address, savaging Social Security with
lies that everybody, from conservative papers to Democratic papers, to
left-leaning papers, have all called that lie, lie, lie, lie, lie--
there are not millions of people receiving false payments. They have
insinuated so much insecurity that people are writing me letters
talking about how they are losing sleep. They have so much anxiety
because they only live on their Social Security check.
And Howard Lutnick, whom I know--and I don't know what he was
thinking when he said it, a billionaire talking about his mother-in-
law--I don't know what you were thinking, Howard. I just don't
understand it, how you were saying if she misses a payment, she is OK;
but if people complain, they are probably fraudsters. Do you understand
how many millions of Americans only have that as their only protection
between poverty and destitution; that if they miss a payment, they
can't make their rent, they can't buy food?
So they have created so much insecurity, so much fear, and I compared
it, Governor--I compared it--to the difference between an FDR and a
Donald Trump.
FDR knew people were suffering. He knew people were afraid, and he
stood before the American public and didn't lie to them, didn't attack
people, didn't demean people, didn't degrade people. He comforted
people. He allayed their fears. He inspired them: ``You have nothing to
fear but fear itself''--what an opposite in leadership.
So, yes, there are a lot of people who, right now, don't know.
But then my colleague from Massachusetts comes in and makes the very
clear point--the professor we have in our caucus--she makes a very good
point: They have already done benefit cuts because when you close
offices in rural areas, that person who is missing a check or has an
issue, now they have to drive--how many miles?
Ms. HASSAN. A hundred miles.
Mr. BOOKER. A hundred miles.
Now, what is that hardship to a senior?
I have heard from people in their nineties. They already are having
benefit cuts.
The Wall Street Journal--I told you, I was trying to make you proud.
I wanted to get as many sources from anybody that was more center to
right, and I read from the Wall Street Journal and said the customer
service--the customer service--in Social Security is going from bad to
worse. That was the title of the article.
So they are already doing cuts. They are already heaping insecurity
on our seniors, heaping inconvenience on our seniors, heaping fear upon
our seniors, heaping insecurity, making people lose sleep. This is
wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. This is not a model of leadership.
It is a model of cruelty and mean-spiritedness and hurting people.
When is it enough, America? When is it enough that we say, it may not
be my grandmother who depends on that Social Security check, but I love
America. And you cannot love Americans, you cannot love America, you
cannot call yourself a patriot--please listen to me. You cannot say you
love this country and you are a patriot because patriotism is love of
country, but you can't love your country unless you love your country
men and women.

And love means that if somebody's mother or grandmother is hurting,
is afraid, that I am going to stand up and do what I can to comfort
them and fight for them because, today, it might be your grandmother;
it might be your family with a disabled child.
This is not right or left; it is right or wrong. This is not a
partisan moment; it is a moral moment. Where do you stand?
We started this by talking about John Lewis. It is time for good
trouble, necessary trouble.
Thank you. Thank you, my friend, even though you made fun of me,
before my entire State, for not remembering the very important preamble
to the Constitution.
Ms. HASSAN. You did very well.
Mr. BOOKER. Thank you very much. I take your compliments because you
don't give them abundantly or overly well. So thank you very much.
Ms. HASSAN. Thank you.
Mr. LUJAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. Heck no, not to you. Not to you. Not to you.
Let me tell you, I have something to get off of my chest about you. I
woke up yesterday morning, and the first thing I did--now, this shirt
is all wrinkled and a little ripe. But the first thing I did is grab a
gift from you.
People, don't get upset ethics-wise. We are allowed to give each
other gifts.
This looks like--I don't know how much it costs, but you gave me--I
was talking about traveling and how we have to pack bags and go all the
time. And you told me: I travel with a steamer.
And I pulled out this little steamer for this shirt that I am wearing
right now. You are one of the kindest, sweetest people I know. You are
one of my closest friends here in the U.S. Senate. And I want to say
something about you because, in this moment, as people are watching, I
want people to go there.
We had a conversation. You came to my office. It is always a sign of
respect when you come to a Senator's office. And you came to my office,
and we were talking about social media. And I was encouraging you. You
were a little resistant--if you don't mind me outing you--to open up
and get more on the platform. We were talking about ideas and talking
about Social Security, talking about Medicare and Medicaid.
You opened up to me. And I hope I am not betraying confidences. I
asked you just like, what do you do? You are such an amazing human
being. You are one of the kindest people I know. I asked you: What do
you do on your weekends? What do you do for fun? Let people see it.
Then you kind of made me pause when you said: Well, my mother is kind
of getting old--is getting older. I love her so much.
You said: My siblings and I, we alternate weekends, just spending
time with our mother.
It was one of the sweetest things I heard. I said to you: What do you
do with your mom?
And then you brightened up. And you choked me up, you jerk, because
you said: What I love to do with my mom is to dance with her in the
kitchen. When we are in the kitchen making food or something, I just
love sometimes to put on a song, and we dance.
I don't know why it struck me as beautiful. And this is what I hope
people will do right now. I said: Well, why don't you record that?
I didn't think you would do it, that you would ask her if you could
do it. But you then put up one of the most beautiful videos I have ever
seen, from one of my colleagues, of you and your mom in the kitchen. I
think it is on your Instagram page. And I have looked at that video--I
am probably all the views right now--of my colleague, this big U.S.
Senator, loving his mother so much. And we are talking about that.
I have talked about this on the floor. Great nations respect their
elders. They take care of them.
One of my colleagues, when they asked me a question about Social
Security, they reminded me of what it was--the greatest anti-poverty
program in the history of America; that Social Security rescued
millions of Americans from being in poverty. It virtually ended
poverty, although the checks now are becoming meager and meager. As
prices are going up, more people are getting lower and lower toward
poverty. And people who live on those checks live very austerely.

[[Page S2039]]

But you are just this amazing guy who turns your own lived experience
into greater and greater urgencies to fight for the people of New
Mexico.
So I did not want to yield for a question before getting that off my
chest. You are my friend. You are my colleague. You are my brother. And
more than you know it, you are my inspiration.
So, yes, I yield for a question while retaining the floor now. I feel
like I have so much power here to yield to my colleagues. They are
often more eloquent. I am like afraid of Whitehouse because he is one
of the brainiest people in the Senate. But I now have the control.
But for you, now that I have gotten this off my chest and, hopefully,
embarrassed you but maybe added a few more views to my favorite video,
I yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. LUJAN. Senator Booker, thank you. I won't be surprised if Mom is
watching right now. So you are probably going to get some messages from
her.
But I want to thank my friend and colleague from the great State of
New Jersey. You have been holding this space for the American people
now for well over 17 hours.
While we represent different parts of the country, Senator Booker, we
have the same values. I learned from you the importance of treating
people with respect and dignity. That is what we should all be talking
about here today--every day. I have also learned a lot about grace from
you.
Now, I come to the floor to ask you a question about farmers. You and
I both appreciate the long hours that farmers put in to take care of
that soil, their families, the planning that goes into this, sowing the
seeds. Sometimes you have to do a little weeding to make sure that we
are going to all benefit from the fruits of their labor.
Having fresh food in a grocery store is not something that can be
taken for granted. And for a lot of our constituents--I have had these
conversations with nominees who have come before us, when they ask me:
Well, why is someone just eating potato chips or Doritos from that
local store?
I will educate them by saying: That is the only store around.
Mr. BOOKER. Yes.
Mr. LUJAN. There are food deserts everywhere, but we can do something
about that. We have programs in place that recognize the importance of
getting someone a meal who needs that meal, supporting our farmers out
there to sow those seeds, to help them with their planting.
But what I am seeing right now, Senator Booker, is our farmers have
been on the receiving end of these Federal funds being taken away from
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, these reckless tariffs that are
hurting farmers and ranchers just as much as they are hurting anyone in
America.
Outbreaks, bird flu--people know what the cost of eggs is in the
store right now. Then they look into what is going on now. There is
this bird flu that is going around.
My constituents ask: Well, why does the U.S. Department of
Agriculture under Donald Trump fire the people, epidemiologists, that
are responsible for containing this thing?
It just doesn't make any sense to folks.
I was in the Ag Committee earlier today, Senator Booker, and I was
asking some questions to USDA, and I learned that on March 7, 2025,
under the Trump administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
terminated the local food in schools program and the Local Food
Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement. And then they went further,
and they also notified grant applicants on March 24 that the fiscal
year 2025 competition for the Patrick Leahy Farm to School Grant
Program is canceled.
Why does this matter to farmers and ranchers and people back home?
These programs allow food banks and schools and others to purchase food
from our local farmers.
Now, our local farmers aren't just making a decision on what seeds
are going to be planted so they can sell the lettuce next week. They
start this a year going back. So when the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, a year ago, started talking to these farmers and ranchers
about what programs were going to be in place and then these farmers,
responsibly, went and found customers to sell their food--food banks,
different groups around the country--they planned the rest of the year
to be able to get that nutritious food into the bellies of people that
need it most. That sounds like respect and dignity.
Mr. BOOKER. Yep.
Mr. LUJAN. What is not respectful is when the Trump administration
gives them a few days' notice and pulls the rug from under them and
cancels the program that is going to allow the food bank--their
customer--to buy their food.
What do those farmers have to do now across America?
Now, it gets worse and worse. I won't go into all of it, Senator
Booker, but here is one of the dirty little secrets: All of these
programs that are being taken away from the American people, it is to
find an extra dollar for this tax policy under Donald Trump that my
constituents started calling back in 2017 the ``Trump tax scam.''
I asked: Well, why are you calling it that?
They said: Well, everyone promised me--I am making less than the
median income, making less than $80,000, which is a lot of money in New
Mexico, across America. The median income there is a little lower.
I was told that we were going to get the brunt of this tax cut,
recognizing that we are hard-working and how hard it is to make ends
meet, but that is not what happened. Most of this went to families and
folks making over $2.8 million. I don't have anything against those
families. I wish them well. I want them to make more--$10 million--next
year. But they don't need a tax cut. That should be going to those
hard-working families that were told that they were being prioritized.
But they are the ones that told us--told me, anyway--that this was a
Trump tax scam. That is the secret. That is where all this money is
going.
So, Senator Booker, whether I am in a grocery store and I am chatting
with constituents, we are out there looking at egg prices, or whatever
it may be, they are concerned about what is going on here. And all they
are asking for me to share with my colleagues here is: Just tell them
to tell us the truth.
Mr. BOOKER. Yes.
Mr. LUJAN. If they are going to vote to take these programs away--
they have the votes, my Republican colleagues--just be honest. Treat my
constituents with respect and dignity so that they can plan, so that a
single mom that has a child whose Medicaid may get ripped away but that
child has cancer--how are they going to plan for care in 6 months? So
that farmer who started planting seeds recently but was planning over a
year on what to do, so they can find another customer so that they are
not going to lose that farm as well.
Now, before I ask you this question, sir, I want to end with this:
Senator Booker, you often share a story of Abraham Lincoln's inaugural
address, his second, and the man whose review mattered most to the 16th
President of the United States.
Mr. BOOKER. One of my favorite stories.
Mr. LUJAN. When asked his opinion of Lincoln's performance, former
slave and abolitionist Frederick Douglass replied:

It was a sacred effort.

Let me be the first to say this is a sacred effort, Senator Booker,
and I am proud to stand alongside you.
So, Senator Booker, the question that my constituents and I have for
you is: Can the farmers and ranchers of America afford to pay for
another Trump tax scam with all this nonsense that is going on?
It is a question I get when I am at church--I will say not during
church but after church is OK--or at the grocery store. But when I
visit with folks back home, this is what they are asking me.
Mr. BOOKER. Thank you for the question. You said it with the same
words that literally--I didn't write these words. My staff wrote this
little paragraph here: Trump is pulling the rug out from under
producers that need stability and reliable markets.
You and I are sitting right by each other in the Ag Committee, and we
see this connection that you so beautifully say, this idea that we are
separate

[[Page S2040]]

from each other. These visible lines that divide us in this country are
bunk compared to the strong ties that bind us. That farmer-producer in
a rural neighborhood is deeply connected to the person in my community,
and I live in an inner city--Newark, NJ. There is a powerful spiritual
connection.
And if you talk to that farmer, they have got pride that they are
feeding America, and they have pride in the ground. You describe it so
beautifully. They have pride in their soil, and they want to be
stewards of the land, and they want to create a vibrant American food
system. And they rely on people that empower them in that process and
don't pull the rug out from under them, drag back contracts, cut
programing--especially not those programs that help them get fresh
fruits and vegetables, healthy foods to food banks.
If you talk to the food banks, they will attest that families--how
grateful they are for those fresh fruits and vegetables. You said it
right: Parents want the best quality food for their kids. But this food
system is killing them.
And when I heard the new Secretary of HHS talk about: Hey, we need to
get greater access to fresh, healthy foods; food is medicine--things I
have been saying for years--and then what do they do when they get in
there? They cut the very programs that help our farmers get fresh
fruits and vegetables to kids to deal with chronic diseases.
How could you say out of one side of your mouth--Trump--oh, I am
going to let the MAHA people go their way, and then the first thing you
do is cut the programs that help kids get healthy, nutritious foods?
It makes no sense. It makes no economic sense. It hurts our farmers. It
hurts our farmworkers. It hurts our end users.

It is not fair, and I appreciate your question, sir. Thank you.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Would the Senator from New Jersey yield for a
question?
Mr. BOOKER. Let me think about this for a second.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. You take your time thinking about it, sir.
Mr. BOOKER. I want to thank Senator Whitehouse. He has been a
colleague and friend for a long time, and he stands right there at that
desk for very long speeches. I think I am trying to go a long time; you
go a consistency of times. And you have talked about the climate
crisis. You have talked about the Supreme Court scams.
You have not only educated Members in this body on these issues; you
have educated America. You are a YouTube star now, and I learn from you
every time I hear you speak.
So I am a little worried right now, but I am going to step out on
faith and yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. So, first question: It has been 17 hours. How are you
doing?
Mr. BOOKER. I shall not complain. I shall not complain. But thank you
for checking in on me, my friend.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Well, thank you for what you are doing.
Second question, if you would yield for a second question.
Mr. BOOKER. I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. One of the ways in which I try to discuss what is
going on in this country--when people are horrified, anxious,
astonished, whatever--is to describe it as the rule of the looters and
the polluters. The looters are the creepy billionaires coming to
government, trying to figure out how to get even more for themselves.
It used to be that people thought that there was a thing: too rich to
steal. That doesn't seem to be a thing for these creepy billionaires.
They are more than happy to wreck Social Security so that they can send
in their tech bros and their private equity folks to put right what
they have broken. And the looting goes on across the entire face of
government--scarred and disfigured by Musk and his little Muskrats, I
like to call them.
And then, of course, you have the polluters, who are doing a similar
thing, which is to steal from the public. Only instead of stealing from
government, they are stealing by dumping their pollution into our
common air, into our common climate future, into our waters, into our
lands, and defending, through political influence and clout and power
and dark money in this building, their privilege to pollute for free.
And the endpoint of both of those is regular Americans, who are
getting--to put it bluntly--pretty hosed, so that people on the other
side of that--the creepy billionaires who are behind the climate denial
scheme, who are out to wreck the American Government so that it can't
regulate their conduct or make them behave like honest bankers and
investors or insurers or whatever.
React for a moment, if you would, to that framing of our beautiful
country now being subject to the really malevolent whims of the big
looters and the big polluters.
Mr. BOOKER. Well, first of all, I will say to you that I meet wealthy
people, like a group called the Patriotic Millionaires, who advocate
for progressive tax policy and are the first to say and speak out
against this tax scam.
Again, to me, what does patriotism mean to you? Patriotism, by
definition, means love of country. If you don't love your fellow
countrymen and -women, how do you love your country?
And so what would you do--I actually know what you would do; I don't
even need you to answer this question--if somehow you came into a
billion or more dollars? You would not be asking for more.
You would literally say: Wait a minute, Republican Congress. Wait a
minute, Donald Trump. What you are trying to do is take away healthcare
from expectant mothers, from disabled children, and from seniors in
order to give me more tax credit.
I would think that the patriotic thing to do, that the thing in
love--in love--you would say: Donald Trump, go screw yourself.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. If the Senator would yield for another question,
while retaining the floor--
Mr. BOOKER. I yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE.--I would add to your comment and request your
response to the observation that not only is this an appalling
manifestation of greed by people who already have more money than they
are able to spend in their entire lifetimes, but the manner in which
they are accomplishing their purpose is pretty loathsome in and of
itself because the manner in which they are accomplishing their selfish
purposes is to corrupt and degrade this great American democracy that
we are all here to defend.
Mr. BOOKER. Yes.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. And they do it by taking their billions and running
it through phony front groups so it pops up as dark money in elections.
And of course, the beneficiary of the dark money, the candidate,
figures out exactly who is behind the big dark money contribution that
ends up in the super PAC that is supporting them.
And of course, the big donor knows that they gave the money, so the
deal between the creepy billionaire and the in-hoc-to-them political
candidate is made. But because it is dark money, because it is secret,
because it goes through front groups and into the super PAC and
ultimately into the campaign, courts don't know, the public doesn't
know, the voters don't know. Everybody else is left out of the joke.
Mr. BOOKER. Yes.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. So bad enough that they are here arguing for excess
benefits for themselves compared to regular Americans; worse, they are
using dark money corruption to get there. So how is that patriotic?
Mr. BOOKER. I want to answer this question so badly, but the crazy
thing is that the person best to answer this question is the person who
asked it. You have sat here and given this detailed analysis to show
how this group of very wealthy billionaires in this country are so
perverting our system by creating these front groups that then
interfere in our democracy in the most disgusting ways.
Even if you are like me and you can't stand the decision of Citizens
United, even in Citizens United, the majority opinion really projected
that we should do the DISCLOSE Act, which we have tried to bring to
this floor and get passed, that says no more dark money.
How do we have a political system that is so corrupted by
billionaires who so, with all of their money, drown out the voices in
politics of other Americans?
(Mrs. BRITT assumed the Chair.)
A great example of that is, they are getting so reckless that many
billionaires aren't even hiding it anymore; i.e.

[[Page S2041]]

Elon Musk. He is like saying, Hey, I am going to roll up into a Supreme
Court case up in one of our best Great Lake States. I am just going to
dump $100 million there and then give away, as if to insult our
democracy, million-dollar checks as part of my effort to influence an
election with my overwhelming flood-the-zone amount of billions of
dollars.
And by the way, hey, it is a pretty good investment, right? Donald
Trump is his biggest campaign contributor. As soon he gets elected, a
lot of my stock goes up--although, Tesla stock isn't doing so great
right now.
The reality is, we live in a country right now that we are giving
more and more ability for billionaires to use their wealth to rig the
system and then get more wealth as a result of that.
It is so corrupt and so corrupting to this. We have been talking
about this, as you said, for 18 hours now--these big, unchecked
corporate contributions, billionaire dollars, dark money in front
organizations that nobody in the Senate has outlined better than you
are corrupting our Constitution.
And even the bad case, Citizens United, even they said this shouldn't
have happened. You all should write laws in this place that force
people to disclose where this money is coming from. But how many years
has it been since Citizens United? Many.
And how many times have we failed? 15. Gosh, I don't know--and I am
so grateful for this man because all my colleagues who are assembled
here know doggedly and determinately you have stood right there with
charts and graphs. You have outlined it ad nauseam. They have attacked
you because your truth is so threatening to them that more people will
know about how Big Money is corrupting democracy.
So how many assaults are we going to have to watch in 71 days when we
now have a President that can create a meme coin? Isn't there something
here, my great constitutional scholar, a big word called the called
emoluments? This President has basically created a meme coin where we
now know--hard to trace this--that millions of dollars have been put
into his pocket. I have my team reading about it right now; foreign
countries, Russian oligarchs, incredible Arab wealth. You want a payoff
to Donald Trump because his government is being run like this?
It is not JFK:

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you do
for your country.

You have seen how he has behaved. It is ask not what your country can
do for you, ask what you can do for Donald Trump. That is how he does
business. How do we know that? Look at the evidence of the last 71
days.
If you are a law firm that comes to him and offers him $40 million of
pro bono work--God how many people I love in Newark had that kind of
legal representation, pro bono. He is beating you up, threatening to
ruin your business until you come to him and tell him what you are
going to do for him.
We are seeing it. You want a merger? You want a merger? What do you
do? Give a million dollars to his inaugural committee and then find
ways--find ways to get money to him through his meme coin, kowtow to
him in any way possible.
Senator Whitehouse, nobody has outlined this more than I have--more
than you have, excuse me. I encourage people--I feel like now I am
advertising everybody's social media--to go to his YouTube. I call him
the YouTube scholar. I am not joking.
You have on YouTube, I know, just great details and outline about how
the corruption of money in politics is getting worse and worse and
worse in this era of billionaires like Elon Musk who have no shame
anymore.
I am going to say it on the Senate floor: There are so many reports
and stories of them threatening elected leaders, threatening to put
$100 million in a primary challenge if they don't kowtow to what the
great leader is telling them to do.
You use the word all the time, and I am going to say it over and
over: This is corrupting to our democracy and amounts to another
assault on our Constitution. How much will we take, America, until we
say enough, until we say no more, until we say pass the Disclose Act,
bring back the dark money. Put light on it. Shine the light of truth on
this web of dark money lies. How long will we endure this?
I hope that you and I are in the Senate when you no longer have to
give that speech because we took action on the Senate floor to end this
nightmare of billionaires trying to outsize influence on our democracy.
Mrs. MURRAY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. Not immediately. I want to say to Patty Murray thank you.
You were a coconspirator in my life of trying to cause good trouble.
You are one of the most powerful people in the U.S. Senate, and you
have never lost.
Your compassion and your care for people--you are like somebody else
I talked about in the Senate, two of my favorite people who live this
ideal that I may be a U.S. Senator, I may be head of Appropriations, I
may be President pro tempore of the Senate, but I will never lose my
connection to the people I represent and to the convictions that
brought me to this place.
You are such an honorable soul; you are such a great American; and
you have been such a dear friend to me in this Congress. I savor the
times where you let me come to your--a lot more seniority than I--you
have got a great hideaway with a view--with a view, one day maybe.
But I just want to say thank you, Patty Murray, for being so kind to
me.
Your showing up right now gives me a lot of strength, puts more fuel
in my tank. So now--I feel all this power--now, you will outrank me in
every imaginable way here. You are the head of Democratic
Appropriations so I am obligated by the State of New Jersey to be very
obsequious to you.
I yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from New Jersey. Thank you for your
kind words. I would just say the country is so grateful for what you
are doing right now because so many people are so frightened, worried,
scared, and angry about what is happening to the basic values of this
country that so many people have just thought would be there; that
their kids would be able to go to school and get an education and not
have to worry.
The Department of Education was going to be gone, and there was no
watchdog anymore, somebody to help or that the research at NIH was
going to be dismantled. Perhaps they had a family member who was in the
middle of a--some kind of scientific experiment that is now being
dismantled. What happens to them?
I hear from people on so many topics, seniors who are waiting on hold
for hours and then getting hung up on because there is nobody to answer
the phone anymore. These are basic values that we have as a country
that we care for other human beings, and we are there as a country for
them.
You are showing that fight today and inspiring so many people. I will
ask you a question in a minute, but I wanted to personally thank you
for what you are doing today. It is so important. You are the voice of
so many people today, and I so appreciate it.
I want to change the dynamic a little bit. I wanted to come today--
you have talked about the impact in so many areas of our country. But I
wanted to come and ask about something really personal to me. That is
the impact of our veterans today.
The Senator may not know this, but when I came to the Senate many
years ago, I asked to be on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I was the
first woman ever to ask to be on the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
The reason for me was very personal. As you may know, my dad was a
World War II veteran, and my family relied on his VA care when he was
diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, but I also--when I was in college
during the Vietnam war--many of my friends and colleagues were on the
streets demonstrating, and my heart was out to them.
But I was thinking about those men and women my age who were going
over to Vietnam and coming back injured in many different ways. So I
actually did my college internship--I asked to be at the Seattle VA. I
went to the Seattle VA during the Vietnam war and served on what was
the psychiatric ward at the time.
I sat and worked with young men and women who were my age, college
age, who had been sent there and came back with severe mental health
impacts.

[[Page S2042]]

Today we call that PTSD, but at the time, we didn't know it.
I was looking at these men and women who volunteered to go over or
sometimes their number came up at the time and came home, and it really
impacted the rest of their lives.
I learned firsthand what it means when somebody says: I will go for
my country to fight for all of you. So the America you have been
talking about--here for you when you get home. Our promise to each and
every one of them was if you serve your country in the military, we
will take care of you when you get home.

That is a promise I hold near and dear to my heart, which is why I
asked to be on the Veterans' Affairs Committee when I first came here.
I will tell you, I have seen the impact time and time again. I go home,
and I would hold townhalls when I was new here, and there would be a
lot of veterans who would come and talk to me and tell me what is going
on, what needed to be fixed, but always at that time, I share with my
colleagues, women never said anything.
There were a few always in the back of the room. It wasn't until the
regular meeting was over and they would come up quietly to me and say:
I need to tell you what is happening to woman veterans. I need to share
with you sexual assault. I need to share with you that there are no
facilities. It is a men-only kind of place. There are no OB/GYNs. There
is nobody to do mammographies, and I often don't feel comfortable
sitting in that waiting room with a whole lot of people after I have
had the experiences that I have had, and there is no place for women to
go. So we have worked really hard to make sure the VA works for women.
We worked really hard to make sure the VA addresses the issues of
today, the PACT Act that we worked so hard to make sure that men and
women who were victims of toxic exposure overseas got the services they
need. I could speak for 2 hours here about all the things we have done.
But then I see what this administration is doing to those men and
women whom we asked as a country to serve overseas or here at home in
service of all of us and the promises we have made them. I think: What
are they doing? They are undermining the very value all of us are
giving to Americans who serve above and beyond.
So when I hear of 2,000 layoffs a few weeks ago, I go: Wow. Where is
that coming from? I know because I am getting the phone calls like I am
sure you are from a VA researcher who has been taken off the job and
fired, unexplained, told he wasn't doing a good enough job somehow,
doing research on basic things like prosthetics or doing basic research
on PTSD or doing basic research on the kinds of things that our men and
women who served overseas are subjected to and need to come home and
have specialized services and resources that they need.
Or I hear from veterans who can't get the services that they have
asked for. So now when we are hearing this administration is about to
cut 80,000--you didn't hear me wrong--80,000 more people from the VA, a
vast majority themselves are veterans, I want to ask the Senator: How
does that hit you? How do you feel about that?
Mr. BOOKER. I am so grateful you brought this up--and especially all
the work we had to do when I was elected 12, 13 years ago. One of the
earliest things I did was meet with women veterans in my State and
heard these awful stories about how long it took to get gynecological
care, the waits that they had to do, the indignities they had to
endure. And I am glad we have made so many strides, in part, thanks to
your leadership in New Jersey, with special dedicated facilities to our
women veterans, with shortening those wait times, with prioritizing
them.
But you are now right. Their proposal is to cut 83,000 positions from
the VA. And you know this, you said it, just years ago this governing
body passed the PACT Act with overwhelming bipartisan support, signed
by President Biden in August of 2022, the largest healthcare benefit
expansion in VA history. You were one of the leaders, increasing
disability compensation and extending eligibility for VA care.
To meet this increased demand, the VA added 61,000 employees in 2023.
These new hires were claim processors, physicians, nursing staff,
medical support assistants, food service workers, and housekeeping
staff.
And now the progress this body made is in jeopardy by this President.
We added 61,000 just to keep up with the demands and the needs. And now
he is cutting 83,000.
This is an article if you don't want me to yield: ``DAV urges Veteran
Affairs to be more transparent about vet care amid layoffs and budget
cuts.''

Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins says veterans' care
won't be impacted . . . which saw the largest expansion of VA
healthcare benefits in a generation after the passing of the
PACT Act.
Collins attended DAV's recent Mid-Winter Conference, where
he came from behind the podium, walked into the audience and
told attendees that vet care and benefits would not be
impacted by the Trump administration's cuts.
In a recent appearance on the CBS Eye on Veterans podcast,
DAV Communications Chief and Air Force veteran Dan Clare said
the VA has not demonstrated how it will keep that promise.

They have not demonstrated.

DAV also does not have ``a lot of information about what's
planned,'' he said.

Can you imagine that? Leaving all these veterans with insecurity and
uncertainty.

``Now, we're hearing about 83,000 people losing their jobs,
20,000 or so of those folks might be veterans,'' said Clare.
``We're very concerned about how we're going to be able to
cut that many people and maintain care and benefits.''
VA has hired thousands of staffers since 2022 in response
to the PACT Act, which brought nearly 800,000 new enrollees
into its system. Collins has said cutting the VA workforce by
83,000 would bring it back down to its 2019 level.

Before we did all of those expansions to help women vets.

Clare said he has not heard about specific performance
problems with those who have been laid off . . .

Well, you haven't heard about it.

Veterans' needs have not changed and remain great.
``The people who are sick from the burn pits didn't
necessarily get better overnight and some of these folks are
going to have a long road to hoe when it comes to their
health,'' he said.
DAV is getting calls frequently from veterans who are
``scared, angry and don't understand what's going on and how
it's going to affect them,'' added Clare.
Clare was one of the first whistleblowers on burn pits in
Iraq, which eventually inspired the fight to pass the PACT
Act, [to help] veterans who became sick, or even died, from
their toxic exposures.
``When we started talking about dioxin, when Vietnam
veterans heard that, they immediately thought of Agent Orange
. . . and that's probably what this is, our generation's
Agent Orange.''
``There's a lot of decisions being made behind closed
doors,'' he continued. ``We want to know what the plan is.''

We want to know what the plan is.

``We're not against efficiency [of] government. We're not
against even removing VA employees who may not be fit
performers.''
A veteran has a unique understanding of another veteran's
needs, Clare [said.] ``When you lose those folks out of the
VA system, [the veterans,] you lose an institutional capacity
to understand veterans.''
It is also unclear how the cuts will impact VA research,
which Clare also stressed has helped veterans deal with
complex issues that are service-connected, such as traumatic
brain injuries and post-traumatic stress.
In addition to being concerned about how recent budget cuts
and staff reductions will impact veteran care and caregivers,
Clare said DAV is also concerned about the impact on veteran-
owned small businesses.
DAV is asking veteran business owners whose contracts have
been recently cancelled or who have been fired from their VA
jobs to reach out here. DAV is actively keeping a list of
veterans negatively affected by the Trump administration's
cuts and plans on fighting for them in the weeks and months
to come.

And those lists that they are keeping are getting longer and longer
and longer, the people affected by this.
So to answer your question, it is absurd; it is offensive; it is
ready, fire, aim. Tens of thousands of veterans laid off, veterans who
do business and work in contracts, contracts ended. Why is this another
group that the President of the United States is scaring? Frightened
veterans, angry veterans; I am hearing from them in my State. I know
you are hearing from them in yours.
What is the plan? What is the plan? They have no answer for us. All
they are doing is cutting Social Security staff, undermining the
delivery of those services, cutting the VA services. And why, by the
way? Is it creating efficiency or effectiveness? No. Is it to create
savings? Because we have to create savings to give more of those tax

[[Page S2043]]

cuts to billionaires like Elon Musk. It is not fair; it is not right.
When we send people off into the most dangerous environments on the
planet Earth and ask them to put their lives on the line for us, the
least we can do as a Nation is not penny-pinch on their backs of the
service that they deserve.
Mrs. MURRAY. If the Senator would just yield for one additional
question.
Mr. BOOKER. I yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is right. And so many veterans are afraid
right now, and I had a veteran tell me that he was one of those people
who got the letter, ``you haven't performed well.'' He worked for the
National Park Service, actually. And he said: I have been saving lives;
I have been cleaning trails; I have been making sure the national parks
are safe for all of you.
And then he said to me: I am a veteran. I served in the war, and I
served my country there because I wanted to serve my country and my
fellow Americans, and I came home and worked for the National Park
Service to do the same.
And now as a veteran, my country is not there for me. And I would
just say to my colleague and to everyone who is listening, these men
and women that we make a promise to, that we say we will be there for
you when you come home, that does not mean slamming a door in their
face.
It doesn't mean that you have to wait for hours to get the services
that you earned. It doesn't mean that you will be mistreated. It means
that we will honor you. And I would thank the Senator for his response
and just say to him again, do you think we are treating men and women
in this country as great Americans by the actions that are being taken
by this administration?
Mr. BOOKER. Thank you for the question. No. And I am just going to
read another article that is going to make even clearer the point that
you just laid that is so strong and so important.
This is from Axios. ``How White House firings are hurting veterans.''

The Trump administration's big cuts to the federal
government are hitting one group particularly hard--the
country's veterans.
Why it matters: Many of those who've served in the military
derive a sense of purpose and belonging from their government
work--viewing it as a way to serve their country and help
their peers outside of active duty.
The big picture: It's not yet clear yet how many military
vets have been fired, or will be. Last year veterans made up
28 percent of the federal workforce--

That's 28 percent--

per federal data--a far bigger share than the 5% in the
private sector.
About 36% of the vets working in civil service, more than
200,000 in total, are disabled or have a serious health
condition, per federal data.

So 36 percent of the vets working in civil service are disabled vets.

``This is the largest attack on veteran employment in our
lifetime,'' says William Attig, executive director of the
Union Veterans Council, a labor group that represents many of
these workers.
Attig, who was deployed in Iraq from 2003 to 2009, has been
talking to newly unemployed members, trying to get a tally of
everyone who's lost a job.
Zoom in: Some veterans, still holding on to their jobs for
now, are waiting for the hammer to drop.
``We're being smeared as leeches, but I just want to serve
my country and provide for my family,'' an employee at the
Department of Defense who is a disabled veteran, and
requested anonymity because he didn't want to put his job
further at risk.

Talk about free speech. ``We're being smeared as leeches,'' says a
disabled veteran who stood for us.

He was thrilled to land his job just a few months ago, but
is anxiously waiting to see if he'll be one of the more than
5,000 workers the Pentagon said it would fire next week.
Privately--

Privately now--

GOP lawmakers are growing uneasy with [the] cuts that impact
veterans--

I know this because I know the heart of so many of my Republican
colleagues--

Politico reports, adding that vets have been
``disproportionately affected'' by the firings.

Since, again, GOP lawmakers are growing uneasy about it.

The White House did not say how many veterans have been
fired. At least one department, Interior, has reportedly
carved out an exception for them.
``President Trump has consistently stood up for our brave
men and women in uniform--delivering crucial reforms that
improved VA healthcare, decreased Veteran homelessness, and
enhanced education benefits,'' said White House spokesperson
Anna Kelly in an email.
There are a few reasons government work attracts vets. The
federal government has a ``veterans preference''--put simply,
when deciding among a group of qualified candidates, they're
first in line.

Put simply when deciding among a group of qualified candidates, they
are first in line. I think that is right.

``You'd have to jump through a lot of hoops to not hire a
veteran,'' said a former federal official . . .
With more veterans working in government, more feel
welcomed to work among people who understand them. Others are
drawn to the retirement benefits--years of military service
counts towards your federal pension.
Plus, many of these folks feel drawn to mission-driven
employment. ``Most veterans feel like they are putting on
another uniform [when they go work in other Federal
Agencies].''
These jobs are a crucial piece of the puzzle in post-
military life, he says, adding that it's also a key part of
suicide prevention for this at-risk group.
``One of the most important things you can do for veterans
is to find them a job.''

How can we expect to maintain what is, in America, an all-volunteer
force if we fail to show those folks willing to serve how we care for
our servicemembers when they come home?
Slashing more than 83,000 jobs from the VA alone, it is clear that
these cuts are going to have a disproportionate impact on veterans,
veteran contractors, and the services they receive. I am angry about
these cuts; but most of all, it should make all Americans feel a sense
of sadness.
We ask our veterans to sacrifice so much, and we all know, who know
veterans, it is not just the veterans, it is also veteran families that
make that sacrifice, that share in that service, that share in that
commitment.
And these veterans, some of the more talented dedicated leaders I
know. They are not doing it for the money; they are doing it because
they are called to serve.
Do you know how many people jumped into service after 9/11? Friends
of mine rushed to join the military, to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And now they are home. Many of them with invisible wounds. Many of them
with visible wounds.
And the services they rely on for their healthcare, the services they
rely on as lifelines, the services they rely on often that give them
hope and opportunity, not compounding their trauma, this is now being
attacked by our President, who is not keeping his promises. He says he
values veterans, but the facts are different.

``She Devoted Her Life to Serving the U.S. Then DOGE
Targeted Her.''
It had been six days since Joy Marver was locked out of her
office at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, five days
since she checked herself into a hospital for emergency
psychiatric care, and two days since she sent a letter to her
supervisors: ``Please, I'm so confused. Can you help me
understand?''
Now, she followed her wife into the storage room of their
house outside Minneapolis, searching for answers no one would
give her.
A half-dozen bins held the remnants of 22 years spent in
service to the U.S. government--first as a sergeant first
class in Iraq, then as a disabled veteran and finally as a
V.A. support specialist in logistics.
She had devoted her career to a system that had always made
sense to her, but now nobody seemed to know whether she had
officially been laid off, or for how long, or why.
``Are you sure you never got an email?'' asked her wife,
Miki Jo Carlson, 49.
``How would I know?'' asked Marver, 45. ``They deleted my
account.''
``Maybe it's because you were still probationary?''
``My boss said I was exempt,'' Marver said. ``I was
supposed to be essential.''
In the last few months, more than 30,000 people across the
country were fired by President Trump's new initiative called
the Department of Government Efficiency, a historic reduction
of the federal work force that has been all the more
disruptive because of its chaotic execution. Entire agency
divisions have been cut without explanation or mistakenly
fired and then rapidly rehired, resulting in several lawsuits
and mass confusion among civil workers. After a court ruled
last week that many of the firings were illegal, the
government began reinstating workers, even as the Trump
administration appealed the decision and promised more
layoffs.
The V.A. alone said it planned to cut about 80,000 more
jobs this year--including tens of thousands of veterans--and
for Marver the shock of losing her job was eclipsed by the
disorientation of being repeatedly dismissed

[[Page S2044]]

and belittled by the government she served. She had watched
on TV as Trump's billionaire adviser Elon Musk took the stage
at a political conference wielding a chain saw to the beat of
rock music, slicing apart the air with what he called the
``chain saw for bureaucracy.'' She had listened to Trump's
aides and allies deride federal employees for being ``lazy,''
``parasitic,'' ``unaccountable'' and ``essentially wasting''
taxpayer money in their ``fake jobs.''
In Marver's case, that job had meant helping to retrain
soldiers for the civilian work force and coordinating veteran
burials while earning a salary of $53,000 a year.
``Here's the note I got a little while after I was hired,''
Marver told Carlson, pulling a form letter from the
government. ``You represent the best of who we are as
Americans,'' it read. ``You could have chosen to do anything
with your talents, but you chose public service.''
``Kind of boilerplate, but it is nice,'' Carlson said.

Mr. BENNET. Senator Booker, would you yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. Before I yield, I just want to acknowledge my friend in
the chair. And she is cracking a tight whip, so I appreciate you
following the rules here. I have to read this now. And I am eager to
get to your question, because you are one of the few people I knew
before I got to the Senate.
Mr. BENNET. That is what I wanted to talk about.
Mr. BOOKER. I didn't yield for a question. I can't say anything, sir.
The Parliamentarian will jump all over you. I have the floor.
So much power, it is going to my head.
Mr. BENNET. Sir, will you yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. Oh, man. I have known you for like 25 years. I wanted to
talk about you, but you are being so insistent, I will reward your
insistence and say I yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. BENNET. Let me ask you, Senator Booker--can I ask you directly
how long a question you would like? I am happy to provide you with a 5-
minute question or a 5-hour question. It depends entirely on you.
Mr. BOOKER. I actually believe you would do a 5-hour question to try
to help me power through. Senator, we have been at this for--
Mr. BENNET. My wife Susan--
Mr. BOOKER. I love you and your wife Susan, but I love your children
more.
Mr. BENNET. That is why I came down here.
Mr. BOOKER. Is this a question? I yield for a question while
retaining the floor. Let's make it a 7-minute question.
Mr. BENNET. I say this to the Senator of New Jersey and the Presiding
Officer: Thank you very much for being here, for enduring this.
When I started here, I was sitting in the chair all the way to the
right of where you are today, Senator Booker. I can remember the day
you walked in to be sworn in. You came through those doors right there.
I had a huge smile on my face because I knew when you were walking
through those doors, when you were walking into this Chamber, you would
bring with you the kids that you used to work for in Newark, NJ. The
reason I knew that was that when you were working for the kids in
Newark, NJ, as the mayor of Newark, NJ, I was working for the kids in
Denver as the superintendent of Denver Public Schools.
At that time in our country's history, we were engaged in a pretty
profound effort to try to make better the schools in our respective
communities--not that everything was perfect, but we were trying to
drive achievement for the kids in Newark and the kids in Denver, and we
talked about it over many years.
And here you walked into this Chamber, a place where it would be easy
to imagine has long had the habit of treating America's kids like they
are someone else's kids, not like they are America's kids.
I know that because if the kids in America were represented by the
100 desks that are in this Senate, roughly 9 of them would be
graduating with a college degree in our country, 9 of these desks.
If we thought about the rates of literacy, the failure in our country
to be able to teach people how to read or do mathematics decade after
decade after decade, the proficient students would consume just a few
desks in this place and everybody else would not be able to do basic
levels of reading and basic levels of math.
But here you were, somebody who understands that, and here you are,
somebody who understands that.
One of the very first projects you and I worked on--this is coming to
my question--was the child tax credit. This was an effort to turn back
30 or 40 years of trickle-down economics that said that what we are
going to do is cut taxes for the richest people in the country and just
have it trickle down to everybody else. Some people don't know what
that means. Let me, if I could--
Mr. BOOKER. Please, please.
Mr. BENNET. Let me just say what that actually means.
For you to understand that what tax policy is, that tax policy that
Donald Trump has pursued now twice--once when he was President before
and now again--you have to imagine that there is a mayor in Newark or
there is a mayor in Denver or a mayor in San Diego or in Miami who is
saying to the people that live in his community: I have an idea. I am
going to go out and borrow more money than we have ever borrowed before
as a community. I am going to go out and borrow a ton of money.
Your constituents and my constituents would say: Wait a minute,
Mayor. Wait a minute. That makes me nervous. What are you borrowing all
that money for?
Because I am worried about the fiscal condition of my city and my
town.
This conversation would happen in every city and every town in
Colorado or New Jersey, whether they are Democratic or Republican
mayors. You have to answer the question: What are you spending the
money on? What are you going to borrow all this money for? Is it for
our parks? No. Is it for our schools? No. Is it to give mental health
services to kids who desperately need it? No. Is it for our roads and
bridges, our infrastructure? No. Are you going to do something
important for our water systems? No.
What is the answer? What are you going to do with that money that you
are borrowing, that you are mortgaging our kids' future? What is this
important thing you are going to do with it?
The answer is, we are going to give it to the two richest
neighborhoods in New Jersey or Newark or Denver, and we are going to
expect that it is going to trickle down to everybody else.
That is the theory. That is what trickle-down economics is. That is
what the Trump tax plan is. And there is a reason why no mayor in
America has ever done it--because you would be run out on a rail
because you couldn't explain it.
You are going to borrow money from the kids of our police officers,
our firefighters, our teachers in order to cut taxes for the richest
people in the community in the hope that they will buy a little bit of
an extra--I don't know--luxury, and then that is going to somehow
generate economic activity for everybody else. It is demonstrably true
that has never worked.
By the way, these tax cuts, I say to the Presiding Officer and
everybody else within the sound of my voice, have literally never ever
come close to paying for themselves. That is a complete lie. That is
why the Congressional Budget Office says this is going to blow a $4.6
trillion hole in our deficit. And for what? To give tax cuts to the
richest people in America when they need them least and when the income
inequality is as great as it has been in our country since the 1920s?
Which brings me to my question.
My cherished colleague from New Jersey, what was it we were trying to
do with the child tax credit? There were a lot of people who believed
that we couldn't even get it passed, that we couldn't even get the IRS
to administer it. Then we did get it passed during part of the Biden
administration, and lo and behold, more than 90 percent of the families
in New Jersey got a tax cut. Lo and behold, more than 90 percent of the
families in Colorado got a tax cut--not waiting for a trickle down from
the wealthiest people, but they got a tax cut directly that did what?
Cut in half--cut in half--the childhood poverty rate in America.
In the richest country in the world, for one moment, we said we don't
have to accept this level of childhood poverty as a permanent feature
of our democracy or a permanent feature of our

[[Page S2045]]

economy. We can do something different than that.

Senator Booker, that is what you said when you were mayor of Newark.
We don't have to accept these generational outcomes of poverty or of
poor schools or of lead in water. We can do something different. And
that is what you brought to the U.S. Senate as well.
The tragedy, from my perspective, is--there are many tragedies about
the election of Donald Trump--by the way, I will say again on this
floor that I don't blame him for getting elected President. He ran, and
he won. Those of us that were trying to offer a different vision have
something to explain about why we were not successful.
But one thing I am certain of is that the kids in Newark and the kids
in Denver are completely invisible to our current President, that he is
not concerned with their welfare or even loses a minute's sleep over
the next generation.
So I wonder if you could talk a little bit about--this isn't a
numbers and cents question because I know--even though you don't look
tired, I am sure you must be tired after all these hours and hours and
hours. But can you talk a little bit, Senator, about how a society
should be judged with respect to how we treat the next generation of
Americans; how a tax bill should be judged by how we treat the next
generation of Americans; how almost nothing else matters except what we
do with respect to the next generation of Americans?
I can tell you that my daughters Caroline, Halina, and Anne
understand better than most your commitment to them and your commitment
to their generation because you have been such an inspiration to them,
not just today--not just today but thank you for what you are doing--
but for basically their entire lifetime.
Mr. BOOKER. Thank you for the question, my long, longtime friend, one
of the folks I have known the longest whom I get to serve with.
What you did for me when I came here--It was you and Sherrod Brown
who sat right there by the door. You let Bennet and Brown become
Bennet, Brown, Booker--three B's. We joined together with some of the
most extraordinary House Members and Brother Warnock to fight for the
child tax credit.
It took years, but we found our opening when we called Ron Klain
together before the election was even settled and said: Please, the
best thing our country can do is to expand the child tax credit and
make it fully refundable. Because we knew, as you said, it would give
the overwhelming majority--between 80 and 93 percent depending on what
State you are--of people in those States a--when you expand the earned
income tax credit, it would give them a tax break.
It was arguably one of the greatest tax cuts in the last 50 years. It
cut child poverty in America nearly in half. And child poverty is a
moral obscenity. Child poverty is violence against children--violence.
Here is the thing that you and I both know from the research: Every
dollar you spend in raising a child above the poverty line, you return
to society between $5 and $7 in economic growth and activity or in
lesser costs because kids above the child poverty line have, for
example, less visits to the emergency room.
I just don't understand how we are a nation--again, the wealthiest
Nation--that has one of the highest child poverty rates. It makes no
sense, zero sense, when we proved once and for all with that 1-year
effort--because we couldn't make it permanent; we were short one vote
in this body--we proved forever in America that child poverty is a
policy choice, not an inevitable reality.
So you asked a great question. Why, in a nation that was founded by
men that studied virtue, the ideals of virtue--they were imperfect
geniuses. They were imperfect geniuses, but they really struggled with
moral philosophy.
We have the power--we have proven it--to cut child poverty in half.
What is the argument against it? Wasteful spending? Come on. Come on.
Giving trillions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthiest in America--I
am sorry, it is wasteful spending, especially if it ends up blowing a
hole. Those tax cuts don't pay for themselves. Trump 1 tax cuts didn't,
and renewing them won't. Doing the same thing over and over again and
thinking you will get different results is the very definition of
``insanity.''
You are one of the most passionate--I remember a spellbinder of a
speech you gave in this body. You were so angry.
I love it when Bennet is unchained.
You were so angry when you started talking about the horrible
policies of this Nation that have eaten away the inheritance of
children to come. You went off on the trillions of dollars spent on
stupid foreign wars, where our brave men and women fought for this
country, but this country made bad mistakes in these long wars. You
talked about the money we spent there. And you talked about the first
time in American history--common sacrifice every war before that, not
just the men and women who were brave enough to go out and fight--you
said the first time in American history that we said: The only people
that are going to bear a burden are the people that are going to go.
The rest of you get tax cuts.
George Bush--first time ever we went to war and gave tax cuts. From
the Civil War, to the Revolutionary War, to World War I, to World War
II, it was a common collective effort. My grandmother talked with pride
about victory gardens and with pride about war bonds. Everybody pitched
in.
Here we are at another crossroads. Is America going to tolerate this
idea that we are going to give extraordinary tax cuts that
overwhelmingly, disproportionately will accrue to the wealthiest
amongst us? For what?
If I were a mayor, I would have to answer that. So I appreciate your
question, but I also appreciate your moral indignation. I really do. I
keep saying over and over again, in elevating the voices of Americans
on this floor, in elevating the point, I hope, that we can't keep doing
things like this as business as usual. These are real issues, not of
right or left or of right or wrong. It is a moral moment in America,
and you point out a very clear choice we have: When we talk about our
tax policy, it should reflect our values.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. REED. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. For Jack Reed, I would do just about anything. So I yield
for a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. REED. First, thank you for continuing to highlight the harm that
is being done by the Trump administration and that it is inflicting on
working Americans: flouting the law, withholding Federal funds,
illegally shuttering Federal Agencies, ruining longstanding alliances,
increasing prices and taxes on American consumers. It goes on and on
and on.
Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services announced it
would fire 20,000 employees. Those cuts appear to be taking shape right
now. Is the Senator aware that there are reports that thousands of HHS
staff have been locked out of their offices this morning?
Mr. BOOKER. To answer the Senator's question, I have been on the
floor since last night. So I haven't read any news reports. But when
you ask if I am aware of thousands and thousands of HHS employees who
have been laid off of their jobs, I am not aware of it, but I am not
surprised. The question isn't, Is Donald Trump going to lay more people
off? The question isn't, Is Donald Trump going to lay, more
disproportionately, veterans off? The question is, What are we going to
do to stop it when it isn't thoughtful, reasonable cuts?
He talks about the people he is cutting as leaches and demeans and
degrades their commitment to service and their noble obligations.
We were told that HHS would be about making America healthy again,
and I haven't seen that. I have seen them cut services that give
children access to fresh and healthy foods. I have seen them cut
regulations on polluters that make our air quality worse, which hurts
people with emphysema, with asthma, and with other respiratory
diseases. In fact, a lot of the actuarials show that more Americans die
when polluters are allowed to go back to polluting more. I can go
through the things they are doing that are not making our water
healthier or safer, that are not making our air

[[Page S2046]]

healthier or safer, not making more access to access healthcare that
stops and treats chronic disease, and not giving access to healthy
food. We are not making America healthy anymore.
So these cuts don't surprise me, but they hurt me. They hurt me.
These are Americans. They are disproportionately veterans. I thank you
for speaking up for them today.
Mr. REED. If the Senator would yield for another question.
Mr. BOOKER. I yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. REED. President Trump and the Secretary of HHS, Secretary
Kennedy, are, as I indicated and made you aware, firing a host of
people today, but the critical staff functions will be undercut--for
example, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which focuses on worker
safety.
LIHEAP, as you know, provides essential support to literally keep
people warm in the winter and cool in the summer in our Southern
States. With LIHEAP undercut like that, there will be effects. People
will become unhealthy. In fact, they probably could even pass away.
NIOSH, on the other hand, is an Agency that looks after 164 million
people in this country so they are safe.
We all know--we all remember back--all of those stories about the
Gilded Age, which sometimes, I think, the administration wants to bring
back, where children labored in shops, where garment workers were
killed in fires because there was no way to get out, as all the exits
were sealed. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
prevents that.
Work-related injuries and illnesses cost our economy $250 billion
annually. So that will double, triple, quadruple.
We are seeing all sorts of reports about the National Center for
Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC. They do critical work, and
they are under the gun.
We are seeing reports that the Director of the FDA Center for Tobacco
Products has been fired. We can see that President Trump and Secretary
Kennedy would rather stand up for Big Tobacco than for young kids who
get hooked on it, and it ruins their health.
These are just a few of the cuts, and I know you are aware of them. I
know you are focused on these. They are going to destroy years of
progress, and, basically, it is being shouldered by working Americans.
Nobody who lives in Mar-a-Lago needs LIHEAP heating. Nobody who dines
at Mar-a-Lago needs Occupational Safety and Health deployed, but the
waiters do, and the grounds people do.
So, Senator, what are your thoughts about it?
Mr. BOOKER. I so appreciate the question from my friend.
I really think that he is a superpower, and you are a Superman in
that character because you are thinking about the people affected.
We throw these acronyms down here, and they sound like government
programs, but then you meet with people. I remember when I was starting
out in my political career in service in Newark, and I had this dear
friend named Kim. She was one of these people who worked at trying to
sign people up for LIHEAP. The stories would affect her of the people
for whom that was a lifeline for them to have a little bit of
resources--a little bit of resources--to help them get their energy
costs in place where they could afford heat in the winter and some air
in the summer. There are stories of elders and the vulnerable.
I don't understand how we can be a nation with so much wealth and
abundance, and we haven't figured out a way to design a system where,
when you invest in the well-being of people, people thrive, where kids
are growing up in quality housing, with great public schools, with
clean air, without lead in their water, and above the poverty line.
Do you know what I love about young people in this country? It is
their resiliency. I meet these beautiful children with light in their
eyes, and all they need is a little fertile ground, and they go beyond
our imagination in what they can achieve.
So here we are taking our national treasure. The resources being paid
into our taxes are our national treasure. And what do we invest in?
What do we do with it? Well, we are running up more debt. We are not
going to pay for these tax cuts that are overwhelmingly going to go to
the wealthiest, but we are taking all of these things that people rely
on from our veterans to our seniors, to our disabled, to our expectant
moms. We are just taking as much as we can to defer as much of these
gross tax cuts that go disproportionately to the wealthy.
So, again, I return to where I have been for closing in on 19 hours.
I go back to: What are we going to do about it? It can't be business as
usual. There are too many things we have already covered that show that
this is a moral moment in America. Where do we stand?
As John Lewis said and as I keep repeating--he says it is time to get
into good trouble, necessary trouble, to redeem the soul of our Nation,
and what you are talking about goes directly to the soul, what we stand
for. Whom do we stand for? We should stand for each other.
Thank you, sir.
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, will the Senator from New Jersey yield
for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. To my dear friend, I yield for a question while retaining
the floor.
I thank you for being here. I thank you for your leadership. I thank
you for what you stand for. I look forward to your question.
Ms. CANTWELL. I so appreciate the Senator from New Jersey trying to
articulate the urgency of this moment.
I know you have discussed many things over the last I don't know how
many hours it is, but it has been many, many hours. You know we just
had a hearing this morning related to the markup of the Social Security
nominee, and somebody--we are just trying to find out--who is a
whistleblower said he was involved in helping DOGE.
We are here today, trying to bring attention to the American public
that people are trying to rearrange essential services and contractual
obligations--things like Social Security or Medicaid or even Medicare--
by basically saying ``Well, we have this efficiency strategy'' when in
reality they are over there with numbers just trying to carve something
out of the budget--billions of dollars out of Social Security
efficiency or billions and billions and billions of dollars out of
Medicaid, which would really come right out of our hospitals, which are
saying they don't even think they can stay open.
But this notion of Social Security--I don't know if you have heard
that not only are they closing offices and cutting jobs, but they are
asking people to reregister.
Mr. BOOKER. Yes.
Ms. CANTWELL. So my constituent, who they basically said was dead,
was not dead. He wanted his Social Security. So not only did they not
give him his check in January, they tried to claw back checks from the
previous months out of his bank account.
Even though this has gotten national press and attention, you would
think that everybody on the other side would be like ``No, that is not
what we are trying to do'' even though the President in the State of
the Union said all of these people were getting Social Security checks
when my constituent is standing in line with less and less staff,
trying to get his Social Security. And guess what. They are still at
it. As of last Friday, they were still not giving him his Social
Security.
So what are we unleashing on America? What are we unleashing that
even--and I don't know whether you addressed these Social Security
issues in your statements. I so appreciate you emphasizing the urgency
here because this is the dismantling of contractual agreements between
the American people and the people's body. We are here to represent
them and stand up for it, and people are acting like they don't care.
So you are here in an extraordinary athletic achievement. Thank you.
It makes your Stanford days look like nothing, right? You have achieved
this great, long effort to bring illumination to the American people
that they are getting screwed over the fact that these cuts are not
some efficient way to deliver better service. In Social Security, they
are undermining Social Security.
So have you heard of these cases, the whistleblower issue and others,
and do you believe that is what we should be paying attention to and
that before we

[[Page S2047]]

get a vote on Mr. Bisignano, we should be finding out what
whistleblowers are saying and about his involvement relating to DOGE
and making sure that Social Security checks are protected?
Mr. BOOKER. I thank you for the question, my friend and my
chairwoman.
I did talk about this, but it is so worth repeating. At some point in
the night, we covered Social Security, and we read story after story
after story of senior citizens who are frightened and afraid that the
President of the United States will stand at the joint address and
attack Social Security and make fun of it with lie after lie after lie
about millions and millions of people getting fraudulent checks when
the people who do the fact-checking and even the Social Security folks
themselves say that it is a minuscule number of people getting checks
and usually it is an overpayment.
But they didn't stop there. Elon Musk called it a Ponzi scheme. The
richest man in the world and the most powerful man in the world--
himself a billionaire--are attacking the program that millions and
millions of our senior citizens rely on.
I read letters from people who said: Don't forget about the mental or
disabled who rely on SSI. They were begging us to remember and speak
their names and tell their stories.
There is a lot of fear, a lot of terror, a lot of insecurity.
We spoke about this on the floor, that the benefits are already being
cut. What do I mean by that? Well, if you are cutting Social Security
offices--as one of our colleagues said from New Hampshire--in a rural
area, you are forcing people to have to drive 100 miles if they have a
problem. They can't talk on the phone because the wait times on the
phone--I read an article in the Wall Street Journal, which is no
leftwing mag. It was talking about how the customer service is going
downhill because of the cuts they are making, and now you are forcing
seniors--we read letters from 85-year-olds, 90-year-olds, 93-year-olds.
They are going to drive 100 miles?
I read letters from Social Security workers who now work in
inadequate spaces, with inadequate staff, unable to do the job they
love. They are not leeches. They are not people who should be demeaned
or degraded by the most powerful people in our land. They are public
servants who love their jobs and want to serve seniors but now can't do
it because they cut, cut, cut before they thought, thought, thought.
Ms. CANTWELL. Will the Senator yield for another question?
Mr. BOOKER. I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Senator from New Jersey. The issue that I
think is not being illuminated enough is the sheer numbers here.
In my State of Washington, 1.4 million people are on Social Security
and 1.8 million people are on Medicaid. So you are talking about a big
Federal relationship.
You know, I actually worked in the private sector. I can tell you one
thing about the private sector: The bigger it gets, usually the more
inefficient it gets. It just happens. Big organizations can be
inefficient.
So just because the Federal Government is the government doesn't mean
that Social Security and Medicaid are fraught with fraud. In this case,
my constituent is not even getting his check, and no one is responding.
You would think that with all this commotion, that Social Security
would want to jump right on it and fix it, but they are not.
The question I have for the Senator from New Jersey is, in my State,
I have, as I said, nearly 1.8 million people who are on Medicaid, and
the same problem is now where our colleagues are trying to say they are
going to get $880 billion out of the Energy and Commerce budget of the
House of Representatives when in reality like 90 percent of that money
is Medicare or Medicaid. If Medicare is supposedly off the table, then
the majority of that is going to come from Medicaid.
So in my State, I am hearing from hospitals that that means they
could close. That means essential Medicaid services that are used even
in our jails or for fentanyl treatment or Medicaid that is used as an
ObamaCare expansion for healthcare that so many literally red
Republican States, Republican Governors have said: We want that.
The Governor of Idaho: Yes, we want that.
That is an expansion of Medicaid, and it is successfully working at
providing healthcare to millions of Americans.
But now our colleagues are entertaining a notion that they could cut
this system. They are not really making it clear, so, again, the
illumination of you showing the urgency is like a big flag that we are
trying to show to the American people: This is not a drill. This is
now. This is happening. The beginnings of it are happening.
Now this debate that is going to ensue is going to be a massive cut
into the programs unless the American people wake up.
Now, in your State, are you hearing in New Jersey about the Medicaid
cuts, the impacts on hospitals, on the delivery system, on essential
services?
Mr. BOOKER. I cannot emphasize to you strongly enough, we decided to
start this whole thing at 7 p.m. last night with Medicaid. We read
story after story after story after story of people who are Medicaid
beneficiaries who are terrified, who are afraid. If they cut $880
billion, if they diminish the cuts in any way to their services--they
are holding together their lives in this fragile financial equilibrium,
and one little tug of a transportation service, one little tug of a
home healthcare giver, and it all crumbles. They are terrified and
afraid.
Some Americans are dealing with the greatest challenges--not of their
own making. Some of them are working full-time jobs, and getting an
injury causes an extraordinary amount of chaos to their lives.
So, yes, I read from the people who are recipients. I read from the
people who run hospitals--from rural hospitals, to urban hospitals, to
level I trauma centers--who all said that if they cut hundreds of
billions of dollars, it will affect them.
I did something really important. I read from Republican Governors
and Democratic Governors because I keep saying over and over: America,
this is not right or left. It is right or wrong. It is not a partisan
moment. It is an American moment. It is a moral moment.
I read voices from Republicans specifically, Republican Governors in
Medicaid expansion States. They have this trigger--you know this--many
States, that when the funding from the Federal Government dips below 90
percent, boom, Medicaid expansion is over and millions of people are in
financial crisis, in healthcare crisis.
What is it going to take for us to say no with such a firm voice,
such a chorus of conviction, thousands, hundreds of thousands of
Americans, red, white, and blue, every State, saying: Do not do this
for no good reason but to give the majority of your tax cuts to
billionaires like Elon Musk. It makes no sense.
Who are we as a country? These are not normal times. This is not
usual. We should be standing up because I read the stories of
Republicans who run hospitals, Republicans who are Governors, who all
are saying: Don't do this. Don't do this.
Mr. PADILLA. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. Senator Padilla, I was teasing. I am not yielding yet,
Senator Padilla. I was teasing that man over there named Bennet. He and
I have known each other for years, but you and I have known each other
for longer. I knew the Senator from Washington before I got here--
mutual friends. So these are three people who were friends of mine
before we met in this institution. If I had Coons here, I would have
all four.
You, though, I knew you longer than Bennet, longer than the great
Senator from Washington, and the chairwoman. We met in 1998, 1999,
around then. We were both city council people. And a dear friend, the
beautiful man who introduced us, told me before we walked into your
office that you were a rising star, that you were a man of deep
decency; that you were going to do extraordinary things in your career,
and he didn't overstate the fact.
You are one of my close friends, and I definitely yield for a
question while retaining the floor.
Mr. PADILLA. Let the Record reflect that he said the exact same
things--probably better things about you, and he was absolutely
correct.

[[Page S2048]]

But I couldn't help but interject right at the moment where I did
because, once again, your passion is coming through.
First of all, I tremendously admire what you have been doing here on
the floor of the Senate today, starting with last night. As I have been
watching off and on, there have been moments where your empathy and
your sympathy and your care and concern are coming through. You can't
help it. It is who you are.
There have been other moments, as you have been talking about some of
the key issues and dynamics of this current political climate that we
are in, where your passion is coming through and, at times, anger.
I know it because I have seen it. I know it because we get calls in
my office about this. I know it because if you monitor comments and
commentary on social media about what my colleague is doing here on the
Senate floor, some people have asked: Why is he so angry?
Well, I would like to say here right now that Senator Booker has
every right to be angry because of what is going on. I know I am angry
with so much of what is going on. And the American people have every
right to be angry with what is going on because none of what we are
seeing come out of the Trump White House is normal.
But every day, this approach of flooding the zone with more and more
extreme actions runs the risk of making people grow numb to these
attacks, and we certainly can't surrender to the feeling of just being
overwhelmed by their tactics.

So I want to thank the senior Senator from New Jersey for doing what
he is doing to shake and awaken the conscience of our country.
As I was listening to my colleague talk about the real dangers of the
Trump administration, what it poses for our Nation, I also reflect on
what it means for our environment because I know it hits home for many
folks but especially in my home State of California.
California--many of you have come to visit time and again--is home to
some of the most beautiful parks and natural wonders in the Nation, but
if you grow up in Southern California, like I did, you also know there
is a flip side to this climate discussion. We are seeing--we live
through the real cost of climate inaction.
Growing up, I can tell you not just about the smell of diesel
exhaust, which I will never forget, sitting in a schoolbus going to and
from school, but the regular days where school would be shut down early
and we would all be sent home because of the smog--toxic smog--in the
air in the greater Southern California area. These were concrete
reminders of the real threats emissions pose to our health.
California also knows the dangers posed by extreme weather. We know
the droughts, we know the floods, and, yes, all too often, we have come
to know wildfires, devastating wildfires like the ones we experienced
in Los Angeles County at the beginning of this year.
Senator Booker was kind enough to come visit a few weeks ago to tour
Altadena--the epicenter, if you will, of the Eaton fire that devastated
so many. I think we both agreed and anybody who has visited the area to
see for themselves would agree you cannot see what happened in and
around Altadena and come away unmoved.
I could go on and on with examples and reasons to say to you that
this is exactly why California for decades has worked so hard against
pollution and against the impacts of climate change, everything from
being aggressive on tailpipe emission standards to our ambitious
conservations goals.
The 30x30 goal set up by the Biden administration was modeled after
the 30x30 goal set up by the State of California. California is also
home to the very first Earth Day, which is now celebrated nationally
each and every year.
But, today, much of our progress is now at risk because just in the
first 2 months of the second Trump administration, we have seen nothing
but attacks on this progress of environmental protection.
The Trump administration has sought to reverse the endangerment
finding, which is the most basic finding of climate science--that, yes,
greenhouse gases harm public health. They have taken the steps of
illegally freezing funding that this Congress--this Congress--had
previously appropriated. I am talking about the types of investments
that keep our kids and our communities healthy.
Earlier this month, the EPA--Trump's EPA--announced that they would
be rolling back more than 30 environmental rules. By doing so, they are
not just going to make Americans less healthy; they are also going to
hurt our economy, and it is going to clear the way for China to become
the world leader in green technology. So much for ``America First'' if
they continue down that road.
Even while the Trump administration has refused to fight climate
change--it is one thing to not be helpful, but they have actually taken
a number of steps that are actually harmful and hurtful, that make it
harder, for example, for States to respond to natural disasters.
They have toyed with tying wildfire disaster assistance to political
demands. They have proposed eliminating FEMA. They have implemented
Federal freezes on things like hazardous fuel removal and the hiring of
Federal firefighters--things that we need to do in the winter months to
prepare for the hot and dry summer months when the risk is greatest.
They have even brazenly opened up dams and flooded portions of the
Central Valley to pretend President Trump was helping with the Los
Angeles wildfires when the fact is, those fires were contained when
they released this water--water that is no longer available in the hot,
dry summer months. So they are not just refusing to act or to help;
they are making matters worse for States like California and many
others.
That is what this fight is about. Our fight for the environments is
about America's health and safety, it is about American jobs, and it is
about America's future.
With all of that being said, my question to Senator Booker is this:
For the next generation of Americans, for the young people who are
tuning in and wondering ``Well, what is it that I can do? Do I have a
voice? Do I have any power?'' what would you say to them? How can they
take action?
Mr. BOOKER. I love you for that question, my friend. And I just want
to talk about anger because I have been all over the place. I read
these letters, and they make me sad. I read these letters, and they
make me angry. I read these letters, and they make me embarrassed that
we are a country where people have to rent their pride and beg for help
because of the little, teeny modicum of support they get from a service
like Medicaid.
But I have been saying over and over again--as I have tried to learn
from my elders, as I have tried to learn from the heroes I revere--that
I learned from my parents anger is not a bad emotion. It is what you do
with that emotion that is important.
Does it consume you? Does it drive you to hate other people or do you
allow it to fuel you? Because it was ferocious love that had ancestors
of all of ours in this country make it through insults--no Irish need
apply; the injuries of Japanese internments. It is what do you do with
those feelings. You are not defined by what happens to you; you are
defined by how you choose to respond.
So I tell people, anger--if you are not angry, if you are not angry--
let that fuel you.
Well, what about the heartbreak that I feel? Well, I get emotional
sometimes because I read a letter and something in it makes me remember
somebody I know or to feel the hurt of constituents begging for help,
and it breaks my heart.
But I tell you, if America hasn't broken your heart, you don't love
her enough because there is so much heartbreak and fear and pain in a
nation where people are seeing their economic hopes and dreams of maybe
buying a home or having the money to help their kids with school or to
meet their basic needs--where so many Americans are one flat tire, one
$400 hit, and they are suddenly doing payday loans or having to
struggle to find a way through. There is so much heartbreak in this
country.
Great love means you make yourself vulnerable to having that
heartbreak. But the heart is a powerful tool that, even when it is
broken, it still beats.

[[Page S2049]]

What about people who are afraid? I get afraid sometimes. I think
about this legislation: If it goes through, what is going to happen in
my State? I know the hospitals. I know the recipients.
But you are telling me: Look at our history. Is there anybody in
American history that you revere that didn't face extraordinary fear,
because you cannot have great courage without great fear. Fear is a
necessary precondition to courage. And so you ask me, my friend, what
can people do?
I want to remind people, as I have said before on this floor, to
remember the truth that I heard before I came here: that change does
not come from Washington; it comes to Washington by the people who
demand it.
I said this earlier: Do you think that we got suffrage in this
country because a bunch of men on this Senate floor right here put
their hands in and said: Hey, fellas, on the count of three, women get
the right to vote. Ready? One, two, three, go.
No. That is not how it happened. It happened because of Alice Paul.
She was a young, young person from New Jersey. She broke with the
course of human events. Alice Paul--one of my greatest heroes--you know
what she did? She caused a heck of a lot of good trouble, necessary
trouble.
She is the first American ever--young American, in her early
twenties--the first American ever to protest in front of the White
House. She broke with the older, more mature suffrage organizations and
went to the White House and did what she called a silent protest. She
held up signs quoting President Woodrow Wilson's own words about
freedom and equality saying: Aren't they true for me? Like a great
Black woman would later say: Ain't I a woman? Don't I deserve rights?
You don't think she was afraid? Let me tell you how afraid she was.
Hundreds came out to jeer her, blocking the street, and then they
arrested her for obstructing public passage.
And then what do you do with a strong, powerful woman? You say that
she is crazy, and you throw her in an insane asylum, before Gandhi.
Sitting in jail before Gandhi, Alice Paul, this young American from New
Jersey, goes on a hunger strike.
And they don't honor her hunger strike. They shove tubes down her
throat, crack eggs into the tube, force-feeding her.
And thank God for the First Amendment, which is under attack here in
America; the freedom of the press, under attack here in America. Look
at the dragging of the journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg, right now for
doing what? Getting the highest security officials in the land, just
showing them the laws that they were breaking.
A journalist covered what Alice Paul did. She gets out of jail
because of public outrage. She goes back to protesting in front of the
White House, and Woodrow Wilson, the President of the United States,
finally comes out and joins her in supporting suffrage.
You don't think she was afraid, angry, heartbroken? But she did
something different. She chose a new and unusual pathway to show that
this is not the America I believe in.
The poetry of Langston Hughes:

America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath--
America will be!

The poetry of Langston Hughes:

There's a dream in the land
With its back against the wall.
To save the dream for one,
It must be saved for ALL.

It is what you do with those emotions that matters. Does it call you
to greater service? Does it call you to greater sacrifice? Does it call
you to greater love?
And let me say one more thing. As you were speaking, I just wanted to
bring this up. You know I love history. And this is one of my favorite
letters, Alex, my colleague Senator Padilla.
It is one of my favorite letters in all of American history because
an obscure, unknown American--obscure and unknown, would never have
been known--writes a letter to a powerful, powerful man. This obscure
American woman that nobody knows or would have heard of ever, if
somebody didn't hear about her story and write a book--she would be
gone, like most of the great heroes in American history that we don't
know their names.
It reminded me of the last healthcare debate when Donald Trump tried
to take away the ACA and how many amazing, heroic people who I don't
remember their names but rose up and said: No, no, no.
They got three of my colleagues--McCain, Murkowski, and Collins--to
change their vote on this floor and stop healthcare from being stripped
away from 20 million Americans.
Well, here is what I mean. It is not the powerful people with titles
and celebrity and offices and billions of dollars that have ever shaped
this country. What shapes this Nation is hard-working, determined
Americans who say: I am going to redeem the dream of America. I am
going to heal the soul of this country. I am going to demand that we do
better, that we rise higher, that we make change happen.
What can you do, that you ask, if you are a young person?
I love this letter. It is written by Frederick Douglass to an unknown
person that would have never been heard of if it wasn't for this book.
And he writes to his friend:

I am glad to know that the story of your eventful life has
been written by a kind lady, and that the same is soon to be
published. You ask for what you do not need--

Frederick Douglass writes--

when you call upon me for a word of commendation. I need such
words from you far more than you can need them from me--

He says to this unknown woman--

especially where your superior labors and devotion to the
cause of the lately enslaved of our land are known as I know
them.
The difference between us is very marked--

Said the great Frederick Douglass, one of the most known people. He
was the most photographed man, period, in the 1800s.

Most that I have done and suffered in the service of our
cause has been in public, and I have received much
encouragement at every step of the way. You, on the other
hand, have labored in a private way. I have wrought in the
day--you in the night. I have had the applause of the crowd
and the satisfaction that comes of being approved by the
multitude, while the most that you have done has been
witnessed by a few trembling, scarred, and foot-sore bondmen
and women, whom you have led out of the house of bondage, and
whose heartfelt, ``God bless you,'' has been your only
reward.
The midnight sky and the silent stars have been the
witnesses of your devotion to freedom and of your heroism.
Excepting John Brown--of sacred memory--I know of no one who
has willingly encountered more perils and hardships to serve
our enslaved people than you have. Much that you have done
would seem improbable to those who do not know you as I know
you. It is to me a great pleasure and a great privilege to
bear testimony for your character and your works, and to say
to those to whom you may come, that I regard you in every way
truthful and trustworthy.

He gave his legitimacy to this book project, Frederick Douglass, to
then an unknown woman who did the most heroic things. Her name was
Harriet Tubman.
How did we get here, America, to this privileged place? Well, we got
here because of that incredible infrastructure project that this place
didn't fund called the Underground Railroad, where Black Americans and
White Americans broke laws, did civil disobedience to stop slavery.
How did we get here? We got here because young 20-somethings got up
on a bridge named for a grand wizard of the KKK, named the ``Edmund
Pettus Bridge.'' We got here because they marched. We got here because
they were beaten. We got here because they bled.
And I may know one or the two of the people on that bridge. I may
know one or two of their names. But I am in this body because of them.
How did we get here, America? We got here because of people whose
names I don't know who fought at Seneca Falls.
How did we get here? We got here because of people whose names I
don't know who stood at Stonewall. We got here because of people's
names I don't know who were there at Selma.
This is the answer to your question. This is an American moral
moment. This is a question of where do we stand for healthcare? where
do we stand for Social Security? where do we stand for VA benefits?
where do we stand for our American neighbor when the call and
commandment of every faith in our land is to love your neighbor?
What is the quality of our love, America? Now is the time to get
angry, but let that anger fuel you. Now is your time to get scared for
what is happening to your neighbors, and let that fear bring about your
courage.

[[Page S2050]]

Now is your time to stare at despair and say: You will not have the
last word because I am going to stand up, and at least I can give one
person hope in this country. Can I give one person hope in this
country?
So what do I want from my fellow Americans? Do better than me. Do
better than we, in this body. We are flawed and failed people.
I see people showing up at our townhalls, yelling at us, Democrat and
Republican: Do more. How are you letting this happen?
Well, I hate to tell you, we are doing all that I can think of. This
is why I am standing here trying to give voice to those people. But
what is more needed from now is less people sitting on the sidelines,
less people being witnesses of American history and more people
determined to make it, to make history, to call to the conscience of
this Nation, to say: I will not stand for another American to lose
their healthcare for a billionaire. I will not stand for another
veteran who is dedicated to stopping the suicide of other veterans to
lose their job. I won't stand for the air quality in my community to be
made worse because they are letting polluters pollute more. I won't
stand for the collective assaults on the Constitution by a man who even
the highest Judge in our land, a Republican-appointed Judge, said: Stop
threatening and bullying other branches of government.
When is it going to be enough? My voice is inadequate. My efforts
today are inadequate to stop what they are trying to do.
But we the people are powerful. We are strong. We have changed
history. We have bent the arc of the moral universe, and now is that
moral moment again. It is the moral moment again.
God bless America. We need you now. God bless America. If you love
her, if you love your neighbor, if you love this country, show your
love. Stop them from doing what they are trying to do.
And for almost 20 hours we have laid out what they are trying to do--
20 hours. I want to stand more, and I will, but I am begging people:
Don't let this be another normal day in America. Please, God--please,
God--don't let them take Medicaid away from 10, 20, 30, or 40 million
Americans who desperately need it. Don't let them do it.
Mr. KING. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. I will yield to my dear friend whom I owe an apology. The
last hours of your birthday, as I was preparing for this, I realize we
have a special bond. Before I yield, I want to tell this guy--
Mr. KING. The Senator was discussing--
Mr. BOOKER. Hold on. I yield, but I retain the right to the floor. So
I yield, but I retain the right to the floor.
Mr. BOOKER. I yield, but I retain the right to the floor.
Mr. KING. I want to ask you questions about veterans in this country,
but before I do, you talk a lot about courage.
Mr. BOOKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. KING. And how the world has been changed by people of courage,
and I look down at my tie that I have on today, which has the signers
of the Declaration of Independence, and we think of that as a sacred
document, an important document, in our history. But these people had
the courage to put their lives on the line for a radical idea that
people could govern themselves, that we could be independent of a
monarchy, and they were putting their lives on the line.
That is courage, and I am afraid we have people around here, Senator,
who won't put their jobs on the line for the idea of America, for our
Constitution, for the guarantees that are provided in the Constitution,
for the First Amendment, for the structure of the Constitution, for the
independence and separation of powers, which is what provides the
protection, the essential protection, for our freedoms.
But let me ask a question about veterans. We had a hearing this
morning in the Veterans' Affairs Committee. We were hearing nominees,
and I commented that here we are, mostly voting on nominees in this
extraordinary historic time as if everything is normal.
What I said in the committee this morning was we are playing ``Nearer
My God'' on the deck of the Titanic, and we are talking about all these
nominees and all these votes that we are having and not talking about
what is happening to our country.
In terms of veterans, here is what is happening. No. 1, every time
the guy with the chain saw takes so much pleasure in firing people, if
you hear about 1,000 people fired in this government, chances are over
300 of them are veterans. Thirty-percent of the Federal workforce is
veterans. In the VA, I suspect it is an even higher number.
So what is happening in the Veterans' Administration? The first thing
that happened was a hiring freeze, and the hiring freeze affected
everybody in the Veterans' Administration until somebody said: Well,
wait a minute, what about doctors and nurses? What about direct care
workers? And they said: Oh, wait a minute, we didn't mean for that.
That is sort of symbolic of the way this thing is going because they
are not thinking. It is ready, fire, aim, time after time. So you have
a hiring freeze. Then they say: Wait a minute, there is this group we
want to do, but then they leave the hiring freeze in place for the
people that are working behind the scenes.
I think the Senator will agree that if nobody is there to answer the
phone when a veteran calls to make a claim or make an appointment, that
is a denial of benefits just as if they cut the benefits.
OK. So 2,400 people fired--and by the way, those people being fired
are getting emails that say you are being fired for poor performance.
There was no analysis of performance. There was no examination of how
they were actually doing or whether these people were contributing. It
was random. It was people who were on probation. Do you know why?
Because they are easier to fire under our laws.
So we have got people being fired, ostensibly, for poor performance.
Think of that as somebody who has put their life on the line for their
country because they are a veteran, and then they go to work in public
service for the Veterans' Administration, and they are being told poor
performance when everybody knows that is a sham.
So the next thing that happens is the Veterans' Administration
announces they are going to fire 83,000 people over the next 6 months.
Now, they say we are going to return to the size of the Veterans'
Administration it was in 2019. No. 1, that is an arbitrary number. Why
not 2020 or 2016? You know, it is an arbitrary number. It is not based
on any analysis or deep thought.
Here is the problem, Senator. I want you to be ready to respond to
this. Here is the problem: There have been seven major pieces of
legislation benefiting veterans since 2019, the biggest of which, of
course, is the PACT Act, the largest expansion of a veterans' benefit
program in probably the last 30 or 40 years, and you need people to
administer that program. And instead, they are firing people.
The Secretary of the Veterans' Administration says: Don't worry. It
is not going to affect services at all. I don't think that statement
passes the straight-face test.
Then we have a statement from the VA that says: We have very
proudly--we have canceled 600 contracts, but they won't tell us what
they are.
I am on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. We don't know what they are.
We don't know what the plan is for those 83,000 people that are going
to be fired. I guess my question is: What do you think of an
organization that says to a veteran: Thank you for your service, you
are fired?
Mr. BOOKER. Well, as we were talking earlier, the firings are adding
up. It is now going to be 80,000 people from the VA alone, a
disproportionate number of veterans. So that is a rollback in service.
We already know that veterans in all of the government Agencies
represent about 24 percent of the government workers we are talking
about that are getting fired. And these are veterans--as I read their
stories--that just want to keep serving their country from the national
parks to serving their fellow veterans and helping them get healthcare.
We are seeing people that get exemplary reviews and then they are
fired as probationary workers under the only way they can, according to
laws, to say that they are a bad Federal worker.
Then they get insult on top of it when the highest--the most powerful

[[Page S2051]]

man in the world and the richest man in the world, Trump and Musk, come
together and call the guy making $45,000 serving other veterans, they
call him a leech; they call him a parasite.
And so I hear what you are saying. Like, these are folks that I read
their stories. They did things that few Americans would do. They went
overseas and served in combat.
We had one of our dear friends here who lost her legs in combat, but
she stands taller than most all the people in this body. These are the
people that are so ingrained in their bodies and minds and souls to
serve America, to love America. This President calls somebody like John
McCain a sucker--the guy who dodged the draft.
So I hear what you are saying, and one of the things I heard you
saying is it makes no sense. Nobody came to the Veterans' Affairs
Committee in the Senate who actually approves the resources,
establishes the Agencies, and should have the say--according to this
document, this civically sacred text, our Constitution.
So what are you going to say to them if you don't even know what the
plan is, you can't even explain to us what is your plan to making the
VA system more efficient.
Here is the other thing. We passed in this body some of my favorite
Senators like Jon Tester, whom I miss so much--maybe I just miss
bumping into the guy because he was the only person in the Senate who
let me run hallway all the way and hit him.

I used to joke that it was this test to see what happens when the
unstoppable force beats the immovable object. He is a void in this
place, but he stood for that PACT Act. He has the most fiery speeches,
and finally we got that bill passed. We had to add tens of thousands of
jobs because of the increased hundreds of thousands of people that were
affected from these burn pits or from other challenges, and now we are
cutting back 83,000 employees.
Patty Murray said something that affected me in my first weeks as a
Senator when I, in New Jersey, sat down with women veterans, and they
told me how long they had to wait for gynecological care. So what is
this administration doing in its 83,000 cuts? Are they going to improve
services to our female veterans? I don't believe it. I don't believe
it. Show me I am wrong because we have an article I duty: oversight;
checks and balances. Are we doing that right now?
One of the worst things I have seen happen in national security--and
by the way, there are national security screwups on both parties.
Nobody has a monopoly on this. Let's not be overly partisan here. But
weeks ago, our--who are supposed to be the pros and set the example,
our national security leadership was using a commercial app to
communicate classified documents, and they had it on disappearing
messages so they are violating the law of the land called the
Preserving Public Records Act.
Now, I have heard from Republicans and Democrats. This is outrageous.
There should be an investigation. We should be asking commonsense
questions. Was this a pattern and practice of communication? How many
other things that are classified have you been communicating about?
There is a lot of really important questions that you should have to
answer to, but where are the hearings, folks?
I just wonder why this body is shrinking from the articulated duties
that we all raised our hands and said we would defend and preserve this
Constitution and what it says we should do, what it says our jobs
should do.
But you are Senator. I am a Senator. I can't tell you what the cut in
the VA plan is. I can't tell you. They haven't come in here and told
us. Are we doing our job? I can't tell you are we preserving and
fighting for national security after one of the biggest national
security scandals I have seen since I have been here.
They don't have providence in a partisan way, but they should answer
for it. Are we doing our constitutional duty?
What about the administration that is ending the Consumer Finance
Protection Bureau, ending that Agency, ending the Department of
Education? Do they have the right to do that according to this
document? No.
Are we saying: Hey, we are going to stand up for the people who
preserved this document? No. Thank God for the article III branch of
government because they are being dragged into court, and Republican-
appointed judges and Democrat-appointed judges are saying you can't do
it.
Do you know what Trump is doing? He is ignoring the courts, and then
he is demonizing the judges. You know that threats on judges in
America, that threats have gone up 400 percent.
You know, I had a Federal judge--God bless her--where somebody
thought they were going to her house. They did. She wasn't home, and
they murdered her son and shot her husband. And Trump is out there
threatening judges, dragging them on Twitter or X or whatever he is
calling it now.
This is America. I know people on both sides of the aisle. We believe
in common decency. We believe in respect. We believe that the highest
office in the land should represent the best of our values not the
worst, not a guy we wouldn't even let babysit our kids.
So I don't know what is going on with veterans, but I am not going to
sit by and do nothing. That is why I am standing here. That is why I
read the voices of so many veterans. Let's elevate the voices of the
Americans who are being hurt and harmed. Let's talk for them if they
can't talk for themselves. Let's tell them that we see you, we love
you, and that all of us, we are going to fight for you.
Mr. SCHIFF. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. From you, my friend, who doubled the number of vegans in
the Senate, I yield for a question while retaining the floor. Thank you
for being here.
Mr. SCHIFF. I thank you for being here, Senator Booker. I always knew
you were a towering intellect and a phenomenal and passionate speaker
and advocate, but I did not know your stamina until today, and I am
delighted to join you on the floor and have this opportunity to engage
in a dialogue with you.
Mr. BOOKER. You can't engage in a dialogue. The Parliamentarian is
going to stare me down. You can ask me questions.
Mr. SCHIFF. I stand corrected. I am happy not to engage in a dialogue
with you but to ask you a question.
Mr. BOOKER. I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. SCHIFF. Let me ask the question this way. I was in the airport
yesterday when someone handed me a note that said: ``Please save our
country.''
``Please save our country.''
And I think the genesis of the note was her profound concern over the
direction of this country, over the increasingly authoritarian
direction of this country and what is happening to the rule of law in
America.
We look at institution after institution, and we see the guardrails
of our democracy coming down. We see an assault on the rule of law
unlike anything we have seen in modern history, maybe in the entire
history of the United States of America--each and every institution,
and why? Because they can, because they feel they can. So they are
going after the colleges and universities.
Mr. BOOKER. Right.
Mr. SCHIFF. They are going after the institutions of higher learning.
This was an attack that was presaged by JD Vance years ago in his
speech where he talked about ``the professors are the enemy.'' They
have to go after ``the seat of learning.''
So they are going after the universities, and they are using enormous
cudgel: We will cut off your funds. We will cut off hundreds of
millions in your funds if you do things, if you say things that we in
the administration don't like. If you irritate the personal
predilection of the President, you will have your funding cut. It is
unlawful; it is illegal; and yet they are doing it because they can.
Mr. BOOKER. Yes.
Mr. SCHIFF. They are going after major American law firms because
these law firms had the audacity, the unmitigated temerity to hire
lawyers or have lawyers who would take on causes inimical to the
President's personal interests.
So they are going after these firms, and they are threatening the
livelihood of these firms. We will close the courthouse doors. We will
cut your clients off from contracts unless you kiss the ring.

[[Page S2052]]

And, of course, it is not just the firms or what they represent. It
is everyone who is in need of a lawyer who now needs to know that, if
they run afoul of the policy preference of the administration, they may
never get a lawyer.
And why are they doing this at law firms? Because they can.
And they are going after judges. They are calling for the impeachment
of judges. The latest is Judge Boasberg, in a case involving the
administration grabbing a bunch of people, designating them as part of
a Venezuelan gang, and without any due process, without any process at
all, taking them to some maximum security prison in El Salvador, and,
in fact, it would appear, doing so even against the court order, when
the judge said: Turn those planes around.
Now, why are they encouraging the impeachment of a judge?
Well, I impeached a judge here. I was a lead manager before there was
an impeachment of Donald Trump--or two of them. I led an impeachment of
a corrupt judge. It is the same standard of high crimes and
misdemeanors. It is not a high crime or misdemeanor to disagree in a
case brought before a Federal district court, to disagree with the
flawed reasoning of the government.
Why are they doing this to judges? Because they can. Because they
can.
They are going after the press. They are going after the press and
saying: If you don't call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, we
are going to prevent you from attending press events at the White House
or on Air Force One. And why are they doing this, this party that
claims to be against censorship?
Why are they doing this to the press? Because they can. And they will
continue to do so as long as they believe that they can until we--and
not just we in this body, but we in this country--stand up to them and
tell them: No, you can't. No, you can't.
If the slogan years ago was ``Yes, we can,'' today it has to be ``No,
you can't.''
No, you can't trample the rights of the American people. No, you
can't censor our speech. No, you can't bring the weight of the Justice
Department down on the American people. No, you can't because we are
going to stand together.
We universities are not going to let you pick one of us off. We are
going to band together.
No, we are not going to let you go after the law firms. We are going
to band together.
No, we are not going to let you go after the press organizations. We
are going to demand free speech.
Until we come together, until we mobilize in a massive way together
to say, ``No, you can't; no, you can't,'' they will continue to believe
that, yes, they can violate the law with impunity.
So my question, Senator Booker, is how do we tell them: No, you
can't--not with our country. No, you can't violate the law, violate our
values, violate our interests. No, you can't.
How do we tell the administration no?
Mr. BOOKER. My friend and colleague, I am hoping that we can figure
out thousands of ignition points where Americans can stand up and do
that call to their fellow Americans to do more. I am not upset at the
folks that have been saying to Democratic Senators and House Members,
and to me, challenging me--I have talked to so many of my constituents
who said: You have got to do more.
And all of us have to interrogate ourselves because, like I said at
the very beginning of this--at 7 p.m. on Monday night, I said: We have
to say to history where we stood--where we stood when they were coming
after our constitutional principles, where we stood when they were
threatening judges to impeach them for making just decisions, where we
stood when they were taking law firms and threatening their business
unless they came and kowtowed to the great leader, where we stood when
they were disappearing people from America without due process that
even Antonin Scalia said they should have. Where were you when they
came after the healthcare of the disabled, the healthcare of the
children, the healthcare of the expectant mothers, the healthcare of
seniors? Where were you when they attacked veterans, laying them off
for no justifiable reason and attacking the VA services that they rely
on?
Where were you when we turned our back on Ukraine? Where were you
when we turned our back on our alliances?
Where were you when they took the economy down with tariffs, when
they took the economy down by threatening it so consumer confidence
drops? Where were you?
How many things are going on before we answer the question, as it
says in Hebrew, Hineini. Hineini. Behold, Lord, here I am.
And so I confess that I have been imperfect. I confess that I have
been inadequate to the moment. I confess that the Democratic Party has
made terrible mistakes, that it gave a lane to this demagogue.
I confess we all must look in the mirror and say we will do better.
And it is not just fighting ourselves on what we are against. We, the
next generation, as the baby boomers are leaving the stage--the last
baby boomer President--we have to say that we are going to redeem the
dream. We are going to dream America anew.
We are going to start talking about bold things that don't divide
people, that unite people--bold things that excite the moral
imagination of a country to do better, to go higher, to call us
together. This is the time when new leaders in our country must emerge.
I am not talking about Senators. I am talking about citizens. This
time of despair and darkness doesn't demand more darkness. We don't
need to demean and degrade people who disagree with us. This is a time
for us to do something bigger than that.

Do you think Martin Luther King in Birmingham hated Bull Connor or
said: I am going to defeat this guy by bringing bigger dogs and bigger
firehoses.
No. But he did say: We are going to be so creative that we are going
to inspire the moral imagination of the Nation. We are going to call to
the conscience of the country. We are going to excite them about who we
could be.
When he went to the March on Washington he didn't stand there and
complain about the demagogues. Listen to his speech. He didn't stand
there and demean and degrade the Governor of Alabama. He didn't stand
there and talk down to Bull Connor.
No, he stood before the American people and said:

It is not what you are against; it is what you are for.
I have a dream.

And now it is our generation. We have to redeem the dream. We have to
excite people again.
He, in the highest office of our land, wants to divide us against
ourselves, wants to make us afraid, wants to make us fear so much that
we are willing to violate people's fundamental rights, we are willing
to go after the speech on college campuses, to go after law firms, to
go after freedom of the press. Don't let him do that.
Don't become like him. Be an American that says: I look to the
future, and I am excited. Yes, things are tough right now. They are
hard. They are scary. They are hurting. But we can overcome this.
Our American history, if it is nothing else--American history, if it
is nothing else--it is a perpetual testimony to the achievement of
impossible things against impossible odds. We are a nation that is
great, not because of the people that are trying to whitewash our
history, to remove great people, Native Americans, Black people, and
women from our military websites.
I don't want a Disney vacation of our history. I don't want to
whitewash history. I don't want to homogenize history. Tell me the
wretched truth about America because that speaks to our greatness.
And so what do I want the people to do? It starts with us, man, and
you are doing it. I see the courage of my colleagues. We are doing it,
but we have to do more. And I am sorry. I am not going to be a
politician that is going to say: We are going to do more for you.
I am going to be a politician, I am going to be a leader that demands
more from America.
Mr. SCHIFF. Will the Senator yield for one last question?
Mr. BOOKER. I yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. SCHIFF. Well, this gets to exactly, Senator Booker, your point. I
am optimistic about this country, notwithstanding this deep, difficult,
dark

[[Page S2053]]

period we are in. I am optimistic about this country, and I am
optimistic because of something that Alexis de Tocqueville might have
said. There is some dispute about whether he actually said this.
Mr. BOOKER. The mere fact that you can quote Alexis de Tocqueville--
you have got me. You have me.
Mr. SCHIFF. I would like to believe he said this:

America is a great country because America is a good
country.

If he didn't say it, he should have said it, because it is true. This
country is what makes me an optimist. There are wonderful, beautiful,
patriotic people in every State of the Union, and they will see us
through this. But it does, I think, require all of us to be reminded,
every now and then, of the better angels of our nature.
Now, I remember standing in that well during the first impeachment of
Donald Trump.
Mr. BOOKER. I remember being right here in this seat watching you.
Mr. SCHIFF. And I will tell you, I approached that case as a
prosecutor would approach a case--that I just needed to prove the
President guilty of what he was charged with. But it became apparent
very quickly that that was not enough, that notwithstanding the
abundant evidence of his guilt, I needed to show something more. I
needed to show that it was dangerous to keep him in office.
Now, tragically, events since have proven my point. But I made a
different argument at that point of the trial, which I think gets us to
the present moment, which is that truth should matter to us, what is
right should matter to us. And even if it doesn't matter to the
President, it should matter to us that we are decent as Americans. We
are decent. We are good and decent people, as Americans. That is who we
are.
We don't believe that when someone is needing medical help that they
should be turned away. We don't believe that we should turn our back on
our neighbor. We believe in extending our hand. We believe we should be
able to disagree with each other without it becoming a personal hatred
or antagonism. We are Americans. This is who we are.
I do think sometimes we forget, and we have to remind ourselves that,
as Elijah Cummings used to say, ``We are better than this.''
Mr. BOOKER. Yes.
Mr. SCHIFF. We are better than this.
Mr. BOOKER. Yes, I miss Elijah.
Mr. SCHIFF. And you remind us of this all the time, Senator Booker.
You really do. You also remind us that we are not defined by what we
are against. We are defined by what we are for. And I am fully on the
same page with you that we haven't lived up to our responsibility as a
party and what we are for.
I think our democracy is in trouble because our economy has been in
trouble. And I think our economy has been in trouble because it is not
like after the Depression or during the Depression, or the great
recession, when people were out of work. The problem today is not that
people are out of work. The problem today is that people are working.
They are working, and they still can't get by.
And you have too many millions of Americans who see their quality of
life, and they look at what their parents had and see it as better, and
they look at the future for their kids and see it as worse.
And amidst that economic difficulty, they are ready to embrace anyone
who offers something different, any demagogue who comes along and
promises them they can fix it.
And while this demagogue is not going to fix it and, indeed, has made
their lot much worse, it is not going to fix itself. It falls on us to
come up with those big ideas.
Mr. BOOKER. Yes.
Mr. SCHIFF. Now, some of those big ideas are not new. Medicare for
all, which I support, is a big idea. That would expand healthcare
access for millions of people and make sure people, parents can go to
work and understand if they get sick or their kid gets sick that they
will have access to healthcare.
We haven't kept pace with changes in the nature of work, changes that
are going to accelerate with artificial intelligence, changes which
have meant that, over the last several decades, as the country has
become more productive, that productivity and prosperity has simply not
been shared with the people who made it possible.
And I think this economic anxiety, which is felt all over the world
with these global changes in the marketplace, have put great stress on
the whole democratic experiment.
(Mr. BANKS assumed the Chair.)
If democracy is not working for people, they will flirt with other
models, like authoritarianism. But we are here to tell folks that is
not the direction we want to go in. But it is still incumbent on us to
offer bold ideas for how we can make the economy work for people again.
But I do think that what has led people into such bitter antagonisms
with each other has been a lot of this uncertainty, the feeling that
they are only a car payment or a health problem away from failure. It
is up to us to address that. So I join you, Senator Booker, and your
optimism about the American people. I join you in the call on all of
us, really, in both parties.

But if they are not going to do it, it falls on us to put forward the
big bold economic plans that will ensure that we can answer the central
question of our time, which is, if you are working hard in America, can
you still earn a good living?
We need to be able to answer that question, ``Yes, you can.''
Right now, what we are seeing with this tax cut for billionaires and
large corporations is just going to make the problem so much worse.
But I want to thank you, Senator Booker, for your irrepressible
optimism about the country, which I share. I want to thank you for
seizing the helm today and every day to put forward that positive
vision for our Country.
And my question is, Where do you find the energy, my friend?
Mr. BOOKER. I don't know. I am finding it from my colleagues right
now. I am finding it from my friends. I am finding it from their heart
and their commitment, and I am finding it from the people whose names
and stories we are reading. You know I appreciate your friendship. I am
so happy you are my colleague now.
And I believe that our future, our tomorrows--as bad as things seem,
I still believe our tomorrows are better than our yesterdays. I know
you share it.
Mr. SCHIFF. Amen.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. Before I yield to you, I just want you to know, I love
you, my friend. Thanks for doing some good things recently, you and I,
trying to solve some big problems. I appreciate that.
I yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Senator. Unlike Senator Schiff who said
that he didn't know of your stamina before now, I knew well the stamina
of Cory Booker. I have always admired it--not just physical stamina,
but moral stamina, the courage of conviction, the stamina to stand up
and speak truth to power, which has become now one of the most common
phrases that is used in public life.
But Cory Booker has epitomized it throughout his career, not only in
this body, but as mayor of Newark and as a leader in sports when he was
an all-American athlete at Stanford. That physical stamina was matched
by a moralism that is invaluable today because Americans have come to
prize, above all, integrity, authenticity, genuineness, which Cory
Booker epitomizes.
It is not just his eloquence today on the floor and the soaring
rhetoric that we have heard from him; it is his understanding and his
sense of real-life impacts of what we do here on everyday Americans,
and what everyday Americans are doing right now as we speak here on the
floor.
Everyday Americans are in the grocery stores where they are seeing
higher and higher prices. Everyday Americans are at the VA hospital
where their doctors and nurses and clinicians and schedulers and
counselors may be out of a job because they may be among the tens of
thousands targeted for dismissal. Everyday Americans are in schools, K
through 12 and higher education, where the resources available for
their teachers in the classrooms right now in realtime are going to be

[[Page S2054]]

cut. In fact, the workforce at the Department of Education will be cut
by one half as we speak and funds will be no longer available to teach
everyday Americans.
And, of course, everyday Americans right now are in hospitals and
clinics. They are undergoing treatment for life-threatening diseases.
Right now, they are lying on a hospital bed with a needle in their arm,
receiving other kinds of treatment that have been made available--
lifesaving treatments--by the research at NIH that will be crippled
because of the cuts that we are seeing.
And, of course, everyday Americans are receiving Social Security
checks, and Social Security will be cut by this administration--
Medicaid that provides for those everyday Americans who are in doctors'
offices right now in America, even as we engage in this kind of soaring
rhetoric.
Everyday Americans are contending with the real-life problems of
living in America. We live in a country that has never been so unequal
in terms of wealth and pay. If we look back to our own history, we see
that inequality is a danger to us all. The stock market crash and
depression occurred after the gilded age, when inequality became so
drastic that the middle class was in danger.
And, of course, everyday Americans who, right now in the military,
are experiencing anger, disgust, fear because the secrets about what
they are doing, even as they engage in operations around the world--
like those pilots who were going to bomb the Houthis, engaged in that
Top Secret mission have learned that the details of that mission--the
time of their launch, the targets, the timing of their strikes, the
weather, the identity of their targets--all were being discussed over a
nonsecure channel by a careless, reckless Secretary of Defense. I don't
need to go into the details of what was discussed, except to say our
allies are reacting with that same disgust, anger, and fear and they
are having doubts about sharing intelligence with us. The Israelis are
outraged by what they have seen. The intel communities of other
countries are aghast and appalled.
And we have yet to explore fully all of the potential ramifications,
like what other conversations may have been on that unsecured kind of
platform. Who else knew about them, what the motives were? There needs
to be a criminal investigation. I have called for it. And everyday
Americans have a right to be fearful and angry, just as those pilots
should be and our allies and intelligence communities all around the
world. We need not only an investigation, we need action to hold
accountable the individuals--beginning with the Secretary of Defense,
who should resign; the National Security Advisor, who should resign--
but a criminal investigation launched by the FBI National Security
Division, to hold accountable anyone responsible for this breakdown of
security, to meet the standard of public service that Senator Booker
has outlined as what we should demand of ourselves, and the
responsibility that the American people have a right to deserve.

So my question, really, is about the standard of public service that
we should expect of our leaders and whether there is something we can
do.
I am asked so often, Senator Booker, as I go back to Connecticut, and
I am sure you are in New Jersey: What can we do?
What can we do?
You are meeting us on the floor of the Senate by showing what we
should be doing--fighting back, sounding the alarm for everyday
Americans who are in the grocery store, in their schools, at the VA
clinics, Social Security offices. What can we do?
Mr. BOOKER. I am going to answer your question. I want to say thank
you. There have been so many Congress people coming on to the floor
from the House of Representatives. It reminds me of some other times
when big things were happening and people would come to the floor. But
this is a lot more, and I just want to express thank you for your
kindness.
I also called the chairwoman of the CBC last night, texted her, and
the force of the CBC, which has been giving me spirit and strength for
a long time, is really one of the best parts of my time here as a U.S.
Senator. The fact they have come through constantly means a lot to me.
I am grateful that my cousin Pam has been here the entire time--just
like Chris Murphy--the entire time in the Gallery. I love her and I am
grateful for her. She is sitting next to my brother. I am thankful for
that.
I want to answer your question. I get it all the time, and I am not
sure how to answer it all the time. I read letters that got me
emotional in the middle of the night where somebody would detail all
their challenges. They would render personal information to me in
letters about their struggles with healthcare, about their conditions,
about their pain, about their hurt--just sending it out to their
government official that they never probably met, hoping that they
might just listen to you and be activated by your voice. Then many of
them ended the letter with that question: I am here to help you in any
way. It really moves me because I believe in the decency of our
country.
And so I just want to try to answer that question more with me trying
to think creatively about more that I could do as a leader because, as
I said before, I think we as Democratic leaders have to start thinking
more creatively. Obviously, we don't control the Senate, we don't
control the House; but we have positions that were given to us in trust
by the people we represent. In moments like this, they require us to be
more creative or more imaginable or more persistent and dogged and
determined.
I say that in front of some of my colleagues on the floor I know
personally, like you, and some of my CBC colleagues sitting over here
to my right who have been my rock for almost 13 years.
I just know, before I turn to my left to the woman who represents the
most important person in my 55 years, my mom--I just want to say that
the answer to that question has to be something that I will do,
something more than I am doing now because the cause is so great, the
challenges are so real.
I will do something that I have not done before to try to help my
neighbor at a time of moral crisis in our country, and that I may be
afraid, my voice may shake, but I am going to speak up more. I may be
demoralized by what is happening, but I am going to find a way to get
out of bed and breathe and know that I can make myself feel a little
bit better by helping another person.
I don't know what it is, but we have to help each other now through
this and know--I am a person of faith, and it was said to me by a
colleague that though we would be willing to work through the night,
but joy will come.
I am going to turn to my left because I always say that she is a
Senator, but she has had one of the hardest jobs in all of America,
which is to be the President of a shule. I met her and I realized she
could probably do anything.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I know about that.
Mr. BOOKER. Yes, I am not Jewish, but my name is Booker, so I always
say I am meshuga Booker.
There is a formal way I have to do this. I see you, I love you, and I
am wondering if you have something to ask me.
Ms. ROSEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. I yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Ms. ROSEN. Well, Booker, you are a people of the book--people of the
book.
Mr. BOOKER. That is powerful.
Ms. ROSEN. It is very powerful--the book you believe in, the books
you believe in, what you read. We heard everyone quote the Bible,
philosophers, great thinkers, and leaders and you are one of them. It
has been my privilege to sit here next to you on this desk for the last
6 years I have been here, the best seat in the Senate.
Mr. BOOKER. You and I.
Ms. ROSEN. And take care of your mother who is my constituent--my
constituent.
Mr. BOOKER. Yes.
Ms. ROSEN. I have your precious mother in our hands.
Mr. BOOKER. Whom I suspect, like my cousin and my brother in the
Galleries, that my mom is watching--
Ms. ROSEN. Yes. Well--
Mr. BOOKER.--from Las Vegas.
Ms. ROSEN. And we appreciate what a good mother she was and how she
raised you to be strong and to be smart and to be kind, and boy, oh,
boy, did

[[Page S2055]]

she give you some damned stamina. I will just tell you that, sir. We
are in awe.
But my question is, thank you, Mr. Booker. Thank you for what you are
doing. Thank you for using your voice to stand up against the Trump
administration's reckless and extreme policies. We have a lot to talk
about here, so I am going to bring it back to Nevada because we have a
lot of families in my State, and just like you, those letters are
overwhelming and they bring me to tears. They stop me in the grocery
store, in the airport, in the shopping mall, and in the gas station
over and over again. People are worried. They are worried, and they
want us to help. They are wondering about this.
People have talked to me about how high costs at the grocery store
are squeezing their budgets. They are concerned that the Trump
tariffs--well, what are they going to do? Prices ain't going down. They
are going to make prices go up instead of going down. President Trump
declared tomorrow is liberation day--liberation day. This is when he
plans to impose the latest round of across-the-board tariffs for goods
on several nations--tariffs that amount to a national sales tax on
every single person who goes through a grocery store in Nevada and in
New Jersey.
I see my esteemed colleague Senator Duckworth of Illinois.
In every State in this Nation, there will be tariffs that will amount
to being a national sales tax.
Now, Nevada's economy relies heavily on tourism. I don't have to tell
anyone that. These tariffs don't target tourism specifically, but make
no mistake, they will have a profound impact on a city like Las Vegas--
the entertainment capital of the world--because when prices go up
across the board, what happens? Families' budgets at the kitchen
table--those kitchen table budgets are squeezed. It means the number of
visitors coming to Las Vegas and the neighbors who fuel our economy go
down. It means the price for every single person at every single hotel
and for every single service we have goes up because of those tariffs.
So it is going to have a devastating impact on Nevada--on our local
economy, on our small businesses. Ninety-nine percent of businesses in
Nevada are small businesses--small businesses. It is going to have a
devastating impact on them and the good-paying jobs they support.
We see the impact. International travel is down in the United
States--down. Now, that is a whole other discussion. Someone will be
asking that question too. It is driving down our visitor numbers. It
hurts our economy in Nevada. It hurts our economy all across this great
Nation. In fact, looking for flights to Canada? They are already down
by 70 percent compared to last year. Canada--our great neighbor,
partner, and ally to the north--is down 70 percent.
The most troubling part is that a recent report estimates that up to
14,000 jobs--hospitality jobs--could be at risk due to decreased
international travel as a result of these horrible, misguided tariffs.
I just want to tell you that I am looking at all of my colleagues,
and I am looking at you, and you have given us the inspiration to stand
here, to use our voice, to use our power to show that we are not
without a say in this country. We are not without a say, and we cannot
go quietly ever without that fight.
So, Senator Booker, I want to ask you what you think these tariffs
are going to do not just to the place where your mom lives in Las Vegas
but where families live all across this country and with every price at
the market and every price at the gas station, the mall--wherever you
go, wherever you go--and where people depend, like my Nevadans, on
their livelihood for tourism.
So I will repeat what Senator Blumenthal said: Senator Booker, what
can we do? That is the question we are asked: What can we do?
Mr. BOOKER. I want to answer your question, but first I want to just
say what you already know. You represent my mom. You represent one of
her best friends, Lou. You represent my Aunt Shirley. You represent my
Uncle Butch. You represent my Aunt Marilyn. You represent so much of my
family.
This is the place where my father died, and when Harry Reid came to
his bedside when he was sick and I was still running for this office
and he showed me the extraordinary kindness of Senators from Nevada--
that tradition has continued. I am so grateful for you. My family is
grateful for you. I am grateful that we were founders of the Black
Jewish Caucus, and, in fact, I am going to--
Ms. ROSEN. Our Juneteenth seder is coming up.
Mr. BOOKER. Our Juneteenth seder is coming up. I am going to put this
on as you have it on.
I think about Edan Alexander and all those who are suffering. I am
just so grateful for our friendship and what we have done against anti-
Semitism, about what we have done for the Abraham Accords. You and I
are those who find a lot of ways to work with people.
The best thing I saw in you was on January 6. Sitting in this row
were me, you, and Mark Kelly, and I always say that often in the most
difficult of circumstances, you see the best of people. I don't know if
you remember this, but staffers started coming in. They rushed in.
Usually, you have to have special identification. Then some of them
stood behind us. They were crying, they were upset, and they were
frightened. I just watched you go from Senator to mother, and I watched
you comforting people in their times of fear--when they thought they
were going to be killed, literally--and you were this voice of comfort,
this voice of calm. I saw you in one of our country's worst crises. I
saw your light. I saw your love. I saw the Jewish mom, and I benefited
from that.
I just feel that Trump mocks us. What does his liberation day mean to
the people who are shackled to debt? They are shackled with medical
debt and they are shackled with student debt so that they can't afford
the rising costs of groceries.
What does his liberation mean to people who are chained by fear, who
are right now waiting with bated breath to see if the Medicaid Programs
they rely on are going to be cut?
What does his liberation mean to people who are literally in jails
right now because they were disappeared from our streets?
What does his liberation mean to people who can't afford homes
because of his tariffs or to people who dreamed of a new car but that
is going to go up as well?
I don't know what he means by ``liberation.'' I honestly don't. I
wish he could explain it to the American people.
Who is liberated? In these financial times, who is liberated? I don't
think the law firms feel liberated. They are so threatened by you that
they felt the only way they could get out from under the threat of you
is to come to you and beg and offer and say ``We will do this'' and say
``We will give you millions of dollars of pro bono work.'' I don't
think they feel liberated.
What about the people who are banned from the press corps because
they won't call it the Gulf of America? The idea of the freedom of the
press--do they feel his liberty? What does his liberty mean?
What does Donald Trump's liberty day tomorrow mean in a nation where
I read in letter after letter of people who feel like their liberty is
gone, that they are losing sleep at night, worried about Social
Security?
What does liberty mean to the veteran who was laid off who fought for
my liberty?
What does Donald Trump's liberty mean? What is he talking about?
What does his liberty mean to Canada, who fought next to us, who died
next to Americans who were fighting for our own causes? What does his
liberty mean to them?
I don't understand Donald Trump. I really don't. There are going to
be Ph.D. students writing about him for generations. He will love that
in Heaven. He will look down and say: I am so happy that people are
talking about me.
But I will tell you this: I love great Presidents. I love that
Lincoln said:

With malice toward none, with charity [toward] all.

But I hear Donald Trump say with malice toward everybody who does not
tell him how great he is, and charity--I don't know if he understands
that, what it means to have sympathy and

[[Page S2056]]

compassion and empathy and to help people whether they like you or not.
I love great Presidents. I love FDR: ``You have nothing to fear but
fear itself.'' But in letter after letter after letter was the word
``fear'' and the word ``terror.'' I was reading from voices from my
State and across the country. It says: If Donald Trump is saying be
afraid, be afraid of me, the big man with the power. Be afraid. Be
afraid. Be afraid.
There was another President who said, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this
wall.'' Yet Ukrainian-Americans are watching their President go not
``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall''; they are saying ``Hey, Mr.
Putin, come in and take the Donbas. I am going to start the
negotiations--not with Zelenskyy at the table. I am going to call him a
dictator. I am going to start the negotiations from a position of
giving Putin what he wants--Ukrainian sovereign land--and that is where
we will start the negotiation.''
I love John F. Kennedy. Quoting a poet: ``Ask not what your country
can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.'' With Donald
Trump, it is not ``Ask not what your country can do for you''; it is
``Ask what can you do for Donald Trump because I will threaten you
until you kowtow. I will threaten to run primaries against you if you
don't fall in line and vote for things you know are wrong. I will
terrorize your law firm unless you come to me and kiss my ring. I will
make political your applications for your merger. I will drop cases
against you. I will pardon you if,'' as he said in a recent pardon--he
was a pro-Trump guy.
I don't understand this. I really don't. I don't understand why he
tries to divide Americans.
I got on a plane once. I am on a plane, and I am juggling to put my
carryon up. I get lots of reactions in airports, I have to say on the
whole part, good, but occasionally--I think my colleagues next month,
next May, should send me a Mother's Day card because occasionally I get
called ``you mother'' with something following it.
So here I am putting up my overhead baggage, and I sit down next to
two people--the Presiding Officer before this, my friend from Alabama--
two Alabamians, one 80 years old and one 60 years old, mother and a
daughter.
They saw people paying attention to me, and they said: Who are you?
Are you a professional athlete?
As a middle-age, overweight, Black guy, my ego wasn't insulted. I
wanted to say: Well, I could be, but I chose to serve the people.
But no. I go: No, ma'am, I am not.
Well, who are you then?
Well, I am a Senator.
And we are so conditioned in America. If we meet a Congress person
out and about, the first thing we want to know is, whose team are you
on--my team or their team? It is us versus them. We have a horrible
dynamic of tribalism in our country.
I took a deep breath, and I looked at these two great American women
and said: Ma'am, I am a Democrat.
The woman next to me looks at me, suddenly sour, and she said: I
should have brought my Trump hat.
And she wheeled away from me.
Immediately, I said: Do you know what, I am not going to dance to
this tune. I am going to scratch this record. I am going to scratch
this record.
I looked at her, and I go: Oh, my gosh. Donald Trump signed two of
the biggest bills I wrote in Congress into law--the FIRST STEP Act,
which we passed in this body with 87 votes. We would have gotten 88 if
one of my dear friends and colleagues was not off trying to do whatever
in the world and he wasn't here to vote on it. I talked about
opportunity zones and working with Tim Scott to get billions of dollars
invested into some of our country's poorest rural and urban areas.
Now they were confused, but by the end of that flight, Donald Trump
didn't divide us, though. By the end of that flight, I was talking to
them like fellow Americans, and we found so many points of connection,
so much common humanity, and so much common cause.
These outrage machines--TV and these devices--I want to say to
America that their financial interest is to keep your eyes on the
screen as much as you possibly can. Do you know what sells? Division.
Divide. Moral indignation.
I will tell you this: I have this great friend who is part of the
bald club--Van Jones. He told me this story that he was on
``Crossfire'' on CNN. Van Jones got on with Newt Gingrich.
Van Jones--the green activist guy I met in law school--is an
extraordinary man. He speaks like a poet to me. He worked in the Obama
White House. Then Newt Gingrich is a very known Republican.
The two of them sit down. But Brene Brown writes something
extraordinary. She writes: It is hard to hate up close, so pull people
in.
So they get on this show called ``Crossfire,'' and they found out
that with all the differences they have, they also have commonality,
things they agree on, and they actually kind of like each other.
So they go to the producers, and they say: Hey, could you let us do a
final segment called ``Cease-Fire''? Can you let us do a final segment
called ``Cease-Fire''?
The producer said: Yes. Go ahead. Go ahead.
So they do this last segment talking about the areas where they
agreed, but the producer comes running in after a few segments, saying:
Stop them. Can't do it.
Why? Ratings are going down.
There are a lot of legitimate differences in places where I am going
to stand my ground and fight for people's healthcare, for people's
Social Security. I am going to fight. But I am never going to get in a
position where anybody in this country can make me hate another
American because this is the age where we have to figure out how to
live up to those words up there, ``e pluribus unum.'' That is the call
of our ancestors, to put more ``indivisible'' into this ``one nation
under God.'' That is the challenge.
There are enough things that we agree on in America, especially when
we stop and talk about things--like the child tax credit. Most
Americans are for that.
Ms. DUCKWORTH. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. Oh, gosh, I have been waiting for you. For crying out
loud, why didn't you stop me earlier?
Ms. DUCKWORTH. You were on a roll. You were on a roll.
Mr. BOOKER. Oh, come on. Come on, Senator.
Ms. DUCKWORTH. Will you yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. I yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Ms. DUCKWORTH. I don't know what kind of food you eat on that vegan
diet of yours, but I need to figure out more of that vegan diet.
One place where we can and do care that unites us as a nation is the
role of our Nation's veterans, the heroes who have sacrificed for us--
although, with this President, I guess he doesn't hold veterans in the
same esteem. As someone who has bled for this Nation, I guess I join
the ranks of the suckers and losers who have bled and died for this
Nation, in the President's estimation.
But I just wanted to start off by saying thank you, again, Senator
Booker, for all that you are doing as you hold the floor today but also
every other day to underline the pain and damage that Donald Trump and
Elon Musk are doing not just to our country but to middle-class
Americans throughout our country.
Tragically, that harm even extends to our Nation's veterans, who have
sacrificed so much to protect this country and keep Americans safe, who
should be shielded from this needless chaos and uncertainty.
Senator Booker, I know you are well aware that this administration is
firing more veterans than any other administration in modern history.
It has been reported that this administration, in its first few months
in office, has fired approximately 6,000 veterans from Federal service
across this country.
This list of firings, especially at the VA, has resulted in
operations for our veterans being canceled. We have seen reports of the
caregivers hotline--a hotline that was set up to support the caregivers
who provide medical care given to their loved ones who served and
sacrificed and are now disabled--there are delays in that hotline being
answered because Donald Trump fired all of these veterans.
There are people who support the crisis hotline who were also fired.
I know this because some of them were my

[[Page S2057]]

constituents and asked for help. I had one individual who served in the
military for over two decades and did such a good job on the crisis
hotline as a frontline person answering the phone, trying to prevent
their brothers and sisters from the idea of suicide--they did such a
good job that they were promoted to be a trainer, they were promoted to
be a supervisor, which then made them probationary, and they were
fired.
We were able to get some of these people their jobs back. Some of
them are still out there without their jobs.
This is what Donald Trump and Elon Musk have already done. This does
not help our Nation's veterans. This does not help our Nation's heroes.
If anything, it is a betrayal to them. It is a betrayal, a cruel
betrayal, to the men and women who bravely answered the call to serve
our country in uniform--a call that this President dodged five
different times when he had the opportunity to serve.
Men and women in uniform came home from serving, and many of them
chose to continue their service to our country as Federal employees.
How are Elon and Trump thanking these brave, selfless Americans? They
are doing it by showing them the door and leaving them wondering how
they will be able to afford next week's groceries or next month's rent,
forcing them to look for new jobs.
The Senator from New Jersey and I are both working together to help
our heroes get their jobs back, which is why I have introduced the
Protect Veterans Jobs Act to reinstate all veterans who were wrongly
fired from their Federal jobs by Trump and Musk. It is a critical bill
to help those who have already been fired.
But according to recent reports, Trump and Musk are just getting
started. From everything that we have seen, they are planning on firing
another 80,000 VA employees, almost a third of whom are veterans
themselves. So that is going to be another 25 veterans on the chopping
block on top of the 6,000 who have already been fired. It is a complete
betrayal from Trump and from Musk.
Firing these VA employees will even harm veterans who Trump is not
firing because it is going to force them to wait longer to see their
healthcare providers. It is going to make them wait longer to have
their disability claims adjudicated. It is going to make them wait
longer to have someone pick up their calls at the Veterans Crisis Line.
It is going to make them wait even longer and their loved ones wait
even longer to have their burial and funeral expense reimbursement
requests processed and so much more, all while the VA's backlog for
unprocessed claims continues to grow.
I have another question for you, but first, for the Senator from New
Jersey, I was wondering if you could tell us if you have heard from
your veterans who have been fired, if you have heard from your veterans
who have seen their services delayed in New Jersey and around the
country?
Mr. BOOKER. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
This is my veterans book. This is what I was reading from earlier.
And everything you are saying is right, and it is such an insult.
I read stories from our veterans. It is such an insult to the highest
calling of our country, to stand and serve, as you did--as you did--
injured veterans, disabled veterans.
I read an article about thousands of disabled veterans who want to
serve their country, love this Nation so much that they want to serve
in humble jobs doing noble things. And how do we treat them? I will say
83,000 people being laid off. A quarter of them are our veterans from
the VA itself, including veterans who do things for the Park Service in
our national parks, veterans who do things for us in the Defense
Department, veterans who do things for us across this country.
I find in my State that some of the greatest leaders I have met in my
State are veterans who are still serving veterans. And then veteran
entrepreneurs--you know the data--they are incredibly successful. They
add to our economy.
The government is cutting not just veteran jobs; they are cutting
contracts with veteran-owned businesses.
I don't understand how you can say out of one side of your mouth that
you honor and respect our veterans, which is not what our President has
always said--dear God, what he said about John McCain.
I still remember John McCain was in a townhall with Barack Obama,
fighting fiercely to be the President of the United States, and
somebody gets up and says that Barack Obama--as if it is an insult; it
is not--is a Muslim or something, and he grabs the mike back and
corrects her. One of his voters--he corrects her on national TV: This
is wrong. He is a guy who loves his wife, a Christian, loves his
family.
I mean, that is character and honor. Can you ever see that from our
President now?
And this is how wrong I was. I want to admit I have made mistakes. I
have been wrong.
I remember where I was when he said in his campaign that he is no
hero, that people who are captured are not heroes. I said to the people
who were with me: There goes his 15 minutes of fame. I thought that was
the end of Trump. But somehow you can become President of the United
States when you insult the veterans who serve.
I know you have another question, but can I read you--John Lewis and
John McCain--the two Johns--are coming up a lot so far in my 20 hours.
But I want to read you this. I want to read this when you are here.
This is John McCain writing:

Let me [all] tell you what I think about our Pledge of
Allegiance, our flag, and our country. I want to tell you a
story about when I was a prisoner of war. I spent 5 . . .
years at the Hanoi Hilton. In the early years of our
imprisonment, the North Vietnamese kept us in solitary
confinement or two or three to a cell.
In 1971 the [North Vietnamese] moved us from these
conditions of isolation into large rooms with as many as 30
or 40 men to a room.
This was, as you can imagine, a wonderful change and was a
direct result of the efforts of millions of Americans [led by
people like Nancy and Ronald Reagan] on behalf of a few
hundred POWs, 10,000 miles from home.
One of the men who moved into my cell was Mike Christian.
Mike came from a small town [near] Selma, Alabama. [He]
didn't wear a pair of shoes until he was 13 years old. At 17,
he enlisted in the US Navy. He later earned a commission. . .
. [H]e became a Naval Flight Officer, and was shot down and
captured in 1967. Mike had a keen and deep appreciation of
the opportunities this country and our military provide for
people who want to work and want to succeed.
The uniforms we wore in prison consisted of a blue, short-
sleeve shirt, trousers that looked like pajama trousers, and
rubber sandals that were made out of automobile tires. I
recommend them highly. My pair lasted my entire stay.
As a part of the change in treatment, the Vietnamese
allowed some prisoners to receive packages from home, and
some of these packages were handkerchiefs, scarfs, and other
items of clothing. Mike got himself a piece of white cloth
and a piece of red cloth and fashioned himself a bamboo
needle. Over a period of a couple of months, he sewed the
American flag on the inside of his shirt.
Every afternoon, before we had a bowl of soup, we would
hang Mike's shirt on the wall of our cell, and say the Pledge
of Allegiance. I know that saying the Pledge of Allegiance
may not seem the most important or meaningful part of our day
now--

Our day in the Senate--

but I can assure you that for those men in that stark prison
cell, it was indeed the most important and meaningful event
of our day.
One day, the Vietnamese searched our cell and discovered
Mike's shirt with the flag sewn inside, and removed it. That
evening they returned, opened the door of the cell, called
for Mike Christian to come out, closed the door of the cell,
and for the benefit of all of us, beat Mike Christian
severely for the next couple of hours. Then they opened the
door of the cell and threw him back inside. He was not in
good shape. We tried to comfort and take care of him as well
as we could. The cell in which we lived had a concrete slab
in the middle on which we slept. Four naked light bulbs hung
in each corner of the room.
After things quieted down, I went to lie down to go to
sleep. As I did, I happened to look in the corner of the
room. Sitting there beneath that dim light bulb, with a piece
of white cloth, a piece of red cloth, another shirt and his
bamboo needle, was my friend Mike Christian, sitting there,
with his eyes almost shut from his beating, making another
American flag. He was not making that flag because it made
Mike Christian feel better. He was making that flag because
he knew how important it was for us to be able to pledge our
allegiance to our flag and our country.

Duty, honor, country--we must never forget those thousands of
Americans who, with their courage, with their sacrifice, with their
lives, made those words alive for all of us. That is our veterans.

[[Page S2058]]

That is you. That is you, my friend.
And Trump is coming after them. DOGE is coming after them. They are
firing them right now. And are we silent, America? Are we silent when
the bravest amongst us, the most honorable amongst us, the most noble
amongst us are losing their jobs? Did you speak up when they came for
American veterans? When they fired them for no good reason, what did
you do? What did you say? I say no.
Ms. DUCKWORTH. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. I yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you for what you have said.
John McCain was a true hero. He said the same thing to me when I
first met him.
I do have a question for you, which will come later, but I thought I
would tell you the story of how I met John McCain.
I was recently wounded. Within weeks of being able to finally sit up
for the first time, I was in physical therapy, and Senator McCain came
and visited us. The nurses and occupational therapists and physical
therapists came running in and said ``Senator McCain, this Captain
Duckworth. She is a hero, just like you'' and said to me, ``You are a
hero, like Senator McCain. You were both shot down.''
Senator McCain looked at me and said in that voice of his: Didn't
take no hero to fly into a missile. The good pilots don't get shot
down.
And I knew then and there that I really liked him because he was
right: The real heroes were the buddies that carried me out of that
field in Iraq. The real hero is the sergeant in the rescue bird that
carried me out and has to live with the post-traumatic stress. The real
heroes are all the men and women who survived and came home and need
the care that they have rightfully earned, the care that we are
providing for them with the PACT Act, a bill that you supported, a bill
that you spoke up for, even while Members, our colleagues across the
aisle, many of them, said it was too expensive.
And at a time when we should be expanding the PACT Act, when we
should be recognizing more of the illnesses and injuries that came out
of service around burn pits and toxic substances, you have a President
who is cutting the VA, who wants to cut those jobs, who wants to go
after our veterans' benefits, who, just like Elon Musk has said, sees
veterans as people with their hands out.
We don't have our hands out. We are simply asking for what this
country promised us.
Where were you, Mr. President; where were you, Elon, when this
country asked for someone to serve? When this country asked: Who among
you will leave your family, leave your friends, leave your neighbors,
and put on her colors and defend her--not for your mom, not for your
dad, not for your family members, but for strangers who will never know
your name, who will never know your sacrifice? Who among you will do
that?
Thank God that from Lexington and Concord, from Iwo Jima, from la
Drang Valley, from Kandahar, from Fallujah there were Americans who
stood up and said: I will. I will defend this great Nation. I will wear
her colors with pride.
And all we have to do as a nation is live up to one tiny little
percentage of that sacrifice that they made, let them have the benefits
that they have earned, and yet Donald Trump and Elon Musk are cutting
those benefits.
The biggest predictor--the biggest predictor--of veterans'
homelessness is not post-traumatic stress disorder. It is not a health
condition. The biggest predictor of veterans' homelessness is lack of
employment, not having a job. That begins the spiral downward for
veterans that ends up with them becoming homeless.
And I will tell everyone in these Chambers and in this Nation: We are
all dishonored when a veteran must lay their head down on the very same
street that he or she defended, to sleep that night. We are all
dishonored.
The VA has done tremendous work--tremendous work--to fight veterans'
homelessness, and that has been a bipartisan effort. And these cuts--
these cuts that are costing veterans their jobs--are going to set some
of those veterans, unfortunately, on that path to homelessness. These
cuts are going to mean that those veterans homelessness programs that
would prevent others from becoming unhoused--those programs will not be
able to take care of all the veterans, the demand.
I am already seeing it. I spent this past weekend in Missouri, at the
Cochran VA Medical Center, hearing about the challenges that they are
facing. They need to expand. They don't need to shrink. They said there
are going to be another 25,000 veterans moving into the area. They
actually have to expand their services.
And yet Elon Musk, enabled by Donald Trump, is cutting veterans'
jobs, veterans' benefits because, according to them, veterans aren't
heroes; we are suckers and losers.
Well, I beg to differ. I beg to differ. I am sure that my colleague
from New Jersey knows that firing 80,000 employees from the Department
of Veterans Affairs wouldn't just cause longer delays for veterans. It
will doom our VA's ability to process claims and the influx of claims
under the PACT Act, a law that is helping to ensure veterans who were
exposed to toxins while serving can get the care that they have earned,
with more than 1 million claims already approved in the short time
since it has become law.
I can't think of a single good reason to hurt so many veterans, and I
will just ask the Senator from New Jersey: Can you think of any
reasons?
Mr. BOOKER. Oh, God, I am very moved by your comments. I want to say
that, from David McCormick to Jack Reed, the Senate has a good number
of people who served this Nation, who answered the call. They should
all get our honor and respect. Senator Blumenthal served, and he has a
son, a Navy SEAL.
We should have a reverence for those people because a lot of them
didn't make it back. A lot of people didn't make it back. And a lot of
people who came home came home with horrible wounds, visible and
invisible.
We should all be ashamed of the veterans that are committing suicide.
We should all be ashamed of veteran homelessness. We have the
capacity--we are a great enough nation--to help them.
But the ones that didn't come back, they watch over us. They look
down upon this Nation.
I want to read you one more thing because I have--I was raised by
parents who could not--they seemed really worried, raising me in an
affluent town in a beautiful home, that I would not recognize how
extraordinarily privileged I was.
My dad used to say to me: Boy, don't walk around this house like you
hit a triple. You were born on third base.
My dad used to say things to me like: Boy, don't sit at this table
and not realize that you drink deeply from wells of freedom and liberty
that you did not dig. You eat from banquet tables of blessings prepared
for you by your ancestors. You must metabolize those blessings, not so
that you can pay your ancestors back but so you can pay it forward.
My dad, when I got degrees from Stanford, Oxford, and Yale, said:
Boy, you got more degrees than the month of July, but you ain't hot.
Life ain't about the degrees you get; it is about the service you give.
So McCormick and Reed and Tammy--I am here because of people that
died for this country, that stormed beaches in Normandy for this
country, they were at Iwo Jima for this country, they liberated Nazi
concentration camps for this country. They are buried--I have seen
their burials in Thailand, in fields full of American soldiers who
never made it home. And every time I see one of those, I get overcome
with emotion. I can't think about--when I look at their ages: 18, 19,
20, 21.
So let me read this. And I am going to compose myself because you got
me all emotional, Tammy. I thought you were my friend.
This is a poem written by Billy Rose. You know it, probably. It is
called ``The Unknown Soldier.'' And just listen to the words, and let
them echo and see if we are living up to them, if our President lives
up to them. The most powerful person in the world or the richest man in
the world, are they respecting?

There's a graveyard near the White House
Where the Unknown Soldier lies,
And the flowers there are sprinkled
With the tears from mother's eyes.

[[Page S2059]]

I stood there not so long ago
With roses for the brave,
And suddenly I heard a voice
Speak from out the grave:
``I am the Unknown Soldier,
The spirit voice began
``And I think I have the right
To ask some questions man to man.
``Are my buddies taken care of?
Was their victory so sweet?
Is that big reward you offered
Selling pencils on the street?
``Did they really win the freedom
They battled to achieve?
Do you still respect that Croix de Guerre
Above that empty sleeve?
``Does a gold star in the window
Now mean anything at all?
I wonder how my old girl feels
When she hears a bugle call.
``And that baby who sang
`Hello, Central, give me no man's land'
Can they replace her daddy
With a military band?
``I wonder if the profiteers
Have satisfied their greed?
I wonder if a soldier's mother
Ever is in need?
``I wonder if the kings, who planned it all
Are really satisfied?
They played their game of checkers
And eleven million died.
``I am the Unknown Soldier
And maybe I died in vain,
But if I were alive and my country called,
I'd do it all over again.

Thank you, Senator. Every time I see you, I have such reverence and
gratitude that I get to serve alongside of you. I didn't serve in the
military alongside of you like those courageous soldiers, like those
people who carried you, at risk to themselves, the people who saved
your life, the people who helped you in rehab, the people that
empowered you to get back on your feet and run for one of the highest
offices in the land. And then you serve here with distinction because
you don't forget who helped you get here.
Ms. DUCKWORTH. Just take care of my buddies.
Mr. BOOKER. Exactly. And my dad, who is in heaven with a lot of the
other good folks from American history, I don't know what he would
think of his son, but I know he would be proud of you.
All right. Let's talk about the economy.
Mr. COONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. Oh, Christopher Coons.
Mr. COONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. I yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. COONS. Is the Senator familiar with Rory Badger of Delaware? Is
the Senator familiar with my guest to the speech to a joint session of
Congress delivered by President Trump just a few weeks ago?
Mr. BOOKER. So every time you ask me the question, we have to go
through the same thing. I am slightly familiar, yes, because you talked
about it, but I would be really happy if you ask me another question
and you filled in some gaps.
Mr. COONS. If I might, I simply want to ask my colleague--
Mr. BOOKER. Then I yield for a question. If you want to ask me a
question, I yield for a question while retaining the floor, with the
recognition that I have to do it because I am standing between two
Delawareans, and I am a little nervous. A New Jerseyan never wants to
be between two Delawareans.
Mr. COONS. To my colleague and friend from the great State of New
Jersey, I simply am asking the question: Are you familiar with a marine
from Seaford, DE? His name is Rory Badger. He is not a man of politics.
He is not a partisan. And he only came to my attention when he called
my office for assistance.
Rory Badger volunteered to serve our Nation, was deployed to
Afghanistan, and is a decorated combat veteran of the U.S. Marine
Corps. Working through the impact of his service, he has returned to
the United States and was engaged by Fish and Wildlife in Delaware and
doing great work to promote conservation.
With a young wife and a young son, Marine Badger reached for what was
his dream job: to work for the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural
Resources Conservation Service. All Rory wanted to do, he conveyed to
me in a letter and then in person when he came to visit here--all he
wanted to do--was to help farmers on the Delmarva Peninsula conserve
their land, create wildlife habitat, protect the environment, and be in
places both beautiful and still.
As you, my friend and colleague, have documented in long discussion
and debate in the last hour, he is one of thousands of veterans who
woke to receive an unjust and unwarranted termination email that said
it was for cause, without citing any cause, and that threw him into the
chaos and hurt of having been summarily fired by the American
Government.
He has ultimately been rehired, thankfully, but that period of chaos
and of loss made him question our Nation and its commitment to our
veterans.
I also--I will share with my colleague--had the opportunity to visit
with our friend Senator McCain the prison where he was imprisoned for
5\1/2\ years, tortured repeatedly, and lived through the experiences
you have just shared of fellow veterans risking their lives to do the
most simple thing that we take for granted at the beginning of every
day here: to pledge allegiance to our flag.
I had a chance, on visiting the ``Hanoi Hilton'' with our friend and
former colleague Senator McCain, to ask him a simple question, which
was at the end of his describing the period when friends were beaten
horribly, when some were killed, and when his Vietnamese captors told
him: We found out who your father is, a four-star admiral, and so we
will release you any day.
I simply asked him: Knowing that you could at any moment, on any day,
raise your hand and say, ``I will accept your offer,'' and go home, how
did you endure another 5 years of torture and imprisonment?
His answer simply: To do so would not have been honorable.
My question to you, my friend and colleague: Was the firing of Rory
Badger honorable? Is the leadership of our current administration and
its treatment of our veterans honorable? Are the values shown by the
decisions being made by Elon Musk and his team at DOGE honorable?
Are we putting at risk the very honor of our Nation in the
mistreatment of the veterans of this country? This question I put to my
friend and colleague.
Mr. BOOKER. I thank you, Senator Coons, by your strength of voice, by
your tone, by the colleague and citizen that you invoke. You are saying
the answer with strength, my friend.
How do we judge our Nation? What measure do we judge America? Is it
by how tall our buildings are? Well, those are great marvels, but other
countries have taller buildings. God, maybe Ezra Klein has got me so
focused now on making our Nation do bold and build great things.
But does the speed of our rails, as an Amtrak guy, speak to the
greatness of our Nation? No. Other nations have faster rail.
Does the wealth of our people--we have more billionaires than any
other country--does that speak to the greatness of our Nation? No.
I think the things that speak to the greatness of a nation is: How do
we take care of each other? How do we take care of our elders who
deserve our respect and our reverence and gratitude for building
America, for sustaining America, for doing the hard jobs to raise
families to set the next generation on their way.
I think we should be judged by how we treat our children. They are
the only true hope we have of seeing tomorrows that we will never live
through. I think we should be judged by how we treat the sick. Whether
it is people with the disease of alcoholism or mental health or
crippling cancers or chronic diseases, what do we do?
I think we should be judged by how we nurture our families. God, we
put American families under crazy stress. Affordable childcare, paid
family leave, other nations--our competitors--have these things.
I think we should judge the greatness of our Nation by how we treat
our veterans, these honorable men and women, some of them who gave
their last measure--last measure of their devotion on fields across the
world from Thailand to Gettysburg and gave their lives.
Those who came home--those who came home, how they--the America they
experienced will speak to the truth of who we are. So I am in this
place like you are in this place. We have been friends for a long time.
I am

[[Page S2060]]

blaming you a little bit because you are one of those people I called
and said: Hey, I am thinking about running for Governor. I am thinking
about running for Senator.
You told me to come here, man. I am joking. I love you for it. I am
honored and blessed that New Jerseyans sent me here.
I know that you and I are working to--and let's talk like we talk
when we are not on the floor of the Senate. We both are deeply devoted
Christians. You told me one of my favorite stories in the Senate, which
I won't tell right now. I have been asking you to tell that story. I
hope you will tell it, but it is just about your parents.
James Baldwin said: Children are never good at listening to their
elders, but they never fail to imitate them.
You are a great reflection of the stories of your parents you told
me, and you and I grapple with this faith of ours, which demands the
most radical love--radical love. What does the Bible say about
immigrants? I mean, come on. What does the Bible say about the poor?
What does the Bible say about the hated, the prostitute, the leper, the
people who are looked down upon?
What is the story of the Prodigal Son? What does Matthew 25 say about
how we should live? ``Even as the least of these you did unto me.''
How many times does the Bible mention poverty. How many?
Mr. COONS. Two thousand.
Mr. BOOKER. I am abiding by it. I will not yield to you. But I knew
you would know it. Two thousand times it mentions poverty. Does it say
we should scorn the poor? Does it say we should ignore the poor? No. It
calls us to love our neighbor. No exceptions to that.
Mr. COONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. Thank you, man. I have been waiting for that question.
The prayers of the righteous and vails. You are a righteous man. I have
a lot of work to do.
I yield for a question, but I am retaining the floor.
I tried to instigate you, Chris. I tried to throw out Jesus bait.
Mr. COONS. You have, sir.
Mr. BOOKER. Good. Thank God. I yield for a question about whatever
you want to ask me for, but I am retaining the floor.
Mr. COONS. To my good friend and colleague, as we transition to
comments about the economy, are you familiar with the very first time
that Jesus stood in his home synagogue in Nazareth to preach?
He read from the scroll a passage from, I believe, Isaiah 61:1-2.
This is recorded in Luke Chapter 4. And it is a well-known passage. I
rely upon it to understand what was the ministry of Jesus centrally
about.
He says:

This is fulfilled in your hearing today, the spirit of the
Lord is upon me. He has anointed me to preach good news to
the poor.

I don't think it is possible to read the Gospels and to read the
Torah and to understand righteousness without hearing over and over and
over in the course of the Old and New Testaments a call to respect
those at the margins of life, a call to be generous and openhearted and
kind to those who suffer and struggle, to be attentive to and present
to those who are imprisoned, who are widows, who are orphans, to allow
the gleaning of a field, which means to make sure that out of an
abundance of our productivity on our farms, we make sure we feed those
who hunger here at home and abroad.
You cannot miss the central message, which is, as you have said:
kindness to those on the margins, attentiveness to those in need, good
news to the poor.
So in this season of Lent, I ask my friend and colleague whether he
is aware of our President's intention to impose significant tariffs
sometime today or tomorrow that may raise the costs for working
families in our Nation, that may make harder the lives of those who
struggle to pay for their children's food and medicines and schooling,
that instead of meeting his promise to make America affordable again,
we will almost certainly make America less affordable for those who are
exactly those to whom we are called to give attention kindness and
service?
I ask my colleague and my friend: Are you aware of President Trump's
so-called ``liberation day'' that will impose, in fact, thousands of
dollars of additional costs on the working families of America who
struggle so hard to make ends meet in a direct violation of a call to
care for those in need?
Mr. BOOKER. Yes, I am aware. I said it earlier that he calls it
Liberation Day, and I am not sure what he means by that because
Americans will not, by this move, be liberated from high prices. They
won't be liberated from watching their 401(k)s dwindle in value as the
stock market goes down. They won't be liberated from the high cost of
groceries. They won't be liberated from the high cost and hard
availability of housing.
He calls it Liberation Day, but Americans won't be liberated from
crushing debt, from medical debt, from student loan debt, parents who
are struggling to take care of their parents and their children who
rely on Medicaid because a parent has Alzheimer's and a child has a
disability and they are trying to make it all work. But yet they are
shackled in fear because they see that recommended to a House Committee
on Energy and Commerce was to find $880 billion of cuts to the programs
that they are relying on as a lifeline to keep their family together.
Who is liberated? Who is liberated by the tariffs that he is going to
come and bring onto a country where half this Nation is dealing with a
tough, tough economic reality, where half of the renters in this
country--you and I were both local leaders. We know it is technically
the definition of housing insecurity if you are paying more than a
third of your income on rent.
Chris Coons, you love people. You know people. You traveled Delaware.
It is a much smaller State. I do say that with some little bit of
twisted non-Christian arrogance from New Jersey looking down, but you
know people in your State. I have been with you in your State. You are
connected to your communities.
So you know people that are struggling just to make ends meet. You
know people that are one emergency away like a car accident or a
sickness that forces them to miss a week of work and a paycheck, that
that will throw their lives in financial ruin.
Is this President doing his promises to make their lives better?
President Trump is calling his tariffs Liberation Day. Do you think
Canada feels liberated from the bully neighbor that is Donald Trump?
You think Greenland feels liberated from the bullying nature? Do you
think Panama feels liberated?
What about universities that are cutting NIH funding, that are
cutting the scientific research that will cure the diseases in the
future and will alleviate suffering? They now are not allowing postdocs
to come to their school. They are not hiring. They are slashing the
number of engineering students that they are allowing in because they
are terrified this President is menacing indirect costs. Is that
liberation?
Seventy-one days in--now 72 days. I ask you: Are you better off than
you were 72 days ago economically? I ask that question. Ask it to your
friends. Are they better off economically? Well, I don't see how they
could be because prices are up. The stock market is down. The risk of
recession is climbing. Consumer confidence is in the gutter. And 401(k)
plans are losing value.
Are you better off than you were 72 days ago under this President's
leadership on the verge of his so-called Liberation Day that is going
to drive prices up even more?
He is doubling down on tax cuts for the rich. He wants an economy
that works for him, his billionaire donors, his powerful special
interests, and it is coming at the expense of working people who are
struggling to get by and a lot of programs that they rely on like for
their healthcare, like for their Social Security.
He wants an economy where the richest people get the biggest tax cuts
with the largest corporations. Heck, they may get to skip out on taxes
altogether and where hard-working Americans are getting crushed by
rising food prices and rising rents.
This idea that that might trickle down, but we know it doesn't work.
He is continuing the same reckless economic approach he used in his
first term: massive tax cuts that inure mostly to the wealthy,
unchecked spending, rapacious spending, big, big,

[[Page S2061]]

big holes in our national debt, trillions of dollars in more debt, and
no serious plan on how to pay for any of the things that he is doing,
from Social Security to public health to the education that supports
children with disabilities and scientific research, the safety nets
that millions of people depend upon.
Here is a New York Times: ``Trump's policies have shaken a once-solid
economic outlook.'' This is from March 7.

President Trump inherited an economy that was, by most
conventional measures, firing on all cylinders. Wages,
consumer spending and corporate profits were rising.
Unemployment was low. The inflation rate, though higher than
normal, was falling.
Just weeks into Mr. Trump's term, the outlook is gloomier.
Measures of business and consumer confidence have plunged.
The stock market has been on a roller-coaster ride. Layoffs
are picking up.

And by the way, this is March 7. We just finished March, the worst
performing quarter in years in the stock market.
Back to the article:

Layoffs are picking up, according to some data. And
forecasters are cutting their estimates for economic growth
this year, with some even predicting that the U.S. gross
domestic product could shrink in the first quarter.
Some commentators have gone further, arguing that the
economy could be headed for a recession, a sharp rebound in
inflation or even the dreaded combination of the two,
``stagflation.'' Most economists consider that unlikely,
saying growth is more likely to slow than to give way to a
decline.
Still, the sudden deterioration in the outlook is striking,
especially because it is almost entirely a result of Mr.
Trump's policies and the resulting uncertainty. Tariffs, and
the inevitable retaliation from trading partners, will
increase prices and slow down growth. Federal job cuts will
push up unemployment, and could lead government employees and
contractors to pull back on spending while they wait to learn
their fate. Deportations could drive up costs for industries
like construction and hospitality--

And the agricultural sector--

that depend on immigrant labor.
``If the economy was starting out in quite good shape, it's
probably in less good shape after what we've seen the last
few weeks,'' said Donald Rissmiller, chief economist at
Strategas, a research firm.
The U.S. economy has repeatedly shown its resilience in
recent years, and there are parts of Mr. Trump's agenda that
could foster growth. Business groups have responded
enthusiastically to Republican plans to cut taxes and reduce
regulation. A streamlined government could, in theory, make
the overall economy more productive.
So far, however, the Trump administration's approach to
economic policy has been characterized more by chaos--tariffs
that are announced and then delayed, government workers who
are fired and rehired--than by careful planning.
Michael R. Strain, an economist at the conservative
American Enterprise Institute--

I know AEI well--

said Mr. Trump's policies on trade and immigration, and his
slash-and-burn approach to federal job cuts, would have a
damaging effect.

This is a conservative think tank.

``What President Trump has proposed will not cause a
recession,'' he continued. ``But it will slow economic
growth. It will take money out of people's pockets. It will
increase the unemployment rate. It will cost people jobs. It
will make American businesses less competitive.''

That is AEI, folks.

It is certainly possible for Mr. Trump's policies to come
together in a way that causes a recession. His tariffs alone
could shave a full percentage point off growth in gross
domestic product this year, according to some economic
models--enough to cut in half the 2 percent growth rate that
economists expected going into this year.
Many economists contend that deporting millions of
immigrants--as Mr. Trump promised to do on the campaign trail
last year--could be even more harmful than tariffs, given the
U.S. economy's need for workers, particularly in industries
like construction and health care.
And the administration's push to shrink the federal
government, an effort led by Elon Musk, could leave hundreds
of thousands of federal workers and government contractors
looking for jobs when hiring has slowed. That could set off a
chain reaction: Workers who lose jobs, or worry they might,
would pull back on spending, which would force businesses to
cut costs, leading to more layoffs and further reductions in
spending.

Ordinarily, that would prompt the Federal Reserve to cut interest
rates and shore up the economy. But that could be difficult if tariffs
are also pushing up prices, making policymakers nervous that cutting
interest rates could spur inflation.

``It's a death by a thousand paper cuts,'' said Jay Bryson,
chief economist for Wells Fargo. ``All these things
individually aren't enough to cause a recession, but if you
layer them on top of one another, it might be.''
Most economists think such an outcome is relatively
unlikely, however. Mr. Trump has repeatedly delayed full
enforcement of his promised tariffs. For example, on
Thursday--

This article is from March 7--

he suspended tariffs on most imports from Mexico and Canada
until April.

What month are we in? April.

His deportation efforts have likewise gotten off to a slow
start. And some of the cuts to the federal workforce have
been tied up in court.

As they should be.

Such delays and reversals will help blunt the impact of Mr.
Trump's policies, and could make a recession less likely, at
least in the short term. But the prolonged uncertainty could
have its own costs, leading businesses to delay investment
and hiring decisions.
``If we don't get clarity by the back half of this year,
economic uncertainty can be like a deer in the headlights,''
said Nancy Lazar, chief global economist at the investment
bank Piper Sandler. ``Things just stop. Business confidence
is muted, employment is muted, and capital spending is put on
hold.''
Even if Mr. Trump's policies don't cause a recession, they
could do long-term damage. Lower immigration will leave the
country with a smaller labor force as the native-born
population is aging. Trade barriers will be a relatively
modest drag on growth while in place--a chronic condition,
rather than an acute one.
``It's less like the economy is in a car wreck, and it's
more like the economy has decided to start smoking a pack a
day,'' said Michael Madowitz, an economist at the Roosevelt
Institute, a progressive group.
In certain places and for certain groups, the consequences
could be harder to ignore. Veterans, who make up a
disproportionate share of federal workers, could be
particularly hard-hit by government layoffs. So could parts
of the country that depend heavily on federal jobs: Already,
there are signs that home prices in the Washington
metropolitan area are falling.
``It's going to be substantial for certain communities.''
``When you look at the aggregate,'' it is going to be
challenging.

Mr. KAINE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. I talked or texted with this person who asked me to yield
the floor. I have been letting this power go to my head. I have never
in the Senate had the ability to hold the floor and leave the person in
a little bit of limbo.
I just want to say that Tim Kaine is one of the friends. Honestly, he
is more like a pastor to me. He is one of the more honorable men I have
met in my life and struggles, like me, about faith and public service.
I read your book. I really hope more people read your book. I didn't
think it was going to be as beautiful as it was. I laughed, I wept.
When you were attacked by spiders and things like that, I am sorry, I
was laughing at your misfortune, sir.
It is a book about you going through your whole State by walking the
Appalachian Trail, canoeing. Every story you told moved me. It is a
great book. I have read a lot of my colleagues' books, this one really
touched me. You have a beautiful view of America, and I want people to
read your book, I really want people to read your book. So if I should
yield, I will yield only if you will tell people the name of your book
and maybe tell something about it. This is extortion on the Senate
floor. I am going to hold on to the floor unless you agree to that.
Shake your head up and down if you agree.

All right. Then, of course, to my dear friend and somebody that I
probably wouldn't be standing here, we had some discussions about
procedural opportunities and things like that, he had to make some
concessions to me, I won't give details, but he is an honorable man,
and in the crux before I came here, he really helped to clear the
pathway for me to stand here now. I owe you a lot of my 12 years. You
are like a big brother to me.
And I yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. KAINE. Well, thank you to my friend, Senator Booker, and to all
who are gathered to watch this very, very important vigil. And the
question that I am going to ask in slow motion to give you a chance to
think of a response--
Mr. BOOKER. God bless you.
Mr. KAINE.--is a question that was inspired by your colloquy with
Senator Coons.
Mr. BOOKER. Not a colloquy. That is not allowed. It was a question.
Mr. KAINE. Your discussion, where you were doing some Bible quoting

[[Page S2062]]

back and forth. And as, you know, I am a big Bible reader. And the
thing I thought about, and actually I thought about it during your talk
since last night, is this part of the Gospel of Matthew where he is
challenging people he thinks are hypocrites.
And he says to them: You can discern the faces of the sky, but you
can't discern the signs of the times.
That is Matthew 16:2 and 3. You can discern the faces of the sky, but
you cannot discern the signs of the time.
The way I viewed this vigil that you have been powerfully engaged
upon is you are attempting to discern and explain the signs of the
times to your colleagues and to our country, and that is very important
that we do.
And I would like to ask you one question about the signs of the times
economically to follow the discussion of what we are seeing, but then I
want to ask you a question about the signs of the times more in the
nature of our democracy.
So to begin, on the economy, you walked through how strong the
economy was on the day this President was inaugurated, and 2 months
later, the challenges of a volatile stock market, the challenges of
rising prices, the challenges of declining consumer confidence, the
challenges of predictions that there might be slow growth or even a
recession.
We will have a vote on the Senate floor tomorrow about Canadian
tariffs based on a resolution that I have introduced that we will have
a vote on.
You talked at length about those tariffs and the effects that they
have on Americans and others. As I have traveled around my
Commonwealth, my farmers, my small businesses, they have seen it
before. They saw it in Trump term one. They know how dangerous it will
be. They don't want to pay more for groceries. They don't want to pay
more for building supplies. Farmers don't want to pay more for
fertilizers. My shipyards don't want to pay more for aluminum and
steel. They were promised that they would pay less, not pay more.
They don't want to be part of a campaign to demonize a nation that
has been a friend of the United States and stood side by side with us
in every war since the War of 1812. They don't want to be part of a
juvenile assertion by this President that that sovereign nation is the
51st State. They don't want to be part of a name-calling effort to call
the prime minister of a sovereign nation Governor. They are trying to
read the signs of the times.
Why is this administration that came in with such a strong economic
hand doing so much so quickly to both hurt us economically, but also to
tarnish a relationship that has stood the test of time with an ally?
The President often says that his goal is ``America First.'' We would
all agree as Members of this body in ``America First,'' but we would
all passionately disagree with ``America Alone.''
What is ``America Alone'' going to get us? What will we turn to, who
will we turn to when the allies that we have spent decades building
relationships with now feel pushed aside? Yesterday, China announced
that they were going to be working with Japan and Korea on a free trade
zone, possibly to respond to U.S. tariffs.
Mr. BOOKER. Wow.
Mr. KAINE. Other nations are having to engage in hedging behaviors
because they thought we were friends and now they doubt that reality
anymore.
And so as you look at the signs of these economic times--and then I
will get to a second question about the signs of the times in our
democracy--how are we to understand this? And more importantly, how are
we best to rectify it?
How can we stand up for our families and reduce their burdens, not
increase them? How can we stand shoulder to shoulder with linked arms
with our allies to face off against adversaries? Reflect on the signs
of the times and point us in the right direction, please?
Mr. BOOKER. I appreciate that. I am going to try to keep it short,
but I want to reminisce with you about something that--do you remember
in Trump's first term that he used a national security waiver to put
tariffs on Canada then?
Mr. KAINE. Yes. Yes. And my citizens really remember because they
suffered.
Mr. BOOKER. Yes. But do you remember we had a Foreign Relations
Committee meeting, and a leader--I don't want to embarrass the leader,
but a leader from Canada came, it was a woman, and she sat there. It
was a bipartisan group together. You do remember this?
Mr. KAINE. Yes, I do.
Mr. BOOKER. So she sat there, and she started very slowly going back
to the War of 1812, and marched through Canadian-American history. I
confess I have a degree in history, but I didn't know all this history.
But amazing stories of Canadian sacrifice to stand next to Americans,
to die next to Americans, to fight for America, to join our artists,
our cultural communities, our agricultural communities, all the things
we have done hand in hand to make both of our Nations stronger and more
prosperous. And then she looked at us and said: And then your
President, in a sense, called us a national security threat.
Mr. KAINE. Yep.
Mr. BOOKER. And you all put tariffs on us.
And I remember the quiet, the silence around that committee table. I
felt like, whoa, this is such an ally, such a friend, such a consistent
ally of us throughout the hardest difficult times in history, never
left our side. Her litany was so admirable, and then she looks at us, a
national security waiver, hardships on our economy, national security
waiver to put tariffs on. And they hurt Americans, and they hurt--
embarrassingly hurt our northern neighbor. But I thought that was bad
enough.
And now, what kind of bully are you? What kind of mean spirit do you
look at your northern neighbor and say: I am going to call you
Governor, not with the title you earned by the people that put you in
that office. It is the worst kind of behavior. And nobody calls him
out, of our Republican colleagues--not enough of them called it out, I
should say.
So we are in, as I read in that article, in an economic crisis.
I question: How long will we wait until more of us join in a chorus
to say enough is enough?
I don't know the answers. I don't know how we can stop him. But I
know we did in the first term. We pushed back on him successfully and
on his attempts to try to take healthcare away from tens of millions of
Americans, and we can do it again.
But more people have to do things differently. They have to do like
we have been talking about all day--and I will turn to my colleague
again--as John Lewis called us: Get in good trouble, necessary trouble.
Heal the soul of America.
We have to do more and follow the examples of our forefathers and
foremothers who never gave up, with conviction and determination, with
indefatigable spirit and unyielding grace that continues, time and time
again, pushing back and bending the arc.
It is our turn. What are we going to do? We have to answer that
question. We have to do more.
Mr. KAINE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. I yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. KAINE. This is a question about the signs of the times in our
democracy. We will celebrate 250 years of American democracy in 2026.
And I want it to be a celebration, not a coronation, not a requiem, not
a wake, but a celebration.
A week ago Sunday, 250 years ago, Patrick Henry stood on the floor of
Henrico Parish, now known as St. John's Episcopal Church, on Church
Hill in Richmond, at a moment of decision where people were challenged
to understand the signs of the times, at a moment of tyranny. And he
asked the immortal question.
And I almost view your vigil as asking the same question about where
we would stand in such a moment, and there were different forks in the
road--a phrase that has attained some meaning recently. And Patrick
Henry said: ``As for me, give me liberty or give me death.''
You are giving a liberty speech, my colleague. You are giving a
liberty speech as the Nation begins to think about 250 years of
democracy.
The opposite of liberty, that which Henry was fighting against, was
tyranny. It was tyranny. I am one that believes that we should mark
anniversaries. We shouldn't just act steady

[[Page S2063]]

state, like this country was ordained and will just go on forever
regardless. We are coming up on 250 years of American democracy, and
there is a live question about its continued existence that this
generation is grappling with.
Henry gave that speech at St. John's Church, and a few months later,
on July 4, 1776, the United States declared its independence from
England, and our history in this new chapter began. And at various
points along the way--during the 1850s, say, or during the 1950s--
generation shifts like ours have had to grapple with the question of
whether the experiment will continue or not.
Some of our national symbols have some unusual aspects to them that
point to this experiment. We have a national anthem that ends with a
question--not an assertion, not a declaration, but whether the flag
will still stand over the home of the free and land of the brave,
question mark.
The State flag that Virginia adopted on July 5, 1776, is a most
unusual flag. It has a woman representing Roman virtue, standing
astride a deposed tyrant whose crown is knocked off, who is holding a
broken chain in his hand, and he is lying on the ground. It is one of
only six State flags with a woman on it. It is the only State flag that
features toplessness, which occasionally creates some raciness in
schools as students ask about it.
But it is also the flag with the most unique State motto of any
State. All States have mottos. Forty-nine States' mottos are positive.
``Hope,'' ``Eureka,'' ``Excelsior,'' ``Onward and Upward,'' ``Ad astra
per aspera.'' Michigan has the most unusual positive motto in Latin,
``If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look around you.''
I wasn't looking for a peninsula, but I would rather it be pleasant
than not.
Virginia's is the only flag and the only State with a motto that is
not positive. It is a rebuke: ``Sic semper tyrannis.'' Thus be it
always--thus be it ever--to tyrants. George Wythe, Thomas Jefferson's
teacher, was in charge of designing the flag and chose that as the
motto.
Think about the verb tense, right? It is the only one that is a
rebuke, and it has stayed on our State seal and State flag since July
5, 1776. Many State flags have been changed in the last 20 years. Utah
changed, Minnesota changed, Mississippi changed, and Georgia changed.
Virginia has essentially not changed since 1776.
Neither the figure of virtue standing astride a deposed monarch or
the motto, ``Sic semper tyrannis''--again, the verb tense, ``semper''--
always, ever. It is not in the current tense. No tyrants are down with
tyrants. It is in the future tense: Thus be it always to tyrants. Thus
be it ever to tyrants.
The Virginia flag that we pass by in Virginia every day without
thinking about it--it is in every school, and we pass it by. It asks us
two questions, 250 years later: Do we retain the ability to recognize
tyranny? Do we retain the virtue to defeat it? Can we recognize
tyranny? Can we retain the virtue to defeat it?
My friend, you are standing on the floor in the tradition of Patrick
Henry, 250 years later. You are raising a question about liberty and
our fidelity to it.
So my question to you would be, what gives you hope that the answer
we will give to these questions, as Americans--as those commemorating a
quarter millennium of American democracy--what gives you confidence
that we will answer these questions in a way that will honor those who
came before us?
Mr. BOOKER. I want to answer that question.
I want to, at first, say Hakeem Jeffries is here. Now I am worried
because two Brooklynites are shaking hands. I confess, when I had the
floor and Schumer was here, it was the only time in my life I could
deny him the right to speak on the Senate floor.
I confess to my friend who is part of the X generation--the hip-hop
generation--my brother who is part of that transition in American
history from the ``greatest generation'' to baby boomers, that the baby
boomers are now seeing leaders emerge that are X generation and
millennials. He represents the best of the future.
This question is so good--because you didn't honor your commitment to
me and talk about your book.
I want to say I insulted Brooklyn for stealing my Nets. I told the
leader--I abused my power to retain the floor, and I told the leader
there is only one football team in New York, the Buffalo Bills. The
other two are in New Jersey.
I should have reminded the leader that the ``Chairman of the Board,''
who sings ``New York, New York'' is actually from New Jersey.
I can go on with this litany.
I do want to get back to your very serious question about tyranny. I
think many of us have read books like ``On Tyranny.'' We are reading
articles, and people are talking about the fears that they have, fears
that they have about this document.
You and I have had serious conversations over the last 72 days of
Donald Trump's Presidency. How much of the encroachment--I would say
``encroachment'' is a gentle word--of the separation of powers is
happening? We are watching Justices, judges--from Republican appointees
to Democratic appointees--trying to stop him from doing things. Which
one of our great Bill of Rights amendments, from the freedom of the
press--he is doing things to the press that, in my opinion, are
bullying them, breaking with traditions that Presidents have done in
the past; trying to create a press corps like Putin or Erdogan have,
who will only let people in the room who will give obsequious
supplications often for the dear leader.
What about the freedom of speech? You and I both know reprehensible
speech is protected. Disappearing people for what they said--Scalia
talked very clearly about having rights, even when you are in the
country. One of the most conservative Justices said: You have rights.
We are seeing him invoke emergencies.
You have been the leader in our caucus, talking about the absurdities
of these emergencies he is doing. He tried to rally this body saying:
Don't let this happen.
You talked to me about all of these things.
So what is the limit of tyranny? You and I--and we talked about this
with your book. I am trying to get back there.
I told you once, when Skip Gates did my history, that he traced my
history back to Virginia. I tried to show you that I have more Virginia
legitimacy because my roots go back to 1640 in your State. The Stampers
came over, and following down, down, down, then Henrietta Stamper, who
my mom still talks about as a relative. John Stamper--and with the
chart that Skip Gates gave me, the only thing you could say about John
Stamper is that the mother of Henrietta Stamper was ``slave woman.''
Born Henrietta Stamper, they called her on her documents ``mulatto''
and Stamper fought for her ownership because it would later come out
that was his child. These are the traditions in my family.
It is really amazing what Skip Gates did and showed me that I am a
direct descendent of slaves and slave owners. I am a direct descendent
of a Confederate soldier that was captured in retreat. I am the direct
descendent of Native Americans and people who fought in the Creek war
to kill Native Americans.
And these traditions in our country, I draw upon all of them. I am
proud of all of them. They speak us to. They speak to the complicated
history of America.
But perhaps one of the best things I got about this complicated
history was a visit to my office by--I don't know if I told the leader
this--I am sorry. I am going to return to his question.
I know how busy the leader is. If the leader asks me a question--if
he asks--I will yield for a question.
Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. I yield for a question while retaining for the floor.
Mr. SCHUMER. Before I ask my question, what a tour de force--you are
amazing. It is not only the amount of time that you have spent here on
the floor--what strength--but the brilliance of our indictment of this
awful administration that is so destroying our democracy; that is
taking so much away from working people and the middle class, and at
the same time all for tax cuts for the billionaires.
You are amazing. We salute you. America salutes you. All eyes are on
you. You are incredible.

[[Page S2064]]

Here is my question that is related to what our Republican friends
are trying to do to all the things that you have so opposed. So are you
aware that while we were here on the floor today, Senate Republicans
are declaring that using the current policy baseline is up to Lindsey
Graham, not the Parliamentarian? I believe that this is going nuclear,
and it shows how hell-bent they are on giving tax breaks to the rich,
even if it goes nuclear, even if it violates all the norms that they
have had, even if it breaks all the promises they have made.
Do you agree with me that this is just a move that is so, so against
what the traditions of the Senate have been about--but not just the
traditions of the Senate--fairness, decency, ability to debate issues
fairly? They are afraid to debate them. They are afraid to defend tax
cuts for billionaires. They are afraid to admit they are taking away
Medicaid from so many Americans. And so they come up with this nuclear
option, showing that they don't care anymore about norms, about rules,
and even about going nuclear, which the leader--the Republican leader--
and all of them said: Oh, no, they are not going to do that. Now they
say they are going to do it.
What does the Senator think? Does he agree with me that it is going
nuclear? Does he agree with me that is a nasty, vicious, and self-
seeking for the billionaires--which is what they are doing--way of
proceeding?
Mr. BOOKER. Chuck, I am not 100 percent right now, and you just hit
me with stunning news that I can't even think about how to respond
right now. I am stunned by that. I wish--if you want to ask me a
question, ask me a question. I wish you would explain a little bit more
because what you are basically saying to me is that we are not going to
go through the Parliamentarian. This is a gimmick that is going to be
done to try to break, really, what the Byrd rule requirements of
reconciliation are. I am using Senate speak, and I don't think we
should use that.
So what they are going to try to say is obscure the impact of
reconciliation. They are going to obscure this--the incredible tax
cuts, the cost of trillions of dollars to our economy--blowing up our
debt. So-called fiscal hawks are going to blow it up. I am stunned by
this news.
Mr. SCHUMER. So I am asking the Senator, the great Senator Booker, a
question.
Mr. BOOKER. I yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. SCHUMER. Does he agree that this isn't just a blow to the people
of America, and it shows that the folks--the people--on the other side
are only interested not in playing decent, not in playing fair, not in
being honest with the American people, but in taking money from the
pockets of working people and the middle class and putting it in the
hands of billionaires? Is that something that this country should just
countenance in because it does so much harm to the country? And does it
not show what our colleagues are really like and what they are after?
Mr. BOOKER. Yes. The answer to the question is yes.
I just want to say that anything further is a breaking of the Senate.
In a severe way, it is the breaking of the Senate. Every time you break
the Senate like that to do another big nuclear option thing, the next
time around, when the pendulum swings--I have been here for 12 years,
and I have watched it swing back and forth. There is no going back now.
Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield for another question?
Mr. BOOKER. I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. SCHUMER. Does the Senator remember that, when this was done in
the past, McConnell said they would regret it, and they will regret it
sooner than they think? Does the Senator agree that that applies to the
Republicans in that they will regret it, and they will regret it sooner
than they think?
Mr. BOOKER. I hate to answer the question this way, but America will
regret this day. The American people will regret this day. All of us
will regret this. All of us will.
Mr. SCHUMER. I hate to bring the Senator bad news, but I am asking
him a question, and I needed his answer given how eloquent he has been
about what America should be and what America should not be.
So I yield the floor to the Senator.
Mr. BOOKER. You cannot yield the floor because I have the floor, sir.
I maintain the floor. This is one of the few times I will be able to
get to tell Chuck Schumer what the rules are here.
But I just want to get back to you, and maybe this is a way to get
back to you by sharing a story I don't think I have ever told you.
(Mr. CURTIS assumed the Chair.)
It was a few years ago with one of Biden's last State of the Union
speeches, and I--we all had to vote on the floor about an hour before
the speech, and then we would come back here and assemble to do this
extraordinary walk through history.
So, days before that, I was with the leader, Hakeem, and I was with
some other people in the Oval Office with the President.
The President put his arm around me as we finished the meeting, and
he said: Hey, Cory.
And I am like: Yes, Mr. President.
I have got a big speech coming up.
I know, Mr. President.
I am going to go to Camp David to work on it.
And I said: OK, Mr. President.
He goes: Can I call you if I need some help?
And I said: Yes. Right, Mr. President. Sure.
And that was it. Over the weekend, he didn't call me for help with
his speech, and we came here and did that vote an hour before, and
then--I like walking out that door. Many people know this. If I can, I
go straight out the next doors and onto the steps. I love those steps--
maybe because I watched ``Schoolhouse Rock'' as a kid, and that is
where there was ``Mr. Bill, I am just a bill.'' So I pause sometimes
there and just feel the sense of gratitude and the Supreme Court right
in front of me and the Library of Congress, and if you stand in the
right place, you can see the gold dome behind you.
As I am standing there in that moment an hour before we have to
hustle back here, my phone rings. I answer my phone, and it begins with
what I think is one of the top stupidest questions in America. You have
gotten this question. I think you would agree with me. You are not the
kind of guy who uses words like, ``Hey, this is stupid,'' but this is
stupid. The thing I heard--the stupid question--was this: This is the
White House operator. Will you hold for the President of the United
States?
Who says no to that question as one does when they get a call from
the President of the United States?
So I say: Yeah. I will hold. Hold it a minute. I am washing my hair.
I say: Yes, of course.
The next thing you know, it is Joe Biden, and he goes: Cory.
And I go: Mr. President.
He goes: I am struggling with my speech.
And at that point--I know you weren't this kind of student in
college, but all of my guilt from my college days of waiting until the
last minute to finish a paper was gone. The President of the United
States was waiting until the last minute to finish his speech. Heck, I
feel good.
And so he goes: Cory, can I read you a section of this speech?
So he read to me a section of the speech where I have a lot of policy
depth, and I couldn't believe it. The President of the United States,
an hour before his speech, is rehearsing a part of the speech, and then
he asks me that immortal question.
You are a married man. You have to give me good advice on
how to answer this question. When your spouse looks at you
and says, ``How do I look?'' you are torn between two
things--right?--maybe to tell the truth or to tell your
spouse what they want to hear.
Tell me what you answer with, but you can't do it now because I have
the floor.
And so I take a moment. Am I going to tell the President what I
really think of this section or am I going to just say: ``Yes, Mr.
Leader''?
So I decided that he called me up an hour before his speech. So he
really must want my advice. And I gave some hard input. Turn this dial
down more. Turn this one to whatever.
And he said: OK, Cory.
And abruptly he is gone.
I go back to the office, and I tell them: I just got a call from the
President of the United States, and he asked

[[Page S2065]]

for help on his speech. What a crazy life moment while I stood on the
steps, like the bill--``I'm just a bill.''
Anyway, we get back here, and it is a wonderful moment in the Senate.
I don't know if anybody has the privilege of seeing what we do. We all
gaggle around those doors. We talk to each other. People think we
always fight and yell. That is not the case. Democrats and Republicans
merge into this ball of senatorial humanity. Then, when those doors
open, I love it because, when you walk out, you walk past Thune's
office--what used to be the Library of Congress.
You walk past the Old Senate Chamber, where there were some of the
greatest debates in American history and violence on that Senate floor
with the caning of Sumner.
You walk through the dome and the statue of Lincoln by an 18-year-old
woman named Ream, the suffrage leaders, Martin Luther King,
Presidents--extraordinary Presidents.
Then you walk past where the old House used to be. And you love this,
and I love this--those little gold plates on the floor where Presidents
had their desks, exactly where the Presidents had their desks. Most
people go in right under the Junipero Serra, California's statue. Under
that cross is Lincoln's gold plate--people who were in the House and
served as the President. That is not my favorite one, though. It is
John Quincy Adams. Why? You know this. He was the only person in
American history ever--and it will probably never happen again--where
somebody went to the Presidency and came back to the House. He ran for
a House seat. He worked at that spot where that desk was until he
collapsed and was carried off the floor. He would soon later die.
Amazing. Maybe a future President will. Maybe Obama is going to think,
you know: I have got to run for the House.
Then you get into that old Chamber, and we sit down; we find our
seats. Then, at that great moment--I don't care if you are Republican
or Democrat. When that person walks in and says, ``The President of the
United States of America,'' I still get that feeling.
Joe Biden comes in, and I think he sets a record for the longest it
would take to get from those doors all the way down. Everybody he is
talking to. ``Marjorie Taylor Greene, what's up?'' He is just touching
everybody. He gets up there, and he gives his speech. Now, you know
that this is an aerobic event. You stand up. You sit down. You stand
up. You sit down. You have got to get your squats in when you are doing
it. Well, the part of the speech he called me on is--and I am sitting
down, and I hear my input in the speech.
I don't know if you all noticed, my colleagues, but I was the first
person to stand up for that section, and I was looking at Schatz: Get
up, man. This is the best speech ever given.
It was amazing. I go home. I am kind of buzzing about the whole
experience, and I am lying in bed. Unfortunately, I have my phone on my
nightstand, and it goes off. I see a number I don't recognize, but I
open it up, and it says:

Senator Booker, this is John Meacham--

The great historian.

Thank you for helping the President of the United States
with his speech. You made more of a difference than you will
ever know.

And my first thought was, How do I print this out? How do you print
out a text? So he gave me his cell phone number, and now, I am going to
troll him until this historian comes to my office and finally relents.
He comes, and now, he steps into your domain, my brilliant friend of
history. I expressed worry, fear, concern, demagoguery in our land, the
rising of tribalism. I dump on him. I am normally a prisoner of hope. I
am normally a purveyor of finding your joy even in the toughest of
times. And he listens for a while, and then--and then--and then he
looks at me and says:

Cory, there is nothing about this time that is
unprecedented. It is all precedented. You want to talk about
demagoguery?

And he goes through every generation of Americans having
extraordinary demagogues. I read Margaret Chase Smith's incredible
speech on this floor against a demagogue and the demagoguery even
within her own party. He talked about the No. 1 radio show in all of
America that the majority of Americans listen to and its anti-Semitic
screeds.
Mr. KAINE. Father Coughlin.
Mr. BOOKER. Father Coughlin.
He went through them all, and he said: Do you want a big worry?
He said that there was an American general in the Depression. He said
his name, but I am forgetting it now. I am not at my best. He said that
this guy was calling for a military takeover of our democracy. Do you
want to talk about authoritarianism? He talked about a Senator here on
the left, Huey Long, who was calling for the people to storm the
Capitol.
He went through this all, and he said: Every single time, Nazis were
in Manhattan at Madison Square Garden. I couldn't believe it. It was
unbelievable. I wish people were there listening to this guy as he went
through of all these times when America was at a crossroads, when we
came upon a moral moment, and he said: What happened as to how we chose
the right path? When people were trashing this document or treading on
it or undermining it, when demagogues rose to the highest points of
popularity in our land, how did we stop it?
Well, he looked at me with some sympathy and said: Not you guys. Not
a Senator.
It was that the better majority of American people said: Enough. They
chose to define the soul of our country. He gave that phraseology to
our President, and he said the soul of America is not the people in
office; it is the everyday citizens who choose the better angels of
their nature, who choose right over wrong, who recognize a moral moment
and know that they have to stand up and bend the arc of the moral
universe or, more importantly, steer the ship of our state out of the
troubled waters into the clear, open sea.
I rose here--and I have gotten into lots of questions with my
colleagues. But I rose, hoping to have reborn more of the stories of as
many Americans as I could, and during the night, my friend Chris Murphy
and I read a lot of them.
You know me well, my friend. You know the truth of all of us in this
place. You know the truth of everybody. We are all mountain ranges. We
all have peaks, and we all have valleys. You, my friend, have seen my
valley. You have seen me at my worst. I have failed as a leader at
times or at least have come up short for my own personal expectations.
You have seen me at some of my better moments.
I know we have obligations. I know people are right to be upset or be
demanding of us right now. Please help us. What are you doing in the
face of people who might make it so that we might not have elections or
might make it so that we do break things in this government that can
never be fixed?
One of the speakers who came into our caucus was one of the people
who wrote the book ``How Democracies Die.'' Great nations, great
civilizations that forget democracy don't necessarily die from external
threats. They die from internal corruption. Think of the Roman Empire.
Think of the Soviet Empire. It crumbled from its own corrupted failure
to live up to its promises and ideals.
We are at this moment. I am here to tell you, America, and to tell my
friends and colleagues and anybody who cares to listen to a Senator
from New Jersey that we are at that moment. We are past that moment.
Every day, things are happening. In the 72 days of this administration,
God, if there is not enough to upset you, to ignite you, to realize
that maybe you and your family are not getting hurt but other Americans
are. Our veterans are. Our seniors are. We have told their stories
here. Over these last 21 hours, 22 hours, we have told their stories.
People are getting hurt. People are afraid. People are worried.
People I don't even agree with are getting disappeared. Law firms that
I have known for my entire career--for my entire career--are being
forced to kowtow to this President. Universities that should be the
bastions of free speech, free thought, free enterprise, intellectual
research, academic research, scientific research are getting torn up by
cutting indirect costs. I have read stories of Ph.D. programs that are
virtually being canceled, and from the best scientific minds not being
able to build the state-of-the-art labs.
The country that has led humanity in scientific invention is taking a
blow.

[[Page S2066]]

And Fareed Zakaria--I have read his article here, and he is saying that
China is doubling down in investments in the universities as this
President is cutting them--unless, of course, you come to the leader
and make all of these commitments and meet all of these demands. There
should be enough already. It should be enough already.
So this is that moment John Meacham told me about. I want to try in
the Senate--I know my colleagues--I see Tammy Baldwin; I see Chris
Murphy; I see Angela Alsobrooks. I love you guys. I served side by side
with you. I know your passion. I have heard your anger. I heard your
fear. I heard how you want to fight for this country, but we are not
enough.
We can do demonstrations, we can do demands, we can try to do things
differently. In fact, we must.
Ms. BALDWIN. Will the Senator yield--
Mr. BOOKER. I will definitely yield to Tammy Baldwin, my friend and
my colleague.
Ms. BALDWIN.--for another question?
Mr. BOOKER. Thank you very much. I don't have that much gas in the
tank, but hold on, let me say it right.
I yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Ms. BALDWIN. So noted.
Senator, since you have taken the floor, which I suppose is nearly a
full day now, there have been new breaking news of mass firings.
Perhaps others have come to the floor to talk about it. But you were
just talking about how great democracies are shredded, sometimes from
within.
Look, one of the pieces of breaking news today was the mass firing of
our Nation's public health Agency within it. Today, it was reported
that the Health and Human Services Department began firing up to 10,000
more people--more than the previous firings--including researchers,
scientists, support staff, and senior leaders.
These are people who are doing work to keep our children safe from
preventable illnesses and researchers who are searching for cures and
treatments for diseases that plague our families, like cancer and
diabetes and Alzheimer's.
Look, we can all agree that government could be and should be more
efficient. But here is where I disagree with the unelected Elon Musk
and people like our President. People stopping the spread of measles--
Mr. BOOKER. Yes.
Ms. BALDWIN.--researchers finding cures for Alzheimer's disease are
not waste, fraud, or abuse.
The slash-and-burn that is being led by Elon Musk's DOGE will make
Americans less healthy, less safe. And Elon Musk's DOGE and Donald
Trump are callously ripping away treatments, cures from millions of
Americans suffering from Alzheimer's disease, cancer, ALS, and other
devastating diseases.
Behind these cures are, of course, workers, and they are some of our
Nation's brightest and best and most devoted. They keep our Nation
healthy and our economies running. But this administration is not
respecting their work, their mission.
And I have to point out the why. What is the why to all of their
actions today, where it was announced that they are starting that
slashing of 10,000 workers within the Department of Health and Human
Services--by the way, with more in store because last week, they
announced a reorganization that would result in 20,000 people losing
their jobs. But what is the why?
Ripping the rug out from under cancer and Alzheimer's disease and ALS
patients is all in service of finding the money that Elon Musk and
Donald Trump need to cut taxes for themselves and billionaires like
them, and, yes, big corporate tax breaks. They are cutting cancer cures
for corporate tax breaks.
Senator Booker, these cuts to Health and Human Services are going to
crush families in Wisconsin, whether it be people not having hope for a
cure, for a disease, or to the workers who are doing this
groundbreaking research all across the United States who are going to
be fired.
In New Jersey, what will these firings mean for the people who you
represent?
Mr. BOOKER. I am so grateful for the question because that is what we
said we are here about. We are here to try to elevate the voices of
people affected by what they are doing to our government. And, frankly,
as they cut the Department of Education completely or the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, they are getting rid of Agencies that were
created by Congress, and many people are right to believe they can't be
eliminated without congressional action.
We were talking before with people here that the biggest plurality of
people being laid off from all of these Departments are our veterans.
Again, I am going to be back in New Jersey this weekend. I am going
to try to be at a rally, a townhall. I know everywhere I go in my
State, I am going to hear from people who are rightfully angry, who are
rightfully afraid, who are affected by this, who are fearful of what is
to come. These are such important human emotions.
But the question, then, is going to be for all of us, and I know
people will be questioning me: What are we going to do? What can I do?
What are you going to do, Senator?
So I don't have a brilliant response. I don't have some prescient
idea that we are going to be able to change the course of this. But I
know we are going to fight.
I want to be honest with you. I wasn't sure we could stop Donald
Trump when he tried to take down the ACA. I just wasn't sure. I really
wasn't. I did not know how that was going to end. People gasped--do you
remember that--in this room.
Ms. BALDWIN. I remember that.
Mr. BOOKER. People gasped. We did not know. This room usually has
very predictable actions. That is why I am still standing here, because
I didn't want the predictable. I didn't want business as usual to
happen. It is rare that we have unpredictability on this floor. It is
usually finely orchestrated. You know and I both know this.
But that day, no one expected that or at least wasn't sure. It was
drama. It was a moment. And we won.
I want to tell you this. I said this earlier, when I say ``we won,''
I don't think there is one Senator here or the 99 others who convinced
John McCain of his vote. I know who did, though, Arizonans who stood
up, who spoke up, and demanded more from their leadership not to hurt
people, not to hurt folks who needed that healthcare, not to hurt folks
with preexisting conditions, not to hurt children.

So I am one of these people who wants to learn from our history. I
want to stand here today and tell you I am going to do everything I
can. I am willing to go to some lengths. But I am inadequate. You are
inadequate. We are Senators with all of this power, but in this
democracy, the power of the people is greater than the people in power.
This is a moral moment that more Americans need to stand up and say:
Enough is enough.
I am sorry, the civil rights movement wasn't won because of just a
few Black folks who stood up and were really articulate. No. They
called to the consciences of this country, and the country responded.
It was a Rainbow Coalition that said this ain't who we are in America.
I know New Jerseyans are hurting. I know. I have been to your State.
I love your State. We had some fun in your State together.
Ms. BALDWIN. We sure did.
Mr. BOOKER. We saw young artists, business people. You are this
person who says these words over and over again, more than any
Republican or Democrat: ``Buy American, buy American''; and created so
many jobs in your State.
We were in some packed restaurant. People packed not to see me as a
special guest but to listen to your story. You are a trailblazer, too,
in the Senate. You are doing things that our Founders did not expect,
and you know that.
And you want to stand up. I heard you in our caucus, I heard you in
Schumer's leadership meeting stand up for people who are most
marginalized, most looked down on, most talked about. I hear you,
Tammy.
Ms. BALDWIN. Will the Senator respond to another question?
Mr. BOOKER. I won't respond to a question. I am going to read this
for the 75th time.
I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

[[Page S2067]]

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Senator Booker.
You just talked about your visit to Wisconsin. You have had many. But
there was one that you are talking about that I remember really well
and really fondly.
I had the privilege of hosting you and showing you what our State had
to offer.
Mr. BOOKER. Yes.
Ms. BALDWIN. Something that I likely bragged about then, like I often
do, is that the Badger State is known for making things.
While I know you don't indulge in all of the things that we do make
because, of course, we have our iconic products, like beer and brats
and cheese, but we also build motorcycles and big industrial ships and
engines that power our Navy, and so much more.
Mr. BOOKER. People give a ship.
Ms. BALDWIN. That is right. Make one, too, build them.
Mr. BOOKER. Make them, too, yes.
Ms. BALDWIN. And, of course, behind it all is our workers, as you
were just talking about. And whether they are in a marsh harvesting
cranberries--we are No. 1 in cranberry production.
Mr. BOOKER. We are in the top 5 in New Jersey.
Ms. BALDWIN. I know, but we are No. 1--not that I am competitive
here.
Or whether we are on a foundry floor or whether that worker is on an
assembly line, workers are what make our economy go round. And so,
naturally, they are the ones we should be prioritizing in all of our
policy. But that is not what this administration is doing. They are
going to get a slap across the face when the administration slaps
across-the-board tariffs and gets us into a trade war.
Mr. BOOKER. Yes.
Ms. BALDWIN. And it is going to be these workers who pay the price.
Wisconsinites are really worried about what we are going to see this
week. They are worried about their businesses. You met so many of them
when I hosted you. Their livelihoods, their communities, they worried
because we have all been here before.
Wisconsin was one of the hardest hit States by retaliatory tariffs
last time Donald Trump started a trade war. During Donald Trump's last
trade war, American farmers lost $27 billion in export sales. And
according to further records, Wisconsin's agricultural economy exported
more than $3 billion worth of product sales. And our manufacturing
economy in Wisconsin, well, it exported about $26 billion in
manufactured products.
And do you know what? The exports that Wisconsin manufacturers make
is supported by more than 460,000 jobs, and our agricultural economy is
supported by 350,000 jobs. So a trade war would be devastating to the
workers of Wisconsin.
Then the prices--people have been struggling with the high price of
things in grocery stores, gas stations. A number of our business
leaders have spoken out about the impending tariffs. AriensCo in
Brillion, WI, that makes outdoor equipment like snow blowers, told
Reuters news that policy whiplash in this arena is making it difficult
to plan, especially as price hikes are likely in the works.
And Roden Echo Valley in West Bend told one of our media outlets,
WTMJ4:

I don't like this tariff business. It is going to be on the
backs of farmers because we have to depend on the world to
export our commodities.

He highlighted the dependency of the dairy industry on global trade,
noting that 15 to 20 percent of dairy products are exported. I quote
again:

And if we lose 15 percent of our markets for dairy, it is
going to be absolutely devastating.

We have seen this before, again, in service to a big tax break for
billionaires and corporations.
But to my esteemed colleague from New Jersey, thank you for visiting
the State of Wisconsin. I want to ask what the impact would be in New
Jersey? What would President Trump's tariffs mean for the workers of
the Garden State?
Mr. BOOKER. I love that you focused it there because that is who
President Trump made promises to, in my State, that things are bad with
this economy because it is not serving people who are working every
day. He promised that he would make things better.
I will make grocery prices go down--he said that. So people were
expecting that is where he would focus. They didn't think he would
focus on Greenland. They didn't think he would focus on the Gulf of
Mexico. They didn't think he would focus on bullying Canada. They
didn't think he would focus on turning his back on Ukraine. They didn't
think he would focus on gutting the Department of Education and ending
it.
This is not the reason why people voted for him. They did something
that Reverend Warnock calls--that vote is a sort of prayer. He says it
is like a civic prayer: that I am putting a prayer out there that you
will be who I hope you can be; you will be a blessing to my life and
not a burden.
But you are talking about the burdens that he is bringing. This
economy, under 72 days, has not gotten better for working Americans.
And they don't even see the President trying to make it better; they
see what he is doing to make it worse. And one of the things is going
to be these tariffs, which are going to raise costs on working
Americans.
Then we--what Chuck Schumer said to me is sounding like, it is going
to just sail through--a plan that is going to blow trillions of dollars
of holes to our budget, give trillions of dollars of tax cuts to the
wealthiest, and gut your Medicaid and gut your services for your
grandparents in nursing homes.
People believe. People put their trust. I don't blame them. They are
my fellow Americans. They wanted for their families--they wanted an
America that was more affordable. They wanted America to be first,
prioritized. They wanted a safer America, a stronger America, a more
prosperous America. I heard that.
So when I am back home this weekend, I know that I am going to
encounter a lot of folks who are workers in my State who are getting
hurt. They want better. They want better from their government.
So the burden upon us and each other is: What are we going to do? Are
we going to do the same old thing over and over again or are we going
to try to do things differently? Are we going to be willing to, again,
get in good trouble, necessary trouble to try to save the soul of this
Nation?
I think my colleague, my dear sister, my prayer partner, my soul
lifter--I thought I heard you say something?
Ms. ALSOBROOKS. Yes. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. Ah, yes, I yield for a question while retaining the
floor.
Ms. ALSOBROOKS. I, first of all, want to thank you so much again,
Senator Booker, on your spiritual obedience. And I think it is
necessary for me to say as well today to you, on behalf of so many of
us who are watching right now, how extraordinarily proud we are of you.
I would dare say that you are in so many ways our ancestors' dream
and how powerful it is for all of us who are watching to recognize
that, in this very Chamber where you are standing today, 67 years after
this podium was used, for the 24 hours--you have used the podium that
was used to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
Today, you have taken over the podium, sacrificed your own comforts.
You have suffered over 22 hours to stand here today to talk instead
about the greatness of America and to speak about it in such a way that
reveals the love you feel for our country, and we thank you for that.
This country needs right now bravery. It needs leaders who are
unafraid to stand up and speak truth to power, to not hold back from
calling out these callous and inhumane acts that are perpetrated by
this President against the American people.
When I talk about the American people, we know who we are talking
about: against our veterans, against our seniors, against our children,
from every corner of our country. I want to talk specifically today
about our children.
Mahatma Gandhi noted that the true measure of any society can be
found in how it treats its most vulnerable members. This President is
failing America's children, and he is doing so by harming our education
system.
We remember as well very fondly when Nelson Mandela said:

Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to
change the world.

[[Page S2068]]

I think many of us recognize that is exactly why we are seeing all of
the attacks we have seen on this system, because we recognize that
education allows us to change the world.
Last Friday, Secretary McMahon shut yet another critical lifeline off
to our States and our schools, canceling extensions that the Department
had previously granted to States to draw down their COVID relief money.
States like Maryland originally got extensions to finish spending the
remainder of these critical dollars on long-term projects like teacher
recruitment, tutoring, and other services for students. We know in
particular Anne Arundel Public Schools bought Chromebooks for students
with their funds. But Maryland still has a remaining escrow balance of
nearly $150 million--$150 million. That is on top of the millions that
have already been clawed back, frozen, or withheld from the State by
this administration. These are funds that districts like ours from all
across the country were using for school construction projects and
mental health support for students.
This administration is refusing to acknowledge the lasting effects of
the pandemic on our Nation's students, cruelly stripping educational
opportunities from our students and leaving our States and our
districts on the hook. So let me be clear that these are dollars that
Congress authorized, dollars that have already been allocated, dollars
that have already been earmarked by Maryland and our local districts
for projects that will help all of our students.
Our schools planned and committed these funds in good faith--in good
faith. Our States have acted in good faith, and this administration is
acting in bad faith, pulling the rug out from underneath them, blowing
a hole in their education budgets.
Our Governor had this to say:

The clawback of these previously committed funds would
place an undue burden on our school systems and undermine our
collective efforts to strengthen education across the state.

This is only the latest attack on public education by this
administration, the latest attack on our schools and our students, the
latest attack on our teachers.
We saw this administration attack HBCUs by freezing funds for the
1890 Scholars Program, which provides tuition for students at our land
grant institutions.
We saw this administration and Secretary McMahon slash teacher
training grants, which help prepare our educators to serve our
communities.
We saw this administration proposing to move the student loan program
to the Small Business Administration, threatening students' access to
aid and the promise of higher education.
We saw this Secretary and this administration lay off half of the
staff at the Department of Education several weeks ago, firing over
1,300 staffers.
I want to talk for a minute about who the Department fired. By the
way, these are people who were not incompetent. These are people who
are not DEI. These are professionals, well educated. The administration
fired civil servants at the Department's Office for Civil Rights and
shuttered Office for Civil Rights regional offices, including the
regional office that handles discrimination cases.
I want to make really clear--and I want the American people to hear
this--what decimating the Department of Education and the Office for
Civil Rights means. OCR attorneys intervene when schools ignore
complaints from students who are repeatedly called racial slurs or who
are subjected to hateful speech or imagery, like swastikas, on campus.
It provides the technical assistance that schools need to train staff
on anti-harassment practices, combat harmful behaviors, and build
welcoming environments. And it holds K through 12 schools and colleges
that fail to keep students safe accountable.
It ensures that families have recourse if their child with a
disability is not being served appropriately by their district; that if
a child is not getting the speech therapy or other services outlined in
their individualized education program, that they will have an advocate
to help them.
At the time that this administration took over, there were over 270
open Office for Civil Rights cases, impacting 1.3 million students in
my State alone. Without enough OCR staff to do the job, investigators'
caseloads will grow to an untenable level.
So we spoke to some of the lawyers that work in the division that
serves Maryland schools, and all of these patriotic civil servants--all
they want to do is do their jobs. They want to combat discrimination in
our schools. They want to ensure that every child has the opportunity
to learn in a safe environment. And these civil servants don't know
that that mission is possible, as they and so many of their colleagues
are ruthlessly fired by this administration.
These cuts are catastrophic. I dare say that they, like so many other
decisions by this administration, are wicked.
So, Senator Booker, here is my question: What are you hearing from
families in the State of New Jersey as this administration dismantles
the Department of Education and slashes opportunities for students and
families?
Mr. BOOKER. I am so grateful for the question from my friend--and
that is the centering that we have been trying to do--which is, What
are families around New Jersey and America thinking?
As you said, the Department of Education--we read that earlier
today--it doesn't dictate educational policy of the States, but it does
do a lot to provide funding for special needs kids in the States. So I
am already hearing from parents of kids with special needs regarding
the impact it will have if those resources are cut, everything from
programs that help young people afford college, to programs that I have
worked with people that help schools afford advanced scientific
equipment so the bright minds, the geniuses of our State and the
country, can have the equipment they need.
This administration is cutting things that are hurting families, and
we are hearing from them. We are hearing from veterans. We are hearing
from the elderly.
We are hearing from people who are taking care of the elderly. We are
hearing from people who run our hospitals.
We are hearing from people who run our universities and who talk
about the science funding and the cutting of Ph.D.s.
We are hearing from people who rely on Medicare and Medicaid, who
rely on Social Security.
We are hearing from people that are appalled that their Nation
bullies smaller nations like Canada or Greenland.
We are hearing from people that are shocked at what they are doing to
the most vulnerable people who come to our Nation, who have American
children or an American spouse, who are being disappeared off of our
streets, who have no criminal record.
We are hearing from people that don't think it is right that a
President should have a meme coin that allows him to enrich himself, to
hawk his power and position for even greater wealth.
So I have done everything I can, and I am going to do more--I still
have a little gas in the tank--to elevate those voices, to elevate
those voices.
Mr. KELLY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. Before I yield, because I just keep wanting to exercise
this power that I might have for a little while longer and exercise it
over a man that I have a real chip on my shoulder for--the Senator from
Arizona. Yeah, he has been a military fighter pilot. He has been an
astronaut. He has been out of this world.
But what ticks me off, sir--I have said nice things about everybody
else, but I am not saying them about you, sir, because when I go home
through New Jersey and I walk through my airport--I was the Newark
mayor--I see your big bald head up and a big, big picture of you saying
``New Jersey Hall of Fame, Mark Kelly.''
Who the heck am I? You are the Senator from Arizona, but yeah, yeah--
you are right, OK--he was a great, celebrated military veteran and
astronaut who grew up in New Jersey, who went to high school in West
Orange, whose parents were cops. So you have the accolades in my State,
and I am proud of that. I am proud I get to serve with you.
I still have the floor. Stop trying to speak. There are rules in this
place.

[[Page S2069]]

Don't make me sic the Parliamentarian or the Presiding Officer--thank
you, sir. Thank you, sir.
Mr. KELLY. Senator, my apologies.
Mr. BOOKER. Well, with that kind of deference, I now will yield for a
question while retaining the floor.
Mr. KELLY. My apologies for my giant mug at your airport.
Mr. BOOKER. Where you overshadow me, literally.
Mr. KELLY. As Senator Booker knows, I did grow up in the State of New
Jersey, and growing up in New Jersey, I came from a very working-class
family. My family didn't have a lot of money. My dad was a cop. He was
a union member. From my earliest days of remembering my mom going to
work, she started out as a waitress. And I remember those days, after
working these night shifts at these banquets, how tired she was. She
would work some long hours.
Then she became a secretary, but she also would work as a waitress at
the same time. This was just to make ends meet.
Eventually, my mother decided that she wanted to become a police
officer like my dad, but this was New Jersey in the 1970s, and for a
woman to become a cop, it was really, really hard. It was practically
unprecedented. My mom had to take a written test and then a physical
fitness test.
The physical fitness test, it was designed for men. Part of this test
required that my mom climb over this 7-foot 2-inch wall. Now, my mother
was all of about 4 feet 13 inches tall. To help my mom out in passing
this test, my dad built a replica of this wall made out of a door
between two pine trees in our backyard.
He didn't tell her he made it an inch higher at 7 feet 3 inches, and
I would watch my mom go out there after dinner every night and try to
get over this thing. Initially, she couldn't reach to the top, and when
she finally could, she would usually just fall off into the dirt.
But my mom, she wasn't one to give up. Eventually, she was able to
get over this thing, but it took her a long time. She practiced for
months.
And when she finally took this test, instead of getting over in the
required 9 seconds, she got over in 4\1/2\, much faster than almost all
the men. My mom became one of the first female police officers in
Northern New Jersey.
She kept that job for a long time until eventually she was injured.
And by the way, it was the union that protected her rights after being
injured on the job. But I remember how this job changed our lives
economically.
Both of my parents having good-paying union jobs, it meant more money
coming in the door, more money for our family, more money to play
sports. It was part of what allowed my brother and me to chase our
American dream, to serve in the U.S. Navy and, eventually, both of us
as astronauts in NASA.
We were able to do that because our parents worked hard, and they
sacrificed for us. Because of the support we had, including some really
good public schools--that is harder today for a lot of families,
including the school part, by the way.
I hear from so many folks in Arizona who feel like they are working
harder and harder, and they just are not getting ahead. The cost of
groceries and gas and housing--especially housing--makes these folks
feel like they are just running in place. It shouldn't be that way.
Elon Musk and Donald Trump, they are making it worse. Trump's tariffs
are going to jack up prices on nearly everything that families rely on:
Groceries; rent; cars; housing.
They are even trying to do away with the Department of Education.
Now, how is that going to help kids get a good education? If they are
successful, their plan to gut Medicaid in order to pay for a giant tax
cut for rich people, it is going to be even tougher for hard-working
Americans, hard-working New Jerseyans and Arizonans to get ahead and
achieve their American dream.
So as a fellow kid from New Jersey, and I never expected--never
expected--that tax cuts for rich people would potentially kill the
American dream of kids all over this country, but it could.
And as a kid--you, Senator Booker, growing up in New Jersey--I am
interested to hear what was your American dream and why--why--would
these giant tax cuts make that kind of dream harder?
Mr. BOOKER. I appreciate a New Jersey Hall of Fame member, the only
one in the U.S. Senate--I appreciate his question.
I appreciate the service of his parents, out there every day putting
their heart and soul into serving the community in a dangerous job
where you often see people at their worst.
I said this earlier, James Baldwin said:

Children are never good at listening to their elders, but
they . . . never fail to imitate them.

You are living up to the example your parents set in so many ways.
Then you go and pull something off that really makes me jealous is
you are one of the guys in the Senate that probably most married up.
We are both are Jersey boys. We both grew up there in grade schools
and high schools. We both know those teachers that did so much for us,
that coached sports. They taught us. I am going back for a funeral for
a great man in New Jersey, Ed Koehler, this weekend, who was one of the
greater influences in my life in high school, and you know how much
people invested themselves.
I remember learning Little League from a guy that would come back
from working at a gas station, a parent of another kid. I still
remember his big thick hands teaching us how to hold a bat. This guy is
working a job at a gas station and rushes home to teach his kid Little
League and treated me--the only Black kid--like one of his own kids.
Special communities, special heritage, special culture that we
share--this is the Jersey culture. We got a chip on our shoulders. We
are tough. We are strong. We are proud.
And a lot of New Jersey is watching. Thousands of letters and emails
and phone calls from all over New Jersey. Andy Kim and I are hearing
from so many people, and they are afraid. They are angry. They are
worried. They don't understand why they are going after our Social
Security programs, cutting benefits by cutting so many employees and
cutting the service people get.
They don't understand why they are seeing veterans being laid off
from their government jobs. They don't understand why Social Security
is being called a Ponzi scheme. The President of the United States is
making up lies.
They don't understand why veterans and Medicaid and Medicare--there
are so many things that are making people worry. I am hearing their
letters, and they are praying we stop some of these things like
$880 billion dollars' worth--and the question is, Why? Why are we doing
this?

We are doing this--and they are saying it is to extend or make
permanent the Trump tax cuts, the overwhelming disproportionate benefit
that went to the wealthiest amongst us, the wealthy corporations.
So Trump's economy in the first 72 days is pretty bad because of his
reckless chaotic behavior: Prices are up. Inflation is up. The stock
market had its worst quarter in 2, 3 years.
Consumer confidence is down. And now we are going to see tariffs
tomorrow, which are going to further drive up prices, create more
chaos.
Trump squandered the progress we were making on the economy. He
tanked the market, jacked the prices. Is it any surprise that Americans
are feeling more pessimistic, as I said, with consumer confidence going
down? And what is his first major legislative push? This is what we are
talking about, my colleague, my friend, my fellow New Jerseyan: His
first big legislative push in this body is not to help families.
No plan to lower costs. That is what he said he would do. Is his
first legislation coming here while lowering costs? No. Is it any
relief for seniors? Is it some big idea like we did to lower
prescription drug costs? No, that is not what he is doing.
Is his first priority helping our veterans? What is his first
priority? As I said, it is extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts, a
multitrillion dollar giveaway that slashed corporate taxes and
overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy and left the middle class with
crumbs, relative crumbs.
He and his allies promised that the benefits would trickle down to
workers. That is what we heard. It would ``pay for itself,'' he said.
But in 2022, the Fed and the Joint Committee on Taxation confirmed
the truth: 90 percent of workers--90 percent of folks in our States saw
no benefit. Now Trump and his GOP allies

[[Page S2070]]

want to double down with even bigger tax cuts that will increase the
deficit by over $4.5 trillion, a majority of which would go to the
wealthiest people.
Let me read what the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities--how they
described the plan.
Here is a quote:

Following a presidential campaign in which Donald Trump
promised to improve the economic circumstances of working
families, House Republicans are instead pushing to extend all
expiring provisions of the costly 2017 tax law--which are
heavily skewed to people with high incomes--and add new tax
cuts on top. The Republican-controlled House passed a budget
resolution on February 25 authorizing $4.5 trillion in tax
cuts through 2034 and calling on committees to partially
offset the cost with $2 trillion in cuts; these cuts will
inevitably hit programs such as Medicaid and SNAP, which help
millions of families afford essential needs.

Are they cuts to the wealthiest? No.

These cuts will inevitably hit programs such as Medicaid
and SNAP, which help millions of families afford essential
needs.
Extending the expiring tax cuts for individuals and large
estates would double down on the flaws in the 2017 law by:
Giving the biggest benefits to the wealthy. Households with
incomes in the top 5 percent, who have incomes over around
$320,000, would receive roughly half of the benefits.

So billionaires above that, altogether, they would receive roughly
half of the benefits.

Ballooning the deficit. Along with the 2001 and 2003 tax
cuts enacted under President Bush, the 2017 law has severely
eroded our nation's revenue base. The House budget would
compound the damage, adding hundreds of billions of dollars
to deficits each year. Extending the 2017 tax cuts would cost
$3.6 trillion through 2034.
Failing to significantly boost economic growth, workers'
earnings, or other benefits for workers [would not be seen.]
The trickle-down benefits that proponents claimed the 2017
law would produce never materialized, and the law hasn't come
close to paying for itself.

As I heard on the Senate floor from my colleagues, they said: Oh,
this is going to pay for itself; oh, this is going to pay for itself.

Yet the House budget claims that extending the tax cuts
would generate trillions in revenue--far more than any
independent estimate.
As in 2017, an alternative path is available. Congress
should work toward creating a fairer federal tax system that
raises more revenues from wealthy people and corporations and
supports high-value investments that expand opportunity and
promote shared prosperity.
During the 2017 debate, Trump Administration officials and
prominent proponents claimed the tax law would yield broadly
shared benefits by boosting economic growth. President
Trump's Council of Economic Advisers claimed the centerpiece
corporate tax rate cut would ``very conservatively'' lead to
a $4,000 boost in household income.

What a lie.

But research to date has failed to find evidence that the
gains from the corporate rate cut trickled down to most
workers.

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

A study by economists from the Joint Committee on Taxation
and the Federal Reserve Board found that workers below the
90th percentile of their firm's income scale--a group whose
incomes were below roughly $114,000 in 2016--saw no change in
earnings from the rate cut.
Proponents' claims that the tax cuts would pay for
themselves haven't panned out either. In fact, a study by
economists from Harvard, Princeton, the University of
Chicago, and the Treasury Department estimates that the law's
total corporate tax cuts--the rate cut as well as full
expensing for capital investments and international tax
changes--reduced revenue by roughly 98 cents for every dollar
of tax cuts, even after accounting for increases in economic
activity due to those cuts.
Similarly, proponents argued the law's 20 percent deduction
for pass-through businesses (partnerships, S corporations,
and sole proprietorships) would boost investment and create
jobs. Then-Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, for example,
argued the deduction would ``be good for the economy; good
for growth.'' But researchers have found no evidence that it
provided any significant boost in economic activity and
little evidence that it increased investment or broadly
benefited workers, other than the owners themselves.
Despite this underwhelming performance, the House
Republican budget resolution assumes that enacting $4.5
trillion in new or extended tax cuts will produce enough
additional economic growth to generate an extra $2.6 trillion
in revenue through 2035.

They think it is going to offset the tax cuts.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has derided
this claim as ``fantasy math,'' noting that it is many times
greater than even the most optimistic independent estimate.

They lied to us, or at least just put out really expansive hope in
the past, and none of it came true. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool
the American people twice, well, we should not let it happen.
This idea in this country that if you make the wealthiest more
wealthy by giving them more tax cuts and deny services to our veterans,
deny healthcare to our seniors, cut Social Security benefits, cut
scientific research, cut programs that protect people's safety and
security, that that is going to somehow help our Nation to prosper as a
whole, you are kidding yourselves. We have the evidence. We have the
analysis.
And this is the crazy thing, as I heard from Chuck Schumer, the
Republicans are now trying to hide the true cost of their billionaire
tax cuts with accounting gimmicks.
The New York Times interviewed budget experts from across the
political spectrum to shed light on the Republicans' trickery. And this
is the article I want to read. I know some people have questions, but I
want to read this article because Schumer shook me. Shook me.
So here is the New York Times. The title of the article is ``The
Budget Trick the G.O.P Might Use to Make $4 Trillion Tax Cuts Look
Free.''

How much does a tax cut cost? It depends on what you
compare it to.
Republicans in Congress trying to advance a giant bill that
includes $4 trillion in tax cut extensions are considering a
novel strategy that would make the extension appear to be
free money. The trick: Budgeting with the assumption that
current policies extend indefinitely into the future--even
those with an expiration date, like the 2017 tax cuts set to
end next year. It's the difference between making the
extension appear to cost $4 trillion.

Which is the true cost, or hiding it and saying it costs nothing.

Using this ``current policy baseline'' wouldn't change the
bill's real effect on deficits or debt. But it would make it
easier to actually make the tax cuts lasting by sidestepping
a rule governing budget reconciliation, the process
Republicans are using to pass the bill.
Yes, this sounds technical! That's why we've enlisted some
of Washington's top budget veterans to explain this maneuver
using a metaphor. Across the ideological spectrum, nearly all
of the more than 20 experts we heard from disliked changing
the baseline.

And Chuck Schumer just came in here and said the Republicans have
already decided they are going to do it. This is outrageous.
But here the New York Times interviewed across the ideological
spectrum, whole bunch of experts from the center, from the right, from
the left, and let's hear what they are saying about this gimmick.

``If budget reconciliation is like taking the express lanes
on a highway (there's extra rules and tolls, limited stops,
but it gets you to where you want to go faster), using a
current policy baseline for taxes is like slapping a fake
license plate on your car.'' Zach Moller, Director of the
economic program at Third Way, which describes itself as a
``center-left'' research group.

They don't like this gimmick. They think it is fakery.
Here is another person using an analogy:

``It's like taking an expensive week-long vacation and then
assuming you can spend an extra $1,000 per day forever since
you are no longer staying at the Plaza.'' Marc Goldwein,
Senior vice president and senior policy director for the
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan
group that tends to be hawkish on deficits.

Here is another person, Jessica Reidl, senior fellow at the Manhattan
Institute--I have worked with them in the past--a conservative research
group, and the chief economist for the former Republican Senator Ron
Portman of Ohio.

``Last year, despite being deeply in debt, I bought a
$100,000 sports car. So next year, buying another $100,000
car is not irresponsible because I am merely spending the
same amount of money as the year before. And if I purchase
``only'' a $70,000 car, then I should be congratulated for
reducing my annual spending by $30,000.''

A conservative think tank is basically calling this a hoax and a lie.
Lying to yourself, that if I keep spending, spending, spending the same
amount I kept spending, spending, spending to drive up the costs, then
I am just doing the same thing I have done before, so it is not adding.
Well, it is adding. There is no way to not call what the Republicans
are trying to do a gimmick that is trying to

[[Page S2071]]

hide the truth that they are going to add trillions of dollars to the
deficits that we, that our children, that our children's children are
going to have to pay for.
The debt payments alone to service the debt are going to be bigger
than any of the programs we think we should be investing in like
science research or education or affordable childcare, or lowering
prescription drug costs, or expanding the child tax credit. Things that
we know if we invest in, we will get some returns.
But, no, what they are investing in is bigger tax cuts for the
wealthiest. Conservatives, independents, left-leaning folks all come to
the same conclusion.

Pretending $4 trillion in tax cuts will cost nothing may
not be easy. Many Republican lawmakers who are concerned
about the deficit are well-aware that the bill will increase
the deficit by a lot.

Here is the integrity call. One Republican in the House showed his
integrity. One budget hawk named Massie said: I can't vote for this
stuff. I am a budget hawk. I do not want to see increased deficits. He
called it what it was. I saw him in an interview say, hey, hey, wait a
minute, by your own numbers, Republican colleagues, you are driving up
the deficit by trillions of dollars, and you are making the rich
richer, and you are leaving future generations more bankrupt.
So this article assumes that this was all going to be decided by the
Senate Parliamentarian ``who advises legislators on Chamber rules.''
The Parliamentarian, I thought, ``could rule that the current policy
baseline isn't allowed.''
Forcing the Republicans to have to make a choice, overruling or
replacing my friend the Parliamentarian, somebody that on both sides of
the aisle we respect, it is very rarely done.
I have been here for 13 years. We have had the same Parliamentarian.
But that doesn't mean Republicans won't try, this article assumes. And
I guess they did try.
They found a way around the Parliamentarian. They found a way around
the rules of the Senate. They found a way around the ideals of
reconciliation and the Byrd Rule. They are deciding the way we are
going to do this is break the Senate and make up our own rules.
This is how they are going to get a bill through that gives trillion
dollars of tax cuts to the wealthiest in our country who are doing very
well. It is not hate on other Americans. I celebrate success, God bless
you. But you don't need tax cuts, especially not that are going to be
given to you on the backs of the poor, on the backs of our elders, on
the backs of our children, on the backs of expectant mothers, on the
backs of my mom's, your mom's Social Security.
What does it say about our values and our priorities to allow that to
happen? Who are we, America, if you don't think this is a moral moment
where the character of our country is being tested?
I tell you, the Senate has stopped crazy gimmicks like this before,
but the persuasive power of Democratic Senators probably won't be
enough. We, as a country, like these economists that are Republicans,
that are Democrats, that are nonpartisan, who called out this budget
gimmickry for what it is--when is it enough?
When they came after journalists? When they came after colleges and
universities, research and science? When they came after law firms who
had the audacity to defend clients or to represent clients that were
suing the President, who, God bless America, lost in civil courts, lost
in criminal courts?
When do you cross your line? We can't let this happen. It is not a
right or left moment. It is a right or wrong moment. It is a moral
moment in America. I have read Republican after Republican from
Republican Governors to Republican mayor groups, from the Cato
Institute to the Manhattan Institute to AEI, calling out this budget
gimmickry for what it is, and the result will be the same, blowing up
our Federal deficit to stratospheric, almost unimaginable levels.
This is wrong every way you look at it. And if your values aren't
fiscal conservativism, then vote with your integrity and vote against
that. If your values are fiscal hawk and you hate deficit, then vote
against the bill because it violates you.
Don't make up some fantasy that this is going to pay for itself. The
2017 tax cuts didn't, and you are going to extend them and say, well,
it is going to happen this time. Oh, don't worry about it. It is going
to happen this time. No, it is not.
Here is an article. ``Donald Trump Built a National Debt So Big That
It'll Weigh Down the Economy For Years.''

One of President Donald Trump's lesser known but profoundly
damaging legacies will be the explosive rise in the national
debt that occurred on his watch. The financial burden that
he's inflicted on our government will wreak havoc for
decades, saddling our kids and grandkids with debt.
The national debt has risen by almost $7.8 trillion during
Trump's time in office. That's nearly twice as much as what
Americans owe on student loans, car loans, credit cards and
every other type of debt, other than mortgages, combined,
according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
It amounts to about $23,500 in new federal debt for every
person in the country.

Every person, $23,500.

The growth in the annual deficit under Trump ranks as the
third-biggest increase, relative to the size of the economy,
of any U.S. presidential administration, according to a
calculation by a leading Washington budget maven, Eugene
Steuerle, co-founder of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy
Center. And unlike George W. Bush and Abraham Lincoln, who
oversaw the larger relative increases in deficits, Trump did
not launch two foreign conflicts or have to pay for a civil
war.

In peacetimes, he is No. 3--not the reason you want to be like
Lincoln.

Economists agree that we needed massive deficit spending
during the COVID-19 crisis to ward off an economic cataclysm,
but federal finances under Trump had become dire even before
the pandemic. That happened even though the economy was
booming and unemployment was at historically low levels. By
the Trump administration's own description, the pre-pandemic
national debt level was already a ``crisis'' and a ``grave
threat.''

To our Nation.

The combination of Trump's 2017 tax cut and the lack of any
serious spending restraint helped both the deficit and the
debt soar. So when the once-in-a-lifetime viral disaster
slammed our country and we threw more than $3 trillion into
COVID-19-related stimulus, there was no longer any margin for
error.
Our national debt has reached immense levels relative to
our economy, nearly as high as it was at the end of World War
II. But unlike 75 years ago, the massive financial overhang
from Medicare and Social Security will make it dramatically
more difficult to dig ourselves out of the debt ditch.
Falling deeper into the red is the opposite of what Trump,
the self-styled ``King of Debt,'' said would happen if he
became president. In a March 31, 2016, interview with Bob
Woodward and Robert Costa of The Washington Post, Trump said
he could pay down the national debt, then about $19 trillion,
``over a period of eight years'' by renegotiating trade deals
and spurring economic growth.

God, this man breaks his promises over and over. After he took
office, Trump predicted that economic growth created by [his] 2017 tax
cut, combined with the proceeds from the tariffs he imposed in 2017 on
a wide range of goods from numerous countries, would help eliminate the
budget deficit and let the U.S. begin to pay down its debt. On July 17,
2018, he told Sean Hannity of FOX News: ``We have $21 trillion in debt.
When this [the 2017 tax cut] really kicks in, we'll start paying off
the debt like it's water.''

That is Trump on FOX News lying.

Nine days later, he tweeted, ``Because of Tariffs we will
be able to start paying down large amounts of $21 trillion in
debt that has been accumulated much by the Obama
Administration.''

The guy can't help blaming Obama.

That is not how it played out.

Nothing he said came true.

When Trump took office in January 2017, the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office was projecting that the Federal
deficit would be 2% to 3% of our gross domestic product
during Trump's term. Instead, the deficit reached nearly 4%
of gross domestic product in 2018 and 4.6% in 2019.
There were multiple culprits. Trump's tax cuts, especially
the sharp reduction in the corporate tax rate to 21% from
35%--

Again, what is here--a lot of my colleagues were here. The big
business groups were coming in and asking for 25 percent from 35
percent, and Trump said: No, you are asking me for 25. I am going to
give you 21 percent, cut your taxes even more.
It took a big bite out of Federal revenue.

The CBO estimated in 2018 that the tax cut would increase
deficits by about $1.9 trillion over 11 years.

[[Page S2072]]

Meanwhile, Trump's claim--

I wish the author wrote ``Trump's lie.'' But he says:

Trump's claim that increased revenue from the tariffs would
help eliminate (or at least reduce) our national debt hasn't
panned out.

Surprise, surprise.

In 2018, Trump's administration began hiking tariffs on
aluminum, steel, and many other products, launching what
became a global trade war with China, the European Union, and
other countries.
The tariffs did bring in additional revenue. In fiscal year
2019, they netted about $71 billion, up about $36 billion
from president Barack Obama's last year in office. But
although $36 billion is a lot of money, it is less than 1/
750th of the national debt. That $36 billion could have
covered a bit more than three weeks of the interest on the
national debt--that is, had the Trump administration not
unilaterally decided to send a chunk of the tariff revenue to
farmers affected by his [horrible] trade wars. Businesses
that struggled as a result of the tariffs also paid fewer
taxes, offsetting some of the increased tariff revenue.
By early 2019, the national debt had climbed to $22
trillion. Trump's budget proposal for 2020 called it a
``grave threat to our economic and societal prosperity''--

He called his own damage that.

--and asserted that the U.S. was experiencing a ``national
debt crisis.'' However, that same budget proposal included
substantial growth in the national debt.
By the end of 2019, the debt had risen in our country to
$23.2 trillion and more federal officials were sounding the
alarm. ``Not since World War II has the country seen deficits
during times of low unemployment that are as large as those
that we project--nor, in the past century, has it experienced
large deficits for as long as we project'' [said the CBO].
Weeks later, COVID-19 erupted and made the financial
situation far worse. As of Dec. 31, 2020--

About a month left, 3 weeks left in his term.

--the national debt had jumped to $27.75 trillion, up 39%
from the $19.95 trillion when Trump was sworn in.

He increased our deficit by 39 percent.

The government ended its 2020 fiscal year with the portion
of the national debt owed to investors, the metric favored by
the CBO, at around 100% of GDP. The CBO had predicted less
than a year earlier that it would take until 2030 to reach
that approximate level of a debt.

But not under Donald Trump.

Including the trillions owed to various governmental trust
funds. . . .

Under his leadership, the total debt grew and grew and grew. It is
now at about 130 percent of GDP. Where are the fiscal hawks?

Normally, this is where we'd give Trump's versions of
events. But we couldn't get anyone to give us Trump's side.
Judd Deere, a White House spokesman, referred us to the
Office of Management and Budget, which is a branch of the
White House.
OMB didn't respond to our questions. Treasury directed us
to comments made by OMB director Russell Vought in October,
in which he predicted that as the pandemic eases and economic
growth rebounds, the ``fiscal picture'' will improve. The OMB
blamed legislators for deficits when Trump submitted his
proposed 2021 budget: ``Unfortunately, the Congress continues
to reject any efforts to restrain spending.''

It ain't me, he is saying, it is them.

``Instead, they have greatly continued to the continued
ballooning of the Federal debts and deficits, putting the
Nation's fiscal future at risk.''
Still, the deficit growth under Trump has been historic. .
. . [T]he Tax Policy Center . . . has done a comparison of
every American president using a metric called the ``primary
deficit.''

They are saying Trump had the third biggest primary deficit growth,
5.2 percent of GDP. He is our biggest debt man. Deficits have ballooned
under this President because of his tax scam, of his lies about his tax
bill in 2017, none of which came true. It didn't pay for itself. It
didn't close the deficits. It blew up our deficits. The benefits didn't
go to working people. The benefits, as it says--over 90 percent would
go to wealthy Americans and corporations.
Even some Republicans have been calling out hypocrisy. One of our
colleagues, Rand Paul, in 2018: ``I can't in all honesty,'' Rand Paul
says, ``in all good faith just look the other way because my party is
now complicit in these deficits.''
The other thing is there is a huge hypocrisy factor. Republicans
lambasted President Obama to no end for trillion-dollar deficits, and
now they have to put forward a multitrillion-dollar deficit.
Mick Mulvaney, Trump's former Chief of Staff, said in 2020:

My party is very interested in deficits when there is a
Democrat in the White House. The worst thing in the whole
world is deficits when Barack Obama was the president. Then
Donald Trump became president, and we're a lot less
interested [in deficits] as a party.

We don't care at this point.
Here is a guy I mentioned numerous times. Thomas Massie, a
Republican Member of the House, said earlier this year about
Republicans:

We have no plan whatsoever to balance the budget other than
growth, but what they're proposing is [going] to make the
deficit worse.

This is what our President is trying to do, with the complicity of a
lot of people who call themselves deficit hawks, who call themselves
fiscal conservatives. They are going to try to blow it through here,
gaming the system, creating some kind of scam to obscure the real cost
of this.
We--all them on the Republican side, us on the Democratic side--we
all know the truth about these tax increases and what they are going to
do, how much they are going to cost, but we are going to play a game,
it looks like, here unless more Americans speak up.
Republican and Democrat, people who know numbers, who know what we
are doing to future generations in this country, this is wrong. And I
say again that this is not right or left; it is right or wrong. This is
a moral moment in America. What are we going to do?
I am so glad my friend the Senator from Hawaii is here. I try to keep
M&M's in my desk in case she wants to partake in New Jersey's State
product. The M&M was invented in Newark. True. I give great trivia
here.
I am waiting for the Senator from Hawaii, my dear friend, to ask me a
question. I have the floor.
Ms. HIRONO. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Ms. HIRONO. I am glad you mentioned M&M's. Both of us are lawyers. I
remember I got through the study for the bar exam by eating mounds and
mounds of M&M's. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for continuing to
provide me with M&M's.
I want to thank you, Senator Booker, for standing here for hours on
end to push back, to fight against this administration's lawlessness.
In fact, a reporter asked me today: Do you think this is a good use by
Senator Booker of his time to be on the floor to do this?
I said: Anytime any of us gets up and uses our voices to counter the
fight against the lawlessness of this station, it is a good use of our
time.
So, thank you, Senator Booker for yielding to me and for standing up
for the American people. Is it making a difference? Millions of people
are watching you, Senator Booker. Millions have watched and are
watching you. It is making a difference.
I want to ask you a question about the lawlessness of this
administration. As you yourself said last night, ``These are not normal
times in our Nation.'' In fact, these are the very words that I often
use when I meet with anybody who comes to see me from Hawaii--
individuals, organizations. I say, ``These are not normal times.''
So Donald Trump has made no secret of the fact that he fancies
himself a King with total disregard for the rule of law. From day one,
he and his administration have taken one illegal action after another.
On his first day in office, Donald Trump issued an Executive order
purporting to end birthright citizenship, a right protected in our
Constitution for more than a century--birthright citizenship.
He tried to unilaterally freeze Federal funding--funding for
everything from cancer research to disaster aid, funding that had
already been appropriated by Congress, and the executive branch is
required by law to spend it. It is not as though it is up to the
President to decide what programs he is going to release money for;
Congress already made that determination. By law, he is supposed to
expend these funds. But, again, he thinks he is the King and he can do
whatever he wants. So he put a freeze on these funds.
He has enabled Elon Musk, an unelected billionaire--the richest
person in the world, whose only qualification is the more than $200
million he spent to get Trump elected--to run roughshod through our
government.

[[Page S2073]]

Together, they have attempted to shutter USAID and the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, just for two examples. The Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau has returned more than $21 billion to
consumers through its enforcement actions--$21 billion going to our
consumers. Apparently, King Trump can't stand that, and neither can
Elon Musk. These are Agencies that do critical work at home and abroad.
They represent just a miniscule part of the Federal budget.
But this doesn't stop either Trump or Musk from going after these
programs. And Musk's so-called DOGE team has gained access to sensitive
databases and payment systems across our government, containing the
personal information of millions of Americans. So he has access to the
Treasury Department database--all our Social Security numbers, our tax
payments, all of that. He was running roughshod, until stopped by a
court, on these databases.
They have done all this without any transparency or accountability
whatsoever, meaning we still don't know the full extent of where DOGE
has been or what they have done.
Trump has launched an all-out assault on our Federal workforce. He
attempted to fire tens of thousands--he actually fired them--who are on
probationary status overnight, only for courts to order them--these
thousands and thousands of Federal employees on probationary status--to
be reinstated weeks later. Talk about chaos. Talk about sowing fear.
So now he is attempting to reclassify whole swaths of Federal
employees to strip them of civil service protections and in some cases
eliminate their ability to bargain collectively.
He fired Department of Justice and FBI officers for seemingly no
other reason than their involvement in January 6 cases--cases they were
assigned to as rank-and-file officials.
It is not as though the people all at the DOJ and the FBI had a
choice in the kind of cases they were going to be assigned. They were
assigned January 6 cases, and the names of these people--there are some
6,000 FBI and DOJ employees who worked on January 6 cases, and there is
a fear that those names will be disclosed.
He is going after schools, from kindergartners to universities, as
part of his war on diversity, equity, and inclusion. There are many
examples of the kind of government overreach that they are exercising
through their effort to ferret out what they call diversity, equity,
and inclusion, which, actually, that is a positive. Do we want to be
inclusive? So I want to give you just one example.
There was a teacher in Idaho who had a poster in her classroom that
said ``Everyone is welcome here,'' and there were handprints of
different colors--white, black, yellow handprints. She was told she had
to take this poster down. She was told that if the handprints were all
white handprints, she could have kept the poster up, but she was told
she had to take down this poster in her classroom that says ``Everyone
is welcome here.''
She took it down at first, but she felt so bad about it that she put
it back up. Then she was told by the powers that be at her school that
she had a certain amount of time to take this poster down. Otherwise,
there will be disciplinary action. That is the kind of government
overreach that is a hallmark of this administration.
To date, the Trump administration has withheld millions of dollars
from handpicked colleges and universities, conditioning the funding on
unreasonable demands meant to bring these colleges to their knees. So
he is starting with Harvard and Columbia. There is probably a whole
long list of colleges that he has threatened to withdraw hundreds of
millions of dollars from.
They have slashed funding and staffing of the Department of
Education. In fact, they would like to dismantle the Department of
Education, which is responsible for administering billions in funding
for low-income students, students with disabilities, and something as
critical as school lunch for kids. Every single State in our country
relies on the funding they receive from the U.S. Department of
Education. In Hawaii, we are talking about some $300 million in funding
for our schools to help our kids with disabilities and to provide
school lunches through the U.S. Department of Agriculture--the things
that I mentioned.
As Senator Booker knows well, the list goes on and on.
This administration continues to abuse its power, acting with total
disregard for the rule of law, so we have turned to the courts to stop
these illegal acts. Now Republicans are calling to impeach these judges
who are applying the law, who are doing what they are supposed to be
doing and not just giving Trump whatever results he wants, but these
judges are now deemed open to impeachment.
It is clear Trump and his cronies will keep on doing whatever they
want regardless of the Constitution or the law. They are crippling
government and sowing total chaos across our country while doing
nothing to address the actual issues people care about.
I know my colleague from New Jersey is just as concerned about
lawlessness as I am. We both sit on the Judiciary Committee. We know
how important adherence to the rule of law is. In fact, I have said
many times that it is the rule of law that separates a democracy from
all other forms of government, and we now have a President who does not
think that the rule of law applies to him. WTF comes to mind.
So, Senator Booker, my question to you is, What are the consequences
of this total lawlessness on our government, our country, and the
American people?
Mr. BOOKER. Thank you, Senator Hirono.
I think I need somebody to say what WTF? To come from you is pretty
giving and precious, and I am grateful.
This rule of law is really important. It is part of this whole moment
in American history that I keep calling the more moment--something
beyond the normal, where we shouldn't respond in a normal fashion. This
is a moment where judges rule in his favor, and he praises them. If you
don't rule for him, he drags them and threatens them, so much so that
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has to tell him to back up.
If elected officials speak up, many of them fear as to what the
consequences would be for them or their reelections if they speak
against him.
Lawyers decline, possibly, to represent people because they are
worried that this President has already shown that if you represent the
wrong people or represent, God forbid, people against him, he is going
to try to shut down your law firm in ways that are against the rule of
law that this country believes in.
If journalists and media organizations don't report in a way that he
likes or confirm his arbitrary name changes for the Gulf of Mexico,
there is a punishment that he tries to dish out to try to make them
come to submission.
State and local governments literally can get extorted for their
funding if they don't carry out his demands. Schools and universities
that are starving for dollars and trying to invest them in research and
science that will propel humanity to new heights--well, they could get
targeted by this President if they don't do what he says.
It feels like his ultimate goal is to create a country where you
cannot trust the outcome of elections that he loses because he is going
to tell you that if he lost that election, it is the Big Lie. It is
wrong. I won. I won. I won. I won. I don't care what judge after judge,
court after court says--I won. And if you don't believe me, if you
don't say, ``The election I won,'' well, there will be consequences for
that too.
This is a President who, even as we have read people on both sides of
the aisle, isn't respecting the Constitution and the separation of
powers. He isn't respecting the rights that we hold precious. He
isn't honoring what we call the rule of law. I want to go a little bit
into this for a second.

Let's talk about the separation of powers. There are many, many
different cases right now, but we know that James Madison--the Founding
Father who devised the basic framework for our Constitution--devoted
some of the Federalist Papers to the ways the Constitution addresses
the danger of concentrating too much power in one person or in one
branch of government. Written in 1788, Madison's words still have
resonance today.
This is what he wrote in Federalist 487:

[[Page S2074]]

The cumulation of all powers--legislative, executive and
judiciary--in the same hands whether of one, a few, or many
and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elective--may
justly be pronounced the very definition of ``tyranny.''

So what is this President trying to do? He is trying to jam this
court decision that is not in his favor. Either the judge is corrupt
and should be impeached or he is just going to deny the ruling or not
follow it.
Madison explained that the Constitution set up the executive,
legislative, and judiciary branches to be separate and distinct and
equal and bound together by checks and balances.

It is agreed on all sides that the powers properly
belonging to one of the branches ought not to be directly and
completely administrated by either of the other branches. It
is equally evident that none of them ought to possess
directly or indirectly an overruling influence over the
others in the administration of their executive respective
powers.

That is Federalist 48.
I am nerdy enough to have a favorite Federalist Paper. I am going to
read from my favorite one, Federalist 51:

In order to lay a due foundation for the separate and
distinct exercise of the different powers of government
essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that
each department should have a will of its own, so constituted
that each should have as little agency as possible in the
appointment of the members of the others. But the great
security against a gradual concentration of the several
powers in the same department consist in giving to those who
administer each department the necessary constitutional means
to resist the encroachments of the others.

``[T]o resist the encroachments of the others.'' We are not doing
that in the Senate or in the House.
Federalist 51 continues:

It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices
should be necessary to control the abuses of government.

Here is the quote, folks. Here is the quote from our Founders:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal
controls on government would be necessary.

But our President is no angel.
This is Federalist 51 continuing:

In framing a government which is to be administered by men
over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first
enable the government to control--

The government--

and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.

They are talking about at great length our Founders and the
separation of powers and the checks and balances of these institutions.
Yet, for 72 days of this administration, has the Congress--article I,
the people's House; the Senate, the deliberative body--have we once
held this President to account?
The most powerful man in the world and the richest man in the world
have taken a battle ax to the Veterans' Administration, a battle ax to
the Department of Education, a battle ax to the only Agency solely
focused on protecting consumers against big banks and other factors
that might abuse them, bringing it down.
Congress established the Department of Education. Congress
established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Congress. But the
President doesn't care. He is going to push as hard as he can against
the principles of our Founders. And what will we do in this body? What
will we do in the House of Representatives? Right now, the answer is
nothing.
Has Elon Musk--the unelected, un-Senate-confirmed billionaire and No.
1 campaign contributor of Donald Trump's, who has admitted he has made
mistakes--on his website, he keeps taking down the mistakes. He keeps
getting called out for them. He fires people from the FAA and then begs
them to come back. He fires the people who protect us from nuclear
accidents. ``Oh, wait, come back.''
Have we ever in the Senate or in the House called him in for one
oversight hearing to account for what he is doing to address the fears
of a nation? No.
Separation of powers.
Hey, we have hearings here all the time but not with Elon Musk. Do
you know why? Do you know why I think why? Tell me I am a conspiracy
theorist. Because what Elon Musk is doing to some of my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle is threatening them. He is threatening to
run primaries with what, to me, would be a quarter but to him is $100
million.
I am going to drop $100 million against you in a primary if you step
out of line or if you dare to say Hegseth is not qualified to be the
Secretary of Defense. We are going to drag you through X. We are going
to awaken the mob to threaten you.
Our Founders spoke so eloquently to protect against that kind of
corruption, to protect against that kind of egregious tyrannical power
that says: Only I can save this country. Give me all power. Let me be
the strongman.
We know who he respects on the global stage. I was stunned. I thought
it was a joke during the election when he said his favorite leader is
Viktor Orban, who has rolled back democratic principles, who has
concentrated power. I see.
Who does he choose to call a dictator--the man who was trying
desperately to lead his country in defense against the authoritarian
dictator and preserve his democracy or does he call the dictator a
dictator? No. A simple test. Most high school students would simply
pass it but no. He calls a hero a dictator.
Do we have any conversations about that in the formal capacity, to
talk about the Ukrainian war, which I know people on both sides of the
aisle--Mazie Hirono brings up the separation of powers. Why is
history's lesson so relevant today? Why do we study history? Did I
learn that in high school that you study history so you don't repeat
the mistakes of the past? You study history to gain inspiration and
insight and courage against tough times. You study history to be
inspired by heroes who stood up against despots, who sacrificed
themselves.
What is the lesson in history? How is it relevant to us today?
Because the separation of powers between the branches of government has
allowed our democracy to thrive for nearly 250 years. And now we have a
person in power who is barely being checked. And if the courts check
him, what he does to the courts--
In the 9 weeks or 10 weeks since Donald Trump was inaugurated, there
have been more than 140 Federal lawsuits filed challenging his actions.
I don't know if another President, in my lifetime, ever has had 140
Federal lawsuits in about 9 weeks. It is a staggering figure. We should
consider it a staggering figure. He must be the most sued President in
U.S. history. Somebody should fact check that. But at least in my
lifetime, I don't remember Reagan; I don't remember Bush; I don't
remember Obama or Clinton or Biden being dragged into court in the
first 9 weeks so many times and losing case after case.
He may have a record for the most lawsuits filed by a President
himself because he is a guy who says he loves to sue folks. In support
of the big lie, he did so many lawsuits and lost them all.
The lawsuits against Trump and his administration are not frivolous.
Federal judges, appointed by Republican Presidents and Democratic
Presidents alike, have found Trump's Executive actions illegal,
temporarily pausing many of them too.
Trump's Executive actions and the outcomes of these lawsuits have a
direct effect on Americans. These lawsuits challenge Trump.
Here are some of the examples, folks--and I am wondering where the
American people stand on these lawsuits. It is not the people who are
blindly loyal to him because they believe the lies that he so artfully,
creatively, and convincingly tells, but just tell me where do you stand
on these issues?
Attacks on veterans who have served our country in the military and
civil services--well, there are lawsuits challenging his right to
attack our veterans.
There are lawsuits challenging Trump on his attacks on government
Agencies that protect your grandmother from online scams. I don't know
where you stand--with the grandmas getting scammed, to defend them, or
the President?
Lawsuits against Trump because of his attacks on lawful American
citizens born in this country and guarantee their citizenship under the
U.S. Constitution. There are lawsuits against the President for
withholding National Institutes of Health funds to support studies of
horrific diseases like

[[Page S2075]]

Alzheimer's and disrupting lifesaving medical research and ongoing
clinical trials.
Now, if you are a student of history, this is the problem, often,
with lawsuits. Brown v. Board Education, we celebrate it as the
wonderful case it was. But was it obeyed? No, it wasn't.
I have a picture of Ruby Bridges in my office because it wasn't
obeyed. The court didn't declare this and, suddenly, everybody said:
Hey, let Black folks go to school with White folks. No. The President
had to call in the National Guard to escort a little girl into a class.
That is the problem with lawsuits. If you have a defiant executive
leadership, they will defy them.
These, where you stand? Do you stand with veterans? Do you stand with
your grandmother against online scams? Do you stand with American
citizens born in this country? Do you stand with withholding National
Institutes of Health funding? It was clearly that. We know the majority
of Americans are with that. But people are having to bring them to
court to fight on these issues.
So many cases being done. So many cases I have here before me. So
many cases. I can read them all, but you all know many of them. They
are stunning the press as he pushes, as Elon Musk pushes. They push the
bounds of the authorities of the Constitution of the United States, and
people are bringing lawsuits. But that is not enough.
Martin Luther King didn't step down because of Thurgood Marshall's
legal work. John Lewis didn't step down. Ella Baker didn't stop.
Abraham Joshua Heschel didn't stop. The great Rabbi Joachim Prinz
didn't stop. The people of the United States of America, more powerful
than courts; the people of the United States of America, more powerful
than the Constitution--I just said something controversial, so let me
defend myself.
I believe in the people. I believe in the words of the great Learned
Hand. He said the like of what I just said, so let me read somebody far
greater, far more vaunted than this Senator from New Jersey.
Learned Hand served as a Federal judge from 1909 to 1951. He was
nicknamed the 10th Justice of the Supreme Court for his many
influential decisions. He wrote this speech about our Constitution,
about our liberties, about the tyrants in every generation who have
tried to subvert our democracy--some of them from this body, like the
Red Scare that had so many Americans being unjustly fired, unjustly
deported, unjustly jailed, that infringed on freedom of speech, freedom
of expression. I am sorry. Every generation of Americans have seen
demagogues rise to try to undermine what America stands for, and
Learned Hand knew that. He had so much wisdom about our Constitution.

We have gathered here to affirm a faith, a faith in a
common purpose, a common conviction, a common devotion. Some
of us have chosen America as the land of our adoption; the
rest have come from those who did the same. For this reason
we have some right to consider ourselves a picked group, a
group of those who had the courage to break from the past and
brave the dangers and the loneliness of a strange land. What
was the object that nerved us, or those who went before us,
to this choice? We sought liberty; freedoms from oppression,
freedom from want, freedom to be ourselves. This we then
sought; this we now believe that we are by way of winning.
What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek
liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too
much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are
false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies
in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no
constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.
While it lies [in our hearts] there it needs no constitution,
no law, no court. And what is this liberty which must lie in
the hearts of men and women?

Please, please, please, listen to what he writes next:

What is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of us
Americans? This is what he says next:
It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not
freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty,
and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men
recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society
where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we
have learned [in our country] to our sorrow.
What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I
can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the
spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of
liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the mind of
other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit
which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias;
the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls
to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him
who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson
it has never learned but [has] never quite [yet] forgotten;
that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard
and considered side by side with the greatest. . . . And now
in that spirit of that America for which our young men are at
this moment fighting and dying; in that spirit of liberty and
. . . America I ask you to rise and [say] with me [the]
pledge of our faith in the glorious destiny of our beloved
country.
I now ask you to raise your hands and repeat after me this
pledge.

And he says the Pledge of Allegiance. He believed that the
Constitution dies if the spirit of it dies in the hearts of men and
women.
I would tell you, this Constitution has saved my life. It made my
life because people marched to make real on the promise of our
democracy. People bled to make real on this democracy.
When some people told us that this Constitution didn't apply to us,
this body--this body, Republicans in America--stood up and said: No,
President Johnson, we are going to do amendments.
We saw the Thirteenth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, the
Fifteenth Amendment would guarantee my ancestors finally full
citizenship in the United States of America and the protections of the
Constitution.
I am here in this body because of past generations that fought to
uphold the Constitution, not because the Constitution was real to them
but because they brought reality and hope and love and promise to the
Constitution. They were Americans who said, like Langston Hughes:
America never was America to me, but I swear this oath, America will
be.
They loved this country so much even when it didn't love them back. I
am here because of that. I am the fourth Black person popularly elected
to this body because of generations that believed so much in this
document that they were going to make it real, if live in them.
I quoted earlier today--it is worth quoting here again--the great
Margaret Chase Smith, a U.S. Senator from Maine, a Republican in her
famous ``Declaration of Consciences'' speech delivered on June 1, 1950.
Thank you. Thank you, my good Senator friend Whitehouse because, Lord
knows, I would have slipped and fallen on my tuchus and have ended this
long filibuster because I fell to the floor. That is what you mean when
your brother has your back.
What did this Republican say in the time of tyranny in her times, in
the time when the Constitution stopped living in people's hearts, where
people believed that whipped up fears of others by demagogues, where
people believed the fear that they heard again and again on the radio
that we should fear other Americans, when people believed their fear
justified them, inhibiting the greatness of the Constitution? What is
that old saying from one of our great leaders of the past? If you are
willing to give up your liberty in order to ensure your security, you
will lose them both.
So here was this courageous Republican, who, in a time that
demagogues were whipping up fear, where First Amendment rights were
being trampled, where people were being intimidated into silence, where
people were afraid to go up against the big and the powerful and the
rich, where people were being deported from our country, where Jews
were being deported and accused of being communists as justification to
take them out of the country because they didn't have permanent legal
status--yes, that is our history. What did she stand up and say in the
Senate, this Republican, putting her own career at risk to call out
Senator McCarthy?
She said:

I don't believe the Republican Party is in any sense a
party of fear. I do believe that the Republican Party has
made an alliance, though, with the four horsemen of fear--the
fear of communists, the fear of labor unions, the fear of the
future, and the fear of progress.

There are people fearmongering now. There are people trying to tell
Americans to hate Americans. You are either with the great ``Dear
Leader'' or you are endangering an enemy. And it is not just Democrats
who are being drugged, there are other Republicans. I

[[Page S2076]]

saw it happen. I saw it happen to one of our Vice President's
daughters, a Congresswoman. I saw it happen to colleagues of mine like
Jeff Flake, like John McCain, and like Corker, who stood up in this
body and told the truth about dear leader, and they saw the
consequences politically.

You want to talk about where the Constitution lives and defending the
Constitution? First make it real in your heart, like those women did
before the amendment that granted them the right to vote, who loved
this country so much.
You want to know where the Constitution lives in your heart? I just
met with extraordinary men and women who are Native Americans to this
country, who were here before any of us. They love this country so much
even with the sins against them.
You want to know where the Constitution lives? Let it live in the
hearts of all Americans now, and ask yourself: Is the leader of our
country living the Constitution in his heart? Because, as Learned Hand
said, it is not braggadocios; it is not mean; it is loving; it is kind;
it is expansive.
We are Americans. Our creed above the Presiding Officer says it all--
``E Pluribus Unum''--trying to remind our country that despite racial
difference, gender, besides Republican or Democrat, ethnics--you know
all the lines that divide us are not nearly as strong as the ties that
bind us. That is what ``e pluribus unum'' means.
What about the pledge that Learned Hand read? Listen to the words. It
says things. It says things in that pledge. It says that we are one
nation under God, that we are indivisible and we pledge ourselves to
liberty and justice not just to the people who agree with the President
but for all.
God bless my courageous colleagues who have spoken out in the past
and suffered the consequences. Liberty and the Constitution live in
their hearts. They put patriotism over politics.
We are in this moral moment now. We are in this moral moment now.
This is not right or left. Don't let them say this is a partisan shift;
it is not. It is not left or right; it is right or wrong.
America, this is a moral moment. Does the Constitution live in your
heart?
Mr. MURPHY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. Before I yield--I love this power trip. It is the only
time in 13 years I have really felt this power. I don't have to let my
colleagues speak. And I, first amongst us all, really love to speak.
I just want to say thank you to Chris Murphy. I repeated this 10, 15
hours ago, but I just want to tell the story, and then I will let you
go, Chris.
Nine years ago on this floor, after the Pulse shooting, we called
Chuck Schumer, Chris and I. I saw a moment and he saw a moment that we
couldn't do business as usual. We just said: How can you have this mass
shooting, yet another mass shooting, and this body just go on as
business as usual? It is why I am standing here right now. And we
agreed, with Chuck Schumer's help, that we would get control of the
Senate.
Chris Murphy went down to that desk, and I promised him: I will be
with you. I will stand with you. I won't sit down. We will go as long
as we possibly can.
And he began a filibuster 9 years ago, and it lasted 15 hours. And he
still had fuel in the tank; I know he did. I was a hurting guy. I told
you my back was hurting, my feet were hurting. But we had a direct end
when Mitch McConnell agreed to give us a vote on commonsense gun
safety, which I think every American and most gun owners agree on--just
universal background checks. It failed to get 60 votes in the Senate,
but you stood and I stood with you.
He said to me days ago: If you are going to do this, Brother, I will
be your aide-de-camp this time. And you have been with me. You have
been with me far past 15 hours. You have been with me for 23 hours 49
minutes.
(Applause.)
Although my cousin Pam in the Gallery--she has been here the same
amount of time.
All right. So I am going to yield my power. It is not going to go to
my head. This is why we need separation of powers--checks on men. Men
are not angels.
I yield for a question while retaining the floor.
Mr. MURPHY. Senator Booker, it has been a wonder to be with you on
the floor these last 24 hours. You indeed did something extraordinary
and performed a sympathy filibuster with me 9 years ago where, as I
stood at that desk for 15 hours, you stood on the Senate floor. You
didn't need to but you did in solidarity.
I have been with you for the last 24 hours, but I have sat for most
of this. You have done the hard work.
You are an extraordinary Senator. You are an extraordinary American.
And I think I can say, on behalf of everyone in this Chamber and many
people in the Gallery, you are an extraordinary friend. So I think all
of us feel privileged to be here with you at this moment--this moment
of peril, this moment of danger, this moment of opportunity for the
Nation, but also this moment of history.
On August 28, 1957, at about 8:45 p.m., Strom Thurmond took this
floor, and he took the floor with the intent of trying to block the
1957 civil rights bill. This was the most significant--really, the
only--civil rights bill that had been before the U.S. Senate in 90
years. Most famously, about 10 years before, when he was running for
President as a Dixiecrat, he had said:

There are not enough troops in the Army to force the
Southern people to break down segregation and admit the Negro
race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our
homes and into our churches.

He sat on this floor for just over 24 hours, and he made the case for
why this Nation should continue to segregate Black and White. He
started, in fact, by reading every single State's voting rights
laws. Every single State's laws he read into the Record, apparently as
proof that every State adequately protected all of its voters and that
no additional laws were necessary.

He had friends in his cause to preserve segregation that came down to
the floor and asked him long questions to give him breathers.
At the end of that 24 hours, at around 9 p.m. the following night, he
could go no longer. His final words in his 24-hour, recordbreaking
filibuster were:

I expect to vote against the bill.

But within hours, the bill passed. It became law. It established the
Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Justice. It was not nearly
enough, but it broke 90 years of inaction.
What you have done here today, Senator Booker, couldn't be more
different than what occurred on this floor in 1957. Strom Thurmond was
standing in the way of inevitable progress toward equal political and
economic rights for Black Americans. It was inevitable only because the
people of this Nation were standing up at that moment--the beginning of
the civil rights movement--to make clear that progress was inevitable.
I say that that moment is so different from this moment because today
you are standing in the way not of progress but of retreat. You are
standing in the way of retreat from the rule of law, retreat from our
commitment to provide care to the most vulnerable, retreat from our
common cause--at least what used to be a common cause--that we would
have zero tolerance for corruption at the highest levels of government.
You have recognized, rightly, that this multifaceted retreat from
everything that makes this country so special and the speed of that
retreat over the last 71 days--it is an exceptional moment. You have
said that word over and over again. It is not normal, what this
administration has been doing to rob from us the values that used to
unite left and right in this Nation.
So you made this bold decision to engage in an exceptional tactic, to
declare 24 hours ago that you were going to stand on this floor for as
long as you could to try to raise the specter of failure in our fight
against this retreat for our colleagues and for the American public.
The exceptional nature we have heard so eloquently from you over the
course of the last 24 hours--the massive transfer of wealth in this
reconciliation bill from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy;
the industrial-scale harassment of journalists, of universities, of law
firms; the destruction of the independence of the Department of
Justice; the destruction of the American knowledge economy and the
research economy; the use of the White

[[Page S2077]]

House in violation of the Constitution to make those in power richer--
you have laid out the case.
It is funny--I remember this from 9 years ago--when you are sitting
in your spot--you haven't moved in 24 hours--you have no idea what is
happening outside of this building. You don't actually know how many
people in this country have engaged in the conversation that you
started 24 hours ago.
On one social media platform alone, there have been 150 million
clicks on your live stream. This is a country of 300 million Americans.
You have been able to pique a conversation here amongst our
colleagues--who we need to stand with us eventually against this
retreat--and across this country. And I think we are here, as we reach
a pivotal hour, to just say thank you for having the courage, the
audacity, to bring us on this journey.
So my question is pretty simple. I think you will find when you
finally leave this Chamber that you have done something extraordinary,
that you didn't solve the problem, that we are still a long way from
being able to successfully beat back this retreat, but that you have
accomplished something extraordinary.
So I guess that is just my question. When you set out with this idea,
when this was starting to germinate in your mind, my question for you,
Senator Booker, is, What did you hope to accomplish?
Mr. BOOKER. I thank my colleague and my friend again. He and I talked
about this, that I was challenged by my own constituents to do
something different, challenged by my own constituents to do something,
challenged by my own constituents to take risks.
My staff here should get a lot of credit for making it thus far. I am
not sitting down, but I am mindful of what you said about Strom
Thurmond. I am mindful of that right now as I watch that clock tick for
another 20 minutes.
I am grateful for my staff. I am grateful for the Parliamentarians,
the clerks. I am grateful for the Republican Presiding Officers.
I don't know if I want to out Curtis on the note that he--I am
sorry--the good Senator, the Presiding Officer--forgive me--on the note
he sent me, but this is the kind of specialness in this place that I
love.
I want to tell a few connecting stories. I think some of my
colleagues know a few of these, but I want to explain why I started
this whole 24 hours talking about John Lewis and good trouble.
Sixty years ago, when he was on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, he shook
New Jersey as he shook the Nation. When Bloody Sunday happened, there
was a White guy on the couch in New Jersey who was watching TV and was
so shaken, this lawyer said: I have to go to Alabama. He realized he
couldn't afford a plane ticket, so this man slumped back down on his
couch.
Then he said: At a moral moment in America, I am not going to let my
inability to do everything undermine my determination to do something,
to do something different.
He got up and said: OK--it was a meager calculation, but it was
different--I can afford 1 hour a month of pro bono work.
He called around, and he found this woman named Lee Porter who was
heading up an organization called the Fair Housing Council and said:
Could you use a lawyer?
She was like: Hallelujah. Thank you, Jesus. Yes, we need some help.
They worked together and they designed a sting operation where they
would send Black families in areas of New Jersey that would not sell
homes to Black people, where usually the best public schools were. If
they were told the house was sold, they would send a White couple
behind them to expose that the house was still for sale and expose all
of this.
Well, they had a lot of success getting things written about the
severe housing discrimination in my State.
He said that after about 5 years, 4 years: I got this case file of a
Black family trying to move to New Jersey, and they were frustrated
because every time they would look at homes in the places with the best
public schools, which happened to be White communities, they said they
couldn't find a home.
So they did the sting operation. They sent the Black couple in. They
were told this incredible house was not for sale. They loved the house.
So that when the White couple went, they threw in a bid to see if it
would be accepted. The bid was accepted. Papers were drawn up.
On the day of the closing, the White couple did not show up. The
Black man did--lawyer, Marty Friedman marched in, confronted the real
estate agent.
You would think 1969, a year after the Fair Housing Act, that he
would capitulate, but he didn't. This real estate agent gets up so
angry. He punches the lawyer in the face and sics a Doberman pinscher
on the Black guy.
They get out of there, shaken up, and they start writing letters back
and forth. The good owners of the home found out what was going on.
They were so aghast. They said: Let us sell the house directly to the
Black family.
The Black family moved in, and 43 years later, the baby from that
family became the fourth popularly elected Black Senator in our
country--me.
I tell that story because I started with John Lewis 24 hours ago, and
it was John Lewis and a bunch of marchers on the bridge that influenced
the destiny of my life and my family's life.
We are all interconnected. As King says:

We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied
in a single garment of destiny.

But I want to tell you the second time John Lewis shook up my life.
I was mayor of the city of Newark. I got called to be on a TV show. I
got called by a guy named Skip Gates, who I love, admire. He calls me
and he jazzes me up. He fills my ego. He just flatters me: Hey, I got
this show called Finding Your Roots, Cory Booker. You are a rising
star. You are this hotshot. We should feature you in this.
I am like: Oh, great. Oh, don't say that, Skip, but OK. Yeah, of
course. And then I said: OK. Who are you going to pair me with?
I thought it was going to be another young, hotshot, up-and-coming
politician in America.
No. He goes: I am going to pair you with John Lewis, and my heart
sank a little bit--actually maybe it was my ego that sank. My heart got
excited. Because I know how these shows start. They start with
biographies.
So imagine the show starting: John Lewis; hero of the Civil Rights
Movement, literally bled the southern soil red for freedom and justice.
And then he goes to my biography: Cory Booker; riding his big-wheel
in suburban New Jersey. The show was unbelievable; a mountain and boy.
But I got to meet John Lewis. I got to tell him that story that he
changed my life, and I didn't even know it--on a bridge in Alabama,
changed the course of events in New Jersey that led to me.
Third take on John Lewis, my colleagues know I got here in a special
election in 2013. What all of my colleagues might not know is I came
here with a broken heart. My mom and I came here with a broken heart
because I was elected in October, sworn in in October, but also in
October my dad died of Parkinson's. That is why I got choked up reading
these letters of people with Parkinson's.
So when we came down here, we were grieving. My dad was not with us.
My mom lost her husband of nearly 50 years, and I am going to get sworn
in. It is a big event, but my parents and my campaign decided: You know
what we should do? Right before you get sworn in or brought over here
to be escorted to the President and Vice President, that you should go
and sit with John Lewis.
So we went to John Lewis' office and a lot of my colleagues from the
CBC, a lot of my colleagues from the House, a lot of my colleagues,
like here, came over from the House, know his office.
You walk into his office, and it looks like a civil rights museum
except he is in all the pictures. And this is John Lewis--we who knew
him--this was him, mountain of a man. He had already prepared eggs and
grits, a good southern breakfast, and wouldn't let my mom and I get up.
He serves us all, and he humbly is saying: This is why I marched.
This is why I sacrificed for historic historymaking days like this. He
told us how special this was for him.
He told me he would be right here where my friends are sitting,
watching

[[Page S2078]]

me get sworn in and how proud he was going to be. In a sense, he stood
in for my dad on this floor, and then, boom, I am Senator.
I find colleagues and friends here. I find a lot of colleagues and
friends in the CBC. At that point, I was the only African American in
our caucus and found so many friends, so many heroes that are gone from
the Senate now, who looked at me, adopted me, helped me.
Dick Durbin, you were amazing in those early months.
And this is the next time I meet John Lewis for a moment that changed
my life. Chris Murphy, Brian Schatz, remember this moment. It was
during the 2017 healthcare debate, when I didn't know how we were going
to stop that bill from passing and taking away healthcare from 20
million Americans.
But John Lewis: Hey, Cory, let's do something different. What you got
in mind?
I said: Well, John Lewis, I got this phone. It is very powerful.
Let's do a Facebook live. So I open up Facebook live, we meet in
between in the Capitol.
He says: Where can we go to sit down for a place?
My favorite place to sit, I watched Schoolhouse Rock so much, it is
right on the steps of the Capitol. Let's just sit there and talk; Chris
Murphy, Brian Schatz the first people out to sit with us.
The time lapse--the time lapse is amazing. First two, three people.
Then 10 people. Then 50 people. Then hundreds of people. I have it all
coming because of the moral magnetism of this man, John Lewis.
And he talked to people that night who were looking for, what can I
do? I am just one person.
And this guy in his 20s who is just one person and caused a heck of
lot of good trouble, he told him: Don't lose faith, don't lose hope.
Get angry, but let it fuel you. Be afraid, but know that is a necessary
precondition to courage. He was amazing that night. I know my
colleagues remember that.
And then there was a next time. Oh, Brother Warnock, you are gonna
love this one.
The next time I was with John Lewis, Jimmy Carter had gotten a little
sick, but then he got better, and he went back to teaching Sunday
school. And I thought: This man is in his 90s. I need to go to Sunday
school. So who do I know--there is a waiting line. It is like people
sneak out all night. I might have been a little selfish. How do I know
I can get in?
I call John Lewis. I said: Hey, I got this great idea. Why don't we
go to Jimmy Carter and watch him teach Sunday school? So I have the
singular greatest road trip. I fly into Atlanta. We get into a car, and
we drive all those hours to Plains, GA.

Indeed, people were waiting outside, but it is John Lewis--come on
in. We sit in the front row; I must be in the front row. We sit down,
and then this marvelous incredible moment comes. Somebody comes and
says: Congressman Lewis, Senator Booker, the President and First Lady
would love to see you beforehand.
This is my first time meeting President Jimmy Carter. But I walk in,
I am sort of on the sidelines. These two men are hugging each other; me
and the first lady.
The two of them whisper for a second, and Jimmy Carter walks over to
me and says: I hear you are thinking of running for President of the
United States.
He did something incredible. He says: I think you should run--and he
pokes my heart--only if you run from here.
The last time--of the powerful moments I have had in my life with
that man, that so many of us have had those powerful moments, the last
time happened because of a man named Michael Collins. I know people--
there are people in this room that got the same phone call that I got,
that: It won't be long now, that John Lewis is going to pass very soon.
He can't speak, but I know he would want you to have your moment to say
goodbye to him.
And what do I do? What do I do? Say goodbye to a man that is a legend
in my life, a legend in our Nation? What do you do to say goodbye to
him? I wasn't prepared. I can't say I said anything eloquent.
Michael Collins, God bless you, man. You put the phone by his ear and
you just gave me my time to have a conversation with the man that would
soon die, a man that changed my life, that helped my family get into a
neighborhood that loved me and cherished me. God love Harrington Park.
The man that stood in for my father when heaven brought him home, the
man that showed me on the steps of this Capitol how powerful the people
are. It wasn't about him. It was about them.
The man that brought me to see a President, flattered every Senator's
ego telling them what they want to hear: Run for President.
And so I said everything I could, but the last thing I said I
remember very well. I said: I love you--I said: I love you, and I said:
John, I know you are going to be in Heaven looking down on us, and I
promise you--I promise you, John Lewis--that I will do everything
possible, that we will do everything possible to make you proud.
The Civil Rights generation is starting to be called home. The
leaders are leaving us. We in the CBC have lost a lot of greats. I
can't remember the--forget the promise I made to John Lewis with all
that he gave me, with all that he gave his country, that I said we
would make him proud.
So this is one of those moments that John Lewis--he would not be
sitting still. He would be calling me up and say: You still got that
Facebook thing? I go: No, I don't really use Facebook anymore.
But there is a thing called TikTok or--I don't know what John Lewis
would say right now. I know what he said in 2017.
But I will be honest with you. I don't know what he would say, but
John Lewis would say something. He would do something. He wouldn't
treat this moral moment like it was normal. John Lewis new what King
said, that what we have to repent for, all of us here, we will have to
repent for, is not just the vitriolic words and violent actions of so-
called bad people.
What we have to repent for in our day and age is the appalling
silence and the inaction of good people. This is our moral moment. This
is when the most precious ideas of our country are being tested, where
the Constitution and the question is being called: Where does the
Constitution live, on paper or in our hearts? This is the moment.
Generations get them. We are on a crossroads here, folks.
Healthcare is on the balance. Veterans are on the balance. Priorities
are on the balance. Where is our priorities, America? More tax cuts
disproportionately going to the wealthy. Greater budget deficits in the
trillions and trillions of dollars. Or are we going to do something
different like John Lewis would call us to do?
He would call us to get into good trouble, necessary trouble, save
the soul of America. But you all know John: Don't hate each other.
Don't let anybody pull you so low as to hate them.
I said this about the presiding elder, different parties, but he
showed me an act of kindness during this speech. He and I talked about
energy policy. He has amazing ideas. I want to partner with him.
Don't hate anybody. Did the folks in Birmingham--did Martin Luther
King, Fred Shuttlesworth, Dorothy Cotton, James Bevel, did they bring
bigger dogs and bigger fire hoses to match the sheriff's--Bull Connor--
thank you. I have been standing here a long time.
They didn't do that. They were creative artists of activism. They
called to the conscious of a country. They challenged our moral
imagination, not to focus on hate but focus on what is possible in
America if we redeem the dream, if we dream America anew.
That generation in their 20s and their 30s, that is what they
demanded. Martin Luther King didn't go to the March on Washington with
a list of grievances against the racists in our country. He went there
and called to the conscious of the country. He said he ``had a dream.''
That is what we need in our generation, a vision to redeem the dream to
call our country together.
Yes, there is a man in the White House who is the most powerful man
in the land, and his partner is the richest man in the world. But as
long as this is a democracy that we can still protect, the power of the
people is greater than the people in power, if they use their powers.

[[Page S2079]]

There is a great African American woman author once said: The most
common way people give up their power is not realizing they have it in
the first place.
I have been calling out names, folks, to tell them they have power.
I read the stories of DeAnna, of Wendy and Cassie, of Tonya, of
Cameron, of Jeanne, of Susan, of Edna, Randi, of Dylan, of Theresa, of
Pamela, of Sally and Mike, of Carole, Rosemari, Danielle, of Judith, of
Elizabeth, of Sandra, Alicia, Maggie, Nybil, Laura, Michael, Robin,
Mary, Allyson, Ash, Roseann, Kerry, Samantha P., Raphael, Will,
Anthony, Sean, and so many more. I read their stories here because
while we were elected, they are the power of our country.
I have made mistakes. We all have. Both parties have a lot of
mistakes to account for. The ballast of this country, what will anchor
us to our ideals, what will call us to new heights, lift our heads,
lift our hopes, what will call us to rise is each other.
We need each other. We need a greater love in this country. We need a
greater fight in this country. We need a greater determination. We
can't act as if these are normal times.
These people's stories that I read were calling out for help:
Senator, help me. Someone, help me. I am in danger of losing my
healthcare. Someone help me. I am a veteran. Look what happened to me.
It is not fair. I fought for this country. Help me. Help me. I am
worried about my Social Security, and the rural office I go to is being
closed. Help, people calling out for help. And what do Americans do
when people are calling out for help?
They built an infrastructure. The greatest project ever, called the
Underground Railroad, where Quakers, White folks joined with Black
folks to shuttle people to freedom. What did they do when people were
worried and fearful? They called people together from across their
country. Let's have a conference. Let's go to Seneca Falls.
What did they do when they faced violence? Oh, look at the people at
Stonewall who stood up, who pushed back, who organized, who won.
What do they do when the dogs are unleashed on us, when the firehose
is unleashed on us? Look at what they did in Selma.
I am getting close to a record, folks, but--
(Applause.)
There is a room here in the Senate named after Strom Thurmond. To
hate him is wrong, and maybe my ego got too caught up, that if I stood
here maybe, maybe, just maybe I could break this record of the man who
tried to stop the rights upon which I stand. I am not here though
because of a speech. I am here despite his speech.
I am here because as powerful as he was, the people were more
powerful.
(Applause.)
I will remind you all these people that believe like me that we have
got to redeem the dream, turn again to John Lewis because you all know
the story, my colleagues, of when the man that beat him savagely, drew
blood, cracked bones, decades later, when he was a Congressman, that
man brought his grandson with him to ask for forgiveness from John
Lewis.
I heard about this story when I was in the car in Georgia with him.

What did you do, John, this man who had so viciously beat
you, wounded you, bruised you, battered you, what did you do
when he came to ask you for forgiveness? What did you do?

And the good Christian man, the man of faith, simply said: Every one
of us needs mercy. Every one of us needs redemption. I forgave him. I
hugged him. We wept. And I looked at the boy, this Nation needs you
too.
John--
Mr. SCHUMER. Would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. Chuck Schumer, it is the only time in my life I could
tell you no.
Mr. SCHUMER. I just want to tell you, question, do you know you have
just broken the record? Do you know how proud this caucus is of you? Do
you know how proud America is of you?
(Applause, Senators rising.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ladies and gentlemen, order, order. The Chair
does not wish to take away from this moment, but I think the best way
to honor this great accomplishment to our guests in the Gallery is to
make a rare exception and let you stand to show your appreciation. I
will not constrain my fellow Senators.
Mr. BOOKER. Chuck Schumer, I have yielded for a question, and you
asked me did I know. I know now.
(Applause.)
I want to not quite wrap this up yet. I don't want to wrap this up
yet. My mom's Senator--my mom has been watching. I know Catherine
Cortez Masto has a podium in front of her. She could give me a rest. I
would like to go a little further if we can, just a little further.
I love, again, I know people are trying to train each other, in all
of our media operations they give the worst images of the people of the
other party, but I want to tell you one of the funny tweets my staff
gave me is something Ted Cruz said around 1920 hours. He said: Maybe I
should pull a fire alarm, he is going to break my record.
I am going to pause in a moment, if she has a question for me, to
Catherine Cortez Masto, because she is my mother. But I do want to just
say again, two points, make if I can, one is how grateful I am to my
staff. When we decided to do this many days ago--
(Applause.)
When we decided to do this days ago, they were like, we have to do
this, and we started preparing and working on this, and they did an
extraordinary job. They were with me late nights, writing, writing,
writing.
I just feel guilty because they wrote about 10 books, and we didn't
use all of them. There were really some stuff pulling from Republicans
and Democrats, a critique of this moment. Pulling from Democrats and
Republicans, Republican Governors that were saying: Do not cut
Medicaid. States that know, as my colleagues do, that have a trigger;
that if the Medicaid funding goes below 90 percent, that they stop the
Medicaid expansion.

My staff really worked hard to not make this just Democratic voices,
to make it people in our country that Republicans and Democrats--you
heard me mention in the speech, the Cato Institute, the Manhattan
Institute, all people who are honest arbiters and were saying that what
Trump is doing is wrong; that a budget like this that blows massive
holes in our deficit, it will be something our children are trying to
pay for. And what are they ultimately paying for that caused this big
deficit? It is trillions of dollars of tax cuts that people like DOGE,
multimillionaire, multibillionaire Musk will benefit from, but children
won't.
They did such a good job bringing together authorities on both sides
of the aisle, I just want to thank them. I want to thank my cousin Pam
and my family. Cousin Pam, like Chris Murphy, was here for the whole
time.
I want to thank Chris Murphy again.
(Applause.)
He never stopped telling me: We can do this, we can do this, we can
do this, and said, I will stay with you. He has been with me on the
floor. I hope you don't look as tired as I look because you look beat,
man. Do I look that bad?
All right. I want to go a little bit past this, and then I am going
to deal with some of the biological urgencies.
But I am going to wait here because I have the power, I have the
floor, somebody has to ask me, perhaps from my mom's State, the way
that is supposed to work.
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. So will the good Senator from New Jersey yield for
a question?
Mr. BOOKER. My mom would be so upset with me, my Aunt Marilyn, Butch,
my Aunt Shirley, all the people that are your constituents and not
mine, they would be upset with me if I didn't yield to you for a
question while retaining the floor.
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Well, first of all, Senator Booker, I have to say,
we in Nevada are so proud of you. We are proud you are Nevada Strong.
You are one of us. You are definitely New Jersey-Nevada Strong. And I
am so proud of what you have accomplished so far and being willing to
stay here as long as it takes to help you get your message across. And
I think that is the important moment here. We are all here right now.
So I want to pose a question to you, actually a couple questions, but
I want to start off and set the stage here because you have been here,
now, what,

[[Page S2080]]

for over 24 hours. You are missing some of the national news, things
that are happening out there. But one of the things I want to point to
that has happened that you may not be aware of, and you touched on it a
little earlier today, is this notion that we have now a President who
is actually focused on billionaires and tax cuts for billionaires at
the expense of the American public. And one of the things we have
watched him do is cut funding for medical research.
Now, what you may not know is just today, just today, I found out
that HHS laid off the entire Healthy Aging Branch of the CDC, just
today.
This office administers Alzheimer's disease programs, and it oversees
the funding from the BOLD Infrastructure for Alzheimer's Act, and it is
a piece of legislation that I was so proud to partner with Susan
Collins on, and she has fought for, and we have fought for funding for
it, to support caregivers and their families.
And Congress just reauthorized this funding. And now we have a
President that has stopped the critical work that scientists are doing
to try and cure Alzheimer's. And I bring this to your attention,
Senator, because like you, and I think like all of us, there are
personal moments in the work that we do.
My personal moment is my grandmother, whom I am named after, died
from Alzheimer's. And she died at a time in Las Vegas when there was
not enough research, when there was not enough healthcare, when there
was really not enough providers to understand what was going on.
And so for many of us this fight, not only is it personal, but we
recognize the impact that it has outside the beltway in so many
families and lives across the country, and that is what this is about.
In Nevada, as of 2023, there are 49,000 people, 65 and older, living
with Alzheimer's, and that is projected to reach 65,000 this year.
Not only did we hear that HHS laid off the entire Healthy Aging
Branch of the CDC, but Donald Trump also recently terminated a $14,000
NIH research grant that had been supporting Alzheimer's research at the
University of Nevada--Las Vegas.
He has continued, continued to cut the grant for essential research
for so many reasons.
We have seen these funding cuts; we have seen mass layoffs; and the
impoundment of grants that have already been approved by Congress. This
is a violation of the rule of law, and you have been talking about that
for the last couple of hours.
President Trump is forgetting that this is personal. It is happening
to so many families.
So my question, Senator Booker, to you is what you think families and
caregivers of those impacted by Alzheimer's, how they are feeling about
what is happening right now?
Mr. BOOKER. So this bothers me for two reasons, and the first you
have already mentioned, is this is the point of the bipartisan work
that we do. I talked about Chris Murphy and the bipartisan gun bill
that lots of people here worked on with Senator Cornyn and others and
how upset my State is that some of that community violence intervention
money that I worked so hard to get in that bill is being clawed back by
a President.
There are people in this room, I know so many of you, and I know on
the other side that have done such great work to work with our
colleagues, to find common ground, and get really important programs
passed that bring resources to families, and it is being clawed back by
our President--not with consultation, not with a hearing, not with a
discussion of even why you would target Alzheimer's research. That is a
violation of the separation of powers, and I wish my Republican
colleagues would hold more hearings about that. These are programs they
like.

I saw them with USAID. I worked with Marco Rubio on some of those
programs and those investments that have now been cut and clawed back.
So it is a separation of powers issues. It is an offense to the
common goals we share in this community of leaders.
But the second reason it bothers me is an article I read hours ago by
Fareed Zakaria. He talked about what is happening to a nation that cuts
so dramatically what is one of the best taxpayer investment dollars in
biomedical sciences. If you are an investor and I told you there is an
investment that for every dollar you invest, you would get $5 back for
your economy, folks would be invested in that vehicle.
Well, that is NIH funding. Every dollar you invest--who would cut a
profit center? It is not just a profit center though. The outcomes and
discoveries could change the lives of people who are suffering in your
Nation and around the world. But he is attacking them.
I read about all these universities from around the country. That
shows you how magnanimous I am trying to be. I even read stories from
USC--I am sorry, a rival. And all of these universities are cutting
their post-docs, cutting their Ph.D.s, because they don't know. As
Donald Trump threatens the direct costs, they are stopping.
And Fareed Zakaria said: So painfully to all Americans with American
pride, as we are doing that, China, when they had the Cultural
Revolution, they first went after their universities. Now in modern
China, their government is doing the opposite. They are trying to out-
America us. They are massively increasing their investment in
scientific research because they know if they get ahead of us on
quantum computing, all of our subs can be located and God knows what
could happen. Any kind of cryptology they could break. They know, if
they could get ahead of us on scientific research, the power and
advantage that will give them. They are doubling down.
What are we doing in America? We are tolerating a President that is
cutting the funding that will predict who defines the future and what
values will define those futures. Will they be democratic values or
values of the country competing with us to beat us? And right now we
are giving them a head start.
The final reason that question bothers me is because my father died
of Parkinson's, and he had Parkinson's-related dementia. I know what
that is like. I know the pain families are enduring.
I remember the time my dad and my mom were in the movie theater, and
my mother just shook my world. It was in Georgia. And so many people
here in this room have had the same experience. We are in a movie
theater, and my mom leans over to me and said: You need to take your
dad to the bathroom.
I never imagined--in my years of my dad, as a 2-year-old and 3-year-
old, taking me to the bathroom--that one day I would have to take him,
in this Atlanta movie theater in the middle of a movie--which I was
like, OK, it is time for me to do this ritual that so many families
know.
I pick my dad up, and he is shuffling with his Parkinson's. I am not
seeing any light in his eyes. I am letting him hold me, and he is
shuffling to the bathroom. We get to the bathroom, and his hands are
shaking. He is standing in front of the urinal, and I realize I have to
unbuckle this man's pants.
So many families know this. And my ego--I am sorry. I was leaning
over saying: Wait a minute. I am in a public bathroom leaning over. I
am unbuckling another man's pants. Please God, don't let someone come
in.
As if God heard my call, someone walked in. I heard the person
walking, and I am like, please keep walking. I heard the feet walk past
me and stop, and the man turns around and says: ``Oh, my God, Cory
Booker.''
And then I look up at my dad, and I see the clarity in his eyes. He
is 100 percent there, and he is grinning and loving my mortified
embarrassment.
Alzheimer's is devastating to so many American families watching the
loved one of their lives diminish, and we are cutting funding. Donald
Trump is cutting funding democratically, bipartisanly approved?
So forget the separation of powers. It is important--so important. If
that doesn't get you, then maybe think about the competition with
China. If that doesn't get you--if those two don't get you, America,
think about the millions of Americans struggling with Alzheimer's, the
struggles of those families.
This is a moral moment, America. This is going to define the
character of our country for years and years to come.
Has the Senate called a hearing on your bipartisan funding, Senator?
No. Have we done our oversight responsibility? Have we checked, as I
read from

[[Page S2081]]

the Federalist Papers, as our Founders wanted us to do--it is to check
the executive, to be the check of the executive. That balances our
governmental powers. No, we are not checking the executive.
With Signalgate, I have heard from Republicans that serve in
Congress--535 with us--I know other colleagues have heard. They are
mortified.
You talked about that. They are mortified about that. And, again, it
is not partisan. The Biden administration made foreign policy mistakes.
Obama made foreign policy mistakes. Reagan, when I was growing up, I
was hearing about the Iran-Contra scandal.
I am not going to be one of those people that says we are pristine,
perfect Democrats. We made mistakes. We made failings. We let them
down. We have reckoning in our own party that we are dealing with right
now.
That doesn't say that you should be one of these people that says:
Well, Biden did it.
No. You should be a leader of character that says there is something
wrong here. In fact, you could point to real problems in the national
security of our country and the laws that we established.
One of those law is very simple. You are supposed to preserve
records. How can a Signal chain that disappears not be a violation of
the law of this land? Is there a hearing on that--the head of the Intel
Committee? Not a hearing at all.
Where are the checks and balances spelled out in the Constitution? We
are derelicting our duties here in the Senate. We really are. And the
consequence of that is the very national security of our country. How
many times do you think--do you think this was the first time they
created a Signal chat or is this a pattern of practice? You are a
really rational man.
I keep looking at you, Mark. You are my leader on these issues, or
Jack Reed.
No. This indicates a real problem, and the Senate--the U.S. Senate--
should get to the bottom of it.
(Applause.)
This is a moral moment. I keep saying it is a moral moment. Who are
we going to be? What is going to define us? It is time not for the
typical tribalism--time for leaders to start standing up and say: You
know what? We can go a different way. We can imagine a different
country.
That is why I pointed out the new leader of the Democratic Party of
the House side. We are a different generation. There is a rising
generation of people. I talked about my friend who wrote this great
book, ``Abundance.'' There are a whole bunch of new ideas out there
about the future, the possibilities, about the hope, about the
greatness of America--not greatness that is braggadocious, not the
greatness that says ``I am better than you,'' not the greatness that
says ``Only I can fix things.'' It is not the America we want.
We want an America that says ``We the people,'' an America that says
``E pluribus unum,'' an America that says that history shows that
rugged individualism and self-reliance are important values. But rugged
individualism didn't beat the Nazis. It didn't take us to the Moon. We
did that together, America. We need bigger visions that can unite us
beyond our narrow partisan desires to get a real mandate.

You know what a real mandate should be? It should be government
efficiency. It really should be. God, I heard from so many of my
colleagues on this side of the aisle that said if they formed a
commission of former executives in this body--I see you, Maggie Hassan.
It was hard, but I had to cut 24 percent of my budget, one out of four
employees. It was really hard. It would cause a lot of pain. But we had
to reduce my government.
There are a lot of people--executives, on both sides of the aisle:
Pick me. Pick me.
Let's form the most exciting team possible, because Jack Reed knows
that the military of the United States of America can do things more
efficiently. There is a little bit of waste over there because they
haven't passed an audit.
Where is Maria Cantwell, of the Commerce Committee? There so many
ideas about how to create profit centers in the American Government.
You have talked to me about them. You are brilliant on some of these
ideas.
I look around here, but I can look to the other side of the aisle.
The man, the farmer sitting over there, the guy who has been so good to
me, Chuck Grassley--I forced that man to hug me when we passed.
I forced you to hug me, sir. I have pictures. You can't deny it. I
don't know how you will get reelected now. You hugged this Black dude
from New Jersey. You are so sweet to me still.
We passed a big bipartisan bill because of people like him, like the
Presiding Officer. I met with you. You still have big ideas. You still
have big ideas that aren't partisan.
If President Trump, from his inaugural address to his first speech
before the joint session of Congress, had said: Enough. There are big
ideas in this country. I want the best. I want people to come together.
I am tired of us talking down at each other. It is time for us to come
together and imagine ways to create real abundance in America for all
Americans. I trust the genius of America, the kindness and the decency.
But this President doesn't do that. He violates all of our common
senses of decency.
Don't say it doesn't happen, folks. Don't say that. I listen to him.
I listen to how he talks about people. We have a government now, as I
said earlier, that isn't: Ask not what your country can do for you, but
what you can do for your country. We have a country now where a
President says: Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you
can do for Donald Trump.
You are seeing who gets the special treatment. Some law firms are
really threatened right now with being bankrupted by Donald Trump
targeting them. Others have decided a different path. I am hating them
because they said: We are going to go to Trump and offer him what he
wants. We are going to give him tens of millions of dollars of free pro
bono work.
I wish they would bring that free pro bono work to Newark. A lot of
people need lawyers--folks in my city.
What are the standards here of our government? Do you want a merger?
Well, maybe you should put a lot of money in Donald Trump's meme coin.
I read the document. There is something called emoluments. And we sit
by and act like it is no big deal.
He made millions and millions of dollars--from whom, we don't know.
We haven't held one hearing of oversight to know who is giving him
millions of dollars for that meme coin. Is it the Turks, the Saudis? Is
it the Chinese? Is it the Russian oligarchs? Do we know? Should we
know?
Yes, America. Stop falling into tribal lanes and closing your eyes to
things that should not be normalized. Why are we normalizing these
things? They are wrong. They are patently, on the face of it, wrong.
If you use Signal to discuss a military attack, the time of the
attack, the weapons that are going to be used, and you do it on a
commercial app and decide to include a reporter, there should be
accountability. Am I crazy?
(Applause, Senators rising.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ladies and gentlemen, let me just remind you,
expressions of approval and disapproval are not permitted by the
Gallery. Thank you.
Mr. BOOKER. He was forced to say that.
Look at you defying.
The Senate and the House should be checks and balances on the
President of the United States. The Senate and the House should not
allow business as usual in this moment. When the President is insisting
that no one has the power to check and balance him, when a judge does
it, when a judge decides on the soundness of his legal observations to
have a ruling and then the President of the United States doesn't
appeal the ruling, like most people kind of do, but starts to drag and
insult and threaten that judge with impeachment--and some people,
astonishing to me, in our government, said: Oh, that is right. We
should impeach this guy.
That is not a question of left or right. That is a question of right
or wrong. We are normalizing this behavior. We are letting him do
things that Republicans and Democrats should say together are wrong.
So I want to say--I am going to stop soon.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BOOKER. God bless you.
I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

[[Page S2082]]

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I want to start, before I get to my question, by just
saying how proud I am of you and how proud we all are of you. I think I
am old enough to remember Strom Thurmond's filibuster. I can remember
being in high school and seeing the news every night and the reporters
coming from the steps of the Capitol because they were filibustering
the civil rights bill. What I am proud of is that your focus on
democracy and the opportunities that democracy opens up for all of our
rights, in my mind, cancels out what Strom Thurmond did to prevent
African Americans and others from getting the rights they deserve in
this country. So I am proud of that.
(Applause.)
You talked earlier this afternoon about the rule of law and the
overreach of this administration. As part of that, you went through a
litany of Agencies that Congress had established that this President is
trying to take away. I just want to point out that--and you mentioned
this earlier--one of those Agencies that Congress established is the
U.S. Agency for International Development, and earlier today, we had a
shadow hearing roundtable--the Democrats on the Foreign Relations
Committee. It was on the dangerous consequences of funding cuts to U.S.
global health programs. I know that, as ranking member on the
Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health Policy, you would have really
been interested in this. I am glad you were here on the floor, but I
wish you could have heard what we heard from the people who testified.
We heard from Atul Gawande, who used to be the Assistant
Administrator of USAID--of their global health program. We heard from
Dan Schwarz, the Vice President of Management Sciences for Health. That
is a contractor who works on global health programs. And we heard from
Nick Enrich, who is the former Assistant Administrator for Global
Health at USAID.
They started out by talking about what global health has accomplished
through USAID. PEPFAR has saved more than 26 million lives. It has
reversed the spread of HIV/AIDS. They have done malaria prevention and
control for over a half a billion people. They have eradicated smallpox
and eliminated most of polio. They have reduced infant mortality by
more than 59 percent since 1990. They have supported cholera, measles,
and Ebola outbreak response.
One of the things Dr. Gawande pointed out was that they took the
response to the Ebola outbreak from 2 weeks--many of us remember that
during the Obama administration when Ebola was coming to the United
States. They took that response from 2 weeks down to 24 to 48 hours to
be in there in responding to the Ebola epidemic.
And what has this President done? What have Elon Musk and DOGE done?
They have gone into USAID. They have cut the global health workforce
from over 800 to about 60. They have taken the system that was designed
to make programs more efficient, and they have dismantled it. When the
inspector general, Paul Martin, reported on food rotting in ports, he
was fired.
USAID has been the largest civilian ground force to address global
goals. As Dr. Gawande said, what we learn from USAID is that prevention
is a whole lot more efficient and a lot cheaper than emergency
treatment. He said that what we spend on global health through USAID
has been $9 a household in America in a year--$9. Think about what we
have done with that $9.
As they were going through the litany of programs that have been cut,
the one that caught my eye was that 75 percent of the pandemic threat
comes from diseases jumping from animals to humans. That program has
been terminated--75 percent of the threat of future pandemics.
So, as we think about the rule of law and the overreach of this
President, would you agree with me that there has been no consultation
with Congress about any effort to move USAID into the Department of
State and that, because Congress created this Agency, Congress has got
to be involved in reauthorizing whatever comes next and that this
President and his DOGE boys need to understand that before they take
any more steps at USAID?
Mr. BOOKER. Yes. Yes. Yes.
You and I both know, in a bipartisan way, we created some of these
programs principally to keep America safe. Many of us remember that
dramatic hearing when Trump's Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, sat
before the American people, and they were discussing the budgets for
USAID and the State Department. James Mattis knew the power of those
programs to keep us safe.
You mentioned infectious diseases. We live in a world where
infectious disease anywhere is a threat to public health everywhere. So
pulling our scientists out of the fight against Ebola and pulling our
scientists out of the drug-resistant tuberculosis fight makes no sense.
Then, in terms of our safety, he just simply said: If you cut these
programs, buy me more bullets because our fights are to spread
democracy. There are nations in Africa, for example, where the Chinese
are trying to influence a different way of life. That is why so many
African countries now won't criticize China for things that the rest of
the world says are bad. It is because they owe them so much debt that
they are so engaged, and they are so overplaying the fact.
Chris Coons said something. I think it was Chris Coons who said
something painful earlier about Myanmar--this horrific thing. America
is the most generous country on the planet. When there is a crisis, we
lead the rest. I have sat in meetings in a bipartisan way with
Ambassadors from other countries, where we had the moral authority to
tell them: You are not doing enough.
In the Myanmar crisis right now, as Chris Coons said, Who is standing
there? Not Americans. We don't have the capacity anymore to help with a
crisis like that, but the Chinese Government is there.
Again, it is what defines us. I keep saying this is not a left-right
moment; this is a moral moment, and we tell our truth with what we do
with our resources. Here is the thing: When you poll people and ask
them how much money we spend on USAID, they say: Oh, it must be 10
percent of the American budget or it must be 5 percent of the American
budget.

It is around 1 percent or less. A penny of what tax dollars you send
down to Washington goes to help us to make sure that around the globe
we are countering the hard power of some countries with the power of
our light and our soft power. We have been the envy of the world, where
people see and know how special America is because we live with the
value of every major religion. We are going to love our neighbors. We
are going to be there for you in your times of need.
We all know, with a terrorist group far away and through the most
horrific attack, that in a lot of these countries terrorist groups are
trying to counter the democratic governments there. Look at the Sahil
region. Look what is happening. When I was in Niger, I was shocked to
hear what they were talking about--of instabilities in the north,
threats of terrorism in the north.
I am going to go for 7 more minutes and stop, but I want to use these
last 7 minutes to return one more time to the people of my State and,
actually, other States who demand that we do things differently and who
ask for help.
Before I do, I just want to thank Mike Lee today. He is my partner in
antitrust--a specialty of my friend Amy Klobuchar.
I don't know if you got my text--you got it?--where I said to you:
Uh, I am kind of going to the floor to hold it for as long as I can,
and I may not make our first subcommittee together on antitrust where
we have a lot of common ground. So I am sorry I missed it today, but I
know my friend will fill me in. So thank you.
I want to close back where we started about us and about why I am
here.
I believe that there is an urgent crisis in our country that we are
not talking about. It is not a left-right crisis; it is a right-wrong
crisis. It is a moral moment again in America that is going to define
our character about who we are and what we stand for. There is a threat
to the bedrock commitments we have made to each other as a country.
People are threatening that bedrock commitment of Social Security.
They are calling it a Ponzi scheme. They are making up absolute lies
about it. I read American after American who said that that is their
lifeline. They told stories that they don't get their Social

[[Page S2083]]

Security payments or they get caught up because nobody is answering
their calls. Of the rural Social Security office, I read States red and
blue where they are closing Social Security offices. If I now have to
drive 100 miles or 150 miles at 93 years old, it doesn't make sense.
One of my colleagues stood up here and said it is already cutting
benefits if you can't access the folks.
I stood here because it is a threat to these bedrock commitments--the
bedrock commitment we have made in healthcare in this country.
We won the defense of the Affordable Care Act, but my colleagues
know, when you start talking about Medicaid, that is not 20-plus
million Americans. It is 70, 80, 90 million Americans. It is our elders
in nursing homes. It is our children with disabilities. It is our moms
giving birth who are still giving birth in the country with the highest
maternal mortality rates in the industrial world.
It is a moral moment. Who do we stand for?
Senator Schumer shocked me when they said they were going to use some
kind of budget gimmick to push this through.
You shocked me, Chuck.
I thought this was going to come down to the Parliamentarian, but it
doesn't sound like it now. It is just going to get dumped with the math
that I read. The Manhattan Institute criticized it on the right. AI
criticized it on the right. So what are you doing? What are you doing,
America? You are going to rack up trillions and trillions of dollars in
debt that our children and our children's children are going to have to
pay for in passing the bucks that will grow.
Are you doing that to help people get more access to healthcare and
more access to retirement security and more access to the things we
believe in? I think of ideas like universal childcare and paid family
leave. No. We are doing that in order to renew the tax cuts that I read
of conservative budget folks, moderate budget folks--all across the
spectrum--who said it will blow up our deficit, and the benefits of
those tax cuts--not all. Let's not use hyperbole. But most will go--
most will go to the richest people in our country, who I promise you--I
celebrate people who brought their ingenuity and their expertise and
their grit and their tireless work who have built wealth in this
country. It should not be us versus them, but I am telling you that
those folks do not need another tax cut.
The corporations that came here, and you all remember, that said: We
would like a 25-percent rate. The people I read said that when we
kicked it to 21--not even what they were asking for, which was for 25--
it exploded. It is one of the main reasons it exploded our debt.
We read from conservative groups who just said that all of these
promises that we would grow our way out of our deficit didn't
materialize. All of the promises that were made, Trump, for those who
don't remember and weren't here when I read it, was going around,
telling folks: Oh, my tariffs--this is 2017. The money that I get will
be what we will use to pay down the debt. The math that they did would
account for about 1/750th of the debt at that time, but he used that
money to try and compensate the farmers who he was hurting with his
tariffs.
This is a moral moment and people are getting hurt and people are
afraid because of the threats to Medicaid cuts. There are people
writing in who said $880 billion would devastate me, but even small
cuts to services--my whole family's fragile architecture of our
finances--if you just pull out the transportation money that my
disabled child uses, that will crumble my financial world.
So, when you talk about the bigger cuts, we know the math. Many
States that expanded Medicaid have a trigger, that if it goes below 90
percent, all the Medicaid Expansion goes off in that State, and
millions of Americans will be hurt. That is not right, guys. That is
not right. So these are the choices before us--our veterans and the VA.
I am mad at you now as you made me get very emotional with your
story.
We read John McCain's story. We read the stories of the poems of the
unknown soldier looking over us and saying: What are you doing to the
Gold Star families? What are you doing to the veterans? Are you living
up to your promises that you made? Well, right now, there are cuts of
tens of thousands. There are 80,000 veterans who work for the VA, but
there are even more because about 20 percent or so who are Federal
workers are also veterans.
We read stories from veterans in America who are shaken by what is
happening, who are losing their jobs. Yet all they want to do is serve.
They are not what they are being called. They are not leeches. They are
not criminals. They shouldn't be degraded for wanting to serve their
Nation.
This is what we are talking about: Our veterans, our seniors, our
healthcare, our financial security going forward.
I asked the question to all those people who voted for Donald Trump
who believed in him that he would lower your grocery prices. I ask you:
Look at your financial self. Are you better off than you were 72 days
ago financially?
The answer, for most people who believe in him, is no, because he
didn't set out to do anything to lower prices. He set out to rename the
Gulf of Mexico, to threaten Canada, to say I am going to take over
Greenland. He has done a lot of things--140 Executive orders. Many of
them actually drive up your costs, make it more expensive to enroll in
the ACA, reduce a lot of the tax credits there.
He has increased your costs. He has taxed your bedrock services. The
stock market tumbles. Your 401(k) accounts are less. Inflation is up.
Consumer confidence is down. These are the voices we brought into this
Chamber, the voices of all of our constituents--red States, blue
States--the voices of Democrats, Republicans, Republican Governors,
Democratic Governors. We brought all of the people who are saying no,
this is a moral moment, not left or right, right or wrong.
So I have tried over the last 25 hours and 1 minute to center the
conversation back on what will we do in good consciences.
People who are saying, I served this country, I risked my life,
shouldn't I be able to keep my job?
People are saying this country once made itself the envy of the world
because we invested in high-quality education for every child. I don't
like what is going on, the end of the Department of Education.
People are saying I worked harder than I ever have, but the prices on
everything in my life are getting higher.
People who are saying that the America I learned about in school, the
one where people's rights are protected, the people are saying why are
we yet again going through another healthcare battle, threatening
millions of people.
People are saying that I am worried about the financial security and
the future of my country. The voices of folks.
So I end by saying simply this: Where I started was John Lewis. I
don't know how to solve this. I don't know how to stop us from going
down this road.
Chuck Schumer has now told me that they are greasing the skids to do
these things. I am sorry, but I know who does have the power--the
people of the United States of America. The power of the people is
greater than the people in power.
It is time to heed the words of the man I began this whole thing
with, John Lewis. I begged folks to take the example of his early days,
where he made himself determined to show his love for his country at a
time when the country didn't love him, to love this country so much, to
be such a patriot that he endured beatings savagely on the Edmund
Pettus Bridge, at lunch counters, on Freedom Rides.
He said he had to do something. He would not normalize a moment like
this. He would not just ago along with business as usual. He wouldn't
know how to solve it.
But there is one thing that he would do that I hope we all can do,
that I think I did a little bit of tonight. He said for us to go out
and cause some good trouble, necessary trouble, to redeem the sole of
our Nation.
I want you to redeem the dream. Let's be bold in America, not demean
and degrade Americans, not divide us against each other. Let's be
bolder in America, for the vision that inspires with hope, that starts
with the people of the United States of America.
That is how this country started, we the people. Let's get back to
the ideals

[[Page S2084]]

that others are threatening. Let's get back to our Founding document
that those imperfect geniuses had some very special words at the end of
the Declaration of Independence. It was one of the greatest in all of
humanity, the Declaration of Interdependence, when our Founders said we
must mutually pledge, pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes,
and our sacred honor. We need that now from all Americans.
This is a moral moment. It is not left or right, it is right or
wrong. Let's get in good trouble.
(Ms. LUMMIS assumed the Chair.)
My friend, Madam President, I yield the floor.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
Madam President, thank you to the pages. Thank you to the
Parliamentarian staffs. Thank you to the clerks. Thank you to the
doorkeepers. There were so many people who make this place special. I
kept you up all night. I kept you up 24 hours. I just want to say thank
you. Thank you, everybody.
(Applause.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. RISCH. Madam President, is the next regular order of business the
confirmation of Mr. Matthew Whitaker?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Order in the Senate, please. Order in the
Galleries.
Mr. RISCH. Madam President, is the next regular order of business the
confirmation of Mr. Matthew Whitaker to be NATO? Is that next order of
business up?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.
Mr. RISCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that myself and
the Senator from Iowa be permitted to speak each 3 minutes, and
immediately upon conclusion of that, we proceed to the vote on the
confirmation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. RISCH. I yield the floor to the Senator from Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be order in the Senate. Senators
and visitors will take their conversations out of the Chamber.

The Senator from Iowa.