Cory Booker

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I had a sleepless night last night as I put together in my mind where I think we are as a nation right now. We are a nation that, looking across our great land, showed unequivocally that we are in crisis. We are in a constitutional crisis. From people in our communities to people in this body, we are seeing grotesque--grotesque--attacks on our most sacred constitutional principles. As I sat last night, I found myself scrolling through words of our Founding Fathers, and something Madison said really stuck out to me: that power needs to be checked; power needs to be balanced; power derives its right from the consent of the governed, but power itself does not self-correct. I look at what is happening from the executive branch and see over and over again grotesque violations of our Constitution, and this body is doing nothing. The list of what is happening is clear. It is actually making headlines. It is not something that can be ignored. When you see the President of the United States taking power from the people, taking power from the executive, resisting the power of the judiciary, breaking the rule of law and nothing happens, it reminds me of Frederick Douglass: Find out just what a people will submit to, and that is the exact amount of injustice that will be heaped upon them. Well, what are the constitutional ruptures we are seeing so clearly right now? Well, we have seen them with the President's grift, graft, and corruption. I said this to some of my colleagues earlier: If a headline had appeared a few decades ago of a President of the United States and a sheik coming together days before he ascends to the Presidency, where that sheik is giving him tens of millions of dollars in what amounts to a direct payout, enriching him and his family in a trumped-up crypto scheme--that is clearly seen by our Founders as a breach of the Constitution in a clause called the emoluments clause. This President is using his position to profit off of as he oversees foreign policy, and we are seeing leaders come to him and give him millions of dollars, as they have foreign policy considerations before them. That is a rupture of the Constitution. What is another example? We are literally seeing people in the streets in Minnesota, exercising their constitutional right to protest, their constitutional right of speech, their constitutional right to hold law enforcement accountable, for doing nothing wrong but filming law enforcement--how many of us have seen the videos of people filming law enforcement and getting beaten, getting literally kicked, getting handcuffed, being put in jail, or the worst of all constitutional violations is when you attack someone's life, as we saw with Alex Pretti being murdered. We see more ruptures to our Constitution--not just the oppression of the basic rights of our people but that other sacrosanct right that our Founders saw when it comes to the right to vote. We have a President saying literally that the Constitution should not apply, that we should federalize elections. You see the President sending his Justice Department not to investigate the last election or the election before that--not the election he won but going back to 2020's election and seizing private voting records that belong to the State, in a claim that has been proven wrong over and over again that there was some kind of election fraud--the Big Lie, as it is called. That, too, is a rupture of our Constitution. He is violating voting rights. He is violating speech rights. He is violating the freedom to protest your government. He is violating the emoluments clause. He is violating the powers of the legislative branch as he stops funding that was approved in a bipartisan way in this body, like he just did in my State with the biggest infrastructure project there is. Again and again and again, this President is violating our Constitution. From, literally, agents masked jumping out of unmarked cars, going into our churches, going into our schools, this President violates our Constitution over and over and over again. But here is a truth spoken when constitutional rights were violated against an activist named Angela Davis--that this body is now seeing clearly what James Baldwin wrote. You see, the truth of our land has always been ``injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,'' as Martin Luther King says. As the great Langston Hughes wrote in poetry, ``There's a dream in the land, with its back against the wall . . . To save the dream for one,'' you must save the dream ``for all.'' Well, here are the rights. Here is the sacrosanct document that we swear oaths to--the Constitution. Here is the truth that the injustices you are seeing and the violations will be visited upon this body, because, as James Baldwin wrote so clearly, if they come for you in the morning, they are going to come for me at night. Well, we have now seen, last night, that they are coming for Members of this body, and no, I am not talking about House Members like LaMonica McIver, who has been thrown out, handcuffed, and is on trial right now. No, I am not talking about Adam Schiff, who was investigated for trumped-up charges. No, I am not talking about Alex Padilla, who was thrown to the ground and handcuffed in a Federal building. No, I am talking about my colleagues Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly, who literally quoted military manuals that say it is illegal to follow unjust and illegal laws--that they have a right to not follow unjust, illegal orders--literally quoting what is the law of the land. And what did this out-of-control Executive do? What did this out-of- control Executive do--an Executive that has already reached and taken away the power of the purse; an Executive that has already violated court orders that we have seen come from the highest office in the land, the Supreme Court; an Executive who has violated the emoluments clause; a President who brags about taking away States' rights to control their own elections; a President that has violated the law, time and time again? What did he do with his Justice Department? He called together a grand jury, used officials from our Justice Department that should be keeping us safe--used them to go after two Members of this body in an attempt to criminally charge them for their constitutional rights, protected in the Constitution, the speech and debate clause. There are books that have been written--from ``On Tyranny'' to ``How Democracies Die''--long before this administration, that predicted that this country's real threat will not be from some foreign enemy; it will be from internal corruption that goes unchecked--that this Nation's real threat is not from any adversary that cannot beat this Nation, this mighty country. The real threat to this Nation is when the Constitution we swear an oath to is eroded and the people with the power to stop it do nothing. That is how great nations have fallen in the past, not from those who violate the Constitution, who violate the rule of law, who violate the freedom of the people. Nations fall when the people that have the power to do something about it remain silent, sit on the sidelines, remain quiet, or submit to the will of an out-of-control Executive. The road to hell is paved with people who have the power to stop bad things from happening but say nothing. Our constitutional norms, the laws of our land, and the principles upon which we stand are being violated every week in our Nation. Americans are being swept up off of our streets. Americans' freedom of speech, Americans' privacy, the lives of American citizens are being taken--

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Thank you very much, sir. So three blocks from my home in Newark, NJ, is this place--you guys are from all over the country. I don't know if you have this place, but three blocks from my home is this place called McDonald's. Now, I have a guy who has driven me since I was a mayor. He was on my protective detail. He was a detective in the Newark Police Department. His name is Kevin Batts. From 2006 until now, he has been driving me around. And we have such a great friendship. We know each other so well that when I jump in the back of the car, I am often doing work, pounding away on texts, on the phone, so we don't even have to talk. He has learned to read my mind. Telepathic powers have emerged between us. So as we are driving past that McDonald's, he looks in the rearview mirror and immediately turns into the drive-through. He looked at me and read my mind. Maybe he didn't read my mind; he just saw weakness in my soul. I needed to have some McDonald's french fries. Now, at this point in my life when this story takes place, I was not a plant-based man. I did not know that McDonald's to this day--this is not libelous--they soak their french fries in some kind of beef product. I don't know what it is. But still I love McDonald's french fries. I get two large french fries. Now we are driving out of the drive-through, and I see a guy in a trash can rooting around, and I don't say a word. Kevin knows me. I look in the rearview mirror, our eyes meet, and he immediately stops the car. I roll down the window. He knows that I am going to want to try to see what is going on here three blocks from my home. I am trying to live my values. I say, ``Hey man, you all right?'' and he sort of waves me off. But, immediately, I realized my tone wasn't right. This is a man with equal dignity, God's creation made in God's image, and I said--my words weren't respectful enough. So I lowered my tone, and I said: Excuse me, sir. I am sorry to bother you, but do you need anything? He turns around and looks at me, and he goes: I am hungry. Now, I have talked to a lot of you. A lot of different faiths. We have a lot of different faiths for Senators here. It is more diverse than it has ever been. But in my faith, I think Jesus said something like, if you have two McDonald's french fries and your neighbor has no McDonald's french fries--I think it was the sermon on the McMount. Yes. The Parliamentarian can fact-check that. I think that is what the Bible said. But if I have two McDonald's french fries and my neighbor has none, I think Jesus said: Give one of your McDonald's french fries. So I reach into my bag, and I hand the man one of my treasures. I mean, before that, I was holding them like that movie, ``The Lord of the Rings.'' My precious. My precious. But now I go into my bag, and I hand him one of my fries. He takes the fries. He seems happy. I feel satisfied that I showed up in that moment. And he looks at me, grateful, steps away from the car, and then steps back to the car, and he goes: Excuse me. One more thing. Do you have any socks? Now, all of us who have done any voluntary work in homeless shelters or worked with folks who are experiencing homelessness, you know if he is asking, there must be an urgent need for him. So I felt bad. I sort of vainly looked in my car left and right. I don't carry extra socks in my car. I said: No, sir. I am sorry, I don't have socks. He shook his head and stepped back and raised the fries to me like saying: Cheers. Thanks for the fries. I whipped my head around, looked in the rearview mirror, giving him all the telepathy I could. I need to get home. I need to turn on the British baking show--I should say the American baking show, American baking shows. And there is nothing worse than cold McDonald's french fries. But Kevin doesn't move the car. I stare harder--more telepathy. Move the car. He doesn't move the car. Suddenly, what he does is he puts the car in park, and he reaches between the steering wheel and his legs, kicks off his shoes, and takes off the socks he is wearing. He folds them as neat as he can and offers them up to the man, who then takes the socks like he just received a bar of gold and steps away from the car and says: Thank you. I am a U.S. Senator, and I talk about kindness all the time, but in that moment, I failed to use my moral imagination to see how I could show up. I am three blocks from my house. I have socks in my drawer. Some of them, I don't even wear anymore. But I didn't think about taking off my socks. Pages, you all are special. I tell you, I really have come to have a lot of affection for you. I am going to miss you. This place is going to miss you. I hope if I see you out and about, you don't pretend like you don't know me and I can tell you what an honor it was that we served together in the U.S. Senate. I think I speak for 99 other people in telling you how grateful we are. If there is one request I have, it is to just remind you that our Founders knew about this country, that we needed improvement. They wanted this in every generation of us to make this a more perfect Union. If I could prescribe one great need our country has, it is you. This country needs your heart and your spirit; it needs your brilliance and ideas; it needs your grit and hard work; but most of all, it needs you to be kind. Those seeds are in you. I see it. I hope that as you go out into the world and encounter challenges and stresses, that you can always show up with your heart and your kindness and your love. And that perhaps you remember better than I do that sometimes in life, you got to take off your socks.

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, you will enter all the page poems because they are so good. So for the rest of time, it will be noted in the Congressional Record, in the Record of this august body. These poems will be in the Record with my comments that they are great poetry, even though you tell very bad jokes. That is now in the Record forever. But we had to choose. There must be winners. I am very happy that we--Katie and I--through much grueling work, chose some winners. So there are three categories I am going to give you. There is one honorable mention. There is another one that I chose myself, taking the privilege of being here and present on the floor. Please don't tell Senator Britt. And then the two that garnered in this body the bipartisan support--these are the two ultimate winners that got both Katie and me. So here is the first honorable mention, then the one that really truly moved me, and then the one the two of us agreed on. First, the honorable mention. Where is Lilliana Grinberg? Lilliana, you have been, in so many ways, so kind. I did not know this was your poem until moments ago. Now that I know it is yours, I am not going to read it. No, I am joking. Here we go. Let's see if you impress the good Senator from Ohio. It's a new day, here in the Capitol: Prayer and pledge and now hear the gavel. Under these gilded ceilings, then and now interweave; It's where we see what is, and what ought to be. Joking through the tired and laughing through the stress; Praying that each scramble will turn into success; Voting and speeches and printing amendments, Debates and objections and unanimous consensus. We leave this world made of marble and to Webster Hall we return; Where our bodies may rest, but our minds will still churn. We all have no clue what tomorrow will bring; Best and brightest, to this place we will cling. We will cling to the chamber, and the flag and its staff. We will cling to this group, every lesson and laugh. Thank you very much. Snapping in the Chamber is against the rules, but you guys are leaving tomorrow anyway. So break some rules. All right. This next poem I read, and more than one person who read this poem agreed with me. We got very emotional. It was brave and courageous, like some of the other poems I read. So this is a poem unlike any I have ever read from the pages. I am going to read it now. Then I will get to the two Britt-Booker wins. But this poem is by Lucas Hogan. Where is Lucas? Lucas, all I have to say is wow. I am going to read it. The poem is entitled ``Moments of Silence'' A gunman enters the school planning to cause violence Students try to pretend they aren't there; they pack up their things They hold their breath; the school is in a moment of silence As hard as they tried, new angels still gained untimely wings At the funerals, they send thoughts and prayers to victims of the violence Shell-shocked survivors embrace one another and try to move on The next day at school, the victims are honored with a moment of silence It is impossible for anyone to keep going--their friends are gone Politicians give stentorian remarks on stage denouncing the violence Afterwards, they hand off the microphone and scurry off to the next speech There are no votes on any policies; nothing but moments of silence Children still march into the place where survival is a reach There's been enough inaction. There's been enough waiting. There's been enough sorrow. Only moments of silence leaves more children who yearn for tomorrow Very, very powerful. Now, the Britt-Booker choices for the highest senatorial honor given to a teenager anywhere ever. I guess I am exaggerating--but what the heck. Who knows. Two that I shall read, and first is by Addison Norris--oh, my gosh. Addison, you are like a Senator. You are very long-winded in your poetry writing. But it is beautiful, nonetheless. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. He looked upon His work and said, It is good. But is it really good when we're facing wars, when families are waiting for unopened doors? Is it really good when it doesn't go my way, when I've lost my job, had a horrible day? Is it good when I can't see the light when there's no clear way out-- is it good, is it right? Is He good? Is God really there when there's no food on the table? Does God truly care? Yes--He is good, though the night feels long, though prayers fall heavy and the silence feels strong. Because goodness was never the absence of pain; it was God stepping into it, bearing the weight, wearing the stain. Good looked like a manger, not a throne dressed in gold. Good looked like mercy when the world had grown cold. Good had dirt on His hands, tears in His eyes, a cross on His shoulders, love choosing sacrifice. He is good not because life bends to our will, but because He stays close when everything is still. When the job is gone, when the cupboard is bare, when all we have left is a whispered prayer-- He is there. Good is the Shepherd who walks through the valley, not shouting directions but walking it with me. Good is the promise that night doesn't win, that Sunday still comes after Friday's grim. So yes, He is good-- not loud, not rushed, not proved in a day-- but faithful, and near, and already making a way. Fantastic. The last page poem--prodigiously, purposefully, powerfully plain--I said less alliteration. I lied. Here is the last page poem. I do want to say, there was another poem--I didn't even ask whose name it was-- that heralded Katie Britt and me. I admired the obsequious nature of that poem. The sycophantic excellence was powerful. I mean, to drop my name into the poem, I was weak. I wanted to choose the person who praised me, but I felt like I wouldn't get away with it before the Presiding Officer. He might rule XIX me or something like that. So here is the final bipartisan poem that gets our most highest honor here in the Senate, and it comes from Emma Ross. Emma. You can snap for Emma before the poem, but shouldn't you wait to hear what she wrote first? Gosh, premature ``snap-ation'' is a bad thing. Here we go. From Emma Ross. I came from quiet roads and open air, Where every sunset felt like it knew me. But here, the marble glitters cold and bare, And I feel lost in all this history. These crowded halls move faster than my breath, Each rushing step reminding me I'm new; Some days my confidence feels close to death, And I miss skies my hometown once let through I smile, I learn, I try to stand up tall, But still my heart aches for familiar ground. A porchlight glow, a voice I knew to call A place where I was seen, not just around Yet though I ache, I stay, because I know Great dreams are born from seeds we bravely sow. I am impressed with this class. I have to say, as much as I tried to diss you and disrespect you, you guys showed such specialness, I will never forget this page class. So I am going to do two things. One, as the Presiding Officer knows that you lead by example, so, of course, I wrote you a poem, and I am going to share it. Then I will say some final words, and I will let the Presiding Officer close the Senate for the recess. So, first, a poem before my final words. This is a Booker original, written hastily over the last 24 hours. You can do things at the last minute and still make it in life. I think I am a testimony to that. You can procrastinate. But I actually wrote this after reading through your poems a second time. You inspired me, so here is the Senate page poem dedicated to you all. One hundred Senators--confident, accomplished, successful Elected leaders projecting excellence in times so stressful. They may seem like giants and you may feel a bit small. But, dear God, don't buy it--don't believe that at all. For every Senator you hear roar on this hallowed floor, There are shadows, stumbles, wounds--times they collapsed and wept before. You witness speeches, polished, practiced, refined, What you don't see are the staffs who write drafts, fix flaws, and make sure we arrive on time. And if we sound wise--sagacious on camera or TV shows-- The true heft we carry wasn't born from our highs, But was forged through our lows. So dear Pages, a truth not often shared in this place, To the young people who carried our water and opened our doors with such grace: Greatness isn't achieved when you reach the highest ground. Greatness is forged when you get knocked down and despite it all, rise, and rebound. You may have become curious how someone climbed so far, they must be better than we are. But if you want to know the real story, perhaps the best question to ask us is: Tell me about your scars? But maybe this is a story you already know so well . . . Because these last months of your life here in the Senate . . . You all went through hell. You worked humbling, demanding jobs full-time, Then carried a full course load--every class, so much work assigned. And what moved me most--what I admire in you--is that somehow, still, you became one of the kindest Page classes I have ever known or knew. Maybe that's the lesson you offer us today: That despite the world's pressure, its chaos and fray, You met stress, struggle, exhaustion, and so much, too much labor-- Yet you still lived the most sacred refrain of all: To love your neighbor. I say this because you've impressed me, you really have, every single day. Look, your jokes really sucked, but your kindness was your way . . . So I leave you now with this final reminder: God, this world needs to become a lot kinder. So, when angry, when joyful, when weary or mad. When soaring with hope, or aching and sad. When lost, when certain, or when unsure of your way-- When life makes no sense at the end of the day-- Choose again. Decide again. Make it your very spine: Resolve, in all moments, to always be more kind. Because in my life the best people I've ever met--without question, what has been and is their principle? It is that they center their lives on cultivating a kindness, that is invincible. Very true. You guys disappointed me time and time again. From the day you arrived, I asked for jokes. I haven't asked much. I asked you guys just to be funny, and you are not. You are really going to have to work on that in life. I mean, you have got to have a sense of humor. But what you lacked in humor, I was blown away by just how good people you are, and this world is yearning for more good people. You have seen this place split along the aisle. You have seen the tribalism grow in our country. You are going to return to your phones very soon, which I think this is probably going to be looked back upon as one of your better periods when you weren't scrolling and weren't doing social media. In many ways, you were liberated from that toxin, which feeds in our society so much hate and so much disagreement. These are corporations actually that feed us through their algorithms things that make us more enraged on each other. If there is any great threat to America, it is no other country. They can't beat us tank for tank or warship for warship. The greatest threat to our country isn't from without, it is from within. In fact, you will study history, and if you look at the decline of nations, it has not necessarily been from external threats. From the Roman Empire to the Soviet Union, they fall because of internal corruption and failing to live up to their virtues. If there is any virtue that you all have been amidst every single day for America to make us successful, it is the one over the Presiding Officer's head. It is ``E pluribus unum.'' But I was blown away in this session. You heard the speech. One of my colleagues researched where that speech came from. I never thought of the origins of ``E pluribus unum.'' I have been saying that phrase from a dead language. And he found the origins of it from a great philosopher that is actually the end of a sentence. The sentence talks about that value that you all showed me through your kindness. Whether it was in the train or passing in the hallway, you all seem to always have a smile, a generous word. Even on the days you were haggard and weary, ``E pluribus unum''--the beginning of that sentence is, if we are to be a great people, we must love one another, we must love our neighbors and become one out of many. That is the secret. So if there is any parting word I can give you on behalf of Katie and myself, who have forged a friendship in this place--I have come to love and respect her deeper because I see her struggle in the most important way. The greatest struggles in our lives are not necessarily the next career ladder we are going to grab; the greatest struggle in life is often just to manifest every day, to show up every day and evidence the most important virtues in our lives. And I think of no greater virtue than to love one another. So I will end by telling you a short story about my scars, about times I have failed, because the truth of the matter is, the best lessons I have been gifted have been through the most difficult times. You guys just went through difficult times, and I hope you look back and say that there was something about the hardship and the challenge that forged something with you that you will take with you for the rest of your life, that you look back at this page experience and value and remember two things: One is the friends you made, and the other is the grit that you gained to be the best version of yourself to show up. Whatever you do, whatever you do, I hope you do like I have seen you do in this place, is just litter this world with small acts of kindness, decency, and love. So the embarrassing story, which I hesitate to tell before the Presiding Officer--it might show up in my campaign this year in ads used against me. So I hope I can have a public promise that you won't use this story against me, sir. Is that without objection?

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, there is something extraordinary that happens when we are here in the Senate. Every cycle, we see numerous young people who come here to--one might call them indentured servants. They are the pages. I have come to have a lot of respect for Katie Britt, but my work with her every year in getting to know the pages--we have a little lunch--it is something I really treasure. Senator Britt could not be here now. The schedule--we were supposed to do this earlier in the afternoon. But I want the pages to know that I think she is pretty broken-hearted that she can't be on the floor right now. She and I together worked to judge the poetry competition. She was very disappointed that she could not be here to read the successful poems. But even more so, I think what she really wanted to do was to express her gratitude to this extraordinary group of young people who are assembled on the Senate floor before us. So what I want to do is in two parts, with the latitude of the Chair, I am going to talk about the poetry competition and then share some parting words with the pages. First, they are already annoying me--as they often do--because I cannot see you guys, all. So the pages who are sitting down and cannot eyeball me, please join the other pages who are standing so we can have a better look. I want to look into your eyes just in case my harsh words make any of you cry. That is much better. That is much better. Mr. President, we had a poetry competition. I want you to know this poetry competition was different than all the other poetry competitions we have had with pages. First of all, they were recalcitrant. Very few of them even participated, to begin. So we did something we never, ever did before. We extended the deadline, and then I bullied and badgered--I admit this on the Senate floor. I bullied and badgered some high school students into complying with the poetry competition, and we got a large number of poems, a large number of participation from the pages. I am proud, proud of your page participation that has lasted until today. Now, what I did not expect is for their poems to be so good. I was actually literally shocked. I look at you all, and I just don't expect greatness. But your poems were exceptional. I literally texted Senator Britt in agony. I was like, how do we decide on which poems to choose, because in past page classes--I hope they are listening out there in the world. They are just so top class. So it was very difficult. Katie and I went back and forth. We did a lot of consternation, and we came up with the winners. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all the page poems be--I have never done this before--but all the page poems that were written this time--all of you that wrote poems should be printed in the Congressional Record with their names because I did not see names. They were all anonymous to me. I don't know which pages they were. I don't know if they were Republican or Democrat. I don't know if they were the pages that told me bad jokes or the pages that told me really bad jokes because there were really just two categories in this class.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Mark Kelly for bringing people to the floor to talk about that which is, unequivocally, the greatest threat to American democracy right now. It is the cancer that is metastasizing more and more and more. Since the Citizens United decision, I have watched as to how this body has seen clearly corrupt forces beginning to overrun the common sense and the will of the people in policy. More and more are being bent to the whim and the will of the wealthiest of the wealthy in our country and the world, as well as to corporations--many of them, multinational corporations. We are in crisis--our Nation is in crisis--as more and more Americans lose trust and lose faith in our country, in our democracy, in the people who serve--the 535 Members: the 100 Members of the Senate and the 435 Members of the House of Representatives. They feel more and more that they are in it for themselves and for the corporations and not to do the hard work of the people. Trust is vital for a democracy to thrive, and there has been nothing more powerful in the undermining of that trust, in the years that I have been in the Senate, than what I have seen in the destructive force of money in our politics. We know that the decision that was made by a conservative majority of five Justices--three of whom are still on the Court--permitted those billionaires and corporations to pour unlimited, unchecked money into our elections, drowning out the collective voices of the people. Let me give you an example, a sobering fact. In 2024, about 44 percent of all of the money raised to support Donald Trump came from 10 individual donors. Think about that for a second. Of the billions of dollars that were spent on this election for the President of the United States right now, 44 percent of that money was contributed by 10 people. This is not just a purview of any party, though; this is something that is infecting our entire system. People ask the question rightfully: What does all that influence and money buy? Well, right now, we are seeing it. Individuals like Elon Musk and other billionaires are exercising an outsized influence on our party, threatening people in this body and other bodies to drop millions and millions of dollars against them. And to say that doesn't have an influence is wrong. Unlimited corporate cash literally buys policies that put even more money in the pockets of the wealthiest, allows them to rig the system to benefit them, while working-class Americans more and more get a raw deal. We are seeing a virtual welfare state for the wealthiest of the wealthy in our policies that benefits and protects the wealthiest, that serves the largest corporations, that is designed to line the pockets further and further of the wealthy. It is a tax cut for corporations that we have seen in policies, while Americans and their most important issues--whether it is their healthcare, whether it is their ability to make a living--are further and further undermined. Citizens United has created a system where Presidential pardons are pay-to-play, where environmental regulations that keep us safe and healthy are slashed, where corporate mergers are rubberstamped by Federal regulators. For 16 years now, we have seen the slow, cancerous corruption of American democracy. We have seen how folks who pay the price get outsized influence, that a small group of billionaires and corporations wield enormous power over elections and, in turn, over the policies that all Americans have to live under. And this has fueled what is growing to be a growing discontent. Ending Citizens United is wildly popular on both sides of the aisle. The majority of Americans want to see an end to this cancerous decision. Americans are sick and tired, and they are demanding that we act. I believe this body should come together in a bipartisan way to end the nightmare that has been unleashed on America by Citizens United. I know from private conversations with people on both sides of the aisle that it would be a relief not to have this outsized influence of money and power on this body. It would allow us to focus in an undeterred way on the business of the people. I am proud to cosponsor bills that would end this nightmare like Democracy for All, the amendment to overturn this misguided decision. I am proud to champion commonsense reforms like the Freedom to Vote Act and--God--the DISCLOSE Act, which would ensure that the dark money pouring into our elections, the cancerous resources unleashed by the wealthiest of the wealthy--that at least they could not pour that money in and then hide their identity. It would shine light on what is a dark, dark process. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle but particularly my Republican colleagues to listen to the overwhelming majority of Americans who just not only want to avoid the dark, cancerous reality that Citizens United brought to us but are hoping and yearning for our democracy to get back to the ideals that we all share, that we pledge allegiance to, that could make this 250th anniversary of our country something truly to celebrate: that we are a nation free from this cancer, free from the dark money that is flooding our politics; that, indeed, we are free at last to see what can happen in America that focuses on the people and the power of the people and not just the power of the wealthiest. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, before my colleague leaves the floor, I just want to commend him for his leadership and for that of some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, like Lindsey Graham and Mike Lee, who were extraordinary in getting this done. When I got to the Senate about 12 years ago, one of the best experiences I have had as a Senator was to have the senior Senator, who in many ways, to me, was a legend, put me under his wing and say: Join me in this effort, in this fight. It gave me one of the best, most gratifying legislative experiences I have had as a U.S. Senator. On this the seventh anniversary, I just want to herald the leadership of Dick Durbin for never giving up, for his indomitable will, and for his invincible spirit in getting this major piece of legislation done. I am grateful to be able to stand here today, 7 years later, to thank him for that kind of leadership as well as my colleagues in the Republican Party who stood strong, who stood with us, and helped us get over this line. This is the kind of thing that is a real example of setting political differences aside and doing what is right. There were people in the White House, not just President Trump but many of his team members, who enabled us to work together to get something done. It shows what we can do when we let evidence, facts, fairness, and compassion be the guide to getting legislation done. This is not only a reflection of what we have done; to me, it should inspire us to what we can do. For 7 years, this landmark legislation has represented the crowning achievement in this body. First, I want to remind everybody that, in the years leading up to this, our prison population in America ballooned by 800 percent. America became the incarceration capital of planet Earth, with 5 percent of the world's population but 25 percent of the world's prison population. Even today, close to one out of every three adult Americans has a criminal record. That is stunning, and it should stun everybody here, but we know we were able to make some changes and not by accident. This system--this corrupt system--is a result of decades of failed Federal policies that we challenged; that we showed did not work. My friend Bryan Stevenson put it perfectly. He said that you get treated better in this country if you are rich and guilty rather than if you are poor and innocent. That is why so many of us worked together to get something done. As of January 31, 2024, over 17,000 individuals were released from residential reentry centers, home confinements, and secure facilities because they participated in the programming to help them reenter society and earn credits. The great thing about it is their recidivism rate is so much lower than it would have been from comparable populations that maxed out their time. We have, actually, through the programs we have put in place, made people safer; have lowered recidivism rates; have created safer communities and stronger, more intact families through this program. Over 400,000 people now have completed programs that were put together in our legislation. In fiscal year 2023, over 4,000 people completed occupational training, and over 8,000 earned industry-recognized credentials. So much good has come from this, but as Senator Durbin said, our work is not done. We know that the Bureau of Prisons has a staffing crisis that jeopardizes the safety of correctional officers and those in custody, and that undermines the programs we have put in place, which are not being fully implemented. When we named the law, we also were very deliberate. We called it the First Step Act because we knew there was so much more work that we could be doing in a bipartisan way to empower our criminal justice system to be about justice and fairness and public safety, not just the routine warehousing of human beings and human potential at great cost to taxpayers. Perhaps one of the great public safety things we can do is to continue this work. We must not succumb to the dangerous rhetoric that spreads fear for political gain and does not look at the commonsense, evidence-based ways to lower crime, to lower prison rates, to empower communities, and to reunite families. We must not brand every person who commits an offense as someone who is irredeemable. Indeed, the very nature of our country is the ideal of redemption. I am so grateful to have participated in the First Step Act. I see my friend Mike Lee, who just came in, who is another one of those champions whom I mentioned earlier by name. Now that he is on the floor, I want to thank him for his courage, for his telling the stories of people over and over again until the consciousness of the country was raised to the point at which we could get this legislation done. Again, it is one of the best experiences I have had as a legislator. I want to thank him, Senator Durbin, Senator Chuck Grassley, as well as my friend Lindsey Graham, and many of our colleagues on this side of the aisle. I know the hour is late, and a lot of my friends are waiting here, but I am hoping that, in the spirit of this anniversary, we can commit ourselves to doubling our efforts and doing more good work in this spirit. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, as my colleagues are understandably greeting my colleague, I just wanted to take a moment and take the floor to express my deep admiration for a man that I have known for decades. I first met Andy Kim when he was a college student and I was interviewing him for a Rhodes Scholarship. I was part of this panel of people who had to interview some of the best people from the State of New Jersey for this vaunted scholarship. I will tell you right now, when Andy Kim walked in that room, he blew away every one of the interviewers. I like to brag around New Jersey now that while now hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people have voted for Andy Kim, I was perhaps the first person to do so. What I saw in a young college student decades ago has only blossomed so much more as he has gone from a young man to a U.S. Senator. We throw around the word ``patriotism'' a lot, and it is often used in a way to brandish pride or, at its worst, as a way to condemn others. But the truth of patriotism was in the language we heard today; it is in the language of love, the fact that you cannot love your country unless you love your fellow country men and women. I am excited that New Jersey has a Senator of unassailable brilliance, but what makes him special is not simply his extraordinary head but the profound depths of his heart. New Jersey is a State that often I call the Rodney Dangerfield State where we get no respect, but the truth of the matter is, New Jersey has a representative that in this body that is known for partisanship, he is a person that is seen by colleagues on both sides of the aisle as someone that has a soul force, someone who has a heart, someone who is determined to be the kind of patriot this Nation needs. I would be remiss in not mentioning this: I love the fact that we have this body that represents so many American traditions, so many streams of lived experiences that make this a great representation of our Nation. But the truth is, we are still seeing so many firsts in this body. One first we should recognize is the one that Andy Kim exemplifies. He is the first Korean American to serve in this body at a time that Korean Americans have made contributions--from the academics, to the sciences, innovators, businesspeople, farmers. But this is the first time the United States of America has seen a Korean American, the son of immigrants, stand in this body. I will tell you this--not just because of his heritage, not just because of the uniqueness of his presence on this floor, but because of the depth of his humanity, his demonstration today of the urgency that we stand up and allow people to see our vulnerability, see our frailty. In fact, in many ways, Andy Kim has shown that often the greatest courage is found in the depths of our frailty, our vulnerability, and our candor and honesty with our own struggles. I am a man of great physical stature relative to my smaller Senator, but I hope everybody in America knows this: I may have greater physical stature, but since I met him as a college student, I have looked up to my friend and my brother, a giant of a human, Andy Kim.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. And of my colleague I would ask another question because you are making such a great point, and I really hope America hears this--that these policies, these constitutional principles that we are defending here, are not just arcane, idealistic things; they have a direct impact on our Nation. My colleague is making it plain. This is what should be animating everybody; it is that when you attack the healthcare of millions of Americans, it doesn't mean you are curing disease, and they are not going to have a demand for healthcare. The demand is still going to be there. And if they are not getting their healthcare reimbursed, if they are not getting preventive care, if they are not getting regular checkups, they are going to put more demand on our hospitals, which are going to make our hospitals have longer wait times in the emergency rooms, that are going to have our hospitals have less reimbursed care, and our hospitals are going to strain and buckle under that, thus, driving up the costs for everyone. You make it plain, and people should hear this. When the President lies to the American people and says he is about all-of-the-above energy costs, he is not. He is about advantaging certain energy over other energy, and it is actually the lower cost energy that he is attacking. Those projects are actually going to lower people's bills. So here he is raising the healthcare costs for everyone, hurting the hospitals that we all rely on, and driving up energy costs for everyone and giving an advantage to our competitors, like the Chinese, who are racing to energy projects in the renewable energy space. But it is even more than that, as my colleague knows. When you have boneheaded attacks on our Constitution, as opposed to going through Congress, where there is deliberation and debate, you are actually raising costs in other ways too. As my colleagues knows, Americans, right now, are seeing investments that we make that return for the taxpayer significant returns in science and research. We are a nation that has exploited industries, where the rest of the world is trying to catch up to us. We are the Nation that invented so many great things by funding research, basic research and technology. So when you attack universities, where they are now reporting less postdoc programs, less Ph.D. programs, less research going on in America, you are ceding the pathway to human endeavor. You are closing it off. As my colleague was saying, with attacks on universities, making them come and bend a knee, those universities are saying: No, I will not bow to you. You are not my King. And then that King--want-to-be King--cuts funding to our greatest research institutions--not in America but the greatest research institutions on the planet Earth, which have spawned new innovations from quantum computing to fission and fusion, to robotics, to medical sciences. When you cut off the resources to those things, you are starving the goose that has been laying the golden egg for human endeavor, for industries, and more. It has a cost when a President goes rogue and does what he wants to do. It has a cost not just to our liberty, when you make universities, when you make businesses, when you make law firms bow before you or be punished by you. It has a cost to our liberty, but it also has--as you were saying so plainly what most Americans are saying over and over again--it has a cost financially to American families who are right now struggling. As you have said, time and time again, over these last dozen-plus hours, Americans are hurting. Americans are afraid. Americans are worried that they are going to get a diagnosis from a doctor that is going to drive them to bankruptcy. Americans don't know how they can take care of a sick child and pay the rent, and this is directly being attacked by a President who is doing things that are driving up their energy costs, that are driving up their medical costs, that are driving up their grocery costs, and who is failing to make the investments that keep America ahead of the competition we are seeing in places like China. It is boneheaded. It is financially imprudent. It is hurting America, as well as our constitutional framework. The genius of our Founders in this great experiment that is now 250 years old, which has put us at the top of all of humanity and innovation and human success, is now being jeopardized, after 250 years, by a President who is claiming authorities that the Constitution and our Framers never intended to be in the executive. So God bless America. My colleague from Oregon is giving a master's class today--a master's class now for 14-plus hours, closing in on 15; a master's class in helping people understand not just constitutional principles but how all of us are invested in this Constitution, how all of us are invested in making sure that nobody steps outside of those constitutional authorities because when it does, we have seen what has happened when McCarthyism arose; we have seen what has happened when demagoguery trumps common sense, common cause, common purposes, and a shared devotion to that flag. So I ask my colleague right now, we haven't even had a year of this President, and we have watched things happen where this body has not even called an oversight hearing when our very national security was in jeopardy. When you have Americans at the highest level of our Defense Department using a commercial app with reporters on it to release classified information, we didn't hold one oversight hearing. When we took the extrajudicial step to blow up speed boats, there has been no oversight into that claimed attack on people who were allegedly smuggling drugs. We are constantly not doing our job, which is not a partisan one. It is to hold this President in check, that no one operates without accountability and without transparency because power is corrupting. When you let someone do what they want to do, when they want to do it, without a check or a balance, it is corrupting. We know that because we have the most corrupt President, dollar for dollar of any President we have ever seen, through his crypto schemes, from him exchanging his authorities for compensation that makes him a richer man. Unchecked power leads to corruption. Our Founders knew it and designed this system thusly. So I ask my colleague now, that sense of urgency of a President who has been in office nearly 10 months, if my colleagues in this body do not start standing up and doing their jobs, holding hearings on his tariff policies, holding hearings on his agricultural policy, holding hearings on his healthcare policies--and I say that generously because they are not policies; they are not thoughtful; they don't reflect the wisdom on both sides of the aisle; they are hurting people. If we continue to let this President proceed unchecked, if we continue to let him flaunt the rules of our Constitution, if we continue with open eyes to let him do things that he is doing right now by ripping apart the White House, not going through any of the process whatsoever that is literally contrary to the laws of the people's House--not Donald Trump's House, the people's House--if we continue to let him go in this way without checks or balances, I ask my colleague, what are the consequences that you fear might happen in the next 10 months with this President, who wants to be an autocrat and is in the White House?

Mr. BOOKER. I appreciate it. I appreciate my colleague pausing for a question. I just want to first say, as I present my question to him, how grateful I am for his stamina and for his strength but, more importantly, for his insightful truths that he has been telling now for well over 14 hours. In many ways, we see a tradition in this body of being a deliberative body, but it seems now, more and more, that deliberation is giving way to what the Founders never imagined, which is that of simply conceding to anything that the President of the United States wants. We were born to check and balance the Presidency. We are the article I branch of government. As my colleague rings the alarm bell, it is clear to me that the alarm bell he is ringing is not a partisan alarm bell; it is not left or right. It is right or wrong. It is about asserting the article I branch of the Constitution's strength, its purpose, its constitutional intent. That is to provide oversight. That is to provide advice and consent. That is to provide the checks and balance that we need. For hours now, what I have been seeing is that my colleague Jeff Merkley has, time and time again, been laying plain facts that would not play no matter what party a person is from. The President is encroaching again and again and again on the constitutional prerogatives of the article I branch of government, and the result of this is that people are hurting. I really want to get my colleague's response to this. The fact is, right now, you have a President not going through Congress, not working with Congress but undermining congressional intent by gutting and cutting programs; by gutting and cutting Agencies; by gutting and cutting bipartisan-approved resources for our States in ways that threaten and undermine the well-being of Americans. We see him approve a tariff policy, not one that has gone through this body--in fact, I would say not one that people in this body would even agree on that is hurting American farmers, that is driving them to their knees. They want trade, not aid. As a result of that tariff policy, it is not only hurting the bedrock people who put food on the table for Americans and people throughout this world, but it is hurting consumers by driving up grocery prices. What my colleague continues to point out is how these violations of our constitutional norms and traditions--the insult and injury done to our Constitution--have real-life impacts on the lives of Americans. It is making us poorer, and it is making us sicker in our lack of access to healthcare. We are seeing a time now when, if we do not ring the alarm bells, more and more Americans will be hurt by a President who is acting more like an authoritarian leader than a democratically elected Executive in the article II branch. This is not a left or a right moment. It is a right or a wrong moment. This is a moral moment in America. I love what Martin Luther King said. He said: The problem today is not the vitriolic words and violent actions of the bad people. It is the appalling silence and inaction of the good people. This is the time that my colleague, in doing this extraordinary step here for more than 14 hours--all through the night--is standing up and saying: Look, democracy has never been a spectator sport. If you love this country--if you love with deep devotion the ideals of patriotism more than a party--now is the time for all good people to stand up and call it out. So I want to know this from my colleague: With the urgency that we have in this moment with Americans seeing their energy costs go up; with Americans seeing their grocery costs going up; with Americans now seeing the reality of their healthcare costs going up by thousands and thousands of dollars for marginalized people; for folks who are struggling to provide for their children; for children with disabilities struggling to get the resources they need; with parents not knowing how they are going to meet the rent and pay for medical expenses or how they are going to be able to pay for the basic needs of their families, this is a time that if you believe in the cherished principles of our Nation, from patriotism to devotion to our national ideals, if you believe in the ideals of our Nation of love thy neighbor, and if you believe that we are one nation under God, this must be the time when more people stand up and speak out because the only thing necessary--the only thing necessary--for the triumph of tyranny is for a free people to remain silent. So I ask my colleague right now because there are people saying: What does it matter that a Senator is standing up? I ask my colleague right now to maybe say directly to the American people why you are taking this courageous stand tonight and what you hope they will take away because it is not about you or me; it is not about the 100 people here. We have seen this President back down before when the American people, in a chorus of conviction, stand up and say: No, no more. As Frederick Douglass said, the limits of tyranny are prescribed by the people who face the oppression. I ask my colleague: What is the message that you are trying to send with this courageous stand, with this incredible endurance, with this strong speech you are giving today?

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I stand in agreement with my colleague. Mr. Oswaldo Paya is an extraordinary hero, not just to the Cuban people but to millions of Americans, including millions of New Jerseyans and especially to the Cuban American community in my State. He is a freedom fighter who stands for our most treasured and sacrosanct ideals. I want to work with my colleague to find a way to honor him. I would be willing to partner with him in doing something to elevate this cause and this principle and the noble ideals that my colleague speaks to. The challenge right now is that we are in different times. This bill would permit Congress to rename a DC-owned intersection, but the District of Columbia has the right to self-governance. When I was mayor of the city of Newark, if my State came in against my objections to rename streets in my city, I would have objected. The people of the District of Columbia have the right to control their own local affairs. Their rights are enshrined in home rule. It is critical that we reject attempts that infringe upon those rights. The locally elected DC Council alone has the right to rename DC streets. And there is no dispute that the intersection in question is DC owned. Since the beginning of home rule, the council has opposed congressional efforts to rename its streets. Recently, Representative Holmes Norton strongly has made her views known that she opposes this bill on those grounds. Washington, DC, has no representation in this body. We must respect the wishes of the locally and democratically elected council and DC representatives in Congress. Indeed, these democratic ideals are what we are talking about right now. This objection is not about recognizing the courageous work of Oswaldo Paya. I will tell you, I have a deep reverence and respect and I will offer again that I will do anything I can to support the elevation of this hero, of this democratic light. Mr. Paya bravely fought for freedom and democracy in Cuba. He was killed due to his heroic work. I hope, perhaps, our Congress can appropriate resources to do something to honor this noble man and his ideals. I hope we can think constructively about what else we can do. His work should be recognized more by our Nation. And I would support the DC Council, their elected representatives, if it decided, through their democratic process, to work with the Senator and the Democratic sponsor to rename the street. My objection is simply right now about Washington, DC's right to control their own local affairs. This objection is about home rule and self-governance. It is true, as my colleague said, this has passed through this Chamber multiple times. But you would understand, DC is pushing for us not to do it this time because the current administration in the White House has stepped up their efforts to undermine home rule. It is looking to DC as a testing ground for extreme policies. The fact that DC has been deprived of statehood makes the people of the District feel even more vulnerable under this President to the policies of the administration. They are asserting an even stronger way with me and others who feel a fidelity to the home rule ideals, that we should take a stand now. We cannot make DC and its residents more vulnerable still by further eroding and encroaching upon the District of Columbia's right to self-governance. That is a sacrosanct ideal that our country has stood for. ``No taxation without representation,'' the ability to elect your governing officials and entrust upon them to make decisions for your community. It is under these principles and ideals, Mr. President, that I object. And it is with a sincere heart that I offer my colleague the willingness to work with him on other ways we might be able to bestow an honor on this extraordinary hero.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Yeah, I just--again, I have so much respect for my colleague that I want to respond to some of the things he said, because, again, I just want to affirm that he is right on the urgency to help our police officers. He is right that States should abide by Federal law that passes from this body. But what we have now is a President who, in his first term, didn't ever try something like this, which is undermining the will of Congress. This is really unprecedented. It has never happened--Republican President, Democratic President--including Donald Trump's first term, where he suddenly said: I am going to turn off the spigot of support to local law enforcement agencies because I don't agree with your policies. I think that is a threat to the independence of our branch of government. I think that is in so many ways violative of our shared values on both sides of the aisle. But let me go further than that. What the President is doing is saying: Not only am I going to stop funding from going to the State of New Jersey, I am going to go to red counties in New Jersey, red counties in California. I actually went out and talked to people. Republican legislators in States, Republican police officers, a Republican union leader told me this as well: This is ridiculous. This is insane that we would hold grants back from the entire State. He said: I don't agree with Democrats' policies, but we are out here putting our lives on the line, and Republicans in Congress want to stop resources coming to our police departments. One of the union leaders said to me: My guys are out there sacrificing their lives, and we can't get help that both sides of the aisle agree on? So, yes, my colleague and I disagree on domestic immigration policies. One thing he and I don't agree on--because I was the mayor of a city that basically said: In order to keep my city safe, we are going to cooperate with the police department. It was an overbroad generalization that was made on the Senate floor that we are not supporting ICE and immigration activities. I know this up and down the State of New Jersey. Not only do we support them, but we detailed officers with Federal immigration enforcement. I did it when I was mayor. You want to talk about cooperation. Anybody who knows local government from the FBI to the ATF to ICE, all over New Jersey, we are cooperating with Federal authorities. What we have simply said is we are responsible for local law enforcement. We are not going to do things that create such fear in our communities that immigrant communities are afraid to come to local police to report crimes. And that somehow--not in Trump's first term--but somehow in this term of office, that is a bridge too far. Let me tell you right now, the way immigration is being pursued in our neighborhoods, where masked agents are coming out of unmarked cars or going to court appearances and schools and hospitals--my local police officers are telling me how much more dangerous this administration is making communities because people who are the victims of crime now are afraid to go to local police officers and report those crimes. Again, this is not coming from politicians in New Jersey. This is coming from law enforcement officers that have said that we have created such a climate of fear in our country that just solving crimes is getting harder and harder because people are afraid to come to the police. So, yes, we have policies that say there are certain things we won't do to maintain a community of trust within our communities. I understand there is a lot of rhetoric. I could turn on shock news and all of that, but when you talk to the law enforcement officers in many of the most Republican parts of my community, they are outraged about what is happening right now. Again, we can debate policy on immigration, but, to me, for a Senator to allow a President to undermine the power of the purse relegated by the Constitution to this body is outrageous. It has never been done before, not in Trump's first term, not by Bush, not by Reagan, not by Clinton, not by Obama. We are in new territory here in our country where we see a President encroaching upon our powers. I can't be complicit in that. Everybody in this body--I would never question any of my colleagues on either side of the aisle. We all want our local police departments to not only be able to do their job, we all want to have more equipment and resources. That is why these bills are bipartisan. How can we allow bipartisan bills passed out of the Senate to then be stopped, in a partisan way, by a President who is then going to choose red States and hurt blue States, even though my State has millions of Republicans who deserve to have their communities safe as well? I am standing today just to say, let's use common sense and help our police officers together; get the resources desperately needed out to our communities now and not let this fall victim to something that wasn't even an issue in Donald Trump's first term. So I object. I object. I object.

Mr. BOOKER. I am really grateful that this is one of the areas where we have a lot of bipartisan support because this body I would say unanimously believes that we have to do more to help local law enforcement. I see it in my State. We have real challenges--challenges with recruitment, challenges with officers who are in incredibly stressful situations for their mental health, and even empowering officers to be able to do their job, which is a job that everyone wants our officers to do. I say this all the time: If you polled my city, which is a majority minority city, a majority African-American city, and asked them ``Hey, do you want more police, less police, or the same amount of police?'' undeniably, they would want more law enforcement. When I talk to the law enforcement officers in not just my city but up and down the State, they want more resources. That is why I have multiple bills to actually fund our police departments around our country and specifically in New Jersey to empower them on everything from closing out murder investigations all the way to mental health. In fact, the legislation that is being brought forward--it is right, it is bipartisan legislation. I am the cosponsor of some of the bills we have right now on the floor. We should be united in this body, all 100 of us, to stand up for public safety and to fund our police, get them the resources and the equipment they need to do their job. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening. President Trump, through an arbitrary Executive order, has told this body: Your intentions will not be followed. The legislation that is being proposed today--the President has already said that those DOJ grants will not go to certain States-- Illinois, California, New York, New Jersey--that they are not eligible for these grant programs. That is not a bipartisan way of going about it. That is singling out certain States over other States. That is actually defunding the police departments in certain States for other States when you say that these States that have gotten many of these grants in years past can no longer get them. None of us in this body should support that. All of us in this body should join together and say: When Congress passes a grant program, the President of the United States cannot arbitrarily decide which States receive those grants and which States don't. I feel a driving sense of urgency that we must support our police officers. They are facing greater and newer challenges in this country. I feel a deep urgency to support mental health issues in particular because I lost one of my dear childhood friends, who died by suicide in uniform. I want to make a simple adjustment to this legislation--very simple. What it would do is basically say that when this body has approved these grant programs, the President can't undermine the Founders' intention that we hold the purse strings, that the President can't undermine that and these grants have to go out as Congress intended them. That is all I am asking from my colleague across the aisle, and it is all I am asking from this body, is that we, together, say: We need to get resources for police officers in all of our country. We shouldn't be picking out some departments and not others. This is just simply making sure that this is a bipartisan effort to fund local police officers. So I ask my colleagues to pass these bills as I amend them so that we can refocus on the urgent work of reopening the government and then providing all law enforcement agencies with the resources they need, ensuring every law enforcement agency has a fair opportunity to secure funding to support their work, to support the men and women, to support their sacred and noble duties. We should work in a bipartisan way. So I ask that the consent be modified such that my amendments to S. 180, S. 419, S. 539, S. 1316, and S. 1563, which are at the desk, also be agreed to, with all the other provisions that my colleague is asking for remaining intact, so that we can fund all of police and stop our President's attempt to defund police departments in blue States.

Mr. BOOKER. To the esteemed Presiding Officer, I am going to reserve the right to object.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, New Jersey is home to one of our Nation's most vibrant Greek Orthodox communities. For generations, it has nurtured a community rooted in faith and service--values that continue to strengthen the fabric of not just our shared home but of American society. This month, our Nation's Capital welcomed His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, the spiritual leader of over 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide. His visit to the United States--where he has met with congressional leaders and the President of the United States--is a reminder of our shared efforts and responsibility to pursue peace and justice, religious tolerance and coexistence, and environmental stewardship in all we do. His historic visit serves as a profound moment of unity, reflection, and joy for Greek Orthodox New Jerseyans and Americans of all faiths across the country. We deeply respect and appreciate his decades of moral leadership and unwavering commitment to the dignity of all humanity.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, I want to thank Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader, for his words. This is a really tough moment for me, not just because this is in New Jersey. This is someone who has had something I have never seen before--hundreds of judges, hundreds of Federal prosecutors and Federal public defenders from both parties come forward, saying that Emil Bove should not be on the Third Circuit as a judge for a lifetime position; not only that, but that his temperament of using vulgarities to show, it is claimed, that folks should disobey--that the Trump administration should disobey--court orders disqualifies him from being on the bench. That is one thing that bothered me. The other thing is the fact that he has had some of the worst ethics violations of any judge I have seen come before the Judiciary Committee in holding back exculpatory evidence when he was a prosecutor. He was called by former prosecutors and former defense attorneys the drunk driving version of a prosecutor--reckless and dangerous. Then, finally, what was the ultimate frustration was we saw a whistleblower come forward who had impinged his testimony with receipts, but there were other whistleblowers trying to come forward who were afraid for themselves because of this climate in which people who stand up and speak the truth are often targeted and attacked. Contrary to what my colleague was saying on the floor, their lawyers were trying to get somebody in the Republican Party just to listen to the evidence, and no one wanted to even listen. This is a sad day for our democracy. This is a sad day for the judiciary and a sad day for the U.S. Senate, whose constitutional obligation is to advise and consent, to look at all of the evidence, especially when you have whistleblowers standing up with courage and wanting to speak the truth--not even to listen to it. We saw those tactics in the Judiciary Committee: not wanting to have debate, not wanting to have a discussion, rushing this nominee through as quickly as possible to this floor for a vote before any more evidence could come out before another 200, 300, 400 judges or prosecutors could come out with damning indictments of this man's qualifications. This is a very unfortunate day for the U.S. Senate, a very unfortunate day for the State of New Jersey, and a very unfortunate day for the Third Circuit. I am expressing my deepest disappointment in this body in its abdication of its responsibilities.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. I would just like the clerk to read the titles of the two bills.

Mr. BOOKER. So, Mr. President, this casts a shadow over everything that was just said because I support these bills. Why do I support these bills? Because the officers of the State of New Jersey are going to benefit from them because Donald Trump hasn't targeted these and cut these, and these are things that are going to help all officers. That is what this body should do--not pick and choose one State over another, not pit one State against another, not pit so-called blue States over so-called red States. It is the United States of America. God bless my colleague for bringing these bills forward. They should have been passed a long time ago. I support them fully because they will apply to every officer in the United States of America. That is the way this body should work, and I have no objection whatsoever.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I was just called out by name, and I want to respond. This is what frustrates me. I have passed numerous pieces of legislation for our police officers. I partnered with Chuck Grassley-- the incredible Senator from Iowa--on a bill very similar to the one I support about police officers who fall in the line of duty. In this case, it was COVID. Police officers who got COVID and died had difficulty proving it was a line-of-duty death. We passed that legislation to make sure those families got the benefits. I have worked in bipartisan ways and within my own party to make sure we get resources to our police officers. I don't need lectures about the urgency of this. One of my childhood best friends--a police officer in a small town in New Jersey--after a hard day's work, before he even went home to see his family, died by suicide. I don't need somebody implying in any way that this is not vital to me and my State that we have resources for our police officers. That is why I support this package. That is why I am a cosponsor of some of the bills in this package. But what I am tired of is when the President of the United States of America violates the constitution and trashes our norms and traditions. And what does the Democratic Party do--comply? allow him? beg for scraps? No. I demand justice. Somebody is implying that this, to me, is not about resources for my State. I will fight for Jersey every day, every night and when it comes to the police officers of my State as to anybody who implies that something is going on other than my allegiance and fealty to the safety, strength, and protection of my police officers because they protect me and everybody in this body. This is a call, folks. The Democratic Party needs a wake-up call. I see law firms bending a knee to this President, not caring about the larger principles--those free speech rights that you can take on any client. Why are you bending the knee? I see universities that should be bastions of free speech bending at the knee to this President. I see businesses taking late-night talk show hosts off the air because they dare to insult a President. I see people who want mergers suddenly think they have to pay tribute to this President. And what are the very people here who are elected to defend the Constitution of the United States saying? Oh, well. Today, let's look the other way and pass some resources that won't go to Connecticut; that won't go to Illinois; that won't go to New York but that will go to the States he likes. That is complicity with an authoritarian leader who is trashing our Constitution. It is time for Democrats to have a backbone. It is time for us to fight. It is time for us to draw lines. And when it comes to the safety of my State being denied these grants, that is why I am standing here. Don't question my integrity. Don't question my motives. I am standing for Jersey; I am standing for my police officers; I am standing for the Constitution; and I am standing for what is right. Dear God, if you want to come at me that way, you are going to have to take it up with me because there is too much on the line in America with people's due process rights and free speech rights and as secret police are running around this country picking people up off the streets who have a legal right to be here. There is too much going on in this country. When are we going to stand together for the principles that I just heard that were agreed with? When are we going to stand together? If we don't stand as Democrats, we deserve to lose, but if we stand united, if we stand strong, if we stand with other people, if we tell America, with a chorus of conviction, that what this President is doing is wrong--if we stand up and speak that way--dear God, we will win like all of those people who are our ancestors who joined hands together and said: We shall overcome. No, not on my watch. I am protecting Jersey today. I am protecting our Constitution today. I am standing today.

Mr. BOOKER. Reserving the right to object, I am confused by my colleague because she knows I don't object to her two bills. She is going to be offering her two bills in a second. I don't know what the confusion is there. I object to the bills that are putting resources out that States from California to New York are not eligible for because of the actions of this President. The second thing my colleague confuses me is saying I had my chance. Actually, I didn't. The regularly scheduled Judiciary Committee hearing wrapped up, and then a hastily one was put back together. I had no notice of that, no ability to plan for it, and had a conflict. This, to me, is the problem with Democrats in America right now, is we are willing to be complicit to Donald Trump; to let this pass through when we have all the leverage right now there is to say that if you are as passionate about police as we are, then pass bills out of this body that will help the police officers in Washington, that will help the police officers in Illinois, that will help the police officers in New Jersey, that will help the police officers in Newark. Don't be complicit to the President of the United States who, we both know, doesn't understand that language: ``Oh please, oh please, don't hurt blue States.'' We are standing at a moment where our President is eviscerating the Constitution of the United States of America, and we are willing to go along with that today. No, no. Not on my watch. I stand against this. It is a violation of our Constitution for the President of the United States to ignore the will of Congress and decide which States are eligible to grants and which are not. Well, we know something in New York and New Jersey. I was a Newark elected official when 9/11 happened. I saw my first responders charging into those buildings. I know what police officers do every day. My amendment was just called a poison pill. That is ridiculous. My amendment just says police officers in New Jersey are just as important as the police officers in North or South Dakota. It says the police officers in New York are just as important as the police officers in Texas. It says the police officers in California are just as important as the police officers in Alabama. Why would we go along with a President who is violating our Constitution time and time again? When in the history of this body-- Democrats and Republicans used to stand up for their turf. These could easily pass. Put a simple amendment that says: You know what? You can play games however you want, President Trump, but when it comes to resources for police officers, no games. Today, I stand and fight for the Constitution. I stand and fight against this President. And, heck, yeah, I am going to stand and fight for the police officers from the great State of New Jersey. I object.

Mr. BOOKER. I am reserving the right to object. I want to begin by acknowledging the tragic loss of New York City Police Officer Didarul Islam last night, just about 50 miles from where I live. He made the ultimate sacrifice, bravely placing himself in harm's way to protect strangers, people he didn't know, because that is what American police officers do. This selfless commitment is a daily reminder. It is a reminder of the reality for police officers in America who risk their lives to safeguard communities. My deepest condolences go out to his family and his young children during this time of unimaginable grief. I rise today to propose an amendment to the bills before us, one that guarantees every officer in every State like Officer Islam has the full support they deserve in their service to our communities from this body. Sadly, this is not what the Justice Department is doing. Rather than supporting law enforcement agencies and officers equally across the Nation, they are weaponizing public safety grants to punish State and local jurisdictions that resist the Trump policy agenda, including my home State of New Jersey. The Department of Justice is right now withholding funds from law enforcement agencies across the country--including New Jersey--that we have passed through this body in a bipartisan way unless they enforce the administration's unjust immigration agenda and comply with the President's unjust and unlawful Executive orders and memoranda. It is disgraceful, it is unfair, it is unjust, and it is dangerously reckless towards the officers whose well-being they are jeopardizing--officers like the ones I know personally who serve and protect New Jersey. Come on now. Federal funds should not be used for partisan political games. They shouldn't be weaponized to benefit this State that supported the President and not this State that didn't support the President. This is the shift towards authoritarianism. It is undermining the separation of powers we have here in America. This body has duly-approved grants. It is our job. It is spelled out in the Constitution that each of us has sworn an oath to protect. And this President is upending that process, violating the will of this body, Democrats and Republicans alike, in pursuit of his petty political agenda. And who is getting hurt? Well, in this case, New Jersey police officers are being hurt; New York police officers are getting hurt. In the wake of a murder of a police officer in New York yesterday, this is outrageous. Public safety grants like these that I am a cosponsor of are not meant to reward law enforcement in favored jurisdictions or States while punishing others. It shouldn't matter whether a person puts on his uniform in Texas or New Jersey. Does it matter that Officer Islam, who was killed last night in New York City--does it matter that he is a New York cop and not a North Dakota cop? Sadly, it appears that Donald Trump thinks so. For us as a body, to move forward right now is being complicit in what Donald Trump is doing. I say no. I say we stand. I say we fight. I say that we reject this and, in a bipartisan way, that we demand an end to this kind of constitutionally unjust carving up of the resources we approve. Think about this: In April, Donald Trump's administration cut nearly 400 public safety grants administered by its Office of Justice Programs without any notice or explanation. Think about that for a second. Programs that I supported, programs that I cosponsored, programs that protect police officers and communities, he canceled without a justification. I have written letters to the Justice Department. They have not given a justification. I have asked in open hearings: Why did you cut this funding for approved grants to States like New Jersey? No justification. I sent a letter to the DOJ signed by 30 of my colleagues demanding information about what happened and that they reinstate all grants that had been rescinded, and no action and no response. Yet, today, we want to move forward with needed grant programs to protect police officers, but that money won't go to New York; that money won't go to New Jersey. You have got to be kidding me. When will we stand and fight this President? This offers little consolation. Today, nobody is speaking to the organizations in New Jersey, to the police officers in New Jersey that partner with law enforcement but now lack the resources to endure a burdensome appeal or to operate without critical grants or funding now for months. When are we going to stand up as a body and defend our work, defend our jurisdiction, defend this coequal branch of government? I ask my colleagues to pass these bills with my amendment to provide resources to law enforcement agencies with this important provision that safeguards these grants from politicization and ensures that all law enforcement agencies have a fair chance to secure these important grants. Our officers have the hardest job in America. Every day, they put their lives on the line. Why would we do something today that is playing into the President's politics and is going to hurt the officers in States like mine? I believe in these bills. I am a cosponsor on some. That is why I am standing here to fight to ensure police departments in New Jersey aren't excluded from accessing these vital funds. Our officers have just as much of a right as officers in other States. So do officers in California, in New York, in Illinois, in Washington, and in other States that have been the target of this Department of Justice. I am an American. I pledge allegiance to that flag--liberty and justice for all. Pass my amendment and make sure that all officers in America who put their lives on the line have access to these grants. I ask consent that the bill be modified, that my amendments to S. 180, S. 419, S. 539, S. 1316, and S. 1563, which are at the desk, also be agreed to, and the bills, as amended, if amended, be considered read a third time and passed en bloc so that all police officers in America get the intended resources that the Judiciary Committee passed unanimously for American police.

Mr. BOOKER. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I have seen something I haven't seen since I have been on the Judiciary Committee, which is a complete chorus of condemnation of a circuit court judge. We have had every single person express an interest in coming down here from the Democratic members of that committee to condemn our moving forward at such a rapid pace on this nomination. Now, I would love to just leave it there, but there is something that needs to be even more urgently focused on because, as much as it might seem that this is Democrat v. Republican, I am very happy to see already that some Republicans--not enough for us to stop this nomination, but this will be a bipartisan group of opponents. It is rare, in this time of fierce partisanship, to see some Republicans looking at the evidence, looking at what Mr. Bove has said, looking at what Mr. Bove has done, looking at how he has insulted the very office that he hopes to hold of a judge and a judge's orders. People who are looking objectively at the facts are starting to see that this would be a terrible mistake in a bipartisan way. That gives me some hope that, with the hours left on the clock, perhaps others, too, will take the time to understand a few things. One, clearly, I believe and others, not just Democrats but career prosecutors, career public defenders--we have seen judges, and we have seen so many people come forward from both sides of the aisle to say this is wrong, that it would be wrong for the Senators to do this. This is why we are starting to see some Republicans show more interest and, at least, more than one come forward and say they will not support this nominee. It is because the facts are so glaringly clear that this is someone who has no respect for the rule of law, that this is someone who has shown no temperament to be a judge, that this is someone who has been condemned for his lack of ethics, who has withheld exculpatory evidence as a prosecutor, who has been given the worst Brady violation condemnation from a judge. There are so many things that are troubling about this individual that, on the face of it, it is why so many career professionals are coming forward to say that we should not be moving forward. The second reason people are having pause is that we are rushing this nomination before questions are answered. Too many people are moving too quickly on the other side of the aisle to get this done before questions are answered, before information is obtained for the record. This body, which is supposed to be deliberative and is supposed to advise and consent, should not be moving forward if they are to honor the obligations that we have. Let me give the multiple reasons as to why we are moving too quickly without information on substantive things, which should raise alarms for all of my colleagues. We asked to hear the testimony of a whistleblower who came forward with tangible evidence--texts and emails--showing that Emil Bove instructed the DOJ's attorneys to ignore a court order if it impeded Trump's agenda. Bove said ``f you'' to the courts. Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee refused to hold a hearing to meet with this whistleblower, who is not a Democrat but a career prosecutor. Instead, we saw the vote being rammed through the committee. Senator Kim and Senator Blumenthal and members on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which has oversight on the question of whether DHS violated a court order, asked the whistleblower to testify before them under oath. That committee has also not concluded its oversight. It is just a stunning and alarming fact that my colleagues on the Republican side have disregarded the credible account of someone who dedicated 15 years to public service and jeopardized their career and reputation to come forward at a time when people who step forward and tell the truth often face real reprisals. In 2018, many former Southern District of New York prosecutors took the unprecedented step of alerting Emil Bove's supervisors to his unethical conduct as a prosecutor, calling him the ``drunk driver of prosecutors,'' saying that he was reckless and dangerous in the way that he went about prosecutions. This is an unprecedented step of former SDNY prosecutors. Two years later, Emil Bove was responsible for the biggest Brady violation in the Southern District of New York's history. He withheld exculpatory evidence, resulting in the DOJ's having to toss out a case after a guilty verdict. His actions were so egregious that the judge used them as an example of what a prosecutor should never do. Many of my colleagues and I on the Judiciary Committee have requested more information from the Southern District of New York about his tenure. We still have not gotten it. Yet we are moving forward. No. 3, finally, after receiving credible information of Emil Bove's role in the Trump administration's burying of evidence about what is going on right now--the man who was in the central position to know what was going on with the Epstein files--we have made legitimate requests to him about this, and he has not responded. There are so many questions about Mr. Trump's interest in hiding whatever their files are and in contradicting themselves. Either there are truckloads of evidence and lists or there are not, but Emil Bove was the Acting in the Justice Department, at the time, and now we have even more reason to question Emil Bove. Just hours ago, it was revealed that the DOJ told Donald Trump that his name appears many times in those files. Emil Bove was the top official at the DOJ, who also happens to be Trump's personal lawyer. We should know what his role was in reversing course on releasing those files. It would be unconscionable for the Senate to move forward with his confirmation with those answers not being provided. As I told the Judiciary Committee, there is a false urgency around this nominee. The only reason for this urgency is that the President wants his loyalists on the Federal bench without facing any more scrutiny as to what he knows and what his role was. Even without answering these questions, there is more than enough in his record that disqualifies Bove from having a lifetime appointment to one of the courts. But let's go one more--January 6. Bove's role in the Trump administration's effort to erase the tragic events of the January 6 attack on the Capitol is disqualifying. As one of his first official acts, Trump pardoned nearly 1,600 people who attacked this Capitol, including 200 people who violently assaulted law enforcement officers. Bove was one of the highest ranking officials at DOJ. He said under oath that he advised the President on these pardons. Then he turned from freeing dangerous people convicted of assaulting police officers from prison to punishing--punishing--the dedicated law enforcement agents who investigated those cases. Bove wrote a memo saying that prosecuting those who attacked the Capitol was a ``grave national injustice,'' so he went after those prosecutors. He fired those Federal prosecutors and FBI agents who worked on the January 6 investigation. Bove then demanded a list of every single FBI employee who touched one of those cases and in doing so exposed thousands of law enforcement officials to potential retribution by the pardoned and dangerous January 6 offenders. They are now roaming free. Several of these prosecutors reached out to my Republican colleagues and wanted to share their concerns, but not one person agreed to meet with them. The President can nominate judges to the courts, but--and this is critical--he can only do so by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. This is a constitutional duty imposed on this House, and it requires us, every single Senator, to fully and fairly consider every nominee. Willful ignorance does not excuse any of us from our responsibility to seek the truth. It does not excuse us from our constitutional duty to provide advice and consent. I plead with my colleagues: Look at the facts. Give it your scrutiny. Analyze this nominee. Look at his record. Emil Bove has shown time and time again his disrespect for the very office he seeks to hold. For God's sake, we have a whistleblower who brought testimony, receipts, texts, and emails showing that Bove said-- despite the fact that he denied it in our hearings--``f you'' to court orders. He withheld evidence that could have helped to release an innocent person or a defendant. He broke his code of conduct. He broke his ethics. He advised on the January 6 pardons and then fired the dedicated law enforcement agents who investigated and prosecuted violent insurrectionists. And now he has critical information regarding the Epstein files. There is a lot of pressure these days to hastily push a person through who cannot be trusted on the Federal bench. There is a lot of pressure these days to rubberstamp nominees. There is a lot of pressure these days to look the other way even though the evidence is clear. There is a lot of pressure these days. But some of my Republican colleagues have broken and are standing despite the pressure and are saying this person does not belong on the bench. I am grateful that some of my Republican colleagues are standing up and doing the right thing. There is a lot of pressure these days. There are a lot of threats. The President has put enormous pressure on people in the Republican Party who stand up and do the right thing. Yet I have seen profiles in courage. In the first Trump administration, I saw it numerous times. I can tell you their names-- Corker, Flake. I saw my colleagues who, in times of great distress, stood up when we had a trial here--multiple people said the President was guilty; who voted against judges who were not fit for the highest office in the land; who voted against nominees for his administration. I have seen time and time again the courage of Republicans in times of distress. I don't know of another case I have seen in my 14 years in the Senate where someone so unqualified for the bench is before us. But somehow, right now, it just seems to be too few Republicans willing to stand up with the courage of their convictions to call it like it is, to do their constitutional duty, to look squarely at the qualifications of this judge and see what professionals, prosecutors, judges by the hundreds from both parties have come forward and said to this body: Do not let him go forward. There are just a few hours left before our final vote on this nominee. This is a time for another profile of courage. I am hoping my Republican colleagues will look at the evidence and join with the conclusion held by so many patriots in our country and not let this man get to one of our highest courts in the land.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, before I ask for the yeas and nays, I just want to say, despite what my colleague said, he is welcome to New Jersey anytime. I still love him. Vote on Amendment No. 2887

Mr. BOOKER. I know my time has expired, and I am grateful for the indulgence. Thank you.