Cory Booker

Mr. BOOKER

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

Mr. BOOKER. Rule XIX her.

Mr. BOOKER. Shots fired on the Senate floor. Where is the Parliamentarian?

Mr. BOOKER. I can't call you one of the baddest ass people I have ever worked with and not yield to your question, but I have to read the words: I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Wow.

Mr. BOOKER. I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, this is an overdraft speech. It is about a commonsense rule that lowers costs for millions and millions of Americans, while carefully targeting, really, the most egregious abusive overdraft practices in the financial industry today. Banks have long offered overdraft services to allow their customers to make purchases or even pay a bill, even if they lack sufficient funds in their account, while sometimes charging a fee for this service. But in recent years, banks have exploited this practice, charging customers billions of dollars in deceptive fees. A recent study found that more than half of all the people who overdraw their checking accounts and paid a fee could not recall consenting to the overdraft service for which they are being charged. Moreover, we know the customers who are being charged overdraft fees are overwhelmingly folks who are low-income, who work really hard and don't get that much pay, and a $20 overdraft fee just further pushes them into a financial trap, into this cycle downward of financial instability that is hard to pull out of. Too often, banks have been found trying to game the system, and this is really problematic. They try to game the system to impose fees on customers--even when they shouldn't be charged in the first place--by orchestrating transactions improperly or delaying deposits customers make into their accounts. Just think about this. They can time your deposit with the time it hits your account. You think you can deposit a check and pull money out, but the way they rig the system is to create a gap in which you are actually in overdraft when technically you have already made that deposit. Meanwhile, these fees generated enormous amounts of revenue for banks while most customers don't even know they have opted into this system. Opponents of the rule argue that it could restrict access to emergency credit. We all are supporters of this idea of emergency credit. They think that this is an example, they say, of government overreach and that it is going to hurt banks' revenue model. Let's be honest. This isn't about protecting consumers; it is about protecting this massive, new profit line for big banks. For years, I have fought against what is a predatory practice. I have introduced legislation to crack down on exploitative overdraft fees that banks charge consumers when they make a purchase or pay a bill that they don't have sufficient funds for in their account, trying to stop the games that banks play to make it more difficult for people to avoid the overdraft fees in the first place. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been instrumental in cracking down on banks charging surprise overdraft fees, and many banks have said ``You are right. This is a bad practice. We should stop'' but not all of them. So last year, the CFPB finalized this rule to curb illegal and predatory practices. The rule lowered most big-bank overdraft fees from $35 to $5, saving consumers in America--American hard-working citizens--saving them $5 billion a year. On average, it delivered $225 a year in savings for the average household. Think about this. It is about protecting households. There is still a consequence if you overdraft, but it can't be these usury rates. The overdraft rule did not ban overdraft fees outright or go after small community banks and credit unions, which were exempted from the rule. It simply requires banks to either reduce their rates or comply with Federal banking laws when charging high credit fees. Several financial institutions that I have mentioned, like Capital One and Citibank, have already eliminated overdraft fees and continue to provide overdraft protection. They are showing, to their credit, that it can be done and not somehow mess up their business model. You don't need to take advantage of consumers to make money. Meanwhile, though, Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase each earn over $1 billion a year in overdraft and NSF fees--nearly four times more than the next highest bank. Some banks are showing ``You know what, we don't want to jerk over the customers,'' while others, to the tune of over $1 billion a year, are still taking advantage of some of our most vulnerable and financially fragile Americans, who are working hard every day to try to get out of poverty traps, yet banks take advantage of them and send them back. Perhaps most egregiously, in 2024, Navy Fed took nearly as much as the biggest banks from its servicemembers, veterans, and other customers. They took $725 million despite a dramatically smaller customer base, clearly showing that they were trying to take advantage of our veterans, our servicemembers, and others. Who will stand up for them? Who will say ``You are not going to do predatory practices on our servicemembers, on our veterans''--dramatically more than other banks that eliminated these practices. For those who are most affected by overdraft fees--those folks living paycheck to paycheck, who are part of the 64 percent of Americans who live paycheck to paycheck and are often minutes to hours away from having the money necessary to cover expenses that lead to overdraft fees--this rule is a lifeline to them and their families. I was proud that New Jerseyans wrote in to the CFPB sharing how these predatory practices were impacting them. Allow me to read from a New Jerseyan from East Orange, my neighbor. They wrote: [M]y account was closed with no notice due to a merchant charging my account into the overdrafts. I've complained . . . for weeks about said situation. Nothing was ever done. A [$4,300] deposit was released-- By the bank-- but due to account closing, I currently have no access to funds which were released. One anonymous servicemember from Carteret, NJ, wrote: I am writing to file a complaint against Navy Federal Credit Union regarding multiple overdraft fees I have incurred. Despite having sufficient funds when transactions were authorized, I was charged due to lagged posting of charges and credits. This issue aligns with the recent CFPB findings . . . for similar practices where transactions settled with insufficient balances despite initially available funds. I believe these practices are unfair and I request an investigation into my account transactions. This is a New Jerseyan who is playing by the rules who is frustrated because of practices that are clearly predatory and that take advantage of folks who are living paycheck to paycheck, and they are a servicemember. Another servicemember from Manchester Township was erroneously charged and then overdrawn from his business account from Wells Fargo. The extra $210 that was withdrawn from my account, including the original withdrawals and the overdraft fees, caused a cascade effect that has led to $1,100 in overdraft fees [this] year. I had called Wells Fargo twice to ask for help in stopping these increasing overdraft fees. They reimbursed me for 2 overdraft fees--$70. I was told that they were only allowed to reverse 2 overdraft fees a year. They also told me there was nothing else they could do to help me. The overdraft fees of $1,100 over the last 2 months have caused me a tremendous financial burden. As of today's date, I am still being charged overdraft fees. I don't know what to do, and Wells Fargo has refused to help me. I will probably close my account with Wells Fargo, however, it is a nightmare trying to change all the insurance companies that I receive payments from. Here is a servicemember, a small business person, getting screwed over because they don't have the protection this rule would provide. To rescind this rule in order to further enrich a small handful of abusive banks and their shareholders that allow this to happen at the expense of working families, at the expense of veterans, at the expense of servicemembers, is despicable. This body shouldn't be on the side of big banks and their further enrichment; they should be on the side of veterans and servicemembers and Americans struggling, working paycheck to paycheck, especially when certain banks have shown they don't need these usury fees to make enormous profits. Where is the moral value in that? Instead of lowering prices and protecting consumers, I now see Members of this body who I know the values they speak to. Some of my colleagues on the Senate Republican side want to raise these prices on Americans and allow these banks to prey upon servicemembers, veterans, and working Americans. This is all while the President and Elon Musk have continued their onslaught and attack on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has returned billions of dollars to American consumers. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis to protect Americans from predatory practices and fight discriminations in the financial sector. I wasn't here in Washington, but when the banks needed a bailout, we were here for the banks. I don't know if we charged them overdraft fees, but are we going to stand up for consumers now? The CFPB has returned to the American consumers $19.7 billion in compensation, canceled debt, and other relief--$19.7 billion. I know firsthand the difference that the work of this Agency has made for American families. I saw it in my time as a young lawyer taking on slumlords in Newark. Hard-working people who could barely afford rent, who worked 50, 60 hours a week, barely affording rent, fighting to put food on the table for their kids, and one improper practice at a bank can throw them into financial crisis--predatory practices, scams, exploitation, which some banks have stopped doing. I don't understand that this is even an issue here. This rule is to help consumers. This rule is to help veterans. This rule is to help servicemembers. This rule is to help the Americans who are struggling because the top 50 percent of our country has done extraordinarily well in the last economies under Republican and Democratic Presidents, but the data is clear that the bottom 50 percent of our country is working harder and making less. And we want to advantage the big banks that have record corporate profits. I won't back down from this fight to save the CFPB, to save those who fight to defend consumers from being screwed over by big institutions. Look, I know what it is like in my family story to fight. I know what it is like to be up against insurmountable odds from my family stories. I know what it is like to be searching for someone who will stand up for you when you are doing everything right in this country, when you are working hard, when you are playing by the rules, when you are serving in your community, when you are coaching Little League, when you are trying to help on your block. I know what it is like, when you are volunteering at your church, to turn around and have some big, impersonal, distant bank screw you for their profits. It is time for this body to do the right thing. This is not political. This is not partisan. This is, who do you stand for? At a time when people are cynical about all of Congress--they don't feel like anybody is fighting for them--who is going to stand up today and say: I fight for the little guy. I fight for the small business. I fight for the working servicemember. Who is going to stand up? Who is going to stand up? I know where I stand, and I encourage my colleagues to preserve this rule that stops predatory big banks from savaging the financial lives of too many Americans. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, it is with a heavy heart that I would like to make a statement to honor the extraordinary life and service of a great advocate: Mr. Grant Smith. Grant spent a lifetime working on issues to advance fair justice system. Most recently, Grant worked with my team on the Re-Entry Support Through Opportunities for Resources and Essentials Act, known as the RESTORE Act. In all of his work with my team, he showed great professionalism, dedication, and care. Our movement for better drug policy is forever indebted to his service. Grant and his family are in my prayers.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I just want to clarify because my colleague pounded on the desk, and that was hard for me to watch. I am not here because we haven't been trying to get a bipartisan consensus on this and calling and doing all the work. I have watched this now for three Congresses. Number 2, I am here not because I am trying to stop the HALT Act. I am here because I heard two Republicans in our committee say the only reason we can't consider bipartisan approaches, even if they are good ideas, is because of the urgency of this moment. All I am saying is--this is, obviously, a fait accompli--I just don't want my colleague to walk away thinking this is some kind of stunt. This is my attempt to take away an argument for us to do the work on Thursday. Clearly, it has been objected to. I am going to go back and try my hardest on Thursday to do something more. The one prediction--I don't want to call it a ``prediction.'' But my colleague says we have a lot more time. I have watched now for at least three Congresses that I have worked on trying to get a larger approach to meet the fentanyl crisis; and in three Congresses, this body has failed to rise to the challenge. I am dying to be here when my colleague tells me: I told you so--and I give him permission to do that--that this body would do something beyond just scheduling. Because, as I have read, law enforcement, scientists, doctors, and parents are not just asking for the HALT Fentanyl Act; they are asking for us to do more to save lives. Now, I have only been here 12 years, but I know the window is open to get things done when something is a must-pass bill to move. This is an opportunity to put some things on to show the larger public that we are not going to do what we always do. I am really worried when this window closes, there will be a lot of people thumping their chests and saying: We have dealt with the fentanyl crisis, and all these other ideas won't have vehicles to go through. I will not stop working until this body does more than just scheduling what has already been scheduled. People on both sides of the aisle are demanding us to do more. And we don't need to go left; we don't need to go right. We need to do the commonsense, evidence-based approaches that are being supported and called for. In fact, some of the commonsense amendments are already bipartisan supported by Senators. So I am grateful. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOOKER. In reserving the right to object, this is why I am down here today--really, literally, at this point--and I want to jump here. I thank the Presiding Officer for recognizing me. I truly appreciate that, but this gets me excited because this is the point that I want to illustrate. My colleague is far smarter than I on medical issues. I could not have passed organic chem at Stanford. I am sure he passed it with flying colors. Of my colleague, who is truly one of my more favorite colleagues in this place because of how rational and pragmatic he is on approaching real crises like this, I am begging and hoping he will listen to me, and I am begging this body to listen to me. We have had a fentanyl crisis in this country of monumental proportions. It is one of the greatest killers in America. Fentanyl and fentanyl analogues have literally been responsible for lowering the life expectancy for Americans. It is one of the greatest crises we have seen to human life in America in my lifetime. There is so much data- driven evidence and evidence-based answers to this, of how we can approach this crisis, but yet the only bill that we seek to do is a bill that does what we have already done on a temporary basis. I support classwide scheduling for fentanyl analogues, but here we have this bill, the HALT bill, that my colleague pointed out did pass in a bipartisan way and now is in the Judiciary Committee. The reason I am down here is not to drag my dear friend down here because he is a busy man, and I wanted to go over to him before this conversation started to apologize, but I needed to make this point on the floor in this kind of standoff. He is asking us to pass the HALT bill, which would give classwide scheduling to fentanyl analogues, which we have already done. For years, it has been temporarily scheduled, and what has happened to opioid deaths in America when we have used this that law enforcement has called for, ``Schedule. Schedule. Give us these tools''? Well, we have had these tools, and deaths in the Presiding Officer's State, deaths in my colleagues' States, and deaths in my State have continued to go up. Now, here is the beauty of the conversation we are having and why we should be passing the temporary one to let us go back to work, and I know this because I know his heart and I know your heart. There are evidence-based, bipartisan amendments to that HALT Act that are widely supported. My colleague's partner Senator from his State, in committee, said: I don't understand why we are not putting the test strips on this. Why? Because kids who are using fentanyl right now don't know that they are using this fentanyl analogue. Kids in your State and my State think they are taking Adderall, not realizing that this has those toxic things that can kill. Here we were in committee, with a bipartisan test strip bill, and my colleague's partner Senator said: This makes sense to me. And the one excuse they were using for not doing a bipartisan bill to give us more of a response than doing what we are already doing and wiping our hands and saying, ``We did great things,'' was saying, ``We didn't have time'' because of this artificial deadline. So I am down here to say: Wait a minute. Let's do the temporary extension and take time to do bipartisan bills. But don't take my word for it. Take the word of the Republican witnesses who came to our hearing. We just had a painful hearing of law enforcement leaders and other Republican witnesses who told us the scourges of fentanyl that we all know. Those people all said that this can't be all Congress does; that the HALT bill cannot be our only response because the whole bill permanently schedules what we have already scheduled temporarily. I believe in the 99 Members here who know that our response to this crisis cannot be what we have already been doing for the last 5 years when there are bipartisan bills that we could be putting on this bill to show America that we are not going to just puff ourselves up and make permanent something that was already done in a temporary way. Let me read some of this pleading from Republican witnesses. Republican witness Jaime Puerta, a courageous parent who lost his child to an overdose, testified: It is imperative that we educate our children on the dangers of any kind of drug use due to the lethality that can come with any kind of experimentation or self-medication . . . we must have specific fentanyl education introduced to . . . our schools as soon as possible; otherwise, more children will . . . die. That doesn't even cost money. We could be doing things through the Department of Education in supporting education campaigns. Bipartisan support for that idea--is it on the HALT bill? No. Let me go on. Republican witness Sheriff Donald Barnes highlighted the successes of a multifaceted strategy to address both supply and demand for illicit drugs. These are the bullet points he said that we should do, imploring Congress: Don't just do what you have already done. Do something more. Give law enforcement officers naloxone to reduce overdoses; education for fifth and sixth graders; ensure the continuity of care and successful reintegration of people who are returning to the community from the scourge of these drugs. Witness after witness--from law enforcement to scientists to doctors--have offered up bipartisan supportive ideas so that our response to one of the biggest scourges of our country isn't just to do what we have been doing for the last half decade or more. I have got bipartisan bills on the committee, and my colleagues from Texas have bipartisan bills on the committee, and the only excuse that people gave for us not to have more consideration was: Oh, well, the deadline is coming up in a few weeks for temporary passage. But I realize we have passed temporary scheduling by unanimous consent before. It is not hard to do. I beg of my colleagues--I beg of my colleague who is here and others: We have a moving bill that has to go back to the House because we have already added a managers' package to it. I promise you, if we add truly bipartisan things that give a more fulsome approach--a more comprehensive approach--to stop our children from dying, it will pass in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives because it was a bipartisan year. I am in agony over the deaths in New Jersey. I have met with parents who have looked at me and said: What are you going to do? Let me read to you the words from one of these parents. Susan Ousterman, who is a courageous mother who lost her son to an overdose--I beg of my colleagues listen to this--said: I urge you to stop crafting policies based on stigma, false narratives, and political loyalty, and most of all, stop using our dead children to justify these failed approaches. Harsher penalties for drugs, like those for the HALT Fentanyl Act, do not deter drug use. They only push people into riskier behaviors, increase the likelihood that someone will die rather than call for help, and make our communities less safe. How many more Americans must die before we finally admit that the War on Drugs was a failure? I am a former mayor. I oversaw a police department that had to answer the calls with children dying on floors. They had these law enforcement tools. They would tell me more needs to be done. The HALT Fentanyl Act will get passed. Fentanyl analogues will never again be unscheduled in our country. That is not the challenge right now to save lives. The challenge to save lives in America right now is, What are we going to do more than is being done right now? Fentanyl analogues are scheduled right now, and if the only thing we can do--the only bill that is moving through here--is to just do what we have been doing, shame on us. I am asking this body to give time. Extend the temporary scheduling so that we can work in a bipartisan fashion, like Senator Kennedy, who said: I want more time to look at this. This seems rational; this seems logical; it seems like something we should do. Then, when bipartisan Senators step up like that and say, ``I want to work with the man or the woman across the aisle,'' we will have the time to do it. So, God, I am sorry that my friend who is truly a great American leader and one of the smarter people in here--I am sorry that he objected to my bill, but I will stand up in our committee meeting on Thursday and make this same plea; that we don't just pass the HALT Fentanyl Act but that we actually put things in it that aren't partisan ideas. They are the ones that law enforcement is calling for. They are the ones that scientists are calling for. They are the ones that doctors are calling for--bipartisan bills. Dear God, the parents of dead children are calling for us to step up and do more than the same old thing we have been doing around the War on Drugs since I was a kid myself. With that, I object.

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, we are dealing with a crisis that all hundred Members of this body understand has taken the lives of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people, and that is the scourge of fentanyl. One of the things we have been doing as a result of that is temporarily scheduling fentanyl analogs, these horrific substances that are manufactured in order to pour onto our streets. Such a small amount of this drug--it literally could be the size of one pill--as they say, one pill can kill. It is very important to me that we see the temporary scheduling of this continue until the Senate finds a more wholesome response to this crisis. We must rise to meet this crisis in a wholesome way, in way that meets the gravity of the crisis and does not just continue to do the things we have done over and over again. So as we are working in a bipartisan way in the Senate Judiciary Committee with the understanding that the temporary scheduling may expire in the coming weeks--in order to remove that pressure and allow us to work in a bipartisan fashion, I have come to the floor today to ask for unanimous consent that we continue that temporary scheduling while we work in a bipartisan fashion to make sure that we give the most fulsome response possible to this crisis. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 724, the Temporary Extension of Fentanyl-Related Substances Scheduling Act, which is at the desk; I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privileges of the floor be granted to the following members of my staff: Durva Trivedi, during the pendency of her legal fellowship, until September 12, 2025; and Zachary Rosenfeld and Rachelle Domond, during the pendency of their legal clerkships until April 23, 2025.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. For New Jersey first responders, I vote no.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. I am grateful not only that you recognized me, but with the respect which you said the State of New Jersey. I know that you love my State. Many of my State residents are moving to Florida, so you are a very Jerseyified State yourself, so thank you very much for recognizing me. I want to say to my incredible colleague Tina Smith, the incredible stance that you just made, the facts you laid plain, the reality she has exposed, it is so important. The exercise going on this floor for the last 24 hours has been extraordinary and unusual. And one of the reasons why leader after leader came to the Senate floor was to show that this is not usual times. These are not usual times. It is extraordinary to me that all through the night at the 2:00 hour, the 3 a.m. hour, the 4 a.m. hour, the 5 a.m. hour, Senator after Senator came down here to speak up, to talk about the unusual things that are going on in America and, in truth, the things that we believe unequivocally are violative of not just our democratic norms, but violative of the separation of powers. Now, much of this is taken up in the courts already. You have State attorneys general suing right now because powers that were given to Congress are being taken by the Executive. We know in the United States of America that we do not have a king. We are not an authoritarian government. And the debates of our Founding Fathers were central to this point that we should have three branches of government, coequal branches, with clearly laid out--in article I, article II, article III, clearly laid out rules and responsibilities, obligations under the Constitution. Now, this whole process, one could say, we are doing one of our article I obligations to advise and consent on the President over his nominations to key positions like OMB. But this is so much more than that. This is not just us advising and giving consent; it is standing up for what was the bipartisan norms of our Nation. In fact, it was the democratic norms of our Nation from the very beginning that Congress has certain roles. And I often say, we are the article I branch of government. The article II branch of government has their roles. But our role, perhaps very importantly, is the power of the purse. Spending decisions, spending priorities, spending allocations are made in this body. And the people have a say in that through our elections. Every 2 years, a third of this body is up. Every 2 years, all of the House of Representatives are up, and the people elect people to carry out the Constitution. We swear an oath--I have done it a number of times now--to protect and defend the Constitution. And so why are we doing this unusual thing of talking all through the night about a nominee for something that many Americans don't know much about--the Office of Management and Budget? That is because what has been going on in the first three weeks of the Trump administration is a reckless violation of our separation of powers. This body has differences, but there is one thing I know my colleagues and I agree on is that the powers assigned to Congress by the Constitution are sacrosanct, and we cannot allow a President to step over their powers and begin to do things that are more akin to dictatorships or authoritarian governments. We have seen that erosion of democracy from Europe to Africa, where executives elected begin to try to take powers away from the other branches of government. Let me give you a specific example. Agencies within the Federal Government are set up by Congress, funded by Congress, given directives and a mission by Congress, and then Congress provides oversight for those Agencies and how the Executive is conducting those congressional mandates. What we saw over the last week or so was a direct assault on a bipartisan congressional intent: USAID, the United States Agency for International Development. The President of the United States decided that he didn't want that Agency to exist. Without any thought, without any strategy, without any understanding of the Agency's vital functions, the President of the United States took an Agency funded in a bipartisan manner where colleagues of mine--I serve on the Foreign Relations Committee--know so much of the work done on both sides of the aisle to support the critical mission of USAID. They attacked it and tried to dismantle and stop it. Suddenly, the workers we have around the globe--so everything freezes. They were told to stop what they were doing. They were denied access to their e-mails, to critical files. Many of them were put into volatile situations because a lot of our great USAID government officials work in unstable environments; and, suddenly, their cell phones are not working, and they can't access their e-mail. Resources that we allocated in a bipartisan way that were being spent for critical missions of the United States were so abruptly frozen that food aid, perishables, were left sitting on docks, medicines were stopped in their tracks--many of them that are perishable as well. You want to talk about government waste? Food that could keep people alive, medicines that can keep people alive were left, basically, to spoil. And this all ripples. Most people don't know this. There are 50,000 private sector jobs here in the United States, people who contract with the government, that are connected to this Agency USAID, created by Congress in a bipartisan fashion, year after year funded in a bipartisan agreement, bicameral. The President of the United States--by fiat, the President of the United States decides we are going to kill this Agency, stop it in its tracks. That is a violation of the separation of powers. Plain and simple. Congress created the Agency. If the President wants to get rid of it, he should come to Congress. This Presidential action didn't show Donald Trump's strength; it showed his weakness, because a strong President makes his case to the American people, makes his case to Congress, lays out a vision, lays out a strategy, comes before Congress and proposes the legislation to do what they are saying. But, no, not this President. Instead of following our constitutional dictates, instead of doing what a strong leader would have done, instead of doing what FDR did when he did sweeping things in the government, he came to Congress to fight to pass the laws to support his agenda. LBJ, Ronald Reagan, strong Presidents who have a vision for this country that might be a little revolutionary, that might create great changes--they respect our Constitution. And they come to Congress with their vision to pass the laws necessary to support that vision. I have watched it over my lifetime. I haven't always agreed with what the Presidents did, from Bush to Reagan, didn't agree with all their decisions, but they showed strength. They came to Congress and got Congress to pass laws to execute their bold vision. I think a lot of bad decisions were made that way, but it went through Congress. Congress had a vote on the Iraq War. Congress had a vote on the authorization to use military force. Congress had a vote on welfare reform. Congress voted on Bill Clinton's vision for public safety to put 100,000 police officers on the street. Congress voted for the war on drugs. These are things I might not have always agreed with, but strong Presidents come before Congress, in alignment with the Constitution, with a respect for the separation of powers, abiding by the law, strong Presidents stand in the well of the House of Representatives and give a vision for this country. As it says in my faith: Without vision, the people will perish. God bless the visionary Presidents we have had. John F. Kennedy pointing to the skies and saying, ``We will go to the moon.'' And then what did he do? He came to Congress with a vision to increase funding for science, math, for STEM education. What did he do? He came to Congress with a vision for making NASA something that would be the envy of the world. What did he do? He inspired a nation with a vision that was so compelling Democrats and Republicans joined together and followed him. What does this President do? What does Donald Trump-- who is no Reagan, who is no JFK--what does he do? In the dark of night, he sends in unelected individuals to access computer systems in a way that is so violative of the privacy of Americans and without congressional approval, without a legal basis. They go in and upend Agency after Agency after Agency. And for USAID, they shut it down. That is not a visionary Presidency. That is reckless, undercover vandalism, illegal action, and the hurting of Americans. And so why--why--has Senator after Senator come down here to speak up? Why? Because to treat this as normal would be to normalize these constitutional violations. And to allow someone like Vought, who has been saying over and over again: I don't respect the Constitution. I don't respect the courts. I don't respect the rule of law. We are going to take over. If you don't believe me, listen to what Vought says in his own words. He believes that Congress should do what it wants to do. We knew that Vought published this memo and basically said: I have no regard for the Federal law or for Congress's power of the purse. In 2018, Vought was instrumental in the Trump administration's attempt--they weren't successful; attempt--to use the Impoundment Control Act to withhold appropriated funds beyond their period of availability. This was a backdoor way to try to go around the law. This idea of impoundment is a theory that a President--despite Congress in a bipartisan, bicameral way passing a funding bill--this is the idea that the President of the United States, despite all of that, can just say: Nah, forget Congress. Forget the will of the people. Forget the people's representatives. Forget the U.S. Senate. I decide what we spend as a country. And so he tried this attempt, but the attempt was determined by our processes to be illegal. The GAO, the Government Accountability Office, said: You can't do that. But Vought kept pushing to employ the same strategy the following year, to try to freeze foreign aid--this is 2018; the past is prologue, folks--and in doing so, he wanted to do it again, ignoring the 2018 GAO legal decision. And in response to a 2020 prehearing question--this is how flagrantly defiant Vought is--in a response to a 2020 prehearing question, Vought wrote this: I will not abide by the 2018 decision, claiming it was wrongly decided. Think about this. He is in the administrative branch and deciding that a legal decision was wrongly decided. So perhaps Vought not only wants to do the job of Congress, but now he wants to do the job of the article III branch of government and the courts as well. What does that sound like? Does that sound like a patriot to our democratic traditions? No. Does that sound like somebody who is willing to follow the rule of law? No. Does that sound like somebody who is in the spirit of 1776--the spirit of compromise, the spirit of patriotism, the spirit of adherence to the democratic ideals of the United States of America? No. It sounds like someone that believes that they have the power to act in an authoritarian manner and declare themselves the executive, the legislature, and the courts. It is a deliberate misreading. And the GAO, in its earlier decision, previously signaled that the consequence of an unenacted rescission proposal should be the full prudent obligation of budget authority. In other words, I am king. In his response following his nomination hearing, on GAO's legal decision, writing in a response to our Homeland Security Committee, he said: I do not agree with the GAO's report. OMB did not violate the IPA, as I set forth in my January 19, 2020, letter to John Yarmuth, chairman of the House Committee on the Budget. In other words, he is still standing strong during his confirmation hearing that he is doing the right thing. He stands by his defiance. He stands by this violation of the separation of powers. And here is what a former employee who worked at USDA wrote about how dangerous this position is: For 30 years, across both Republican and Democratic administrations--decades of constitutional norms, decades of bipartisan commitment. This is what this employee said: I argue Russ Vought is the most dangerous person in the Trump administration, even over Trump, given his ideological bent and belief. He believes that the President does not spend congressional appropriations. This, this USDA official said, defines a dictator. We can't normalize this. And this is what I know, being here for over a decade now. If this was being done by the Barack Obama administration, there would be hair on fire on the other side of the aisle. Every Member, every Republican, would look like me as a bald man; they would have no more hair. If Barack Obama decided to ignore the dictates of Congress, to say: Your funding decisions have no hold on my actions. I am going to ignore congressional mandate. I am going to ignore congressional rules--my Republican colleagues would be apoplectic. If he decided with foreign policy that, hey, there is this thing called the Hyde amendment; I am going to ignore it--if Barack Obama did that, not one of them would normalize it or excuse it or look the other way. It is that complicity that bothers me. We are at a constitutional crossroads here. We do have someone in power now who is showing weakness. It is a weakness that other authoritarians in democratic nations have tried to do: I am not going to work through the system as designed by that nation's founders. I am not going to work in adherence to the spirit of the Constitution. I am going to do as much as I possibly can to take power for myself, to violate norms, to violate the Constitution, to indeed violate the law, and then challenge you to stop me. And the question is: Who will speak up? Silence is complicity. And there might be some people who are just sitting and saying: Oh, this is politics as usual. Oh, this is right-left fighting. Oh, this is not really that important. What does this have to do with me? Well, let me lay it plain, giving you one example of what has happened. Stopping USAID's work without any plan or strategy has now endangered every American because there are things we get to go to bed at night and not have to think about because we have a government full of officials, scientists, hard-working people who, every day, make it their life mission to focus on things so that we, the people, do not have to think about them. Think about that for a second. We know it in our own towns and communities. We have firefighters. We have police officers that stand on the frontline. They stand in the breech to protect us, to get dangerous things and conditions and people off the streets so that we are safe and we don't have to think about it every night. (Mr. MARSHALL assumed the Chair.) Well, that goes for USAID too. They are a national security organization. How do I know that? I am a spiritualist. I really am. I believe there are universal spiritual principles. One of them was spoken by this great American, one of the few people who is not a President of the United States whose statue sits under the dome. He was a spiritualist. He was, in fact, a person of faith. He was a minister. And he spoke to us about a scientific truth using spiritual language. It was in this great body of work called ``Letters from a Birmingham Jail.'' And if he only knew that his words would resound in history, these spiritual words would speak to a scientific truth. He said this: ``We are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality''--that we are tied in a common garment of destiny, that ``injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' Powerful words, right? But what do they have to do with science, Cory? What do they have to do with our present political crisis, our present constitutional crisis? What do they have to do with that? Well, here is what they have to do with that. You see, in the wisdom of this body, as I have worked in a bipartisan way on the Foreign Relations Committee, we fund the USAID to do things to protect us. But we are not doing them at home. USAID officials are around the globe. And one of the reasons why we, in the wisdom of Congress that this President is trying to violate--one of the things that we know, because we have got engineers in this place, we have got doctors in this place, we have got dedicated public servants in this place, we have got a few big, bald nerds like me in this place--what we know is that the USAID does work that is vital to keep Americans who are sleeping at night safe. Let me be specific. Right now in Uganda, there is an Ebola outbreak in the capital. Ebola is a vicious disease that is highly infectious. I remember this because back under the Presidency of Barack Obama, it was dominating the headlines. I saw one of the most courageous things done, that Chris Coons here flew to Africa to support the efforts that the United States of America through USAID was doing to stop Ebola in its tracks in Africa so it didn't visit us here. But because of the global interconnected transportation systems, it was getting closer and closer to threatening American lives. This was a crisis that dominated the headlines during the Obama administration. And who was then there to fight the spread of Ebola, to arrest it in that African nation? Who was it? USAID, American people. Who was in Uganda right now up until the Trump administration stopped their work? Who was there? Americans working for USAID. In the midst of a nasty, horrific infection, they were like our first responders, they were like our soldiers because they understand that spiritual truth that King spoke: ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' An infectious disease anywhere is a threat to public health everywhere. What was the administration's plans to deal with global infectious outbreaks? Did they come to Congress and put forth a vision? No. What was the administration's strategy to stop the growing threat of global pandemics and global threats? Did they share that plan with Congress? No. What was this administration going to do? Well, they didn't seem to care. There wasn't one hearing about this. There wasn't one conversation. There wasn't a consultation with Congress where leaders from the HELP Committee or leaders from the Foreign Relations Committee were invited to the White House to discuss their strategy in making sure that the vital functions of this Agency are preserved. They were pursuing a radical, ideological agenda, ignoring the truth of science and the power of the spiritual truth that America's interests and national security demand Americans--be they soldiers or scientists--sometimes standing away from our country in Africa, in Asia, in Europe, protecting us from infectious diseases that are so nightmarish that--most Americans would be happy to continue to send taxpayer dollars to stop Ebola in Africa so that someone doesn't get on a plane not knowing they are infected and come to visit our country and begin an outbreak of disastrous proportions. But here is something that USAID has been working on that is terrifying to me--truly is, and I have been talking about it for a long time in Congress--we are beginning to see bugs around this planet that are resistant to antibiotics. I talked about this in my work because I think we are these overusers of antibiotics. Almost 50 percent of our antibiotics will be used prophylactically-- not because we are treating diseases but because of the way we raise animals in America. We have to inject them over and over again to try to stop them from getting sick and end up with these horrible things where farmers have to cull their whole herd of pigs or chickens because of some kind of outbreak. This threat of antibiotic-resistant diseases--well, thousands of American die of them all the time. So here is a particularly infectious, nasty disease. It is called tuberculosis. Right now--I shouldn't say that because Trump has stopped it, but there were some of the best scientists in the world that happened to be ours, Americans, working for USAID on the frontlines of treatment-resistant tuberculosis, not just Ebola, in Uganda. USAID workers were trying to figure out what kind of treatments and regimes could be put into place to stop the spread of resistant tuberculosis because of the virulently viral nature of that awful disease. How irresponsible for a President whose No. 1 responsibility is to protect Americans to tear down the Agency, stop the Agency workers--cut off their cell phones, cut off their emails, cut off their access to files, leave them not even knowing how they would get home--on the frontlines of an infectious disease that they are trying to stop so it does not show up in America. This is not just a violation of our Constitution. This is not just a violation of separation of powers. This is not just a violation of the law. This is a violation of common sense. This is a violation of pragmatism. This is a violation of a sacred oath to protect the American people. I heard, folks--you did as well--the promises that were being made to America in the campaign of this President: I will keep you safe. I will drive down your costs. Well, in 3 weeks in office, we are less safe to infectious diseases than we were under the past two Presidents. Biden and Trump 1 didn't tear down USAID infectious disease work. Obama, Republicans and Democrats--I have worked with many of my colleagues across the aisle on making sure that we are funding the important global work to fight infectious diseases. Heck, I passed bipartisan legislation to stop wet markets, which is one of the places that these zoonotic diseases can lead to human beings. I saw momentum after COVID that we should be working together to stop infectious diseases that might start in China, in Africa, in Europe from coming to America. There seemed to be a bipartisan commitment to that idea in Congress, and it is one of the reasons why, with past Presidents, we have funded USAID to do this vital work with some of the best scientists on the globe who are willing to put their lives at risk, to step into an Ebola outbreak, a tuberculosis outbreak, an avian flu outbreak, and say ``I will do what I can to protect my country,'' like firefighters do and soldiers do and police officers do. They are great Americans, but what happened to them? What happened to these great Americans risking their lives to stop infectious diseases? The President of the United States, in an act of cowardice, did not come to Congress to give a vision for how we would protect our Nation from infectious diseases, how we would do the vital work of USAID--no. In the cover of night, countermanding our laws, violating the Constitution, and an affront to the wisdom on both sides of the aisle, he just went ahead and did it. He just went ahead and did it. The world is a complex and dangerous place. As much as government workers are being maligned and attacked and vilified and beat upon, most Americans take for granted what these patriotic Americans do every day. You shop in your supermarket and don't think about ``Does this food have some disease or worm in it?'' because these government workers at USAID are inspecting that food and are making it safe. A lot of government workers got flashed on the TV with our first major aviation accident in 16 years. Well, I get on planes a lot, and I have gone and talked to air traffic controllers. I fought for them and their contracts because I know that during those 16 years, no accident happened. You had incredible government workers working very hard, pouring their hearts out in one of the most stressful jobs, to keep us safe. So when I jump on a plane, I don't think about the air traffic around me. I know that I am on an aviation system that is safer than me getting in my car because of government workers. We, in a bipartisan way--and this is what I am saying--there is so much goodness on both sides of the aisle. We have government workers that are doing suicide prevention work for our veterans, when we were seeing veteran after veteran die day after day after day. There are government workers, some of them I met, that make it their mission to be there for veterans that come home with invisible wounds. I am going to make a statement that may sound braggadocios or hyperbolic, but it is actually true. In this body, there are former Governors, there are former county executives, and there are former mayors. None of them, when they were an executive, cut government more than I did. I cut the size of Newark, New Jersey's government by 25 percent. Think about that--cutting a governmental body by a quarter. I did it. It was painful, it was hard, and it was difficult. It was during the great recession, and I had no choice. But I had a city council. There were rules in the way I did it. There were civil service protections which I abided by. Oh, but not this President. We actually used what people called buyouts. We offered packages to people. But all of this we did in accordance to the laws of our State and my city in conjunction with our legislative body. We presented a vision for Newark, put a plan forward that, hey, these departments may be losing personnel, but we are going to make them more efficient. To this day, I remember some of the data. We had like half the inspectors but did almost twice as many inspections because we had a thoughtful plan that we executed in consultation and coordination with our legislative branch. I am the first person to tell you, as the No. 1 government-cutter in this place, that there are a lot of ways to cut waste. Just the procurement process alone in the Department of Defense is still being done in ways that are antiquated, that are being corrupted by people that leave the Pentagon and go work for the big contracting agents--a circle that is corrupting. There are ways to create more transparency on that. There are ways to bring new technology on that. There are so many ways to improve that system. How do I know this? Because the first person to tell me this out at his ranch in Arizona was the former Secretary of the Navy, in a late- night conversation where I just sat there and learned at the foot of some wise men, was John McCain. He went on and on and on about the corruption in our U.S. military that is undermining our fighting forces. He said we could be spending less and have higher capabilities if we only started to root out the wasteful spending and the corruption in that institution. We should be doing this in a bipartisan way. There are so many things that many of us see that don't make sense. And there is a process we could follow to do it. A President that is a strong President would come to Washington, would come to Congress, would give a bold address like Kennedy did when he said we were going to go to the Moon; like LBJ did when he said we are going to be a great society; like Ronald Reagan did when he said it was going to be morning in America again. This is my vision. This is my plan. I am bringing it to Congress, and we are going to get it done. But, no, this President didn't come here to push our government to a higher level, to inspire and engage, to be thoughtful about how we were going to be safer, stronger, and more prosperous--no. He brought in an unelected billionaire that everybody in this body knows is so conflicted, a guy who has so many government contracts, a guy whose net worth has been deeply affected by this government. He brought him in, and he and his agents have gone into systems that, to me, violate privacy. They have no transparency of what they are doing until we wake up in the middle of the night or wake up the next day and find out that the people on the frontlines fighting against infectious diseases that threaten the United States--they are gone, cut off. We just saw this last week when Donald Trump froze funding to everything--from veterans to first responders. He froze funding for daycare that had everybody in the station--I had calls from mayors who were Republicans, Democrats, Independents who couldn't access certain key portals; that had acted in contracting, relying upon a government stream of money; that had made plans and hiring decisions that suddenly were cut off in a lurch. The powerful thing about that is the outrage across America took this President, who was violating the law, violating bipartisan spending decisions, violating the separation of powers--the fact that Americans from all over this country spoke up and spoke out stopped him in his tracks because that is how you deal with injustice. You don't normalize it. You call it out. And God bless America. This man who thought he was going to bully and steamroll and cut critical streams of funding all across this country was stopped in his tracks. Now, he said: Oh, I am just pulling back temporarily because I am going to come back at this. But the sigh of relief. I have met with prosecutors this week. I have met with police officers this week. I have met with people who voted for him, voted against him, and didn't vote in my State, and all of them said that that was an outrageous move. Thank God we stopped him. Well, how did we stop him? By speaking up, by not normalizing this, by not thinking this is just politics as usual. So that is what this all-night speak-out has been about. It is about raising voices. It is about not being silent. It is about the gifts of this democracy: the right to protest, the right to petition your government, the freedom of speech. You see, we believe in this democracy--that the power of the people is greater than the people in power. We believe in this democracy in that every voice matters. Donald Trump is creating chaos, confusion. People like Vought have said on the record they don't care about constitutional norms, that they don't care about legal proceedings and the outcomes because that is wrongly decided. ``I have decided that that is not binding on me.'' Vought doesn't believe that we make spending decisions, that it is the President of the United States--despite the budget that was negotiated and passed by two Chambers in a bipartisan way--that the President can then decide ``I don't like this. Congress decided a spending priority. I don't care. I am not spending that money.'' That is Vought. So some people say: Well, they have the votes. Cory, can't you count? Well, I know I am here because I stand on the shoulders of my ancestors, like all of us do. We are all the beneficiaries of the struggles and the sacrifices that came before us. We are all the beneficiaries of moments in American history where democracy was in the balance, and the majority of our people chose the right way. We are all here because in the Depression, when a general of the United States was calling for a military takeover, people stood up and spoke out. We are all here because, during World War II but before America joined and there was a Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden full to the rafters, more Americans here said that we were going to resist fascist impulses. We are all here because, on the left, there was a Senator named Huey Long, who said: Oh, the people should take over the Capitol. They are going to storm the Capitol, and I am going to be with the people. Well, the people weren't listening to that extremist at the time. We are all here because, moment after moment in American history, when democracy was at a crossroads, when our Constitution was at a crossroads, people of good faith stood up. I remember one of the earliest women Senators that stood up against McCarthyism right here on the floor, criticizing someone of her own party--a profile in courage. I was taught a lot about that courage. In a chapter many people may not remember, there is a little panel to it right there. If you are in the Galleries and walk out, there is a panel to this wonderful moment in American history when we were at a crossroads. It was the election of 1876 between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden. It was hotly contested. You see, in that, one person--Tilden-- won the popular vote, but Hayes seemed to have won the electoral college. Now, the Democrat, Tilden--there was a lot of controversy because this was post-Reconstruction--excuse me--post-Civil War, and the South had lots of African Americans participating, and this left a bit of a constitutional crisis and what became the Compromise of 1877. Hayes was declared the winner, but the compromise that was made was that the Republican, Hayes, would win and be the President as he was in exchange for what the Democrats wanted, which was to pull Federal troops out of the South who were protecting African Americans. An outcome of an election not just upended Reconstruction and upended the progress that was being made, but it upended something that was incredible, which was, I am the fourth Black person ever elected to the U.S. Senate, but during the Reconstruction era, the first one appointed--there were two. Black folks, from the end of the Civil War until about 1901, when the last African American, Congressman White, left this place because of the fall of Reconstruction--because as soon as Federal troops were pulled out, reigns of terror began in the South. All kinds of laws were being passed to stop Blacks from voting because, in America, voting is power. Black elected officials were being beaten. Black judges were being pulled out in the streets--whipped. The Klan rose. Lynching in America--hundreds and hundreds of African Americans were being lynched with regularity who were standing up for their power. There were massacres going on to cut down Black political power. Here we had had an election, and the results in terms of our constitutional norms--the power to vote, the idea that we secure the rule of law and protect citizens--all of that was being upended in flames and terror and violence and lynching in the South that took an early wave of Black participation in Congress. And the last one, Congressman White, in 1901, gave a phoenix speech. He knew it would be the last time. He predicted that Blacks would disappear from Congress but that, one day, they would rise like a phoenix. Now, interestingly, in his State, a Black person didn't come from North Carolina's congressional delegation. That was 1901. Not until 1992 was another African American elected from North Carolina. His prediction was right: Blacks would disappear because of the terror in the South, but because of the power of the civil rights movement, Blacks and Whites and Asians and Latinos--it was a rainbow coalition of people--would not be silent amongst tyranny and amongst violence and oppression. American citizens from all backgrounds, all religions, all races, bound together and were not silent. They spoke up. One of my great heroes in this time--I have seen her spirit today. I had seen her spirit yesterday at a rally. I had seen her spirit across this country of people who know they can't necessarily stop, right now, what is going on but are saying: I am going to speak up anyway. This person was named Ida B. Wells. Now, Ida B. Wells was a journalist in the South, and she was documenting the lynching of African Americans, documenting the injustices being done, documenting how the abuses of political power and electoral power were being used in a fascist way to stop the people from being heard. And the lynchings--the gruesome lynchings, which she was documenting and putting out there as her pamphlets were becoming nationally known, so upset people that her offices were attacked and ransacked. She had to flee for her life because Ida B. Wells was not being silent. She was telling the truth. She was letting folks know what was happening. I think about her courage, to know that what you are doing and what you are saying against an authoritarian-style leadership can endanger your life, and yet you still tell the truth; how you are getting threats that you, too, will be lynched if you don't stop, but you keep telling the truth--the ugly truth. You put the stories out there again and again and again. Ida B. Wells could not be stopped. There were all of these common lies that were being said about the lynchings: Oh, these were African Americans who did horrible things. These were African Americans who were guilty of crimes. These were African Americans who raped. They should have been lynched. They should have been killed. Ida B. Wells would write detailed stories about the injustices that were even being upheld in courts of law, but she told the truth that so shocked the consciousness of our country that she, in many ways--may have been a journalist, but she was a farmer--every day relentlessly sowing seeds of truth that would one day reap a harvest of consciousness in our country, where good folks--Black folks and White folks and people of all backgrounds--would finally say: Enough is enough. Congress here tried to pass antilynching bills way back around the time that Ida B. Wells was trying to show this horrific crime, and this body failed over 100 times over the course of a century--failed to make lynching a violation of Federal law. I am really proud that I got to lead the legislation in a bipartisan manner to finally correct this injustice; to finally bring full circle some of the work that Ida B. Wells--this truth-teller--was doing. I bring up Ida B. Wells today because it is my concluding message-- this defiant refusal in the face of injustice, this strength of character in the face of powerful people--Governors of States, a President of the United States, and others--making decisions on the Federal level that wreaked utter havoc for millions of Americans when you didn't have the numbers, when you didn't have the votes, but what you had was the truth: to not let things happen, not just to be a bystander but to be an upsetter. This was what Ida B. Wells did. We study American history with an obligation to let it be not just our past, but we study American history to let it be our calling in the present so that we can try, as humble as we are, to live up to those who came before us; that but for them, our entire way of being would have collapsed. Ida B. Wells said this: The way to right wrongs is to turn the light of truth upon them. Let me repeat. Ida B. Wells--this documenter of savage injustices, this truthteller about lynchings in America, this sower of seeds of truth that, generations later, even in this body, we honor her by passing anti-lynching legislation after a century of trying--Ida B. Wells said the first thing we must do ``to right wrongs is to turn the light of truth upon them.'' For all those people in America right now, whether you are a worker in Uganda who can't even access your emails or you are an American who wants to stop Ebola; whether you are a worker here in the United States who has spent your entire professional life working to protect Americans from threats to our food or our air quality; whether you are someone who is just seeing what is going on in America right now, and you are afraid; whether you are someone who is worried that Vought will come in and upend educational funding that your disabled child relies upon every day; whether you are an American who is struggling right now and had hoped for promises that your cost of living would get better but are now seeing that, indeed, whether it is a tax on streams of revenue for middle-class families or the police in my community; or whether it is threats of tariffs with our neighbors that directly affected your small business that is barely staying afloat--whatever the challenge is, whatever the fear is, what I want to tell you right now is don't normalize a President who is violating the separation of powers. Don't normalize a President who is violating civil service laws. Don't normalize a President who is ignoring the dictates of Congress in establishing Agencies. This is the time to summon the spirit of Ida B. Wells and ``to turn the light of truth upon what is going on'' because you may be witnessing defeats, but the democracy is not defeated. You may say what is going on is wrong, but that does not stop the power of right. As the great poet said: You may write me down in history with your bitter, twisted lies. You may trod me in the very dirt, but still like dust I'll rise. This mighty Nation stands on the shoulders of truthtellers, of defiant, dedicated patriots of grit and gumption. It is we the people. No matter if you are a billionaire or a President, if you are a teacher, if you are a cop, if you are a plumber, this Nation says that our voices matter. In the words of that Negro spiritual, as we have tried to do here all through the night, I hope everyone in America understands that this is the time for us to ``lift every voice.'' I yield the floor.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Thank you to Katie Britt, the tough-as-nails Senator who will never quit, before I sit--I just can't stop myself. And thanks to Elizabeth, we should have all the poems put into the Senate Record. So with that, I would like to ask unanimous consent that all six participants, including the two I didn't name--Gabriel, where is Gabriel? Solid, solid piece of work. I was splitting hairs, splitting hairs. The only thing that dissed you was: The Capitol subway is my home. It rides underneath the great dome. I thought it was a lie that the subway is your home. I see you rarely on the subway. So your poetic genius was there; I dinged you because it was not truthful. And then the other name I want to give is Xavier, where is Xavier? Where is Xavier? Xavier is not here; that is why Xavier did not get--I knew he would not be here. It is terrible. It is terrible. That's what we pages are meant to observe. And to learn from others the pride to serve. I see no pride in his not being here right now. But I will say that they deserve to be in the Senate Record. So, again, all six poems, all six participants will be there. I ask unanimous consent that all six poems be printed in the Record. Katie, thank you for your kind words, and we turn the Senate back over to its usual programming. Although I do not think anything that will happen on this floor will be as fun as the fun that Katie and I just had. Thank you very much.

Mr. BOOKER. He is going to make it. Congratulations. You are one of the two poet champions of the U.S. page class--the fall page class. (Applause.) Yes, yes. Don't get an ego. Don't let it go to your head. Don't be like a Senator. OK. The other one, the final champion, is Ms. Pallan. Yes. (Applause.) Yes. Here is your poem. We stand on blue, carpeted floors From AM to PM we open Senate doors Aching heels, and curved backs We feel our composure start to crack But in walks a Senator, and postures correct Pages come together, all hands on deck Excitement overtakes persistent exhaustion As we wait to hear debates on legislation People of power laugh and joke As we watch and realize they're just common folk Against the walls we silently hear Colleagues and officials, but most of all--friends dear Within this room, there stands a central divide But there exists no aisle in our hearts or minds That was fantastic. (Applause.) I am grateful for the poetic effort. I am grateful for our poetry champions, who will forever live in the annals of Senatorial history. But there are a lot of people on this floor right now who have come to anticipate how I will proceed to demonstrate that these page writings are good. But now I will show them by reciting my own original poem. Before I do, let me make at these pages an angry poke. Dear God, you all have been here for 5 months, and you couldn't tell me one good joke? Come on. Come on. Painful. You are the worst joke tellers. Heaven knows. But I am done. I have got my poem to read. So here goes. Pages! With your suits so Navy, Understanding what you signed up for, some might think you were crazy. You clearly are the opposite of lazy. Up at 5 AM, your teenage brains must be hazy, taking a full load of classes, English, history, and calculus with parabolas so wavy. But that isn't the end of your days--see. You work full-time on the job, on the floor, serving Republican Senators like Mitch and Democrats like Mazie. You man phones and open doors. You tirelessly do the Senate's unglamorous chores, in this job away from your fam, who can only see you if they join the 17 other Americans who regularly watch C-SPAN. But yet you are vital to this place, I hope you all see. In our Federal democracy, some might call you the foot soldiers of the Senate's slowly making history. And in this place, of sometimes too many partisan wars, you are this powerful, gentle nudge to all of us old dinosaurs, that we are here for you, the future of our nation. You are a constant reminder of our sacred obligation. To put country first, you are subtly telling us in this sacred space: That we are not individual athletes but actually running a relay race. Soon the baton we will place, in your hands, the next generation, to lead with honor, determination, and I pray grace. So Pages! With your suits so blue, Serving the Senate tried and true, Doing everything we asked you to do. Walking around barely awake some days, but you still made it through. Here are 3 pieces of advice I have for you. First, leap into the unknown, even if it seems scary just give it a try. Like you found out jumping here, into your Senate experience that had to petrify--leap. I know that to some of your friends that it must have stupefied. Don't play it safe, hunkering down just to fortify. Jump at tough challenges because in life it is simple: If you don't risk great falls, you'll never see how high you can fly. Second, Make friends with people who think different and with whom you don't agree. This is the very idea of our democracy. You've witnessed it here on the Senate floor. The TV often tells us that we should hate those who are different, but clearly you now know more. We are so much more than a partisan, tribal war. Compromise is essential, our founders forswore. I task you to be unifiers, common ground builders, defining yourself by not who you are against but by who you are for. Take our national ideal of E Pluribus Unum and reclaim its splendor. Be an indivisible mentor--not just to preserve our democracy, but you are tasked with making it soar. And finally Pages! With your suits so . . . clean, my last piece of advice is to dream bolder dreams. I believe it, that for you there is no limitation. God, you are already living lives way behind your ancestor's greatest imagination. Past generations did great things. They took humanity to flight, took on the most awful wrongs and, incredibly, made them right. It's your turn--with grits, guts, and gumption--to dream America anew. Challenge my generation's limited assumptions. Dream America anew. Don't wait for permission. Dream America anew. This is your mission. Dream America anew--beyond what even your parents can now see. Dream an America anew and bring us to new heights of freedom, justice, and prosperity. Pages, dream America anew. Dream America anew. Dream America anew. This is my advice but also my prayer for you. Oh, and for all of history, I hereby put into the official Senate Record this truth, not a rumor: This Senate class, my friends, was incredible, kind, dedicated, but you lacked a sense of humor. Mr. President, I see the extraordinary colleague here. We read her selected poem already. But I will tell you, there are 99 colleagues, but nobody is more the surrogate Senate page parent than Katie Britt, the Senator from Alabama. I hope that you have learned from her the power of simple, everyday kindnesses. Mr. President, I defer to my friend and colleague, the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I appreciate the great Senator from the State of Florida with a haircut that is almost as good as mine. Thank you, sir. Every year, the pages come through in cycles. I shouldn't say ``every year.'' There are multiple classes of pages. They are usually all extraordinary. This is an extraordinary class of pages. I have some issues with them, which I will air later. But one of the traditions that we have resurrected in this new Congress is the page poetry contest. And this time, we had just a very small--a paucity of pages participated. That is an alliteration: A paucity of pages participated. And we have a number of them. Katie Britt, in her eminent brilliance, and I have picked our top ones. Katie has picked one that I will mention, but we want to give these four of the six--I feel bad for the two we have left out. We want to give them our highest honors. But, first, the runner-up in the third position is Kaija. There you are. You are the No. 3. I would read your poem, but we don't have time. You are articulate. You are eloquent. I teared up when I read your poem. It was so powerful and prodigiously potent. And then the No. 2--before I read the two winners, the one selected by me and then the one selected by Katie Britt, the No. 2 is Holden. Where is Holden? Holden is over here as well. Holden, your poem, too, brought me to depths--depths and heights. It was to the nadir and to the zenith. It was very poetic, sir. You have talent as well. And then the two winners. Katie Britt has chosen Jake. Where is Jake? Jake, why are you sitting down? Why can't I--why are those pages sitting down? Pages, stand up. Be accounted for yourselves. Jake, you are now going to forever go into the Senate Record. Are you prepared for this, Jake? Your work shall live forever. Here it goes. Five months I've walked these halls of history, Where wisdom lingers, woven in the air. To serve the nation, humble though it be, I've witnessed duty's weight and leaders' care. The echoes of debates in chambers vast, Where laws are forged and futures shaped with might, Have shown me how the present shapes the past, And kindled faith in government's light. I watched as leaders certified the will, A testament to voices heard and strong. Though times are tense, resolve can guide us still, A steadfast march to right what once was wrong. This service marks the start of dreams anew, To shape the world with honor's hue. I am going to pause. This might be the first time the Presiding Officer has ever cried. Is the Presiding Officer OK?

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Senator, I came to the floor--or to the Chair, I came to the floor to listen to the good-faith arguments of colleagues about the Trump tax cut. I heard them say they would pay for themselves. This was a mantra I heard over and over again: It will pay for itself. It will pay for itself. But independent folks, like on the Federal Reserve Board and the Joint Committee on Taxation, found that their corporate tax cuts did not pay for themselves, but they drove our government into a multitrillion-dollar and more deficit. The benefits within this idea of trickle-down economics--said by the same groups I just mentioned--were that 90 percent of workers didn't see a dime. Overwhelmingly, it expanded corporate wealth and the wealth of the top 1 percent significantly and didn't inure to the benefit of the postal worker, the cop, the firefighter, the plumber, the teacher. It is stunning to me that I sat here and listened to folks. But my challenge to you because you have been sort of a pragmatic, moderate guy for a long time, and we are seeing this coming around the corner-- the estimates are now that their new tax plan that they are talking about could cause a deficit and expand, again, by now over $4 trillion. You have been around here longer than I have. When we start running budget deficits, and we know factually that their last tax plan expanded the deficit into the trillions--and this one is projected, if they do it again, to be to the benefit of the top 1 percent and, again, with very few of the benefits going to working Americans--what will that mean for America's fiscal stability going out 10 years from now or 15 years from now? What kind of pressures will that create, and what kind of calls do we have from Republicans about how to fix the problem that their tax plan has caused?

Mr. BOOKER. Would the Senator yield for one last question. Then I will yield to Senator Lujan for his presentation.

Mr. BOOKER. Senator Kaine, would you yield for a question?

Mr. BOOKER. That was the stunning thing: Whom are you for? Are you working for Americans, are you for American families, or are you for the wealthiest of the wealthy? I watched this in slow motion, this disaster for our country economically, when I was getting lobbied by corporations in the same way that you said. They said: We are not globally competitive. We are not globally competitive. Everybody here, all 100 of us, want American businesses to win. So, yes, I think that we should have--my opinion was, yes, let's make our tax rate globally competitive and get rid of some of these crazy corporate tax loopholes that people use. So many companies pay zero taxes. So we could have had a bipartisan conversation that could have reflected our values, lowered the overall corporate tax rate, and found a way to get rid of loopholes so corporations don't find a way to exempt themselves from taxes when the average police officer is paying higher taxes than some of the biggest corporations. I watched you during that time--this was 8 years ago--and you began to say: Let's make sure that this tax plan benefits working Americans because when you invest in middle-class Americans, in working-class Americans, it is a proven way to grow the economy other than this fallacy of trickle-down. And so the stunning thing for me--and this is where I want you to--I think that was one of the most powerful points I heard. It was when people were coming to me and saying 28 percent, 27 percent, 26 percent. The biggest corporations were saying it publicly. I was reading it in the newspaper. The lowest thing I saw the corporations asking for was 25 percent. What were those conversations like when you were talking to our colleagues on the other side? How did they end up at 21 percent and then not even support an amendment to bring it back up to what the corporate leaders were asking for to the benefit of working-class people? How could that amendment not have passed?

Mr. BOOKER. Forgive me, especially with who the Chair is. I am afraid. So I direct that question to the Chair to the person here.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, so much niceness headed toward this guy--it is killing me over here. (Laughter.) I want to clear the record, and I have a beef to settle with the good Senator from Pennsylvania. I will tell you this: I consider myself a person of faith, and I think that Senator Bob Casey has done something very irreligious if I must say. I know he grew up as a Catholic. I grew up in a Baptist church. We are both Christians. We have very different religious faiths, but I have an issue with Bob Casey because, in the organizing Bible verse that I used to tell people was how I motivated my life, I come here, and he completely eviscerates my allegiance to this Bible verse. So I am using this, and forgive me. And I might be rule XIX'd by somebody for maligning a colleague. But I am very upset that you have made me lose my religion a little bit, and I will give you an example. If you know--a point of order? No. (Laughter.) Will the Senator yield? No, I will not. (Laughter.) Matthew 25 is really one of those Bible verses that has, for so much of my life, motivated me. You know, the Lord said: I was hungry, and you fed me; or thirsty, and you gave me to drink. And it ends with this verse 40: And then you shall answer and say unto them, ``Verily I say to you, in so much as you have done to the least of these my brethren, you have done to me.'' The least of these is how--I thought that that was the calling of my faith--to do unto the least of these. And for 10 years now--11 years that I have been in the Senate, you have undermined that idea of doing unto the least of these. Now, look, Bob--if I may call you that, sir--I came into the Senate thinking that was our job, but I have watched you for 11 years never see anyone as ``least.'' You have this way of looking at everybody and seeing their grandeur. You see people not as if they are in a lower station in any way, but you have a way of seeing people as if they are a reflection of the Divine Himself. I had a very humbling experience in the past 7 days with the good Senator from Iowa. We were down in the basement of Dirksen when people from the disability community from Pennsylvania and all around America came to give you tribute. As I sat there welling up at the tributes to you from these extraordinary Americans, every person that spoke and that I spoke to afterwards told me that you saw them; that you were a person who recognized their humanity, who recognized their strength, who saw their character, capabilities; and that you were not doing to any least but that you were elevating everyone and this Nation in the process. When you remarked about the little lobbyists, you pointed out how powerful they were in saving healthcare for all Americans. So I want to tell you, in my farewell to you after your speech, that when I was coming out of college, my greatest hero in America was not a Senator or a politician; it was Marian Wright Edelman. I thought that should be the calling of this country, to focus on children. I love what Marian Wright Edelman said: So much of America's tragic and costly failures to care for all of its children stems from our tendency to distinguish between our children and other people's children--as if justice were divisible. I see this framing that has made humanity suffer for thousands of years--those who framed humanity in us versus them. You have this superpower to only see just us. It is not your family and my family; we are family--to try not to sound like a famous song. Somehow, my friend, you make real the words of one of my favorite poets, Gwendolyn Brooks, who simply said: We are each other's harvest; we are each other's business; we are each other's magnitude and bond. I look up to you, Bob. I see in you--if you ask me what is the difference between a Hollywood heartthrob--or what does Bob Casey have in common with a Hollywood heartthrob, I would say, nothing at all. (Laughter.) You are not sexy. You are not glamorous. (Laughter.) My church tradition was, you had charismatic leaders in the pulpit giving great speeches. You must have gone to a very boring church. (Laughter.) But somehow you made me aspire to know in the Senate the difference between celebrity and significance, the difference between a showhorse and a workhorse, the difference between some nobility that you feel that you are reaching out and reaching down to help others, to humbling yourself before God's creations. I end with this framing: Marian Wright Edelman inspired me at the beginning of my career, and the way you have focused on children inspires me amidst my middle-age years as a Senator. I still am inspired by people who care about kids. That is why you have been one of my greatest heroes. So to steal from Chris Coons, who is the one person, I think, who knows Swahili in this Chamber, I would like to end with some Swahili words. The Maasai warriors have this incredible tradition. These are the people who are most valued in their defense of those in the village who might not be able to defend themselves, who are powerful in their fierce fighting capabilities and fight for those who are powerless. When they are out and about, they have a greeting that they say to each other, and the greeting, if I am pronouncing it right--and Chris Coons will correct me later--is ``Kasserian ingera.'' This is the greeting of two warriors. When they see each other, they greet each other: ``Kasserian ingera.'' The response is ``Sepati ingera,'' which means--one warrior says to the other ``How are the children?'' and the response of two warriors is ``The children are well.'' This is the indicator for the Maasai people of what the strongest, what the most powerful, what the fearsome fighters are most focused on, which is the children. You, my friend, are one of the greatest warriors I have ever served with. I know your heart. I know your moral compass. I know how you live your faith every single day and how much you have deepened mine. In the words of the Maasai, I have two words to say: ``Asante sana''--thank you very much. (Applause.)

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 934, submitted earlier today.