Cory Booker

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Let me think about this for a second.

Mr. BOOKER. I want to thank Senator Whitehouse. He has been a colleague and friend for a long time, and he stands right there at that desk for very long speeches. I think I am trying to go a long time; you go a consistency of times. And you have talked about the climate crisis. You have talked about the Supreme Court scams. You have not only educated Members in this body on these issues; you have educated America. You are a YouTube star now, and I learn from you every time I hear you speak. So I am a little worried right now, but I am going to step out on faith and yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Mr. BOOKER. I shall not complain. I shall not complain. But thank you for checking in on me, my friend.

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

Mr. BOOKER. Well, first of all, I will say to you that I meet wealthy people, like a group called the Patriotic Millionaires, who advocate for progressive tax policy and are the first to say and speak out against this tax scam. Again, to me, what does patriotism mean to you? Patriotism, by definition, means love of country. If you don't love your fellow countrymen and -women, how do you love your country? And so what would you do--I actually know what you would do; I don't even need you to answer this question--if somehow you came into a billion or more dollars? You would not be asking for more. You would literally say: Wait a minute, Republican Congress. Wait a minute, Donald Trump. What you are trying to do is take away healthcare from expectant mothers, from disabled children, and from seniors in order to give me more tax credit. I would think that the patriotic thing to do, that the thing in love--in love--you would say: Donald Trump, go screw yourself.

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

Mr. BOOKER. Yes.

Mr. BOOKER. Yes.

Mr. BOOKER. I want to answer this question so badly, but the crazy thing is that the person best to answer this question is the person who asked it. You have sat here and given this detailed analysis to show how this group of very wealthy billionaires in this country are so perverting our system by creating these front groups that then interfere in our democracy in the most disgusting ways. Even if you are like me and you can't stand the decision of Citizens United, even in Citizens United, the majority opinion really projected that we should do the DISCLOSE Act, which we have tried to bring to this floor and get passed, that says no more dark money. How do we have a political system that is so corrupted by billionaires who so, with all of their money, drown out the voices in politics of other Americans? (Mrs. BRITT assumed the Chair.) A great example of that is, they are getting so reckless that many billionaires aren't even hiding it anymore; i.e. Elon Musk. He is like saying, Hey, I am going to roll up into a Supreme Court case up in one of our best Great Lake States. I am just going to dump $100 million there and then give away, as if to insult our democracy, million-dollar checks as part of my effort to influence an election with my overwhelming flood-the-zone amount of billions of dollars. And by the way, hey, it is a pretty good investment, right? Donald Trump is his biggest campaign contributor. As soon he gets elected, a lot of my stock goes up--although, Tesla stock isn't doing so great right now. The reality is, we live in a country right now that we are giving more and more ability for billionaires to use their wealth to rig the system and then get more wealth as a result of that. It is so corrupt and so corrupting to this. We have been talking about this, as you said, for 18 hours now--these big, unchecked corporate contributions, billionaire dollars, dark money in front organizations that nobody in the Senate has outlined better than you are corrupting our Constitution. And even the bad case, Citizens United, even they said this shouldn't have happened. You all should write laws in this place that force people to disclose where this money is coming from. But how many years has it been since Citizens United? Many. And how many times have we failed? 15. Gosh, I don't know--and I am so grateful for this man because all my colleagues who are assembled here know doggedly and determinately you have stood right there with charts and graphs. You have outlined it ad nauseam. They have attacked you because your truth is so threatening to them that more people will know about how Big Money is corrupting democracy. So how many assaults are we going to have to watch in 71 days when we now have a President that can create a meme coin? Isn't there something here, my great constitutional scholar, a big word called the called emoluments? This President has basically created a meme coin where we now know--hard to trace this--that millions of dollars have been put into his pocket. I have my team reading about it right now; foreign countries, Russian oligarchs, incredible Arab wealth. You want a payoff to Donald Trump because his government is being run like this? It is not JFK: Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you do for your country. You have seen how he has behaved. It is ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for Donald Trump. That is how he does business. How do we know that? Look at the evidence of the last 71 days. If you are a law firm that comes to him and offers him $40 million of pro bono work--God how many people I love in Newark had that kind of legal representation, pro bono. He is beating you up, threatening to ruin your business until you come to him and tell him what you are going to do for him. We are seeing it. You want a merger? You want a merger? What do you do? Give a million dollars to his inaugural committee and then find ways--find ways to get money to him through his meme coin, kowtow to him in any way possible. Senator Whitehouse, nobody has outlined this more than I have--more than you have, excuse me. I encourage people--I feel like now I am advertising everybody's social media--to go to his YouTube. I call him the YouTube scholar. I am not joking. You have on YouTube, I know, just great details and outline about how the corruption of money in politics is getting worse and worse and worse in this era of billionaires like Elon Musk who have no shame anymore. I am going to say it on the Senate floor: There are so many reports and stories of them threatening elected leaders, threatening to put $100 million in a primary challenge if they don't kowtow to what the great leader is telling them to do. You use the word all the time, and I am going to say it over and over: This is corrupting to our democracy and amounts to another assault on our Constitution. How much will we take, America, until we say enough, until we say no more, until we say pass the Disclose Act, bring back the dark money. Put light on it. Shine the light of truth on this web of dark money lies. How long will we endure this? I hope that you and I are in the Senate when you no longer have to give that speech because we took action on the Senate floor to end this nightmare of billionaires trying to outsize influence on our democracy.

Mr. BOOKER. Not immediately. I want to say to Patty Murray thank you. You were a coconspirator in my life of trying to cause good trouble. You are one of the most powerful people in the U.S. Senate, and you have never lost. Your compassion and your care for people--you are like somebody else I talked about in the Senate, two of my favorite people who live this ideal that I may be a U.S. Senator, I may be head of Appropriations, I may be President pro tempore of the Senate, but I will never lose my connection to the people I represent and to the convictions that brought me to this place. You are such an honorable soul; you are such a great American; and you have been such a dear friend to me in this Congress. I savor the times where you let me come to your--a lot more seniority than I--you have got a great hideaway with a view--with a view, one day maybe. But I just want to say thank you, Patty Murray, for being so kind to me. Your showing up right now gives me a lot of strength, puts more fuel in my tank. So now--I feel all this power--now, you will outrank me in every imaginable way here. You are the head of Democratic Appropriations so I am obligated by the State of New Jersey to be very obsequious to you. I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Mr. BOOKER. I am so grateful you brought this up--and especially all the work we had to do when I was elected 12, 13 years ago. One of the earliest things I did was meet with women veterans in my State and heard these awful stories about how long it took to get gynecological care, the waits that they had to do, the indignities they had to endure. And I am glad we have made so many strides, in part, thanks to your leadership in New Jersey, with special dedicated facilities to our women veterans, with shortening those wait times, with prioritizing them. But you are now right. Their proposal is to cut 83,000 positions from the VA. And you know this, you said it, just years ago this governing body passed the PACT Act with overwhelming bipartisan support, signed by President Biden in August of 2022, the largest healthcare benefit expansion in VA history. You were one of the leaders, increasing disability compensation and extending eligibility for VA care. To meet this increased demand, the VA added 61,000 employees in 2023. These new hires were claim processors, physicians, nursing staff, medical support assistants, food service workers, and housekeeping staff. And now the progress this body made is in jeopardy by this President. We added 61,000 just to keep up with the demands and the needs. And now he is cutting 83,000. This is an article if you don't want me to yield: ``DAV urges Veteran Affairs to be more transparent about vet care amid layoffs and budget cuts.'' Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins says veterans' care won't be impacted . . . which saw the largest expansion of VA healthcare benefits in a generation after the passing of the PACT Act. Collins attended DAV's recent Mid-Winter Conference, where he came from behind the podium, walked into the audience and told attendees that vet care and benefits would not be impacted by the Trump administration's cuts. In a recent appearance on the CBS Eye on Veterans podcast, DAV Communications Chief and Air Force veteran Dan Clare said the VA has not demonstrated how it will keep that promise. They have not demonstrated. DAV also does not have ``a lot of information about what's planned,'' he said. Can you imagine that? Leaving all these veterans with insecurity and uncertainty. ``Now, we're hearing about 83,000 people losing their jobs, 20,000 or so of those folks might be veterans,'' said Clare. ``We're very concerned about how we're going to be able to cut that many people and maintain care and benefits.'' VA has hired thousands of staffers since 2022 in response to the PACT Act, which brought nearly 800,000 new enrollees into its system. Collins has said cutting the VA workforce by 83,000 would bring it back down to its 2019 level. Before we did all of those expansions to help women vets. Clare said he has not heard about specific performance problems with those who have been laid off . . . Well, you haven't heard about it. Veterans' needs have not changed and remain great. ``The people who are sick from the burn pits didn't necessarily get better overnight and some of these folks are going to have a long road to hoe when it comes to their health,'' he said. DAV is getting calls frequently from veterans who are ``scared, angry and don't understand what's going on and how it's going to affect them,'' added Clare. Clare was one of the first whistleblowers on burn pits in Iraq, which eventually inspired the fight to pass the PACT Act, [to help] veterans who became sick, or even died, from their toxic exposures. ``When we started talking about dioxin, when Vietnam veterans heard that, they immediately thought of Agent Orange . . . and that's probably what this is, our generation's Agent Orange.'' ``There's a lot of decisions being made behind closed doors,'' he continued. ``We want to know what the plan is.'' We want to know what the plan is. ``We're not against efficiency [of] government. We're not against even removing VA employees who may not be fit performers.'' A veteran has a unique understanding of another veteran's needs, Clare [said.] ``When you lose those folks out of the VA system, [the veterans,] you lose an institutional capacity to understand veterans.'' It is also unclear how the cuts will impact VA research, which Clare also stressed has helped veterans deal with complex issues that are service-connected, such as traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress. In addition to being concerned about how recent budget cuts and staff reductions will impact veteran care and caregivers, Clare said DAV is also concerned about the impact on veteran- owned small businesses. DAV is asking veteran business owners whose contracts have been recently cancelled or who have been fired from their VA jobs to reach out here. DAV is actively keeping a list of veterans negatively affected by the Trump administration's cuts and plans on fighting for them in the weeks and months to come. And those lists that they are keeping are getting longer and longer and longer, the people affected by this. So to answer your question, it is absurd; it is offensive; it is ready, fire, aim. Tens of thousands of veterans laid off, veterans who do business and work in contracts, contracts ended. Why is this another group that the President of the United States is scaring? Frightened veterans, angry veterans; I am hearing from them in my State. I know you are hearing from them in yours. What is the plan? What is the plan? They have no answer for us. All they are doing is cutting Social Security staff, undermining the delivery of those services, cutting the VA services. And why, by the way? Is it creating efficiency or effectiveness? No. Is it to create savings? Because we have to create savings to give more of those tax cuts to billionaires like Elon Musk. It is not fair; it is not right. When we send people off into the most dangerous environments on the planet Earth and ask them to put their lives on the line for us, the least we can do as a Nation is not penny-pinch on their backs of the service that they deserve.

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

Mr. BOOKER. Thank you for the question. No. And I am just going to read another article that is going to make even clearer the point that you just laid that is so strong and so important. This is from Axios. ``How White House firings are hurting veterans.'' The Trump administration's big cuts to the federal government are hitting one group particularly hard--the country's veterans. Why it matters: Many of those who've served in the military derive a sense of purpose and belonging from their government work--viewing it as a way to serve their country and help their peers outside of active duty. The big picture: It's not yet clear yet how many military vets have been fired, or will be. Last year veterans made up 28 percent of the federal workforce-- That's 28 percent-- per federal data--a far bigger share than the 5% in the private sector. About 36% of the vets working in civil service, more than 200,000 in total, are disabled or have a serious health condition, per federal data. So 36 percent of the vets working in civil service are disabled vets. ``This is the largest attack on veteran employment in our lifetime,'' says William Attig, executive director of the Union Veterans Council, a labor group that represents many of these workers. Attig, who was deployed in Iraq from 2003 to 2009, has been talking to newly unemployed members, trying to get a tally of everyone who's lost a job. Zoom in: Some veterans, still holding on to their jobs for now, are waiting for the hammer to drop. ``We're being smeared as leeches, but I just want to serve my country and provide for my family,'' an employee at the Department of Defense who is a disabled veteran, and requested anonymity because he didn't want to put his job further at risk. Talk about free speech. ``We're being smeared as leeches,'' says a disabled veteran who stood for us. He was thrilled to land his job just a few months ago, but is anxiously waiting to see if he'll be one of the more than 5,000 workers the Pentagon said it would fire next week. Privately-- Privately now-- GOP lawmakers are growing uneasy with [the] cuts that impact veterans-- I know this because I know the heart of so many of my Republican colleagues-- Politico reports, adding that vets have been ``disproportionately affected'' by the firings. Since, again, GOP lawmakers are growing uneasy about it. The White House did not say how many veterans have been fired. At least one department, Interior, has reportedly carved out an exception for them. ``President Trump has consistently stood up for our brave men and women in uniform--delivering crucial reforms that improved VA healthcare, decreased Veteran homelessness, and enhanced education benefits,'' said White House spokesperson Anna Kelly in an email. There are a few reasons government work attracts vets. The federal government has a ``veterans preference''--put simply, when deciding among a group of qualified candidates, they're first in line. Put simply when deciding among a group of qualified candidates, they are first in line. I think that is right. ``You'd have to jump through a lot of hoops to not hire a veteran,'' said a former federal official . . . With more veterans working in government, more feel welcomed to work among people who understand them. Others are drawn to the retirement benefits--years of military service counts towards your federal pension. Plus, many of these folks feel drawn to mission-driven employment. ``Most veterans feel like they are putting on another uniform [when they go work in other Federal Agencies].'' These jobs are a crucial piece of the puzzle in post- military life, he says, adding that it's also a key part of suicide prevention for this at-risk group. ``One of the most important things you can do for veterans is to find them a job.'' How can we expect to maintain what is, in America, an all-volunteer force if we fail to show those folks willing to serve how we care for our servicemembers when they come home? Slashing more than 83,000 jobs from the VA alone, it is clear that these cuts are going to have a disproportionate impact on veterans, veteran contractors, and the services they receive. I am angry about these cuts; but most of all, it should make all Americans feel a sense of sadness. We ask our veterans to sacrifice so much, and we all know, who know veterans, it is not just the veterans, it is also veteran families that make that sacrifice, that share in that service, that share in that commitment. And these veterans, some of the more talented dedicated leaders I know. They are not doing it for the money; they are doing it because they are called to serve. Do you know how many people jumped into service after 9/11? Friends of mine rushed to join the military, to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. And now they are home. Many of them with invisible wounds. Many of them with visible wounds. And the services they rely on for their healthcare, the services they rely on as lifelines, the services they rely on often that give them hope and opportunity, not compounding their trauma, this is now being attacked by our President, who is not keeping his promises. He says he values veterans, but the facts are different. ``She Devoted Her Life to Serving the U.S. Then DOGE Targeted Her.'' It had been six days since Joy Marver was locked out of her office at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, five days since she checked herself into a hospital for emergency psychiatric care, and two days since she sent a letter to her supervisors: ``Please, I'm so confused. Can you help me understand?'' Now, she followed her wife into the storage room of their house outside Minneapolis, searching for answers no one would give her. A half-dozen bins held the remnants of 22 years spent in service to the U.S. government--first as a sergeant first class in Iraq, then as a disabled veteran and finally as a V.A. support specialist in logistics. She had devoted her career to a system that had always made sense to her, but now nobody seemed to know whether she had officially been laid off, or for how long, or why. ``Are you sure you never got an email?'' asked her wife, Miki Jo Carlson, 49. ``How would I know?'' asked Marver, 45. ``They deleted my account.'' ``Maybe it's because you were still probationary?'' ``My boss said I was exempt,'' Marver said. ``I was supposed to be essential.'' In the last few months, more than 30,000 people across the country were fired by President Trump's new initiative called the Department of Government Efficiency, a historic reduction of the federal work force that has been all the more disruptive because of its chaotic execution. Entire agency divisions have been cut without explanation or mistakenly fired and then rapidly rehired, resulting in several lawsuits and mass confusion among civil workers. After a court ruled last week that many of the firings were illegal, the government began reinstating workers, even as the Trump administration appealed the decision and promised more layoffs. The V.A. alone said it planned to cut about 80,000 more jobs this year--including tens of thousands of veterans--and for Marver the shock of losing her job was eclipsed by the disorientation of being repeatedly dismissed and belittled by the government she served. She had watched on TV as Trump's billionaire adviser Elon Musk took the stage at a political conference wielding a chain saw to the beat of rock music, slicing apart the air with what he called the ``chain saw for bureaucracy.'' She had listened to Trump's aides and allies deride federal employees for being ``lazy,'' ``parasitic,'' ``unaccountable'' and ``essentially wasting'' taxpayer money in their ``fake jobs.'' In Marver's case, that job had meant helping to retrain soldiers for the civilian work force and coordinating veteran burials while earning a salary of $53,000 a year. ``Here's the note I got a little while after I was hired,'' Marver told Carlson, pulling a form letter from the government. ``You represent the best of who we are as Americans,'' it read. ``You could have chosen to do anything with your talents, but you chose public service.'' ``Kind of boilerplate, but it is nice,'' Carlson said.

Mr. BOOKER. Before I yield, I just want to acknowledge my friend in the chair. And she is cracking a tight whip, so I appreciate you following the rules here. I have to read this now. And I am eager to get to your question, because you are one of the few people I knew before I got to the Senate.

Mr. BOOKER. I didn't yield for a question. I can't say anything, sir. The Parliamentarian will jump all over you. I have the floor. So much power, it is going to my head.

Mr. BOOKER. Oh, man. I have known you for like 25 years. I wanted to talk about you, but you are being so insistent, I will reward your insistence and say I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Mr. BOOKER. I actually believe you would do a 5-hour question to try to help me power through. Senator, we have been at this for--

Mr. BOOKER. I love you and your wife Susan, but I love your children more.

Mr. BOOKER. Is this a question? I yield for a question while retaining the floor. Let's make it a 7-minute question.

Mr. BOOKER. Please, please.

Mr. BOOKER. Thank you for the question, my long, longtime friend, one of the folks I have known the longest whom I get to serve with. What you did for me when I came here--It was you and Sherrod Brown who sat right there by the door. You let Bennet and Brown become Bennet, Brown, Booker--three B's. We joined together with some of the most extraordinary House Members and Brother Warnock to fight for the child tax credit. It took years, but we found our opening when we called Ron Klain together before the election was even settled and said: Please, the best thing our country can do is to expand the child tax credit and make it fully refundable. Because we knew, as you said, it would give the overwhelming majority--between 80 and 93 percent depending on what State you are--of people in those States a--when you expand the earned income tax credit, it would give them a tax break. It was arguably one of the greatest tax cuts in the last 50 years. It cut child poverty in America nearly in half. And child poverty is a moral obscenity. Child poverty is violence against children--violence. Here is the thing that you and I both know from the research: Every dollar you spend in raising a child above the poverty line, you return to society between $5 and $7 in economic growth and activity or in lesser costs because kids above the child poverty line have, for example, less visits to the emergency room. I just don't understand how we are a nation--again, the wealthiest Nation--that has one of the highest child poverty rates. It makes no sense, zero sense, when we proved once and for all with that 1-year effort--because we couldn't make it permanent; we were short one vote in this body--we proved forever in America that child poverty is a policy choice, not an inevitable reality. So you asked a great question. Why, in a nation that was founded by men that studied virtue, the ideals of virtue--they were imperfect geniuses. They were imperfect geniuses, but they really struggled with moral philosophy. We have the power--we have proven it--to cut child poverty in half. What is the argument against it? Wasteful spending? Come on. Come on. Giving trillions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthiest in America--I am sorry, it is wasteful spending, especially if it ends up blowing a hole. Those tax cuts don't pay for themselves. Trump 1 tax cuts didn't, and renewing them won't. Doing the same thing over and over again and thinking you will get different results is the very definition of ``insanity.'' You are one of the most passionate--I remember a spellbinder of a speech you gave in this body. You were so angry. I love it when Bennet is unchained. You were so angry when you started talking about the horrible policies of this Nation that have eaten away the inheritance of children to come. You went off on the trillions of dollars spent on stupid foreign wars, where our brave men and women fought for this country, but this country made bad mistakes in these long wars. You talked about the money we spent there. And you talked about the first time in American history--common sacrifice every war before that, not just the men and women who were brave enough to go out and fight--you said the first time in American history that we said: The only people that are going to bear a burden are the people that are going to go. The rest of you get tax cuts. George Bush--first time ever we went to war and gave tax cuts. From the Civil War, to the Revolutionary War, to World War I, to World War II, it was a common collective effort. My grandmother talked with pride about victory gardens and with pride about war bonds. Everybody pitched in. Here we are at another crossroads. Is America going to tolerate this idea that we are going to give extraordinary tax cuts that overwhelmingly, disproportionately will accrue to the wealthiest amongst us? For what? If I were a mayor, I would have to answer that. So I appreciate your question, but I also appreciate your moral indignation. I really do. I keep saying over and over again, in elevating the voices of Americans on this floor, in elevating the point, I hope, that we can't keep doing things like this as business as usual. These are real issues, not of right or left or of right or wrong. It is a moral moment in America, and you point out a very clear choice we have: When we talk about our tax policy, it should reflect our values. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BOOKER. For Jack Reed, I would do just about anything. So I yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Mr. BOOKER. To answer the Senator's question, I have been on the floor since last night. So I haven't read any news reports. But when you ask if I am aware of thousands and thousands of HHS employees who have been laid off of their jobs, I am not aware of it, but I am not surprised. The question isn't, Is Donald Trump going to lay more people off? The question isn't, Is Donald Trump going to lay, more disproportionately, veterans off? The question is, What are we going to do to stop it when it isn't thoughtful, reasonable cuts? He talks about the people he is cutting as leaches and demeans and degrades their commitment to service and their noble obligations. We were told that HHS would be about making America healthy again, and I haven't seen that. I have seen them cut services that give children access to fresh and healthy foods. I have seen them cut regulations on polluters that make our air quality worse, which hurts people with emphysema, with asthma, and with other respiratory diseases. In fact, a lot of the actuarials show that more Americans die when polluters are allowed to go back to polluting more. I can go through the things they are doing that are not making our water healthier or safer, that are not making our air healthier or safer, not making more access to access healthcare that stops and treats chronic disease, and not giving access to healthy food. We are not making America healthy anymore. So these cuts don't surprise me, but they hurt me. They hurt me. These are Americans. They are disproportionately veterans. I thank you for speaking up for them today.

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

Mr. BOOKER. I so appreciate the question from my friend. I really think that he is a superpower, and you are a Superman in that character because you are thinking about the people affected. We throw these acronyms down here, and they sound like government programs, but then you meet with people. I remember when I was starting out in my political career in service in Newark, and I had this dear friend named Kim. She was one of these people who worked at trying to sign people up for LIHEAP. The stories would affect her of the people for whom that was a lifeline for them to have a little bit of resources--a little bit of resources--to help them get their energy costs in place where they could afford heat in the winter and some air in the summer. There are stories of elders and the vulnerable. I don't understand how we can be a nation with so much wealth and abundance, and we haven't figured out a way to design a system where, when you invest in the well-being of people, people thrive, where kids are growing up in quality housing, with great public schools, with clean air, without lead in their water, and above the poverty line. Do you know what I love about young people in this country? It is their resiliency. I meet these beautiful children with light in their eyes, and all they need is a little fertile ground, and they go beyond our imagination in what they can achieve. So here we are taking our national treasure. The resources being paid into our taxes are our national treasure. And what do we invest in? What do we do with it? Well, we are running up more debt. We are not going to pay for these tax cuts that are overwhelmingly going to go to the wealthiest, but we are taking all of these things that people rely on from our veterans to our seniors, to our disabled, to our expectant moms. We are just taking as much as we can to defer as much of these gross tax cuts that go disproportionately to the wealthy. So, again, I return to where I have been for closing in on 19 hours. I go back to: What are we going to do about it? It can't be business as usual. There are too many things we have already covered that show that this is a moral moment in America. Where do we stand? As John Lewis said and as I keep repeating--he says it is time to get into good trouble, necessary trouble, to redeem the soul of our Nation, and what you are talking about goes directly to the soul, what we stand for. Whom do we stand for? We should stand for each other. Thank you, sir.