Mark Kelly

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2893 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, this whole thing is a bad deal for the American people. It is a gut punch to rural communities and makes us weaker and less safe on the world stage. This amendment, though, dials back the worst of some of these cuts, especially for public broadcasting that is so important to so many Americans. Now, this amendment was drafted by Senator Collins, and I understand she isn't planning to offer it. But I think it is worth seeing if a bipartisan majority of us can come together to support it. And this is a good amendment and it will protect important elements of our public broadcast funding and it will preserve the vital funding for Ukraine, NATO, and other items that have bipartisan support that otherwise would be cut in the Republican rescissions package. Now, let's be clear, Senate Democrats oppose this rescissions package. But we are giving our colleagues yet another opportunity to make it less harmful as they claim they were willing to do. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, now is the time that we should be investing in the future of our country and helping American families get ahead, but what we have in front of us this week does the opposite. It is a bad deal that puts America in retreat at home and abroad. It makes our country poorer and less safe. When I reviewed what we are about to vote on, I thought about my granddaughter Sage. She is 4 years old, and, like a lot of kids her age, she watches one of the many educational programs that air on PBS. Her favorite is ``Daniel Tiger,'' a show that teaches kids everything from treating others with kindness to brushing their teeth, with Daniel's friend Jodi Platypus. These are lessons every child should grow up learning no matter where they live or how much money their parents make. But what is in front of us today is a proposal to totally decimate the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports local PBS and public radio stations. I don't get this. These are the stations that air children's educational programs like ``Daniel Tiger'' and ``Sesame Street,'' which help kids learn how to count and how to read and how to spell. In an era where cable is getting more expensive and monthly subscriptions just add up, free educational programming like this is so important. It is how parents in Arizona and all across the country give their children a head start regardless of their ZIP Code or their income. If anyone thinks this is just about cartoons, then they haven't spent enough time in rural America. In Arizona, my office is hearing from rural and Tribal leaders about how essential public TV and radio are in their communities. These are areas where broadband is still limited and cell phone service can drop out for miles. In those places, public radio is often the only daily and sometimes even weekly news source, and it is certainly the most reliable way to receive emergency alerts. During wildfire season, which is raging right now in Arizona, those alerts can mean the difference between safety and tragedy. Public radio also delivers severe weather warnings, road closures, and critical public health information. These cuts will lead to rural public radio stations laying off staff, reducing programming, or even shutting down entirely. Rural public radio stations are twice as dependent on Federal funding as nonrural stations are. There are dozens of stations that rely on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for more than half of their funding. Three of them are in Arizona, and they are all on Tribal land--KNNB in Whiteriver, KGHR on the Navajo Nation, and KUYI on the Hopi Nation. Why on Earth would Washington take that away? While this proposal rips investments out of rural America, it also makes us all less safe. It is the right thing to do. It is also strategic. USAID and our international partners are often the first line of defense against pandemics, wars, and starvation. You can't put a price on that good will and the stability that these programs create for America and the conflicts and humanitarian disasters and the refugee crises they prevent. I saw that myself when I was a young midshipman at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy during my second year at sea. It was a voyage through the Red Sea, off the coast of Egypt, and I was carrying a load of grain on a 1,000-foot-long ship. These were taking crops grown by American farmers from the United States of America to feed starving children in North Africa. Cutting this off doesn't just lead to starvation and disease and suffering, it also creates instability, a vacuum that gets filled by terrorist groups and warlords, a gap for China or Russia to take advantage of. One way or another, we are going to end up having to pay for it, and tomorrow's price will be higher. In the meantime, America is weaker, and we are less safe. This is not a serious plan for deficit reduction. What it really says is this: If you live in a rural area, your access to public safety information doesn't matter. If you are a child whose family can't afford streaming services or reliable internet, your education doesn't matter. If you are someone who wants a safer, more stable world, you are out of luck. I don't accept that. Arizona doesn't accept that. We should be building a country where, no matter where you live, what you earn, or how connected your ZIP Code is, you can get the information and support you need to stay healthy and informed. All of us, Republicans and Democrats, should be able to work together on that. I urge my colleagues to think about what is really at stake here, what is at stake for families, and what is at stake for our leadership in the world, and please vote no, because this isn't how we move forward, this is how we fall behind. I yield the floor.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I ask that further reading of the motion be dispensed with.

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I don't think we are looking to take any money out of Jelly Roll's pocket here, but giving a tax break to the richest people and most profitable corporations is a choice, and paying for it by kicking 17 million Americans off of their health insurance is a choice. None of this is set in stone. Every one of us gets a vote here--a choice. We can help parents be able to take their kids to the doctor, we can keep seniors in their nursing homes, or some rich guy--not Jelly Roll--can get another private jet. We can save healthcare for millions of Americans if we strip out tax giveaways for individuals who are making more than $100 million a year--yes or no.

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, what are we doing here? Seriously. I am still waiting for somebody to tell me how this makes sense. We are debating a budget that gives another round of tax cuts to billionaires and giant corporations on the backs of everyday Americans. And it also adds trillions of dollars to our national debt. That doesn't make any sense to me. And it doesn't make sense to the Arizonans that I have been hearing from in every corner of our State. If you grew up in a household like mine where money was tight, you would know that budgets are about priorities. I can still picture my mom sitting at the kitchen table trying to figure out which bills to pay. You take the money you have, and you put it where it is needed. This budget clearly tells the American people who President Trump and Republicans in Washington think need help. If you are a billionaire, it says: We have got your back. But if you are a parent trying to provide for your family, a senior in a nursing home, or a child who counts on school for your only hot meal, you are on your own. This isn't about balancing the books. It is about picking winners and letting everyone else fall behind. And who loses? It is the Americans working two jobs, raising kids, caring for elderly parents, and just trying to stay afloat, because if you grew up in a family like mine, you also know how hard people work to reach their American dream--the promise that if you work hard, your kids will get a good public education, you will be able to put food on the table, you will be able to go to the doctor and stay healthy, and your kids will be able to grow up and achieve their own American dream. This promise is already getting harder, and it is getting more expensive. We need to be working together across the aisle to ensure that everyone who works hard can have a brighter future. But that is not what my Republican colleagues are doing with this bill. The plan that they are jamming through right now will put the American dream out of reach for more families. And for what? To hand out more tax breaks to people with more wealth than they could spend in 10 lifetimes. Now, I have spent the last several months traveling across Arizona. I have been to our big cities Phoenix and Tucson. I have been to small towns like Clarkdale and Sierra Vista--talking to Arizonans face-to- face, listening to their stories, hearing what it would mean to them if Medicaid, food assistance, and other essential services got cut for them and their families. What I have heard is clear: This budget is going to make it harder for them to stay afloat, let alone get ahead. In Clarkdale, I met a guy named Christian. He is a rural hospital nephrologist. That is a kidney doctor. And he told me that his patients--many of whom rely on Medicaid for dialysis--are now considering stopping treatment altogether because they might not be able to afford it. He said: Financially, none of the patients I serve can pay out of pocket. It's a choice of either massive debt or death. That is the reality to many rural communities. Another woman told me about her friend, a survivor of two car accidents and a spinal injury. Her friend relies on Medicaid to help her deal with her chronic pain. Without it--meaning Medicaid--she said that her friend might end her life because the pain is unbearable. She asked me to deliver this message to my colleagues. She said: This is not a country that can't afford to care for people like her. We can afford to care for everyone--if we change our priorities from giving tax cuts to billionaires to taking care of Americans who are in pain every day. People across Arizona are pleading with us to get our priorities right. In Sierra Vista, I hosted a Medicaid townhall, and that is where I met this woman named Tara. She told us how she was once a single mother and how programs like Medicaid and SNAP helped her raise her kid and build a stable life. Today, she works a good job. She doesn't rely on these programs anymore, but here is what she said: I'm deeply concerned about the proposed cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, and related programs. I know firsthand that they don't just help families--they're often the only path to stability. Just last week, I was in Tucson where I live--where Gabby and I live--helping distribute school lunches at a local high school. It is actually the high school that my wife went to. And I wanted to see firsthand what these summer meal programs mean for Arizona families. These programs are funded through the United States Department of Agriculture, and they rely on data from SNAP and Medicaid to identify the children who need them the most. If this bill passes, a bunch of these kids that I served--I think it was last weekend--they won't be eligible for these programs anymore. It will be harder for them to access school meals which, I think we all know, compromises their academic performance. That is the real cost of this legislation. It is not numbers on a spreadsheet. It is hunger. It is illness. It is fear. It is a bunch of folks who work really hard doing everything right, and they are still going to get punched in the gut. And it is not just what I hear in person. My office gets hundreds of letters and phone calls every week from Arizonans. People are scared, and they want us to listen. I want to share some of their voices. Frank is a veteran on dialysis. He called this week, and he said: The food bank and my SNAP benefits are the only way I eat right now. I can't work. I'm not old enough to retire, and I'm dipping into my retirement early just to keep up with my mortgage. Without this help, I don't know what I will do. Veterans should never have to say those words in this country. One of the most sacred promises we make to the men and women who serve is that we will take care of them when they return home. That promise doesn't end when they hang up the uniform. It includes making sure that they can afford food, access healthcare, and live with some dignity. And yet here is Frank--sick, struggling, and wondering how he will survive because the programs he relies on are under threat. Cheryl from Tucson, who is a 59-year-old widow, said: I receive Disabled Widow's Benefits, Medicaid, Medicare, and SNAP. Get this. She said: My rent and utilities eat all but about $300 of my monthly income. SNAP and my healthcare card used to cover most of my food costs. I used to have about $40 left over to buy some extra groceries for the unsheltered in my area. So here is a woman with $40 extra, and she is helping other people. She also says: Now, buying food for my household takes all of it. I'm scared. If I lose even one of these benefits, I'll lose the grip that keeps the roof over my head. Karen from Scottsdale has worked for over 25 years helping veterans and people with disabilities. She wrote: Many of the people I work with rely on Medicaid because they can only work part-time or because their employers don't offer benefits. Cutting them off will just make healthcare more expensive for everyone. The rich do not need an extension on tax cuts at the expense of low-income and middle-class families. These are my constituents. These are folks who, unprompted, took time to write or call their Senator. And every single one of them is saying the same thing: We are barely holding on, and we are scared this is going to put us over the edge. Now, I wish I could say that these stories were met with compassion by everybody here. But, instead, one of my Republican colleagues apparently said: They'll get over it. And another, when asked whether cutting Medicaid would cost lives, said: Well, we are all going to die anyway. Now, I didn't come here to throw jabs. I am repeating those words because they reveal how this budget was written without any connection to the real-world consequences. This isn't about politics. It is about people. So I ask again: What are we doing here? Who do we serve? Is it people like Tara and Cheryl and Crystal and Frank who are working hard and doing everything right to just try to get by? Or is it a bunch of billionaires who have already made it and who don't need another handout? If my colleagues don't believe me, I urge them to go read some of the emails and listen to some of the phone calls that they are getting. Maybe hold a townhall, listen to those folks, really listen to what they are saying. Don't crush their American dream. Don't rig the system even more against them. Don't take a vote just because it is easy. We can do better for the people we serve. Mr. President, they deserve that from us. I yield the floor.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, when the Senate considers the reconciliation bill, H.R. 1, it is my intention to make the following motions to commit the bill: A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance to strike any provision which reduces the average tax liability of individual taxpayers with income in excess of $100,000,000. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation to ensure that the bill does not result in the movement of any non-Federal users by the Federal Communications Commission or the National Telecommunications and Information Administration into certain specified spectrum frequency bands without prior written approval from the Secretary of Defense.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I have to say this week stood out for me personally with some positive notes and some real downers. The week didn't start great. We saw the President of the United States--for the first time, I think, in possibly my lifetime--send troops without a request from the Governor into a State because people were protesting. And, sure, some could make an argument that maybe a few protesters got over somebody's perceived line, but they were largely peaceful protests. What the President did is beyond his authority. It is illegal. And it was not a good start to the week, I have to say. I also have to say there was some positive things this week. I got to meet your grandson. I think he said he was 15 years old. He got to go to the Air and Space Museum, a place that I love, a place that makes our country stand out in the best of ways. It shows what we can do when we work together, when we bring the full force of the United States behind doing things that are positive. We sent people to the Moon in the 1960s. Your grandson got to see some of that hardware over at the Air and Space Museum. But I also have to say that the end of this week was rather outrageous and horrific, and it was brought to the American people, I strongly believe, because of the attitude of this President and his ability to just work outside of the boundaries of what most Americans feel are in accordance with our values and our ethics. What happened today to Senator Padilla was outrageous. It was violent. It is a scary thing to see happen in the United States of America. Alex Padilla is a great guy. He is thoughtful. He is passionate. He is just trying to serve his constituents in the best way he knows how by doing the thing that is in our Constitution--freedom of speech, article I--by exercising his constitutional rights and his rights as a U.S. Senator to ask some questions of government officials. He was doing his job. His job is oversight, oversight of the Department of Homeland Security. This is in a Federal building, and this didn't happen in isolation. The Trump administration has arrested a mayor and a Member of Congress and a labor leader. The other day, I think, I mentioned the one highlight of this week, which was your grandkid, and the low light--besides this, at the end of the week--is what happened at Fort Bragg the other day: the President of the United States going to a U.S. military base and using soldiers as political props. That is not who we are as a country. And I have to say, what I saw today is leading us down a dangerous path, and we cannot retreat to partisan corners. Senator Schatz mentioned that, other than the Presiding Officer, I don't think there are any other Republicans showing outrage for one of their colleagues on the other side of the aisle being violently handled by law enforcement. This is wrong. This is not putting our country first. And I have to say, I hope we can turn things around here in the coming weeks. But in my lifetime, and certainly in my time in public office and in my time serving this country, I have never seen anything like I have seen this week. I yield the floor.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a great American and an exceptional member of the U.S. Air Force, Lt. Col. Lauren Harrison. As an Air Force Senate legislative liaison officer from April 2023 to May 2024, Lauren performed her duties well and without reservation supporting the 118th U.S. Congress. Hailing from Puyallup, WA, and a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy, Lauren has served in the Air Force for over 15 years. Throughout her career, she has demonstrated exceptional and unrivaled officership. She is a senior pilot with over 2,700 hours of flight time--1,200 of which are in combat. Lieutenant Colonel Harrison was formerly an E-3 formal training unit instructor pilot, where she developed highly-skilled and mission-ready aviators prepared to meet global challenges. Lieutenant Colonel Harrison distinguished herself through her professional character and dedication by serving this Nation in uniform as a Department of the Air Force legislative liaison to the Senate. In this role she advised the Department's senior leaders and helped develop strategic engagement opportunities to advance U.S. Air Force and U.S. Space Force priorities. Her leadership facilitated seamless collaboration on behalf of the Department of the Air Force across 62 congressional offices, serving as the principal Air Force liaison to 20 Senators and their respective staffs. She supported numerous engagements and delegations for 150 Senators, Congressmen, and staffers, including my own staff, to showcase Department equities in the United States and abroad. Most notably, Lauren spearheaded efforts across eight organizations, leading a 28-person team to successfully plan and execute critical briefings for key lawmakers. These briefings, including the Secretary of the Air Force Imperatives Briefings for Members of Congress and the China Threat briefing for new Senate Armed Services Committee Members, effectively communicated the Department's modernization and resource requirements to address pacing challenges abroad. Her efforts helped ensured the Department of the Air Force's support of the National Defense Strategy in our return to Great Power Competition. A skilled relationship builder, Lauren expertly conveyed Department of the Air Force positions on the Air Force Future Design. Responding to Senate staff feedback regarding the clarity of Air Force program messaging, Lauren drove a proactive collaborative effort to enhance communication with Congress. Working across six divisions, she organized a series of five targeted briefings for Armed Services Committee staff, fostering greater transparency and bolstering congressional support for the Department of the Air Force's modernization strategy and priorities. Finally, Lauren cultivated strong relationships with Members of Congress through insightful and consistent engagement. She organized 9 trips showcasing 26 defense installations to 3 Senators and 46 staffers, demonstrating transparency and building understanding of Department of the Air Force operations. Lauren's significant efforts led to 79 successful engagements between this governing body and senior Department of Defense officials, including the Secretary of the Air Force. All of these engagements helped U.S. Senators and their staffs understand defense equities and their impact on national security. Due to her direct involvement and stewardship, Members of Congress were able to make informed decisions and ensured the Department of the Air Force was properly resourced and funded. After serving in this crucial role and becoming a fixture on Capitol Hill, Lt. Col. Lauren Harrison will move on to attend the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies this summer, where she will learn to develop strategy and policy for the Air Force and the Nation. Lauren and her husband William, who is also a command pilot in the U.S. Air Force, have together flown over 2,500 combat hours as Air Force aviators and have instilled a legacy of service for their children Lillian, Corrie, and Claire. They have sacrificed much as a family in service to our Nation. I am thankful for Lauren's service and her work with my office and the Senate over the past year on issues of vital importance to the defense of the United States. I salute this American patriot whose selfless service has kept our country safe and strong.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, across Arizona, I am hearing from families who are doing everything right. They are working longer hours-- sometimes two or three jobs--budgeting carefully, trying to save for their families and their children's futures. But they are still paying more at the grocery store and more for rent and barely making it from one paycheck to the next. One emergency, whether it is a car repair or a medical bill, could throw the entire monthly budget out of whack. That is what people are living every single day. So when they hear that Congress is once again debating another tax cut--but not for them, for billionaires and giant corporations--they wonder: Who in Washington really cares about me? Who is Washington working for? This is a handout to a tiny fraction of some of the wealthiest people in the world, people who already have more money than they could spend in a lifetime. If you raise taxes on the billionaires and multimillionaires, which is what we should be doing, they would still be billionaires and multimillionaires. But, once again, Republicans want to instead cut their taxes, and working families are going to be the ones left holding the bill because this debate is not about numbers on a spreadsheet. This budget is about what gets cut to pay for those tax breaks. It is about which kid doesn't get a meal at school, which family loses their home to cover medical care for their kid or their parent, which patient skips the medical care they need because Congress decided that billionaires needed a bigger tax break. We don't need to guess what that looks like. Arizonans are already telling me. Angela from Phoenix works in school nutrition. She called my office to speak out against these budget cuts, and I am going to quote her directly. This is a quote from Angela: I work in school nutrition, and I see how many students benefit from the school breakfast and national school lunch program. The national school lunch program is actually the second largest food nutrition assistance program behind SNAP. And when students participate in these school meal programs, their families benefit and the community benefits. This is still Angela here: If we keep making these cuts, we're going to harm people that are already hurting. People are already struggling out there--we're already struggling. We need these programs invested in, not divested from. And for what? To give cuts to rich people, to billionaires, while all of us suffer? It's not right. Mr. President, Angela is absolutely right. And Desiree from Phoenix wrote to me. She said: I am a hardworking Arizonan who is watching my family and community struggle while the wealthiest Americans get even richer. I have family members who are disabled and rely on government assistance--programs like SNAP and Social Security Disability Insurance. These aren't luxuries. She said: These are lifelines. And yet, their benefits are being cut while billionaires and massive corporations get even more tax breaks. This is still a quote from Desiree: Every time a tax policy favors the ultra-wealthy, it takes food off the tables of families who are barely getting by. It forces people with disabilities to make impossible choices between rent, medication, and groceries. This is not the Arizona I believe in. She said: This is not the America I want to see. We need leaders who fight for us--the working people, the families who are doing everything right and still falling behind. We need tax policies that are fair, that hold the wealthiest accountable, and that protect the programs that keep our most vulnerable from being pushed even further into poverty. This is story No. 3, from Nicholas. Now, Nicholas is a medical student from Arizona, and he wrote to me about what these cuts would mean for him and his partner, who are both about to graduate with hundreds of thousands of dollars in student debt. Nicholas said: Congress must pass a budget that benefits Americans instead of slashing funds to essential life-saving programs like Medicaid to finance tax breaks for the wealthy. He said: I would not have been able to afford healthcare during medical school without Medicaid. My partner is in the same position. Please consider people like us who rely on these programs so we can stay healthy and continue serving our communities as future physicians. And Lexxie from Phoenix, who has had nine open-heart surgeries--she is now in heart failure, and she is disabled. Medicaid and SNAP are the only way that she can access the care, medications, and the food she needs to stay alive. Lexxie said, in her letter: Removing programs such as Medicaid and SNAP would be terribly detrimental to people like myself, with disabilities. And she said: I myself, along with other patients with Congenital Heart Disease, whether they be adults . . . or young children looking to stand a chance in the world, would pass away. She said she and others will die. She went on: In a way, I feel as this letter will be pushed aside and ignored. However, I am hopeful that this letter will actually hold to something, for the members of the 119th Congress, to actually take a stand against Mr. Trump and his administration, and their life-threatening agendas. Mr. President, every single one of these stories is a reminder of what is at stake here. These are the voices we should be listening to, not billionaire donors, not corporate lobbyists. And, by the way, Elon Musk shouldn't be rigging the Federal budget to give himself another tax break. Why is he allowed to do that? I would rather listen to Nicholas and Desiree and Angela and Lexxie. These are the people we should be listening to, not an unelected billionaire working for another billionaire, trying to get billionaires more tax breaks. Arizona families, they are paying attention. I am sure Kansas families are as well. And they are asking us to do the right thing. These are the people who will pay the price if Senate Republicans move forward with this plan, and it is a steep price. And let's be clear. This is not the first time that we have seen this playbook. This is a rerun. In 2017, President Trump signed into law the so-called Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. That is what they called it. It slashed the tax rate for big corporations. It showered benefits on the top 1 percent and promised big things. It promised higher wages for workers. It promised a manufacturing boom and stronger economic growth. Do you want to know what really happened? Workers didn't get big raises. There was no manufacturing boom. Instead, corporations used the money to buy back stock and enrich their executives and their shareholders--big surprise. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the top 5 percent of earners received nearly half of the tax benefits. Think about that. The top 5 percent, they got half. A family making $30,000 a year, do you know how much they got? They got 130 bucks. But those in the top 0.1 percent, the ones making more than $5 million, they got a $278,000 tax break. The rich got richer; everybody else got screwed. And now some of my colleagues, they want to do it again. They want to extend those tax breaks permanently, and they are trying to hide the true cost of this using a gimmick called--get this--the current policy baseline. This is a pretend way to make these tax breaks look like they don't cost anything. But we know better, and I think the American people know better. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, extending these tax cuts, like they are planning to do, would add over $4.5 trillion to the debt in the next 10 years, and that would add up to about, over the next 30 years, $37 trillion. That means doubling our current national debt--doubling it--just to give a tax cut to rich people. (Mr. MULLIN assumed the Chair.) And the Congressional Budget Office, which is the gold standard for this stuff, says that would push our national debt to 214 percent of GDP by 2054--214 percent. That is an economic disaster for our country. And all of this for what? So someone with more money than they can spend in a lifetime gets even more money. Let me put this into perspective here. The median household income in this country is about $80,000 per year. It would take 1,245 years, about 15 lifetimes, for someone making that much to earn $100 million-- over 1,200 years. And yet some of my colleagues think that those aren't the people who need a tax cut. And this isn't just about tax policy. It is about the kind of country we want to be. Do we want to be a country that hands billionaires another break while a kid goes without lunch in school, where a retired veteran living on Social Security is told there is no money left for him, but there is plenty for the wealthiest Americans? That is the choice in front of us because this budget doesn't just fail working families; it punishes them. It says: If you are doing everything right, if you are working hard, if you are raising your kids, if you are paying your taxes, you are on your own. That is not just bad policy; that is wrong. And let's be clear. This Republican math is not fair, and Arizonans, my constituents, are seeing through this. I guess they probably are in Oklahoma as well. Everyone in this Chamber should think about their priorities and the priorities of the people they came here to represent. So let's stop wrecking the finances of working families just to hand out more tax breaks for billionaires. Let's build an economy that actually works for the people who make the economy run instead of imposing tariffs that are actually just tax increases on everyday goods families depend on. Let's bring back manufacturing and support union jobs. That is what will make Americans better off. And Arizonans didn't send me here to be a rubberstamp on a bad deal. They sent me here to fight for them and to stand up for them, and I am going to keep doing that. I yield the floor.

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, it has been just over a week since we learned that our top national security officials were discussing operational details before a strike on the Houthis, in Yemen on an unsecured platform. The White House has said the case is closed, but the American people still haven't gotten the transparency and accountability about the national security breach that they deserve. So I wanted to stress a few things. Now, let's start with how dangerous and irresponsible this was. This wasn't just a policy violation; it was a reckless breach of our operational security. The information shared on this unsecured platform is some of the most sensitive information that our military has. We are talking about time on target, the weapons systems used, and other details about the strike over hostile territory. This is exactly the kind of information you do not want in the hands of an adversary or an enemy, especially one that has a significant surface-to-air missile capability that can shoot our airplanes down. They were discussing this information hours before these pilots took off of the deck of an aircraft carrier, and that is a big deal. It could have resulted in these pilots being captured or killed. No one, especially the Secretary of Defense, should be discussing these things on an unsecured platform. This is personal for me. I flew combat missions off of the USS Midway in the first Gulf war. We treated this kind of information like lives depended on it because they did. I had to walk out to my aircraft on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier dozens of times, often in the middle of the night, to carry out strikes just like this. And if I later found out that the Secretary of Defense had been this reckless with the details of my mission, I would have been pissed off. Look, I mean, I use Signal too. It is a good app. I use it to schedule meetings or to say: Hey, Senator Schiff, remember that thing we talked about the other day, that thing? We need to talk about that thing again when we get down to the SCIF. That is the kind of thing you say on Signal. But I do not use Signal to share realtime operational military plans or any sensitive or classified information. You just don't do that. It is not what the thing is for. And just for a second, just because Signal is encrypted does not make it secure. We know this, and especially when you know that the device you are using it on is vulnerable. These are phones used sometimes during official travel but also personal phones, often used overseas, exposed to adversaries' WiFi and RF systems where they can attack these devices. They often also have physical access and other kinds of surveillance. And once an adversary is in, hard to get them out. And if they had access to even one of those phones on this Signal chat, they saw everything. This wasn't just sloppy, it is a national security risk. This kind of breach endangers not just pilots but also intelligence sources, especially from our allies and their assets who risk their lives to share critical information. It damages our relationships and trust with intelligence partners who now have to worry about whether their information that they are sharing with us is being handled properly. And it could burn sources entirely, meaning that we won't get valuable information anymore like the location of targets. We also just happened to get a brief window into how these decisions are being made by this administration. And I have got to tell you, I wasn't impressed. The Vice President. The Vice President doesn't seem to understand that keeping global shipping safe is in our interest or how important our European allies are to our own national security. And I also want to point out that our adversaries got this same insight. They saw not just the operation but they saw the personal dynamics of the decisionmakers, and they saw their internal discussions. That is exactly the kind of insight our intelligence Agencies are always trying to get on foreign powers. And this administration, they were just dumb enough to just give it away. In my view, the Trump administration is reckless. We have seen this before. CIA officer names e-mailed on an unclassified system, Agency head counts leaked, sensitive site locations posted online. The use of Signal for a live military strike is just the latest in a long list of security failures. This exposes how this administration makes decisions, and what I saw is alarming. But that is what happens when you put unqualified, unserious people into critical national security roles. This wasn't a mystery. This was all exposed during their confirmation processes. Yet my Republican colleagues bowed to pressure from the President and confirmed these nominees anyway. And this is what happened, the lack of accountability from the people in this chat and at the White House isn't just reprehensible, it is also dangerous, especially when it comes from the Secretary of Defense, the leader of our Armed Forces, who put the lives of these pilots at risk with his actions. When you are in charge and you make a mistake, you have got to own up to it. Everybody knows that. That is what we do in the military; you fess up. Secretary Hegseth doesn't just owe that to the American people, he also needs to own up to this in order to maintain the good order and discipline of our forces. How can anyone respect the Secretary of Defense who screws up like this and then can't take responsibility? And what message does that send to the next pilots who have to launch off the front of an aircraft carrier and into hostile territory? Pete Hegseth needs to resign, and if he won't, the President should fire him. No accountability sends the wrong message. Now, I asked the DNI, Tulsi Gabbard, and CIA Director Ratcliffe directly in a hearing, I asked them: Was there discussions of targets in Yemen? And the DNI, Tulsi Gabbard, said: Yes. And that is a big deal. And I also asked: Would they approve that chat for public release? Neither would say yes, and that tells you all you need to know. If anyone from the most junior enlisted servicemember to a four-star admiral had done this, they would be facing real consequences. They would be fired or possibly worse. But here, these top leaders, the top leaders of our national security apparatus, are just making excuses. My view is this Secretary of Defense must go. Two months ago, during Hegseth's confirmation vote, I asked: Is this really worth the risk to our servicemembers and our national security? Well, I think we now have the answer. This is what happens when you put the most unqualified nominee in charge of life-and-death situations. Now, we are lucky that this didn't result in American casualties. But the fact that it could have and the fact that he hasn't taken responsibility makes him unfit to lead. He needs to resign. Again, if he doesn't, the President should fire him. By the way, yesterday, he fired the wrong guy. The head of the National Security Agency, I think, had broad bipartisan support, in my opinion. He was doing an excellent job. The President is confused. This is the kind of transparency and accountability that the American people deserve. This is not about politics; this is about keeping our country safe. I yield the floor.

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1737 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, this budget Republicans wrote would hand out massive tax cuts to the richest Americans and biggest corporations, paid for by blowing up our national debt and slashing programs that help working families, like cutting healthcare. Working families are struggling to make ends meet and get ahead, and the American people don't believe that any multimillionaire or billionaire or big corporation needs another tax handout. It is pretty simple. So, before this budget to give the wealthiest more tax breaks moves forward, I think the American people deserve a debate about who in this country is so rich that they don't need this massive tax cut. So here is my proposal to start: Mr. President, can we agree that no one making more than $100 million per year--

Mr. KELLY.--should have lower taxes? These folks could pay a little more, and they are still going to be rich. Do they really need a tax cut? I don't think so. Vote yes if you agree.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KELLY. Senator, my apologies.

Mr. KELLY. My apologies for my giant mug at your airport.

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

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, with all of the chaos in Washington right now, it can feel like it is tough to keep up. In the middle of bombshell revelations, new Executive orders that threaten the safety of Americans, and the administration's plans to give rich people trillions of dollars of tax cuts, what is often lost is how this all impacts the people we represent. The best way to find out, though, is to get out of Washington, DC, and talk to the families and the seniors and the kids who are going to be directly impacted. Let me tell you: These folks are paying attention, and they aren't happy about it. I know some of my Republican colleagues in Congress are trying to tune out the thousands of phone calls and the emails and have been avoiding townhalls. But last week, I held a couple of townhalls in Arizona. We focused on Medicaid and brought together healthcare providers and families who rely on it to talk about what Republicans are planning to do and what that would mean for them. Republicans are working on a plan that could absolutely gut healthcare in our country by slashing Medicaid. There is a number of ways they could do this, but we know it is the plan. The way Republicans talk about it is about dollars saved and pay-fors for those tax cuts for the wealthiest. When it is framed as a line item instead of what it actually is, which is healthcare that tens of millions of Americans rely on to survive, it is easy to lose track of who will bear the consequences of these decisions: hard-working families, kids, and seniors in Arizona and across the entire country. My State has one of the largest Medicaid populations. The Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System--or AHCCCS, as Arizona's Medicaid program is called--has been expanded under Republican Governors to be the backbone of healthcare for more than 2 million people. We are talking about kids. We are talking about seniors. We are talking about pregnant women and people with disabilities. And I heard from them last week. I promised them that I would bring their stories back to DC and share them. Now, I don't think I have enough time here to talk about all of them today, but I am going to share a few. This is story No. 1. In Scottsdale, along with Senator Ruben Gallego, I heard from a woman named Quianna Brown. Quianna is the mother of a 10-year-old girl that she and her husband adopted from foster care, and she has special needs, and she has a rare form of diabetes. Her daughter was diagnosed and treated, thanks to Medicaid. Now, along with her husband, who served in the U.S. Navy for 23 years, Quianna works every day to provide for her family, and she is afraid that her daughter is going to lose her healthcare. She finished her remarks at this townhall by comparing Medicaid to a house that Republicans are planning to burn down. She said--and this is a quote, Mr. President. She said: Would you mind telling your colleagues in Washington that when they're burning down this house, there are people still inside? My kid is inside. When she said this to me in front of this room of over 100 people, sharing her most personal story, the room went silent. Everyone turned and listened because it was a mother pleading for us to help protect her child in the most straightforward terms. And I told her I would bring this back and share it with all of you. So, again, let me repeat: When they're burning down this house, there are people still inside. My kid is inside. These words from Quianna Brown, a mother and a hard-working Arizonan, should resonate loud and clear on this floor. Samia from Sierra Vista--this is story No. 2--is the mother of two children, a 15-year-old daughter and a 12-year-old son. Her son only has one kidney and severe scoliosis. Both of them, both of the kids, are autistic and were diagnosed with a rare tumor disorder which cripples their bodies' capacity to stop the growth of tumors. The result is that their chance of getting cancer is 85 to 95 percent. She knows that the best chance her kids have of beating cancer and surviving is to find it early. And Medicaid has allowed her to get the frequent screenings that her children need. She shared that both her children meet the burden of placing them in a long-term care facility, but thanks to Arizona's Medicaid paid caregiver program, she can care for them at home. That is a success. Medicaid is a literal lifeline for her kids. I think about her knowing exactly what she needs to do for her kids to keep them healthy and the worry that she faces if she thinks about what would happen to them without it. Story No. 3 is about Tiffany Leslie Pasillas from Marana. Also she cares for her 6-year-old daughter Aiyana at home. Aiyana is immunocompromised. She is nonverbal. She can't walk, and she requires care 24-7. Tiffany shared that without Medicaid, she would be forced to limit care and evaluate whether she could continue to care for her at home--or would she have to place her daughter in a specialized facility for her severe needs? In Tucson, AZ, I heard from Chad Durns, who is living with multiple sclerosis and is unable to work. He relies on Medicaid to afford his MRIs and his infusion treatments. When he spoke at the townhall, he talked about the potential costs of his healthcare if he lost his Medicaid coverage. Through tears, he said: The level of cost of those things would be devastating for a guy like me. ``A guy like me.'' What are folks on the other side of the aisle talking about doing? They are talking about hurting Chad and guys like him. For what? To give more tax giveaways to rich people, to billionaires. Here is story No. 5. And this is about Amalia, who is the daughter of Crissy McGann. Amalia is a 5-year-old kid who uses Medicaid to receive care for a rare genetic disorder. She said that she is terrified--so the mom is terrified--that the services her daughter depends on and allow her to thrive would be cut or reduced and called the proposed cuts disastrous for the disability community. Disastrous, devastating, burning down a house with kids inside--that is what Arizonans had to say about these plans to gut Medicaid. And these stories exist in every single State, in every single district, red or blue, all of them. But here is the thing: Only some of us seem to care to listen. Now, I invite all of my colleagues, especially my Republican colleagues negotiating this plan, to listen to the people they represent. Listen to their concerns. They are real concerns that are affecting real people, people that cannot afford to pay for expensive healthcare. So that instead of pay-fors or line items, maybe you will think about Quianna and her kid or Chad who has MS or the countless other folks whose lives will be flipped upside down if they lost Medicaid. We are representatives of the people. We are here to make people's lives better, not to ruin them. So to my colleagues, I urge you: Stop trying to burn down the house. Your constituents are inside. I yield the floor.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of my colleague and friend Representative Raul Grijalva. A devoted fighter for justice and working families, Raul spent more than 50 years in public service, representing southern Arizona in Congress for more than two decades and serving as the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. His passing is a tremendous loss for Arizona and the country. Raul was a man of compassion and conviction, driven by his belief in doing the right thing. He spent his life fighting for the people of southern Arizona, and his leadership was rooted in a deep understanding of the challenges facing his constituents. As the son of immigrants, he knew firsthand what it meant to fight for better healthcare, labor protections, education, and economic opportunity for everyone. He was a champion to those who have been left out of the conversation, and he leaves a legacy of making sure everyone had a voice in the Halls of Congress. Raul was a mentor to my wife Gabby Giffords, when she was first elected to Congress. Raul and Gabby represented neighboring districts and were shaped by their upbringing in southern Arizona, a place that was special to both of them. As Gabby said after Raul passed, he could and did talk to anyone, with empathy and genuine interest in the people he served. Raul's leadership on the House Natural Resources Committee was instrumental in advancing landmark legislation to combat climate change, preserve public lands, and safeguard water resources critical to Arizona and the Southwest. He led the charge to protect the Grand Canyon for future generations. His commitment to conservation, climate action, and Tribal sovereignty is a testament to his love for the State he called home. Raul's story is an American story--one of perseverance, service, and an unshakable belief in the promise of this country. Arizona is better, our Nation is better because of his service. My thoughts are with Raul's wife Ramona; their three daughters Adelita, Raquel, and Marisa; his grandchildren Adelina, Raul and Joaquon Grijalva-Gomez, and Floyd IV and Belan Thompson; and his entire family, his team, and everyone who looked up to him. We honor Representative Raul Grijalva's lifetime of service, and we celebrate his enduring impact.

Mr. KELLY

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I returned Sunday night from 2 days in Ukraine. It was my third trip since the war began, and it came at a perilous and difficult time. A week earlier, President Trump had blown up the meeting with President Zelenskyy, starting an argument in front of cameras that made the United States look like a weak bully. He gave away two of Ukraine's primary goals: regaining their territory and becoming a member of NATO. The result is a weakened hand in negotiations with Russia. And President Trump also cut off security and intelligence to Ukraine, leaving them blind and at risk of losing ground. So I made a decision to travel to Ukraine to show my support for the Ukrainian people and to bring back information--what I would learn on the ground--about how these policy changes were going to impact the war. What I saw showed me just why we cannot give up on the Ukrainian people and why it is important to our security to keep Putin from winning. Of course, the Ukrainians want this war to end. They want it to end more than anybody else. But any agreement has to protect Ukraine's security, and it can't be a giveaway to Putin. This war started with what Putin thought would be a 3-day operation to take Kyiv and then control all of Ukraine. Now we are 3 years later, and that hasn't happened. The Ukrainian people, with security and intelligence assistance from us and from our allies, have been fighting for every inch of their homeland. They have endured constant missile barrages on cities and hospitals. I visited one of these hospitals myself. And this hospital had been hit with gunfire. There were holes in the exterior walls of the hospital. There was a crater in the sidewalk in front of the door of this hospital where a mortar round landed. And there, in this hospital, I spoke to wounded soldiers who were eager for nothing more than to get back into this fight. I also met with nurses who shared their stories of this invasion through tears. They told me--this is hard to repeat on the floor of the Senate. They told me how they witnessed Russian soldiers raping children in front of their parents and then murdering these same children in front of their parents--horrendous war crimes which can never be forgiven. I met with Ukrainian pilots, one of whom I had met with in Tucson when he was learning to fly the F-16. I will be honest. When I first visited their F-16 training at Davis Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona, I wasn't sure that they could step up to flying the Viper. It is not an easy airplane to fly. And I wasn't sure that they would be effective in combat. Those pilots have more than proven themselves flying challenging combat missions against the Russians, who are protected by a considerable electronic warfare defense and a surface-to-air missile defense and, by the way, are also flying some pretty sophisticated airplanes. I spoke to one pilot. This guy shot down six cruise missiles and drones on a single mission, and he did this while carrying only four air-to-air missiles. So how did he do this? Well, two of the targets he had a gun, used the gun of the F-16 to shoot them down. That is really hard to do. My twin brother, who is also a Navy pilot, and I were both stunned. That is impressive. They are stepping up. Ukraine's underdog status against the heavyweight Russia has bred a scrappy innovation that the United States should envy and that we can learn from. I heard it in their words when they said that they would fight--get this, Mr. President--they said they would fight with rocks and sticks if they had to, to defend their country against Putin. And I saw it in their efforts to produce cutting-edge weapons to take the fight directly to the Russian enemy. They are building one-way attack drones at an incredible rate, especially considering that they stood up this production from nothing. And that is what is possible when hitting your production target and every single day is a matter of life and death. They have an innovation cycle that is measured in days, while ours is measured in years. We should learn from that because supporting Ukraine is not just about defending freedom. And freedom is a fundamental tenet of what makes America great. It is also critical to our national security and preventing future, bigger wars. Not only would victory make Putin stronger to strike further into Europe, but if the United States abandons Ukraine, what message does that send to our friends across the globe? It tells them we are untrustworthy and unreliable. Now, as significant as that is, the bigger deal is what we would see from China. The Chinese watch everything, and they want to take Taiwan. If they view our loyalty to our partners and allies as weak, they are more likely to take Taiwan by force. If that happens, this President or any future President will have to make one of the most consequential decisions in the history of our country. My goal is to prevent that moment. My goal in the Senate is and will continue to be to keep us out of wars. And I think that is true for most combat veterans like myself. So I came back this week with the message that we need to fix this mess and get back to supporting Ukraine. Now, I am glad that already there has been positive movement. The announcement from the American and Ukrainian negotiations in Saudi Arabia yesterday, led by Secretary Rubio and the National Security Advisor Tim Walz, was a step forward. Once again, we are supporting Ukraine with military security assistance and with intelligence aid, and we are working toward a resolution to this war that guarantees Ukraine's security. And Ukraine accepted a proposal for an immediate 30-day cease-fire. Now, this is going to come down to whether Putin will accept these terms and commit to a real negotiation. So far, he has shown no indication that he is ready for peace. Putin started this war by breaking a cease-fire. He has mobilized his entire country and the help of other dictators like Kim Jong Un to try to win this war, and every single day, his soldiers commit war crimes. Not only must he agree to the terms of this cease-fire; he has to be held to them by the United States and our allies. America is the strongest and richest country in the world. We didn't get here by being bullies like Vladimir Putin. We got there by leading from the front and bringing our allies along with us and standing by them like they stand by us. The safety and security of all of us--our kids, our grandkids-- depends on the United States continuing to keep its word, standing for democracy, and looking out for Americans by being smart and strong and standing up to the bullies. That is what I will hold this President to, and I urge my colleagues--Republicans and Democrats alike--to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. KELLY

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