John Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, I will do that, but I don't want to be unfair to my Democratic colleagues. I don't believe in surprising people. Senator Schatz told me--we had a conversation last night--he said he was going to object. I respect that. And if he has left the building, I don't want to go behind his back. So I don't want to do that unless you can communicate with him. Is he still here? Mr. President, do we know if Senator Schatz is still here? Because I would like to urge reconsideration, but I don't want to blindside him. Who should I ask that to? Tuck? Tuck says: Don't bring me into this. Gary? I mean, I would like to urge a reconsideration, but I am not going to do it and blindside Brian. Can I bring it back later? Could I get a ruling on that? Could I ask that we contact Senator Schatz and tell him I am thinking about reconsidering but I don't want to blindside him, Mr. President?

Mr. KENNEDY. What if I made a motion? Could I move that we contact Senator Schatz and tell him I would like to move to reconsider but I don't want to blindside him?

Mr. KENNEDY. I just made it up. You are telling me I can't do that under the rules? Why not? I don't get it. I mean, I could move to reconsider and blindside him, but I don't want to do that. So why can't I move to reconsider subject to us waiting for Brian to get back so he has a full opportunity to be heard? Can I do that?

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure, there is. I just made it. Are you saying that the motion is out of order? Look, this is a serious matter.

Mr. KENNEDY. This is a serious matter. Now, we have established that this resolution doesn't affect the House. It just says to the Senators: While we are in a shutdown, no Senator is going to be paid. You don't lose your money. You pick it up after it is over, after the shutdown is lifted. We have established the fact that this went through the Rules Committee unanimously. Did I mention it went through unanimously, that every single Democrat and every single Republican said: Yes, Kennedy; let's do this. We have established that even though there are varying degrees of wealth among Members of the Senate--and I say that is great--every single Senator makes at least $170,000 here. They are not going to lose a penny--not one single, solitary penny. Once the shutdown is over, they get their money. We have established that. We have established that there are 260,000--not 2,600, not 26,000--260,000 of our colleagues working in the department of health and hospitals that are not being paid. And a lot of these people do not have immense wealth, but they are not being paid because of our conduct. And I think we have established that this is a chance to show, in a little bitty way--a minor way, a baby step--that we are going to share their sacrifice. And there has been an objection. I heard that ruling from the Chair. But for the life of me, I don't know how you can object without seeking recognition, without having recognition. I have never heard that one, OK. We are getting into the foothills of la-la land here as far as I am concerned. Now, I just made a motion. I want to bring this bill to be reconsidered. And all I am asking--I don't want to blindside my friend Senator Schatz. I don't play that way. I want to give him full opportunity. All I am asking is that somebody call Senator Schatz and let him know that I am going to move to reconsider and I don't want to do it behind his back. That is all I am asking. So I make that motion. Is there an objection?

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, there you go. My good friend--the Senator didn't have--she didn't have recognition either. How is that possible? All right. I am coming back, Mr. President. And I am coming back and I am coming back and I am coming back. Did I mention I will be back? And if a Member of this body disagrees with what I am doing, then, by God, they ought to come down here and stand up in front of the U.S. Senate and stand up in front of the American people and stand up in front of God and stand up in front of country and stand up in front of all these people--these good people that aren't being paid--and say: Here is why. Maybe we need to change the Senate rules, Mr. President. I appreciate your patience. And I would like to ask, Mr. President--this probably is an improper motion, too--I have got to delve a little bit more on this improper motion stuff. I want to see the rule that says I can't do what I just tried to do, and I want to see it bigger than Dallas. I don't want to see that it is implied or is a penumbra, and I want to see the rule that says somebody can come into this body without recognition and be heard because I don't believe it, and anybody that believes that--no disrespect-- shouldn't be driving.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to have the quorum call be suspended.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

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

Mr. KENNEDY. I will be back.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with me today is Mr. John Lowery, one of my colleagues from my office. As the Presiding Officer knows, Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Congress have a dispute over funding the Department of Homeland Security. And it is such a serious dispute that that Department is shut down. Now, every now and then, there is a dispute in Washington, DC, that says something prophetic--something prophetic about the future of western civilization. This is not it. This dispute is silly. Every single Member of this body knows how important the Department of Homeland Security is. Most people recently think that Homeland Security is border security, and ICE, interior security of our immigration system. But Homeland Security is responsible for so much more. FEMA is part of Homeland Security. It is shut down. The Coast Guard is part of our Department of Homeland Security. It is shut down. The CISA dealing with cyber security is part of Department of Homeland Security. It is shut down. The TSA is part of Homeland Security. They are working without pay, and not all of our colleagues in the TSA are working. This is the result, and it is going to get worse. Now, for reasons that I don't--well, let me put this a different way. Some would argue and the party line is that we are making progress in terms of resolving this dispute. That is not true. I mean, I know that is the party line and conventional wisdom, and every now and then you will see a reporter report that, but it is not true. For reasons I don't completely understand, for a while my Democratic friends said: We are only going to negotiate with the White House. And they have been negotiating with the White House for some time, but they are nowhere near agreement. Recently, some of my Democratic colleagues have met with two of my Republican colleagues and Mr. Tom Homan--it happened yesterday--to see if we could make progress. Again, the conventional wisdom, the party line that we are supposed to tell everybody is that we are making progress, but I have spoken directly with the people who were at that meeting yesterday here among just Senators and Mr. Homan. On a scale of 1 to 10--I will describe it as they described it to me--about a minus 17. We made no progress, and I regret that, but I understand it. Let me see if I can state--I don't say this disrespectfully. I try to--what I am about to say, I want people to know I am serene in saying this, and I don't mean to offend anyone, but we all know what is going on. Our Democratic friends will agree to open up TSA, thank you. To open up FEMA, to open up the Coast Guard, to open up the CISA, thank you, thank you, thank you. But they haven't agreed, despite concessions on our side, to open up ICE. And they are not going to. It is not going to happen in your or my natural lifetime. And if you have been following this debate and you understand the politics, you don't need to be able to explain the theory of special relativity to know what is going on. It is not complicated. Parties have wings, factions within their parties. I am a Republican; we have factions. Democrats also have factions. And a specific faction of the Democratic Party right now is in control. That is just a fact. You could call it the progressive wing; some call it that. The more cynical call it the loon wing of the Democratic Party. I on occasion have referred to it as the Karen wing of the Democratic Party. The Karen wing wants to defund ICE, and they will accept nothing less. Now, this is the same wing of their party that also wanted to defund the police. How did that work out for us? This is the same wing of their party that has a very novel way to reduce the crime rate in America: Just don't prosecute anyone, and our crime rate goes to zero. Now, I don't mean to paint with too broad a brush. Not all my Democratic friends agree with the loon, the Karen wing of their party-- they don't--just like not all Republicans are part of the factions in my party. But it is a fact that the Karen wing of the Democratic Party is in ascendancy, and it is firmly in control. And any Democrat--we all know this--that agrees to any kind of compromise with respect to ICE is going to be punished to the rest of their natural lives. They can't do it, and they are not going to. Now, we can keep having meetings and discussing it; we have been doing it for weeks. Most of these meetings could easily be accomplished with an email. I have been part of the discussions in our conference. I am convinced that listening to the same thing over and over and over again is lowering my IQ, when we know that nothing is going to resolve this because my Democratic friends politically can't agree to a compromise about ICE. So here is what I think we ought to do: I think that we should accept the Democrats' offer to open up TSA and to open up FEMA and to open up Coast Guard and to open up and fund CISA. Let's get that done. Let's shorten these lines, and then the day after we do that, Republicans need to file a reconciliation bill, which is the same way we passed the One Big Beautiful Bill, and on our own, we need to come up with a budget for ICE. It is the only way to solve this problem. Now, as the Presiding Officer knows, under the Budget Control Act, we can pass legislation. There are parameters on us, but that only requires 51 votes. That is how we passed the One Big Beautiful Bill. Under the rules, we are allowed to do two more reconciliations, so we have two bullets left. For reasons that I don't completely understand-- well, strike that. I think I do understand. I just don't agree with them--some on my side are reluctant to do any more reconciliations. And they are hard, OK? I know they are hard. They are hard for my Democratic friends when they do it, and they are hard for us when we do it. You know, that is what we were sent here for, is to do hard things. I mean, med school was hard, but we still have a lot of great doctors. We ought to do our job. That is the only way I can see that we are going to be able to break the stalemate. So let me say again what I would do if I were King for a day. I am not, and I don't aspire to be. I would accept my Democratic friends' offer to immediately open up the TSA, FEMA, the Coast Guard, the CISA-- every part of the Department of Homeland Security except ICE. I would stop looking reality in the eye and denying it and accept the fact that my Democratic colleagues, because of their internal politics, will never be able to reach an agreement with respect to ICE. It is not going to happen. In the meantime, these lines get longer. So, once we can get that agreement with our Democratic colleagues, the very next day, we start a resolution in the Budget Committee, and we do a second reconciliation bill. We fund ICE and border security-- what is still shut down in Homeland Security--like we want to. I would welcome my Democrats to work with us on a bill, but they will not. We only need 51 votes to do it. Then the government--all of government--is back open. Now, there are other things that we could do in that reconciliation bill. I have talked about them, and I am not going to repeat what I said yesterday. My side feels very strongly about the SAVE Act. We believe that only Americans--citizens of our country--should be able to vote, and we believe that you shouldn't be able to vote unless you can prove you are who you say you are. My Democratic colleagues, in my trying to be as serene and objective as I can, come back and say: Yes, but there is another side of this argument. It is already against the law to not be a citizen and try to register. And I understand that. Then they come back and make the point: Well, you cannot show me where we have had a lot of instances of illegal immigrants actually voting. And I understand that--those are fair points--but that is not what we are fighting about. What we are fighting about is that President Biden, for whatever reason, admitted between--I don't know how many--8 million, 12 million, 15 million, 20 million people illegally into our country. He did--we all watched him do it--and we don't even know where these people are. We don't. Some of them were children. We don't know where all the children are. We don't. I am not saying all of those folks were bad people. I am not saying that. A lot of them were economic migrants. They just wanted better lives, and so they wanted to come to America. They chose not to do it through legal immigration. If they would do it legally, we could consider admitting them--we admit a million people a year of our world's neighbors to become American citizens--but they came illegally because, frankly, President Biden said to do it, and they did it. Not everybody was Cinderella who came in. Some people who came in were criminals. They were murderers. They were rapists. They were drug dealers. They were sex traffickers. We all know that. That is what our ICE, right now, is trying to do. It is trying to find these people who shouldn't be in any country--their own, ours, anywhere. They ought to be jailed and fined. But here is my point: As a result--and we all saw it happen, and the American people saw it happen. They get it. The American people may not read Aristotle every day--they are too busy earning a living--but they get it. And a whole bunch of Americans believe, whether it is true or not--and I am not saying it is true. I am not saying it isn't true because I think some of my Democratic colleagues believe this--but many Americans--millions of Americans--have concluded that this was all by design; that these 8, 10, 15, 20 million people who were admitted illegally into America was a way to try to bolster the Democratic Party. So these folks will be beholden to the Democratic Party and will try to vote and/or, once they become citizens, if they become citizens, will vote for Democrats. Again, some of the commentators who go catatonic and foam at the mouth when I talk about this--but we all know it is true--call this the replacement theory. I am not saying all Democrats believe that, and I am not here to say it is true or not, though I think there are some of my Democratic friends who believe that. But that is not the point. The point is the American people believe it, so they no longer trust our electoral system, and our elections are not worth a damn if people don't accept the result. If they don't trust the system, they are not going to accept the result. That is why we are moving the SAVE Act. I support it unconditionally. We are going to have difficulty passing it. That much is clear. So, as part of a reconciliation bill for us to get ICE back up and running, I would include the SAVE Act as part of that reconciliation bill as well. We wouldn't need 60 votes. We wouldn't need 55 votes. We would only need 51 votes. We passed the One Big Beautiful Bill with 50 votes, with the Vice President breaking the tie. Again, I feel like I am repeating some of what I said yesterday. Some of my colleagues are going to say: Kennedy, you know, you need to back away from the crank. You can't do this through reconciliation. You can't do the SAVE Act through reconciliation. And I tell them: I have been here 10 years, and we can do what the Parliamentarian says we can do. I have seen measures get approved under the Budget Control Act--we call it a Byrd bath--that I thought didn't have a chance, and I have seen others not get approved that were slam dunks. As I said, I am in the minority on this even among my Republican colleagues. I don't mean this to sound bad, but sometimes the majority just means all the fools are on the same side. I am not calling my colleagues fools, but I am saying this is worth a try. I would go get a really smart lawyer and ask him to help us craft a SAVE Act that can survive a Byrd bath. I would do those two things in reconciliation or at least open up ICE through reconciliation. We don't need to do it with Democratic support. I have been thinking about this for a while. Senator Cruz talked about this much more eloquently than I did at our luncheon yesterday. I hope Ted will come down and share with you, at some point, his thoughts on it. I see Senator Cornyn here. They are two pretty smart lawyers who could help us craft something. I just wanted to come spend a few minutes and offer my point of view on that. I thank the Presiding Officer for hearing me out and for being serene and patient and all that other good stuff. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with me today is Mr. Matt Turner, one of my colleagues from my office.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147, and let's start the vote as we were supposed to do at 1:45.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use a prop during my remarks.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, before I go to my topics, I want to recognize one of my colleagues, Mr. Connor Domingue. He is sitting to my right, your left. Connor has been one of my colleagues for a while. I rely on him a lot, including for counseling with respect to healthcare. Connor is a graduate of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. He is leaving me. I hate to see him go. I am happy for him--sad for me, happy for him. He is going back home to Louisiana to take a job in Louisiana State government. And I asked him to come down today to just thank him for giving so much to his country--Connor. Coffee Mr. President, I want to talk about two rather diverse topics, coffee and our friends in the United Kingdom. About 90 percent of my personal philosophy is: Don't hurt someone unless they are trying to hurt you. Don't take other people's stuff. And leave me alone. I believe in free will. I believe God gave us all free will. With that free will goes responsibility. I don't need government to tell me how to live my life. That doesn't mean I don't support reasonable rules and regulations and laws. But I don't need government to micromanage my life. That is what I mean when I say: ``Leave me alone.'' Earlier this month--it might have been the last part of last month--I noticed that Secretary Kennedy started talking about coffee. Particularly, he mentioned Starbucks coffee. Now, I voted for Secretary Kennedy to be the President's choice. I like Secretary Kennedy. I don't agree with everything that Secretary Kennedy has said and done. We have some differences. I use a toilet seat to sit on. I won't go any further on that. But one of the things I support Secretary Kennedy on is trying to make the American people more cognizant about what they are eating, not to tell them what they can eat and drink but to make them aware. And so I heard Bobby talking about Starbucks coffee--pretty popular. I am paraphrasing what he said, but he commented on how bad it is for you. So I scratched my head and said: You know, I am going to look into this. So I did. This is a cup of Starbucks coffee. I know that doesn't give you any frame of reference, but I checked--the most popular Starbucks coffee drink is a caramel macchiato--caramel macchiato. Now, I don't know what that is. I haven't had it. I generally don't drink coffee that takes 10 or more words to order. But I am told that Starbucks' most popular drink is the caramel macchiato. It will cost you, at Union Station--here is a macchiato cup from Starbucks. I am told it will cost you $6.88 to buy a large caramel macchiato at Union Station. Now, again, I am not telling people what to drink or how to spend their money, but I will tell you if you want to come by my office, you can get coffee for free. It won't be a caramel macchiato, but it is pretty dang good coffee. But be that as it may, I said: You know, I have got to look into what is in a caramel macchiato. Here is what is in a caramel macchiato: milk, brewed espresso, vanilla syrup--I didn't know what vanilla syrup was. I found out that vanilla syrup is sugar, water, natural flavors, potassium sorbate, and citric acid. Also in a caramel macchiato is caramel sauce. Makes sense. That is why they call it a caramel macchiato. Caramel sauce is sugar, corn syrup, butter, cream, milk, and salt. Also in a caramel macchiato is water, heavy cream, nonfat dry milk, natural flavors, salt, mono and diglycerides--I probably mispronounced that--soy lecithin--I probably mispronounced that too, but I don't know what the hell it is anyway--and sulfites. Now, not to put too fine a point on it, but in a caramel macchiato, there are 310 calories; 80 of those calories come from fat. The total fat in a caramel macchiato is 9 grams. Saturated fat is 6 grams; cholesterol, 35 milligrams; sodium, 190 milligrams--whoa, Nellie--total carbohydrates, 44 grams; protein, 13 grams; and caffeine, 150 milligrams. Of the total of 44 grams of carbohydrates--the sugar got my attention--42 grams of that is sugar. That is about 85 percent of your recommended daily sugar intake. So one of these, you have got 85 percent of the amount of sugar that you are supposed to take in for the day. Fat intake, one of these provides you with 30 percent of your recommended daily saturated fat intake and 12 percent of your recommended daily cholesterol intake. Again, I am not criticizing anybody--well, there goes the caramel macchiato. Grab it for me there. I am not telling anybody what to do or not to do. I am just pointing out the facts. A caramel macchiato has as much sugar as 12 Chips Ahoy cookies. A caramel macchiato has as much sugar as four Krispy Kreme glazed doughnuts. A caramel macchiato--the most popular drink at Starbucks--has as much sugar as two servings of Breyers cookies and cream ice cream. It has as much sugar as one Chick-fil-A brownie. And it has about as much sugar as about 50 percent of a medium McDonald's chocolate milkshake. You can burn off the calories, though, if you run 3 miles to burn off the calories. So, again, I am not here to tell people what they should drink or not drink or eat or not drink, but I wanted the American people, to the extent that they are listening and that they care to understand, why I think Secretary Kennedy made the point that he made about coffee that takes 10 or more words to order--and specifically Starbucks coffee. Iran Now, the second thing I want to talk about, our friends in the United Kingdom--and they are our friends. I love the people of the United Kingdom. I do. I went to school there for a while. They are wonderful people. They deserve better than the government that they are being given right now. I don't mean any disrespect in saying this, but I am not a big fan of the Prime Minister, Prime Minister Starmer. The United Kingdom was founded by geniuses, but at the moment, it is being run by idiots. We entered Iran because we had no choice. I don't want America to be the world's policemen; I do not. But on occasion, some of the bad guys in the world decide they are going to be the world's policemen, and it requires us to intervene, and that is why we are in Iran--if I said Iraq, I made a mistake--that is why we are in Iran. The President did not enter Iran to start a war. He entered Iran to prevent a war. Let me tell you why I say that. Our intelligence clearly showed--categorically, unequivocally--that Iran had restarted its nuclear warhead program. And let me say, I love the people of Iran too. I mean that. I don't think much of their political leadership. The good people of Iran basically are being governed--before and, now, with the new Supreme Leader--by Jack Nicholson in The Shining. They are stone- cold crazy. Their religion teaches them--their interpretation of their religion tells them that they have to kill people who don't interpret their religion the same way that they do, and when your religion tells you to kill somebody, as far as I am concerned, it is time to get a new religion. But be that as it may, our intelligence clearly showed that Iran had restarted its nuclear weapons program; and its plan was to produce so many ballistic missiles and, to some extent, cruise missiles and drones. In fact, they were producing between 200 and 600 ballistic missiles a month. Our intelligence showed that their plan was to stockpile so many missiles and so many drones that if we reentered--or anyone reentered Iran to stop their new efforts to obtain a nuclear warhead, that they would annihilate the entire Middle East--the entire Middle East--and other countries they could reach, like Turkey. That is a fact. That is what the intelligence showed. So the President, wanting to avoid a future war, said: I have got to intervene now. And here is our mission--I don't care what you have heard; this is what our mission is in Iran. We want to destroy their Navy. We want to destroy Iran's Air Force. We want to destroy Iran's missile production facilities. We want to destroy Iran's drone production facilities. We want to destroy or make them use as many of their missiles as they have--and their drones--and we want to attack and destroy the infrastructure used by the Revolutionary Guard, and then we want to get out. Now, there has been a lot of speculation by some of my Democratic friends that, well, the President is going to put boots on the ground. I don't believe that. I don't believe that. If the President puts boots on the ground, the thud you hear will be me face-planting from surprise. I will faint. How long will this take? I think a few more weeks, and then we will be out. Was our intelligence right? You had better believe it was. What is the very first thing that the Iranian leadership did? They started attacking all of the other countries in the Middle East. They even fired a missile at Turkey. They even fired a missile at the United Kingdom, one of its bases in Cyprus. Now, I give you this background so you will know why the President did what he did. Everything I just told you, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom knew. He had the same intelligence we had. When it came time for us to intervene, he said: You cannot use any United Kingdom air force bases or military bases--none, zero, nada. He specifically said you can't use Diego Garcia, the joint United States-United Kingdom military base in the Indian Ocean that Keir Starmer is trying to give away to Mauritius. You have heard me talk about it on the Senate floor. And Mauritius, of course, will welcome the Chinese. Now, once the war started going the way of people who believe in freedom, Prime Minister Starmer changed his mind. Now, he says: You can use our bases. Thank you very much. It is a little late. We don't need you. He also is trying to give President Trump advice about how to conduct war. That is a little bit like seeking the advice of a nun about sex. So Keir Starmer is the last person you would want to go to, to advise you about how to have a military confrontation. He is the kind of guy that, if you are in the middle of a bar fight, he will want to stop and quote Socrates. That is what this is, a bar fight. And so I decided after watching this circus without a tent, this goat rodeo that the Prime Minister has thrust upon the world, I said, you know, let me take a look at what the Prime Minister's plans are in terms of defense because, if you remember about a year ago January, the Prime Minister produced this report--that is all it was, was a report-- but he called it a root-and-branch strategic defense review, and its purpose was to settle the United Kingdom's military path for years to come. It was ready last--not this past January, but the January before. He didn't produce it until this past summer. The Prime Minister makes a big deal in his report. He says: We have changed our ways. We have been born again. We are now going to spend 2.6 of our GDP on defense by 2027. I am thinking: Good for you. It is about time. He said: This is going to be in line with all of our NATO allies--2.6 of our GDP on defense by 2027. He said: By God, by 2035, we are going to be spending 3.5 percent. I am thinking: Man, that is great. And then I read the report. The cash is backloaded. He didn't bother to tell the people of the United Kingdom or NATO or the President. The cash is backloaded. He is not going to even start spending the money-- the real money--until the 2030s. That is 4 years from now. He is going to make it somebody else's problem. I can assure you the Prime Minister will not be the Prime Minister in 2030 and beyond. Talk about sleight of hand. If you run the numbers, there is a great deal of inflation in defense production because so many countries now are starting to actually spend more money on defense--not promising to do so by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. So you have to factor in inflation. Under the Prime Minister's plan to not even start spending the real money until 2030, the defense inflation is going to eat away at the amount of money that he has promised to spend. If you factor in reasonable defense production, the numbers come out to him actually spending 24 billion--$32 billion--less than he promised. Do you think he couldn't figure that out? His numbers guys know all about it. This is nothing but sleight of hand. In fact, one commentator in the United Kingdom has said it is even--it is worse. According to his computations, there is going to be a 28 billion gap over 4 years--over 4 years. Now, the United Kingdom has also promised to work with us and Australia on building an Australian--a new attack submarine. Is the Prime Minister going to wait until 2030 to do that? We can't wait until 2030. Now, look, these are the facts: The United Kingdom has about 140,000 soldiers, members of the military. And God bless every one of them. God bless every one of them. They are down 20 percent since 2012--and declining. To give you a frame of reference, the United States has 2.1 million members of the military. They have 140,000. It is 2.8 million if you include civilian support staff for our military. So when we first heard that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was going to start spending 2.6 percent, up to 3.5 percent of GDP on defense, of course we got excited. It is about time that the people in Europe embrace adulthood and stop sending us the bill for their defense. So we were excited. I was excited. I was ready to come down here and congratulate the Prime Minister, and then I read the fine print. Sleight of hand. It is all sleight of hand. Now, if I am wrong, I hope the Prime Minister will respond, but if I am right, shame on him. Shame on him for looking the good people of the United Kingdom in the eye and the good people of the world in the eye and lying and saying that the United Kingdom would do its part when the Prime Minister has no intention whatsoever. The final point I will make--you have heard me: The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom wants to give away a military base, a joint military base that we own with the United Kingdom called Diego Garcia. It is in the middle of the Indian Ocean. The Prime Minister has decided he has to give it to Mauritius. Mauritius never owned the Chagos Islands, one of which houses our military base. Mauritius has no connection to the Islands. But the United Nations told the Prime Minister that he should be ashamed and that the good people of the United Kingdom should be ashamed because of the United Kingdom's colonial past. So Mr. Starmer, woke that he is, said: We have got to give it away, we want to give it away to Mauritius--who is just like this with China. You might as well just hand the keys to China. To do that, Mr. Starmer has to get President Trump's permission, and I have been round and round with the President. I don't know how many times I have been on this floor talking about: Please stop it, Mr. President. One day--I am not criticizing the President because he has to listen to his advisers. I get that. First, he was against it. Then, he was for it. Then, he was against it. Then, he was for it. His last comment--I think he has figured Mr. Starmer, the Prime Minister, out. He said: No way, no how. He said: No sir, no, ma'am, no way. I am not giving you permission. Please stick, Mr. President. Please don't do it. For us to give away that military base, which will end up in the hands of China, for us to give away one of the few places in the Indian Ocean that we can actually refuel our submarines, for us to give away what--this isn't hyperbole. It is one of the most important military bases in defense of the American people. For us to give it away would be unconscionable. Tell Mr. Starmer no, Mr. President.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, March 11; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate resume consideration of Calendar No. 343, H.R. 6644, Housing for the 21st Century Act; further, that all time during recess, adjournment, and leader remarks count postcloture on substitute amendment No. 4308 to Calendar No. 343, H.R. 6644.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to say a brief word about two subjects today: First, hockey, a wonderful sport. It requires endurance, stamina, hand-eye coordination, balance. I have never played hockey. My son did in high school, and he was good. He was very good. Because he was interested in hockey, I learned a lot about it. I went to his games, his practices. I really learned to admire the sport and the talented people who play hockey. As an aside, I will tell you one lesson I learned about hockey through my son: You can't wash hockey gear. And as you probably know, Mr. President, you carry the hockey gear around-- hockey players do--in these big duffel bags, huge, which, of course, they zip up, and my son did that. When he would come in from practice or a game--and I would help him with his bag full of gear that you can't wash. Be very, very careful when you unzip that bag because the smell will knock you cold. Why do I mention hockey? Well, we just had a great hockey game. United States v. Canada. The United States won--men's hockey. The United States won, and I am very, very proud of our boys. It was a close, close game, 2 to 1 in overtime. And, of course, we celebrated that victory and congratulated our U.S. team at the State of the Union Address. But I want to mention Canada. I think it is important to know that Canada has got a great team too. That was just a really good game, and it could have gone either way. And I so admire the people of Canada. Things get rocky a little bit between us--between America and Canada-- but deep down Americans love the people of Canada. They are smart and they are hard-working and they are industrious and they are our neighbors and, you know, we just appreciate them so much. And I just wanted to say to the members of the Canadian hockey team: Well played. Well, well played. I am proud of America and our boys for winning, but I am proud of the young men who played for Canada as well, and I wanted to say that. Netflix The second thing I want to talk about, briefly, is Netflix--Netflix and lawfare. Permit me to explain. I love Netflix. I don't get to watch a lot of television, but sometimes when I come in, in the evening and I want to relax, I will watch one of the shows on Netflix. And, you know, they have shows like--I wrote a few down--``Godless,'' ``Adolescence,'' ``Ripley,'' ``The Queen's Gambit''--just wonderful, wonderful acting. I really admire Netflix. It is a great American company. The ingenuity, the creativity that its founders had to have to come up with this concept--you know, video demand through streaming. Netflix is so successful today. They have 325 million subscribers. Their movies go out and their limited series go out all across the world; 56 languages, I think. Netflix has 16,000 employees. They generate about $45 billion a year in cashflow. It is just a great American company, and I am proud of them. That is why I was so surprised to hear recently some of the things said by one of the Netflix board of directors. I don't know how many directors Netflix has. I think it is anywhere from 10, 11, 12, 13-- really bright people. You go through and read their resumes, you can't help but be impressed. They are well compensated. Now, just to be a board member, they pay you $300,000 a year. But I was shocked to hear what one of their board members said. And I don't know if this board member was speaking for Netflix because she is so prominent. She is well-known, and it is well-known that she is on the board of Netflix. I think she was on the board of Netflix and then went into government. I am talking, of course, about Ms. Susan Rice, who worked for President Obama and President Biden; a Stanford graduate; a Rhodes Scholar; has a DPhil from Oxford. Ms. Rice--I guess I should say Dr. Rice--is absolutely brilliant. But anyway, one of her paying gigs right now--I suspect she will go back into government. One of her paying gigs right now is she is a very prominent independent director for Netflix. And it is very hard to--I mean, when she is so prominent, and you have this extraordinary American company, it is--they are kind of joined at the hip. That is why I was so surprised. I want to read you what Ms. Rice said. I am going to quote. These are her words, not mine. This is what Ms. Rice said: When it comes to the elites, you know, the corporate interests, the law firms, the universities, the media . . . it is not going to end well for them. For those that decided that . . . [they] would act in their perceived very narrow self-interest, which I would underscore is very short-term self-interest, and . . . take a knee to Trump-- Not President Trump, not Mr. Trump-- take a knee to Trump-- As an aside, that surprised me because when I talk about President Obama or President Biden or President Trump, I am always very careful to call them President. Democrat or Republican, it is a matter of respect. But she said--I am going to repeat this sentence: For those that decided . . . [they] would act in their perceived very narrow self-interest-- Ms. Rice said-- which I would underscore is very short-term self-interest, and . . . take a knee to Trump . . . they are going to be caught with more than their pants down, they're going to be held accountable by those who come in opposition to Trump and win at the ballot box. [I]f these corporations-- I don't know if she is talking about Netflix or not. I know she is on the board of Netflix. [I]f these corporations think that the Democrats-- Ms. Rice, as you probably know, is a prominent Democrat. [I]f these corporations think that the Democrats, when they come back in power, are going to play by the old rules and say, ``Oh, never mind, we'll forgive you for all the people you fired, all the policies and principles you've violated, all . . . the laws you've skirted,'' I think they've got another thing coming.'' Because just like when Trump fought-- Once again, ``Trump,'' not President Trump-- Because just like when Trump thought, ``Ok, I will redistrict, and the Democrats won't have the guts to play hardball, they are going to be surprised.'' Democrats have had a bellyful, and we are not going to play by the old set of rules when these guys are playing by a different set of rules. Ms. Rice talked about being surprised. I am surprised. I am shocked. What came to mind, initially, when I read these words, is: You can only be young once, but you can always be immature. You can only be young once, but you can always be immature. What Ms. Rice is talking about is payback. What Ms. Rice seems to be saying is two wrongs don't make it right, but they do make it even. What Ms. Rice seems to be saying--and I don't know whether she is speaking on behalf of Netflix or not--but what Ms. Rice seems to be saying is that it is OK in America today to use the law to prosecute and harass your political enemies. I find that astounding coming from a person of her stature. That is the sort of thing that doesn't happen in America. That is the sort of thing that is only supposed to happen in countries whose Powerball jackpot is 287 chickens and a goat, not America. We believe in the rule of law. We believe in equal protection. We believe nobody is above the law but nobody is beneath it. I can't think of a more irresponsible statement for somebody to make. I remember when former President Biden started this lawfare business. Former President Biden, directly or indirectly, instructed Judge Merrick Garland, who was then-Attorney General, to prosecute a former President of the United States--a former President of the United States who had run against President Biden, Attorney General Garland's boss, and a former President of the United States who, at the time he was prosecuted by the Justice Department, was a current opponent against President Biden. And I remember thinking at the time: They have unleashed spirits they cannot control. That is not what America is all about. And I know some are going to say: Well, President Trump is doing the same thing. If that is true, I don't like that either. In fact, when many of President Trump's nominees for the Justice Department came and appeared before us for confirmation in Judiciary, on which I sit, I talked to them about this. I said ``Two wrongs don't make a right, but they do make it even'' is wrong. It was wrong then, when President Biden did it, it is wrong now if people are doing it, and it is going to be wrong if Ms. Rice gets back into government. And it is wrong for her to advocate this, especially if she is doing it on behalf of Netflix, a great American company. Gosh. You can only be young once, but--man, oh, man--you can always be immature. I suggest the absence of a quorum unless the Parliamentarian wants me to yield to somebody. She is pointing to Senator McCormick, so I am going to yield to my good friend, the distinguished, handsome Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have six requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with me today is one of my colleagues from my office, Ms. Candice Humble. She is a member of my communications team. She is not responsible for anything I say. I am losing her. She is not leaving government; she is going to work for the White House. Today is her last day, and I asked her to come down so that I could thank Candice publicly for all of her extraordinary work and for giving so much to the people in Louisiana and to the American people. Iran Mr. President, about 90 percent of my personal and political philosophy is, don't hurt someone unless they are trying to hurt you first, don't take other people's stuff, and leave me alone--let me live my life, exercising the free will and responsibility that God gave-- which leads me to my first topic: Iran. I am not talking about the people of Iran. I am talking about the political and religious leadership of the Government of Iran. I am talking about the Ayatollah and his followers. In America, we separate government from religion. Not in Iran, thanks to the Ayatollah. The government tells you what religion to practice. The government is the religion. Now, everybody has the right to believe what they want. I will tell you what the Ayatollah believes. He is Muslim, but his strain of Islam says that if you do not agree with his interpretation of God, then you deserve to die. You do. And he acts on that belief. Now, let me say again, the Ayatollah is entitled to believe what he wants. I was raised a Presbyterian. My parents founded two Presbyterian churches. When Becky and I got married, Becky was a Methodist, and I was a Presbyterian. We compromised: I became a Methodist. I am entitled to believe what I want. But the Ayatollah not only thinks that I am going to Hell because I don't agree with his religion; he wants to kill me. He wants to kill Americans and Israelis and anybody who does not believe in his jihad and drink our blood out of a boot. And he has acted on that. I don't need to tell the Presiding Officer. I don't need to tell the Presiding Officer. He has acted on that, and that is not acceptable. Now, a lot of the people in Iran--the good people in Iran--don't agree with the Ayatollah. If they disagree with him too loudly, he just kills them. The Ayatollah--it has actually been the case for the last--I don't know--10, 15, 20 years--the Ayatollah has decided he wants a nuclear warhead. Why should we care? I hear from some of my fellow Americans all the time: Why do we need to be involved in Iran? Why should we care? Well, No. 1, we are not trying to start a war in Iran; the President is trying to end a war in Iran. If the Ayatollah gets a nuclear weapon, he will use it. He could use it against America. He could use it against Israel. I don't know who he will use it against, and I hope I am wrong, but he will use it. Do you know what else will happen as soon as he gets a nuclear weapon? Saudi Arabia is going to get a nuclear weapon, and the UAE is going to get a nuclear weapon, and Japan is going to get a nuclear weapon, and South Korea, and I could go on and on and on. The more nuclear weapons you have in the world, the more likely you are to have a nuclear war. But that is not the only thing the Ayatollah has done since he became the Ayatollah. He exports terrorism. He was the person behind Hamas and Hezbollah that have killed so many people throughout the world--not just in the Middle East but across the world--including but not limited to Americans. That is why we ought to care. The Ayatollah also has conventional ballistic missiles and is building more as we speak. Now, those missiles can't reach America yet, but they are working on one. And they can sure reach our military bases in the Middle East, and they can sure reach Israel. Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am. That is why we should care. Finally, the Ayatollah, if you disagree with him--and we have seen it happen on TV. We don't know how many people he has hung in the last 6 months. We don't know how many people he has tortured. I have seen estimates as high as 50,000. So that is what this business with Iran is all about. We are not trying to be the world's policeman; we are trying to stop the Ayatollah from being the world's policeman. He is getting a lot of support from President Xi Jinping in China and Vladimir Putin in Russia and Kim Jong Un in North Korea. So that is where we find ourselves trying to stop this war. To the Ayatollah, I would say: Ayatollah, you are entitled to believe what you want. You can hate me. You can believe that. I know you hate me and what I stand for. You know how I sleep at night knowing that you hate me? With the fan on. That is your right. But you can't act on that belief. Put down the nuclear weapons. Put down the nuclear enrichment. Stop exporting terrorism through Hamas and Hezbollah. End your missile program. Stop killing and torturing your people. That is all we want, and he is doing that as we speak. He is at war; we are trying to stop it. I am not about to give the President any advice. He has intelligence that I don't have, and I respect the fact that he is being very deliberate and careful in making a decision. If we make a deal with Iran, let's make sure we have a protocol to enforce it because, in my experience in watching the Ayatollah through the years, I wouldn't trust this man if he were 3 days dead. I wouldn't trust him if he were 3 days dead. Anybody whose religion tells them that in order to be saved, they have to go kill hundreds of millions of people--you can believe it if you want, but as far as I am concerned, it is time to get a new religion. That is what we are doing in Iran. Let me say it again. We are not trying to start a war. This war began a long time ago. We are trying to end it. Our President presiding today knows exactly what I talked about. He served honorably--at great physical, mental, and emotional expense--in the Middle East. That is what we are trying to stop. New Orleans Mr. President, topic No. 2: New Orleans. I love New Orleans. I am not from New Orleans. I used to live there. I met my wife there. I used to live uptown. I used to practice law in New Orleans. I taught a little while in law school in Baton Rouge, but my first teaching job was going to be in New Orleans before I moved to Baton Rouge. I love New Orleans--one of the most unique cities in the entire world. So what I am about to say, I say from my heart with love and affection and as a former resident and frequent visitor. Here is my message to the political leadership in New Orleans: Get your act together. Get your act together. I don't go to New Orleans that I don't hear from my people down there: We need affordable housing. We need affordable housing. We need affordable housing. Let me tell you something. We spend a lot of money on affordable housing in America, billions every year--the American taxpayer. Not State money. Not local money. This is American taxpayer money. We take that money and send it to States and local governments to build affordable housing for people who can't afford a home, because the American people are so generous. We do that through what are called housing agencies. Every State that I am aware of has a housing agency, and many local governments have a housing agency. The State housing agencies and the local housing agencies take the Federal money and use it--given to them out of the goodness of the American taxpayers' heart--to create affordable housing. We have been doing that for years in New Orleans. There is a local housing authority. We call it HANO, the Housing Authority of New Orleans. It is run by a board of commissioners appointed by the mayor. Last year, I think we gave them $70 million. By ``we,'' I mean the American taxpayer. They have been around since 1937. The Housing Authority of New Orleans has a spectacular and impressive record of graft, corruption, mismanagement, incompetence, theft. Do you think I am kidding? I came with receipts. It got so bad from 2006 to 2009 that Housing and Urban Development in 2009 had to take them over-- the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. From 2006 to 2009, the chief financial officer of HANO stole $900,000 of taxpayer money. A few years later, the guy running HANO's section 8 voucher department just took a voucher for himself and paid his own rent. The skillethead got caught. Boy, that really gave us confidence. In 2007, the Feds had to step in and investigate--I think in some cases, they prosecuted--a vendor kickback scheme. In 2014, the director of the Housing Authority of New Orleans was investigated for giving out $1 million in no-bid contracts. Guess who they went to. The director's friends. An audit in 2010 found--our auditors couldn't find $7.2 million. I could go on. I could give you a list as long as King Kong's elbow. Now I am going to tell you about the most recent episode that has made me want to stick my head in the oven. We have a housing project in New Orleans called the Guste Homes complex. It is in a part of our city called Central City. It is pretty big. It is not particularly well run, but it is pretty big. It has a 12-story building that houses apartments, and I think they have some townhomes as well. We provide housing--``we,'' once again, being the American taxpayer-- to the elderly and the disabled. They can live there. And the Guste Homes complex--I call it Guste Homes--is run by HANO, the Housing Authority of New Orleans, the board of commissioners appointed by our mayor. The Housing Authority of New Orleans has an administrator--and I am not denigrating her. I don't know anything about her. I am just telling you what is going on. But the board and the administrator of the Housing Authority of New Orleans don't run Guste. They are supposed to. They went and hired a management company to run Guste. And the management company, its overhead is about $8 million a year. I am not kidding you. That is money that doesn't go to provide housing to people; it goes into their pocket. I was looking up one of their consultants. They hired a consultant--I don't think she works there anymore--a Mrs. Sherri--I am going to mispronounce this name--Sengsouvanna. Never met her. I do know that from 2003 to 2024, HANO gave her $660,000 as a consultant. I looked her up. Here is the way she describes herself: I am an author, a grief mentor, and an entrepreneur who has built a career around helping others navigate loss and find spiritual healing. Six hundred and sixty grand to her as a consultant; isn't that special? Well, now, the management company and HANO, they stopped paying the water bill for the people who live in the housing. They have run up a water bill for $1.5 million. They say they don't have the money, and the water company predictably says: Well, hey, we are going to have to cut off your water. What are we going to do with these 310 folks--elderly, disabled--that the American taxpayer gave money to for their housing? And now HANO is saying, you know, don't pay the water bill. The water bill is wrong. I don't know who is right and who is wrong, but I will tell you what else HANO was saying. HANO was saying the Guste project is a mess. Even though we have hired consultants out the wazoo and given them money, we have got a big vacancy rate--no kidding. They don't have running water. We have got a big vacancy, and there is too much deferred maintenance so we want to start over, and, by the way, we want the Federal Government to give us $60 million. When donkeys fly. Now, we have got a new mayor in New Orleans. I am delighted we got some new council people. They have got to do their job. I don't want to hear that we are not responsible for HANO. The mayor appoints them. Get rid of the thieves. Get rid of incompetence. Don't come back and ask for more money to fix your mistakes from the American taxpayer. The good people of New Orleans deserve that. They deserve better. Do better. The people living in this complex deserve better. I have had enough. I have just had enough. Fix it. And if you say: Well, New Orleans--I know, it is a sanctuary city and they have their political beliefs and, by God, they are entitled to them. That is America. You can believe what you want. OK. And they may disagree with the current administration in Washington. That is fine too. This is America, and that has really got nothing to do with this. But you need to clean up your own act first. I don't know how. I can't tell you how to do it, but the American people gave at the office. I can't tell you how to do it. Maybe you are going to have to borrow the money. Maybe you are going to have to actually raise taxes on the people of New Orleans; I hope not. But at some point--at some point--the money has got to come from somewhere. Get your act together before you come back to me or anybody else in Washington, going: You got $60 million dollars lying around? Not only can we not pay the water bill, we want to tear the whole thing down and build a new one and have somebody else pay for it. Gag me with a spoon. Anyway, I am going to miss Candice. Thank you for your good work, Candice. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, since we have a little time, I know we have got the vote coming up, and I am certainly not going to delay that. I like my life too much. But I want to spend a few minutes talking about the Department of Commerce. I had this discussion the other day with our Secretary of Commerce Mr. Harry Lutnick, for whom I have great respect. One of the Agencies in the Department of Commerce is an Agency called the Census Bureau. And I know that sounds like they count people--and they do--but they have a multitude of responsibilities. One of their responsibilities is to define the poverty level in America, tell us who is poor. According to the Census Bureau, if you are single in America and you make $16,000 or less, you are poor; you are below the poverty level. If you are a family of two and you make $20,000 or less, you are at or below the poverty level; a family of three, $27,000; family of four, $32,000. We take that seriously in America. Other countries let you die in a ditch. We don't do that in America. It is one of the reasons we spend $1.4 trillion a year helping our neighbors who are poor. In our country, if you are hungry, we will feed you; if you are homeless, we will house you; if you are too poor to be sick, we will pay for your doctor. That separates us from just about every other country in the world. I have been all over this world. I know the Presiding Officer has too. In other countries, they will just let you die in a ditch. We don't do that in America. Mr. President, $1.4 trillion is how much we spend every year. That is taxpayer money. It didn't just fall from Heaven--we thank Heaven for it--it came out of people's pockets. If you go talk to the Census Bureau--I pointed this out to Secretary Lutnick--if you go ask the Census Bureau how many poor people we have in America, they will tell you 11 percent--1 out of 10 Americans. It has been that way since 1974. We have been spending $1.4 trillion a year, and the poverty level hasn't budged. Eleven percent, they will tell you, and they will shout it from the rooftops. When they get a letter from another Agency saying ``We need some help to research how many poor people we have in America today,'' they will tell you ``Eleven percent. Eleven percent.'' They are lying. It is a bald-faced lie. Do you know why? Because they don't count--they refuse to count all of the public benefits the American people give to the poor. According to the Census Bureau, the only thing that counts is if you get cash from the Federal Government. We call that welfare. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. We have another program I think that pays cash; it is called WIC. But according to the Census Bureau, that is the way you define if somebody is in poverty. You look at how much money they make, and on top of that, we consider cash transfer payments from the Federal Government, and when you do that, 11 percent are poor. What planet and what solar system did these people parachute in? Do you know what they don't count? I will tell you what they don't count. They don't count earned income tax credits. If I make a low enough income myself--let's say I make $15,000 a year. I have to pay tax on that, file a tax return, but if I do, I get an income tax credit. It is called--it is refundable. That means the IRS sends me a check. The American people pay for that, but the Census Bureau says that doesn't count in determining the poor. Do you know what else they don't count? They don't count food stamps. Huh? Real strong drugs is the only possible explanation for them to not even count food stamps. Do you know what else they don't count? Housing subsidies, section 8 vouchers, getting to live in a place for free. Do you know what else they don't count? Utility bill subsidies. They don't count Medicaid. They don't count free school meals. Do you know why? Because if they counted it, do you know how many Americans would be living in poverty? One percent. And that is an actual fact. I am going to give you an example. Let's suppose you are a mom with two kids, and you are poor. You work, and you make $11,000 a year, OK? In determining whether that mom is poor, the Census Bureau counts her income and counts any payments she gets, as I said, from welfare. But that mom with two children making $11,000 a year is going to get back from the Federal Government $4,100 in refundable earned income tax credits. Remember what I just talked about? The Census Bureau says: Oh, that doesn't matter; not real money. That mom is going to get back $3,400 in a check in child tax credits. That mom is going to receive $9,200 in food stamps. That mom is going to receive $9,500--or at least she will be eligible to receive it--in housing subsidies. That mom is going to receive $900 in utility bill subsidies, $16,000 in Medicaid for her and her two children, and $31 a year for free school lunches at school for her two kids. Let's suppose that on top of that, she gets $6,600 a year in welfare payments. Remember, the Census Bureau says that all this stuff doesn't count. The only thing that counts is that the lady works and makes $11,000 a year, and she gets $6,600 in welfare payments, so her income is only $17,600, and she is below the poverty line. Wrong. You don't have to be Euclid to be able to figure out that if you add up the TANF money and the $11,000 that she earns and the refundable child tax credit and the refundable earned income tax credit and the food stamps and the housing subsidies and the utility bill subsidies and the Medicaid and the free school lunches that I have just talked about--do you know what her income is? It is $64,100 tax free. Yet the Census Bureau says she is below the poverty line. Now, look, I am not here to begrudge this lady, this hypothetical person. I am going to say it again: The American people are the most generous people in the world. We help our neighbors. But the American people put up this money, and they ought to get credit. And when the Census Bureau, which has been telling us since 1974--they have been lying to us. They have been lying to us. They learned to lie over there before they learned to talk. They need to redefine the poverty level in America and the definition of ``poverty.'' It is the Census Bureau's job, and that is what I talked to the good Secretary Howard Lutnick about. I talked to him in committee, and he said he would work on it. I thank him for that, and I am going to chase him like he stole Christmas until he does. I am going to chase him like he stole Christmas and Thanksgiving. He can do it with a rule or regulation. I have introduced a bill. Again, the purpose of this is not to take any money away from anybody; the purpose of this is to tell the American people the truth-- that they are the most generous people in the world and they should be proud of that. This mother, this poor mom of two--she is not just getting around $17,000 a year; she is getting almost $65,000 a year tax free, but the American people get no credit. And do you know why? Because there are so many people in the bureaucracy--they want us to think everybody is poor so they can go back and back and back to the taxpayer. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary Lutnick, with all the respect I can muster, please fix this. Please fix this. And I am going to keep bringing it up until you do. I will pass a bill if I can, but it is going to be kind of tough. The short way home here is to have the Secretary--I don't mean disrespect-- to have the Secretary do his job. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask that the scheduled rollcall begin immediately.