Andy Kim

Mr. KIM

Mr. KIM. Mr. President, we did put forward a proposal to fund TSA, to fund FEMA, to fund CISA, to move forward on so much of what the American people know needs to move forward. We are not negotiating in a vacuum here. We are in a different world than we were when these negotiations began a few weeks ago because we are now finding our country in a war with Iran. We are seeing American servicemembers in harm's way. We see this President recklessly pushing on and not caring at all how many billions of dollars he is spending each and every day in prosecuting this war, without the kind of thinking of what is needed to be able to protect our servicemembers, Americans in harm's way, and our diplomatic folks. So we are trying to come up with solutions here, understanding the challenges that we are facing. These are not normal times. This is not the same world. What we tried to do is come forward here, focused on a pragmatic, realistic approach on what it is that we can agree upon. It is what every family has to deal with in terms of understanding how to be able to come up with solutions that move forward, especially in these dangerous times. We know that Americans have these concerns. When I think about CISA, when I think about the cyber security world--I used to work in national security in Afghanistan, in Iraq, with so many other challenges in counterterrorism. We need that now more than ever. I will be honest with you. The fact that this President moved forward with this war without us being able to have a fully functioning CISA, not just because of the budget but because they cut so much of the staff over this last year--these are reckless actions. That is why we need to be able to have this type of debate, but we are doing this in a context of war. So we move forward. We try to have the funding to be able to move forward in that way on what we can agree on, while we are still continuing, because, as there has been recognition on both sides today, we are still far off when it comes to ICE, when it comes to the lawlessness that we see. We seek the accountability on behalf of the American people. I hear this each and every day. Just yesterday, I was in a meeting with ICE officials because they are trying to impose upon the town of Roxbury this warehouse detention facility. This, by the way, is a town that voted for Trump. It is Republican leadership, but they stand unified with me and many others saying that ICE never even talked to them, never even consulted them, whether or not this was even logistically possible, let alone something that the community wants. When I asked the ICE officials, yesterday, are they aware that there are residential buildings right around this, that maybe people don't want their backyard to be a huge, massive detention site, ICE didn't care. They didn't even bother to ask the local community. That is what we are seeing not just in Roxbury but all over this country--the lack of accountability. They just could not care less what the people in Roxbury believed. That is what we are trying to stand up for. And I promised that community--again, a community that voted for Trump, with Republican leadership--that I will do everything that I can to be able to restore that sense of accountability and restore that sense of movement forward. They do not want a single dollar to go to this warehouse, and I don't want a single dollar to go to ICE as we continue to see the lack of reforms push forward. And I understand the concerns and the challenges that are out there. I worked as a career public servant, an officer at the State Department. I worked under multiple shutdowns. I worked under multiple Presidents of both parties. I don't want to see this go on 1 day longer than it needs to, but I also know that our servicemen and women, they are dedicated public servants; and we need to show them that we are being pragmatic and realistic, that we are moving the needle forward trying to address it. And that is what the proposal put forward by Senator Murray today was about, an effort to be able to move forward, try to focus in on where we have disagreement while not holding back on where we have agreement to be able to protect the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. KIM. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of the millions of Americans who are looking to achieve the dream of owning a home. For the first time in almost 20 years, the Senate is advancing a major housing package, and it is long overdue. Housing is one of the greatest ways to grow wealth in this country. Yet it is out of reach for so many Americans. Last year, the average age of a first-time home buyer hit an alltime high of 40 years of age--40 years old to buy a home. That is not fair or sustainable, which is why, today, I am proud to support the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. This bipartisan bill will take meaningful steps to lower the first-time home buyer age significantly by allowing for the construction of substantially more homes at more affordable prices. To be very clear, this bill is focused on expanding our housing supply and lowering costs, and Congress owes it to all of the Americans we serve to tackle this problem that is plaguing so many Americans around our country. My home State of New Jersey knows all too well of the problems posed by a lack of housing supply. Jersey is the most densely populated State in the country. Yet, despite this, Jersey has been one of the slowest States in the country to approve new housing construction. In fact, New Jersey is one of the slowest States in the Nation to approve new housing construction. In some cases, it takes 5 to 7 years just to approve new housing and start construction. This is unacceptable in New Jersey or anywhere in this country. We must do better. To spur the construction of more housing, I championed permitting reform with Senator Rounds. These reforms provide a balance between strong environmental protections and getting rid of inefficient redtape, which will help build more houses for New Jersey families and families around this country. This is a commonsense solution that will get more houses built and more New Jersey families in the door. At the same time, we have to be focused on increasing financing opportunities for new housing construction. As I travel around my State, I hear constantly from mayors who are looking to find ways to finance new housing. So I led a bill, included in this package, to allow municipalities, for the first time, to use community development block grant--CDBG--funding for the construction of new housing. This provision will give mayors the flexibility they need to build more and help more people lay roots in their communities and grow their cities. So much of this work also depends on strong private-public partnerships. New Jersey is in the center of the country's financial system, and for too long, banks have faced a statutory cap on how much they can invest into communities. I am proud to have led legislation that will increase this cap, which will unlock billions in capital for new housing. In addition to these policies that I truly believe will spur housing construction and help more Americans achieve home ownership, the package also reauthorizes critical programs that help my State, including the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program and the HOME Investment Partnership Program. In the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, New Jersey received over $4 billion from the CDBG- DR Program to build that. Even more, as we continue dealing with climate events, we must take steps to ensure the most vulnerable communities are protected, including South Jersey, where I am from. Reauthorizing the CDBG-DR in this package protects my constituents and shows that the government is a force for good. This is a robust set of bills. This package takes the first meaningful steps to address the housing crisis in our country. The package is also the product of strong bipartisan work in a tough partisan political climate. In all of the policies I listed above, I worked with my colleagues across the aisle. So I want to especially thank Senators Rounds, McCormick, Scott, Moreno, and Blunt Rochester for working with me to take smart, sensible steps to lower costs and build more housing. I also want to express my gratitude to Chair Scott and Ranking Member Warren for leading this effort. At a time when more Americans are losing faith in the American dream, at a time when more Americans are losing faith in the political system and their politicians, this package sends the message that we can still work together to solve hard problems facing Americans. This is a moment for us to come together and get something done for Americans. There is still more work to be done. There are still things that we need to fix. There are still efforts we need to do to be able to build the kind of effort across this country that the American people deserve. This is not the end. I want to work with all of my colleagues to figure out how we can make this stronger, how we can continue to keep pushing forward and address the needs, until we can finally look our constituents in the eyes and tell them that we have taken the steps and that we have worked with a sense of urgency that every single one of them deserves to be able to improve their lives and help them be able to build the families that they want to. So let's build more. Let's lower costs. Let's pass the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. KIM

Mr. KIM. Madam President, I rise today to give voice to the American people. It is the American people who have had their sons and daughters sent to war. It is the American people who will worry and sacrifice and suffer because of the decision made with little regard for them. It is the American people who deserve to have a say when we send our servicemembers into harm's way. It is the American people whose voice has not been listened to as we woke up yet again this weekend to a new war in the Middle East. I am proud to stand with my colleagues and cosponsor this resolution. This isn't just a resolution that pits one branch of government against another. Yes, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to declare war, which is what the President called this--in his own words, he said that this was a war--but Congress has a deeper responsibility to speak on behalf of the American people. We are here to speak on behalf of the American people because the Trump administration hasn't been listening to them. I was a college student a generation ago when our country invaded Iraq. In the weeks before the invasion, George W. Bush delivered a State of the Union Address where he said--falsely--that Iraq was hiding efforts to produce weapons of mass destruction, and he spoke about proving America's ``resolve.'' Less than a week ago, President Trump came here to the Capitol to deliver his State of the Union Address. He made little effort to make a case to the American people of the need for a military operation in Iran--just a few words in the longest ever State of the Union Address-- but he did speak about proving America's ``resolve.'' We have seen this before. A President manufactures an imminent threat, chooses to start a war with unclear objectives, and uses America's resolve as an excuse for war without end because they have no plan to end it. But unlike 2003, President Trump refused to make the case to the American people. Right in his State of the Union Address, he refused to make the case. And he refuses to seek approval from Congress for the use of military force, as President Bush did in 2003. I believe that this is unacceptable. More importantly, the American people believe it too. A week and a half ago, with rumors of war circulating, I held a townhall in Asbury Park, NJ, and I asked the people there: Raise your hand if you want Donald Trump to order an attack on Iran. Nobody did. I asked them--a couple hundred people were in attendance--to raise their hand if they believed the American people should have a say in any decision that sends American sons and daughters into harm's way in Iran. Everyone's hand went up. Before being elected to Congress, I spent much of my career in national security--at the Pentagon, in Afghanistan, Iraq, in the White House National Security Council--working on countering Iranian terrorism. I know that the threat from Iran demands a serious approach, and I know that the approach this administration is taking is not a serious one and is risking long-term damage to the United States and its interests, not to mention the short-term harm and tragedy that we have seen as now the death toll of American servicemembers is up to six. President Trump and his administration made no serious attempt to find a diplomatic solution to the threat Iran posed to the world. He sent negotiators who are already tasked with negotiating with Russia and Ukraine, with Israel and Palestine. Avoiding war through diplomacy cannot be a part-time job. He took no real steps to bring our allies and partners into the effort that could create a safer world without the use of military force. President Trump had no meaningful strategy for pressuring Iran through sanctions that actually targeted the regime, not the Iranian people. Donald Trump's administration and the Republicans in this Congress have actively cut programs, like internet freedom efforts, that undermined Iranians who were speaking out in their own attempts to bring freedom and stability to the country. While failing to pursue a more sustainable solution, President Trump planned to put Americans in harm's way with this military operation. That is where the planning clearly stopped. Asked yesterday how long this war will go on for, Donald Trump said 4 weeks, then 4 to 5 weeks, while also saying ``As long as we want it to.'' This morning, the President refused to rule out the use of American ground troops in Iran. He said: I don't have the yips with respect to boots on the ground. This came after he said multiple times that he expects servicemembers to be killed in this operation. An open-ended war isn't just antithetical to what the American people want, it is dangerous and unpredictable. We have seen this path before. Pursuing regime change can have significant unintended consequences, and there is no guarantee that what comes next will be better. Trump's shifting of objectives raises questions about whether it will be enough and whether our military will be back at this again in just a few months, as they are today following the strikes last summer that Trump claimed obliterated the nuclear program he now calls a threat yet again. Beyond the near term, this military operation will have lasting consequences even after the bombs stop falling. Donald Trump may think that ``might makes right,'' but history proves him wrong. We have the benefit of a generation of time from the last time we were in this situation. Might may have led to regime change in Iraq, but it made our country less secure by doing lasting damage to America's reputation and spawning new threats while weakening our ability to engage globally. It led to more than 4,400 Americans killed. It cost our country trillions of dollars--not just in military spending but in the cost of caring for the tens of thousands of servicemembers wounded and injured during that war. It is why, in a Pew survey of recent years, 62 percent of all Americans said that the Iraq war was not worth fighting. That number, by the way, was higher with those who fought in it. Sixty-four percent of veterans of the war said it was not worth it. That is why it is so important that we take actions right now. Let's be clear. Donald Trump chose this war, but it was not his choice to make. It is the American people who deserve to have a say. With this vote that we are pushing forward on, we not only have an opportunity to ensure that the voices of the American people are heard, we have an obligation to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. I urge my colleagues to join in this bipartisan effort and vote yes. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. KIM

Mr. KIM. Mr. President, I rise today as we debate funding for the Department of Homeland Security. It is a debate that 100 Americans allowed into this Chamber will have a chance to do, but that really is being had by millions of Americans across the country in their living rooms and their group chats, in the comments on social media. There are a lot of things that we debate here that fly under the radar that, maybe, impact a lot of people but are not on their minds. This is on everyone's mind. Whether we write another check to fund the Department of Homeland Security isn't just front page news--it is the thing that people who haven't picked up a newspaper in years are talking about. Why is that? It is because people can feel that something is wrong in this country, and they know it has to be stopped. People can watch the videos of the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti at the hands of Federal agents and see that something is wrong and that it isn't over. They can watch these videos of masked men who are roaming through neighborhoods or are physically assaulting people who are peacefully protesting and see that something is wrong. They are absolutely right in that feeling. How can you watch any of that and not see that it is wrong? I hear from people whom I know--some friends of mine--who are telling me that they are now carrying their passports around with them because they are afraid of getting stopped and being targeted by Federal agents. I have heard from constituents who are anxious, who don't feel safe leaving their houses, who are afraid of door knocks at their houses, and are just afraid that this moment of fear will never end. The tragic irony of this is that we are nearly 25 years in from the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security--25 years from another moment when people felt an incredible level of anxiety and unease. I was in college when 9/11 happened. It was a moment that led me toward public service. It was a crisis that brought me into a career in national security, working to keep our country safe. One of the things I have learned is that safety isn't our ability to project force or the tools we have at our disposal. Those things can make us safe, but if they are used improperly, they can make us less safe and less secure. And that is exactly what we are seeing from this administration. It is what Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, Tom Homan, and Kristi Noem are doing every day. They are using the tools that were meant to keep us safe and are distorting them to grow their own power, to fuel their own corruption. What we are debating here today is whether we should continue to fund their efforts to use these tools against the American people and for their own twisted agenda. And, to that, there is a simple answer: We must say and vote no. We need to vote no on funding the DHS as this bill currently stands because it is not going to make us more safe and secure. Everyone in America who has been carrying this feeling around with them for the past few days and weeks knows that. They know that they have been lied to by this administration. They know that the masked men who are flooding into our communities are not accountable to them. They know people like Stephen Miller, whom I have often called and said that he is the most dangerous person in our country, are not accountable to them. The American people are tired of it, and they are tired of the lies. They see right through them. They are tired of feeling like they have no say in this horrible feeling of insecurity and uncertainty. How is it that, in the richest, most powerful country in the world, we have this much unpredictability and this much anxiety that hangs over us? But that can end today; that can end right here because, even though the millions and millions of people who are struggling to make sense of this moment aren't able to get into this Chamber and have a vote, there are 100 of us who do and who represent all of the other Americans in this Nation. There are things that this administration can do today to restore that sense of safety and security. For instance, they can pull ICE and CBP agents out of their operations in Minnesota and in Maine and deescalate the fear that American communities are facing. The provocations are dangerous right now and the concern of powder kegs of what is going to happen next. It is not that we see this in the rearview mirror with the murder and the killing of Alex Pretti and Renee Good. People are wondering: Is this just the beginning? Is this going to continue and for how long? Is it going to get worse? That is the fear that people are feeling, which is something that this administration can immediately bring down if they pull these agents out. This administration can also allow and clearly articulate the need for independent investigations into the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti--actually, in terms of all 12 of the shootings that DHS agents since September of last year have conducted. That deserves the same level of transparency and accountability. The reason we need this is that there is no trust right now. There is no trust right now from the American people in having DHS or this administration as a whole investigate themselves. It is antithetical to our understanding of transparency and accountability if that is the case. So we demand true independent investigations. This administration can also fire their leaders who have clearly zero credibility--zero credibility--with the American people right now-- Stephen Miller, Tom Homan, Secretary Noem, and others--who have purposely weaponized our government for their own political agendas. The American people demand accountability. Forward movement as a nation in these troubled times cannot happen while having these administrative officials still in power, still in their jobs. There are many other things we need to think through, but these are three things that can happen right now by this administration to show that we can try to turn a corner on this incredibly chaotic and dangerous moment for our country. But even if that all happens, we owe it to the American people to take a stand, we owe it to them to give them the security they deserve, and we owe it to them to vote no on this appropriations bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. KIM

Mr. KIM. Mr. President, I rise today with such deep concern about the state of our democracy. Why have we let the scourge of money in our politics get this bad? Why have we ignored the vast majority of Americans who want us to get it under control? Why have we ceded our democracy to the highest bidder? I am not alone in feeling exasperated and feeling frustrated and being angry. As we look back at 16 years, in the wake of the Citizens United decision, we should be honest with ourselves: Our politics were never truly fair. Voters were marginalized or excluded because of the color of their skin. Machines and bosses took advantage of everyday people. The powerful thought they could decide for the rest of us. But we made progress. We took steps forward. So much of it was reversed with one swoop of Citizens United. Now we are awash in money and influence, living through politics where the new bosses hide behind a Supreme Court decision that allows them to pump unlimited money into elections without the risk of exposure or accountability. It feels overwhelming. But to understand how bad the amount of money in politics has gotten, you just have to look at the numbers. According to OpenSecrets, during the 2008 election cycle, outside spending totaled about $574 million. Two years later, the Citizens United decision came down. Just 2 years after that, during the next Presidential election cycle, outside spending topped off at nearly $1.3 billion. And just 2 years ago, in 2024, it came close to $4.5 billion. Those numbers are disgusting. The American people are sick and tired of this, being bombarded with ads. But it is not just about that. It is worse. The American people know that they are being purposely manipulated, fed lies. The amount of money--untraced, unaccountable, undemocratic money--is beyond comprehension. To me, what is even more unbelievable is that it is insanely unpopular. Last year, the group Issue One conducted a poll on the 15th anniversary of the Citizens United decision. Nearly 80 percent said that unchecked spending gave rise to corruption. More than 75 percent said that the amount of money in politics was causing them to lose faith in democracy itself, while 77 percent said that, when we tackle Big Money in our politics, we make our democracy stronger. These numbers are across the political spectrum, and these numbers are borne out in survey after survey. Pew, in 2023, showed that nearly three- quarters of all Americans just want us to put limits on what can be spent. We live in a time when there is the greatest amount of distrust in our government in modern American history. Now, I decided to run for office nearly a decade ago because I saw what Citizens United did and how the unchecked money in our politics was impacted. It was one of the first things I talked about on the campaign trail. It was one of the first things I pushed to introduce and spoke out about on the House floor, and every year, we have carried the fight forward to reverse it. It is important for us to remember not to feel helpless. I have often said that the opposite of democracy is apathy. And too often, we say of money in politics that this is a problem too big, that we can't solve; or that the challenges are too entrenched and that we are not going to be able to mobilize to fix it. I would just urge us, on this anniversary of Citizens United, to keep in mind that it doesn't have to be this way. We don't need to have a politics that is exasperating. We can have one that is empowering. We can have one wherein the voices of voters, not the endless bank accounts of the well-off and the well- connected, decide who represents us, and we can have a politics that restores and grows trust rather than actively degrades. This year is the 250th anniversary of the independence of our Nation. We will be referencing that a lot in this Chamber because this is our moment to free Americans from the influence of Big Money and to give them back their voice in a democracy. Let us come together and get it done. I yield the floor.

Mr. KIM

Mr. KIM. Mr. President, I rise today because the American people are looking at this administration's actions in Venezuela and asking: What is the plan? As someone who worked in national security before coming to Congress, I have been in the situation room for discussions about military operations. I worked on and in both Afghanistan and Iraq, where our country has seen the risk of getting pulled into open-ended commitments trying to run other countries. And I have seen the importance of always having a plan for the day after, something this administration clearly did not do. So what the American people are seeing from this administration is hubris, but without strategy--a dangerous combination. Moreover, it seems President Trump is drunk on this hubris. We have now seen Stephen Miller saying that the United States has the right to take Greenland. Secretary Rubio threatened Colombia and Cuba. It appears that President Trump thinks that reverting back to an era of imperialism or ``spheres of influence'' is the best way to demonstrate power, that just because a military operation was skillfully executed by our brave military personnel without Americans killed, that there are no costs, that a world where ``might makes right'' benefits American interests. He is simply wrong. We live in a global world--if anything, an increasingly shrinking world. Borders and oceans no longer protect us against many of the threats we face today, including cyber threats and the changing nature of warfare. The idea that protecting our immediate surroundings will keep the American people safe is a dated, 19th century idea that long ago became irrelevant. This approach also risks taking our eye off the ball on other critical challenges--like the one posed by China--while opening further feuds with critical allies and partners. Just look at the letter signed the other day by leaders from Denmark, France, the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Poland reminding President Trump that Denmark is a treaty ally of the United States and, in doing so, effectively issuing a ``hands off'' on Greenland. I have told you I worked in Afghanistan. I worked on a NATO military base alongside military servicemembers from Denmark who were there to be able to protect and defend us with the work we do. I was there as part of that NATO mission that was part of the article 5 response that was about protecting the United States and supporting us after September 11 in our time of need. Denmark lost many in that fight, and the idea that we are now threatening that nation is shameful. By staking claim to anything and everything within our so-called sphere, we are risking alienating ourselves from allies and partners, which is, arguably, our greatest strength. Furthermore, this approach of ``spheres of influence'' and ``might makes right'' is one that our leading competitors and adversaries--China and Russia--have been asserting themselves. We are using their language. President Trump's adoption of this approach endorses and advances their world view, a move that could have dangerous global consequences. How will this administration tell Putin that he does not have the right to assert the same control over its proclaimed sphere of influence or that Xi cannot exercise his will unchecked in the Indo- Pacific, including with respect to Taiwan? The United States should be countering this vision of a world based on spheres of influence with our own alternative of a stronger global order, not participating in the destruction of the existing one by endorsing Moscow and Beijing's alternative. These moves also have costs at home. At his press conference over the weekend, President Trump demonstrated a deep lack of understanding that there is always a cost to our actions. There is the cost for our servicemembers--more than 15,000, at last reports--currently positioned in the Caribbean and focused on the operations in and around Venezuela. Their lives are on the line. They have been taken away from their families. And there is the cost to the American people. Millions of Americans are about to see their healthcare costs rise exponentially. Why are we conducting military operations in a country that has no direct security threat to the United States when people are about to lose their healthcare? Even if this administration had a sound foreign policy, it would be essential that Congress assert its authority to speak for the American people. But this administration does not have a sound foreign policy; it has one that is rooted in bluster, built on extortion and extraction, for the President's own benefit and without the best interests of the American people at heart. It is for them that we must reassert our authority. It is for them-- the American people--that we must be a strong check on this reckless and feckless foreign policy. I yield the floor.

Mr. KIM

Mr. KIM. Mr. President, today is the fifth anniversary of the attack on this Capitol, on this extraordinary building that we love so dearly. I personally believe that the Capitol Building is the most beautiful building in this country. It is the physical manifestation of article I of our Constitution, and I believe that to defile and disgrace this building is tantamount to defiling and disgracing our Constitution. It should be the easiest thing for all of us across the political spectrum to say that this building is sacred ground. And I am speaking here in the Senate Chamber where rioters broke into. Look, regardless of our political affiliation, we should be able to say what happened, that it was wrong, and that it should never happen again. Five years does not seem like a lot of time, but as anyone with young kids knows all too well, time moves quickly. I remember 2 days after January 6, I drove back home from the Capitol, back home to New Jersey. And I drove actually straight to my kids' daycare to be able to pick them up. My 2 boys were only 3 years old and 5 years old at the time. My older son usually bounds out and runs up to me, but this time, he walked out slowly, and he came up to me, and he asked me: Are you OK? And I glanced towards my wife, who shrugged her shoulders, because we had specifically agreed that we would not mention anything to the kids at this point about what happened on January 6. So I looked back at my boy, and I asked him: What do you mean? And he looked right back at me, and he said: Did something bad happen at work? Now, he didn't know exactly what had happened, but he knew something did. He knew something not right happened. A 5-year-old child can grasp that fundamental fact about January 6, that we don't use the means of violence against one another, especially in determining the results of our democracy. Now, if a 5-year-old can grasp that, why is it so difficult for so many, including some here at the Capitol, to be able to do the same? Why do so many pretend like nothing happened or seek to downplay the events of that day? I call this a purposeful amnesia. Five years out, it is so much more damaging to our democracy than the shattered windows of 5 years ago. This is the storm after the storm. Now, here is an example to the extent with which congressional Republicans are trying to erase the history. In 2022, the year after the January 6 attack, Congress passed a law that mandated a plaque be placed on the western front of the Capitol to allow visitors to this building to remember. Now, the plaque itself, pretty simple, an image of the Capitol with a few lines of text: ``On behalf of a grateful Congress, this plaque honors the extraordinary individuals who bravely protected and defended this symbol of democracy on January 6, 2021. Their heroism will never be forgotten.'' And beneath the text, various law enforcement entities are listed. A simple message of remembrance for those brave individuals who acted and for the democracy they defended. Now, we should be able to walk out of this Chamber today and view that plaque. In fact, it was supposed to be installed by March of 2023. But instead, nearly 3 years after it was mandated to be made public, 5 years after the event it was meant to commemorate, the plaque is missing, is absent at the direction of Speaker Johnson. As of last night, it is not just absent; it is being explicitly denied because of Speaker Johnson, who is still refusing to do the simple thing, the right thing, and displaying it for the American people to see. Now, that absence and denial is part of a broader effort by Speaker Johnson, President Trump, and so many others to prevent us from remembering, to encourage us to forget--the purposeful amnesia. Now, they have done this by gaslighting us, downplaying the events of that day. Speaker Johnson directed his conference to blur the face of rioters in publicly released images so they couldn't be ``charged by the Department of Justice.'' A member of his House conference referred to January 6 as resembling a ``normal tourist visit.'' President Trump called that day a ``day of love.'' He called the rioters patriots, and he pardoned more than 1,500 rioters on his first day in office last year, signing an Executive order directing the Department of Justice to drop pending cases against those suspected of taking part in this attack. But we know better. We know the truth. Now, 5 years out, I still haven't found the words yet to fully tell my boys what happened then. I never fully answered my older son's questions: Are you OK? Did something bad happen at work? I have avoided it for 5 years, and I have been wondering why. Why is it that I have been unable to be able to find the words to be able to talk to my child? And what I have come to understand today as I have been thinking about it is I have not talked to them about this because I have wanted to hold off on confronting the full implications of that day. I think what I have been waiting for is some moment where I can say with assurance that things are better now, where I could tell them about what happened on January 6, but immediately say: That was a horrible thing in the past, but we are beyond it now. Things aren't going to be bad again. But 5 years on, I am still waiting for that day, but it hasn't come-- not yet. Now, 5 years in, I am faced with the reality that I don't actually know when that day will come. I don't actually even know if that day will come. I can't say for certain that we will get there. When I look at today compared to 5 years ago, yes, our Capitol is secure today. Yes, our own security here is more assured. But I can't say that about our country. Sadly, when I reflect back on 5 years ago compared to today, I actually believe we are more divided now than we were 5 years ago. I believe our democracy is even more fragile now than it was 5 years ago. And I believe that our future as a nation is more perilous than it was 5 years ago. The future threats to our democracy may not come in the form of rioters storming our Halls, but that doesn't mean that the threat isn't present. So after I am done here, I will go home and try to have a conversation with my boys. And I will tell them about the divisions we faced 5 years ago and that we continue to face as a nation. I will talk to them about the meaning of cowardice, of those hiding the truth from the American people to try to erase from our memories with that purposeful amnesia. But I will also tell my boys it is not just about the broken windows and the fighting that occurred here on the Capitol Grounds, but I will tell them about the courage of those who kept us safe, of the Capitol Police officers, many who still serve and protect us to this day, who deserve better than how they have been treated, that they continue with their mission of keeping us safe, even if we are ones that deny what happened on that day and deny the injuries and the harm that they faced. I will tell my boys growing up in New Jersey about a man from New Jersey named Brian Sicknick, someone whose name should never dissipate from the Halls of this building that he sought to protect. I will tell them about those willing to stand up for our Capitol and our democracy, whose example we should seek to replicate, not just on the anniversaries of January 6, but every day. I hope to be able to tell my boys that we can heal this country. I hope that we can tell them that we are taking steps to mend the wounds of that day and of the days since that have driven us further apart as Americans. I should not hold off on having this conversation, hoping and wishing for a day where I can tell them that the threat is passed and gone. We as Americans should confront the problems that we face full on, to not hide from the fact of how fragile our democracy is now. We see it for what it is, but the fragility of our democracy should renew our purpose and our conviction to stand up and do everything we can to make sure days like January 6 never happen again. And that is my promise to you, to this country, to my State, and to my little boys, that the work can start right here, right now. I stand ready to heal this country and ready to make it OK for my boys, for your kids and your grandkids; let us keep fighting every day. I yield the floor.

Mr. KIM

Mr. KIM. Mr. President, a year ago, my two little boys sat right up there, in the Gallery above, as I raised my right hand here on the floor. It was a moment unlike any other moment I have ever had in my life. My dear colleagues, I hope it is never lost upon us that we get to work a job whose job description is written in the Constitution of the United States; what a deeply humbling experience, one we should treasure every chance we get. Never in my life have I felt the call to serve so strongly and viscerally as I do right now. I believe we are in a moment of extraordinary consequence and magnitude and that the next 5 years will shape the next five decades. There is nowhere else I would rather be than to be able to have a voice in this room and a vote in this Chamber on the monumental decisions that will shape our Nation's future through tumultuous times. But there is a bittersweet taste now, a year later, as I look back upon the day that I was sworn in. By my children's side, as they watched me a year ago, were my parents, both born during the Korean war, born into poverty, and they struggled to survive. Both saw America as a place where they could achieve the closest thing that they could get to a guarantee that the family they had raised would have a better life than they did. It was actually predecessors in this room who passed the immigration reform that allowed my parents to come here. Had it not been for those decisions made here, our family's story would have no choice and no chance in America, and the decisions we are making now are shaping families for generations to come. I am in awe of what this Nation has afforded my family in just one generation. But now I think of an episode that happened a few weeks ago. I was with my father at the doctor's office, and the doctor asked my father, ``Tell me about your son; tell me what he does for a living,'' as I was seated right next to him. My father fell silent. He turned to me and looked with embarrassed eyes and said: I don't know. My father no longer remembers being in this Chamber a year ago. He no longer remembers that momentous day I had hoped that our family would never forget. He no longer remembers that his hard journey from the Korean war to immigrating to America led to his son's being sworn in as the very first Korean-American Senator ever. And it got worse. The next question the doctor asked him was, What job did you have? What was your life's work? And my father stared at the ground and paused and said the same three words: ``I don't know''--three words that I am sure I will hear a lot more of from him because that was the day that my father was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. Now, what made this all the more painful is the answer to the doctor's question, ``What did my father do for his career?'' The answer is that my father was a geneticist, a medical researcher, who spent his life trying to cure cancer and Alzheimer's. And now, as I was there witnessing Alzheimer's erase from my father's memory any recollection of his efforts to try to erase Alzheimer's from our world, I couldn't help but feel that Alzheimer's had won. I remember dropping him off after the appointment and sitting in the car, alone, left to grapple with our new future, realizing, for the first time, that, to my list of core identities as a son, as a brother, a husband, a father, an American, a public servant, I now add caregiver. But with all of these other identities that I have assumed, I have embraced them. They have brought me joy and opportunity. They have brought me my partner for life. They have brought me the most precious boys I could ever imagine. But this new identity as a caregiver felt like it brought my family certain pain. The doctor warned me that the next year or 2 of my life would be hell. I remember having to rush back to the Capitol for votes after that doctor's appointment. I was actually standing in this very spot when one of you came to me and started telling me about a bill that you wanted me to look at, and I remember politely saying: I am sorry, but I am barely keeping it together right now. My father is not well. Can we please talk about this tomorrow? Instead of walking away, my colleague stayed with me, showed me comfort, and opened up about their own struggles and challenges in their family. And I responded by sharing my growing fears about the uncertainty that lay ahead, in that I would be forced to seek not the best care that my father could get but, instead, the best care for my father that my family could afford. Suddenly, I felt inadequate as a son, and I panicked. I couldn't help but play back the last few years, and I beat myself up that I didn't see this coming. Was there something I could have done to better prepare for this moment? I should have seen the warning signs and taken the precautions to provide better care for my father and my family. And I fixated on a singular question: Why is it so hard to provide care in this country? And from that question comes others. Why is providing care so insanely complicated? Why does it feel like we are so alone when we try to provide care to the people we love? For many, the disease or injury is only part of the problem. We are the richest, most powerful country in the world. Why does it cost so much to provide care? The answers explain my anxiety. The median cost for a private room in a senior care facility in New Jersey is $14,788 per month. That is over $177,000 per year. That is outrageous. It should be unacceptable. Who can afford that? I will tell you, I can't. I look at the costs, and I look at our finances, and the costs of caregiving have been catastrophic for my family this year. But this is the reality for millions of Americans, and so many countless families are in much more dire circumstances than mine. They tell me how they are basically having to bankrupt themselves. A neighbor told me how she had to sell her forever home that they had hoped to grow old in just to pay her husband's bills for his dementia care. This is the storm after the storm--a storm of our own making--and out of this strain and stress, we feel alone. It shouldn't have to be this hard. On top of this, I feel overwhelmed by a nagging feeling that my new identity as a caregiver is in direct competition with my other identities, in that it diminishes and drains what I can provide to my kids as their father and to others whom I love. I can't save for their education like I had planned to. I think of all the costs that we have endured over the years--daycare, healthcare--and of all the other experiences that I want to provide my kids that I might no longer be able to. Even if you can afford this, what an anxiety-filled time it is to be raising kids. You can try to keep them off the phones or social media, but it dominates the conversations they have with their friends. You can try to give them the best education, but you look at the future where AI dominates, and you worry if they will be able to find a job that provides them the stability and security you want for them. And I see the world around us--the wars and the divisiveness. It is so much at times that it feels hard to breathe. And I ask myself a question: What kind of America are my two boys, your kids, and your grandkids going to grow up in? Regardless of the political parties to which we belong, I think we can all agree that a nation this powerful and this extraordinary should not be mired in this level of division. My boys are now 8 and 10. That gives me about 15 years before they are off on their own. I know, actually, many of you have told me that it will be much longer than that because they will probably move back into my basement after college, but that is my timeline. I have got about 15 years to try and fix this. So that is why I am here. That is why I take a seat in the U.S. Senate. I am a father willing to do everything I humanly can to try to fix this country for my kids and my family, but I am worried. I am worried because we stand here in this Chamber, under this ubiquitous frame of ``E pluribus unum''--``Out of many, one''--centered in the most prominent position in this room. It is the same motto that perches over the Capitol Rotunda, the House Chamber, the Oval Office. But I ask you: Does it ring true, especially in this divided moment? It often feels that it is more like ``Out of many, many''--``E pluribus multis.'' But I still believe in that phrase. I still believe in ``E pluribus unum.'' It is a beautiful and telling phrase. But, as I have been thinking about it, I realize that there is something missing. How does many turn into one? The phrase is missing the verb. How do we actually get from many to one? It doesn't just happen on its own. Now, being the nerd that I am, I dug around, and I tracked down the origin of the phrase back to Cicero, at the dawn of republics, and I found the missing verb. He says: When each person loves the other as much as himself, it makes one out of many. The missing verb is to love, but how do we express that to each other, not just here in this Chamber but across this great land? Another way to think about it is when we care for one another as we would care for ourselves. Care is how we manifest love of nation, love of each other, and it is this realization that I have come to: ``E pluribus unum'' requires love and care. How we become one out of many is to become caregivers to one another, that we here in this Chamber are to be caregivers to this Nation--a nation that right now needs healing, a nation whose future is uncertain and unsteady. My role as a caregiver has taken on new meaning. The care with which I transfer my father to his wheelchair and wash his disabled body is but an example of the care with which we must handle a nation in fragile times. And in my new role, I have learned that care must flow in all directions, not just toward those we feel affinity to. I have not shared this publicly before, but my father and I have had a difficult relationship over our lives. We have gone through tough times of division and separation, and I would be lying to you if I told you that being a caregiver to him is easy and flows naturally from a boundless love. It is hard to provide care if it doesn't always feel reciprocal, and there are times that I feel guilty when I feel trapped. But for all the faults that he and I embody, it doesn't diminish responsibility, and I will give him a good and decent life as best as I can provide. I will bring that same sense of responsibility right here into this Chamber with a nation divided. I believe that one can and should care for one another even in the face of division and disagreement. Just as caregivers have a responsibility to those in their care, we, as Senators and as Americans, have a responsibility to one another, as community members, as people. Here in the Senate, it is where we should exemplify this action of care. I have seen glimpses of what the Senate can be. This sacred ground that we get the honor to embody--it is not just a place of heated debate and consequential votes; it can be a place of care. It must be a place of care, not just for those of us in this Chamber but for the Nation. The care you have shown me, from the ear with which you have listened to my telling of my troubles, let us pour that out of these doors and give it toward the 7 million Americans afflicted with Alzheimer's, the tens of millions more who are families struggling with the struggles of their loved ones. Let our care pour out to the tens of millions of parents who struggle to give their kids the kind of life they want. Let us build a caregiver movement to care for our family and also our Nation. Today, in this maiden speech, I make a promise to the people of New Jersey and the people of this country that for as long as I have the chance to serve here, I will do everything I can to give you the care you deserve. I will care for your parents and grandparents as hard as I will for mine. I will care for your kids and grandkids as much as I care for mine. I will not be perfect, and I will stumble at times. But I have learned as a caregiver, I have no other choice but to endure. Whether it is the emergency calls in the middle of the night or the drop-everything moments where I have to rush to the hospital, there is no alternative. As a caregiver, we are the backstop. We here in this Chamber need to be that for the ailing Nation. We are the backstop. There are times where it will be--to again quote my father's doctor--hell, not just for my family but for our country, but there is no greater cause than care. No bigger responsibility exists than the one we have to the people we love, and that extends to the Nation that we love. There is no larger obligation that we have as Senators and as Americans to make it easier to look after each other. This is my maiden speech, and one day, I will stand here again to give my farewell speech. The duration between these two speeches will, I hope, not be measured in years but, instead, by the problems I sought to tackle and solve. In between these speeches, I hope we meet the urgency and lead our Nation forward with strategy and purpose. I have often said that we work in what is arguably the most reactionary building in America--reacting to the headlines, the social posts--but it doesn't have to be this way. Instead, we can be a Senate that sets out real goals and builds the strategy to meet them. Where do we want our Nation to be in 10, 20, 30 years from now? I want to be a part of that Senate--a Senate unafraid to pursue big ideas. I hope in my future farewell speech, I can say that I was part of the Senate that finally delivered universal healthcare for our Nation; a Senate that found a way to provide childcare to every family and long- term care for every senior in need; a Senate that catalyzed innovation that led to prevent and cure Alzheimer's and other wretched diseases; a Senate that finally gave care to our caregivers, who for so long have felt invisible and taken for granted; a Senate that stood up against corruption and restored trust of the American people back into our democracy and governance; a Senate that helped restore American global leadership which shaped a world where peace and prosperity fosters freedom and innovation for everyone; and a Senate that created the kind of America where I can ease my anxiety as a parent as I watch my boys become men. Colleagues, I ask for your help here because I cannot do this alone. None of us have this power alone. And the Nation is looking to us right now to right this ship and give a vision that we can be proud of. To my staff, I promise you that this will be a noble journey you will be proud to be a part of. I know this will be hard and could very well fall short of our lofty goals, but I want no regret in my time here in this sacred Chamber; that I can say I did everything I could; that I have no regrets about the time I spent here, being a caregiver to our great Nation, to make one out of many. I am ready. Let's get to work. With that, I yield the floor. (Applause.)

Mr. KIM

Mr. KIM. Mr. President, I rise today because since early September, Donald Trump has ordered our military to engage in 16 strikes in the Caribbean and in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Those strikes have killed more than 65 people. Each one of those strikes--each person killed--was done without the necessary legal basis or proper justification to this Congress and the American people. Now, amid a buildup of forces in the Caribbean, the administration is even reportedly considering action against Venezuela itself. We are not powerless against this lawlessness. That is why I rise today in support of this resolution. I rise because no President can unilaterally decide to use our military to target or kill anyone that they simply claim to be a threat. I rise because if we do not hold this President accountable, we abdicate our responsibility to be a voice for the American people and instead embolden Trump to intensify this conflict. I rise because these actions can quickly escalate into a conflict that could destabilize the Western Hemisphere and would put the lives of American troops on the line. I rise because as we see this President abuse the fundamental trust and purpose of our powerful military both abroad and here at home in our own cities, it is imperative that we push back against his relentless lawlessness. I have seen this from my own perspective. Whether that was working as a State Department officer embedded with the military out in Afghanistan or in my work at the Pentagon or in my work at the National Security Council working to try to counter the terrorist group ISIS, I saw the importance of our being able to do that but doing it in a way that is in accordance with our own laws, to be able to both ensure unity as a government but also to ensure that our servicemembers who are fighting have the protections that they need, that they know that the entirety of our government leadership is behind them and that our country is with them. But that is not what we have right now. The first step in fighting back against the lawlessness is understanding the importance of the War Powers Resolution. In this very Chamber 53 years ago, Senator Javits, in debating the overturning of President Nixon's veto of the War Powers Resolution, called the power to bring America into war the ``most awesome power in the possession of any sovereignty.'' This resolution, he said, is about ensuring the ``broad representation of the people in the Congress a voice'' in exercising that power. Senator Javits reminded this Chamber in the wake of the Vietnam war that ``wars cannot be successfully fought except with the consent of the people and with their support.'' What we have seen is a President in Donald Trump who thinks he can use that awesome power against anyone he wants, anytime he wants. That is not what the law says, and it is not what our Founders intended. Our Founders intended for the people to have a say in when we commit our sons and daughters to harm's way. Even in an emergency, the law requires the President to seek Congress's approval within a 60-day window to continue action. In this circumstance, that window closed on Monday with zero indication that this White House will stop taking military action even without having a clear, legal basis to continue. They first recognized the legal parameters of the War Powers Resolution back in September, but now the administration is arguing that they are not bound by this law. They have changed their tune and are contradicting their own arguments in order to get around the law. Of course, that won't stop them from pretending they have legal grounds and fabricating justification where none exists. You will hear them reference a list that designates certain cartels as ``terrorist groups,'' but the authority to pursue groups on this list provides absolutely no basis for the use of deadly force. Even worse, they still have provided zero proof of how they know the individuals they have targeted are linked to these cartels. Trump is simply giving himself the power to designate and then to kill enemies without there being a proper legal review or transparency for the American people. That is not a power any President should have alone, and we cannot allow this to proceed under our watch. After all, it will not be Donald Trump who feels the consequences of further conflict; it will be military families and the American people. That is why decisions of war require deliberation, careful consideration, and a clear legal basis. That is why they require congressional authorization. Through this resolution, we can uphold our responsibility to give voice to Americans on the safety of our troops and the security of our great Nation. We need to give that voice in this moment because this is a crisis that can spiral into a conflict and from a conflict into an all-out war. While Trump tries to claim their targets are boats from Venezuela, in reality, reports show strikes have hit boats from Colombia and apparently those carrying citizens from other neighboring countries. The administration has even admitted they don't know each individual identity of those targeted. To still execute legal strikes is a reckless and dangerous use of our powerful military. As Trump considers expanding strikes to include land targets within Venezuela--that is what we are talking about, within Venezuela--we move further toward a war that would destabilize the entire region. The American people don't want us to start a war within Venezuela, and their voices should be heard, not ignored by this President. There is a final reason why I rise in support of this resolution because letting Donald Trump ignore the law abroad makes him think he has a free pass to do it right here at home. Donald Trump thinks if he can do this in the Caribbean, he can do it on the streets of Chicago. He could use the military for his own political retribution and consolidation of power in and outside our borders. After all, he said in his own words: We're under invasion from within, no different than a foreign enemy but more difficult in many ways because they don't wear uniforms. That is what the President said. We cannot be complacent as he sends troops into our cities as a tool of intimidation against his political enemies. As I close here, I just want to say that we know the American people are not blind to what Trump is doing. They know we are not powerless to stop it. It is time to step up and show them we believe in the law; that we believe in the voices of the American people; that we believe in protecting our servicemembers; and that we won't stand idly by in the face of lawlessness. I hope all of my colleagues join me in passing this resolution. It is our power. It is our duty. It is our responsibility. I yield the floor.

Mr. KIM

Mr. KIM. Mr. President, I rise today because more than 40 million Americans, including more than 800,000 New Jerseyans, are getting ready to sit down for dinner tonight, wondering if there will be enough food for tomorrow. Roughly, one in eight Americans relies on food assistance, and they are left asking if they will be able to give their kids breakfast in the morning. Those are questions people in my State, in every State in this country, are facing, and it leads me to this question that we should ask ourselves: How did we get here? How did we get to this place where things are so broken that American families are having to ration meals to survive? We are the richest, most powerful country in the entire world. Yet people--so many millions of families--have to ask this question of whether or not they will have enough to eat. Now, let's start with President Trump. He is not just absent from any effort to end this shutdown; he is actively weaponizing people's hunger. Last week, two Federal judges, in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, ruled that the administration must use contingency funds or transfer authorities to continue SNAP benefits. Both courts found that it is unlawful for President Trump to hold up the money and benefits and found that emergency funds must be used to keep Americans fed during this shutdown. Now, yesterday, his administration told a Federal judge that they would use the contingency fund to pay half of SNAP benefits, but today Trump made it clear he would defy the court order and won't pay anything unless Democrats stop our attempt to lower healthcare costs. And then the White House came out hours later to try to do some cleaning up, saying that they would comply. I don't know what to believe. No one in America knows what to believe. How can Americans that are hungry plan their next meal with this level of uncertainty coming from the White House? That is not leadership. Now, we know this President has the authority to make this pain stop. During his first term, his own administration issued guidance saying these contingency funds are available if SNAP funds lapse due to a government shutdown. Now, during the second term, the preshutdown documents confirming the USDA would be able to continue funding SNAP have just vanished. They are just gone, removed from the website. So we know the authorities exist. We know the money exists. What we don't know is the willingness of Donald Trump to put American families ahead of himself. We have billions to send to Argentina, hundreds of millions for a new gold-plated ballroom. But money to keep food on the table for millions of families, Donald Trump doesn't think that is a priority. Well, of course, he is wrong, and that is one way that we arrive at this moment. The second reason why families are having to question where their next meal is coming from is found across the Capitol, where Speaker Johnson, just on the other side of this hallway, hasn't brought the House into session in more than 45 days. What would happen to the American people--what would happen to your jobs if you didn't show up for 45 days? Now, this is not just an abdication of responsibility; it is a dereliction of duty, and people will suffer because of it. There is real harm. It is not theoretical. So for these 42 million Americans, they are not asking for the Moon. They are just asking for a little help to be able to feed their kids, to be able to feed their families in a time of need, to be able to just be able to provide a life of dignity and decency. Now, this is something that our government should do. What is the value of government if we cannot help people, our fellow citizens, in their time of need? It is at the core of what we do. And at a time like this, I find myself thinking back to Mr. Rogers' quote ``always look for the helpers.'' We all know that line. As I look around, I ask: Well, where are the helpers? I look at the White House. I see corruption; I see cruelty. I look at the House of Representatives that has been on nearly a 7-week vacation--getting paid--while many government employees are showing up to work and not getting paid, worrying about whether or not they are going to be able to pay the bills. While President Trump and House Republicans fail them, I see in my own home State of New Jersey people stepping up to be the helpers. I see people back home who have taken it upon themselves to do what the White House and the congressional Republicans have prevented us from doing--people like Mary from Medford, who, as a teacher, is personally doing check-ins with her students to make sure their families have resources as New Jersey heads into winter while also organizing a Thanksgiving drive with her friends and family to collect winter items and food to donate to Camden; or Pamela from Rocky Hill, who has taken it upon herself to purchase grocery store gift cards and send them to AmeriCorps members across New Jersey who would otherwise rely on SNAP for monthly food costs; or Leslie from Stockton, who is donating to local food banks in her community, who says that ``I feel very fortunate that I can [donate food]. No one in this country should lack a roof over their head, heat in their home, medical care or nutritious food.'' I wish those words were coming out of the President of the United States. I wish those values were shared by the leaders in the House of Representatives that are not even showing up. These are just snapshots of hundreds of stories we have received from New Jerseyans who have stepped up in their own communities by increasing donations to food banks, given away their free turkeys from the grocery stores, volunteering more at local pantries across the State. The list goes on and on. Well, I want to close here by highlighting the last part of Mr. Rogers' famous quote. We all know, ``Look for the helpers.'' What is not as commonly thought of is the sentence that follows. It says: Look for the helpers . . . because if you look for the helpers, you'll know that there's hope. As my office continues to receive stories from all over my State, I am just so proud to represent these 9 million Americans who left, right, or center, old and young, are currently stepping up. They are the helpers who give me hope. I urge my colleagues to listen to those back home in their States, those here on the floor telling stories from back home. We cannot allow Americans to go hungry. We cannot allow these games to go on with people's lives. We must become the helpers for those we represent. That is the true meaning of the job that we do here. While we carry the title of Senators, ultimately, what the people ask of us is to be the helpers that they can look to, to be able to help them in their time of need. And right now, that means fully funding SNAP so people in this country don't go hungry. I yield the floor.

Mr. KIM

Mr. KIM. I thank the Senator for his answer. I thank you for what you are doing in standing up right now and shining a light on this in this incredibly dark time, especially as your own constituents are fearful about what comes next. I think now, more than ever, it is important for us to be honest with the American people about the true state of the fragility that reminds us that we cannot take this for granted. And I think your work right now, being able to draw that attention, is all-important. So, again, I am grateful for your time and continue to urge you to use your voice right now to speak out and continue to do so with strength.

Mr. KIM. Thank you, Senator Merkley, for taking time out tonight to shine a very bright light on a very dark problem: actions by the Trump administration that put your rights and your freedoms at risk. You know, you are talking about USAID and how the Trump administration was putting it through the woodchipper. That is something that resonated with me as that was the place where I started my government service and my career--working at USAID and standing alongside public servants who were proud to be able to serve our country. I wanted to ask you these questions because I am hearing it from a lot of people in New Jersey who are alarmed by the actions that they see, whether going after our government and our public servants or what we are seeing in the streets across our country. I thought it might be good to talk through some of these questions, to dig in deeper and give the people watching at home a sense of what we mean when we see and say that Donald Trump is a threat to our democracy. Let's start with the simple but important question of who is the enemy or, more importantly, who does Donald Trump see as an enemy? In multiple speeches, it is very clear that Donald Trump sees many of his fellow Americans--your friends, your neighbors, you--as the enemy. He calls them ``the enemy within.'' It is an absurd thing. It is an insane thing. It is something you might just write off as rhetoric, but it is not. You know it is not because of something called NSPM-7. ``NSPM'' means ``national security Presidential memorandum.'' This one is entitled ``Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence.'' In short, what this allows the President to do is basically declare that anyone or any group who opposes the President's agenda can be declared a domestic terrorist organization. It directs multiple government Agencies--from the Department of Justice, to Treasury, to Homeland Security--to take broad, sweeping actions to disband and uproot basically any entity it decides they can label as opposing the President. Some of these entities are think tanks and advocacy groups. But that is just politics. That is civil discourse, and that is how we are supposed to communicate our differences, these groups that are standing up and speaking out against the President's policies. That is what we in this country should be allowed to do in raising our free speech. So, again, who are the enemies? To Donald Trump and this administration, they say it is you. So if you are the enemy, what about the entity that exists to confront and deter our enemies--the military? Which brings me to a second question: What is the military's role in confronting enemies? Let's start with what the military's role should be in protecting Americans. I have had the opportunity to work alongside our military during my career in national security, whether that was out in Afghanistan or at the Pentagon or at the White House. These are some of the best of us as Americans. They have chosen not just to serve but to put themselves in harm's way to protect our country and our way of life. But that is not what Donald Trump sees as the military. Look at the current deployment of the National Guard troops. What we see here in DC or in Chicago or in the Senator's home State of Oregon is our National Guard, our servicemembers, used as political props to produce TV content for President Trump. In all of these cases, the servicemembers were deployed against perceived Democratic areas to clearly punish his political enemies. So if this is a President who is going to try to get away with everything, that leaves us to a pretty scary question: What lengths will this President go to take actions against his declared enemies? The answer seems to be, incredibly great lengths. We see that right now to our south in the Caribbean. Before I dig in here, let's pause for a moment and make one thing clear. Drug traffickers and gangs driven through the drug trade are enemies. These are entities and people who do harm to Americans. The American people are not the enemies. Even when looking at how we address these threats from traffickers and gang members, there are laws that ensure that those efforts can't be turned against you. But that is exactly what we saw last month when a Black Hawk helicopter was used to transport and deploy Federal agents to Chicago. According to a report by the New York Times, agents, led by the U.S Border Patrol, pulled dozens of American citizens from their apartments in the middle of the night, pointing guns at sleeping men and women before zip-tying them and taking them outside. I never thought that I would see these actions here at home, and it terrifies not just me but so many people within my home State and I know around this country. If that is what Donald Trump wants--total power to target the government's greatest resources against his enemies--then that begs yet another question: What is the President's end goal? I think that is pretty clear. His end goal is your silence, your fealty, your submission, making you so afraid to stand up or speak out. So, Senator Merkley, thank you again for holding the floor tonight as a reminder that our democracy is under attack. It is a good reminder because democracy isn't just your voice and your vote; it is your right to stand up and not be silenced, your right to have your rights not threatened or intimidated by the same military that is supposed to protect you. So as I was thinking about the words that you were saying but also this incredible act that you are taking tonight to be able to focus the American people's attention upon the challenges and threats that we face, I wanted to ask you a question--one that sums up the totality of what I was going through about just this meditation on the word ``enemy'' being used against our fellow Americans. So I ask you, Senator, what must we do to restore our democracy in this moment? What can we do to give power back to the people? How can I try to assure my constituents--the people in New Jersey--that our democracy is not slipping away?

Mr. KIM

Mr. KIM. Madam President, I rise today because across this country Americans are reading headlines about the impacts of cyber security threats that make us less safe. Let me read to you three from just yesterday: From Reuters, ``Cyber defenders sound the alarm as F5 hack exposes broad risks''; from a TV station in Tennessee, ``Cyber attack closes La Vergne offices''; and from the Nevada Current, ``Nevada's recent cyber attack shows the importance of shoring up security for election systems.'' All of these are a reminder that we must do everything we can to be able to protect our communities. There is one thing we can do right here today. Today, we can pass the bipartisan Protecting America from Cyber Threats Act, introduced by Senators Peters and Rounds. This bipartisan legislation would reauthorize the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015, groundbreaking legislation that has served as a catalyst of Federal and private sector cooperation on the real and consequential cyber security threats facing our Nation. For a decade, this program has had broad bipartisan support because of its positive impact on our Nation's cyber security landscape. Cyber attacks are real, and America's adversaries will not wait until our government is reopened before waging these attacks on our critical infrastructure, on small businesses, and vulnerable populations, such as the elderly. That is why we need to safeguard future collaboration and make sure that the companies still working with Agencies during this shutdown are not penalized. This legislation would do just that. Private and Federal cooperation is necessary to ensure that we are putting our best foot forward in keeping the data of all Americans safe and protecting consumers from the most devastating consequences of cyber attacks, such as identity theft and financial loss. These are the facts: Malicious cyber attacks on our Nation's critical infrastructure--such as our healthcare facilities, electrical grid, and more--are becoming more frequent, impactful, and sophisticated. Prior to this authority, non-Federal entities did not have a readily available method of sharing cyber threat information. Every day that goes by that this operation goes without reauthorization, both Federal Agencies and private entities risk not knowing the extent of current cyber threats and the resources needed to mitigate those threats. Just last October, media reports surfaced about Salt Typhoon, one of the largest telecommunications hacks in U.S. history, carried out by hackers sponsored by the People's Republic of China. It is insane to think that almost a year after reporting on such a catastrophic event, that we would even consider not passing legislation specifically focused on these types of national security issues. We must do better, and today we have an opportunity to make a commonsense decision that will support national security and keep Americans safe from cyber attacks. I urge my colleagues to act and pass the Protecting America from Cyber Threats Act. Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 182, S. 2983; that the Peters substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. KIM

Mr. KIM. Mr. President, I rise today as Federal servants, civil servants, will check their mail or check their bank accounts and not see the money that they have earned, the money that they have earned for doing the work of the American people because hundreds of thousands of civil servants--including roughly three quarters of a million furloughed government workers--will sit down at the kitchen table tonight and ask some hard questions: Which bills do we pay? What do we do to cut back? How long can we go without a paycheck? These are tough questions, but they are only being asked because President Trump and Speaker Johnson and others have decided that they would rather plunge our government into a shutdown rather than address the healthcare costs crisis for millions of Americans that are facing, right now, these incredibly challenging debates. Now, there are a lot of stories of our public servants struggling in this moment, and I understand that some of my colleagues haven't had a chance to hear them. So I wanted to come to the floor today to share my own story. I started my career as a public servant, as a State Department officer. I worked for the Federal Government. It was the honor of my lifetime. I emphasize that I was career, not a political, appointee. I swore an oath to the Constitution, and I remember how proud I was to be able to raise my hand and recite that oath. I remember very clearly and vividly, in 2013, I was working on counterterrorism trying to keep our Nation safe. And while I was doing that work of national security, political leaders on the Hill, at that time, hit an impasse, and our government went into a shutdown. I remember how distant that felt for me with the work that I was doing. I am just trying to show up and do work every day to be able to keep our country safe, to be able to watch out for terrorist groups that try to do us and our allies and our partners harm. Why was it that now I was being asked to show up to work every single day and not receive a paycheck? And, particularly, I was very early in my career, not making very much money, turned down high-paying jobs so I could serve my country. I did it because I was proud to be a public servant, proud to be amongst the many others that are willing to put our country before our own families; that we are part of something bigger than all of us. But through that period, when we were going through that shutdown-- and to remind people, that one lasted 16 days. At the time, that was the second longest shutdown in American history. Hundreds of thousands of Federal employees did not receive their full paychecks during that shutdown. And at the time, we didn't have a guarantee and promise that we would actually get backpay for the work that we were doing. It was challenging. I remember having to call my own family and ask them what I should be doing, try to think through what I can be doing to make sure that I can pay the bills when it comes up. I had no idea how long the shutdown would go for and felt so distant. I had no way, as a civil servant, to influence the discussions on the Hill and the leaders that were making this decision. I remember reading afterward, the Office of Management and Budget would put together a report following the shutdown, and in that report they quoted an EPA employee who spoke with the Washington Post. That employee said: We love public service. We're very committed to our jobs and the mission of our agency. But it's just too unstable. And I remember that instability. My story is not unique. And that is why, when I was actually sworn into Congress in January 2019--now, again, I was sworn into Congress in the middle of a government shutdown, a shutdown that is still, to this day, recognized as the longest shutdown. And I remember I was sworn into the government shutdown, and I found out something that just shocked me, which is that the President and Members of Congress continue to get paid during a shutdown. I just could not believe it; that after what I had gone through as a career public servant, doing the work of the country, continuing to show up to work each and every day, not receiving the paycheck, then realizing that 435 people in the House, 100 people in the Senate, and the President of the United States continue to get a paycheck. They are the only ones in the entire government that continue to get paid. I remember, at that point, I decided I was going to refuse my pay until the shutdown was over, and I am continuing to do that with this shutdown because I still believe in those old sayings that officers eat last, that leaders eat last, and that by taking our pay during this crisis, especially on this day when so many others are not, we are showing that we are fine having a full plate while others go without. That is not leadership. That is not acceptable. If leaders are being paid while others are not, you can see why so many Americans believe that politicians are playing with other people's chips; that they don't feel the impact of their actions. And that is dangerous because it is easy to then think about all of this as a game and to lose sight of the actual impacts on American families. It is something I talked about with two public servants in New Jersey during the first week of the shutdown. These are Federal workers who have so much on the line in this fight. But it is important to remember that, for them, this fight didn't begin with the shutdown. The stresses that Federal workers are facing didn't start on October 1; it started on January 20. It started with Russell Vought, the scribe of Project 2025 and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, saying that he wants Federal workers to be ``in trauma,'' saying that he wants our public servants--the people that help educate our kids, pave your roads, keep you safe--to ``not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as villains.'' That is what the current OMB Director, the mastermind of this shutdown, has said; that he wants our public servants to be ``viewed as villains.'' And let me tell you something, that is something I heard from those Federal workers that I sat down with. So congratulations, Russell Vought. Your dream has come true. These Federal public servants I talked to said that they wake up every day feeling like they have been made to be like the enemy, be viewed in that way by the American people. They talked about the shooting at the Centers for Disease Control, the attacks upon public servants. That word ``enemy'' is something we have seen from President Trump himself. He has repeatedly used the phrase ``enemy from within'' when talking about people whom he perceives as his enemies, fellow Americans who he thinks are engaged in a war from within. I want to be clear. The people I sat down with earlier this month-- they are not the enemy. They are not showing up to work every day to go to war against Donald Trump. They are showing up to work every day because they believe in service. They are showing up to work every day because they believe they have an obligation as Americans to work for something bigger than themselves. We owe them better than what they are seeing right now and how they are being treated. We owe them better than a politics that demonizes them and their work. What we see right now, though, is that we don't even have--while our public servants are not getting paid through this shutdown even though so many of them are showing up for work, I can tell you, they are furious that we have a House of Representatives that doesn't even show up, that we have Speaker Johnson continuing to give House Republicans a paid vacation even though they are not even showing up to work and do their job. We also see the President and his mob boss-like cronies, like Russell Vought and Stephen Miller, continuing to step up and use our government, weaponizing it as a tool for political retribution and political extortion. We owe our public servants better. We owe them not just an end to the shutdown but an end to the politics that makes our public servants an enemy or a tool. Next year is the 250th anniversary of our Nation's independence. It is a chance to reaffirm who we are as Americans and what we believe in. I believe in service. I believe in public servants. I believe that the way out of this tailspin we are in as a country is to try to reignite a new era of public service in this country, have a new ``ask not what this country can do for you'' kind of moment. I believe that we must do everything we can right now to support our public servants. First of all, have the House of Representatives get back to work so we can have the negotiations, so we can have the discussions needed to address the healthcare crisis impacting American families and reopen our government so that every public servant can have the peace of mind and dignity of knowing that their service has been recognized. It is time to support our public servants. It is time that we work to end this shutdown. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. KIM

Mr. KIM. Madam President, I asked people back home in New Jersey how they have felt about this moment in our country. What I have heard falls into this category: They have said that they feel like things are spinning out of control, that every day feels like a new crisis, every day the anxiety grows deeper, and every day it seems like we move further from a solution. And in order to find a solution to this moment, we need to understand the problem. The problem that we face and that I want to talk about with you today is that we have a government that has been hijacked at the highest levels by people who act like mob bosses. Now, again, I am from Jersey. We know a thing or two about mob bosses. But I want to be clear. This isn't pulling off a Lufthansa heist or having members of your crew getting lost in the Pine Barrens. This is about a Trump administration that is using the same tactics we have seen time and time again in movies and in real life: extortion, corruption, intimidation, and violence--all of these things that have become hallmarks of the Trump Presidency. I bring them up today, 6 days into a government shutdown, because this is what the Trump administration is focused on. The Trump administration is not focused on lowering your costs. If they were, they would be here at the Capitol today, working to find a way to lower healthcare costs, as we are about to see them spike for millions of Americans, potentially kicking large numbers off their coverage who can't afford it. The Trump administration is not focused on creating jobs or creating economic opportunities. If they were, they would be here in both the Senate and the House today, working to make sure that we are investing in the kinds of things only government can provide, things that make us more competitive, more innovative, more prosperous. And the Trump administration is certainly not focused on keeping you and your family safer. If they were, they would be here at the Capitol today, in both Chambers, working to get our troops paid or to address the real challenges at home and abroad that threaten our security. Instead, this administration and leaders here in this Capitol have shut down this government so they can focus on the things that they want: to use government to further corruption so that they can funnel money to their billionaire donors, to use government as a tool to extort the American people to bend to their will, to weaponize government to intimidate Americans through violence who dare oppose their actions by even just speaking up. Corruption, extortion, and intimidation through violence--this is how the Trump administration wants to use your government against you. Now, like every great mob movie, it is not just about the boss who plays a critical role. For every Don Corleone, there is a Tom Hagen and a Luca Brasi. Donald Trump plays the role of the mob boss, but it is his henchmen who are really running the show. Russell Vought and Stephen Miller are not public servants. Public servants work to serve the public. They work toward the public good. Russ Vought and Stephen Miller are straight out of Scorsese. These two men are running an operation on corruption, extortion, and intimidation that would make Al Capone jealous. Let's start with Russ Vought. Russ Vought's entire existence, his reason for being, is to cut every program the American people could possibly rely on so that the billionaires who fund his work can get another tax cut. Money goes to him; money goes back to them; none of it goes to you--pure corruption. But it is not enough for Russ Vought to just funnel billions to his backers. He has to take from you just to remind you of his power, just to bring you to heel. That is why, last week, he announced that he was freezing $18 billion for critical infrastructure projects in New York and New Jersey. One of them is the Hudson Tunnel Project, which is critical to our region's economy. In fact, when I asked Secretary Duffy about this at his confirmation hearing, he said it was a project of national importance, critical for our Nation, not just our region. It is essential to our pursuit to bring infrastructure into the 21st century, and it supports tens of thousands of jobs. But Russell Vought decided to freeze that money out of nothing but political retribution. He decided to freeze this money because he thinks he can punish the people of New Jersey for demanding the government actually work for them, for demanding that we actually work to lower costs. It doesn't just stop at New Jersey. He froze billions of dollars for transit projects in Chicago and more than $8 billion in Department of Energy projects in States across the country, just because those States voted for Democrats in the last election. He didn't try to stop those exact types of projects in States that voted for Donald Trump in the last election. Russell Vought acts like a mob boss because he thinks he can use his levers of government to funnel money to his friends and take away your services when you have gotten out of line. Last week, I went to New Jersey for a day and heard from my constituents about how they are seeing this shutdown, and one woman said something that really stuck out to me. I asked her: If you had a chance to be able to say one thing to Donald Trump and these Republican negotiators, what would it be? This was an independent voter. She said: I would want to tell them that it is our money; it is the American people's money, not Trump's personal bank account. She is absolutely right. This isn't Russell Vought's money to take away whenever he pleases. We have seen him do that through something called rescissions, something that completely ignores the framework our Founding Fathers put in place nearly 250 years ago that Congress--on behalf of you, the people--decides how your money is spent and when that decision is made on behalf of you--your will--your money can't be overturned and taken away simply because a single bureaucratic mob boss decides to exercise his power. It is not just taking money away. We need to remember that this isn't Russ Vought's money to use as a tool to extort his imagined enemies into following his orders. We need to remember that this is your money. It is your government, and it should work for you. But right now the Trump administration isn't working for you. It is working to grow and consolidate its own power. That brings us to our second mob boss, Stephen Miller. Stephen Miller thinks he is the enforcer. He thinks it is his job to defeat Donald Trump's enemies. And again, like Russell Vought, he doesn't seem to see himself as a public servant. He is not even here to make your family safer or to protect your country. Let's look at how Stephen Miller operates as a mob boss. Stephen Miller and this administration have taken the issue of our broken immigration system, and instead of working to actually fix it, they have used it as an excuse to rapidly militarize parts of our government and deploy them against our own people, in our own cities, in our own towns. It starts with going after criminals, people who should actually be sought after and detained, but that is not where it stops. We have seen thousands of American servicemembers sent into American cities. We have as many Americans in uniform here in Washington, DC, as we do in Iraq. We have seen American weapons of war, including Blackhawk helicopters, used against Americans in places like Chicago, and we have seen Miller and other members of this administration effectively call anyone who simply disagrees with them terrorists, including the Democratic Party, while calling for the use of ``state power'' to ``dismantle'' them. Now, I want to reflect on that phrase for a moment, ``state power.'' Stephen Miller isn't talking about using the power of our government to make your lives better or work for you. He is not talking about using it to make your neighborhoods safer. He is talking about using it against you if you get out of line. He is talking about using it against anyone who disagrees with this administration, for anyone who stands in their way. We know that because Donald Trump has basically told us. He told a room of all of his Nation's top military officials--seemingly convened only to show he had the power to do so--that they had to prepare for a ``war from within.'' He told the leaders of the most powerful military in the history of the world to prepare to battle the ``enemy from within.'' That means Americans at home. And, again, we know that because Donald Trump has said it. In the same convening, he said he wants to use American cities as ``training grounds'' for the military. American cities--places where we live, where we go to work, where we bring our kids to school--that is where Donald Trump wants to exercise power over you. We have the finest military in the world. The purpose of that military is to defend our Constitution, to defend the American people, to deter our enemies and be prepared to fight them if necessary. The American people are not that enemy, and deploying our military in America's streets weakens our readiness to defend against real threats. Donald Trump and Stephen Miller and this administration will keep finding new excuses to seize power and threaten to use it against you. In the words of a Federal judge, one that Trump appointed, ours ``is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law,'' and the actions of the Trump administration ``risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power--to the detriment of this nation.'' We are seeing this administration launch military strikes against individuals from Venezuela with no legal authorization or justification. We are seeing this administration--Mr. Miller, specifically--call legal decisions that he doesn't like ``an organized terrorist attack.'' We are seeing this administration use intimidation and violence as tools not to make us safer, as if that was ever acceptable, but to make us submit. At the end of the day, that is this administration's aim: submission. Like every mob boss, they want you to kiss the ring. They want your loyalty--but not just that; they want your fealty. And the thing they don't understand is that Americans don't bend the knee; we don't kiss the ring; we don't pledge loyalty to a boss. This is the people's government. It is not a tool for corruption. It is not a tool for extortion. It is not a tool for intimidation and violence. It is a tool for growing opportunity and prosperity. It is a tool for providing security and freedom. And it is a tool for everyone, not just the bosses. So, yes, we need to work to reopen our government, and in doing so, we need to make sure that people don't drown under a wave of rising healthcare costs. But we can't lose sight that this isn't the only fight we have got in front of us. President Trump has handed power to Russ Vought and Stephen Miller, and they have used that power to take away your opportunities, your security, and your freedoms. When we reopen the government, we need to fight to make sure it is working for you, the American people, who deserve that better than to live under the thumb of mob bosses. We are going to fight every day to make sure that you can. I yield the floor.

Mr. KIM

Mr. KIM. Madam President, I rise today because I literally, just about 2 minutes ago, finished a telephone townhall with over 5,000 people back home in New Jersey that joined up to try to figure out what in the world is happening to our government right now, when they see just this abdication of leadership from the White House to leadership here in Congress, and to step up right now at a time of need. Thousands of people from across New Jersey who have called in worried about how this shutdown is going to affect their lives, how the healthcare costs that they are going to be experiencing are going to reshape their ability to be able to deliver care for those that need care the most. The simple story is they are scared. The people I talked to were nervous about what comes next. And, frankly, they are pissed off about this. They know that this is not how a government should function. They know that, yes, we need to be able to step up and have negotiations. But how can you have negotiations when one Chamber of this Congress hasn't even shown up to work this week. That is right. When I told them about how Speaker Johnson didn't even bring the House of Representatives to work this week, even though they were supposed to, they were furious. If we are going to ask public servants to show up to work tomorrow, if we are going to ask our military to show up to work tomorrow without getting paid, the least--the least--that our Republicans in the House of Representatives can do is show up to work here. We should be furious about this. This is an abdication of leadership. It is a dereliction of duty. It is one of the most shameful things that I have seen in terms of just giving up on something that is so important, that is going to have so much impact on so many people across this country. What I heard is, they want us to be the adults in the room and sit together to be able to have the kind of dialogue--but, instead, what we see is just this posturing back and forth from Donald Trump, from leadership on the Republican side that hold the gavels here. And, yes, the Republicans control the White House; they control the Senate; they control the House of Representatives and the American people know that and they know who is at fault for where we stand right now; that we are about 3 hours away from a government shutdown. This is something that I take personally as someone who worked as a career civil servant before. I told my constituents today how I worked as a civil servant. I worked through multiple shutdowns before. Of course, I don't want to see us get to this place. This should be an absolute last resort. But, again, when they are not even bothering to show up to work, we know where their priorities land; that they have been moving toward this and barreling our country toward this for a long time. So my constituents have every bit of right to be feeling pissed off about this because after we have already gone through this in March, they see the government, once again, not working for them, and they are right. Where have the attempts been over the past few months to work together to avoid this scenario? Again, it is not just about process. I don't want people to think this is just some tug of war; that this is just some battle for political power; that this is just some challenge between political parties for who has the momentum on their side. There is real struggle. I heard that on this townhall. We had people like Leticia from Camden, who said that with prices so high ``every choice feels like a sacrifice, and the stress is constant.'' It is affecting how they are able to hold up and how they feel when they wake up every morning, what keeps them up at night. Still, she remains determined to advocate for families like hers who deserve stability, dignity, and hope. Or an urgent call from Barbara, who begged us not to back down from this fight. Laura from Brick, who called and urged Democrats not to back down from this fight and was able to say how concerned she was for just regular citizens to be able to make things easier for everyone impacted. She was asking how can she help. She was asking how can she help those who are struggling. Frankly, she wants to do more than what Speaker Johnson is doing on the other side of this building. Or people like Mick from Toms River, who, although he was trying to be an informed citizen and learn what was going on, he was having trouble figuring out fact from fiction regarding this budget because of the sheer amount of disinformation and lies that we see out there in political rhetoric--lies that are blatantly trying to smear and make it difficult for the American people to understand what is at stake. So, yes, when we hear the Speaker of the House talking about how this funding--that these are Democrats that are trying to cut resources from FEMA or make it harder for people to get care through WIC, the program for women, infants and children--well, look, it is just deception because what we already know is that the reconciliation bill that was passed--this was something that is estimated to potentially affect 3 million people, preventing them from getting care through the WIC Program already--3 million out of 8 million that get care now. So who is it that is actually hurting people's ability to get those services? And FEMA, are you kidding me? I literally heard it out of the mouth of the President and the Homeland Security Secretary that they want to abolish FEMA. And here we are hearing it from the Speaker, making it seem like the blame is over here. These are issues that people understand, like Jody from Manchester, who is concerned that with all the rising prices, she will have to choose being able to afford food or medicine because costs are simply too high for her to be able to afford both. No one in this country--the richest most powerful country in the world--should ever have to make that kind of tradeoff. Yet we see right now--we are on the cusp of it, not just 3 hours away from a shutdown. But over the course of tomorrow and the coming days, Americans all over this country will be getting their new bills when it comes to healthcare. We see that tens of billions of them will have to pay more--possibly double--what they are already paying. Over 4.5 million Americans will lose their care, including many in New Jersey. That is a catastrophe that we see coming. We knew it was coming, and we tried to take action to be able to address that. What happened? Kicking the can down the road. When does open enrollment start when it comes to healthcare? It starts in November. What good is it if we punt toward Thanksgiving, which is what this body tried to do. They need solutions now. They need answers now and they are not getting it and they are certainly not seeing anything that resembles leadership in this country right now. So, yes, what I am hearing from Loreno in Forked River, who says that she, literally, could lose her current health insurance if ACA premiums go away. That is what we are fighting for. That is what I hope people see over the coming period as this continues on because I know it is so easy to make it feel like, again, it is just completely detached. Often, it really seems that way. It feels like people here in the Senate, here in Congress, at the White House, we are playing with other people's chips, that we don't feel it ourselves. I have to say, I found it disgusting when I learned in 2018, when I came into Congress, that the President and Members of Congress get paid during the shutdown; that they continue to get their salary while servicemembers in our military and other public servants do not, even though they are showing up to do their work. We should not be held to a different standard. We should not be in a place where it seems like we are above the rest because that is exactly what the rest of the American people believe. They believe that we think we are above the law; that we don't have to obey it; that we don't have to follow the rules that other people do. And that is why they are losing trust in this government. I can tell you, come midnight today, they have every bit of reason to believe that because we have failed in our ability to be able to deliver for so many people. We have Lucinda from Whiting write in begging us to ``hold the line'' when it comes to fighting for healthcare because, in her words, ``I definitely cannot afford my ACA insurance without the Advanced Premium Tax Credits. If costs go up and healthcare gets more expensive, I will have to go without insurance and not go to the doctor.'' These are just a fraction of the thousands of calls and emails and outreach we received. We asked people to share their stories. We got over 3,500 stories back just this week about people's concerns about what is happening with this shutdown and losing healthcare. We need to recognize that we have a President who can't even be bothered to learn about the hurt that is being put forward by his own party when it comes to our healthcare; that our bill is not one that is looking out for them. We need leaders who understand what is going on. We need leaders who care about the people they are supposed to be leading. We need leaders who will actually be the adults in the room. So, yes, I rise today to make that promise to New Jersey and to the American people that I will keep fighting for you and fight with you as we go through this. We are going through uncertain times. We are entering unprecedented times. I know that it is a lot for everyone. But, again, we remember why we fight here; that while I am giving this speech, I am worried about the care my father is getting. My father's health is declining rapidly. Every single one of us knows what it is like to have a loved one struggling when it comes to their care. I know everyone knows that experience of saying we would try to move Heaven and Earth to be able to make sure that they get the care that they need in their time of greatest need. How can I--when I stand by thinking about 4.5 million Americans, including many in my State, losing healthcare, making it harder for them to be able to deliver for their family--how can I say that this is a time to roll over, that this is a time to stand down? No, we draw the line here. We fight for your healthcare; we fight for your lives; your ability to deliver for your loved ones; to be able to stand up together and say this is not how our government should work. This is not how our democracy should function. We deserve better. The American people deserve better. That is what we are going to fight for. We are going to fight for better. I yield the floor.

Mr. KIM

Mr. KIM. Mr. President, I rise today to raise my concerns about a vote we are about to take on the nomination of Stephen Miran for the Board of the Federal Reserve. I rise because the scarcest resource that we have in politics right now is trust, and, unfortunately, trust is also the most important resource we need to heal our broken Nation. I took part in a hearing 2 weeks ago for the nomination of Dr. Miran. I have had a chance to be a part of a lot of different confirmations here during my time in the Senate so far, and I have heard a lot of different crazy things, but, still, one part of this hearing really stood out to me. Now, mind you, this is someone who previously said: To pretend that one can easily shift between highly political and allegedly nonpolitical roles without letting political biases inform policy is at best naive--and at worst sinister. Those are the words of Dr. Miran himself talking about the concerns of politicization of the Federal Reserve, about the inability to be able to separate some of our political biases from the work that needs to happen at the Fed if we have people who are too close to the White House, too close to the President. He is someone who criticized previous Democratic nominees to the Fed positions for their closeness to Democratic Presidents and for serving in their administrations. He even called for a cooling-off period that would ban service in the executive branch following service on the Fed Board. But in this hearing, we heard something altogether different, and it is something that caught my attention, which is that Dr. Miran, who currently serves at the White House as the top economic adviser to President Trump, serving as the head of the Council of Economic Advisers, has no problem with himself being nominated for this role on the Fed Board. In fact, because this role is to serve the remainder of a term on the Fed Board, which is a few months, Dr. Miran has stated and confirmed to us in the hearing that he will not resign his position at the White House, even if he takes upon this role of serving on the Federal Reserve Board. He will instead take a leave of absence from the White House, which means that he will technically still be attached to the White House, despite also serving on the Federal Reserve Board. This has never been done before. I see this as a deep breach of trust. And I urge my colleagues, especially my Senate Republican colleagues, to demand that Dr. Miran resign from the White House if he is confirmed. This should be a requirement. I asked Dr. Miran how he can square his past statements about concerns about the revolving door between politics and, in particular, the White House and nominees to Fed positions. He downplayed it and said, oh, he was just talking about a package of reforms that hadn't passed yet and that he shouldn't be held to the standard that he himself put forward. I will be honest with you. It is straight-up painful to watch. He tried to excuse his behavior, saying that his attorneys had advised him to take this leave of absence. He was saying he was just doing what his attorneys told him to do. That is misleading. What he didn't say is that these attorneys are telling him what is best for his career, not what is best for the American people. I wanted to share the story because it is one of the most blatant examples that I have seen in my time in the Senate so far of a lack of integrity, to twist yourself in knots because you want a job, to betray beliefs that you previously stated that you hold central to your beliefs of the work that we are doing just because you want a job. I will be honest with you. I don't understand that, and I think that that is a dangerous behavior. What bothers me is that it really shows who a person is: Someone who is willing to quickly and easily betray their previously held strong beliefs, what does it say about other things that they believe in? Why should I believe what Dr. Miran said about his positions on our economy, on interest rates, about Fed independence when I see how quickly he is willing to change his mind when it suits him? He believes something until it is inconvenient for his career. This raises a question for all of us to consider, which is, Why does it matter to the rest of us? Why should we care? DC is filled with ambitious people. What does it matter at the Federal Reserve? For those of you watching, maybe you have never heard of Dr. Miran. Maybe many of us in this country can't name other members of the Federal Reserve Board, so why should we care about this nomination and what he has said? What I hope we understand is the importance of this choice. We need to understand the role that the Federal Reserve plays in this moment and how Dr. Miran can almost singlehandedly reshape it. The Federal Reserve, in short, sets monetary policy. The conditions that banks use to decide interest rates for your mortgage or auto loans, it sets them. Your banks, it regulates them to make sure that they are being responsible; the prices of your everyday goods, it determines the amount of money in circulation to keep those at a stable and reasonable cost. All of those things are important. They are part of our day-to-day lives. The impact of the Federal Reserve has significant impact on our ability to save and to build wealth so we can pass on to our kids and our grandkids. Because these things are important, it is critical that the Federal Reserve be allowed to act independently--independent of political whims, independent of political pressures, independent of political motives. The Fed's job is to execute all of those important tasks with your priorities in mind. We want people who have such a powerful role affecting our economy to be solely focused on what is best for our economy. That is why political interference must be constrained. I hope all of us can agree that we don't want a President--or any politician, for that matter--being able to order interest rates to be lowered ahead of an election so that it could benefit them politically. Right? That is something I hope all of us can agree would be wrong. Then how is it that we can be OK with someone still listed as an employee at the White House to sit on the Federal Reserve Board? Oh, and the reason he gives, that this is a temporary appointment, that just makes things worse. Dr. Miran is hoping to get President Trump to nominate him for the full term after this temporary term ends, but because he is staying on the White House staff on a leave of absence, he is doing so to hedge his bets just in case that doesn't work out for him, just in case President Trump decides to nominate someone else for the next term next year. This exposes the heart of the problem, which is that this vote that we are about to take here in the Senate--Dr. Miran thinks of this as just a tryout, as just an audition, as just an opportunity for him to be able to do this and try to stay on President Trump's good side, keeping his fingers crossed for Trump to approve of his work so that he gets the full nomination next year. Of course--of course--he will feel pressure to do as Trump wants him to do in the interim about interest rates and feel beholden to him. So either Dr. Miran can decide that he wants to remove himself from consideration of the full term next year or he should do what he himself has said that we should have, which is a ban on people being able to go through this resolving door. He should at least step up and say that he will resign his position at the White House if this vote confirms him for this position because these challenges and these conflicts of interests are exactly why Dr. Miran previously called for a ban on this resolving door between the Fed and the White House and the executive branch. There are many other reasons for Senators to oppose this nomination, but I wanted to focus on this one because I believe a majority of Senators agree with this lack of independence with this decision by Dr. Miran to be able to continue to stay at the White House. Stephen Miran had every opportunity to do the right thing and ensure no conflicts of interest occur, but he refused. He had the chance to earn the trust of the U.S. Senate and the American people, but he refused. But we here in this Chamber can do the right thing. If Dr. Miran wants his nomination to go forward, he should commit to resigning from the White House; otherwise, this Chamber should not move and vote his nomination through. I yield the floor.

Mr. KIM

Mr. KIM. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to Emil Bove's nomination to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Bove is unqualified, unfit, and undermines public trust in our justice system. Every report makes one thing clear: He puts politics over justice, loyalty to Donald Trump above all else. We cannot give someone like that a lifetime appointment. I rise because more than 9 million people that I represent--the people of New Jersey--fall under the jurisdiction of the Third Circuit. This nomination has a direct impact on their lives, their futures, and their rights. The people of New Jersey deserve better. They have had enough of corruption and political gamesmanship and what we see so clearly to be a system rigged for the well-connected and the well-off. Let me explain why this matters. In times when so many feel the system is working against them, courts serve as a critical check on unchecked power. Judges matter because their decisions expand or restrict basic rights. They shape the fate of immigrants seeking a better life, influence our economy, and they determine our safety and future. The courts should reflect the promise of America--a nation where the rules apply equally no matter your wealth or connections, where fairness guides justice. Emil Bove represents the opposite. He is part of a broken system where loyalty to politics and political power trumps fairness and the law, where connections and corruption undermine justice. Mr. Bove's resume includes work as an assistant U.S. attorney, prestigious clerkships, experience in some of the world's most powerful law firms, but that is not why he was nominated. He was chosen for one singular reason, which is his unwavering loyalty to Donald Trump. Throughout his career, Mr. Bove has shown he is ethically unfit to be a public servant. He fired career prosecutors, including those working on January 6 investigations, simply because they would not follow politically motivated orders. He openly instructed subordinates to defy court rulings to continue deporting people without due process and threatened, fired, and publicly disparaged those who refused. This is not public service; this is corruption disguised as loyalty. The pillars of our judicial system are objectivity and independence. They ensure that justice is blind to politics. But Mr. Bove has shown contempt for those pillars. Over 900 former DOJ attorneys have signed a letter urging this Senate to reject his nomination, calling him unfit and unethical. The Department of Justice must stand for law, not partisan agendas. And now we are asked to trust a nominee who has proven willing to defy the law and undermine the courts themselves. The answer must be no. Let me address a particularly troubling experience that underscores the corruption that Mr. Bove represents when he sought to dismiss the case regarding New York Mayor Adams. This is not just politics as usual; this is corruption that threatens the integrity of the very justice system Mr. Bove seeks to join, the kind of dealmaking, backroom, political gamesmanship that the people of New Jersey are sick and tired of. And I say this not just as a Senator but as someone who challenged New Jersey's political status quo in Federal district court and ultimately before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, this very court. Approving this nomination sends a message that corruption and loyalty to power trumps qualifications and fairness. That is not the future I want for my children, my State, or this country. It doesn't have to be this way. That future is in the hands of this very body, the U.S. Senate. New Jersey and this country deserve better than Emil Bove. America deserves a justice system it can trust. Let us vote no on Bove's nomination to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. I yield the floor.

Mr. KIM

Mr. KIM. Mr. President, I will accept a voice vote. Vote on Motion to Recommit

Mr. KIM. Mr. President, public broadcasting has educated and informed and inspired generations, teaching important lessons to people of all ages and sharing powerful stories, including of our Nation's veterans. One story at a time--the StoryCorps Military Voices Initiative uplifts the humanity and possibility in all of us. Each week on NPR, they share stories to over 12 million listeners. Then there is the PBS program ``Veterans Coming Home'' focused on sharing the experiences of veterans as they enter civilian life. The American Homefront Project breaks down challenges facing our troops, making sure we have conversations about what support military personnel and veterans need from all of us. The stories of our heroes aren't partisan; they aren't political. These are trusted, nonpartisan, powerful initiatives sharing the real experiences of our veterans, their families, and our communities, and reminding the rest of us of the price of freedom. Yet this rescission package before us threatens to eliminate over $1 billion in funding for public broadcasting, including these programs. That is why I move to recommit this bill and bring it back without these senseless cuts. We can't let veterans' stories--the voices of those who have sacrificed for our country--be erased.

Mr. KIM. I ask that further reading be dispensed with.

Mr. KIM. Mr. President, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. KIM

Mr. KIM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the following four motions to commit be printed in the Record. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance to strike provisions that would increase the health insurance premiums or out-of-pocket costs under the Medicaid program, the Children's Health Insurance Program, or the private insurance marketplaces established under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act for middle class individuals or families. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance to make changes to the bill to prevent children, individuals with disabilities, or seniors from becoming uninsured. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance to eliminate provisions that would force the closure of hospitals or otherwise reduce access to affordable health care. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate to ensure that no provision of the bill would displace staff from the National Science Foundation or otherwise reduce the agency's ability to carry out its mission.