Cory Booker Historic Senate Speech Part 1

Speaker 1 (00:00):

… Agree to, the clerk will report the nomination.

Speaker 2 (00:03):

Nomination Department of Justice, Harmeet Dhillon of California to be an Assistant Attorney General.

Speaker 2 (00:09):

Mr. President, I sent a culture motion to the desk.

Speaker 1 (00:13):

The clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.

Speaker 2 (00:16):

Cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of Rule 22 of the Standing Rules of the Senate do hereby move to bring to a closed debate on the nomination of Harmeet Dhillon of California to be an Assistant Attorney General signed by 17 senators as follows.

Speaker 2 (00:30):

Mr. President, I ask and consent the reading the names we waived.

Speaker 1 (00:33):

With that objection.

Speaker 2 (00:37):

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Speaker 1 (00:45):

The senator from New Jersey.

Senator Cory Booker (00:48):

I am really grateful Mr. President, grateful you're in the chair and I'm grateful to be able to rise right now and speak. I want to say at the top that I have a tremendous love for this institution and a lot of that's born from the people that are here, from the pages I get to know in every class to the folks that work the doors, the clerks, the parliamentarians. This is a special place and a lot of the people who are known here are not the ones who really keep this place functioning.

(01:24)
I come in here days and I have good moods or bad moods, but always find myself lifted when I walk onto this floor. It's a sacred civic space. It is extraordinary and I'm always aware of the weight of history when I walk in here, no matter good day, bad day, whether I'm in a rush or not. When I touch the Senate floor, I feel something really magnificent. I don't think that our founders would've ever imagined a body like this with Black people on both sides of the aisle with women serving here, with folks from many different backgrounds. We are in many ways doing what this senate with the founders had envisioned, which was this idea of every generation making this a more perfect union.

(02:34)
But there have been times in this journey where our union was in crisis and was in peril. There have been times in this great American journey over our 250 years where so many heroes had to emerge. People that I've come to revere like Joshua Chamberlain from Maine who played such a pivotal role in the Battle of Gettysburg, what a noble soul he was. He would later go on to be the governor of his state and go on to great things, but his heroism lay that in a time of crisis, he stood up. I know there are veterans in this body and I admire them so much who have answered that call to serve our country and put their lives at sacrifice. There are people that I admire that are heroes of mine that were suffragists who were people who fought as abolitionists. There are people more recently that I've come to lionize and admire because they did so much for this country, not with titles, not with high rank or positions, but folks who in this country was facing crossroads, was facing crises.

(03:57)
They stood up, they spoke up. One of my greatest heroes of life was a man I got to serve with named John Lewis and I served with him in this body and every opportunity I had, I would ask him about the times when he was just a 20-something. He was the youngest person who was a feature speaker on the march on Washington. He was called the bravest man in the Civil Rights Movement because he kept putting himself in harm's way to dramatize, to let folks know, to bring attention to the injustices in this world and to say very strongly that this what is going on in our country is not normal, that this going on in our country is wrong.

(04:43)
I stand on this floor as a United States Senator, but I revere people who never stood on this floor. People who before they even got to their 30s and 40s and 50s in life were out there as great patriots fighting for this nation. I rise today in an unusual manner and I want to be clear and explain that, but I just want to tell you what John Lewis said. It's a quote so many people know and he really spoke not to members of the Senate or the Congress. He was really speaking to Americans. He said, "Get in good trouble, necessary trouble, help redeem the soul of America."

(05:35)
John Lewis died in 2020 in July at a time that it was Donald Trump's first term in office and he did what Congress people did, but he also did some really extraordinary things to fight for healthcare. My friend Chris Murphy knows about that. He was there when John Lewis did an open Facebook chats, not in this chamber or in the house chamber. He sat on the steps and people were there. I remember when he did a sit-in, they had to shut the cameras off on him. He got in good trouble on the house side too, and so I start tonight thinking about him. I've been thinking about him a lot during these last 71 days, get in good trouble, necessary trouble, help redeem the soul of America and had to ask myself if he's my hero, how am I living up to his words? I think Democrats and Republicans have made a lot of mistakes.

(06:40)
No side has a monopoly on the truth. No side has been perfect servants of this country, but what's happened in the last 71 days is a patent demonstration of a time where John Lewis's call to everyone has I think become more urgent and more pressing and if I think it's a call for our country, I have to ask myself how I'm living these words. So tonight I rise with the intention of getting in some good trouble. I rise with the intention of disrupting the normal business of the United States Senate for as long as I am physically able. I rise tonight because I believe sincerely that our country is in crisis and I believe that not in a partisan sense because so many of the people that have been reaching out to my office in pain, in fear, having their lives upended. So many of them identify themselves as Republicans.

(07:52)
Indeed conversations from in this body to in this building to across my state and recently in a travel across the country, Republicans as well as Democrats are talking to me about what they feel is a sense of dread about a growing crisis or what they point to about what is going wrong. That bedrock commitments in our country that both sides rely on, that people from all backgrounds rely on, those bedrock commitments are being broken. Unnecessary hardships are being born by Americans of all backgrounds and institutions which are special in America, which are precious, which are unique in our country are being recklessly, and I would say even unconstitutionally affected, attacked, even shattered. In just 71 days, the President of the United States has inflicted so much harm on American's safety, financial stability, the core foundations of our democracy and even our aspirations as a people from our highest offices, a sense of common decency.

(09:06)
These are not normal times in America and they should not be treated as such. John Lewis, so many heroes before us would say that this is the time to stand up, to speak up. This is the time to get in some good trouble, to get into necessary trouble. I can't allow this body to continue without doing something different, speaking out. The threats to American people and American democracy are grave and urgent and we all must do more. We all must do more against them, but those 10 words, "If it is to be, it is up to me." All of us have to think of those 10 two-letter words, "If it is to be, it is up to me." Because I believe generations from now will look back at this moment and have a single question, "Where were you when our country was in crisis and when American people were asking for help?" "Help me." Did we speak up?

(10:24)
Did we speak up when 73 million American seniors who rely on social security to have that promise mocked, attacked, and then to have the services undermined to be told that be no one there to answer if you call for help. When our seniors became afraid and worried and panicked because of the menacing words of their president of the most wealthy person in the world of cabinet secretaries. Did we speak up? When the American economy in 71 days has been upended when prices at the grocery store were skyrocketing and the stock market was plunging when pension funds 401K's were going down, when Americans were hurting and looking up. Where the resounding answer to this question was no, are you better off economically than you were 71 days ago?

(11:37)
Where were you? Did you speak up at a time when the President of the United States was launching trade wars against our most close allies when he was firing regulators who investigate America's biggest banks and biggest corporations and stop them from taking advantage of the little guy or the little gal or my grandmother or your grandfather dismantling the agency that protects consumers from fraud that the only one whose sole purpose is to look out for them, did you just speak up when the President of the United States in a way that is so crass and craven peddled his own meme coin and made millions upon millions of dollars for his own bank account at a time so many are struggling economically.

(12:49)
Did you speak up when the President of the United States did what amounts to a car commercial for the richest man in the world right in front of America's house, the White House when the president tried to take healthcare away, where were you? Did you speak up? Threatening a program called Medicaid helps people with disabilities, helps expectant mothers, helps millions upon millions of Americans and why? As a part of a larger plan to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest amongst us who've done the best over the last 20 years. For billionaires, it seems so close to the president that they sat right on the dais at his inauguration and sit in his cabinet meetings at the White House.

(13:50)
Did you speak up when he gutted public education, slashed funds for pediatric cancer research fired thousands of veterans who risked their lives for their country when he abandoned our allies and our international commitments at a time when floods, fires, and hurricanes, and droughts are devastating communities across this country when countries all around the world a banding together to do something and he turned his back. Did you speak up when outbreaks of dangerous infectious diseases are still a global threat, but yet we have stopped engaging the efforts necessary to meet those threats? Where were you when the American press was being censored? When international students were being disappeared from American streets without due process, when American universities were being intimidated into silence, challenging that fundamental idea of freedom of thought, freedom of expression. When the law firms that represent clients that may not be favored were attacked and attacked, where were you?

(15:11)
Did you speak up when they came for those firms or what about when the people who attacked the police officers who defended this building, an American democracy on January 6th, who just outside those doors put their lives on the line for us and many of them would later die? Where were you when the president pardoned them, celebrated them and even talked of giving them money? The people who savagely beat American police officers? Did you speak up when Americans from across the country were all speaking up, more and more voices in this country speaking up saying, "This is not right. This is un-American. This is not who we are, this is not America." Did you speak up?

(16:13)
And so I rise tonight because I believe to be about what is normal right now when so much abnormal is happening is unacceptable. I rise tonight because silence at this moment of national crisis would be a betrayal of some of the greatest heroes of our nation because at stake in this moment is nothing less than everything that we brag about, that we talk about that makes us special. At stake right now are some of our most basic American principles that so many Americans understand are worth fighting for, worth standing for, worth speaking up for. Like if you work hard your entire life and pay into social security, it should be there for you when you retire and you should not have to question if those paychecks will arrive and the government should strive to improve service to you, not brag about cutting it.

(17:20)
Basic American principles like if you serve your nation in the military, if you put your life in danger abroad, you will be respected and taken care of. You'll be cherished and honored and not forced to worry that the federal employees who provide you with care, many of whom who are veterans themselves will be fired or the benefits that you rely on will be denied or that your healthcare needs won't be met. Basic American principles like your child will have access to a high quality public education that every child has a unique genius, even our children, beautiful children with special needs, they have genius and then our children can go to school and parents and teachers know that they will be safe there. At stake now are those basic American principles that the people you elect to serve you in government will represent you and not try to make themselves richer, not run some scam and call you a sucker.

(18:39)
These basic ideals of our nation that everyone's rights will be equally protected and everyone will be held accountable under the law. Right now, all of this, things that make our country different are under attack. Our constituents are asking us to acknowledge this. Everywhere I travel now, I hear from Republicans and independents and Democrats who are afraid, who are worried, who are angry, and I think about John Lewis who taught me that fear is not something to be shunned. It's almost a signpost that you're headed in the right direction. It is something that is a necessary precondition. You cannot have great fear without great courage. John Lewis would tell us that this is a time for great courage. He would tell us that anger is a fuel. It can consume you, debilitate you, or it could fuel you to put yourself in service of others.

(19:56)
I feel if my friend was here, if my hero was here, he would tell us and try to teach us that this is a moment to know that despair is only possible if you don't meet it. As an agent of hope, if John Lewis was here, he would look at me and say, "What are you doing?" What are we doing? So tonight I rise in an unusual way. I rise with the intention to stand here until I can stand no longer, until I'm physically unable to stand anymore. I'm going to speak up. I'm going to try to cause some good trouble in this body I respect so much. I'm going to try to cause what I believe is necessary trouble.

(20:56)
I'm going to try to honor the legacy that I know I've inherited as an American. The legacy I think about when I come to this floor and feel sometimes overwhelmed with all the sacrifice and struggle that had to get me here. Good people who caused good trouble in the face of slavery. Good people who caused good trouble in the face of the denial of the right to vote. Good people who caused good trouble in the cause of equal rights. Good people who caused good trouble in the fight against hate. Good people who caused good trouble in the fight against demagogues, from McCarthy to Father Coughlin, to big people who showed such small character when they tried to suppress others. I want to cause good trouble and prove worthy of those who came before.

(21:50)
This is not normal. Listen to America. Listen to Americans, they seem to always be ahead of this body. They're rising up in state after state, not along partisan lines, but as an American line. Not because they hate other Americans, but because they love America and know that what does love look like in public? It looks like justice and there is so much injustice going on. I don't know how long I can stand, but I will stand and speak up. I want to start by reading some of these letters to try to give folk a flavor of what's happened in my office for 71 days.

(22:47)
The calls we've gotten have gotten more and more numerous. I know I'm not the only one because the calls became so numerous to the Senate as a whole, it locked up the lines. The letters I'm getting, the emails I'm getting, people taking scraps of paper and just writing their hearts out and sending it in to say this is not ordinary times, these are painful times, frightening times. Times where people question what's happening to America and worry that there are powerful people trying to fundamentally change our nation in a way that will hurt people to the benefit of the powerful and the wealthy.

(23:38)
I look at these letters like this one, I won't read the name, but they say, "Hi, Senator Booker. Medicaid has saved my life many times. Without it, many people in America will die. Please help us." Underlined multiple times. Here's another scrap of paper where somebody writes their heart out, "Dear Senator Booker, when I got out of the Navy, I had mental illness. I needed psychiatric medicine to stop going in and out of the hospital. Because of Medicare, I have medicine that has kept me out of the hospital for 18 years. Without Medicaid and my medicine, I will wind up in the hospital."

(24:44)
Americans telling me their most vulnerable pains, their most terrified realities are now confronting them, rendering their pride and telling their truth. Here's another one. Dear Senator Booker, I'm writing you today as a constituent. In addition to being a concerned citizen, I'm a 25-year employee of the local Board of Education and a parent of a permanently disabled daughter who has just started receiving Medicaid. Even with her master's degree, my daughter is only able to work 19 hours a week. Therefore, insurance is not provided. Medicaid is a necessity to maintain her physical and emotional health and provide services to assist with her independence so she can continue to be a contributing member of society. By withdrawing funding for Medicaid, the policy would disrupt programs serving disabled and elderly people in New Jersey and throughout the country, and Medicaid is only one area which will potentially be affected by Donald Trump's funding freeze. Please protect social security and Medicare for the hardworking Americans who have earned it.

(26:20)
Social Security isn't quote, a handout. We've paid into it with every paycheck throughout our entire working lives and the 66 million seniors relying on Medicare could have their healthcare put on hold or canceled. We deserve to know these programs will be there for us. If federal grants are limited, medical and science research limited, including vaccines and disease prevention, they'll all be severely impacted. The United States should be a world leader in healthcare, in education and scientific advancement. This is an embarrassment to us as a country. It should not be possible in America for one single man, even elected president to stop funds which Congress has already allocated. I implore you to use your power as my senator and a key member of our government to stand up for what is important to the people of your district. We want to go to work, take care of our families, and ensure all citizens have health services they deserve. These latest orders are inappropriate, untenable, and illegal. As a senator, please take action. Please take action to defend and protect these programs, thank you for your time.

(28:09)
Cory Booker, recently it's come to my attention that my students rights in New Jersey are under threat from new legislation. This has caused distress and uncertainty in my classroom from my students who depend on funds for Medicaid. My students depend on consistency and a lapse in their education and care would result in regression, trauma, and worse. I teach students in New Jersey who are supported by your legislature. I teach all abilities meaning many of the students live with ADHD, autism, and other disorders that require extra care and attention. It's my life's mission to bring what I know to those who want to learn it.

(28:59)
I love the job I do. I love that I get to spend time with those who need it most and deliver care and education. The job that I do helps my students live more independently and achieve richer and more fulfilling lives. I live out of state, but most of my students are from the state you help legislate. My students' rights are in trouble and need you to advocate for them. I urge you to continue to fight for Medicaid. Please work to oppose any and all cuts or caps to the Medicaid program.

(29:41)
Dear Senator Booker, I'm a registered voter in New Jersey. I'm writing today to strongly urge you and your fellow policymakers to oppose all cuts to the Medicaid program as it is a lifeline for individuals with disabilities. Oppose all cuts or caps. I was a special education teacher for 30 years and after I retired, I volunteered as a special education advocate for 10 years. I had the privilege of advocating for many disabled children and young adults who were receiving Medicaid services. Medicaid gave many of my clients the opportunity to participate in society by providing daily life skills for independence. Skills reinforced through Medicare programs include shopping, safety, job search, speech and language. Just to point out a few of the services provided by Medicaid, my clients require repetition of these skills to function in their daily lives.

(30:52)
Without these programs provided by Medicaid, regression will occur and learned skills will not be retained. Without Medicaid, this community will struggle, isolate, and lose any quality of life they've enjoyed since receiving Medicaid services. Medicaid has made a critical difference in the lives of my clients. Cutting and capping Medicaid will have devastating consequences for them and their family. Senator, there are 1.6 million New Jersey residents with disabilities who rely on Medicaid for access to vital care, resources, and essential medications needed to survive. Please support and fight for these vulnerable New Jersey citizens. Please take action to protect these vital programs provided by Medicaid. Thank you in advance for your anticipated efforts in my request of your support for our most vulnerable residents. I'm going to rise tonight as I

Senator Cory Booker (32:00):

… Said and stay for as long as I physically can, and I'm going to go through issue area after issue area after issue area and talk specifically to the concerns, the fears, the actions taken to the hurts that are already being felt throughout America, elevating others' voices who don't have the privilege of standing in this body, honoring those Americans who even though they don't have such a position, they are raising their voice, I will rise for as long as I can to honor them and raise mine. The first area I want to talk about is Medicaid, Medicare, and healthcare, as my constituents spoke to. I don't need to tell anyone the importance of healthcare to humanity. Without our health, we would not be able to do anything else. We would not be able to provide for our families, spend time with our loved ones, do all of the things that make life worth living, and that's why I'm going to stand here and explain to people what's going on and how our healthcare programs are at risk and being undermined.

(33:11)
The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are right now discussing how to cut these programs in a way of putting those savings either into tax cuts for the rich. I say either because they're going to be putting in the taxes for the rich, but those tax cuts as we know are still going to blow massive trillion-dollar holes in our deficits. They're trying to gut Medicaid and Medicare programs on which nearly a third of our country rely all to pay for those tax cuts to billionaires and corporations. They're also dismantling the very institutions meant to safeguard our nation's health and well-being. And this is not the first time. They tried this before during Trump's first administration, when he unsuccessfully tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act and cut Medicaid despite its popularity across the nation, across the political aisle, he was going after something that wasn't left or right, that Americans were saying in a chorus of conviction that this is about right or wrong, it is wrong to take away healthcare from millions of people.

(34:26)
Let me explain, if I can, or speak to a few points from a recent report by protect our care to explain what the administration is trying to do to our healthcare system. They want to slash almost a trillion dollars, about $850 billion, from Medicaid, forcing people to choose between healthcare and putting food on the table. In every state, hundreds of thousands of seniors, children and working families could lose their health insurance thanks to Republican plans to cut those hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid. It would impose they seek burdensome work requirements for people on Medicaid. The last proposal coming from Republicans of that work requirement has one goal, to make it harder for people to qualify for Medicaid, to slash benefits and deny up to 36 million people access to healthcare so they could fund, again, those tax breaks for the wealthiest and for corporations.

(35:34)
Work requirements only increase the red tape that hard-working families already burdened by working multiple jobs, caring for children and more, they're simply increasing the red tape working families have to go through to obtain affordable care. Their intention is also to hike premium costs. Millions of families who use private health insurance saved an average of $2,400 per year on their premiums thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act advanced premium tax cuts, but now the proposals Republicans are putting forth want to end these savings and raise costs for over 24 million Americans.

(36:13)
The proposal wants to take away protections from people with pre-existing conditions. The DOP plans to repeal and undermine the ACA, meaning, if they're successful, 135 million people with pre-existing conditions like asthma, cancer and diabetes would lose critical protections, that private insurance companies can charge them higher premiums. The efforts that they're discussing, Republicans are discussing, would raise prescription drug prices. It would stop medical research and stop medical debt relief. Over the first three months of his administration, Donald Trump and Republican allies have increased the prices of prescription drugs, including cancer and heart medications, as well as vital antibiotics, delayed the implementation of a Biden administration rule that barred medical debt from showing up on credit reports, cut NIH grants, halted all studies and activities within the NIH relating in any capacity to the health of LGBTQ Americans, including active research programs, and President Trump violated court orders to halt funding freezes to organizations like the NIH.

(37:35)
Republicans rejected legislation to cap insulin costs for millions of people with diabetes nationwide. Now, they want to raise costs for seniors by repealing the cap for people who rely on Medicare. As many as one in four of the 7.5 million Americans dependent on insulin are skipping or skimping on doses. I want to say that again. As many as one in four of the 7.5 million Americans dependent on insulin are skipping or skimping on doses. This is a life-threatening practice. No one in this country should have to bear that. This week we know Republicans in the Senate will make us vote on a budget that will inevitably intended to harm the strength of programs like Medicaid and vital health programs in general. Here's what a few organizations are saying about the impact of the budget that will soon be put on this floor, what impact it'll have on our health systems.

(38:40)
According to this nonpartisan center on budget and policy priorities, a nonpartisan policy and research institute, this is what they write, "The House Republican budget would require deep cuts to Medicaid and recent statements from House Energy and Commerce Chair, Brett Guthrie, suggests the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion to adults with low incomes, which cover more than 20 million Americans, will be a prime target. Cutting Medicaid by hundreds of billions of dollars and focusing many of those cuts on the Medicaid expansion would lead millions of people to become uninsured. Eliminating Medicaid expansion was a key goal of Republicans failed effort to repeal the ACA eight years ago and Congress should once again reject efforts to undermine it. Recent Republican proposals such as reducing the federal matching rate for Medicaid expansion, repealing the 2021 Rescue plan incentive for new states to expand or taking away Medicaid coverage from certain adult enrollees by imposing work requirements would leave expansion enrollees at risk.

(39:55)
They could lose their coverage due to the work requirements or their state might drop their coverage due to a drastic increase in state costs. 12 states, 12 American states have poison pill laws that would automatically end expansion coverage or review of the coverage if the federal matching rate drops below 90%. In those states, expansion enrollees are even in graver risk. Representative Guthrie's recent statement confirms that House Republicans are eyeing proposals such as work requirements, a reduction in the federal matching rate, or a per capita cap on funding for the expansion group. This last option could shift 72 billion and 190 billion in costs from states from 2026 to 2034, putting that burden from 72 billion to 190 billion on states, increasing the state costs expansion by 41 to 108%, and that's jeopardizing medical coverage for millions.

(41:12)
40 states plus Washington DC have adopted the Medicaid expansion, 40 states plus the District of Columbia have adopted the Medicaid expansion, helping adults with low incomes become healthier and more financially secure. Health coverage through expansion improves people's access to something that makes so much economic sense, it improves people's access to preventative care, to primary care. It also provides care for people with chronic illnesses, prevents premature deaths, and protects people from catastrophic out-of-pocket medical costs." Let me pull away from the nonpartisan group's remarks for a second because I saw this as a mayor. When you scrimp on regular treatment for people with chronic care, when you scrimp on preventative disease, it costs more to taxpayers. I saw that because folks would end up in my emergency rooms in Newark, and the care there is so much more expensive for a taxpayer, you get a much better deal in helping someone treat their chronic disease, you get a much better deal in giving them regular access to doctors, but to cut that makes no sense.

(42:39)
Not only are you cutting it to give, again, those larger tax cuts, the billionaires and corporations, but you're cutting it and you're just going to add even more and more to the overall healthcare costs of our country to the size of the debt. Let me go back to the text. "Having health coverage also makes it easier for adults to work or look for a job. Consider that Medicaid supports work and that nine out of 10 Medicaid adults are already working, caring for family, attending school, or are ill or disabled, work requirements are unnecessary, they're burdensome, they're more red tape and hassles, proposals to use work requirements as a way to take away Medicaid coverage from certain adults or just another way to undermine Medicaid expansion. Attacks on the Medicaid expansion are often based on false claims that covering adults with low incomes takes away care from groups traditionally eligible for Medicaid.

(43:45)
In reality, Medicaid expansion supports better outcomes for all groups including children, older adults, and people with disabilities. Medicaid expansion has driven coverage gains for parents, which improve their access to care as well as their overall well-being, the overall well-being for their children." Stepping away from the text, there's not a parent in America that knows when you're sick, when you are being hurt by your chronic disease, it's harder to take care of children and their well-being suffers.

(44:25)
Back to the text. "Expansion has also driven coverage gains among people with disabilities. People with disabilities who receive supplemental security insurance income generally also qualify for Medicaid. About two out of three people with disabilities who participate in Medicaid qualify on another basis, meaning Medicaid expansion is an important path to coverage for those with low incomes. Medicaid expansion also supports hospitals and other healthcare providers by reducing their uncompensated care costs and improving their operating margins especially, especially, especially for rural and safety net hospitals. If all states in America were to drop the Medicaid expansion in response to a decline in federal support, a recent analysis found that the provider revenues would fall by $80 billion and uncompensated care costs would increase by $19 billion in 2026 alone." That's the end of the article.

(45:33)
This is not a hyperbole or scare tactic. These are real possibilities. Even the nonpartisan congressional budget office has said there is no way to meet the Republican budget resolution dedicated cuts without cutting Medicaid or Medicare. Tonight and into tomorrow morning, I'm going to do everything I can to elevate the voices of Republicans, because this is not intended to be a partisan speech. From the Cato Institute to The Wall Street Journal to nonpartisan groups to the own Congressional Budget Office, everyone is pointing to what is happening as not normal, not what the president says it is, as something that's going to hurt Americans, something that's going to cost us more money in the long run. Someone's going to take people with disabilities and put them even more in the shadows and margins when they should be centralized and empowered. What they're proposing is not just morally wrong, it actually adds to the fiscal crisis of our country. It will drive up healthcare costs in America, it will drive up chronic disease in America.

(46:56)
An issue so important to me, I've been fighting for it since I got here because America, this great nation, this great land is one of the leading countries on the planet earth in the Western world and leading democracies, I should say, that has maternal mortality rates that are extraordinarily high. Well, 40-plus percent of our babies are born on Medicaid. Here's an article from NBC. "Republicans can't meet their own budget targets without cutting Medicare or Medicaid. House Republicans can't meet their own budget target that is necessary to pass President Donald Trump's legislative agenda without making significant cuts to Medicare or Medicaid. The official budget scorekeeper confirmed on Wednesday, House Republicans adopted a budget blueprint last week that opens the door to pass Donald Trump's policy priorities on immigration, energy and taxes. It instructs the House Energy and Commerce committee to cut spending under its jurisdiction by $880 billion. The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan in-house think tank that referees the process said that when Medicare is set aside, the total funding under the committee's jurisdiction is 8.8 trillion over the next 10 years. Medicaid accounts for 8.2 trillion of that, or 93%.

(48:26)
When Medicare and Medicaid are excluded, the committees oversee a total of 581 billion in spending, much less than the $880 billion target, the CBO said. The letter outlining the figures was in response to a query by…" I take away from the article for a second by my friend and longtime New Jerseyan representative, Frank Pallone. "He's the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Brendan Doyle, a Democrat of Pennsylvania, the ranking member of the budget committee, they asked the question that leaves Republicans in a deep predicament. The budget resolution adopted by the slimmest of margins is in a narrowly divided house was the delicate product of negotiations amongst conservative hardliners who demand steep budget and swing district GOP lawmakers who say they don't want to slash funding for health programs their constituents rely on." Off the article for a second, God bless you for caring about your constituents. "Reversing the target would mean upsetting one of those factions and potentially risking the support of key votes to pass the eventual budget reconciliation bill that advances Trump agenda.

(49:37)
Democrats have made protecting Medicaid a centerpiece of their attack on the party-line GOP agenda, accusing Trump of trying to cut healthcare for the working class to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. "The letter from the CBO confirms what we've been saying all along, the math doesn't work without devastating Medicaid cuts," Pallone said Wednesday in a statement. Republicans know their spin is a lie, and the truth is they have no problem taking healthcare away from millions of Americans so that the rich can get richer and pay less in taxes than they already do." You see, stepping away from this, they are saying, "We're going to make these cuts to balance the budget," but their budget blows a bigger hole in our deficit.

(50:35)
If this is what Trump said, then why are they proposing to cut 880 billion from critical healthcare programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and Children's Health Insurance Program? You can't have it both way. Donald Trump promised to make America healthy again, but gutting healthcare for millions of Americans, rolling back healthcare for millions of Americans, rolling back support for new mothers, slashing innovative cancer treatments, this doesn't help families. I love what Dr. King said, Martin Luther King famously stated, "Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health is the most shocking and inhumane." Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health is the most shocking and inhumane. Paul Farmer, extraordinary leader, physician, anthropologist, renowned humanitarian, pioneer of global health, I read his book, Mountains Beyond Mountains.

(51:59)
In another one of his books, Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the New War on the Poor, he wrote, and I quote, "If access to healthcare is considered a human right, who is considered human enough to have that right?" I think in a country this wealthy where we are seeing stratospheric wealth created here in individuals, we're seeing some of the richest people in the world, and yet we still are targeting for tax bucks breaks for them, we're targeting millions and millions of Americans who rely on things like Medicare. I started my speech with John Lewis, let me quote him now. In 2012 he said, "Healthcare is a right and it is not a privilege, not just for some people but for all people." John Lewis was a visionary. So let me tell you a bit more about Medicaid. If you're watching, let me break it down and show just how critical it is for millions of Americans.

(53:11)
Medicaid right now is in the crosshairs of many, many Republicans in Congress. It's on this precipice. It's not abstract policy. It's not just numbers in a line item in a budget. At stake, when you talk about Medicare, is millions and millions of Americans health. It goes to this question is how deeply do we care for one another? I love what our founders said in the Declaration of Independence. At the very end of that they say, "We must mutually pledge, pledging to each other, our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor." Are we living up to that when we are saying we're going to take away healthcare for millions of Americans in order to have greater tax cuts? You see, people want to just say, "Oh, it's a government program," as if that's a slur, when really it's something that we, the people, in order to create a more perfect union created as a lifeline to tens of millions of Americans that, but for programs like this, would be succumbing to diseases, succumbing to ill health, and we as an entire country would suffer.

(54:37)
Think about this not as that slur where they try to call this in ways to try to shift public opinion away from human beings, fellow Americans, our patriots, think of it instead as a lifeline. It is the reason a child with asthma can breathe easier. It is the reason a senior can receive the care they need in a nursing home, or elders. It is the reason a low-income mother can take her child in for vaccinations or a person with a disability can live with dignity and independence. Congress is entertaining proposals now, conversations are being had in this building and in Senate and house office buildings about how we can gut programs.

(55:42)
God, I wish somebody said in a bipartisan way, "Let's come together and find healthcare savings." I offered that. I literally said to the now Secretary of Health, I told stories about private sector folks who saved money by expanding access to food, to healthy fresh food, let's save that because I know private sector companies that have bent their cost curves, saved money, not by cutting healthcare, but by giving people better access to nutritious healthy foods. You are what you eat. We're not coming up with bipartisan proposals to save money, to create efficiencies, to do things that can make programs run better. Heck, when I was mayor, we were able to lower expenditures, create more efficiency, have more happier customer service. There are ways to do that, but no, this is folks coming with an ax to cut your healthcare or your neighbor's healthcare or your elder's healthcare.

(56:55)
It's not a government program. It's a commitment we make to each other in the greatest nation on the planet earth, we say we'll take care of our children we say we'll take care of expectant mothers, we say we'll take care of our own, but they pass that House budget resolution. Republicans who called themselves moderates or budget… They all voted for it except for one who had the crazy thing to do in Washington to tell the truth, Massey said that by their own numbers, this don't add up what they're pushing on the American people is going to steal from the future generations by racking up trillions of debt. He stood on principle.

(57:47)
They're not even doing what they're telling us they're going to do. $880 billion in Medicaid funding cuts, it's not trimming the fat, it's not founding efficiencies, it's not a plan to cut out any possible corruption. It is to make children and expectant mothers and seniors and people with disabilities have a harder time accessing healthcare, which we already said that Martin Luther King of all the forms of inequality, injustice in healthcare is the most shocking and inhumane. Not bigotry, not poverty to things he fought so nobly against. He said the most inhumane, the most unjust are what we're talking about here, take away access to healthcare from children, take away access to healthcare from our elders, take away access to healthcare to people with chronic diseases.

(59:04)
Why? Why? To cut the deficit? Well, there's some Republicans willing to tell the truth, it's not going to cut the deficit. To take from the poor and give it to the rich and powerful? Well, we know the rich and powerful will get bigger tax cuts. They're not shrinking the governments folks. They're creating bigger and bigger governmental obligations. And what do they mean? When you look at 10 years out and have trillions and trillions and trillions of more, it means that future generations, or maybe 10 years from now, that their debt payments are going to grow more and more and more, taking away more money that we have as a collective body as Americans to invest in scientific research, to invest in cutting edge medical technology. So let's be clear. Let's be clear. Children from low-income families would lose access to routine checkups, vaccinations, and emergency care.

(01:00:06)
Seniors who depend on Medicaid for long-term care, many of whom are already exhausting their life savings would be left without options. People with disabilities who require constant medical attention, specialized equipment and home-based services would face uncertainty and loss of those services. And let us not forget the low income adults who gained coverage through Medicaid expansion, who work hard every day, they got access to Medicaid through expansion under the Affordable Care Act. For them this is not ideology, for them this is not political philosophy. For them this is life or death, it's about survival. These proposed cuts would also devastate the very infrastructure of our healthcare system.

(01:00:55)
I've heard this from hospitals, again, Republicans and Democratic leaders in my state who know our hospitals are speaking to this injustice. Medicare provides nearly 19% of all hospital revenue. It allows rural hospitals already on the brink to keep their doors open. Rural hospitals, it would take safety net hospitals that serve uninsured and underinsured populations. Without Medicaid, with these cuts, these institutions would crumble. That's not rhetoric. I've talked to my safety net hospital. I did an event and I remember the fear in this hospital administrator's eyes, who lives every day to help the poor, to help the uninsured, in many ways we share a faith and I know he believes he's answering the highest calling of his country and his faith to help those who come with nothing.

(01:02:16)
Because when hospitals close, when Medicaid staff lose their jobs, entire communities lose access to care, ambulances end up having to drive farther and farther, wait times increase, lives are at risk. The ripple effects are vast. Schools will suffer. When children with disabilities lose access to Medicaid-supported services like physical therapy, transportation and mental health support, children's ability to learn and thrive is compromised. Schools in rural areas where Medicaid often funds on-site nurses and telehealth programs, they would be stripped of essential support. What we are witnessing is, again, don't get caught in this Washington parlance. This is not a normal time. This is a threat to millions of Americans. It's not a budgetary proposal.

(01:03:24)
It is like the metaphorical sword of Damocles, it is people all over this country who are beginning to see what this really means. It's an economic crisis that would be rolled upon states and rural areas and communities and cities. It is a moral crisis that speaks to the soul of our nation. Calculated and being calculated right now, it is a deliberate and calculated attack on healthcare for Americans in order, again, to give tax cuts to the wealthy. If the enhanced

Senator Cory Booker (01:04:00):

… federal match for Medicaid is limited. One of the things on the chopping block, states would be forced to absorb the difference, an estimated $88 billion every year.

(01:04:10)
That is a 29% increase in state-funded Medicare spending per resident. To fill those holes, states would be left with impossible choices, either raise taxes or slash services, education infrastructure, public safety. For them, they would've to figure out where to get the money from, or else they'd be slashing services.

(01:04:33)
It's an unholy choice. Cutting Medicare doesn't make us stronger. It will weaken our economy. It will raise healthcare costs for everyone and push millions of Americans into crises that will ripple and radiate through their lives, their families lives, their work lives. Hospitals will pass unpaid bills onto onto insured patients.

(01:05:02)
Healthcare premiums will rise. People will delay care, omit medications, and then show up in emergency rooms later, more sick and therefore more expensive to treat. And in the end, who pays for it? Who pays for this moral failure, this financial failure? Who pays for it? We do. The American people.

(01:05:28)
And who gets rich on this? Well, I know the last tax cut that they want to extend the people who make the most money off of this system and this cuts because of the tax cuts they will get will be billionaires. And working families in America, people who paying insurance rates, hurts is hard, is difficult. People who have high premiums and copays. It's the rest of us that pay.

(01:06:03)
So, I want to talk about the people at risk. There's nearly 12 million people who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid, our nation's most vulnerable. They'd lose critical wraparound services. Services like long-term care, dental care, vision and non-emergency transportation services that are not luxuries for these folks but their lifelines.

(01:06:24)
A higher share of those with both Medicaid and Medicare have cognitive impairments and conditions like Alzheimer's. And God, my father, who had dementia. We're a well-off family. I saw the challenges, the resources, the drains, the physical challenges for his primary caregiver, my mother.

(01:06:49)
Millions of Americans though, would rely on Medicaid. And they would face devastating choices, quit their jobs to provide full care, full-time care, or leave their loved ones while they go off to work on a job without the support they need. When it comes to Alzheimer's and dementia, I know personally you cannot leave someone without the care.

(01:07:17)
Nursing homes may be forced to shut their doors or cut staffing levels to dangerous lows. In fact, people who can't take care of their elders, they might be going to nursing homes, which again increases costs for taxpayers. Home healthcare services, often the only thing keeping people in their communities out of institutions, that would disappear. This would be a crisis for elder care. This would be a crisis for disability services.

(01:07:42)
What it is when a nation isn't taking care of its elders, it's a crisis of our national character.

(01:07:53)
Medicaid also plays a profound role in the success of children and their well-being. Nearly half of all children in the US are covered by Medicare, excuse me, are covered by Medicaid and CHIP. research shows that when children have access to care, they are more likely to stay in school, graduate and earn more as adults.

(01:08:16)
That's not surprising to people, just to think it through. It's true. If kids have access to healthcare, they succeed more in life. Medicaid helps diagnose learning disorders, treat chronic conditions, and ensure children don't fall behind simply because they're born into poverty.

(01:08:34)
It's essential to the American dream, that just 'because you're poor, it shouldn't affect your destiny. And for us to be the America of which we speak, a child born in poverty shouldn't have their future cut off because they can't get the healthcare to empower them to thrive. Talk to any school district in any state, in any county, those resources are necessary to help children. Medicaid pays for nearly half of the births in the United States. The United States, as I said earlier, has a shameful distinction of a massive maternal health crisis.

(01:09:26)
We have the highest rate of maternal deaths of any high-income nation. I'm going to say that again. America has the highest rates of maternal deaths, women dying in childbirth or in the days after, of any nation. A majority of these maternal deaths take place during that postpartum period, the days after birth. For years, I have fought for Medicaid to provide coverage for women for up to one year postpartum, instead of just 60 days. In 2022's Congress, I was so happy that states had the option to expand Medicaid coverage for up to one year postpartum. It is one of the solutions to this maternal healthcare crisis that expert after expert after expert says. "Just make sure those women who gave birth are not knocked off of healthcare after two months." As of this January, 49 states plus the District of Columbia have expanded postpartum Medicaid coverage past those 60 days.

(01:10:36)
Hey, we're stepping in the right direction to show that we love our moms. We value those life givers that are mothers. We value them. But cutting Medicare means potentially eliminating the progress we made towards ending that maternal mortality crisis. It's just no justifying that. In a nation this great and this wealthy, we talk so much about children and motherhood. All of us should be coming together about this maternal health crisis. But what's happening now, again, is the very program that's helped us to begin to address this is under attack.

(01:11:21)
When we invest in Medicaid, we are investing, in the future in children who grew up to be healthier, in seniors who age with dignity, in rural communities with limited access to healthcare and services, and families who don't have to choose between a prescription and rent.

(01:11:44)
This is about health, but I want to tell you that, for all those doing the math at home, you cannot have a thriving economic engine without good healthcare. The two are incompatible, widespread sickness, illness and disease, and people who can't get their health issues covered. It takes away from our economic strength.

(01:12:12)
In fact, just cutting Medicaid would cost jobs. Nurses aides, support staff, medical technicians, entire communities depend on funding that Medicaid provides. Cutting it would destabilize state budgets, force those impossible trade-offs and widen the gap. Widen the gap between the richest in our country and the rest. A gap that's already widening at stunning rates.

(01:12:39)
These cuts are not about efficiency. Don't let anybody tell you these cuts are about efficiency. I know a lot about making government more efficient. This is not about innovation. There's so many things that we as a country should be doing to deal with medical innovation. And I'll be the first to say, Republicans and Democrats have failed to step up to the 21st century and do things that really can create more efficiencies in our healthcare system.

(01:13:10)
I really hope to see more bold thinkers about creating real efficiency. But what they're doing now is not about efficiency. It's not about innovation. It's not about the heart priorities of Americans who know everything that I'm saying.

(01:13:32)
The letters I've gotten, Republicans and Democrats and independents in my states, scared people, they know what this is about. Republicans in New Jersey who run hospitals know what this is about. This should be a bipartisan strategy to how do we make our society more healthy and less dependent on healthcare? And when it comes to healthcare, heck, let's not do the stupid things like cutting scientific and biosciences, and the research that often leads to medical breakthroughs. Let's come together and figure out how to deliver services more efficiently.

(01:14:12)
Making Americans healthier? I don't believe them. They're cutting access to kids, to fresh and healthy foods, or cutting school lunch resources. There's a way to do this that should be bringing the best ideas from both sides of the aisle to deal with these issues. But that's not what they're doing.

(01:14:36)
Every data point, every story. Hospitals from rural areas to urban areas. Everyone is saying the same thing and illustrating the same point: Medicaid is critical to the health of some of the most vulnerable Americans. It's critical to our elders, to our children, to our mothers. It is a lifeline for more than 72 million people.

(01:14:59)
With control of the Senate, the House and the Presidency, Republicans have the opportunity to dream big. They have an opportunity to lead with a vision for better health in America, to come before the people, and Congress, and hearings and say, "This is our vision for American health and well-being. We're going to show what some private companies did. They cut their healthcare costs and improve the health of their employees by providing better access to food."

(01:15:35)
There are so many good ideas that I've learned when I was mayor from Republicans, from private sector people. But those aren't the ideas are coming forward. The ideas that are coming forward is, Hey, let's just send to the Energy and Commerce Committee the mandate to cut $880 billion. Let's rush now. Let's rush now. Let's get it done before our narrow majority somehow gets undermined. Let's just cut, cut, cut, cut, cut. And in the end, what's the result? Americans get sicker, driving up overall healthcare costs, all to get billionaires more of a tax cut. I know the character of so many of my friends in this body on both sides of the aisle. This is not who we are. It is not who we are. But God, there's no big vision. There's no big dream for healthcare.

(01:16:27)
Instead of improving Medicaid and increasing funding as 42% of Americans support, they want to make extraordinary cuts that will demolish a program. They are proposing that $880 billion cut from Medicaid and taking healthcare away from millions of Americans. They want to impose work requirements, even though 90% of Medicaid beneficiaries are already working or cannot work for legitimate reasons.

(01:16:56)
Arkansas actually tried this. I love case studies. They tried this in 2017, and the results were disastrous. People lost coverage that they shouldn't have, and employment didn't increase nationally. Such requirements could put 36 million people at risk of losing their healthcare.

(01:17:21)
They're proposing failed policies, not breakthrough ideas, not a bold vision that I know is in America's heart. This repeal that some folks are saying that they want to do to save money. A hatred for previous presidents want to repeal Biden-era rules that made Medicaid and CHIP enrollment easier, less red tape, easier for seniors and children. "Let's repeal that," they say. They want to end a rule requiring minimum staffing standards in nursing homes, including 24/7 access to registered nurses, one of the hardest, most underappreciated jobs in America. Let's get less access to these noble, noble professionals. They propose per capita caps that would upend Medicaid's financing model and every state leaving states with less money to meet their residents needs.

(01:18:26)
And in states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA, these cuts could jeopardize coverage for 20 million people who gained access. The budget that they're proposing would require deeper cuts. Speaker Johnson claims these changes are about rooting out fraud, waste and abuse. But that's not what's happening, folks. What's happening is an assault on a program that provides dignity, health and stability, economic growth, improved outcomes for kids, more respect for our elders, care for the disabled.

(01:19:08)
Nearly 2 million New Jerseyans, 2 million people in my state, rely on Medicaid. And yet, our state is slated to see cuts of up to 5.2 billion. Medicaid accounts for a quarter, more than a quarter of New Jersey's state budget. Think about that. It accounts for more than a quarter of our state's budget.

(01:19:37)
And my state, one of the hardest working states that's out there, just their work requirement would put about 700,000 of my neighbors, my fellow statespeople, at risk of losing their healthcare. Medicaid covers about one-fifth of hospital spending. At University Hospital in Newark. New Jersey's only level one trauma center, more than 149 million in the potential cuts loom.

(01:20:12)
I know this hospital, I have been there when my officers have been injured. I've been there when my firefighters in Newark were injured. I've been there when heroic citizens are injured and brought there. It is our level one trauma center. People from all around our region are sent there. These emergency room workers are incredible.

(01:20:33)
Heck, they've treated me coming out of an emergency, and they're facing $149 million in cuts. And their leadership, knowing how vital that hospital it is, how that hospital stands in the breach between life and death, health and illness, they know what it would mean.

(01:20:52)
We should be strengthening this program through innovations that come from people on both sides of the aisle. We should be coming together as a body and saying, "Okay, let's spitball this. Let's put up the best ideas in America to make things more efficient." Oh, wait a minute. You mean if we treat chronic diseases with access to healthy food, we might actually be able to lower diabetes rates, lower hypertension rates, lower obesity rates?" Well, that's one great way to make this investment happen.

(01:21:19)
You mean there is technology and innovation that's happening right now with our best scientists that could create better access to telehealth? It could create more efficiency in medical records? It could cut down on mistakes that are still made in medical care, like combining the wrong drugs or other challenges that up costs.

(01:21:40)
There's systems that we could create that could create more transparency, and eliminate more real fraud, and go after the fraudsters themselves in a more efficient manner. There are so many things that we could do if we came together as a body. But what are we doing instead? Following our President that wants his tax cuts renewed.

(01:22:06)
What did those tax cuts do? The first time around most of the benefits went to the wealthiest people and corporations. And it drove trillions of dollars, the largest deficit growth that we have seen in a generation. Rapacious, rapacious, misguided budgeting, creating bigger and bigger debt payments.

(01:22:39)
I remind you, Clinton? Balanced budget. Bush? The first president in American history that didn't call for the common sacrifice to go to war. We spent trillions of dollars in those foreign wars and guess what, he said? No common sacrifice. Only about 1% of our people will fight in those wars. I'm going to give you a tax cut.

(01:22:59)
Well, that makes no sense. You're going to drive up deficits that my children will have to pay for. Obama comes along, and at least he lowers his deficit spending. But then Trump comes in and increases it by trillions of dollars on the backs of working Americans, to give those benefits to the wealthiest.

(01:23:19)
And now, Biden who shrunk the deficit a bit, didn't eliminate it, still spent. What any fiscally prudent person might say is really problematic. Let's not make this blindly partisan. But for anybody who would criticize Biden and follow Trump into what he's doing with this budget proposal that's going to slash healthcare for millions of Americans, increase the deficit by trillions and trillions of dollars,, and make Elon Musk richer and richer. Is that your solution? It violates our values. It violates our national character. It violates the highest principles put forth by the most noble people in American history. And I stand today, and I will not sit down for hours and hours, if God gives me the ability to stand here, because I want to read the voices of Americans. I want to share their voices in this body. I want it to echo in history. I want it to be recorded by these extraordinary people who stand here every day and record my words and my colleagues' words.

(01:24:41)
I want it to be in the Congressional record. I want Deanna to… Her story. Deanna's daughter is disabled and Medicaid provides her with life-saving medications, medical equipment, orthotics, and multiple specialists for her rare disease diagnosis. She has life- threatening seizures and requires rescue seizure medications, oxygen and CPR, and has nurses that accompany her to school and meet her medical needs during the day so that she can go to work.

(01:25:13)
Deanna is terrified. She uses this word. She is terrified of her daughter losing her Medicaid. She's so afraid, she's literally talking openly about going to Canada and asking for asylum there so that her daughter has the healthcare needs met. That is outrageous to me, that an American who's fearful for their child would think about fleeing to Canada for better healthcare.

(01:25:39)
Wendy and Cassie. Wendy is the mother, and she wrote about the threats that Medicaid cuts would pose to her daughter, Cassie. Cassie is 32 years old. She has Rett syndrome, RTT, a rare neurological disorder that significantly impairs even basic motor functions, requiring the individual to have life-long care and supervision. Without Medicaid funding, Cassie and Wendy would not be able to afford housing, the day program, the prescriptions that she needs on a daily basis.

(01:26:21)
Tanya and Cameron. God, Tanya uses Medicare and Medicaid to care for her son, her beloved child, Cameron. Cameron is battling stage four cancer and is confined to a wheelchair. Due to the severity of his illness, he cannot be without his cancer treatment and prescription medication. Medicare and Medicaid coverage is for them, they say, a matter of life and death for Cameron.

(01:26:50)
Here's this amazing group in New Jersey, in Cherry Hill, amazing group. The Cherry Hill Free Clinic. Volunteers sustain the Cherry Hill Free Clinic. Doctors give up their own time, because they are driven by the conviction that in America we take care of each other. We love each other. And when you say love your neighbor, love requires sacrifice and service. These doctors and professionals that volunteer their time at the Cherry Hill Clinic, I just want to tell you, "God bless you. Thank you for living our American values and the values of your faith traditions."

(01:27:37)
The Cherry Hill Free Clinic provides free healthcare treatment and medication to low-income individuals, not in Cherry Hill, but throughout New Jersey. Without the support of Medicare and Medicaid coverage for their parents, a free clinic would not be able to provide the extent of services and care that their patients desperately need. They would not be able to be the source of light to so many people that are facing scary darkness.

(01:28:05)
Think that it's not going to happen to me, that cancer diagnosis. It's not going to happen to me, that rare diseases that affects the child. It's not going to happen to me. But when it does and they can't imagine how they will make ends meet, they find in the Cherry Hill clinic doctors and medical professionals willing to step up. And they've been doing extraordinary things that would make every American proud. And now they see what's coming from this Republican, from this Donald Trump proposal.

(01:28:37)
Jean is an awesome soul. She's a disabled citizen. She relies on Medicaid coverage for her frequent hospitalizations. Without Medicaid, she would be unable to receive the critical care that she needs. God bless you.

(01:28:58)
Susan writes to us. She's a disabled person who's confined to a wheelchair. Susan relies on Medicaid for her healthcare. Medicaid provides her wheelchair transportation to get her to her medical appointments. Without Medicaid, she would not have medical coverage or the transportation means to receive the essential healthcare.

(01:29:19)
Edna. Edna. Edna's 98, God bless her. 98, what a life. And now, as a 98-year-old, she now has dementia. Her daughter is 78 years old. And I can't imagine this moment, when you realize at 78 that you can't any longer care for your 98-year-old mom. Due to her worsening dementia, Edna received Medicaid coverage and is now able to have full-time care at a rehabilitation center for senior citizens.

(01:30:14)
Her daughter at 78 years old is so grateful, so grateful to live in a country that her 98-year-old mom can be in a rehabilitation care center. But they know what savage cuts in Medicaid would do.

(01:30:36)
Randy and Dylan. Randy enrolled her son, Dylan, in Medicaid. Dylan is 10. He is wheelchair-bound due to Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Dylan requires frequent medical care and daily heart medications to prevent illness with his heart functioning. To prevent the issues with his heart functioning, forgive me.

(01:31:01)
Randy relies on Medicaid to provide medical care for Dylan, who Randy loves so much. Medicaid covers the costs, and his critical prescription medications.

(01:31:13)
And then there's Teresa, who recently lost her job and required urgent medical assessments due to a medical issue that was discovered by her doctor. During what was a difficult time, when you go to the doctor and a doctor discovers something that is so urgent that you need immediate support, Teresa was without insurance and needed to receive care as instructed by her doctor.

(01:31:37)
Due to her enrollment in Medicaid, she was able to receive the diagnosis, the diagnostic testing that she needed. It's a good story, but stories like that will become more difficult.

(01:31:56)
Pamela writes that Medicaid is essential to her 22-year-old son's life. He has epilepsy, cerebral palsy, vision impairment, and too many other complex medical issues for Pam to list to us. Medicaid provides his health benefits and his funding source to attend his day program and receive therapies. Private-duty nursing comes to his home, and it pays for vital medications. She writes to me that our private insurance is not enough to cover our son's complex medical needs. We would need to be able to pay for his monthly prescription costs. We would not be able to pay for his monthly prescription costs, nor the lengthy hospital stays when he's sick. We would not have the nursing hours to support his care for him to be able to continue to live at home, nor would we be able to leave home on weekdays and have a day program to attend. Pamela writes, "As his parent, I need to take an early retirement from public school teaching to care for our son because the medical coverage he has just isn't enough. It doesn't provide for his transportation and his day program." So she's leaving her job early. She writes and she bolds this, "Our disabled community members and their families deserve better. Medicaid provides for a bare minimum existence." And she has a message for the lies being told by to many. She says, "There are no excesses here in my house."

(01:33:52)
Sally and Mike, we rely on Medicaid for our two adult children with disabilities for long-term care, especially for my daughter, who just finished her two-and-half-year chemo treatment regime. We will need it for monthly checkups and prevention of a relapse. We use the funding to provide the much-needed care she needs at home.

(01:34:20)
We also have 90-plus-year-old parents who need Medicaid in order to survive. We are the real sandwich generation, caring for two adult children with special needs, and two very elderly parents who couldn't survive on their own. Please do everything in your power to help fund and not cut Medicaid in any way. Thank you for your time and your commitment helping the more vulnerable population.

(01:34:57)
I mean, Sally and Mike, you're not alone. That sandwich generation taking care of children and parents. You're taking care of adult children and 90-plus-year-old parents. I hear you. I hear you.

(01:35:25)
Carol. My son Jason is 41 and autistic. He has severe behavioral issues. Medicaid has enabled my son to attend a day program three days a week. The program bills Medicaid for his participation. We would not have the financial resources to pay for my son's day program. Medicaid helps us to use our son's living at home with his loved ones, not in a group home. We save the state money by taking care of him. Do not

Senator Cory Booker (01:36:00):

… not cut. Do not cut this vital program.

(01:36:09)
Now, Rosemary says that she has an adult son and that son has CP, a seizure disorder. This is where maybe I should have gone to medical school and not law school, cystic encephalomalacia. My cousin the doctor is here, she would be able to help me if she was down here. But her adult son is on the autism spectrum, yet he earned a BA. "Yet he earned a BA on the autism spectrum and lives 'independently', but with our support and works a part-time job." She put independently in quotes. If he loses his Medicaid coverage, he will not be able to afford to live where he lives, or most importantly, he will not be able to afford his meds. He has medications that would run $500 a month.

(01:37:02)
"We live with that anxiety that millions of Americans live with, that erodes them, that burns at their spirit, that anxiety that has put millions of Americans into bankruptcy, that anxiety that I can't afford my medications, that anxiety that I can't care for my children, that anxiety that I won't have that resources, that anxiety. We live with the anxiety of Medicaid cuts with every report about what House Republicans are doing. We support anything that can be done to maintain Medicaid. Please, Senator."

(01:37:55)
Danielle, she writes that, "I'm the oldest sibling to my two younger brothers, Matt and Christian, who have been living with a rare neuromuscular disease since they were diagnosed as babies. Throughout their lives, Matt and Chris, along with my parents and family, have fought to ensure that they have the best care possible despite how unknown and under-researched their condition is. Taking Medicaid away from them would strip Matt and Christian of basic access to specialized care that they rely on and therefore strip them of their dignity and their independence."

(01:38:41)
"As someone who has had a front row seat watching two people I love suffer from a neuromuscular condition and as a human being who believes in the right to access medical care, I implore, I implore, I implore our representatives and the Trump administration to consider the devastating impact that these cuts would have on people like my brothers. Slashing funds for an already underfunded program is not only the wrong target in the name of 'efficiency', but also a decision that would cement our nation's treacherous path toward becoming a nation that does not seek justice for all. Instead, a nation that only serves those in power, only serves the powerful, only serves the wealthy."

(01:39:36)
"As your constituent affected by neuromuscular disease, I'm concerned about the potential unintended consequences of the efforts to so-called reform Medicaid. 72 million Americans rely on Medicaid for affordable, accessible and state health coverage, including children, pregnant women, parents, seniors, and individuals with disabilities. Any effort to reform Medicaid should not inadvertently prevent patients from having access to the healthcare that they deserve." Danielle, I hear you.

(01:40:19)
Judith, she goes right to the point. "Please stop Trump. Please stop Trump now. He's going after Medicaid. I have an adult severely autistic granddaughter who relies on Medicaid for her special needs program. A country is judged by how it meets the needs of the weakest people," she writes. "Please stop him." I want to read your words again, Judith. "A country is judged by how it meets the needs of the weakest people. A country is judged by how it meets the needs of the weakest people." Elizabeth writes, "Medicaid helps me access healthcare and direct supports in my home, in my community. Cuts to Medicaid would mean I wouldn't have the services I need to live on my own with supports and would be forced to live in a more restrictive setting."

(01:41:23)
Sandra writes, "Medicaid has allowed my son's needs to be met at home and not in a group home. It has allowed my husband to participate in his caregiving, not a stranger. It has allowed him to be employed with the aid of a job coach. These are just a few things, in addition to healthcare. If the cuts to Medicaid happen, it goes away."

(01:41:47)
Alicia: "Medicaid provides healthcare and services to my developmentally disabled adult child. If Medicare funding is cut, my son will not have the healthcare they need and the programs to attend."

(01:41:59)
Maggie: " My 28-year-old son Will has down syndrome. He currently lives a full and active inclusive life. His life is full, his life is active. He's in the community where he's cherished. He lives in the community, he's cherished. He has wonderful support staff and lots of activities that keep him healthy and happy. His days include volunteering at a senior citizen center, working at the local gym, shopping, leisure activities, speech therapy. He does music therapy. We follow the self-direction model, which is work on my end, but I would not have it any other way. But if Medicare funding is cut, these cuts would impact his livelihood."

(01:42:55)
Nibble: "Without my Medicaid, I would not be able to be as mobile nor independent. Without Medicaid evaluating my physical disability, cerebral palsy and related limitations, and prescribing me an electric-powered wheelchair for daily independence and assistance with mobility and even pain management due to not being able to walk well. I am actually up for a new wheelchair this year, as it was allowable every five years for a new wheelchair prescription. Without my Medicaid, I would not have been properly diagnosed with things like sleep apnea in 2017. I now use CPAP machine to force air into my body so I can sleep peacefully instead of gasping for air at night. Without my Medicaid, I would not be able to be fitted for a leg brace for my physical support and mobility, enabling me to actually stand up straight and walk without my wheelchair. Without my Medicaid, I would not be able to be a full-time employee, a full-time worker."

(01:44:02)
Laura: "Medicaid has provided my sister with benefits to help support her medical and mental health issues since she graduated high school. She's now 33 and living with me and my husband after being separated from our parents that are now in assisted living and nursing home arrangements." Wow. "Susan has never worked or been married because of her mental disability and she is dependent on her Medicaid benefits. Please keep these benefits in place for people like my sister who don't have much in their lives they can depend on." Laura, your sister's now living with you after being separated from your parents who are now in a nursing home. I see you.

(01:44:58)
Michael: "I need Medicaid because it provides me the ability to get my anxiety medication and to afford my therapist. I use Medicaid for medical, dental, and visual visits. I wear glasses. Without Medicaid I am unable to live or function in this world."

(01:45:15)
Robin: "Courtney is my 35-year-old daughter with severe disabilities. From 2009 to present she has needed crucial surgeries as well as medications and hospital stays. Medicaid has made the financial support for these procedures possible. It has saved her life." And I know, I can tell from her letter that Robin loves her 35-year-old daughter Courtney.

(01:45:41)
Mary: "Medicaid is helping to improve my daughter's life through the services of the division of developmental disabilities. Without it, she would be left to whittle away at home seven days a week with no community interaction. She is learning prevocational skills in a manner that she is validated and viewed as a person with strengths." Thank you, Mary.

(01:46:09)
Allison: "I'm my daughter's caregiver in New Jersey. Medicaid funded programs allow her to remain an active part of our community at home with her family. If Medicaid is cut, we would lose our healthcare. It would be devastating."

(01:46:29)
Gi- Han: "My daughter has a disability. Through Medicaid she receives a lot of services to help her improve and progress, also to help her stay active and social. She gets speech therapy, occupational and physical therapy. People come to our home to help her as well. If Medicaid cuts happen, she will stop all the services she receives and her life will be threatened. Please, she must keep her Medicaid, because as a parent, I don't know what I can do with my daughter if that is happening. It will be so hard for her and us."

(01:47:14)
Roseanne: "Medicaid has supplied the nurses that take care of my disabled granddaughter I'm raising at home instead of being sent to an institution. She will put her life at risk for a medical emergency or fatal injury without nurses here."

(01:47:37)
Ash: "My daughter takes speech therapy, occupational and physical therapy and tutoring. So if that is all gone, she will stop progress and she'll be more disabled and will be unable to do anything by herself or live inadvertently. She needs a lot of help, and if these Medicaid cuts happen, I don't know what I will do with her and it'll make life so hard."

(01:48:15)
These Americans are facing challenges that I can't imagine, and what's amazing about so many of them is they find the goodness and the decency of their neighbors, of people who are helping and supporting them, of people who do the jobs, the occupations that many Americans would find incredibly challenging; the occupational therapist, the physical therapist, the person who does the transportation, the nurses that take care of folks. It is a community of people out there that are trying to make our nation stand for what we say we do. They are trying to show that we are a loving and caring and compassionate community.

(01:49:05)
And what I love is that this is not partisan. I keep saying this over and over again. For this whole time I could stand, I hope it's as many hours as possible, I'm going to be bringing in the voices of Republicans and Democrats because this is not a partisan issue. Maybe it is in Congress, but the Republicans and Democrats of America don't want Medicaid cuts. They especially don't want them to benefit the richest amongst us who don't need more help, God bless them. They're doing all right. And it's not going to solve our budget problems. Their budget proposal, as was said by the one lone Republican who voted against it because he's such a fiscal hawk, he said, "If you just read their own numbers, this is a lie, a sham. It increases the deficit by trillions."

(01:49:56)
But let me go to some Republicans. Joe Lombardo, the governor of Nevada: "An abrupt reduction in federal funding would not only disrupt care for those who rely on Medicaid, but would also destabilize public and private healthcare providers leading to workforce reductions, service limitations and financial strain on already overburdened healthcare facilities." The Governor of Nevada knows it. My mom, my aunt, my uncle, my other aunt, they live in Nevada. My mom lives in a retirement community there. This governor knows that that state would be hit so hard by a reduction of these services, it would be like an impact that ripples out throughout the state, raising costs, lowering care, hurting Americans, hurting Nevadans.

(01:51:10)
My colleague Mike Rounds of South Dakota said, "That's not a cost-cutting measure. That's a cost transfer. And when you've got partnerships with states, you shouldn't be doing that without having them involved in the discussion." I tell you, I have conversations with lots of my Republican colleagues and I appreciate this quote from one of them. Coalition of State Medical Associations writes, "On behalf of 50 state medical associations and the District of Columbia, the hundreds of thousands of physicians we represent," I'm adding this, I am sure of both political parties and independents, back to what they write, "And the 80 million Medicaid patients we serve, we are united in urging the United States Senate to protect Medicaid from the devastating $880 billion cuts in spending-out targets in the House Budget resolution. If these cuts are enacted, millions of Medicaid patients will lose their coverage, and we expect all Medicaid patients to lose some of their existing benefits." All Medicaid patients. "All Medicaid patients to lose some of their existing benefits and access to essential healthcare services." The American Academy of Pediatrics, Children's Defense Fund, Children's Hospital Association, Family Voices National, First Focus Campaign for Children, the March of Dimes and National Association of Pediatric Nurse Partnerships, they all came together to jointly write, "By reducing vital support for Medicaid and CHIP, you would not just be cutting a budget line, you would be eliminating the health prospects of our children, leaving them without the care they need to grow into healthy adults."

(01:53:13)
AARP: "More than half of all the funds for longterm care in America come from Medicaid. As our country gets older and as millions of baby boomers continue to age, our country is on the brink of a serious longterm care crisis. AARP would welcome the long overdue debate about how to address the challenge, which should involve reforms to remove Medicaid's bias towards institutional care and increase support for families who take care of their loved ones at home. Large scale cuts, however, threaten millions of seniors with disruption to the care they need." Listen to AARP. We would welcome the long overdue debate. We would welcome the long overdue debate on how to address this challenge. But we're not having a long overdue debate. We're not bringing together the world's most deliberative body to focus on how to solve these problems.

(01:54:21)
Michael Tuffin, the president and CEO of AHIP, America's Health Insurance Plans: "Medicaid is indispensable to low income people and working families. If their Medicaid coverage is disrupted, these Americans will lose access to primary care and be unable to fill prescriptions for drugs to treat chronic illnesses. Many will end up in the emergency room, the costliest site of care. Loss of Medicaid coverage means people will be less healthy and the care will ultimately cost more."

(01:54:59)
Rick Pollack, who's the president and CEO of American Hospital Association: "On behalf of the hospitals, nurses, doctors, and those who care for and serve the needs of 72 million patients that rely on Medicaid, we urge you to consider the implications hinging on the budget reconciliation bill's fate on removing healthcare for millions of our nation's patients. These are hardworking families, children, seniors, veterans, disabled individuals who rely on essential care services. We ask the House to construct a path forward that protects Medicaid from these harmful cuts that would impact the care for millions of Americans."

(01:55:43)
We did Republican governors, here's a Democrat, Colorado Governor Jared Polis who joined with Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt. They're the chair and vice-chair of the National Governor's Association, Democrat and Republican, and they write, "Without consultation and proper planning, congressionally proposed reductions to Medicaid would impact state budgets, rural hospitals and healthcare service providers. It is necessary for governors to have a seat at the table when discussing any reforms and cuts to Medicaid funding. States and territories should be afforded more flexibility when it comes to administrating these programs in a manner that best suits the needs of their states." What a radical thing, that a Republican and a Democratic governor are simply asking for a seat at the table in the conversation. What's the table? Is there a hearing? Are there discussions? Did we form a national commission? None of that. None of that. And they warn about what it'll mean to their states.

(01:56:52)
The American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Gynecology, the American College of Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association all together write, "Our organizations, representing more than 400,000 physicians who serve millions of patients, are alarmed by the proposals to implement cuts or other structural changes to Medicaid during the budget reconciliation process. Cuts to Medicaid will have grave consequences for patients, communities and the entire healthcare system."

(01:57:29)
Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network: "ACSCAN opposes cuts that will increase the number of uninsured nationwide by severing the lifeline that Medicaid provides for cancer patients and those at risk for cancer. It is imperative for cancer patients and millions more at risk that this valuable health insurance program be protected for decades. ACSCAN has advocated in support of Medicaid and we will continue to advocate at the federal and state levels in support of expansion of access to the program and against policies that jeopardize individuals' access to lifesaving health insurance coverage."

(01:58:24)
Bruce Siegel, president and CEO of America's Essential Hospitals: " The budget resolution will open the door to devastating Medicaid cuts that will impact millions of Americans, especially those middle to low income working Americans in both rural and urban communities who rely on Medicaid for access to critical healthcare services. This budget resolution and its directive to the House Energy and Commerce Committee to cut $880 billion of federal spending will slash the Medicaid program and threaten to discontinue lifesaving safety net services in many communities."

(01:59:15)
38 national parent organizations, I didn't know there were 38 national parent organizations, but they wrote in a chorus of conviction. "Cuts on this magnitude would require enormous changes, such as instituting per capita caps, reducing the federal match rate for Medicaid expansion, adding barriers to coverage, including work requirements, and repealing rules that strengthen enrollment processes and access to care and Medicaid that would severely harm many individuals fighting serious and chronic health conditions. Our organizations, all 38 national parent organizations, oppose any cuts to either traditional or Medicaid expansion that take away coverage, jeopardize access to services and providers, shift costs to states and reduce parents' access to care."

(02:00:16)
Now, here is a huge group that includes the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the March of Dimes, Muscular Dystrophy Association, the National Cancer Coalition, the National Health Council, National Kidney Foundation, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, National Organization for Rare Disorders. It is about, I will estimate and give it for the congressional record, about 25 to 30 organizations. "On behalf of the undersigned chapters of the American Academy of Family Physicians, representing over 130,000 family physicians and medical students across the country, we write to convey our deep concerns regarding proposals to reduce Medicaid funding or implement further eligibility restrictions. We strongly urge you and your colleagues to reject any reforms that have the potential to impede access to essential care for millions of Americans who rely on Medicaid, including our nation's most vulnerable populations."

Chuck Schumer (02:01:20):

Would my colleague yield for a question?

Senator Cory Booker (02:01:21):

I will yield specifically for the question, yes.

Chuck Schumer (02:01:23):

Thank you. I first want to thank my colleague for taking the floor, for showing the American people how horribly this administration is treating average families, working families in so many ways. And I know he intends to hold the floor for a long time to make sure that's the case, letting America know how bad this is. Healthcare has been the focus right now, and it's amazing. I would say to my colleague, "Isn't it incredible? All these cuts they're proposing in healthcare are done with a purpose in mind, and that is to reduce the taxes on billionaires." And doesn't it bother my colleague that these people who he's been documenting who so desperately need healthcare are going to lose that, if our Republican colleagues have their way, simply to cut taxes for the very wealthy? That's my question.

Senator Cory Booker (02:02:25):

To my leader, Schumer, that's the pain in these stories. The families that I read, the fear that they have, that they're relying on these lifelines that are going to be cut, services that are going to be cut, that are going to affect their beloved parents or their children with disabilities. When they ask the question, "Why?" Is it for a noble purpose? Is it for a collective sacrifice? No. The answer that they have to stare at is that you're going to cut services for my vulnerable child or my parents in order to give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, in order to give tax cuts to billionaires. And here's the insult added to that injury, also this lie that we're going to be focused on the fiscal strength of our nation. They're going to give all those tax cuts away and take away healthcare benefits and the result's going to be even bigger deficits. So people like Elon Musk and Donald Trump, billionaires, where most of these tax cut will accrue to their benefit, will get more, more, more money. If you were spending a hundred thousand dollars a week for the rest of your life, you wouldn't get near the net worth of Elon Musk.

Chuck Schumer (02:03:34):

Will my colleague continue to yield for another question?

Senator Cory Booker (02:03:36):

Yes, yes.

Chuck Schumer (02:03:37):

From what I understand, and tell me if this is correct, that if they did this tricky thing that even our Republican colleagues are calling fakery and hocus pocus, our conservative Republican colleagues, that it might increase the deficit by $30 trillion. Is that accurate?

Senator Cory Booker (02:03:55):

That is accurate. And that's stunning, that they know that they can't do this, so they're going to use some budget trickery to mask the truth. Math doesn't lie. Numbers don't lie. You may be able to mask it so you could use rules of reconciliation to try to force it through, but the result for the American people is going to be the same. Chuck, people will lose healthcare, healthcare benefits, and watch the deficit of this nation not increase, but explode. Which means the cost of our debt payments alone are going to be more than the very programs that they're going to be slashing for families. That is outrageous, cruel, unacceptable, and we have to do everything we can as a people to stop it.

Chuck Schumer (02:04:48):

Will my colleague yield for another question?

Senator Cory Booker (02:04:50):

Yes sir.

Chuck Schumer (02:04:50):

Despite this fiscal hocus pocus, this fakery, this trickery which my colleague has alluded to, when they cut Medicaid, when they cut social security, when they cut Medicare, those cuts remain just as devastating no matter what kind, is that accurate, no matter what kind of bunk they put on their balance sheets to say it doesn't matter?

Senator Cory Booker (02:05:14):

I was reading stories and many of them will live with me. There's a family that's taking care of their two parents in their 90s and their disabled adult children, desperately relying on these programs. No matter what you do or say or call it or label you slap on it, those are the kind of Americans who are stepping up to take care of their loved ones who will get hurt.

Chuck Schumer (02:05:38):

Will my colleague yield for another question?

Senator Cory Booker (02:05:38):

Yes.

Chuck Schumer (02:05:38):

So just today I visited a nursing home on Staten Island and a nursing home in Long Island, both in Republican congressional districts, and I spoke to people there. The nursing home I visited, if Medicaid were cut significantly, the nursing home would close according to the head of this nursing home. He was there. 300 people would lose their jobs, and these people, hundreds of people in this nursing home, would have nowhere to go. They say, "Oh, they can move in with their kids." First, isn't it accurate that many of them are in a condition where their kids can't take care of them? And second, given the housing shortages we face, and the tariffs will make that worse with the wood, isn't it true that many families just don't have room to take an elderly person, particularly one who needs care into their homes and that this would cause chaos to all sorts of people who are not on Medicaid themselves, but have loved ones who need it in assisted living, in nursing homes, in care facilities?

Senator Cory Booker (02:06:48):

Yes, Senator Schumer, to tell a family to just double up or triple up drives up their costs. Often that elder that's living with them that might have dementia demands care. So the family member that's caring for them has to decide, "Oh my God, am I going to give up my job, which I need to pay the rent to stay home and take care of them, or go to the job and let really difficult things happen?" And this is the thing that the leader is pointing out that I think is really important.

Chuck Schumer (02:07:18):

One final question.

Senator Cory Booker (02:07:18):

Yes, please. Please.

Chuck Schumer (02:07:18):

Would you share something personal with us? You're taking the floor tonight to bring up all these inequities that will hurt people, that will so hurt the middle class, that will so hurt poor people, that will hurt America, hurt our fiscal conditions, as you've documented. Just give us a little inkling, give us a little feeling for the strength and conviction that drive you to do this unusual taking of the floor for a long time to let the people know how bad these things are going to be.

Senator Cory Booker (02:07:50):

I appreciate the Democratic leader's question. I think that all hundred of us in this body are getting what I've gotten. I

Senator Cory Booker (02:08:00):

I can't go to the grocery store. I can't walk my neighborhood. I just did a travel around the country to do what a lot of us elected officials do and getting stopped in the airport by people who want to tell me stories about a parent with dementia or a disabled child, or a child with a rare disease that has seizures. Story after story after story, the people who've been writing into me, some of them on scraps of paper just to try to tell us, "Please." And they're not saying don't do 880 billions of cuts, they say they live on such a precipice that any diminution of resources would drive their families into crisis and despair.

(02:08:46)
Many of the professionals that I'm quoting are saying we don't need to be cutting, we need to be finding ways to extend services to do more. How can we do more? I talked earlier about the fact that you helped with this, Senator Schumer, when we were battling many of us. And I know my friend Lisa Blunt Rochester, she was a leader on the House when we said, "Why are so many women dying in childbirth in the postpartum period in America?" Shameful that we're the worst nation of all the wealthy nations, and that's for us as a whole, but for Black women, it's almost four times as much. And so what do we do here, Chuck? You remember this. Excuse me, Senator Schumer, what do we do here?

Chuck Schumer (02:09:27):

Chuck is okay.

Senator Cory Booker (02:09:27):

Chuck is okay. We came together and we said this is a time for Medicaid expansion. To say to a woman, "You don't just get 60 days postpartum, but we're going to expand that beyond 60 days state after state." Red and blue states said, "You're right, this is a crisis. That which should be the happiest period of a woman's life is the most devastating with women hemorrhaging and dying." We began to treat that, and now what's the threat? The threat is that they're going to cut these things that we did to help more people, to stop more folks from dying. And here's the trick: you know this battle well. I wasn't here, Chuck. You were here, and I know my chief of staff was on your staff writing this in, and this is why you all said, "We are going to try to incentivize states to expand Medicare. We're going to cover 90% of the costs."

(02:10:19)
I still don't understand why some states, just to talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face, said no. My state, Republican governor, said, "Heck yeah, sign New Jersey up." But many of those states have this automatic trigger that if the funding is cut, even if they say we're not going to cut 880 billion, just 250 billion. Well, that's going to trigger many states to give up that Medicare expansion, go back to the days where millions upon millions of Americans don't have coverage at all. So, again, this whole speech is because Chuck, because Senator Schumer business as usual in this place when that kind of threat is happening, when the stories that I read I had to struggle through, we should be doing hearings, we should be bringing in people. I know the values that we share on both sides of the aisle. How could we be so abjectly cruel and why to push through a tax break plan that families in the neighborhood I live in won't see benefits?

Chuck Schumer (02:11:32):

So, I thank my colleague for his strength, his courage, his effectiveness in letting the American people know how badly this upcoming bill will affect them if our Republican colleagues insist on passing it and thank him and yield the floor back to him.

Senator Cory Booker (02:11:50):

Thank you.

Chuck Schumer (02:11:50):

I thank him for his courage and strength.

Senator Cory Booker (02:11:51):

Thank you for-

Chuck Schumer (02:11:52):

And effectiveness.

Senator Cory Booker (02:11:53):

Thank you for allowing me to yield the floor for you to ask a question. I see my colleague here from Delaware. I'm going to read a few more stories, but I suspect that she too has a question because she and I did not just meet when she was sworn in here in January. God bless her. She is my colleague, but she's my sister. She has inspired me for years, and when she heard I was doing this, I'm not sure how much this has done on the Senate floor, but my sister came over and prayed with me that I could stand for a long time because she knew what we were trying to do, which was to try to create with who we serve with John Lewis-type good trouble in this institution to not do things normal. To begin to say that the voices I'm reading are Democrats and Republicans, the voices I'm reading are Democrat and Republican governors, Democratic and Republican heads of hospitals, Democratic and Republican heads of medical associations, Democratic and Republican constituencies. This is not right or left, this is right or wrong.

(02:13:07)
And my colleague, my colleague, I'm going to put her on blast, but God bless your friends that remind you of who you are when you forget. She didn't know that I really wanted to give a speech that was speaking to all of America, but she came up here and when we were praying, she said, "I pray that you speak words of love." Because she and I know love is ferocious. It's the strongest force on the earth. It's not soft, it's not saccharine. She asked God to give me words of love today. And so I know that this friend of mine, my sister here, my colleague who I've worked with for years and years and years, asked me if she could come to the floor and ask a question. So, as I've been instructed to do, if you were asking me to yield for a question, then I'm going to say go ahead if you want to ask me.

Speaker 3 (02:14:14):

I would ask my colleague, the great gentleman from the state of New Jersey, if he would yield the floor.

Senator Cory Booker (02:14:21):

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

Speaker 3 (02:14:28):

I want to begin by thanking you so much, Senator Booker, for your leadership, and thank you for the opportunity to ask you a question. As I stood and listened to you, I was reminded of why we are in this place in the first place. I see my colleague, Mr. President, a member of my class, and I think one of the key things that you talked about was ensuring that we recognize that we are all in this together. I think it might have been Martin Luther King who said, "We may have come over on different ships now, but we're all in the same boat now. We may have come over on different ships." I feel like in this very present moment, we have to recognize we're all in this together.

(02:15:19)
And to your point, when we think about the importance of Medicaid to this country, a lot of people don't even realize that they're on Medicaid. They might think of a health program that they're on, but they don't even make the connection to the fact that they're on Medicaid. That almost half of the babies in this country are born because of Medicaid. That it's not just from birth, but it goes all the way to seniors who are aging with dignity because they have access to Medicaid and allowing their family members to go to work because they don't have to worry about that family member. And so I wanted to, number one, in addition to asking my question, say thank you to you for not only shining a light on these potential dangerous cuts, but also ringing the alarm.

(02:16:16)
It is alarming that we are faced with this kind of question of do we take money from those who are in need and are connected, because we're all connected, and give it to a few. And so as I think about our work on maternal mortality and how we are trying to make sure that our country is not of one of the richest in the world, but the lowest in our maternal mortality numbers. As we look at issues of families who might have a family member who has a special needs child, or when I went home in our recess break, I was able to meet with folks from our developmental disability council and I heard a gentleman named Emmanuel. He is a wheelchair user. He said to me something that just stuck. He said, "If you pull the thread of Medicaid out of my life, it will unravel."

(02:17:24)
He had been sleeping in his car before Medicaid. He wasn't sure if he was going to have employment before Medicaid. And even he and his wife thought about what impact it might have, whether they were able to stay married or whether he would have to go into a facility. And so I want to thank you for shining the light and ringing the alarm, and I want to ask you, what do you think will be the impact on children in this country without Medicaid?

Senator Cory Booker (02:18:11):

I am so grateful for that question and it sobers me when you ask it because just a reduction in Medicaid, I love that metaphor you used, is pulling a string out for families who are barely holding it together right now. Families with children with disabilities, or developmentally disabled who have been struggling so much to get their children into programs that could help move them, some of them to independence, some of them into adulthood where they can get a job. So many of these things that help to propel these children would be undermined. Just transportation services going away would create hardship and devastation on families.

(02:18:52)
So, here we are in America where costs are going up, housing is going up. We're about to have these awful tariffs where the price of vehicles will go up, the price of transportation will go up, and so the ripple effect of an impact on children just by a fraction of the cuts that they're proposing, not to mention the grandeur of the $880 billion, would have a devastating impact on millions and millions of children. But it doesn't stop there. You quoted King. King said that in the Letters from Birmingham Jail, "We're all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality tied in the same garment of destiny." To think that there could be an injury to a family and their child and have it not affect you is not only a self-defeating ignorance, it's callous and uncaring and it demands us to step up for those children that you so rightfully Ask me in your question.

Speaker 3 (02:19:46):

Gentleman, yield for another question.

Senator Cory Booker (02:19:49):

I will definitely yield for a question.

Speaker 3 (02:19:52):

As the former executive of a major city in this country, can you talk a little bit about the impact that these cuts will have on cities, municipalities, and states? Because some might think, oh, this is just a nice issue. No, this is an economic issue as well. If you could talk a little bit about the impact that this is going to have and why mayors across this country should care, why governors across this country should care and city councils, why should they care?

Senator Cory Booker (02:20:30):

The thing that is so significant already, governors and mayors are writing letters and speaking up. When I go to different cities in New Jersey, I'm often called by local leaders because they know, number one, the stories of the people who rely on Medicaid, the seniors, the children, the disabled families. But more importantly than that, they know there are hospitals who already have very fragile budgets to carve out millions and millions of dollars. As I told, over tens of millions of dollars for our level one trauma hospital in New Jersey, that would devastate the entire economic model for our hospital. It would affect jobs, it would affect the economy, it would affect small businesses. It would be devastating.

Speaker 3 (02:21:15):

I will end my questions at the moment by saying again, thank you so much, Senator Booker, for your leadership. We've had an opportunity to work on food as medicine, maternal mortality. There are so many more important things to work on, but the fact that you are spending your time, your energy, your intellect to stand up for millions of Americans, I commend you for that. I'm grateful to serve with you. I had the opportunity to serve with John Lewis in the house and get in good trouble, and I'm glad to be here with you in the Senate. I yield back my time.

Senator Cory Booker (02:21:58):

Thank you very much. I'm going to continue elevating here, throughout the hours and hours of the speech, the voices of Americans from all backgrounds, all geographies. Elevating the stories of leaders, Democrat, Republican, independent, and I want to start with Matthew Cook, who's the president and CEO of Children's Hospital Association. And Matthew Cook writes, "The House budget resolution directive to the Energy and Commerce Committee to cut 880 billion in spending will almost certainly lead to deep reductions in Medicaid funding for children who rely on the program and destabilize the financial viability of the providers caring for them." To the point that my colleague from Delaware asked. "Slashing funding would mean fewer healthcare providers, fewer services, and longer wait times for patients who already face significant barriers to care. These cuts will impact the 37 million children on Medicaid program, including the nearly 50% of children with special healthcare needs. 3 million children in military-connected families."

(02:23:15)
I'm going to repeat that. "3 million children who are military-connected families, more than 40% of the children living in rural areas and small towns, patients in rural communities would be hit especially hard as hospitals and clinics in these areas rely heavily on Medicare funding to stay open. Here's from the Mental Health Liaison Group. In the midst of our nation's ongoing mental health crisis." I'm going to pause there.

(02:23:47)
When I ran for president and moved around the country in town hall meeting, after town hall meeting, after town hall meeting, I was even surprised on how many Americans, I don't think we had a town hall where someone didn't want to stand up and tell me about the mental health crisis in America and how poorly we were doing. When the Mental Health Liaison Group starts off with that, it hits me very hard. I still remember meeting with a guy in a New Jersey diner who had mental health issues, was a teacher at a high school and stabilized his mental health because of his prescription drugs, but then stopping unable to afford them, started skimping on the drugs, had a mental health crisis, lost his job and his whole life destabilized. Just because of not access to a costly prescription drug, a valued teacher had his life upended.

(02:24:46)
So I start this letter again. "In the midst of our nation's ongoing mental health crisis, including its devastating impact on youth and our ongoing overdose epidemic, it is paramount that access to life savings MHSUD services is not reduced and the integrity of the Medicaid program to serve as a vital federal and state partnered safety net is preserved. Limiting access to Medicaid threatens to undermine gains in reducing overdose mortality rates and could lead to increasing rates of incarceration and hospitalization." And my colleague from Delaware knows this. The biggest mental health institutions in America, the biggest ones, pick your state. From Illinois to Los Angeles, the biggest mental health institutions are LA prisons, are Chicago's prisons and jails wasting taxpayer dollars where folks got their mental health care treatment, their lives could stabilize. They could be workers, they could be helpers, they could not be sick.

(02:26:07)
Here's Chip Khan, the CEO of Federation of American Hospitals, in quotes, "Key Republican lawmakers recognizing that so many constituents rely on Medicaid for critical care made it clear that their vote today was based on an understanding that the final reconciliation bill would not include devastating cuts or changes. I believe that's gratifying," Chip Khan writes. "It is important that these members came to the same conclusion: Medicaid cuts should be off the table. Medicaid cuts should be off the table. It is up to these lawmakers to follow through and ensure spending cuts don't come at the expense of care for over 70 million Americans, including kids, seniors, and hardworking families."

(02:27:05)
I love the appeal in that letter because it was an appeal that I'm reminded of that my colleagues, Lisa Murkowski and the great John McCain and an extraordinary friend, Susan Collins, when they voted to save the Affordable Care Act. They listened to the appeal of people like this gentleman and my colleague sitting there and it's like often we resort to words of vicious cruelty. John Lewis didn't do that when he advocated against the most horrific racist, he didn't take on words of hate. We've got to appeal to colleagues of good conscience not to let, as this person says, no Medicaid cuts. No Medicaid cuts.

(02:27:58)
I know President Trump has said that Medicaid cuts are off the table, said that over and over and over again. We'll see. We'll see. Modern Medicaid Alliance: "With over 70 million children, seniors and hardworking families relying on Medicaid for their health and wellbeing, it is critical Congress listens to state and local government officials, faith leaders, healthcare providers, and hardworking Americans, and blocks proposed cuts to the program. As organizations representing and caring for the millions of Americans who receive coverage and benefits through Medicaid, we know firsthand how the current level of cuts being considered by Congress would impact their care. They will cause Americans to lose coverage, reduce health access, and increase costs. We oppose any cuts, we oppose any cuts, we oppose any cuts or harmful policy changes to Americans' Medicaid benefits as part of the budget reconciliation process and call on congressional leaders to reverse course and protect the program moving forward."

(02:29:08)
Here's the Modern Medicaid Alliance: "The latest House vote breaks a vital promise to more than 70 million Americans who depend on the Medicaid program and now face the potential for unprecedented destabilizing cuts to their coverage and access to care. The full extent of cuts being considered go far beyond addressing waste, fraud and abuse and would undermine Medicaid coverage for those who depend on it. Already, senators are issuing stark warnings about the impact of Medicaid cuts on the stability of their communities, state budgets, hospitals and providers. We urge members of the House and Senate to block any Medicaid cuts or harmful policy proposals as part of the ongoing budget process."

(02:29:58)
Sister Mary Haddad, President and CEO of Catholic Health Association: "We are deeply concerned that the budget resolution would force the House Energy and Commerce Committee to slash $880 billion from the Medicaid program, an essential health care program for nearly 80 million low-income Americans. Medicaid provides coverage for one in five individuals, funds 41% of all national births, and is the largest payer for long-term care and behavioral health services. These cuts would have devastating consequences, particularly for those in small towns and rural communities where Medicaid is often the primary source of health coverage. Medicaid is not just a health program. It is a lifeline. It provides access to care for those who need it most: poor and vulnerable children, pregnant women, elderly adults, and disabled individuals in our nation while ensuring their dignity. Their dignity."

(02:31:11)
Here's The Partnership for Medicaid again. The Partnership for Medicaid, a nonpartisan nationwide organization representing clinicians, healthcare providers, safety net health plans and counties calls on Congress to reject cuts to Medicaid during the budget reconciliation process. The partnership for Medicaid stands ready to work with policymakers to identify more sustainable strategies to strengthen Medicaid and improve upon its promise of providing high quality coverage and access to care populations. Another organization saying, "Hey, put me in. Let us help you improve this program and maybe we could achieve some of our mutual goals."

(02:31:54)
Here is Dr. Susan Kressly, President of the American Association of Pediatrics, the great AAP, the American Academy of Pediatrics urges lawmakers to reject the budget resolution before the US House of Representatives and to protect programs that are vital to the health and wellbeing of children. "We oppose the proposed funding cuts to programs like Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, which cover nearly half of all US children as well as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. These cuts would have devastating consequences for children and families." We're going to talk about cuts to SNAP later, but I love how the Dr. Susan Kressly, President of the American Association of Pediatrics can't help but mention them together. Why is a doctor concerned about healthcare also mentioning SNAP?

(02:32:54)
Well, fundamental to our children's health and wellbeing is having access to fresh and healthy foods. This is me being a little critical of people saying their MAHA, Make America Healthy Again, and then immediately cutting kids' access to fresh, healthy fruits and vegetables. I love this doctor. It's almost like you're doubling down on the injury to our children. We are cheapening highly processed and sugar-filled, empty nutritious foods, denying access to fresh, healthy fruits and vegetables, and then not letting people with chronic diseases get healthcare. I love this doctor for pointing out those connections.

(02:33:46)
But now I'm going to go to Brian O'Connell, who is a vice President of The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. "The fiscal year '25 budget resolution would create not just the opportunity by the obligation for the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to make dangerous cuts, dangerous cuts to Medicaid program in the budget reconciliation process expected in the coming week, the hundreds of billions of dollars cuts demanded by the budget resolution cannot be achieved without slashing benefits for enrollees or altogether taking away Medicaid coverage for millions of Americans. To be clear, The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society and the patients we represent are clamoring for Congress to lower healthcare costs. But the framework before the house today would pave the way for policies that do just the opposite, putting affordable access to healthcare out of reach of millions of Americans."

(02:34:49)
Feeding America, I love this organization, "Cuts to vital federal nutrition programs like SNAP necessitated by this resolution and the Senate version passed last week will make families grappling with high food costs, hurt rural economies and strain food banks already overwhelmed by the rising demand. We urge the house to reject spending cuts to nutrition programs in the budget reconciliation process and support the work the House and Senate agricultural Committees are doing to create a strong bipartisan Farm Bill.

(02:35:23)
The Federal AIDS Policy Partnership: "We are writing on behalf of 95 national, regional, and local organizations advocating for federal funding legislation and policy to end the HIV epidemic in the United States. We urge Congress to reject all proposals to enact cuts to Medicaid, whether through per capita caps or block grants restrictions to the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage or FMAP or mandatory work requirements during reconciliation for the 2025-2026 fiscal year budgets. Medicaid is the most important source of health coverage and lifesaving care for people living with HIV. The most important source of health coverage and lifesaving care for people living with HIV, providing coverage for more than 40% of the people living with HIV and contributing 45% of all federal funding for domestic HIV care and treatment.

(02:36:36)
The next letter starts: "To be clear, the cuts outlined above are being proposed for one simple reason to pay for 4.5 trillion in tax breaks that disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Congress can and must take a different path. Congress must take a different path, one that lifts more families out of poverty and provides more Americans with the opportunity to reach their full potential. A people-first agenda should include expanding the child tax credit for the 17 million children who don't receive the full credit due to low family incomes, expanding rental assistance, increasing SNAP benefits to reflect rising grocery prices and closing the Medicaid coverage gap. If Congress focused on ensuring that wealthy Americans pay their fair share rather than providing additional tax breaks, we can fund these initiatives and so much more." This is a group of groups that you'll recognize or many people will recognize. American Association of Nurse Practitioners, Gerontological Advanced Practice Nurses, the Association of National Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health, National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, the National Organization of Nurse Practitioners Faculties, they write, "We are deeply concerned with the impact of these cuts on the healthcare system and their potential to harm our most vulnerable patients. Further, these cuts will threaten the viability of practices that treat Medicaid patients, financially destabilizing and having a disproportionate impact on those who provide care to underserved and rural communities.

(02:38:18)
Association of American Medical Colleges, AAMC: "We remain extremely concerned that the budget resolutions reconciliation instructions would result in unsustainable cuts to federal healthcare programs, specifically Medicaid by requiring at least 880 billion in savings from the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Cuts of this magnitude would jeopardize both access to care for millions of Medicaid enrollees and the financial stability of the providers who care for them." Here's one from CHIMES International or Chimes International. Forgive me, Chimes. "Cuts in Medicaid will have a dramatic negative impact on our healthcare system and the first responder community, millions of Americans will be at risk of losing access to housing, thereby increasing homelessness for some of the most vulnerable members of society, especially in areas that already lack affordable housing. Provider organizations like ours will be forced to close the doors of residential facilities and reduce support staff, which is already in short supply." Katie Smith Sloan, who is the President and CEO of LeadingAge, "States would have to fill in massive budget holes if federal funding to Medicaid programs were cut. Even if a cut such as the change to the expansion

Senator Cory Booker (02:40:00):

… FMAP proposal does not seem to directly impact aging services. It would, because the cost of the cut would have to somehow be absorbed by state budgets. That type of hole cannot be filled in via more efficiency. Balancing the 10-year program budget cycle on the back of Medicaid program is not a good trade-off for the American people.

(02:40:36)
Alan Morgan, who is the CEO of the National Rural Health Association, this letter is powerful. He represents the National Rural Health Association. Any cuts to the Medicaid program will disproportionately affect rural communities. Rural Americans rely on Medicaid coverage with about 20% of non-elderly adults and 40% of children living in rural areas enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP. In almost all states, rural areas have higher rates of Medicaid enrollment than metropolitan areas.

(02:41:13)
Cuts to Medicaid would shift healthcare costs onto rural families, many of whom already struggle with financial instability. Medicaid cuts would force families to face higher out-of-pocket expenses, leading many to delay or forego necessary treatments. The burden would worsen health outcomes, especially for those managing chronic conditions like diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. To the extraordinary prescient of my colleague from Delaware who knew this letter was coming, I imagine, this is a letter from the US Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the National Conference of State Legislators, the Council of State Governments, the International City County Management Association.

(02:42:13)
I'm going to pause for a second just to remind folks, because I've been involved in the US Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities. I've dealt with the National Association of Counties on things that were important here in the Senate. All of these groups are bipartisan. All of these groups represent Democrat and Republican mayors, Democrat and Republican city council people. I was a actually non-partisan mayor, Newark does not have partisan elections, so they have non-partisan folks. This is a group of people who have those jobs where the rubber meets the road.

(02:42:56)
A change in state policy, a change in federal policy. We had to eat it when I was mayor, if it cost us more money. I was a mayor that talked like lots of mayors do, not in partisan lingo. They just talk about, "Hey, that's an unfunded mandate. Hey, that's adding more bureaucracy. Hey, that's going to cause more people in my community to be homeless. It's going to cause more children in my community to use an emergency room as their primary care physician." When I meet a mayor, I look at them and I thank them because it's one of the hardest jobs in America.

(02:43:39)
So, this organization that represents Democrats and Republicans, they write, "As a coalition of bipartisan membership organizations representing state legislators, mayors, cities, and counties, we are committed to working collaboratively to strengthen the Medicaid program so that the states and localities can continue to meet the needs of their residents effectively. We write to express concern over proposed changes to Medicaid financing and requirements that could significantly impact state and local budgets, healthcare infrastructure, and millions and millions of Americans who rely on the program." I would say, so far, there's at least half a dozen to a dozen of these letters where bipartisan groups are saying, "Let us help you. Don't rush this through in a way that is going to cause havoc to state and local governments. Cause havoc to children and seniors and the disabled. Cause havoc to hospitals and businesses. Cause havoc to rural communities. Cause havoc to the idea of what it means to be an American." That we take care of our own. That we stand up for each other. That we lend a hand. That we lift folks up. And here it is, this voice of bipartisan sensibility that says, "Hey, hold a hearing. We'll come. Put some of us on a commission."

(02:45:28)
This group that is called Advocates for Community Health. Medicaid Successes as a national program, derives from its variations across different states, different states doing things in different ways. Medicaid looks different in every state and territory because the program is able to reflect and accommodate the specific needs of the state's patients, providers, and communities. These state-based programs are vital to the patients by community health centers, patient directed primary care providers that serve rural and underserved communities nationwide. As the House and Senate work towards a budget reconciliation package, Advocates for Community Health encourages a cautious approach to changes to Medicaid policy, as broad changes have the potential to destabilize state Medicaid programs and community health centers, impact local economies and job creation, and further exacerbate rural healthcare access challenges.

(02:46:44)
The Families USA, their executive director, whose name is Anthony Wright. Americans are storming town halls calling their representatives in Congress and demanding that House Republicans stop their plan to massively cut the healthcare that Americans want and need. President Trump and some Republicans have said they won't touch Medicaid. But their vote today is when we see who walks the walk. The vote is the walk-the-plank moment for moderates who say they don't want Medicaid cuts but are being asked to cut over $880 billion to the care and coverage of their constituents. Policymakers and public alike understand that there is no version of this budget resolution that does not include deep cuts to vital program services and benefits the American people use every day to help them see a doctor, pay rent, or feed their families.

(02:47:48)
Justice in Aging. It's an organization that's led by its executive director, Kevin Prindiville. He writes, "With this vote, lawmakers endorsed taking away Medicaid from millions of Americans, including older adults, all to bankroll tax cuts for the wealthy. Thanks to our collective advocacy, the vote to pass this dangerous budget blueprint did not come easily. And we will make sure lawmakers know that voting to enact these cuts would be voting to abandon older Americans." The National Alliance for Caregiving. The House Budget Blueprint to eliminate at least $800 billion in federal funding, near funding unfairly targets criminal health care and supportive services that older adults, people with diabetes and their family caregivers depend upon to maintain health and economic security for families and themselves. Home and community-based services funded via Medicaid are cost-effective. They save millions of taxpayer dollars on unnecessary and often unwanted institutional care. Most of all, Medicaid funded HCBS, Home and Community-Based Services, offers consumers a choice in how they receive care in the dignity of their own homes. In the dignity of their own homes. Dignity. The Coalition for Whole Health Legal Action Center. Among the options being discussed, are work requirements for enrollees. Despite the fact that most people receiving Medicaid do work and other cuts to federal funding that would disproportionately harm people with substance abuse and mental health conditions. And those with arrest and conviction records by making it harder to access critical health coverage and service medications and supports. Such individuals already face pervasive stigma and discrimination, including significant barriers to employment, that threaten their stability and wellbeing. At a time when overdose and suicide are claiming more than 400 lives a day, we cannot afford to reduce access to comprehensive healthcare services that people with substance abuse use, mental health conditions, and those rebuilding their lives after incarceration, desperately need to recover and thrive.

(02:50:34)
So, let me tell you something about that that really strikes me. I was blessed to go to colleges. And there, people would use drugs. And now I live in a community where the consequences for drug use often means jail time. In fact, if you look at low income people, their chances of being incarcerated are far greater than college kids who have drug usage rates at about the same. And so, now you say to somebody who's got an arrest record, served some time, that when they come out they can't get help? Or people with mental illness are over incarcerated and you're going to say to them, "You've got this mental illness, now you've got a record and you also can't get healthcare services?" That's again, self defeatist when it comes to our nation trying to give people ways of elevating themselves above their past mistakes or the diseases that challenge them.

(02:51:36)
Here's another group, Community Catalyst. These cuts will hit hardest where healthcare access is already fragile. Here's the Alliance for Aging Research. "We, the undersigned organizations, urge you to oppose any cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, including those called for in the proposed budget resolution. We are concerned about the negative impact these deep cuts will have on the Americans living with chronic disease and other disabilities. But we are willing to draw your attention now to how devastating they will be on those with Alzheimer's and related diseases. Including frontotemporal degeneration and Lewy body dementia and their family caregivers."

(02:52:36)
April Barrett, president of SEIU. "Let's be clear, Americans have flooded Congressional phone lines, rallied the town halls and lifted their voices to make it clear that they do not want massive cuts to the healthcare and public services they depend on. Despite that, today, Speaker Johnson, pressed a budget resolution forward that puts our nation on a disastrous path to ripping away healthcare from 80 million children, pregnant women, veterans, seniors, people with disabilities by gutting Medicaid."

(02:53:07)
Lee Sounder, the president of AFSCME, "This budget proves that extremists are more concerned with giving wealthy trillions in tax cuts, than helping working people. Voters across the country are packing town halls to demand no cuts to Medicaid and SNAP. They're calling representatives asking them, 'Please save these services.' They want their elected leaders who will lower rising costs, who make it easier to afford rent and food. But instead of listening to workers, the House moved forward on a budget plan that will cause millions to lose their healthcare, increasing food insecurity for families, and jeopardize Medicare and social security in the long term." He calls this shameful.

(02:54:06)
The Diabetes Leadership Council and Diabetes Patient Advocacy Coalition. "We are deeply concerned about the budget resolution passed in the House of Representatives this week. This budget resolution will likely lead to cuts to the safety net Medicaid programs, which provides health insurance to almost 80 million Americans, including children, pregnant women, elderly adults, people with diabetes and low income adults and families. This action would disproportionately impact Americans who most need us, including those with diabetes or other chronic conditions who rely on Medicaid to access medications and technology that they need to manage their conditions. Members of Congress should instead work to ensure access to health insurance. Through the Medicare program, work to ensure access to healthcare without barriers for the most vulnerable Americans."

(02:55:11)
Here's the Alliance for Childhood Cancer. "Work Requirements may also impact givers of children with cancer who are unable to work due to the demands of cancer treatment for young adults with cancer who may not be eligible for insurance via their employer or may not be able to work due to their diagnosis. Many young adults rely on Medicaid, especially the Medicaid expansion for coverage. And research shows a clear increase in survival for young adults with cancer in Medicaid expansion states."

(02:55:51)
UnidosUS. "The proposed resolution would slash at least 880 billion from programs that have long provided lifesaving affordable coverage to millions of Americans. Medicaid alone serves 80 million people, covering nearly 40 million children. Half of those with special healthcare needs and more than 40% of all births. In Latino communities, Medicaid reaches 20 million individuals, protecting nearly one third of community members, more than half of Latino children and roughly 30% of Hispanic elders. Without these vital programs, there'll be higher hospitalization rates, delayed diagnoses, and increased mortality. This would become the norm. Placing an unsustainable strain on public health and national financial security." As UnidosUS recently pointed out, these proposed cuts would represent the largest cuts to Medicaid in US history. The Coalition of Survivors of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. "On behalf of the adult and child survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault, we serve and advocate for them. We on behalf of them, write to ask you to reject cuts to federal Medicaid funding. Survivors rely on Medicaid every day to escape abuse, to rebuild their lives after violence, to care for their children and families."

(02:57:46)
Catholic Health Association of the United States and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Catholic Charities USA. "Weakening Medicaid through structural challenges such as per capita caps or block grants, would undermine these values and risk leaving millions without access to essential health services. Furthermore, policies like work reporting requirements have shown clear evidence of creating artificial barriers to care generating paperwork and bureaucracy, while doing little to support people looking for work. These requirements also fail to recognize that most people on Medicaid already work and ignore the realities of low wage workers. Caregiving responsibilities, health limitations and studies have shown they frequently result in loss of coverage for eligible individuals and children."

(02:58:57)
The Disability and Aging Collaborative and the Consortium for Constituents with Disabilities on behalf of 107 national organizations and more than 230 state and local organizations. The undersigned members of the Disability and Aging Collaborative, the health and long-term service and support task forces of the consortium for constituents with disabilities, and allied organization's right to urge you to exclude Medicaid cuts work requirements or any changes that limit funding or eligibility from budget reconciliation or other legislation. People with disabilities, older adults, family caregivers and their children, direct care workers and other low-income individuals and families depend on Medicaid every day for their health, safety and independence. Medicaid enables our communities to go to work and to care for loved ones.

(02:59:59)
It is our community's lifeline and we cannot afford for any part of it to be cut. The Jesuit Conference. "Programs that meet basic needs such as SNAP, Medicare, and Medicaid health insurance, premium tax credits and social security should be protected and remain as robust as possible. We oppose modifications that would have the effect of reducing important benefits of excluding vulnerable people from participating. Thank you, the Jesuit Conference."

(03:00:46)
Why? I mean, we have just read dozens and dozens of letters from real people who are relying on these programs to take care of their elderly parents, take care of their loved one with the dementia, to take care of their children, to take care of their adult children with disabilities, to take care of their children with special needs, to take care of their families, to take care of their communities, to take care of rural towns, to take care of the hospitals, to take care of people. Why? Why? Why are all of these people lifting their voices now pointing to the crisis that can't be normalized? Pointing to the challenges? Because we've seen this reconciliation process call for $880 billion of cuts.

(03:01:45)
When as I read earlier, there's only one place that the majority of those cuts can come from, and that would be hundreds of millions of dollars of cuts to Medicaid. Which organization after organization told you, it is already a delicate balance that cuts to these programs could ultimately tear down people's access to lifesaving benefits. People use the word dignity over and over again. Dignity. It is a value in our country that we treat our elders with dignity. That we give people struggling with chronic disease, dignity. That we give parents who are slammed with the unimaginable diagnoses for their children. We help them to access dignity.

(03:02:39)
People that we talked about that read their letters, they all said, "We can help you find efficiencies. We can help you make the programs work better. We can help you." But why are you doing this if it is all a part of a larger package to give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, to give tax cuts to millionaires? How does that work? That Elon Musk should get richer, and richer and richer, and families, the love in these letters, who love their children, who love their aging parent, who love that person with dementia, even though they don't recognize them anymore, but that doesn't stop their heroic love. And they piece together their finances in a nation where housing costs are going up, food costs is going up, transportation's going up. They piece together the fragile finances of their lives.

(03:03:35)
The Medicaid funding is one part of it that gets yanked away and everything unravels. Why? They ask. Why? They plead for help. They ask us to do something. I want to read some articles coming from a variety of backgrounds, but perhaps this one from PBS, A closer look at who relies on Medicaid. So, what PBS wrote. "As Congressional Republicans seek about $4.5 trillion, $4.5 trillion to extend expiring tax cuts, the federal government will need to find savings elsewhere. If you're going to give those $5.5 trillion that disproportionately go to the wealthy, you're going to have to find savings elsewhere."

(03:04:23)
Experts say budget cuts could affect Medicaid coverage for as many as millions of Americans at a time when the program may need more funding, not less. The proposed House bill requires the Committee on energy and commerce to find $880 billion in spending cuts. Which means some aspects of Medicaid, which the committee oversee may be on the chopping block. Medicaid is a massive program that provides free and reduced cost healthcare for eligible enrollees. It offers critical coverage to a wide variety of Americans, including children, adults with disabilities and older people in nursing homes.

(03:05:08)
Even for Americans who have private insurance, Medicaid can play a part of their healthcare. That's because Medicaid is such a large ending of funding, that so many aspects of the countries, so many benefit from the aspects of this country's health coverage. The public health insurance option is funded in part by the federal government and in part by states covering around 72 million Americans. The government spends about $880 billion on Medicaid in fiscal year 2023, the most recent year for which there's data, according to an analysis by the nonprofit Health Policy Research Organization, KFF. Medicaid is an extremely popular entitlement program, said Robin Rudowitz, director of the program on Medicaid and the uninsured at KFF.

(03:06:02)
More than nine in 10 adults say Medicaid is very or somewhat important to their local community, according to recent KFF polling. 40% of respondents said they wanted Medicaid funding to remain the same, while 42% wanted to increase funding for the program. Just 17% wanted to decrease funding a little or a lot. Some studies have found that expanding Medicaid can save money for states, including in spending reductions in corrections, healthcare, as well as health and substance abuse. Pulling away from the article for a second, that's so logical. Expanding health coverage for people with mental health challenges or substance abuse means an investment now, and saves a lot of money to society later and saves them from being rearrested because of their disease.

(03:07:04)
Back to the article. President Donald Trump has said his administration will not cut Medicaid benefits and will instead reduce spending by eliminating waste and fraud. Well, according to health policy experts, there may not be a way to fund the tax cuts without gutting Medicaid. Doing that will have real implications, said Allison Orris, senior fellow and director of Medicaid policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Another nonpartisan group. It's fair to say that if Medicaid is cut by hundreds of billions of dollars, people will lose coverage. But some of the ways in which they will lose coverage and healthcare access are a little bit tricky, she said. So, who and what relies on Medicaid?

(03:07:54)
Medicaid covers low income Americans in all 50 states, as well as DC and the American territories. But the program's benefits are farther reaching. Medicaid pays for around two in every five births in the country. The program accounts for about 20% of both hospital funding, and long and total healthcare spending nationwide, according to KFF. That organization's analysis of hundreds of studies concluded since 2014 largely found that Medicaid expansion helped cut hospital costs associated with uninsured patients. Many studies also found that Medicaid expansion helped with overall hospital funding and resulted in fewer hospital closures. And Medicaid, not Medicare, is the single largest payer of long-term coverage, including nursing home care.

(03:08:52)
Here are some of the ways Medicaid is crucial for so many Americans' healthcare. Long-term care for people with disabilities according to KFF analyses. 35% of Americans with disabilities have Medicaid. It's about 15 million people. That compares with 19% of people without disabilities and the majority of whom have employer provided health insurance. Currently, Medicaid covers about 60% of long-term care coverage, much of which provides care for younger adults with disabilities.

(03:09:34)
Nursing homes. Medicaid is the primary payer of nursing care in the United States. It covers 63% of nursing home residents. For many older adults, Medicaid is the safety net. David Grabowski, professor of healthcare policy at Harvard Medical School says An individual can be middle income their entire life, and then reach the older long-term care years and have to enter a nursing home. Because nursing homes can be so expensive, families can quickly deplete all of their assets, then rely on Medicaid to cover long-term care.

(03:10:21)
Another group, children. 37% of people enrolled in Medicaid are children. But they account for only about 15% of the programs spending. And 2023 KFF found that of the 72 million people enrolled in Medicaid, about 30 million were children. Millions more children are enrolled in the children's health insurance program, which some states run with Medicaid expansion funds. They're tied. Forgive me, that's off this article. Back to the article. So far, political conversations have not yet focused on cutting CHIP.

(03:11:06)
Rural maternal health. Medicaid covered around 40% of births nationwide in 2023, KFF found. And nearly half, nearly 50% of all rural births. Studies also show that being enrolled in Medicaid leads to improved health outcomes for children, including declines in infant and child mortality, preventative care visits on par with privately insured children and even potentially positive outcomes into adulthood, such as improvements in education. That's what studies shows being enrolled in Medicaid leads to. How about Native Americans and Alaskan Indians? Four in 10 American Indian, Alaskan native people are enrolled in Medicaid. The highest enrollment

Senator Cory Booker (03:12:00):

… rate among any race and ethnicity category. This includes about 23% of non-elderly A-I-A-N adults and 44% of American Indian Alaska Native Children.

(03:12:15)
How the federal government funds states Medicaid plans. Medicaid began as an optional program in 1966, alongside Medicare, with around eight million people eligible for enrollment. By the 1980s, all states had opted into providing health insurance through Medicaid. Though eligibility requirements have changed over the last 60 years and vary by state, the most significant change to Medicaid was the enactment of the Patient Protection In An Affordable Care Act in 2010. It requires states to cover adults with incomes up to 138% of the poverty line. After the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that expansion for states should be optional, 40 states and Washington DC have expanded Medicaid. 40 of our 50 states accepted federal funds at a much higher rate than the match rate for non-expansion. That is a good summary by PBS of how far-reaching this program is. How many Americans in every single state, from all backgrounds, both sides of the political aisle, independents, old, young, hospitals, businesses, care professionals, and more?

(03:13:39)
This is who we are. We've expanded the program. We've made it better. We've brought improvements. And yet we're doing a process; it's not going through a committee. We are not soliciting the best ideas from both sides of the aisle about how to make it more efficient, more effective. We're not bringing in private sector professionals to give advice and input or hospital providers or people that are seeing things that we could learn from and craft legislation to make the program better, and the letters are even showing. We're not even doing any of those things, and then we're cutting the very programs that allow people access to fresh, healthy food that then cause us to need more healthcare for chronic diseases. This alone would be bad enough, if we were gutting a program with no input from professionals. If we were taking away healthcare from seniors, children, expectant mothers, the disabled, that would be bad enough. But why? Again, why? Because it's part of a larger budget package to give trillions of dollars of tax cuts disproportionately to the wealthiest Americans and still add trillions to the national deficit. I talked about American Indian and Alaska Natives. I mentioned that I've recently visited some proud Native Americans and heard their stories and was inspired by their conviction and their grit and how, under incredible odds, they were able to create better lives. After extraordinary oppression and vicious policies and more, they found a way forward. There's a disproportionate number of Native Americans in Alaska, Natives that rely on these programs, people who have maintained extraordinary dignity despite promises made and promises broken.

(03:16:03)
So many people are talking about that idea of a sacred trust, that the richest nation in the world, to honor its ideals of freedom, has to focus on keeping people free from fear that one medical bill will throw their family in crisis or fear that one diagnosis for their child will unravel their lives or fear that if their parent gets dementia, there will be no care for them. So much of this conversation is within this larger understanding of who we are and what do we stand for?

(03:16:48)
I want to take a look at some of the things the Trump administration is doing that is going to undermine not just Medicaid, but health insurance coverage for Americans, for all Americans, and raise the cost of healthcare and negatively impact our health. At a time when basic prices of everyday goods are going up, the president is making healthcare harder to access and drug prices even higher. I want to explain this.

(03:17:16)
On his first day back in office, Trump rescinded a policy that extended the enrollment period for ACA plans. This policy gave Americans sufficient time to enroll in healthcare for the year, and enrollment in the ACA continues to go up as people see how affordable this program is and how they can get quality healthcare. But the first thing, one of the first things he does, is rescind the policy that extended the enrollment period. In addition to this, Republicans in Congress want to take away the tax credits that make healthcare more affordable for so many people. Millions of working-class Americans rely on Affordable Care Act tax credits to access affordable quality healthcare and coverage.

(03:18:03)
I could go on with the things. For example, currently, these tax credits, they're set to expire at the end of this year. If these tax credits are taken away, families will pay up to 90% more for their healthcare, and five million Americans could lose their healthcare altogether. Again, if this goes through in 2025, billionaires and CEOs will get a huge tax break while working Americans relying on this tax credit will lose it. Think about that. This would allow billionaires and CAOs to get more of a tax break while these tax credits that help more Americans access healthcare would expire. For New Jerseyans, ending the ACA tax credit would make health insurance less affordable for 352,000 hardworking people and their families and would force 75,000 people to go uninsured, 75,000 people in my state alone. Last year, 24 million people chose Affordable Care Act plans during the most recent open enrollment period, due to these expanded tax credits that made plans available to people for little or no monthly premiums and extended the enrollment period, which I just said the president has rolled back.

(03:19:34)
President Trump also overturned an effort for Medicare to lower drug costs, like implementing a two-dollar monthly out-of-pocket cap on certain generic drugs, as well as a measure that would reduce Medicare payments for rare disease drugs and drugs that treat life-threatening conditions. I just don't understand that one. I really see that as cruel. Americans struggling to afford their drugs had a cap of out-of-pocket expenses on certain generic drugs, and that was overturned. Costs are going up. Costs are going up, and now this president is expanding costs for out-of-pocket generic drugs, as well as Medicaid payments being eligible for rare diseases.

(03:20:34)
I had the privilege of becoming close to John McCain. I came here within the Senate and got this admonition, almost, from Bill Bradley, somebody who held my seat beforehand, and he challenged me to go and have lunch with or meetings with all my Republican colleagues at the time. That was way back in 2013, and I was told by John McCain's staff that I had like 10, 15 minutes, but I was going to take it. This is John McCain; he's a legend. And I go in, and I meet with him, and I didn't come out of that office for about 90 minutes. And we both got emotional as he showed me pictures and documentation from his time as a prisoner of war. In 2017, he was under extraordinary pressure in this healthcare crisis, and there were thousands of Americans descending on our capitol.

(03:21:35)
I'll never forget the Little Lobbyists, they call themselves, kids in wheelchairs that would roll up to Congress people and raise their little voice respectfully and ask them not to take away their health coverage. I remember people coming in here with preexisting conditions and saying, "Don't repeal my healthcare and not even have a plan to replace it." President Trump was asked about healthcare when he was Candidate Trump for this office, and he said he had, I think it was conceptions of a plan. And since he's been in office, I haven't heard a vision for healthcare, besides budget proposals that would cut people's healthcare. But John McCain, I will never, ever forget that moment. I was actually standing on the Republican side, if I remember correctly, having conversations, and he came to the floor, after listening to Arizonans tell stories like the ones I've been reading, and put his thumb down. He wrote a speech about his decision, and I want to read a part of that now.

(03:22:55)
"I have been a member of The United States Senate for 30 years. I had another long, if not as long, career before I arrived here, another profession that was profoundly rewarding and in which I had experiences and friendships that I revere. But make no mistake: My service here is the most important job I have had in my life, and I'm so grateful to the people of Arizona for the privilege, for the honor of serving here, and the opportunities it gives me to play a small role in the history of the country I love."

(03:23:55)
I've known and admired men and women in the Senate who played much more than a small role in history. True statesmen, giants of American politics. They came from both parties and various backgrounds. Their ambitions were frequently in conflict. They had different views on the issues of the day, and they often had very serious disagreements about how to best serve the national interest, but they knew that however sharp and heartfelt their disputes, however keen their ambitions, they had an obligation to work collaboratively to ensure the Senate discharged its Constitutional responsibilities effectively. Our responsibilities are important, vitally important to the continued success of our Republic, and our arcane rules and customs are deliberately intended to require broad cooperation to function well at all. The most revered members of this institution accepted the necessity of compromise in order to make incremental progress on solving America's problems and to defend her from her adversaries.

(03:25:46)
That principled mindset and the service of our predecessors who possessed it come to mind when I hear the Senate referred to as the world's most deliberative body. I'm not sure we can claim that distinction with a straight face today. I'm sure it wasn't always deserved in the previous eras either, but I'm sure there have been times when it was, and I was privileged to witness some of those occasions. Our deliberations today, not just our debates, but the exercise of all of our responsibilities, authorizing government policies, appropriating the funds to implement them, exercising our advice and consent role, are often lively and interesting. They can be sincere and principled, but they are more partisan, more tribal, more of the time, than any other time I remember. Our deliberations can still be important and useful, but I think we all agree they haven't been overburdened by greatness lately, and right now, they aren't producing much for the American people.

(03:27:10)
Both sides have let it happen. Let's leave the history of who shot first to historians. I suspect they'll find we all conspired in our decline. Either by deliberate actions or neglect, we've all played some role in it. Certainly, I have. Sometimes I've let my passion rule my reason. Sometimes I made it harder to find common ground because of something harsh I said to a colleague. Sometimes I wanted to win, more for the sake of winning than to achieve a contested policy. Incremental progress compromises that each side criticize but also accept just plain muddling through to chip away at problems and keep our enemies from doing their worst isn't glamorous or exciting. It doesn't feel like a political triumph, but it's usually the most we can accept from our system of government, operating in a country as diverse and quarrelsome and free as ours.

(03:28:24)
Considering the injustice and cruelties inflicted by autocratic governments and how contemptible human nature can be, the problem-solving our system does make possible, the fitful progress it produces, and the liberty and justice it preserves, is a magnificent achievement. Our system doesn't depend on our nobility. It accounts for our imperfections and gives an order to our individual strivings that has helped make ours the most powerful and prosperous society on earth. It is our responsibility to preserve that, even when it requires us to do something less satisfying than winning, even when we must give a little to get a little, even when our efforts manage just three yards in a cloud of dust. While critics on both sides denounce us for timidity, for our failure to triumph, I hope we can again rely on humility, on our need to cooperate, on our dependence on each other. To learn how to treat each other again, and by so doing, better serve the people. Learn how to trust each other again, and by so doing, better serve the people who elected us. Stop listening to the bombastic loudmouths on the radio and television and the internet. To hell with them. They don't want anything done for the public good. Our incapacity is their livelihood. Let's trust each other again. Let's return to regular order. We've been spinning our wheels on too many important issues because we keep trying to find a way to win without help from across the aisle. That's an approach that's been employed by both sides, mandating legislation from the top down, without any support from the other side, with all the parliamentary maneuvers that requires.

(03:30:49)
We're getting nothing done. All we've really done this year is confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Our healthcare insurance system is a mess. We all know it, those who support Obamacare and those who oppose it. Something has to be done. We Republicans have looked for a way to end it and replace it with something else, without paying a terrible political price. We haven't found it yet, and I'm not sure we will. All we've managed, all we've managed to do, is make more popular a policy that wasn't very popular when we started to try to get rid of it. I voted for the motion to proceed, to allow debate to continue and amendments to be offered. I will not vote for the bill as it is today. It's a shell of a bill right now. We all know that. I have changes urged by my state's governor that will have to be included to earn my support for final passage of any bill. I know many of you will have to see the bill change substantially for you to support it.

(03:32:18)
We've tried to do this by coming up with a proposal behind closed doors and consultation with the administration, then signing it on, then springing it on skeptical members, trying to convince them it's better than nothing. Asking us to swallow our doubts and force it past a unified opposition. I don't think that is going to work in the end, and it probably shouldn't. I mean, that is prescient. I mean, that is prescient. As a great New Jerseyan, Yogi Berra, said, "That feels like deja vu all over again." Do you hear what John McCain was criticizing? One party, behind closed doors, without consultation of experts, against the wishes of Republican governors, is trying to force something through, past a united opposition. He literally is describing what's happening right now and condemning both sides of this institution for playing this record over and over and over again.

(03:33:38)
Yes, I'm a Democrat, and I admit that our healthcare system needs so much help and so much reform. One out of every three of our tax dollars is being spent on healthcare. That's ridiculous, and what are we getting from it? A society that's getting more and more sick. And what of our solutions as a body? Did we come together as a team? Did we set up a special conference, set up a special committee to study the issues, to bring in the experts, to involve the best technology, to learn the lessons from private sector and public sector, from universities, from scientists? Are we doing that, or are we doing exactly what John McCain said we shouldn't do? Exactly what he described, why he voted no.

(03:34:25)
It is maddening in this country to create greater and greater healthcare crisis and for us not to solve it, but to battle back and forth between trying to make incremental changes or to tear it all down with no plan to make it better. Leaving more Americans suffering what is still one of the most significant ways people go bankrupt, which is not being able to afford their healthcare. And what are we doing it for this time, John? Senator McCain? I know you wouldn't sanction this. I know you would be screaming. I've seen how angry you can get, John McCain, I've seen you tear people apart on this floor, Democrat and Republican, for doing the same stupid thing over and over again.

(03:35:23)
Listen to John McCain explain why he voted no the last time the Republican party tried to unite and tear down healthcare with no idea how to fix it and threatening to put millions of Americans in financial crisis and healthcare crisis. I can't believe we are here again, with thousands upon thousands upon thousands of Americans writing letters, storming into town halls. Hospital leaders, private sector leaders, Republican governors, Republican mayors, Democratic governors, Democratic mayors, all saying, "What are you doing in Congress, and why?" I think what's even more outrageous this time is the why. To redo the tax cuts that independent budget analysis know that the overwhelming benefit went to the billionaires that sat on stage with Donald Trump during his inauguration. We're not saving any money in our budgets. Their plan is to expand our budget crisis. Their plan will add trillions of dollars to our budget and give tax cuts to the wealthiest and not help the people that John McCain is talking about. His echoes haunt me, that he said, "We are mistaken when we don't come together across the aisles, across our differences, to try to make things better."

(03:37:01)
There is a healthcare crisis in this country. One out of three dollars in our government is going to healthcare, and we have more chronic disease in this nation than we have ever had before, and there's no solution being offered in this reconciliation to deal with that. In fact, we're making it worse because we're denying children access to healthy foods. This is ridiculous. If they're successful, what kind of country will we be? With more stratifications of wealth, with people who have done so good. I'm not one of these Democrats that hates successful or wealthy people. Heck, people in my neighborhood, as the only senator that probably lives in a low income neighborhood, strive to be wealthy. They are doing great. The top quartile of our country for the last 20 years has made extraordinary wealth. God bless them. But when you see that 70, 80% of a-

Senator Cory Booker (03:38:01):

80% of Americans don't want Medicaid cuts, it's because most Americans know neighbors, family members, church members who rely on Medicaid. They know that their grandmother in a nursing home relies on Medicaid. They know that the disabled child next door relies on Medicaid. And now we want to gut it? $880 billions? John McCain. Most people remember the thumb down, they don't remember his words, they don't remember the warnings. This man is in heaven now and his words, they speak to us in this moment. Again, why won't we listen to them? Our deliberations today, not just our debates, but the exercise of our responsibilities, authorizing government policies, appropriating the funds to implement them. They can be sincere in principle, but they are more partisan, more tribal, more of the time than any I remember. Our deliberations can still be important and useful, but I think we'd all agree that they have overburdened, they've been overburdened, and right now they aren't producing much for the American people.

(03:39:20)
Both sides have let this happen. Let's leave the history of who shot first to the historians, I suspect they will find we all conspired in our decline either by deliberate actions or by neglect. Listen to John McCain. Our system doesn't depend on our nobility. It accounts for our imperfections and gives an order to our individual strivings that has helped make ours the most powerful process of society on earth. Listen to us. Let's trust each other. Let's return to regular order. We've been spinning our wheels on too many important issues because we keep trying to find a way to win without the help from the other side. That's an approach that's been employed by both sides, mandating legislation from the top down without support from the other side. We're getting nothing done. All we've done this year is to confirm Neil Gorsuch.

(03:40:15)
I voted for the motion to proceed to allow debate to continue and amendments for office. I will not vote for the bill as it stands today. I will not vote for the bill. We've tried doing this by coming up with a proposal behind closed doors in consultation with the administration Donald Trump, then springing it on skeptical members, trying to convince them it's better than nothing, asking us to swallow our doubts and force it past a unified opposition. I don't think that is going to work in the end, and it probably shouldn't. Well, this shouldn't work either. This shouldn't work either. This is wrong. This is wrong. I see the leader here. I'm sorry, sir. I should be conserving my energy.

Speaker 1 (03:41:07):

Would the gentleman yield for a question?

Senator Cory Booker (03:41:09):

Yes, I would yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Speaker 1 (03:41:14):

First, your impassioned remarks are so meaningful. I hope all of America is watching. And if some people are not up at this hour, watch it tomorrow. It's inspiring. And I would just ask my colleague a question. I was there, I spent four hours with John McCain before he voted. And we talked and talked, and talked and went over the courage of his father and his grandfather in the Navy, and the courage that he hoped to show as they did. And I'd ask my colleague this question, isn't it eerily reminiscent that after John McCain did his courageous act, that here we are years later, almost a decade later, a few years less, and they're doing the same thing again, cutting people's healthcare to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people? And isn't it true that John McCain saw the suffering of people who wouldn't get healthcare and urged people to come together on a bipartisan solution?

(03:42:20)
And wouldn't it be much better if our colleagues from across the aisle, they may not agree with us on everything, but instead of trying to jam another bill down our throats like they did back in 2017, came and worked with us for the betterment of the country, for the betterment of the 80% of the people who need healthcare, who will struggle without that healthcare? Some will be ill, some will die. Will die. So does it strike the gentleman that how could the people on the other side of the aisle try to do this again after John McCain made such a courageous stance? It's not echoing. It doesn't seem to be echoing in their ears, is it? I'd ask my colleague to just answer that general line of questions.

Senator Cory Booker (03:43:09):

So Collins, Murkowski and McCain, it took a lot of courage, they were getting a lot of pressure from the White House. John McCain was viciously attacked afterwards. But his private conversations with members and you, Senator Schumer, know at the last lap around his track of life, he didn't want to be remembered as someone doing something, to use John McCain kind of language, boneheaded to hurt a lot of innocent, fragile people and leave them without a plan. When his own governor, Republican governor, I read Republican governors earlier, were saying, don't do this.

(03:43:55)
I want to say something else to the senator, in response to his question. I watched you that night and I just loved something you did, and I've never said this to you. People over here tried to start applauding and you stood up angrily and told them not to because what John showed was something bigger than partisanship. He talks about it, one side trying to win the other side, trying to… It's more ego sometimes than it is ideals. And you stood up and said, "No, this is not that moment. We're watching a man take a position that was not easy, that didn't serve his politics, but served his spirit." I don't know if my staff has that envelope of the articles that I wanted specifically, because there's a story in there and I don't have it now, I'm going to read it later about John McCain in the prison camps.

(03:44:59)
I wasn't here when we had this moment. But when I got here weeks after this moment, Mr. leader, all my colleagues on both sides, I want to talk about it was a special conference in the old Senate chamber. I was not there but the Democrats and Republicans, it actually changed our behavior in here. It didn't last, but I came here and people said, because of that, we're all going to partner up and for State of the Union addresses, you have a Republican partner and a Democrat. We go as couples, basically. It was something about this man where the dignity that he had, that we all treasured in a moment like that, that he began to elevate… I had my partner senator here say to me when I got here, "You are not a full senator until you get ripped by John McCain's anger."

Speaker 1 (03:46:01):

[inaudible 00:07:59] well aware.

Senator Cory Booker (03:46:02):

Okay. And I never got ripped by him. After my meeting I mentioned earlier, in his office, he started inviting me with him. My first CODEL was with him and telling me… He told me all the time, "Booker, there are two types of senators here." I don't mean that he was casting aspersions on others. "There are people that represent their states and there are states men." And he kept challenging me, "Be a statesman. Not a great Democratic senator, but be a great American senator." He would challenge me over and over, and over again. I would go to his national security conferences out at his ranch. And one of my favorite moments as a senator, if I had top 10 favorite moments as a US senator, this is one of them. The leader knows that I am a vegan. And when you go to one of his open barbecues, there is nothing vegan. I mean, they even saturated every vegetable in butter and mayonnaise was everywhere. But I'm not going to complain, I'm just going to sit and enjoy the conference conversations.

(03:47:04)
And so now I'm in a golf cart going home at the end of the night and the young man who was shuttling me home goes to me, "How was the food? Did you enjoy the dinner?" And I go, "Well actually, if I'm going to be honest, I didn't eat." And they go, "You haven't had dinner?" And I go, "No." I said, "I'm a vegan." And they go, "Well, we're about to pass John McCain's home, where he lives. And it's late, I'm sure he's asleep, but maybe we can break in and see what's in his fridge." And I'm like, "Dude, I'm from Jersey. I love this. Breaking into John McCain's house and I won't have to worry about getting arrested?" I said, "I'm all in." And so we went in and as soon as we rounded the kitchen, I looked through the kitchen and John McCain was sitting there with another elderly tough-looking man on the couch, engaged in conversation, so I didn't get my joy of breaking into John McCain's house. But I walk in and he's sitting there with a former secretary, if I remember correctly, of the Navy.

(03:48:03)
And they're like, "Booker, sit down." I go, "I haven't eaten." He goes, "Ah." So I'm sitting there eating peanut butter and celery or whatever, and these two men are talking about government inefficiency. And they say the place that we could be saving the most money, former secretary, if I remember correctly, of the Navy and one of the great men on national security, they started detailing the waste in the military. They both claim that we could have much more capacity, greater military effectiveness for billions and billions and billions of dollars less. I'll never forget. Again, this is me new to the senate, I don't know foreign policy like I do 12 years later or the military like I do 12 years later. But I was listening to these two experienced men complaining about the gross waste that was undermining our overall effectiveness and efficiency.

(03:48:58)
And that's why to this day, I'm infuriated that when people come in and say they want to cut budgets, the first thing they want to go for is not to take a real… Because the military hasn't passed an audit in years, to have a real conversation about a lot of the baked-in corruption and misspending in the military. But they're going after programs that hospital after hospital, healthcare provider after healthcare provider, leader after leader, governor after governor says, are you crazy? And so this is one of the more preposterous moments that you and I both know if John McCain was here right now, he would reject this whole thing because we were literally repeating the same thing we did in 2017, eight years ago.

Speaker 1 (03:49:55):

[inaudible 00:11:55].

Senator Cory Booker (03:49:57):

I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Speaker 1 (03:50:01):

Isn't it true when McCain talked about waste in the military, he studied it, he documented it, he said, this is a good thing, this is a bad thing? He helped guide me on many of these things. I voted for some weapon system, getting some people upset because he showed me they worked, and I voted against a lot of them because he showed me they didn't. But isn't it so that our colleagues on the other side, when they talk about waste in the healthcare system, they don't document a thing. They use just a meat axe or a chainsaw as Elon Musk perversely, but proudly said he's going to carry one. And they don't document waste that they say exists and then they just slash things that people need that's not waste at all, that's life support for people. Isn't that a huge difference between the way McCain looked at waste, whether it's in the military or anything else, and what we're hearing here today?

Senator Cory Booker (03:50:54):

Resoundingly, yes. I'm just laughing that every time DOGE puts up their supposed savings, they then try to take them down because as soon as their fact checked, so many of them are not done. And I'm not saying all of them, I don't want to paint with a broad brush. I know having Microsoft licenses too many, yeah, this waste, I wish we were doing this in a bipartisan way. Those cuts would be bigger and probably have a lot more staying power than what they're doing, which is ready, fire, aim, and then having to beg people to come back to work because they fired FAA people or nuclear regulators or what have you. But this is the bigger point that you're making, that really is getting me. So you know this, I used to be an executive. There's nobody in this body… Here's a bold and braggadocios thing to say, but fact check me, anybody, there's nobody in this body that was a governor, a county executive like Coons or a mayor that cut government as much as I did. I had to cut my government by 25%. Imagine that here on the federal level. And I had to do it because I can't print money. It was a national recession, I was left with a mess, had to do it. But we found ways to do it cooperatively with a legislator, bringing in experts. But this is the point I want to make to you, one thing I couldn't cut was my healthcare costs. And so I started asking people what can I do? And you know who I found? I found a big business owner who had tens of thousands of employees, who said I have the same problem. And you know what I did?

(03:52:20)
I went into my cafeteria where thousands of people eat, big, big place and I saw deep fryers and Cinnabon like products and all this unhealthy stuff. And I ripped it all out, had the union ready to go crazy on me. But then I brought in the best shelf. I paid extra money to get the best kind of all healthy, nutritious whole foods. And then they loved it. And then they started asking me, can we get food to take home for our kids? Because we stopped through McDonald's or Burger King on the way home. Long story short, he said, "It began to bend their cost curve." What do we do in the United States of America? What is Donald Trump? I just read all thing doing. He's cutting access to healthy lunch programs. They're threatening to cut SNAP program. They're threatening to cut the things that would give our residents in America not the cheap hyper-processed, empty nutrition foods, but the stuff that is healthy for our kids.

(03:53:13)
So there's so much hypocrisy based in this that even the private sector folks are saying, you are going to drive up costs for your country when you make people get their healthcare in emergency rooms. You're going to drive up costs for your country when you're going to force people to have to quit their jobs so they can come home and take care of their loved one with dementia. This will drive up costs ultimately for our country, put more hardship on people, all while giving the most wealthy people who don't need it, bigger tax cuts. It makes no sense, and that is the spirit of why John McCain voted against this effort in 2017.

Speaker 1 (03:53:51):

I thank the gentleman. It's a hope may be forlorn that maybe one of John McCain's words will influence a few folks over there before we proceed disastrously. I wish the gentleman strength and yield the floor to him.

Senator Cory Booker (03:54:05):

I appreciate you allowing me to yield to you to answer a question while retaining the floor. I'm going to continue with a little bit more here before we change topics for the night. I want to point out how grateful I am for my friend, Chris Murphy. The last time I stood on this floor for many hours was just in support doing like my colleague is doing for me right now. After the Pulse shooting, we wanted to vote on common-sense gun safety, bipartisan supported common-sense gun safety. We didn't get it. Chris Murphy right down there held the floor for 15 hours and I paced around, walked the floor, helped to support things, stayed up with him all night. And it is profound to me that when I told my brother that I wanted to cause some good trouble, that I was going to rise, that he said, "I'm in. I'm in." And so there he is helping me out, especially as we approach 11 o'clock at night and the fourth hour. I'm just grateful for him. I'm grateful for him.

(03:55:16)
I want to go now to cuts that are being made to local and state health department funding and again, Republican and Democratic governors. We have letters from people on both sides of the aisle who are saying that this is just wrong and it makes no sense, but here we go. It is actually really what I would call a dangerous reversal, that Trump's HHS recently announced the cancellation of almost 12 billion in federal grants that state and local health departments have been using to track infectious diseases, health disparities, vaccinations, mental health, substance use and services. Because of that reversal, my state, for example, is going to lose $350 million in federal funding for health programs due to these cuts. My Governor, Phil Murphy said that these cuts would create an unfillable void in funding that will have disastrous ramifications for our most vulnerable neighbors.

(03:56:17)
Last week we learned that HHS planned to cut an additional 10,000 jobs. In total since January, HHS has cut 20,000 of its employees. That's over a quarter of its workforce. These are people who inspect nursing homes to ensure that they're safe. They improve diagnostic and treatment services for children, regulate health insurance to make sure that they are not discriminating against you based on your health conditions and health status, to protect you from infectious diseases, conduct inspections to make sure that infant formula is safe. And I want to tell you that Secretary Kennedy has committed to bringing radical transparency to the HHS, I would love radical transparency. But at the end of February, Secretary Kennedy announced that HHS is no longer required to undergo the public comment period, a practice that's taken place at the agency since 1971.

(03:57:25)
Another critical resource of health information for the American public is the CDC's morbidity and mortality weekly report that has been published since 1952 and is often called the Voice of the CDC. But unfortunately, on January 23rd, the first time since its inception, the report was not published in a direct response to the Trump administration's freeze on public communications. In addition to pausing the critical publication, it also reported that the pregnancy risk assessment monitoring system had halted operation. This PRAMS, which was developed in 1987, is designed to identify groups of women and infants at high risk for health problems, to monitor changes in health status and to measure progress towards goals and improving the health of mothers and infants. Over the last 38 years, the program has collected essential data on maternal behaviors and experiences before, during, and shortly after pregnancy. Maternal care providers rely on that data collected by PRAMS, the sole source of this type of information to enhance prenatal and postnatal care.

(03:58:50)
The US is in the midst of a mortality crisis, which we mentioned before. We have the highest rate of maternal deaths of any high income nation. As I learned when I was a mayor, data is power. You can't manage a problem unless you have measures on the problem. To pull back things like that, again, you're reducing transparency, you're cutting back on vital reports that people who are trying to meet this crisis rely on to inform their strategies. And again, here's the frustration, is that we are the worst in maternal health outcomes for developed nations, but even in our country, African-American women are three times more likely to die from pregnancy related causes than the majority. This is one of the countries where it's profoundly dangerous to have kids. And again, this is yet another thing that HHS is doing, that's leaving us more vulnerable, less informed, less empowered to deal with the health challenges that we still deal with.

(03:59:56)
Since the Trump administration made the disastrous decision for agencies to pause external communications, we've been seeing significant delays in critical information from other key agencies. There have been avoidable delays in critical data from the CDC, that states are starting to speak out, saying that they need to protect the health of their communities. As of March 20th, when it comes to vaccines, what we're seeing in America, talk about getting less safe, there are 378 confirmed cases of measles throughout the United States. As one of my doctor friends said, "There are more children with measles right now than there are trans athletes in the NCAA." This is a real crisis. For the first time in a decade, a child who was not vaccinated for measles tragically died in that outbreak. And while measles is spreading across our nation and we are having one of the worst flu seasons in the last decades, HHS has delayed the convening of critical advisory councils at the CDC and FDA. These advisory councils are responsible for determining the vaccine schedule, what vaccines must be covered by insurance and the safety, effectiveness and appropriate use of vaccines. They do essential and timely work to keep people safe and disruptions to their work can be harmful to the health of the American people.

(04:01:27)
Let me go to the National Institute of Health. It's the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world. It's facing devastating cuts. The NIH is one of the greatest successes in publicly funded scientific research in all of human history. The US is one of the best places to do scientific research because it has had more capacity than any other country to fund and conduct research at the highest levels. Pauses, lapses and elimination of NIH funding will drive researchers to do their research in other countries and undermine the efforts to cure diseases, to find solutions to conditions from obesity to Alzheimer's, to cancers. One of the best taxpayer dollars we can invest is in NIH because it returns more than five taxpayers dollars back in the breakthroughs that they make.

(04:02:23)
We have put the future of scientific research in the United States at grave threats with what the Trump administration is now doing. They've imposed cuts and a number of harmful orders on the NIH, that have both stalled its research and confused its partners. 99.4% of the FDA-approved drugs come from the NIH-funded research. Let me just say that again. NIH-funded research has led to 99.4% of all the FDA drugs that are out there. The NIH funding cuts will directly affect your access to future novel treatments that can improve your quality of life or your children, or if you love your neighbor, like so many religions call us to do, with your neighbor's children as well.

(04:03:26)
Here's an example of that. Hepatitis C is a liver disease caused by the virus HCV, and it is one of the most common types of viral hepatitis in the United States. It is estimated that three to four million Americans have hepatitis. In 2014, the first complete treatment for hepatitis C was approved by the FDA. The development of this revolutionary new treatment that has since been used to cure millions of people around the world was funded by NIH research. This is a type of life-saving innovation we will lose out on if we defund the NIH as the Trump administration is currently doing. American enterprise and knowledge will be drained, we will fall behind.

(04:04:16)
We already know there's fierce competition for the researchers by countries like China. They are aiming, in fact, they are upping their investments in scientific research, doing everything they can to keep scientific researchers in their country. I was just talking to an innovator out in the West Coast, was telling me that they're starting to take passports away from their researchers. There's a fierce competition going on to keep the best minds here in this country or be drawn away to other places from Europe to China. And we're stopping our funding? I've heard from academic institutions that are telling me that they're not even offering as many PhD programs in some of these key areas of science because of the attacks that are happening on our universities, all while China is upping their investments in the universities. I can't believe that they're trying to out-America us and we're trying to turn our back on our most successful traditions.

(04:05:17)
One of his first actions, President Trump's imposed a communications freeze on all US health agencies, effectively silencing some of our nation's top researchers, scientists, and public health experts. This action stalled 16,000 grant applications for around $1.5 billion in NIH funding. The NIH has since begun to incrementally send notices to the office of the Federal Register to resume reviews. The combination of these actions irresponsibly have stalled our nation's primary source of life-saving biomedical research. It is our understanding that full communications have not been resumed and that it continues to impede critical research at the NIH. As I've been told time and time again by experts in this area, just to pause funding could set research back years because when you're conducting research, whether it's in a test tube and biomedical research, you can't pause. Whether it's in a human body, and biomedical research, you can't pause.

(04:06:24)
Across the nation, brilliant researchers have been finding out daily that the Trump administration has canceled their research. Research on critical issues like maternal health, long covid, diabetes, new pharmaceutical drugs, cancer, and so, so much more. The NIH has decided to cancel its 2025 summer internship program. On average 1,100 interns participate in this program each year, helping develop the next generation of scientists and researchers. A small number of summer interns had already accepted their offer to join the NIH in 2025. The decision follows the Trump administration's federal hiring freeze. Again, in my faith there's a saying, "Train a child in the way he shall go, and he will not depart from it." These are our young people, these are the future scientists, now aren't getting the experience of the lifetime. I've met people in this institution who first came here as college summer interns.

(04:07:29)
The NIH has decided not only to cancel those internships, but to shut the door to many kids who had already made their summer plans. Many people here know what it's like to have a summer plan, have a summer internship, not apply for other ones. It's another act of just meanness and cruelty. Let this class come in and then say, "Okay, I'm going to cut the program next year." But the way they're doing things is mean and cruel, and having an impact on people's lives. Congressionally directed medical research programs. I've worked across the aisle with my colleagues. I have friends in here that have worked with me on specific diseases in a bipartisan way. I'm so proud of some of that work.

(04:08:17)
Well, we've long appropriated about $1.5 billion a year in federal funds for medical research, nearly half of which typically goes to cancer. It's something that we have found common ground on in my 12 years here in significant stretches. The medical research program was created and sustained by Congress, competitively awards funds to hundreds of projects each year at both the defense department labs and outside research institutions, including at many American universities to study everything again, from cancer to battlefield wounds, to suicide prevention. In 2024, $130 million was specifically appropriated in a bipartisan way in this body, incredibly good senators of good conscience coming together and saying, we should do more in these areas.

(04:09:14)
They approved $130 million for research in breast, kidney, lung, melanoma, ovarian, pancreatic, prostate, and a handful of very rare cancers. Why? Because there are people of good conscience here. We meet folks who come to this… They're not lobbyists, they come and they tell us about their stories of rare cancers. There are people on both sides of the aisle that have marched for prostate awareness, for breast cancer awareness. There's a goodness and decency here, but in 2024, this funding,

Senator Cory Booker (04:10:01):

… funding. It's a bill that passed in March. It was now slashed, slashed by 57%. And I told you earlier that data, one of the best taxpayer dollars we can spend, is in medical research. We've all heard this in this body, when the NIH has come through and shown, $1 invested could get more than $5 back. Any Wall Street executive that would get five times their money back from an investment, who is this helping? And do we think about the people? I thank God, I don't have many family members that are going about your day, go to the doctor, come back with a cancer. I know lots of people though. I know their stories, when they're diagnosed with a cancer and they're told there's no cure.

(04:11:11)
I've seen people go through what you go through in that. And so, how could the country that has led humanity for more than a generation or two, suddenly have a president come along and say, "I'm going to slash all of these things. And oh, by the way, I'm going to give billionaires a big tax cut." So what do we say when these folks come to our office? Some of the people with rare diseases came to my office a couple weeks ago. And the amount of their funding is so small. And maybe if it was to solve our budget deficit, if we're going to do this as a country, we got to come together in a bipartisan way. The debt is, I'm one of these Democrats that believes it's a real crisis. But we are not solving the deficit in what they're proposing here. They're cutting and cutting and cutting things that make no sense to cut, and they're doing it for a tax breaks which disproportionately go to the wealthiest and to rack up even more debt.

(04:12:34)
I want to read this article, and my staff told me that we have lots of sections to go through and it's been four hours and 11 minutes. But this is one that hurts me, because I've met so many people who fall into this category. I want to read an article that deals with an issue called medical debt, and the ongoing impact it has on people as part of their lives. The Affordable Care Act, when we did that, we lowered the costs, and implemented protections for Americans requiring insurers to cover pre-existing conditions, expanding Medicaid, which we've talked about a lot tonight, implementing caps on out-of-pocket costs for Americans. All of these helped in alleviating medical bankruptcy for some. Medical bankruptcies in America have gone down, but not all. We still live in a country where one of the top reasons for bankruptcy is medical debt.

(04:13:39)
One of my staffers kind of shook me with the reality she was dealing with which is, she's got stratospheric medical debt. So here's an article from Healthcare Insights. It's not a partisan rag, it's a scientific journal. How medical debt is crushing 100 million Americans, it's from October of last year. This author, I just want to give a little more understanding of what kind of article this is. It's John August. He is the Scheinman Institute's Director of Healthcare. George Curley is one of 52 million people, or one-third of Americans in the workforce who earn $15 an hour or less. I had the opportunity to interview George recently about his experience with medical debt, and how it has impacted his life.

(04:14:36)
Having suffered an industrial accident, and even though his employer was responsible for his injuries, and he carried health insurance, he still accumulated $20,000 in medical debt. George grew up in Dallas and spent his life working hard as a full-time warehouse and retail worker. At one point in his life, he found a job and he enjoyed working as a forklift driver in a factory that produced ceramic tile. In time, he switched jobs working on the production line. One fateful day, a piece of metal struck him in the foot. He had to have surgery and underwent the amputation of one of his toes. He had to take a month off from work. And when he returned, he went back to driving the forklift. He found that due to his accident and surgery, he couldn't operate the forklift to his satisfaction.

(04:15:32)
He became frustrated in not being able to operate the forklift. He grew depressed, and left the job. It took me three months to get back on my feet after the toe amputation. There were nursing care for two months to help me work again. This life-saving medical procedure left me with over $20,000 in debt. Even with insurance, exclamation point, I avoided doing necessary follow up with doctors due to not being able to afford additional care. There were hard times on top of this. I suffered a great deal of depression due to losing my job during my leave of absence. This medical debt is currently following me. There was a point of time that I was rebuilding my credit. Before the surgery I built it up by over 120 points. With a medical debt on my credit report, my credit score dropped 60 points. The big drop in score has not allowed me to get my own place. I'm not able to continue to pursue my dream of being a voice actor due to not having proper financial footing to get back to school.

(04:16:35)
I can't travel and do things I would like to do. I'm working, but things are very financially tight. The medicine I need is being paid out of pocket. After paying my bills, I'm in the negative. There is no money left over to pay my medical debt. I can't save money right now, not even towards retirement. To have this medical debt on my credit score means not being able to pursue a better life. He went on short-term disability for a while, but then found the part-time job he holds now at Walgreens. He had to return to work to pay for the house he and his brothers had purchased. Through this period, George had to take payday loans. And between those loans and his weekly wages, he attempted to pay back the money he owed the hospitals. He learned that because of his medical debt, his credit rating was destroyed by credit agencies, who learned that he had fallen behind on his payments to the hospitals. According to the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, which I guess barely exists now, 100 million Americans owe 220 billion in medical debt. 100 million Americans owe $220 billion in medical debt. George told me that the medical debt has had several devastating impacts on his life. Inability to borrow money for a mortgage or a car. Employees ask for credit reports, and reports that show an applicant for a position are often rejected to a poor credit report. This has impacted his ability to find a better job than his part-time job at $15 an hour, with no benefits, working at Walgreens where he lives in Garland, Texas. Incredible stress that further impacts his health conditions including diabetes. An additional note, Garland, Texas where George lives, is near Dallas. Which includes Garland and Dallas is a locality with high medical debt, and high profit for healthcare systems in the region.

(04:18:36)
Though George makes very low wages, medical debt is a broadly shared experience by Americans across income groups. Clearly, low wage workers suffer the worst burden, but the problem is pervasive, and a broad feature of American life. Some background. In the off-sided study, as many as 65.5% of people who file for bankruptcy blame medical bills as a primary cause. I'm going to repeat that in the article. 66.5% of Americans who file for bankruptcy blame medical bills as their primary cause. Two-thirds of Americans who are filing bankruptcy point to medical bills as the cause. As many as 550,000 people file for bankruptcy every year for this reason. More than half of 1 million Americans, year, after year, after year, after year, after year, after year, for no fault of their, own because of a metal bar shoved up through his toe, because of a diagnosis of cancer, because of diabetes, because of things outside of their control, they rack up medical debt, as this man can that as this man can enrode their well-being.

(04:19:51)
This data has been known about how many Americans affected, and has continued even with the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Lesser known is the amount of medical debt that Americans carry. What are the causes of this burden on so many? Well, more Americans have health insurance today than ever before. Coverage has many gaps. High deductibles and narrow networks, which prevent patients from seeking health providers of their choice and common cause of accumulation of high-cost bills. When patients understandably seek care from a preferred provider, too often that care is not covered. Most healthcare plans only provide 80% of payment for covered costs. 20% patient responsibility of high medical bills can leave people unable to pay their bills. Approximately 14 million people in America, 6% of adults in the US owe over $1000 in medical debt. And about 3 million people, 1% of Americans owe medical debt of more than 10 grand.

(04:20:54)
Additionally, this government report identifies many of the components of medical debt which are completely out of control of the patient. In most cases these practices are unlawful but, hospitals use these tactics frequently to press patients to pay, including double billing. Companies cannot attempt to collect on medical bills that have already been paid by the consumer insurance, or a government program such as Medicaid or Medicaid. This practice can coerce consumers into paying twice for the same service. Expanding legal limits. Companies must not attempt to collect amounts that surpass Federal or state caps, such as those set by the Federal No Surpass Act, or state laws on reasonable rates. These violations can saddle consumers with unjustly high medical debts, burdening their finances. Falsified or fake charges. Debt collectors must not collect on bills that include up-coded or exaggerated services or charges at service the consumer did not receive.

(04:21:59)
Collecting unsubstantiated medical debts. Debt collectors must not attempt to collect medical debts. These are all awful practices that go on. Here's Paul Sugar's story, compelling and tragic. Paul spent much of his life starting as a child, as learning about jewelry. living in a small town near Albuquerque, New Mexico. At an early age, he earned enough money selling silver and turquoise necklaces, to be able to buy a motorcycle. As he became an adult, he developed a successful business in the mining and selling of silver and turquoise used in making jewelry. He also worked at GE, the GE Engine plant, but was laid off during the time of industrial downsizing. He went to work for Quest, installing communications infrastructure, but was laid off from that job when Qwest was acquired by US West, so he returned to his business.

(04:22:56)
On January 9th, 2019, he was terribly injured in a fire at his home. He's still recovering physically and economically, after losing 66% of his skin, and getting care at a specialty trauma unit in another part of the country. He ended up owing over $82,000 in medical bills. The medical debt on his credit report means, he has not been able to get loans to expand his business and earn more after the fire. His medical bills totaled $550, 000. Insurance covered most of it, but it was still more than he could pay. He made payment plans with all of his various bills. But when his credit card number changed, some of the automatic payments he had arranged for did not go through, and the bills ended up in collection before he even knew he was behind. Prior to the fire, he always had stellar credit rating. But since this medical debt, it has gone down.

(04:23:55)
In his business it's important to be able to take out short-term loans to supply the company, but now he can't do that at reasonable terms and rates. He spent his retirement savings account trying to pay back all of his medical bills, his retirement savings, but it wasn't enough. Now he worries about his future. How will he retire? Will he have enough for his daughter's college education? Can he move homes if he needs to? At one point, he needed to replace his car, because he and his wife had to travel 18 hours round trips every couple of weeks, to receive prescriptions for pain medication. He was denied the credit to do so. All our healthcare professionals are on the front lines of the impact of medical debt. Doctors and other healthcare professionals experience first-hand when patients are denied care due to medical debt.

(04:24:45)
This article describes how healthcare systems deny patients with medical debt. Dr. Matt Hoffman, who is a leader in the successful effort to form a union with Doctor's Council in 2023, talked about this problem. They instructed staff to stop providing care to patients with more than $4,500 in overdue bills. Going beyond the more common practice of turning such debts over to collection agencies, he and his fellow doctors protested their health care system's decision to deny patients access to care due to medical debt. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison banned the denial of care for patients with medical debt. I mean, these practices sound like they're Byzantine. They don't sound like America, or at least who we should be.

(04:25:40)
There's a lot of New Jerseyans who are dealing with medical debt. There are a lot of New Jerseyans who are impacted by these programs that the president has already rolled back. I'm standing today because of this crisis in our country. And one of the strategies that Donald Trump and his team have talked about is to flood the zone, flood the zone, flood the zone. And so, sometimes the press doesn't even cover the cutting of some of these programs, some of these benefits that help people who are struggling with medical debt, or are struggling making ends meet, help them access healthcare. It's a level of distraction and cruelty. And again, why? Why are they cutting this? They're saying they're trying to make government more efficient or more effective. Well, it's not effective for these folks, and what are the savings going to go to?

(04:26:27)
Is it going to go to expanding medical research, expanding those things, that when taxpayers invest money on they get returned? No. They're cutting medical research. They're cutting the things that empower children to grow up and have healthy productive lives. And again, what they're aiming to do with it is to provide massive, massive tax cuts. I'm coming to the end of this section, but there are more voices that I want to include. I'm going to read a few, and then, I think I'm going to get a question from my colleague. So a few more pages if I may, before we begin to dialogue. Or at least I'll receive a question I imagine. But I just want to elevate some of these voices. This is a person writing to me on February 28th.

(04:27:21)
Dear Senator Booker, I'm writing to you as a concerned citizen, and most importantly as a proud aunt of a PhD in neuroscience, dedicating her life to research that could lead to life-saving treatments. As a minority in science, she has worked incredibly hard to break barriers in the field that is not always welcomed to people like her. Watching the current political attacks on research funding is not just heartbreaking, it's dangerous for our country's future. Science is not political. It serves all people regardless of race, background or party affiliation. Yes, funding cuts to agencies like NIH and the National Science Foundation, threaten to halt critical research slowing the development of treatment for diseases that impact millions. These cuts will push out brilliant young scientists, many of whom have already had to fight to get where they are to do the research they're doing.

(04:28:12)
This is not just about my niece, or scientists in general, it's about every American disease does not choose a political party. Cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and countless others, affect Republicans and Democrats alike. Without strong investment in research, we are all at risk of losing the chance for better treatments, new cures, and improved healthcare. Beyond health defunding science will hurt our economy. Scientific research drives innovation, creates jobs, and ensures that the US remains a global leader. A country that does not invest in science is a country that falls behind. I urge you to continue standing with the scientific community, supporting young researchers from all backgrounds in fighting to protect and expand research funding. This is one of the most critical investments we can make for health, for economic growth, and for the future of every American. Thank you for your time, leadership and dedication to building a stronger, smarter, and healthier nation.

(04:29:23)
A couple New Jersey sources. This is a letter from someone in Somerset, New Jersey. At my university, I am extremely concerned that we are not as large an institution as some of the others, and do not get as much state aid. We rely on these funds far more than running facilities. If this goes into effect, it will ultimately lead to the loss of jobs, research, opportunities for students, and will stunt our growth as we embark on our journey to become an R1 institution. I'm not sure we could recover from this anytime soon. Another person on these cuts to the NIH, I'm a postdoctoral researcher performing basic science research on bacterial communication. In short, I'm seeking to understand bacterial chemical communication to find new pathways for therapeutic development. Antibiotic research resistance is already killing thousands of Americans each year. We need new treatments provided by indirect costs to find these cures.

(04:30:29)
Indirect costs actually directly funded my day-to-day work, providing funds for building maintenance staff, university-shared resources such as electron microscopes, and common laboratory supplies such as liquid nitrogen. Without any of these resources, my job and those of other researchers seeking new cures would be impossible. Thus, eliminating or reducing these funds will have a negative repercussions on the health and well-being of the American people for generations to come. That's my constituent from Plainsboro, New Jersey. Related to Federal grant funding freezes, another New Jerseyan writes, I'm a researcher at the University of New Jersey, where I study ways to combat cancer, and promote infant health, critical research that ensures generations grow into healthy adults. My aspirations in line with yours, fostering a strong, healthy and educated population.

(04:31:26)
For this region, I urge you, Cory Booker, to take immediate action to restore normal Federal grant operations, so that my colleagues and I can continue making paradigm-shifting state-of-the-art discoveries with the potential to save millions of lives. This university is dependent upon Federal grants, a testament to the world-class quality of our research and its leadership in the biomedical field. These grants enable groundbreaking advancements that position the United States at the forefront of scientific information. I had planned to apply for a Federal grant in 2025 to further my research, but with the current uncertainty I'm deeply concerned about my application's future. Here's another scientist. My five-year NIH grant is in its second year, and although my first-year budget ended and I submitted all the required documents, my second-year funding was cut.

(04:32:30)
We need the funding to be able to continue our critical research. Here's another patient story. At age 17, a large black spot blocking his vision suddenly appeared in my patient's right eye. Over the next couple of months, multiple trips to increasingly specialized doctors led to a clinical diagnosis of Von Hippel-Lindau disease, the diagnosis received by phone on his 18th birthday. This is a genetic disease in which the damaged VHL tumor suppressor gene fails to stop tumors from growing. Patients experience randomly occurring tumors in up to 10 organs. And the only available treatment was surgery to try to remove the tumors. The patient is one of about 10% of patients who are de novo, the result of random genetic mutation. In this patient's case, scans had revealed not only a large tumor on the optic nerve of his right eye, but also a huge tumor encompassing one of his adrenal glands, that in retrospect had been causing him headaches, inability to concentrate, and anxiety due to consistently elevated adrenal levels. While MRI scans also related tumors in his spine, kidney, and pancreas, that this tumor and entire adrenal gland needed to be removed.

(04:33:58)
After months of injections, his eye interspersed with laser treatment, he lost the vision in his right eye. The time needed for medical care required for him to give up his team sport, losing both his support group and the chance to compete at the division one level. But he continued with his final exams, graduation, and plans to study engineering at the university. With continued regular monitoring, he was able to attend the university, but the trauma of his diagnosis and the processing of the impact of what it might mean for his life, coupled with the stress of engineering studies, brought on significant mental health challenges. He did go on to graduate, traveling to the NIH for his regular surveillance supported by various specialists. In 2022, a kidney tumor had grown large enough that he needed surgery again. The kidney is a sensitive organ, and will normally have full nephrectomy of the affected kidney.

(04:34:58)
Doctors were treating him. And now at age 24, his tumor was removed in a successful kidney sparing robotic operation. Yet tumors on his spine continue to grow. This experience of my patient and many others encapsulates the miracle of medical research funding, that has such a powerful impact on people's lives. We were able to get seriously miraculous things done. But without funding for these diseases, we may never have a chance to test the ideas and develop them in a way that led to a drug that ultimately helped this patient with these tumors. This is a success story, but will we have more? Will we have others? The drug we developed is expensive. Current recommendations are to take it daily. Nothing is known about its long-term side effects, more research is done. It's not known whether patients can take breaks from the drug. Stopping at some point might mean tumors would resume.

(04:36:11)
One of the Congressionally directed medical research program grants recommended for FY25 funding, is going to look precisely at many of these questions. Two others will examine other aspects of critical treatment. These are life or death issues for the patients. And yet, this funding now is threatened. Yet this research now is threatened. Please continue to fully fund the Congressionally directed medical program. I'm going to read a few more and then pause, just in case my colleague wants to ask a question. But this is Kerry Muller from Texas. My family has benefited from Congressionally directed medical research programs, because my thirteen-year-old daughters have neurofibromatosis, a rare genetic disease which causes uncontrolled tumor growth. My daughter, Caitlin, was diagnosed with a brain tumor two years ago. And thanks to a drug whose research was seeded with Congressionally directed medical research program, her brain tumor has decreased to the point that is now undetectable on an MRI.

(04:37:14)
Without this drug, she would have had to try other chemotherapy treatments that would've been more invasive, in addition to brain surgery to bypass a blockage the tumor would've caused. This is Samantha Pearson from Las Vegas. For just over four years, I've been on a clinical trial at UCLA. The meds were just recently FDA approved. While the side effects sometimes made me question agreeing to the trial, being told my tumors have drastically shrunk, made it all worthwhile. My pain is decreased. My plexiform neurofibroma is 90% smaller, and I am so happy that I get to be a part of this clinical trial made possibly by NFRP, because of my participation in the drug trial. There is story after story here of people… Camille Ollenberg, Jan Dmyutsky, Lola Newdecker, professor Alexander Robachevsky, Kyle Retz, Carissa Heberkamp from Illinois.

(04:38:16)
Samuel Curtin, Dr. Stephanie Buchs-Hoveden, Katharina Hopp, Jared Tehr, Dr. Terry Watnick, Scott Howe, Marine Corps retired, Van Stewart, United States Navy, Reid Novotny, Colonel Maryland Air National Guard, Alex and Leslie, Chip and Kristen. Greg and Molly from Denver, William Tuttle, United States Navy. After my son's birth and diagnosis, I was diagnosed with tuberculosis sclerosis Complex at the age of 43, just three months after I retired from the 23 year Naval career. The complexity of this disease means that it remains to be seen whether my young son will be able to live the typical life that I have been fortunate to live. Because of research conducted through the TSCRP, my son has effective treatment options available to him, that were not even just a decade ago, but there's still so much to learn.

(04:39:18)
Again, another person benefiting from our research, benefiting from the funding that's now being threatened and cut. Beth Inland from Nevada, Shelly Mitzner, Reed Hoffman, David Brooks Carpenter, Military family, Major David Long, United States Air Force, Deborah Moritz, Fran Hyler. I just want to say that the Declaration of Independence clearly states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." How can you have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without health? Health is at the core of life. Health is at the core of true liberty. Health is at the core of the pursuit of happiness. The right to health is fundamental for over well-being, and for the realization of other human rights.

(04:40:19)
In his annual State of the Union address to Congress on January 6th, 1941, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt underscored the importance and shared commitment to four freedoms. Many of you know them. The first freedom is freedom of speech and expression. The second is the freedom of every person to worship their own way. The third is the freedom from want, which means every person deserves peace and health, among other things he said. The fourth freedom is freedom from fear, which in our country of great wealth, no one should fear their healthcare going away. We have known from our country's beginnings and throughout, that we must do all we can to provide for our people, and we have tried to do that over the years from Social Security Act of '65, which created Medicaid and Medicare, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, HIPAA to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, the ACA.

(04:41:20)
We should be adding to these protections and benefits, trying to get more people health coverage. We should be caring for each other. We should be loving each other. We should be fighting for the justice of each other. We should be hearing the cries of parents worried for their children. We should be hearing the agony of a partner whose spouse has Alzheimer's. We should be standing up for these folks. This is why we fight. This is why I stand.

Speaker 2 (04:41:55):

Senator yield?

Senator Cory Booker (04:41:57):

Yes. I'll yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Chris Murphy (03:38:01):

Chris Murphy (04:42:01):

Senator Booker, first of all, I want to express my gratitude to you for recognizing the gravity of this moment. Your ability to see that we are facing a series of threats that are not normal, a series of threats to families, to children, to individuals, threats to our democracy, threats to our rule of law. I think it's really important and you have endeavored to do something extraordinary here, to stand on your feet for as long as you can to convey both to our colleagues and to the public that because these are not normal times, what is required of us is something different than a normal response.

(04:42:52)
And I know maybe we have extended the amount of time that you had planned to talk on this particular topic of the threat to Americans healthcare, but I don't know that there's anything more important than we're talking about today in the United States Senate because the scope of what Republicans are talking about here is absolutely extraordinary and I want to lay out for you a few additional facts and numbers and ask you to respond to them as you wrap up your time talking about this particular topic.

(04:43:27)
But let me just underscore what you have laid out very well. We are talking about nearly $900 billion worth of cuts to Medicaid in order to pay for about a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans. There will be table scraps in the Republican bill for middle class consumers and families, but the bulk of the tax cuts are going to the very, very wealthy millionaires and billionaires, frankly, people who have done tremendously well in this country over the past several decades who are not in need of more. And so you were very right to point out the immorality of the 2017 attempt to cut the Affordable Care Act, which insured 20 million Americans, but Medicaid covers 70 to 80 million Americans. And the new wrinkle is that this proposal doesn't just cut healthcare for tens of millions of Americans. Estimates are that it could be 30 million Americans that lose healthcare under the Republican proposal.

(04:44:48)
No, this is even more difficult to swallow for the American public than the 2017 attempt to cut and eliminate the Affordable Care Act because this measure is a direct transfer of money from the poor and the middle class, the people who are on Medicaid to the very, very wealthy. Frankly, it could turn out to be the biggest transfer of wealth in the history of the country from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy, which is why I think you are taking this extraordinary step to make sure that our colleagues and the American people know the gravity of this moment. A lot of Republicans all across the country are not doing town halls any longer. They are not meeting in person with their constituents.

(04:45:33)
And so there's a lot of Americans that are going to be in the dark that have a lot of questions, have a lot of questions about what's happening here, about why it is necessary to cut a program like Medicaid that ensures 24% of Americans to the bone in order to finance the tax cut for the very, very wealthy. One of the things I just wanted to set up for you here is just to note that Americans may be surprised to know that 24% of Americans are actually on Medicaid today. Because some Americans may say, "Well, my insurance isn't Medicaid, my insurance is through MississippiCAN, or my insurance is through ACCESSNebraska, or my insurance is through Centennial Care or in Connecticut, my insurance is through HUSKY Health. In New Jersey, it's New Jersey Family Care," right? So Medicaid normally isn't called Medicaid. It's called something different in every state.

(04:46:38)
And so it's important for you to understand that so many of your neighbors are on Medicaid even though it may not be called Medicaid in your state. That's how we get to 24% of American families on this particular program. And the Joint Economic Committee, which is a Committee of Congress, did a study, issued a report talking about how many people would lose their healthcare insurance on a state-by-state basis if this $880 billion cut to Medicaid went through, and I won't go through the whole list, Senator Booker, but I just pulled out some states that are represented by our Republican colleagues. In Alabama, 20% of Alabamans are on their Medicaid program and in total 330,000 people in one state, in Alabama would lose their healthcare if this cut went through. In Arkansas, 25% of families are on the Arkansas Medicaid program. A quarter million people would lose their health insurance. In Florida, 17% of the state is on Medicaid, 1.3 million Floridians could lose their healthcare because of these Medicaid cuts.

(04:47:55)
We can just go on and on. 20% of Iowans are on the Medicaid program. 20% of Indiana residents, 25% of Kentucky residents, 30% of Louisianans are on their state's Medicaid program. 500,000 residents of Louisiana could lose their healthcare. Some of that would happen in a sort of slow-moving catastrophe. But as you pointed out, Senator Booker, a lot of that would happen immediately because many of the states that have taken advantage of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion have a built-in clause to their state's law that says the minute the reimbursement rate declines, even if it declines by only a few percentage points, the entirety of the Medicaid expansion program is eliminated. So overnight you will have millions of people who will lose their healthcare insurance. But as you have rightly pointed out, that's just the beginning of the disaster because there are hundreds of rural hospitals in this country that are right now living on the brink of disaster.

(04:49:04)
If Medicaid reimbursements drop just by 5 or 10%, those rural hospitals are out of business. Same can be said of thousands of drug treatment centers in this country, addiction treatment centers. And so you're ultimately talking about hundreds if not thousands of hospitals and health centers closing, millions of Americans losing their healthcare insurance and for what, and for what? To be able to hoard a bunch of money so that the richest Americans can buy a third vacation home so that millionaires can double their landscaping budget. Who's asking for this in America today? Of course there's a conversation to be had about efficiency in our healthcare programs, but none of that conversation is happening here. If it was, you wouldn't be reading the letters of all of these associations representing healthcare groups predicting disaster. They would actually be in the room at the table because if you really wanted to save money, you'd actually put the doctors in the hospitals and the medical providers who know something about the system in a room.

(04:50:19)
But instead, this is a political decision that's been made to cut a certain amount of money that does not coincidentally line up to the amount of money that the Republican budget bill wants to give in tax cuts to the very, very wealthy. And so you, I think rightly put emphasis and drew attention to John McCain's decision. And of course, we should always give credit to Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins who also voted no in 2017 on the repeal of the Affordable Care Act bill because it's just a reminder that you are under no obligation as a United States Senator to do the wrong thing if you know what the right thing is. You work so hard to get this job, spend your entire life working to become somebody who can make important decisions like we can in the United States Senate, and you are under no obligation to outsource your decision making to the President of the United States or your party leadership.

(04:51:25)
Everybody here gets to make an independent decision on what's right or wrong, and this just feels plain wrong. A thoughtless, unplanned, massive cut in Medicaid that's going to throw millions of people off their healthcare in order to finance a tax cut, the majority of which is going to go to people who don't need it. Every senator here can make up their own mind as to whether that is the right thing or the wrong thing to do for this country. And the exercise that you are engaged in, Senator Booker, is a simple one. Just trying to make sure that all the facts are on the table. That last segment you did on the impact on medical research should be reason alone for folks to reconsider the path this administration is taking, but the Medicaid cuts as a mechanism to further enrich those that are already plenty rich.

(04:52:27)
Man, I just don't imagine that is anything that the American public are clamoring for. And so, Senator Booker, I just wanted to really thank you for standing up and making this moment possible and I want to leave you with just two stories on this topic that have come into my office and then ask you a question. This is all a lead up to a question. So I have a constituent who was paralyzed about a decade ago and he now exists in a wheelchair and the only insurance program that can provide him with what he needs from a mechanical and technological standpoint, plus the drugs he needs to survive is Medicaid. It's his only option. It's his only option. He can't work, he's paralyzed. Medicaid is his only option and for him and for millions of others, Medicaid is life or death. It's just life or death.

(04:53:29)
If you're talking about cutting Medicaid by as much as 20%, that's what we're talking about here today, an $880 billion cut to Medicaid represents about 10% of the overall program. But you have to assume that states are not going to continue to match if the federal government isn't putting in their share. So that 10% cut could very quickly become something closer to a 20% cut. There is no way that you can cut the Medicaid program by 20% without it impacting people like my constituent in a wheelchair who comes to many of my events when we protest these Medicaid cuts. This is life or death for many Americans, but that's not the full extent of the horror that will happen. I was just reading a letter the other day from an 80-year-old constituent of mine who lives at home with his wife, but his wife is very frail and it is Medicaid and Connecticut's Medicaid waiver that allows for her to receive in-home healthcare services.

(04:54:40)
And he is panicked. He wants to spend the final years of his life with his wife and he knows that if Medicaid gets cut even on the margins, that Medicaid waiver likely is gone and either his wife will pass or she will have to be in an institution query whether that institution will be able to even give her a place because two-thirds of nursing home beds in this country are paid for by Medicaid. And so one way or the other, he is staring separation from his wife in the eye. She either doesn't make it without the Medicaid reimbursement that gives her the services at home or she is forced to go to an institution and they live separately for their final days.

(04:55:34)
This is the reality facing people who rely on Medicaid whether you are disabled or elderly, this is the reality that will be imposed on millions of Americans in order to finance a tax cut for the wealthy. The scope of this is just enormous, Senator Booker. And so I guess this is the question I wanted to ask you. You and I have been in government for a long time. We've served in a variety of different capacities. I don't think this country is really ready for the scope of the healthcare cataclysm that could come with a trillion dollar cut to the health insurance program that is responsible for the care of one-quarter of Americans, two-thirds of nursing home beds, and the budgets of literally tens of thousands of vital healthcare institutions in this country.

(04:56:35)
And so nobody is better than you at conveying the moral consequences of the decisions we make here. Just share with us for a minute as you sort of wrap up a conversation on this topic of the healthcare priorities of the Trump administration and the Republican Congress, what America may look like in a world where we have decided to gut the program, the health insurance program of last resort for the most vulnerable Americans and the health insurance program that ensures 24% of Americans, two-thirds of which are working for a living. Just give us a little bit of a sense of the enormity of the consequence that this ultimately would bring to this country.

Senator Cory Booker (04:57:24):

So first of all, thank you for the question, but I just want to reiterate the friendship I have with Chris Murphy and his willingness to spend the night with me here on the floor as we go hour after hour after hour. And I just want to say this again and I'm going to say it a few times in this long speech that will go on for as long as I'm physically able. Chris, the last time we spent 15 hours on this floor together was a health issue. It was yet another stunning mass shooting this time at the Pulse Nightclub. And you and I talked a lot before we got on this floor, and I think the agony that you and I were feeling was how can this be the strongest nation on the world who organized government? If you read our founding documents, if you read our Founding Fathers, one of the first things they organized this government for, it's good to carry around the Constitution.

(04:58:28)
It is so important to understand what the preamble to the Constitution says we are about, "We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity, do ordain and establish the constitution of United States, which each one of us, each one of us in this body went down there and swore an oath to uphold." Those are the first words of this, Chris, and God, I remember your agony.

(04:59:16)
Folks, I want you to know when I came to this body, my staff was talking about the maiden speech, the maiden speech. Please don't go look back and look at my maiden speech. It was not great. But the maiden speech my staff wanted me to watch was yours and it was gut-wrenching about Newtown, gut-wrenching that the strongest nation on the planet earth should now be this nation where we tell our children in this implicit lesson, not explicit, but implicit lesson, we are going to teach you how to hide. We're going to run actor shooter drills because we can't protect you.

(04:59:58)
And my mom lives in Vegas in that Vegas shooting, shooting at a synagogue in Pittsburgh. And so here we were in yet another of these maddening realities in our country that the leading cause of death for our children is shooting. And in our conversations leading up to it, I still remember you and I saying, "We need to come to this floor." And you said, "I'm going to stand and do something different." And we again, just like tonight, we had no end to that. We were nine years younger, my friend, and we said we were going to stand down here and try to get this body to do something different, to try to get this body to recognize the gravity of what was going on in the strongest nation on the earth that was having child after child after child, American after American dying to gun violence.

(05:00:55)
And the response we were getting from this body, the world's most deliberative body was, "Nothing's going to change. We can't do anything." I mean, I'm going to give you respect. Years later, you were part of the first gun legislation to pass out of this body in 30 something years. And now I just found out that the community violence intervention money that you allowed me to fight so hard to get in that bill is being clawed back by Donald Trump, our bipartisan bill, our bipartisan approved finances, money. And I think of taking away of our power in this body from the bill that you were one of the main architects of with Republican colleagues, God bless them, people like Cornyn and others. And so I just want to take people back to what the insider conversations and you were generous. I want to remind you just teasingly on the floor, you never asked me if you could publish my text messages, but you put them in your book.

Chris Murphy (05:01:56):

I did.

Senator Cory Booker (05:01:58):

It's a great book. I actually learned, I read lots of my colleagues' book. I learned a lot of data about gun violence from your book. And we were talking about this belief that these words, this belief in our country, that these words, why this government was formed is so important. Just America, this is who we are, these imperfect geniuses. We form this, "We the people in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty." And so you stood right down there for 15 hours. I paced this room pledging to you that I wouldn't go to the bathroom, I wouldn't sit down and I was hurting after 15 hours. But you were steadfast until we finally got Mitch McConnell to give us something. It was it one or two votes.

(05:02:58)
It was two votes. And both of them failed. We didn't get 60, but at least what we forced this institution to duke to confront the horrendous horrors of that nightclub shooting. And so you ask me now as you and I and my dear brother who I've known since he was coming out of college, three of us on this floor at a new day. It's past midnight, a new month, it's past midnight as we sit here. Why? Because of your question. I can't stand anymore to live in a country where it seems that these convulsions come, that threaten our most vulnerable over and over again. I can't stand it. I have to stand up. I have to speak up.

(05:03:49)
We have to do something different yet again, you and I talked about this last week. America, we are not doing a good job right now. We read the section about medical debt. Tens of millions of Americans are saddled with medical debt. 66% of the people that declare bankruptcies because they can't afford their medical bills because something that happened to them could happen to us and our families. My mother, my brother and I have a lot of challenges, a lot of problems, but we weren't saddled with a rare disease. We didn't have tumors springing up all over our bodies. I don't know what that would've done to my family.

Chris Murphy (05:04:36):

[inaudible 01:26:38].

Senator Cory Booker (05:04:38):

Yes.

Chris Murphy (05:04:41):

There is so much similarity between the debate that you are forcing this Senate to have tonight and the debate that we were having back in 2016 on this epidemic of gun violence. I always describe it this way, the only thing that matters, the thing that matters more than anything else in your life is protecting your loved ones from physical harm. You would give anything, anything, you would give your life-saving, your house. You would perhaps give your own life in order to protect your child or your brother or sister or mother or father from physical harm. And so when you and I have sat across from the victims of gun violence, many of which live in your neighborhood, in my neighborhood, in Newark and Hartford, we are looking at a kind of desperation and sorrow that is unique. That is unique that comes with not just losing a loved one to gun violence, but feeling powerless in that exercise, feeling like there was nothing you could do.

(05:05:52)
And watching your elected leaders stand by and allow for this reality to continue to occur in your neighborhood where kids are being shot down in cold blood and your elected leaders, the adults in charge of your community are standing idly by. That is not fundamentally different than the reality that will be visited upon millions of families if this size of a cut in Medicaid funding goes into effect because families out there who rely on Medicaid to keep alive their son or daughter who has a complicated medical disease have no other quarter, have no other last resort besides Medicaid.

(05:06:30)
And so Medicaid stands between life and death for their son or daughter. There is no other place for them to go. And so that same empty hollow look that we have seen so many times in the eyes of a mother or father who lost a son or daughter to gun violence, that is the look that we are choosing to visit upon millions of families in this country who when faced with the loss of their only health insurance option for their disabled child will watch their child potentially face the same fate as those young men in your neighborhood and my neighborhood. And so that's the reason why I pose this question to you that you're answering about the moral gravity of this moment because it is not fundamentally different than the one that brought us here in 2016.

Senator Cory Booker (05:07:29):

In answering this question, and again, I'm going to continue to yield the question to you while retaining the floor. I want to just compound this for people because I know these numbers, 880 billion, 100 million Americans that would be affected directly by Medicaid cuts or the people that work in the hospitals that would be affected by Medicaid cuts or the nursing homes that are affected by Medicaid cuts. These are big, big numbers, but people, these are human beings. I live in a community that had a horrible lead poisoning problem for their kids that had horrible toxic sites and children born around toxic super fund sites, as you know they're called, have higher rates of autism, higher rates of birth defects. And so even coming up as a city council person, I saw that the environmental injustices surrounding my community were causing parents to have to deal with medical complications amongst their children at alarming rates and needed help. And Medicaid was the program, no fault of their own environmental injustice. Now here's the double insult of the Trump administration. One is they gutted the environmental justice section at the DOJ.

(05:08:44)
They're not investigating corporate polluters. They're not investigating the injustices environmentally that big, powerful wealthy people do that often cause people, we all saw Erin Brockovich, that cause people to get seriously hurt. And then the second part of that insult is we're not only not going to hold people accountable and let them get away with that, the polluters or the folks causing often the source of the disease. We're now not going to help get healthcare to the families who often live in fragile communities that have these resources. These are the people when you sit with them in your office, as you and I have, as me and the other senator from New Jersey on the floor tonight have, as you sit with them and they tell you their stories and you see that this is a lifeline, that this Medicaid program and you are so good by telling people because I saw this during the Affordable Care Act, just the name alone, people like, "I don't have Obamacare."

(05:09:49)
Yes, you have the ACA. And let me explain it to you. It's under many different names, including in my state that people don't know that this is a Medicaid funded program. So they don't know that this is a sort of damocles at their family's well-being. But this is the larger issue, Senator Murphy, is that these are real people in every county, in every state. It's why they're representatives. It's why I read statements demanding there not to be cuts by the organizations bipartisanly read the League of Cities, the largest mayor association, Republican governors and others are all saying, "Do not cut this program." They're not even saying, "Don't do 880 million, maybe just do 400 million." They're saying, "Do not cut this program."

(05:10:36)
And many of them are saying, "In fact, we need to find ways to expand the program because there's still gaps that people are falling into." And it doesn't make economic sense because if you get regular care, if your chronic disease is treated, it ultimately could be cheaper to the taxpayer as opposed to people ending up in hospitals. But those hospitals now, because of what's being threatened in this bill, rural hospitals and tier one trauma hospitals are all being threatened in their care. And so tonight it's not normal.

(05:11:14)
I ask everybody to understand this is not a normal moment in America. This is a crossroads moment in America. It's one of those times where the values that we talk about in the constitution are at stake. What is going to define us, our commitments to ideals of justice, fairness of being there for each other. And one of those other programs that is now in crisis is what I want to switch to. And I think that my colleague was joking with me because we have, for anybody who's watching, we have a whole list of things we wanted to get to. And my staff now seemingly very ambitiously, Medicaid, Medicare, healthcare, social security's coming up now, tariffs and economic policy, education, national security, public safety, immigration, housing, chapter by chapter, each one about an hour or so. This would be enough to make it until tomorrow evening if I can stand that long.

(05:12:24)
And who knows. But we're behind schedule. So I'm going to jump into talk about social security. And I want to start because as I said earlier, I get to stand here. I get to come on this floor, but so many millions of people don't. And I want to elevate their voices tonight because as I go across New Jersey, as I go across my nation, I see Republicans, Democrats, independents, veterans, so many people stopping me in airports, stopping me in the community, stopping me in the grocery store, wanting to tell me that they're afraid, that they're angry, that they're worried, that they believe we are in crisis. That our nation is at a crossroads. Who are we going to be as a nation? And this topic, I don't know if maybe I will just let you all know that this topic, my mom chewed into me about this topic.

(05:13:23)
She lives in a senior citizen retirement community, mostly Republican. I visit her many times. It's a great community. I hate how we go to this idea of right or left. These are great seniors that live in a great community and they're talking about social security. So I want to read, start before this section by just reading. This is how people are sending to me. This is a small postcard, handwritten from somebody from Hamilton Square, New Jersey. "Dear, Senator Booker, I'm writing to ask you if my social security is now in danger, please let

Senator Cory Booker (05:14:01):

Let me know. It is very important to me, thank you. I'm going to try to answer that tonight, fairly and candidly.

(05:14:11)
Here's another person who writes. My staff is protecting their identity. I just want to say where they're from, South Plains New Jersey. "I am one of your constituents in a proud New Jersian, and I'm writing to let you know how upset, distraught, and worried I am about the current state of our country. I hope you'll take time and read my letter as this is the first time I have felt compelled to write a government official." I want to tell you, I'm reading your letter again and I'm now reading it on national TV, if C-SPAN can be presiding, officer might challenge me with a factual error, but C-SPAN is national TV, I think.

(05:14:47)
"I want to start by telling you a little about myself. I am 64 years old and I am currently working full time. I am a breast cancer survivor. My plan was to retire in the next three years, but with the current state of chaos and turmoil, I honestly don't see how I can retire. I'm concerned about Medicare, which I will definitely need when I retire. I will also need a supplemental plan for whatever Medicare does not cover. I do not qualify for retirement benefits through my job. With the cuts being made to federal programs, Medicare will not be enough. I would need a more expensive supplemental plan to cover these cuts. I am also concerned about Social Security. I have worked since I was 16 except for nine years when I was home with my three children. I have worked hard and paid into Social Security and believed that the money was for my retirement. Now I hear that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and it may be privatized."

(05:15:57)
"This is so unfair for people like me that worked hard all their life and counted on this money to retire. I was planning on working past 65 to get my full Social Security benefits, but now I begin to wonder if it's worth it." Now I begin to wonder if it's worth it.

(05:16:21)
"So at this point I'm in a holding pattern due to the unstable climate in which we are all living. As I said, I have three children who are all adults now. My son has been diagnosed as being bipolar. He's been hospitalized a few times due to this. He's currently on medication that he needs to function and sees a therapist. He is in grad school and is on Medicaid. He works part- time since he is a full-time grad student, so he does not qualify for benefits. I worry about what these cuts will do to my son and others like him. No one seems concerned with the people who rely on these programs to live their best life. Someone needs to look out and take an interest in helping people in these circumstances. My daughter is a teacher in a district that receives Title I funds. She works very hard as a teacher and is devoted to her students. With the supposed dismantling of the Department of Education, I'm concerned about what this means to the education field. Teachers, administration and students. My daughter's school is making a difference in the lives of these students and they need the funding that is received from both the state and federal government. Programs like the Title I and other federally funded programs need to stay in place. On another topic…"

(05:17:56)
This constituent is getting a lot into her first letter to a government official and I appreciate it. " On another topic, inflation increasing prices and the overpriced housing market is a huge problem. Placing tariffs on our biggest trade partners is beyond unfair. This drives the cost of goods up and the consumer is the one who ends up paying the increase. A lot of families are food insecure wondering where their next meal is coming from. A lot of parents go without so their children can eat. Food pantries and banks are scrambling to meet demand. Something needs to be done so families can survive. The housing market is also an issue. Owning your own home is now unreachable for most young people starting out. Interest rates are high and housing prices in New Jersey are unaffordable. Thank you for reading my letter. I'm asking you as our senator, please stand up for what is in the best interest of families, seniors, adults, and children in your district. Tariffs, dismantling departments like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education and other services that are important to the everyday person is not the answer. You are our voice in the Senate. Please do the right thing and speak up and continue to fight for everyday Americans."

(05:19:22)
This is why I'm standing up. This is why I will stand here as long as I'm physically able. This is why I will continue to tell story after story, but first a little important history. 90 years our country has made a promise to people that if you pay into the Social Security program your whole life, that money will be there for you when you retire. Franklin Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law 84 years ago and this is his quote. He called it a cornerstone and a structure which is being built, but it is by no means complete. Social Security is still a cornerstone. It's still the bedrock according to FDR, it's the bedrock of an edifice being built in a nation where we belong to each other. We the people building this, that's our cornerstone. He called it the Social Security.

(05:20:35)
Today, 73 million Americans count on Social Security. Millions more than that are planning on those benefits. They earn being there for them. You heard from the first letters I read that people are really worried. President of the United States stood up in a State of the Union Address and talked about rampant fraud because payments are going out. All that from conservative papers to ones on the other side have showed that what he was saying was not true, but they're sowing chaos. They're attacking delegitimizing it, calling it a Ponzi scheme. DOGE, Leader, Musk and the President. But 73 million Americans are counting on sociality benefits and 1.6 million in my state. 40% of people rely on Social Security. 40% have no other source of income. They live paycheck to paycheck. Social Security checks, excuse me, Social Security Chunk.

(05:21:43)
And despite mocking Social Security causing it, a Ponzi scheme that had communities like my parents, my mom's, people beginning to worry, they actually took real actions to lay off thousands of Social Security employees making it harder to process Social Security applications and troubleshoot questions for beneficiaries. They didn't roll out a plan to say, "Hey, this is how we are going to show that we can do the best customer service ever. We're going to bring some of the best private sector people in to advise on how we can use technology and innovation to give the best customer service. Hell roll in AI, do all these things. We're going to make a model of responsiveness to our seniors because we're a society that respects our elders values them, wants them to retire in dignity and security and peace of mind. That's the big ambition." No, that's not what was said.

(05:22:42)
Social Security employees, like many employees, got letters that they didn't expect saying they were laid off. Didn't matter how well they performed, it didn't matter what function they performed and it put in jeopardy just trying to contact Social Security if you're retiring. Just trying to contact Social Security if you need to apply for benefits. They tried to eliminate service by phone, saying that they wanted to require in-person visits, which is absurd for many seniors that don't have access to transportation or live in rural areas, because you know what they're doing also is that they're trying to close down many Social Security offices. I'm going to get to the specifics of that later. These actions are harmful enough, but they're just the beginning of what our President and Elon Musk are saying they want to do to a program that for millions of Americans, it's their only check a week. It's essential for them and others, it's how they make their retirement secure.

(05:23:51)
You don't protect the future by punishing the people who built this country. You don't fix America by throwing seniors or veterans or Americans with disabilities under the bus. That's not how we do things. That's not how we should do things. There's so many hardworking families that believed in this idea, if I work hard all my life in America, I can make ends meet, I can raise my kids and I can retire with dignity. Congress does have a responsibility to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. We should do more of that. I want to do more of that. I want to help lead in that fight, but none of us were invited to a table when it came to this. This congressionally established program, FDR read, but it was Congress that established it is now not being included in the planning or procedures to try to improve Social Security or make it more efficient or more effective. We haven't convened hearings or task forces in a bipartisan way to find out what we can do to better serve our seniors.

(05:24:50)
Instead, lies are being proffered about Social Security making wrongful payments. Lies are being proffered by the highest office in the land. The most richest person in the land who does not need Social Security is calling it a Ponzi scheme, telling people who are relying on it, they're part of a Ponzi scheme. But remember this, Social Security is not the government's money to spend. It's the hard earned savings of working Americans and it belongs to Americans. The President and Elon Musk need to keep their hands off of it. It's not theirs to take and it's not theirs to break their scheme. They're the ones that have a scheme and it's not about efficiency, it's not visionary is what we need in America now is visionary leaders that have bold, exciting visions for what things like Social Security can be and what they're doing is not only wrong, it hurts people. It scares people.

(05:26:00)
And not just people. Our elders, people who raised us, the people who built roads and highways, the people who served food, made food, who started small businesses, raised generations. That's who we're disrespecting. And so what happens in this context, why am I standing here? Is because the people of New Jersey are saying, "Why aren't you doing more? Is this unacceptable Senator Booker? It's unacceptable. Here are voices and my phones have exploded with people that the President and Elon Musk have made terrified about what's happening to the Social Security Service and what's happening to their checks." My staff said that we were overwhelmed with phone calls and emails from people who are worried about the direction that the President is taking Social Security. They use words to be that people who called were angry and terrified. I want to share some of these calls from constituents. Here's someone from the great Cherry Hill, New Jersey. "I'm very concerned that the President along with his cruel and inept administration and DOGE working to privatize and ruin the Social Security program. I am a constituent, Senator Booker. I live in Cherry Hill, New Jersey and I'm a senior who relies on Social Security income for my basic needs, food and housing. The mere idea of not having those funds has caused me sleepless nights and wondering if I will become homeless." I'm going to stop there for a second. I remember this President FDR growing up, hearing that what he did was get on the radio not to stir up fear, not to stir up chaos, but to comfort people, to remind them that we are Americans. You have no need to fear, but this President, just with his rhetoric alone about Social Security, is driving my constituents to write me notes like this. I continue with the letter from my constituent from Cherry Hill. "I hope you'll convince both Democrats and Republican colleagues to prevent this from happening. Trump lied when he promised during his campaign he would not touch the Social Security Administration, but now we see threats and already some actions towards making severe cuts and making the program less accessible. I urge you to continue to fight for us." Pennington, New Jersey. "My sister and I are older Americans who are each disabled. One from a severe accident because of a drunk driver and the other from a life-changing illness. We are alone and take care of each other. For me, SSDI is my one and only income. I have a few years before I am at full retirement age. Even with my check and splitting rent costs between us, it is taking right under 50% of my monthly check for rent alone."

(05:29:18)
50%. 50%. "This does not leave much to cover. Even the bare necessities of health, vehicle insurance, utilities, foods, medicine, even a tight budget, especially with costs on everything continuing to rise. Senator, as seniors, we are petrified about what's happening to SSA. I must ask you, Senator, what do we do if our monthly SSA benefits are interrupted? How do we keep a roof over our heads as disabled seniors. With very limited savings, it would only take a few months before the roof over our heads would be in jeopardy. We just spent a small fortune for us to move into a smaller lower cost apartment because we could not afford significant ongoing rent increases. I realize we are far from alone in our fears, but that is of very little comfort as we spend our nights unable to sleep, fearful we do not lose our only income along with the roof over our heads."

(05:30:24)
This is our elders. Here's a constituent from Egg Harbor Township. "My husband and I live Social Security check to Social Security check. Without those checks we earned… Without those checks we earned, we are dead. Please don't let this outrageous administration take our benefits away."

(05:30:45)
This is a constituent from Running Mead, New Jersey. "I am a 75-year-old New Jersey resident. I received my working papers in 1964. At the age of 14. I worked continuously until I reached the age of 70 in 2020. I enlisted in the United States Navy in '67 and retired in '99. I was on active duty from 1970 to '77. I finished my career in the Naval Reserve for 56 years. I paid my taxes and contributed to Social Security. I have collected my Social Security for four years and as you are no doubt aware, the amount of money paid me monthly by Social Security Act was calculated by them based on my contribution. I'm currently a full-time, 24/7 caretaker for my invalid wife and do not have the luxury of earning a supplemental income. My sole income is from Social Security and a small Naval reserve pension. My total healthcare comes from Medicare and TRICARE for Life. The contract I made with the United States government was that they could use my money during my working life with the understanding that they would take care of me when I could no longer earn for myself. I have kept my part of this bargain for 56 years. Now after only four years, the government is threatening to renege on our agreement. Please sir, do not let this happen, Senator Booker. That is my money. I earned it. I earned my Social Security by my contributions and I earned my pension by my service."

(05:32:36)
Another constituent named Sarah. "I have been a teacher in Atlantic County for 26 years. My husband is a 100% disabled veteran who receives VA disability payments as well as SSDI. We depend on the VA and SSDI for approximately half of our income for our family of five. We are currently preparing our oldest for his first year at college and awaiting financial aid packages from several schools. We are petrified that Trump and Musk's agenda is dangerous and will have life altering consequences for families like ours. We are counting on you Senator Booker, to do the hard work to protect the essential benefits. The destruction of the Department of Education is another completely horrifying situation. We need to protect our special needs students and federal financial aid for college bound students. We need to protect the idea of education is for all. Education is for all. Education is for all instead of a few elites who could just afford it."

(05:33:47)
Rosie is another constituent. She starts off proudly. "I am a senior, 84 years old." God bless you, Rosie. My mom is 85. "My only income is Social Security." She generously gives me confidential information." My only income is Social Security. $1,179 per month and I am terrified that the current gang of thieves in the White House will tamper with it under the guise of "saving money". If Social Security is cut off. I am on the streets." I again can't keep harping enough on the traditions of our country where Presidents, whether you agreed with them or not, whether they're from your party or not, Ronald Reagan didn't whip up fear and bedrock commitments like social Security or health. Barack Obama didn't shake people so that Republicans and Democrats in my state would write me letters using words like fear and terror. Wouldn't use worries about losing sleep when you have enough things to stress over.

(05:35:08)
Here's Deborah. "I am a retired widow. I depend on Social Security to pay bills each month. I'm concerned about the reports that Elon Musk is to revamp and in my opinion, ruin the Social Security Administration. I'm worried that payments will be disrupted. There are many other things going on in the government today that I'm also concerned about. I hope that the seniors and congresspeople, along with the judicial system, can stand up to him and take back control of government. Look, it's going to revamp and ruin Social Security." This is just somebody simply saying is like, be plain. Don't make up lies about false payments. Don't call it a Ponzi scheme. Give us a bold vision of how it's going to help more seniors. How are you going to serve more seniors? How are you going to improve the system? How are you going to make it better? How are you going to serve the dignity of our seniors?

(05:35:58)
This is Holly. Holly is a constituent too. "I am one of your constituents who's retired and relies 100% in order to live on my earned Social Security benefit in which I paid throughout my entire working career. I call on you to maintain Social Security program as it stood before the ascension of Trump and Musk. You must ensure that there are no missed earned benefit payments or late payments made to recipients, especially accessible Social Security offices must remain open and fully staffed, staffed with trained, experienced Social Security employees in order to provide the kind of regular necessary customer service by phone, online and in person. And the Trump Musk administration's endless terrorist threats of dismantling the Social Security Administration insidiously calling it a Ponzi scheme, working in order to privatize it must cease and desist immediately."

(05:37:07)
"Moreover, you Cory Booker must reverse and or stop whatever draconian changes are being made to destroy the Social Security Administration with thousands of cuts to needed employees with almost no notice and no public import. Social Security is being dismantled by an unelected billionaire, at least for now, Musk and his band of DOGE boys, not a real government department who have illegally and callously rifled through our most private personal information and done God knows what with it, with their ultimate goal to risk and or steal the retirement funds of older Americans by placing the Social Security Trust fund in the hand of private corporate equity firms. Seniors do not agree to this. Seniors do not agree to this and such action is a legal and completely unacceptable!" This constituent continues use. "Furthermore, I'm deeply concerned that the ceaseless chaos will invite criminals to exploit confusion around identity verification. Ironically, while the administration claims these changes are meant to combat fraud, they may very well do the opposite. Hastily introducing new, unfamiliar technology and verification steps without any real public education campaign will create the perfect environment for criminals to deceive and defraud. This late ill-conceived change also comes at a time when the Social Security Administration is already struggling with a customer service crisis. Long hold times, low staffing, delayed callback systems, confusing announcements about possible office closures. This chaos has to be stopped now Senator Booker. I urgently ask you to please use your congressional power to reverse these changes which are creating more confusion for older Americans. Senior Americans earn Social Security through a lifetime of hard, honest work. I know I did. The money is ours and we deserve a properly run Social Security Administration, which continues to be administrated honestly through the federal government as established in 1935."

(05:39:25)
"In fact, the narrative of the Social Security Act running out of money could be easily fixed if Congress wrote laws that slightly increased the amount that high net worth individuals, the wealthiest of the wealthy paid into the program." Holly, God bless you. My mother in her senior community is seeing this rise in scammers trying to steal people's money and she's amazed at the technology they're using. Scams that involve the voices of their relatives asking them for help. They're in a crisis. All that technology and the wisdom of my mom. She's like, "Why aren't we using the technology and innovations to make Social Security easier to use, easier to engage with?" Common sense questions.

(05:40:23)
Carly, a constituent from New Jersey. "Please include disabled people when you talk about Social Security and Medicare Senator Booker, if you don't mention us, every time. I paid into Social Security for 16 years, I worked full time. I was sick almost every day. I finally had to leave my job in 2015. I was granted SSDI and I'm on Medicare and until I was injured last year, I had a part-time job where I continued paying into the system. I fear that the first people they will go after are the disabled. We are not as capable of fighting. People see us as lazy or fakers and we're almost never included in the conversations about marginalized communities. Please don't let me be erased."

(05:41:07)
Carly, you are not. I see you and I'm standing here for as long as I possibly physically can so that I can elevate your voice and others. Patricia, a constituent from New Jersey. "I am 65 years old, a senior. I have worked my whole life and paid into Social Security. Will you please work hard and push back to preserve these benefits. Without Social Security monies and Medicare as well, I will not survive. I am outraged," Patricia writes, "… to see what is happening recently. Help. If there's anything you, quest of me, if there's anything you…" My constituent says, "If there's anything you need of me, please let me know." It's one of the most beautiful sentiments in America is that people in crisis, who are wrapped with fear and worry, they still are standing up to volunteer. Retired seniors. I'm always moved when a constituent just not only tells me what's on their mind, how they're angry, how they're worried, what their concerns are, but they also say, "Let me help you. Let me help you." Patricia. It's late at night. You're probably sleeping, but you help me tonight at 12:41 AM.

(05:42:38)
The goodness and the decency of our seniors, the kindness and generosity of our communities and what does our President do to these people? He spends time of his State of the Union Address not calling us together, not calling us to common cause, not reminding us that we share common values and common virtues. He spreads lies about Social Security and unleashes the wealthiest man in the world to cut before he even understands the agencies he's cutting. A guy who with the same kind of cynical nature, who I can't even fathom being as wealthy as he is. It's not what I've sought in my life. He tells a Ponzi scheme when constituent after constituent tell me that is their only source of income that they paid into all of their lives and now the most powerful person on the planet and the richest person on the planet are striking fear and worry into seniors.

(05:43:47)
And yet all of that power, all of that money, a constituent from New Jersey tells me about what she's concerned with and then says, if there's anything you request of me, "Please let me know. I am here to help. I'm here to help." That's the country I know and love. Not the fear mongers and the demagogues and the spreaders of lies, but the good decency of Americans who even in their time of crisis ask the question, "How can I help? How can I help?"

(05:44:23)
Helen from New Jersey. "Senator Booker, please stand up to Musk and Trump to save, protect Social Security and Medicare. My life and my husband's life depend on it. We are senior citizens who worked and paid our share of taxes for over 50 years. We now need those benefits to survive."

(05:44:43)
And here is Janet, one of the hundreds, I'm sorry to my staff, thousands of people who've written, emailed and called. One more. Janet. "I oppose the closing of Social Security field offices. If anything, more field offices should be opened if phone support is cut back. In 2022, while living in Wyoming, I started on Social Security. There were issues. Thank and thank God for the local field office in Cheyenne because they were the only people who could physically look at my documentation, realize what was happening to me, submit corrections and enter notes in the system that the Social Security phone support could see. It took four or five trips to my local field office to resolve it. I had previously gotten nowhere with Social Security phone support. Today I read the list of field offices that are slated to be closed and they appear to be in rural areas. The people who live there might

Senator Cory Booker (05:46:01):

… have to drive a full day's drive several times to apply for and follow up on their benefits. It is not fair. It is not fair. It is not fair. It is not fair. Across the country my office hears from, it's not just New Jersey. Across the country, people who are frustrated, who feel like nobody will listen to them, we get calls from across the country. My staff doesn't say, "You're not from New Jersey so we're not going to talk to you." My staff, just incredible people I have surrounding me in the office who remind me of the values I treasure, and so they wanted me to include tonight people not from New Jersey, because again, we hear from thousands of people in my state and so many around the country.

(05:47:19)
Here's Maria Karachi from Springfield, Delaware County, Pennsylvania. "My name is Maria Karachi." Forgive me, Maria, if I'm pronouncing your name wrong. "I am 78 years old and live in Springfield, Delaware County, Pennsylvania. When I was 16, I received my first paycheck, and so money was taken from my earnings. I learned then about FICO, the special government savings account that I would put part of my earnings into until I retired. This was how I could pay my bills in my old age, it was something I could always count on. My earnings history shows the good and bad times, including the gaps when I received unemployment. My chosen career was in mortgage banking, bank mergers, dramatic changes to interest rates and even bank lending regulations meant times of unemployment with few options or jobs or accepting temp employment, I had to make the choice, every paycheck with that held FICA."

(05:48:17)
"I was almost 65 when I began my career at the bank offering decent pay with overtime. It was 2010 and I had two goals to meet for my retirement, a mortgage-free home and working until I was 70 earning the maximum benefit. Underwriters that I worked with had shown me what they felt added security to my personal finances, so I was diligent with setting up my emergency savings account. It would be there for any time my Social Security check didn't cover my expenses on my home or me getting older, so I often worked until 10:00 PM at night, delayed taking days off, making my goals possible. The Social Security Administration sent information about my future benefit payments, so I made a budget and determined my escrow for taxes, insurance and home maintenance to be taken from my benefit. I knew how much I would have per week for my living expenses once my mortgage was paid. I used the overtime income for my emergency savings account. Everything relies on my receipt of my monthly check from Social Security."

(05:49:21)
"The recent assault on Social Security has me terrified. People who were not elected, vetted, or made to swear in oath to protect our US constitution have taken our personal data saying that they are searching for fraud. Errors are being made with this new regime and no clear resolution in sight. Why do they need my personal information, that includes my Social Security number, work history and bank information? In February, my identity was stolen. When thieves moved my mail using a postcard sent to USPS, my bank statement and a copy of my paycheck were forwarded to the thieves before I got the USPS notice of the change. I froze my credit then, and have done so later, since TransUnion has the BOSE address listed as a fraudulent one on part of their report, but also has it on another address for mail that has been returned to the sender. I have quit fighting the data entry mistake, but I remain diligent and alert if mail is due and doesn't arrive. What can I do about this new group of identity thieves known as DOGE?"

(05:50:40)
"Until recently, I had confidence in my ability to provide for myself because I lived in the United States of America, a republic governed by the people, for the people. My parents were children of the Great Depression, so they instilled in me how to be financially solid and survive. Now, at 78, I'm learning everything that I hold dear is to be attacked by the 47th president using a contributor to his reelection as his advisor and the leader of a group named DOGE. I do not feel safe due to cuts in so many who have kept us safe, cuts in the CDC, cuts in the FBI, cuts in the EPA, cuts in the FAA and Social Security. I worry about losing our foreign allies and the release of convicted domestic terrorists pardoned by the President, while suspected immigrants might be whisked away before anyone even knows they are."

(05:51:38)
"Everyone I know receiving Social Security benefits relies on those payments for their daily life. As prices increase under President Trump's leadership, many are not as fortunate as me who had a solid plan for increased expenses. We worked putting into FICA with every paycheck that we received. The thought of delaying payments or making errors so that anyone must prove their right to receive their benefit is stealing from people. Are we still the land of the free and the home of the brave? I'm counting on our elected officials like you and the courts to preserve it."

(05:52:21)
Lisa Bobaki, Fleetwood, Pennsylvania. "Hello, my name is Lisa, and I live in Fleetwood, Pennsylvania. 15 years ago, my healthy 42-year-old husband was found deceased on our couch by our then 13-year-old son. Our 10-year-old and 3-year-old stood quietly crying on the stairs. Sudden cardiac death was the cause. The same day, my daughter asked if we would need to move to another house. I promised her, I promised to keep them in the only home they'd ever known. Those early days remain blurred in my mind. I remember my father taking me to the Social Security office, and shortly thereafter, survivor's benefits for my children began showing up in the bank account to assist with their care. If not for these benefits, I would not have been able to keep my promise to my children. It's not much money, amounting to roughly the salary of a minimum wage job, yet it was a lifeline to some piece of normalcy for my family, not a Ponzi scheme."

(05:53:34)
"My kids have now aged out of the system. I'm about to begin widow's benefits, as my body cannot continue to work multiple jobs as a physician therapist, which I've needed to do to make ends meet for myself and my family. Social Security benefits were essential to the care and being of raising my children. It was a promise from their father who had paid into the system his entire working life. We must work on continuing to expand these essential benefits and never consider dismantling or privatizing them. Thank you, Senator Booker."

(05:54:14)
Here's Kayana Spooner from Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin, who writes me, "My name is Kayana Spooner, and I live in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin. I'm 63 years old. My husband, Joe, and I have five children and three grandchildren and live a wonderful life as our family is growing." God bless you and your family. "We owned businesses and worked to contribute Social Security for ourselves and our employees. We did all the things we could do to secure our future and contribute to the larger community of those in need.

(05:54:49)
We felt that we were living the American dream, until one day in 2012," I know this personally with my dad and I feel for you, Ms. Spooner. "Until one day in 2012, I was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. Parkinson's disease is a degenerative brain disease that progresses over time." Sorry, I'm thinking about my dad. "It is unrelenting and affects motor and nerve processes. Loss of benefits will have a direct and daily effect on me and my family as we navigate the medical needs we will be facing. I will need progressive and comprehensive care as I age, I will need medication every single day of my life, and I will need the security of a generous society to care for me. Millions of others join me there. Please, Senator Booker, please protect my Social Security."

(05:56:05)
I just thank God that my mom had the resources to take care of my dad, and I watched that degenerative disease take from his life for 20 years and how much it cost, the thousands of dollars it cost my mom to take care of him. I know my friend, Andy Kim, who's in the Senate right now, is facing health challenges with his father. I know so many people personally whose parents have Alzheimer's. I know so many Americans who are not powerful, they're not rich. I know so many Americans who live in fear every day that one little thing will happen to them that will destabilize their financial wellbeing, and now those millions of Americans, because of a president and a man named Musk, are striving fear into them, are whacking away the people that answer phones or firing the people in an agency that already was struggling with wait times and already was struggling with slow response times.

(05:57:07)
These people, who are hanging on by a thread in their lives or are facing the people they love the most, who are struggling with the diseases that so many of us in this body have been affected by, they are now worried. They're writing me letters with words like fear and terror. They're talking about staying up at night and not being able to sleep because they don't have a president that comforts them. They have a president that talks down to them, that lies about the services that they rely on. What is this? It is not normal. It is not normal. This is America. How can the most powerful people in our land not comfort others, not tell them they have nothing to fear but fear itself, not tell them to have malice towards none but have charity towards all?

(05:57:56)
What kind of man is in our White House that makes fun of the disabled, who lies so much that the fact-checkers lose count, that minimizes the pain and the suffering? Where you have cabinet secretaries, that are billionaires themselves, that say, "If my mom misses a Social Security check, ah, but if somebody else complains about it, they're probably a fraudster." These people are not fraudsters, they're hurting, they're afraid, they're worried. For God's sake, this is America. Every one of our founders' documents is riddled with words that speak of our commitment to each other. Yeah, they weren't perfect geniuses, but they were people that aspire to virtue. They read the greatest philosophers of their times. They said, "What does it mean to be good to one another? What does it mean to create a society that is not run by despots and dictators who are so disconnected, who talk down, let them eat cake?" They dreamed of a different country than this folks. They dreamed of a different country than this. They dreamed of a country that stood for not just get all I can for me, the biggest tax cuts possible to the wealthiest people. They dreamed of a nation where any child born in any circumstance from any place could grow up and have their American dream, and God, it gut wrenches me when I hear people not as privileged as me, and I'm not Musk and DOGE, but my mom had the resources and the family to support her as she watched my dad die of Parkinson's disease. But this person's writing in, she herself has Parkinson's, she underlines and bolds the part of her letter, she says, and I'll read it again, because Spooner, I want you, from Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin, to know you are seen, to know you are heard, know that maybe the President will talk down and cut and malign your only paycheck, your only hope, but I won't, I won't. I see you, I feel you.

(06:00:10)
You can't lead the people if you can't love the people, and I'm sorry, our President is not showing that. He may be saying those words. She writes with Parkinson's, I still remember my dad telling me he had it. She writes that, "It is unrelenting, Parkinson's, and affects my motor and nerve processes. Loss of benefits will have a direct and daily effect on me and my family as we navigate the medical needs we are going to be facing. I will need progressive and comprehensive care as I age, I will need medication every single day of my life." I know this. I know you will. I know you will. "I will need the security of a generous society to care for me," a generous society to do the basic for families in this kind of struggle. " Millions of others join me there. Protect my Social Security, Senator Booker."

(06:01:06)
I tell you, I'm going to fight for your Social Security, I'm going to fight to protect the agency, I'm going to fight against unnecessary cuts that hurt the service it gives. And today into tomorrow, I'm going to stand as long as I can, as long as I can, I'm going to stand and read stories like this, because you are seen, you are heard. Your voices are more important than any of the hundred of us. More of your stories should be told on this floor, of people that are scared right now, terrified right now, people living in rural areas that see their local Social Security agency on a list that Elon Musk put of places he's going to sell away to the private sector and you're going to lose your agencies. Well, I will fight. I'm sorry. Margaret Hebring from Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin. Chippewa Falls, two letters, my staff is keeping me on my toes. This is another person from Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin. "My name is Margaret Hebring, and I live in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin. I'm 77 years old, and I am a member of the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Ojibwe. My husband is a veteran, who currently," I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry, "My husband is a veteran who currently has cancer and he's receiving chemotherapy at the VA hospital, which we have to travel to, which is over 100 miles away, and without our Social Security, I'm not sure what would happen to us. We would for sure have to sell our home. I have savings that will last me one month. I have savings that would last me one month right now. We live paycheck to paycheck, so please, please, protect our Social Security."

(06:03:08)
This is Judith Brown, we're moving away from the great State of Wisconsin, we're going to the great State of North Carolina, where my dad is from, up in Hendersonville, Asheville. But this person, Judith Brown, is from Charlotte, North Carolina, one of my top five favorite non-New Jersey states. I don't know if my friend Andy Kim has his top five favorite non-New Jersey states. New Jersey obviously is the best. Don't look at this, Senator from Connecticut, and I hate to tell him that Connecticut is not on my top five non-New Jersey states, even though I got educated there. I'm sorry about that, I'm sorry about that. The presiding officer is such a good man. His state is not on my top five non-New Jersey states, but North Carolina is, and I'm going to read a letter from Judith Brown.

(06:03:49)
"My name is Judith Brown, and I live in Charlotte, North Carolina. I was 17 when I started working, and worked for another 20 years as an administrator until I had to be declared disabled. Without Disability, I would not have been able to see my specialist, get an eyecare or any of the other needs that I had. I was also the mother of two young sons who were on the autism spectrum. Without Disability, I wouldn't have been able to take care of them and get the care they needed to be independent young men." God bless them. "I hear that they want to close the field offices and change the customer service line. As a person with mobility and vision impairments, this is outrageous. I need to be able to access it the best way I can on the times that I can access it. Please, Senator, fight to protect Social Security for a senior like me and for young people with disabilities like my sons. Thank you."

(06:04:49)
No, thank you, Judith Brown. Thank you for writing a letter. Thank you for speaking up. Thank you for not being silent. Thank you for advocating not just for your family, but for the millions and millions of other Americans who lean heavily not just on their Social Security checks, but on the incredible public servants that keep that agency working and who wish to have a president that said, "I'm going to bring the best of business experience to my customer service. I'm going to bring the best of caring and technology and innovation. I'm going to call the best computer technologists, scientists, in the country. We're going to make this the best Social Security in the history of our country. And you know what? My friends, the billionaires I had on stage with me when I was inaugurated, I'm just going to ask them to pay a little bit more, 0.00001% more of their net worth, to make sure that Social Security is safe forever." I'm sorry, it's crazy.

(06:05:46)
I'm going back to Pennsylvania. It's almost like you can't make this up, honestly. I just know my country. I know our character. I know how good of a people we are. I know how much we love one another. I know our faith in red states and blue states and right and left. I've sat next to people on planes who introduced themselves to me as Republicans from a red state, and by the end, we're laughing and talking and sharing stories. We are a good nation together. We can be so great, we've shown that. But how can we have a president that in 71 days drives this much fear into our country? It's absurd, everybody, it's absurd. This is why I can't let this be normal anymore.

(06:06:40)
Michelle, from Lancaster, Pennsylvania. "My name is Michelle Groover," I love your last name, Michelle, "From Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and I would definitely be impacted if something would happen to my Social Security." Michelle also has Parkinson's, "And I'm on disability, and the money that I have goes pretty much to the most of my medications and foods that I need to eat to keep myself going and strong. That's how it would impact my family. I wouldn't be able to afford also my insulin for my diabetes." Parkinson's and diabetes. "So it's a challenge every month as it is, even with the amount that we have, because the cost of pharmaceuticals and things keep us going." Yes. "So that's why Social Security is really important to us as a family, it helps us get by every day. Thank you."

(06:07:30)
This is Patricia Harvey-Porter from Johnstown, Pennsylvania. "Hello, my name is Patricia Haney," excuse me, Ms. Porter, "Patricia Haney-Porter. I reside in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. My work is varied. I've been employed as a secretary in the private sector, as a statistician for the government agency, as a real estate agent, and most recently, as a legal secretary. This is my story as to how Social Security has affected my life. My mother passed away in 1956, my sisters and I," God bless you, "were eight, 10, and 11. My maternal grandparents stepped in and they raised us with the help of Social Security survivor benefits, resulting in good educations and allowing other needs to be met. We had almost normal lives due to these benefits."

(06:08:13)
"While raising two children, I worked as a real estate agent. My income was based on commissions rather than salary, so I made the entire Social Security payments based on my income. We had a roof over our heads, healthy food on the table. One of my children had serious medical issues, and I paid for her bills out of pocket, never asking for a penny from any government agency. These expenses were paid for from my income and I paid taxes every year. I waited until I was 70 to collect my Social Security benefits, as I realized the latter you collect, the better the benefits. I have no pension and I live almost entirely on Social Security benefits. I am always looking for part-time work, but few people want to hire me as I will be 80 in June." God bless you, God bless you.

(06:09:02)
"Based on the benefits I receive, I'm able to pay my mortgage and all monthly expenses. I receive Medicare, which help pay the medical bills. Should Social Security and Medicare be taken from me, I will likely lose my home. I could no longer afford medical costs, groceries. I have a medical condition which requires regular visits with a specialist who is 70 miles away. Without Social Security and Medicare, I would no longer be able to see him, and my condition would result in death sooner rather than later. Thank you for all you are doing to see that the benefits received through Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will continue." As Senator Murphy and I was talking, it's all interrelated. This is somebody on Social Security, but they have to drive just for medical attention. We are in a hospital crisis in America. There's so many rural areas where rural residents of our country have to drive so far just to get to a hospital, and cuts in Medicaid, we've heard it from the letters I read in the last section, will endanger those hospitals' survival.

(06:10:04)
Charlotte, North Carolina, again. Kevin Woodson. I get a lot of letters, my staff, from Wisconsin and Charlotte, North Carolina. Okay. "My name is Kevin Woodson. I'm a 69-year-old retiree living in Charlotte, North Carolina. I worked 38 years for two Fortune 500 companies. Two Fortune 50 companies," I'm sorry, Kevin, "And I thought that I would have a fully funded pension plan to live off in my retirement. However, I never got to the 25 years in, so only got partial pensions. This is why I need Social Security, it covers the holes that the pensions don't cover in terms of medical benefits. It allows me the freedom to enjoy my life, take care of activities that I need in order to keep myself healthy. Social Security is dependable, something I rely on, not a Ponzi scheme, and I hope that we don't touch Social Security and that we don't have any issues trying to keep that money flowing. It's money I paid into."

(06:11:00)
Margarita Silver from Surprise, Arizona. I love that name, Surprise, Arizona. "Hello, my name is Margarita Silva. I live in Surprise, Arizona with my husband. I started working at the age of 15 doing volunteer work as a candy striper at the hospital where my mother worked. I did not get paid. After that, I started working as a waitress, earning 50 cents an hour. After graduating from high school, I took various jobs, earning a little more. And then, I started working at Mountain Bell, and I retired after 30 years from Quest. So if they do Social Security cuts, I don't know what I'm going to do. I'll be forced, at the age of 74, to look for a job. So those are my hard-earned benefits. I worked for that, more than 30 years, I worked for that. Thank you."

(06:11:49)
Wayne Bank from Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin. I need to go to Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin, this is the third letter that are included that are people reaching out to me from Chippewa Falls. God bless you, I need to visit your community. "Hello, I'm Wayne from Chippewa Falls, soon to be 69 years old. I've been on Social Security for a couple of years, my wife and I. I spent years in service, Navy, and again, like I said, my wife and I are going to have been on Social Security. Saying that, we would, if we lost our Social Security tomorrow, we would lose our house, our cars, and pretty much our livelihood, because this is what we've worked for and we don't need to lose it. Why do you work for 55 years and pay into Social Security and then lose it?"

(06:12:42)
"Recently, I tried get back online, get on my Social Security account, I wasn't able to. Because of that, I went down to the Social Security office in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, and they said they couldn't do anything for me, that I had to set up an appointment. So I come home later, called, set up an appointment, and it's still three days out before I can get my appointment, and they don't know if they can help me. So at this point in time, I really need to know what's going on with Social Security, Senator Booker, because if we lose it, everybody else that's on it loses it, we're going to be in a really sorry state." Those folks who answer phones and set appointments, they're sure important when somebody is in a crisis. They have to wait a few days, their check is missed, it's real consequences for real people.

(06:13:35)
"Hello, my name is Manuel. My wife and I live," surprise, surprise, "In Surprise, Arizona. We're both on Social Security, and that's what we depend on to live our lives and our retirement years. We have to pay our bills, we have to buy food, we basically have to live off that, so if you take our Social Security, what are we going to live off? Are you going to take good care of us? You know, we're American citizens and we deserve and we paid into it and we've earned it, and it's not just something given to us. So leave our Social Security alone, let us live our lives. Let us live our lives out the way they should be. And we're supposed to be in our golden years, so it's important to us, it's important to all Americans out there that are seniors. Let us live our lives. Thank you very much, Senator Booker." Patricia Naughton from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, I lift your voice. "My name is Patricia Naughton, and I'm from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I've been paying into Social Security since I was 16 years old. I am currently 70, and have been collecting Social Security for the last five years. Without Social Security, I wouldn't be able to pay my mortgage, utilities, food, medicine, copays, and many other things. I would not be able to survive without Social Security. There's no reason that seniors should be held hostage over Social Security. This is our money, our money that we put into the Social Security system for many years. We deserve not to be threatened by the loss. Thank you."

(06:15:14)
Kathleen Wiverdeen from Hanover, Pennsylvania. "Hello, my name is Kathleen Wiverdeen, and I currently live in Hanover, Pennsylvania. I'm originally from New Jersey and taught in the public school system for 29 years as a school librarian. When I retired, I decided to move to Hanover, Pennsylvania," Kathleen, you're missed in Jersey, "And at the age of 62, I started collecting Social Security because of COVID, I needed the extra stability that Social Security provides. I no longer have to work a full-time job because of Social Security, although I do work a part-time job and still pay into the system. Social Security provides me with stability, financial stability, it helps pay the bills, and I really don't have to worry about my finances because it's Social Security. If Social Security is taken away, I'll lose everything I've worked for over the past 60 years. I feel that Social Security is a godsend. Protect it, Senator Booker, thank you."

(06:16:10)
Cynthia Marino from Pennsylvania. "My name is Cynthia Marino. I'm a retired registered nurse from Lancaster, Pennsylvania. My husband," I'm sorry, Cynthia, "My husband died in 1990, and two of my children received survivor's benefits for eight years, during which time I was able to get my bachelor's degree in nursing and work part-time. All three of my children went on to get college degrees. When I was 61 years old, I went on Social Security Disability, having a hip replacement. I was switched to regular Social Security when I turned 65. I now deeply depend mostly on Social Security for my husband and myself, with small pensions from both of our jobs supplementing the Social Security. I'm now able to live independently in a handicapped mobile home thanks to the money from Social Security in the past and present, much cheaper than Medicaid funds to keep me in a nursing home. Thank you, Senator Booker, protect it." Thank you, Cynthia, for your story.

(06:17:07)
These are just some. These are just some. I read their voices, I lift their voices with mine. I want to go to the Detroit Free Press, but before I read this article, I know my senator from New Jersey is here. I'm going to read this article, and if he is interested in our sixth hour, if he has a question, I will yield a question while retaining the floor, but I'm going to read this article and then we'll go. This is from the Detroit Free Press. My mom was born in Detroit, I love the city, my family owes it a lot. My grandfather went to find a job on the assembly lines in Detroit, building bombers during World War II.

Senator Cory Booker (06:18:04):

It says Kathleen Sherrill's been retired for 10 years now and typically didn't think twice about whether she'd received Social Security payments on time. For the first time ever, the 74-year-old Troy retiree went online in March on the very day that $2,800 was to hit her bank account through direct deposit. She suddenly felt compelled to make absolutely certain that her Social Security money was there when it was supposed to be. Sherrill and other retirees are on edge, big time. Call it Social Security insecurity.

(06:18:37)
"I have never really worried about it much as I have this year," Sherrill said. The money thankfully was sitting in her account in March and she knew her checks and payments for her ongoing bills would not start bouncing. "I think anybody, future or current people on Social Security, are definitely targeted," she said. "It's a worry that I'm sure everybody is having right now."

(06:19:05)
I know it because I heard from my mom and her whole senior community. Seniors uncertain what to do next for Social Security. Since early February, AARP has seen nearly double the calls to its customer service care line as more people began being troubled about Social Security and it has shown no signs of abating, according to the AARP spokesperson. Since February 1st, AARP said it has been receiving more than 2,000 calls into its call center per week on concerns relating to Social Security. "Social Security has never missed a payment and AARP and our tens of millions of members are not going to stand by and let that happen now," said John Hishta, AARP Senior Vice President of Campaigns, in a statement last week.

(06:19:55)
While those words sound reassuring, it's frankly not comforting to realize that seniors need to hear that their monthly Social Security payments will arrive as usual. I don't imagine anyone had this one on their bingo cards for March 2025, this kind of worry and stress.

(06:20:09)
On social media, I spotted one comment that said, "Folks, the federal workers began advertising last month that all Americans remove all funds from the account where they normally receive any federal payments, Social Security, federal tax funds, and the like. Keep the account but only use it as a place for feds to transfer money. Immediately move all transferred cash to a separate account." The concern, according to the post, "DOGE can declare you dead and force your bank to send back any funds paid to you." Whoa, a lot of retirement angst there and, yes, some wild notions and really bad advice. Moving Social Security money around to hide it in another account different from where it's directly deposited actually could put more of your money at risk when it comes to some debt collection.

(06:20:51)
Anyone who's tracked retirement policy, as I have, knows that the potential unraveling of Social Security system has been discussed for decades, many retirees just never imagined a convoluted scenario when someone would think Social Security possibly could implode.

(06:21:07)
The health of Social Security, which marks its 90th anniversary this year, isn't all that makes many retirees and those about to retire nervous. Their anxiety can go into overdrive watching the stock market slide on Trump's tariffs news and seeing all the political ping-pong with Social Security money that belongs in their pockets. The Trump administration has maintained that it wants to cut costs and fraud when it comes to the Social Security program, not benefits. But people remain skeptical and some commentary isn't helping.

(06:21:36)
Acting Social Security Commissioner Leland Dudek in interviews last week, including one with Bloomberg News last Thursday, actually threatened to temporarily shut down Social Security after a federal judge temporarily stopped members of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency from digging through personal data at the Social Security Administration. The DOGE operatives, according to the court, will first need to receive proper training on handling sensitive information, which some might say is the least they can do.

(06:22:07)
The American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME, Alliance for Retired Americans, and the American Federation of Teachers filed a motion for emergency relief on March 7th to halt DOGE's unprecedented, unlawful seizure of sensitive data regarding millions of Americans. No surprise, Dudek soon found it politically prudent to back off from his threat.

(06:22:26)
"I'm not shutting down the agency," Dudek said in a statement, indicating he had received clarifying guidance from the court about the temporary restraining order. "President Trump supports keeping Social Security offices open and getting the right check to the right person on time," Dudek said.

(06:22:47)
Financial tech CEO Frank Bisignano, who was nominated by the President Donald Trump to lead the Social Security Administration, ended up being grilled by Democrats about the bedlam during confirmation hearings before the Senate Committee on Finance on Tuesday.

(06:23:03)
The angst isn't about to go away, particularly if people continue to face even longer waits on the phones or see Social Security offices closing in their community, thanks to some key changes being made now by Trump's administration.

(06:23:18)
Customer service is on the chopping block, as the Social Security Administration reduces the number of employees, restricts what services can be handled by phone, and shutters some local offices where people could talk to someone face-to- face.

(06:23:32)
On Wednesday, the Social Security Administration announced that it would initiate a two-week delay for implementing a highly criticized move to end phone services and require in-person visits for some services. "In-person identity proofing for people unable to use their personal, 'my Social Security' account for certain services will be effective April 14th," according to the announcement. But individuals applying for Medicare, disability and Supplemental Security Income who cannot use a personal " my Social Security" account can complete their claim entirely over the telephone without the need to come to the office, according to the March 26th announcement. That's good news for many.

(06:24:12)
Even so, merely delaying the change doesn't help others and, frankly, customer service could still suffer in the long term. And it will get very ugly if current Social Security recipients miss out on even one dime of their benefits.

(06:24:26)
At one point last week, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick suggested that his 94- year-old mother-in-law wouldn't complain about missing a Social Security check for a month or so. "Only fraudsters would call," he said during an All-In podcast.

(06:24:40)
My thought: Have you ever watched an exchange where someone on the Social Security is being denied a coupon or a senior discount at a store or restaurant? It's not pretty. Worse yet, has Lutnick ever talked with a friend or relative in his or her 70s or 80s who depends on Social Security to cover basic bills? Social Security provides retirement, survivor and disability payments to 73 million people each month. The number includes about 56 million people who are aged 65 or older.

(06:25:15)
Some people, and even Sherrill includes herself in that group, are better off than others. They won't miss paying an electric bill or the rent because they can turn to retirement savings or money from a traditional pension. Even so, Social Security remains an integral source of income each month for all retirees and others who receive benefits.

(06:25:35)
"I'm concerned about my financial future," Sherrill told me. Social Security now represents about half her monthly income. She never imagined that any Social Security fix would involve cutting benefits for existing retirees. Some GOP proposals have suggested increasing the age for full retirements from 67 to 69 over an eight-year period beginning in '26. But now she fears it's possible her benefits could get cut at some point down the road.

(06:26:07)
Overall, Sherrill has had fun in retirement. She has nine grandchildren, 12 great-grandchildren and wants to spend more time with them, not less. Sherrill and her friends who are retired are cutting back on eating out and entertainment just in case something happens to Social Security. High prices for many things put pressures on fixed incomes as well. She wants to take less money out of her retirement savings now so she has more money on the sidelines in case her Social Security benefits get cut. Even so, she's staring at an unexpected $600 new monthly car payment ahead because she needs to replace a car that was in an accident a few weeks ago. "If Social Security payments are cut or stopped, I may be selling it."

(06:26:59)
The wild swings for the stock market, 401(k) plans, going down in America has created more jitters for more people. The economy seems uncertain. Consumer confidence is in worse of a place. Leaders are threatening Social Security services, offices are being cut, people are being laid off, so people are worrying.

(06:27:26)
Taking a rough guess on just her 401(k) plan, she believes she's lost about $30,000 on her retirement savings as the stock market has tumbled. Over the years, she said cuts to Social Security we're always a part of the political realm, but she felt that Congress provided a stopgap to any dramatic moves. She doesn't believe it's true anymore. "I'm hoping Congress wakes up, looks in the mirror and decides they don't like what they see," she told me.

(06:27:57)
One big problem with fueling an atmosphere of chaos is that many people do start worrying about everything. One big problem with fueling an atmosphere of chaos means people stop believing that Social Security is a system they can depend on. Sherrill said she took a call from her college roommate who mentioned that she was going to look at her bank account online to see whether her monthly Social Security payment was stopped or it arrived as usual. "I said, 'You're going to be okay. I got mine this month.'" So many people afraid right now.

Chris Murphy (06:28:35):

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Senator Cory Booker (06:28:39):

Yes, I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Chris Murphy (06:28:43):

Thank you, Senator Booker, and thank you for coming to the floor tonight and speaking up. I have a few questions for you, so why don't you catch your breath.

(06:28:51)
I wanted to start by saying how proud I am of you to represent our great state of New Jersey alongside each other. And it's not just me. I want to tell you because I know you've been here in this chamber non-stop for hours, but I want to tell you that the people are paying attention and they join me in thanking you in this moment. In fact, I saw a few posts I thought I'd share.

(06:29:20)
Stacey from Bayonne said on Facebook, "I couldn't be prouder to be a lifelong New Jerseyan that I am tonight. Keep it up, get in that good trouble, lead the way and hopefully others will follow."

(06:29:34)
Janie in Princeton said, "Thank you. Proud that you are my senator and that you are bringing Big Jersey energy to DC tonight.

(06:29:44)
Vicki in Ewing said, "We are sending our strength to you. Medicare and Medicaid should not be touched.

(06:29:54)
And someone on Reddit even said, "I hope he wore the most comfortable and supportive shoes he could find."

(06:30:00)
In your opening, you said something that resonated with me. You said, "Our constituents are asking us to acknowledge that this is not normal, that this is a crisis."

(06:30:16)
I can't tell you how important it is to internalize it, and that's why we're here at this late hour in the US Senate. That's why you are leading here to make the case to the American people that this is a crisis. That resonated with me because I hear this over and over again. I hear it from people all over our home state, whether at town halls or other rooms that are packed, people saying this moment is not normal. This moment constitutes a crisis.

(06:30:46)
And I'm glad you're speaking on the floor and said that because what you've said isn't just Cory Booker saying that, it's that millions of New Jerseyans that we represent are saying it. And you are lifting up their voice. It's not just you're saying that, it's that millions of Americans who see something fundamentally wrong and they're angry about it.

(06:31:09)
Now, I have some questions for my colleagues, but I want to add some context for this because I want to dig in a bit on why people are so angry in this moment and why what we're seeing from Donald Trump and Elon Musk isn't in response to that anger, it is the cause of it.

(06:31:28)
A common refrain in the town halls that I've held is that people just feel like nothing is working for them. There is a promise, a uniquely American promise, that is simply going unfulfilled for too many. Now, that promise is simple. Your government will work for you. Your economy will allow you to advance if you work hard and give your kids a better future. And your country will keep you safe by ensuring the world is stable and secure.

(06:31:59)
And Senator, you and I are here because we know that this promise is going unfulfilled. To say that the American promise is going unfulfilled would be a tragedy in its own right. It would be something that we as a Congress should put our entire focus into restoring. But the sad fact is that this isn't just about a promise unfulfilled. It's about a promise that has been hijacked. It's about a promise that has been distorted to work for those who have been paid to play, to be denied for everyone else.

(06:32:34)
Now, let's start with the promise that your government will work for you. This is the basis of our democratic republic. We are public servants in that we serve the people. It's the people's priorities that we put first. It is their lives that we work to make better every day. It is their futures that we are endeavoring to brighten.

(06:32:58)
But when the people look at Donald Trump and his administration, they don't see that. They see Elon Musk who donated nearly $300 million to buy his way to a seat of power. And the world's richest man has been handed the keys to our government. And the same person who has been handed nearly $40 billion in your taxpayer dollars to prop up his own corporations is now working to fire veterans from their jobs, made the Social Security Administration less responsive to seniors, and make it harder for your government to work for you.

(06:33:30)
Now, that's what we've seen in the collection of billionaires that buy their way into fulfilling their own American promise, a government that works for them and only them, a government that keeps them rich at any cost from your Medicaid to your Social Security, to the food you put on the table, a government where they pay and they benefit. And if you can't, you're left behind.

(06:33:56)
That's not the government our parents were promised. That's not the government we were promised. That's not the government we want to pass down to our kids. As Senator Booker mentioned, our nation is in crisis. Bedrock commitments are being broken. That starts with the first American promise. We can rebuild and restore that promise by actually working to make our government work for the people. Where we see corruption, we must call it out and combat it. And the corrupting power of money in our politics is one example. And the extreme wealth of billionaires like Elon Musk are drowning out working Americans, and that must be addressed.

(06:34:35)
And as we approach the 250th anniversary of our independence of our country, we have an opportunity to remind people that the promise of America is something bigger than ourselves. And that public service, not private enrichment for those at the very top, but that public service is core to what makes this country special.

(06:35:00)
So let's talk about that second American promise. This is the promise of the American dream. That Rockwellian notion of the house, and the white picket fence, and the kids in the yard, only works if you can pay for that house. It only works if you can afford child care and healthcare for those kids. It only works if you can work hard and deliver something bigger and better than you were handed. And right now, that is not happening. While we are fighting to bring change to our economy to make life more affordable and the middle class more accessible, what we're seeing from Donald Trump and Elon Musk is another promise hijacked for those at the very top.

(06:35:49)
Senator Booker, I want to just take a step back as I get into these questions here because you're talking about Social Security, talking about Medicaid, talking about so many of these other issues here. But in that broader context, well, let's situate it here, which is this recognition that we live in the time of the greatest amount of inequality in our nation's history. So it isn't just about these programs and how we rely on them, it's that we are seeing the wealth gap widening and it's happening faster and faster. And in many ways, I consider this to be the great fragility of America right now, that we are the greatest, richest, most powerful country in the world, but not for everybody.

(06:36:36)
And what we see right now is it's not just about the Social Security, it's not just about the checks, but as you mentioned, Social Security offices are closing, worry about customer service if people call on the phone lines, and it feels like efforts are underway to try to sabotage our Social Security, our Medicare, our Medicaid, and then have people say, "Hey, look, it's not working, and that's why we need to get rid of these things." And sabotage is something people see right before their very eyes.

(06:37:08)
I mean, you've heard the Commerce Secretary talk about how seniors won't mind if there are late payments. And he said that those that complain are fraudsters, as you mentioned. That's directly trying to undermine people who are working hard over the course of their lives. And I have to say, it's a great irony in many ways, this idea that the richest man in the world is criticizing the hard-earned savings of seniors that are just getting a little bit every single month for them to just try to get by, and then he calls it a Ponzi scheme.

(06:37:43)
And my father, as you mentioned, is one of those that depends on Social Security for his entire livelihood right now. And I heard another person at a town hall, I did, she described the feeling that she has right now, and I think you can connect with it. She said, it feels hard to breathe right now because there's so much anxiety in the American people. So I'm glad that you're shining a light on this because people are scared and they're worried and they want to know what comes next.

(06:38:16)
So my question to you here is something that was actually shared by a constituent of both of ours talking about all the concerns of Social Security of this time, but I thought it was very poignant in pointing out that what we also need to put forward to the American people right now is a vision going forward of how to not just restore and protect this promise, but how we take it to the next step.

(06:38:43)
If we live in the time of the greatest amount of inequality, not just to think about how we on to a receding tide, but how to try to put forward some vision that can try to inspire in the same way that Social Security did and put forward generational change, so I wanted to ask you that sense.

(06:39:03)
Do you believe in that sense that right now, more than ever, as people are faced with this anxiety that's hard to breathe, that, yes, we'll stand here on the floor of the Senate and do everything we humanly can to be able to protect what they have, but do you agree that we also have to put forward that positive vision of where we take Social Security? Where do we take Medicaid, Medicare? Where do we take our economy, the Better Work for Everybody, so we're not just trying to figure out how to better divide and hold onto the pennies that the billionaires are willing to share with the rest of us while they don't give us anything else to be able to move forward on? And how do we come up with a vision that tries to shrink that inequality and live in a society that's willing to share that wealth and recognize there's more than enough to go around? And that it's not zero-sum? And that we can be stronger together in that way?

(06:39:59)
And I love to hear how you can paint that vision for the American people.

Senator Cory Booker (06:40:03):

So I will answer your question, but knowing that my mom's watching right now, before I answer the question, I just want to tell folks who may not know about my relationship with my other senator from New Jersey, it is probably one of the more interesting relationships in here. I always tell New Jerseyans, I voted for Andy Kim before anybody else did because I was on an interview committee for the Rhodes Scholarship in New Jersey and I was a former Rhodes, and I really wanted the experience of what it was like to be on the other side because my experience was quite interesting. And these incredible folks came in. Young people from New Jersey were amazing, applying for this extremely competitive scholarship. And Andy Kim was one among that number and he blew the committee away. So way back, I'm going to retain the floor, but ask you a question. What year was that?

Chris Murphy (06:40:59):

That would've been 2004.

Senator Cory Booker (06:40:59):

2004.

Chris Murphy (06:41:00):

21 years ago.

Senator Cory Booker (06:41:03):

How many years?

Chris Murphy (06:41:03):

21 years.

Senator Cory Booker (06:41:04):

21 years ago. In 2002, I had lost a run for mayor. In 2006, I would run again. So I was sort of in between trying to do my work in Newark. And Andy blew me away. And I knew then that he was this extraordinary man of character and brilliance, this great mix of hearts and head, this great mix of honor and a fierce ambition to make a contribution to the world.

(06:41:33)
And if you follow Andy's career, he has been a public servant in some of the highest levels in the administration. But then he ran for Congress and I remember that race, and you electrified not just the district you represented, but really the whole state of New Jersey, and then he came here.

(06:41:51)
But the moment that I remember most was during the January 6th attack. I was here on the Senate floor in this very seat and will never forget how back here, Mark Kelly, an unbelievable senator, who… He and I were two of the last people off the floor along with one of our Republican colleagues, just trying to make sure if anybody broke through, we would be there. I couldn't believe that I was a senator. I was thinking about having to fight my way off the Senate floor.

(06:42:28)
But I remember that we got to an undisclosed location, and then a lot of senators were in safe spots and a lot of house members were safe spots, debating about what to do. I'm so happy we came back late and continued the business of the government, the transfer of power. But while all these senators were dealing with the big issues and whatever, Andy Kim took a broom, plastic bags, and just began cleaning up under the Capitol dome. Remarkable humility shown in a humble gesture about his love of country.

(06:43:02)
And now here we stand on the Senate floor, at the earliest hours of the morning, closing in on 2:00 A.M., and you asked me this question that I didn't expect, which is, Hey Cory, this now seems to be a time where Democrats are defining themselves about what they're against. Shouldn't we be talking about a vision of what we're for?

(06:43:25)
I'm very upset watching what's happening to Social Security, watching what's happening to insinuate fear amongst seniors who should be retiring with security and peace, cuts and undermining, thousands of people being laid off. All of that is worthy of us standing, and the things we're reading, but what I think Senator Kim is really pointing to the fact is that there is bold visions for who we are going to be as a country. He is one of these big believers that we can be a nation that boasts about we are a country where somebody doesn't retire and lives on such a meager check that they're technically at the poverty line. Like Senator Booker, we have more wealth than nations all around the globe, stratospheric wealth in this country, GDP growth, and can't we design a system that doesn't have seniors stressed out and living… those that live off of their paychecks living there?

(06:44:25)
And the other thing I know you know about, and I just recently did a talk with a Republican friend of mine, Senator Young, we worked on a bill together because we both recognized with seniors that generation, baby boomers, a generation ahead of me, I was about to say ahead of us, but you're technically a millennial.

Chris Murphy (06:44:45):

That's right.

Senator Cory Booker (06:44:46):

You're a millennial. I'm an Xer. But the generation ahead of me is so big that we're seeing this massive group of Americans soon to be retiring. And lots of people recognize it and calling it the great retirement crisis. Not because Social Security checks won't be there.

(06:45:04)
You were asking me, Cory, what's the great vision for they're going to be there? But because just the reality of that the Social Security checks themselves are so meager and many other people don't have jobs where they have 401(k)s and the like.

(06:45:18)
And so, Senator Young, again, this is not a partisan speech. Later, I'll be quoting from the Cato Institute, the Wall Street Journal editorial, lots of conservatives who point to this not being a normal time in America, this being a crisis moment in America, not just people on my side of the aisle, but Republican governors, Republican thought leaders. A lot of folks are saying that there's a real crisis in our country being caused by the current president who in 71 days, most people can't say yes, most people say no to the question, are you better off than you were 71 days ago?

(06:45:51)
And so, I want to answer your question by saying this. Everyone should retire with a secure Social Security. I believe there's ways to secure the programs by asking the wealthiest people who pay the smallest percentage of their income into Social Security, while people like the names I'm reading are often paying the most, but the wealthiest people paying a little bit more in Social Security taxes-

Senator Cory Booker (06:46:11):

On their income minuscule that, as you said, with the gravity of the wealth that's being created in this country, which is again something that I'm not against in terms of just people being successful, but this idea that we have a system that creates a fair, secure retirement, that's one thing that we can do. I think also one of these things that we should be talking about right now is, how do we make the Social Security system not frustrating for people who complain before Donald Trump laid off tens of thousands of people with Musk, who complained about wait times and other things? There's ways we can improve Social Security services as well.

(06:46:49)
So I think we can do things to secure Social Security in the long term with a simple fix. Not by raising the retirement age for people who are struggling, but by doing things, by simply saying, you know what? Social Security taxes already are regressive because they cap out at a certain amount. Maybe skip some of the people in the middle, under $400,000 or $500,000 a year, make people who are the wealthiest in our country pay a little bit more. That would be my vision. A very small amount would create a secure system. I think we can also do a lot to improve the Social Security services. And then what I did with Senator Young, this is what's special about this place when it happens, is for people to reimagine what economic security could be about.

(06:47:31)
I'm now very quietly, I think I've told you about this, have this great idea that I've been talking about for years called Baby Bonds or that every child born in America, and this is not a new idea. We actually scraped it from people years and years ago on both sides of the aisle in here had this idea that why not in a capitalist society that every child be born with a savings account? Excuse me, a growth account. That government seeds it with some money and their entire lives, people can contribute into that tax-free and it can grow. And so that by the time, not retirement, by the time they're 20, 25, 30, they have thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars to invest in things that create wealth.

(06:48:12)
Because right now, lots of people are working paycheck to paycheck and don't have stock accounts, don't have the kind of things that could actually produce a lot more wealth. I'm just throwing that out as one idea, Andy. And I'm going to pause because I know you have another question and I'm going to yield to the question while retaining the floor, but I just want to say there are so many bipartisan ideas to deal with wealth inequality. The child tax credit, that was unfortunately not made permanent, cut child poverty America in half. It worked for an entire year. And I remember some of my colleagues from Marco Rubio to Mitt Romney talking about, "Hey, we should be expanding the child tax credit." We should be having a bolder vision for American retirement security, for wealth creation, for economic security. But we're not talking about those bold ideas.

(06:49:03)
We have a president who's come in and one of the first things he's done in 71 days is insinuate fear and insecurity about Social Security by threatening it, by telling lies about it and by having somebody like Elon Musk calling it a Ponzi scheme, and that's why we get fear. And then they take a hatchet to the actual agency that undermines its ability to deliver service in a good way.

Senator Andy Kim (06:49:32):

Will the Senator yield?

Senator Cory Booker (06:49:33):

I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Senator Andy Kim (06:49:35):

Yeah. What you raised is absolutely right and it's front and center in everyone's minds. When my parents immigrated here 50 years ago, they didn't know anybody in the entire western hemisphere of planet Earth. But America, it called them. It inspired them. And I asked them once, "What was it that drew you here?" And they said that they felt that here in America they could guarantee that the family that they raised, that their kids, me and my sister, would have a better life and more opportunities than they did. And that was that sense, that generational progress that is made. But now, I'm standing here with a seven-year-old and nine-year-old, I'm hoping fast asleep right now, and I don't know if I can make that same promise to them right now, that I could guarantee them that they will have a better life and more opportunities.

(06:50:30)
So there is that growing cynicism and pessimism about that American promise I talk to you about and I just feel like there's an unraveling happening here where we see this sense of concern and it's being weaponized by some to create that sense of zero-sum, to push us away from this idea that we're part of something bigger than all of us and that we can all lift each other up in that great American project. And it's sad because as we're getting to that 250th anniversary. It should be a time when we rededicate ourselves to the American project, right? Like recommit ourselves to what the next 250 years would be. But we're entering it now with this sense of pessimism on that front. So I guess my question to you here is, how do we break out of that tailspin on that front?

Senator Cory Booker (06:51:44):

Andy, you got me really excited. You've seen me pacing back here, because I love that you're a millennial. I'm an X generation. I love the baby boomers, but they're quickly leaving Congress. This is the last baby boomer president we will ever have. I'm confident of that. And the new generations are coming forward to lead in America. And it is time that we dream America anew. It really is. It is time that we revive and redeem the dream. I just am one of these people that thinks, okay guys, we have some of the brightest minds on the planet earth. Some of our founding fathers said we need a little revolution every once in a while. We need new thoughts and new ideas and new visions that excite and energize people, that take a lot of the old divisions in our country and erase them and remind people we have common cause and common purpose. And I want to get people excited again about the American dream.

(06:52:35)
I want to renew the dream, redeem the dream. We can do that. I'm so excited about it. And financial security, it is absurd that we don't have the greatest plan to create wealth, not for the favored few simply. Again, the top quartile in America has crushed it the last 25 years. Heck, under Obama alone, the stock market doubled. But most Americans don't own stocks. So people who are sitting on passive wealth were able to grow and grow and grow and grow, while working Americans saw their prices going up, housing becoming unaffordable, and the idea of the American dream under assault. And it ticks me off that other countries are trying to out-America us. They're trying to take our secret sauce that we seem to be turning our back on. Affordable higher education, apprenticeship programs. Some of our European competitors, job disappears at 40, you can go right into a apprenticeship program where you can earn and learn and end up in a career that gives you not just success but you thrive in.

(06:53:34)
There is no idea that we can't conceive as a country. This is an idea and a time that I just think that we need to start being bold again in our visions for collective prosperity, for everyone to thrive. Not just the favored few, but the many. And I'm telling you, those ideas are out there, whether it's baby bonds, a child tax credit, investing in science and research. There's so many things. But you are, can I say this to you affectionately. You are a nerd. As am I. We're two guys that love to read, that love American history. We're two guys that this body, go back a century, they never imagined that we'd be here. Okay?

(06:54:12)
And one of my favorite speeches of all time was when Daniel Webster got on Bunker Hill and he delivered the speech. I'm going to read the introduction to it. "To commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Revolutionary War battle at Bunker Hill in which the outnumbered colonists inflicted such heavy losses on the mighty British forces attempting to evade." I love one of the quotes, I can't remember it exactly, but the general, the person that was leading the British attack wrote in their diary or wrote back to the king, "We won the battle, but a few more victories like this, we're going to lose the continent." That's how great these people were. And this is what I want you to know. It's a new generation, right? Those leaders are no longer around. I read this and I get excited about the possibilities for our generation, the new leaders that are emerging in America that have to. It is their obligation not to let the dream die, to redeem the dream.

(06:55:09)
And so here it is. I'm just dying to read this to you. Here it is, Andy. I don't want to read too much of it to you. Okay, here we go. "If in our case, the representative system is ultimately a fail, this idea of a democratic government, popular governments must be pronounced impossible." He's saying that we have the obligation to make a more perfect union. "No combination of circumstance is more favorable to this experiment can ever be expected to [inaudible 00:09:46]. The last hopes of mankind, therefore, rest with us. Can we make this democratic experiment work? And it should be proclaimed that our example had become an argument for the experiment. The principle of free government adheres to this American soil. It is bedded in this soil. It's as immovable as this nation's mountains. And let the sacred obligations," this is the part Andy, Senator Kim, "And let the sacred obligations which have devolved on us, this generation and on us sink into our hearts, the sacred obligations. Those are daily dropping from among us who established our liberty and our government. The generation that established this nation are now dying."

(06:56:35)
"The great trust now descends to our hands. Let us apply ourselves to which is presented to us as appropriate object. We can win no laurels in our generation in a war for independence. Earlier and worthier hands gathered all of those laurels. Nor are there places for us by the side of Salon and Alfred and other founders of our state. Our fathers have filled them, but there remains to us a great duty of defense and preservation. And there is open to us also that noble pursuit to which the spirit of the times strongly invites us. Our proper business is improvement. Let ours be the age of improvement. In a day of peace, let us advance the arts of peace and the works of peace. Let us develop the resources of our lands, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its greatness, and see whether we also in our day and generation may not perform something worthy to be remembered."

(06:57:33)
"Let us cultivate a true spirit of union and harmony in pursuing the great objects which our condition points out to us. Let us act under a settled conviction, and an habitual feeling that these 24 states are one country. Let our conceptions be enlarged to the circle of our duties. Let us extend our ideas over the whole and vast field in which we are called to act. Let our object be our country, our whole country, and by the blessings of God, may that country itself become a vast and splendid monument, not of oppression and terror, but of wisdom, peace and liberty upon which the world may gaze with admiration forever." That's a bold vision. This bold vision that doesn't give up on America, doesn't surrender to cynicism about America. That's who you are, Andy Kim. And that's what gets me excited.

(06:58:33)
Right now, we're fighting against what I think are tyrannical forces. I'm sorry that when a leader stands up, not with humility like George Washington's farewell address or some of the great founders in their inaugural addresses, but stands up and says, "Only I can solve these problems," who doesn't use his speeches to heal and to comfort, but to talk about the enemies he's going to pursue, and those enemies are not the adversaries who seek to destroy us. Those enemies are other Americans. And to create an environment where our seniors who should be retiring in security are fearful that their Social Security or their Medicaid or their Medicare is going to be under threat, that's insidious to me. This is a un-normal time. This is why I'm standing here. But you, my friend, my partner in the Senate, God, this partnership, I'm so excited about the future. I'm so excited about the promise. Let us fend off all attempts to cut Social Security and Social Security services.

(06:59:30)
Let us fend off all attempts to cut Medicaid and Medicare and CHIPS and all the other things that we rely on. But let us also not forget that our obligation is not to defend what it is, but to have a vision for what can become. We now, when so many people are giving up on the American dream, on the idea of America, on what you said so wonderfully, that my children will do better than me, that basic bedrock that our children generation after generation will do better and better and better, it's time to redeem the dream and dream America anew with bold visions. Not how we will just help people survive in retirement, but visions of how we all can thrive in this great nation that has enough resource and enough abundance, abundance to provide for everyone's hopes and dreams.

Senator Andy Kim (07:00:21):

Thank you so much. Keep up your energy. I yield back.

Senator Cory Booker (07:00:25):

Thank you. You're giving me energy. I'm sourcing myself from you. Now, I don't want to just cast aspersions on… And we are saying things that I just want to back up in fact. All those letters from seniors. I see my dear friend from Pennsylvania is now the presiding officer. You missed all the letters I read from Pennsylvania. All those letters where people were using the word Ponzi scheme. Where did that come from? I just want to read. The Joe Rogan Experience. I actually like and enjoy listening to Joe Rogan.

(07:01:02)
Elon: "Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time." Now that's a big statement. "The biggest Ponzi scheme of all time," Elon says. And Joe Rogan says, " Why? Explain that." "Oh," Elon says, "So well, people pay into Social Security and the money goes out of Social Security immediately, but the obligation for Social Security is your entire retirement career. So you're paying with your…" And I'm reading this verbatim, "You're paying with you're, the kind of people you're paying, like if you look at the future obligations of Social Security, it far exceeds the tax revenue, far… If you've looked at the debt clock…" Rogan says, "Yes?" "Okay, there's, there's, there's…" Three there's. I'm reading it verbatim. "Our present-day debt, but then there's our future obligations."

(07:01:52)
"So when you look at the future obligations of Social Security, the actual national debt is double what people think it is because of the future obligations." Rogan, "Uh…" Elon, "So basically people are living way longer than expected." That was the evidence of a Ponzi scheme. Now, let's correct something. The reason why we have a massive debt in America, lots of people should take ownership over it, but the biggest debt creator in the last, say, 25, 30 years is the President of the United States. Current one. In his first term, by blowing massive holes in our deficits to give tax cuts that went way disproportionately to the wealthiest Americans and corporations, and he wants to renew those tax cuts that independent budget folks are saying could add trillions of dollars to our national deficit.

(07:02:45)
So if he's talking about the debt clock or whatever he was talking about, he's a part of administration, even though he's unelected and not approved by Congress and whatever, he and his president, the richest man in the world and the most powerful man in the world together, they're driving an agenda that's going to drive this deficit much bigger and they're going to try to pay for some of it. Not all of it, because it's trillions of dollars of projected debt. They're going to try to pay for some of it by cutting NIH grants, by cutting Medicaid, by cutting staff at Social Security. So no, Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. People paid into it, and as Andy Kim and I just talked, there are ways to preserve it, strengthen it, make it better.

(07:03:33)
It's a program that pays benefits after a lifetime of work. It's never missed a payment. It's never run out of money. It's an insurance program, but don't take my word for it. Here is Current Affairs magazine editor Nathan Robinson writing on March 7th. "Why Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme." That's a great title. "Old age insurance is not a scam and it's not destined to collapse. Proponents of privatizing or eliminating Social Security are constantly telling lies about it." So here's the article. "Elon Musk has called Social Security a Ponzi scheme, comparing it to a scam in which a con man must keep finding new suckers in order to disguise the financial unsustainability of the enterprise. The term has also been used by libertarian commentators as reasons in the Hoover Institute, who try to convince people that the program is fundamentally broken and unsustainable because both Social Security and Ponzi schemes take money in the form of new contributions which they pay to old ones."

(07:04:35)
"It is easy to craft a superficial resemblance between the two, but Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme, and it's important to understand why. Because the comparison is used to generate the illusion of Social Security crisis that can be used to justify major benefit cuts or even the elimination of the program altogether. Under the Ponzi scheme, differences between old age insurance and Ponzi schemes, we can train ourselves mentally to resist the propaganda that is used to try to convince the public to support undermining one of our most important social welfare programs. Let's think about a few different cases in which money is pulled and paid out. First, let's imagine a company has a pension scheme. I realize this may be difficult to imagine it these days, but stick with me for a minute. Workers pay 5% of their income. The employer pays in an equivalent amount to 50% of the worker's income."

(07:05:27)
"When the worker is retired, they get a fixed benefit every year for the rest of their life equivalent to some percentage of what their salary was. Let's call that scenario A. Now let's imagine a different scenario. Five uncommonly astute middle schoolers create a rudimentary insurance scheme to guard against being punished by their parents. The children all go to the mall every week and play arcade games together. They each get an allowance of $10 a week, which they spend at the arcade. What they decide to do is to spend $9 each week instead and put $1 a week into a fund. If one of them has their allowance taken away by their parents, the fund will pay the arcade money for the week. That way nobody in the friend group is ever deprived of this ability to go to the arcade. We're going to call that scenario B."

(07:06:11)
"Finally, let us imagine a scenario in which a fraudster tricks a group of old people into giving them their money. He says that if they invest their retirement money with him, he can guarantee them a 20% year return risk-free. They invest. He provides them with statements showing that their money indeed is growing at 20% a year. When they ask him to pull a portion of their money out so they can spend it, he disperses it. But what he actually is doing is spending all their money and providing fake statements. He's able to keep paying withdrawals because he's constantly recruiting new suckers just enough to cover what people are withdrawing. Eventually people get suspicious. Too many try to withdraw their money at once and he flees the country. This is a Ponzi scheme named after the Italian con man, Charles Ponzi, who fleeced people in this way."

(07:06:56)
"We will call this Ponzi scheme scenario C. notice that there are similarities and differences between the three scenarios. The similarity is that there is a fund that some people are paying into while others are being paid. Another similarity is that all three are potentially unstable. In scenario A, company pension, employee starts living a very long time. In retirement, the amount of money in the pension fund might not be able to cover the promised benefits necessitating an adjustment of the contributions from the next generation of workers. Or if in scenario B, middle school arcade insurance, one of the kids might be so unruly that his parents are spending his allowance every other week requiring adjustments of the rules of the payouts or contributions to keep the funds stable. Scenario C, the Ponzi scheme is the most unstable of all because it depends on elaborate fraud, on fake accounting that disguises the fact that nobody has the amount of money that they are being told they have."

(07:07:49)
"It only lasts until people try to actually use the money. But scenarios A and B could also collapse if they're not managed well. We can see that despite the commonalities, there are fundamental differences between scenarios, A, B, and scenario C. The first two are legitimate ways for people to pool and distribute money, and they can work just fine accomplishing their intended purpose. The third is a fraud in which people's money is being stolen. The difference is more important than the similarities. I have laboriously laid out these examples in hopes that we can better understand why Social Security can be made to look like a Ponzi scheme, but it isn't one at all. 'Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme of all times,' said Musk. 'People pay into Social Security and the money goes out of Social Security immediately, but the obligation for Social Security is your entire retirement career.'"

(07:08:39)
"Now, it's true that in an insurance system, the incoming payments from new people might be used to fund outgoing payments to people who are already part of a Ponzi scheme, but that's not what makes a Ponzi scheme a Ponzi scheme. Musk, not for the first time, doesn't know what he's talking about. One of the reasons Social Security can be made to seem like a Ponzi scheme is because people may misunderstand how it works. People might think that Social Security saves their money over time and then when they retire, it pays their money back. Not quite how it works. It's not like a savings account. The money I pay in is not saved up for me. It's paid out to today's beneficiaries. When I retire, my benefits will be paid by the incoming next generation of workers. Discovering this fact can make people think that Social Security is Ponzi scheme, but it's not."

(07:09:27)
"A Ponzi scheme is a fraud in which returns are fake. There is nothing fake about Social Security as long as enough money is in the pool to pay out beneficiaries. The operation is sustainable and perfectly honest. The only reason it matters that retirees do not pay for their own benefits but depend on the payments of the next generation of workers is that if there isn't a next generation of workers, we got a problem. But unfortunately, there is every reason to believe that human beings will continue to exist, work and pay Social Security taxes."

(07:10:03)
"Now, what Musk and others who claim Social Security is a scam or in crisis say is that in the future there will be not enough workers to pay retirees the promised benefits. Musk says, and I quote, 'If you look at the future obligations of Social Security as far extends the tax revenue, there's our present-day debt, but then there's our future obligations. So when you look at the future obligations of Social Security, the actual national debt is double what people think it is because the future obligations. Basically, people are living way longer than expected and there are fewer babies being born. So you have many people who are retired that live for a long time and get retirement payments. However bad the financial situation is right now for the federal government, it'll be much worse in the future.'"

(07:10:44)
"But what he's trying to get you to think, this is a major problem or some deep fundamental flaw with Social Security, it isn't. Every insurance plan has to make adjustments over time. If there are a lot of wildfires burning down houses, a company selling fire insurance might have to raise premiums. The increased premiums might be small, but without them, the program would go bankrupt. This doesn't mean, however, that we'd be justified in saying fire insurance plans are a Ponzi scheme destined to go bankrupt. The adjustments needed to be made to Social Security in the long-term are minor. Yes, people are living longer and having fewer babies. That means that there ultimately has to be some kind of adjustment to either how much is being paid in, how much is being paid out, or both. Republicans want to cut benefits. Defenders of Social Security instead want to raise the money going into it by increasing taxes paid by the wealthy."

(07:11:43)
So interesting that we just saw that in the dialogue with my ideas with Andy Kim. "The amount of taxes that would need to be raised in order to make Social Security solvent is negligible. The Social Security Administration has estimated that increased in the combined payroll tax from 12.4% to 14.4% to make the program would make the program sustainable for the next 75 years. As Dean Baker and Mark Westbrot put it in the introduction to 1999's Social Security book entitled The Phony Crisis, the only real threat to Social Security comes not from any fiscal or demographic constraints, but from the political assaults on the program by would-be reformers. If not for these attacks, the probability that Social Security will not be there when anyone who is alive today retires would be about the same as the odds that the US government will not be there."

(07:12:35)
"Of course, in the next 25 years since that was written, the chances that the US government itself may someday not be there conceivably have gone up." This is a funny author. "Musk is certainly trying to make sure that little of it remains as possible. But the point remains, the theory behind Social Security is sound. It is not like an unsustainable con, although it's also not like a savings account. It can easily be sustained indefinitely with some minor adjustments to ensure that enough money is coming in to keep it going. It is also the case that even the need to keep enough money flowing in is artificial. As Stephanie Kelton explained, the restrictions on Social Security's ability to pay out are created by a legal choice, not an actual financial constraint facing the US government, which could keep paying benefits even when Social Security's funding 'runs out' if it was authorized by Congress to do so."

(07:13:33)
"Beware the rhetoric of those who describe it as in 'crisis or being a scam.' They either do not understand the fundamentals of how it works or they have deliberately tried to deceive you. I cannot say for certain whether Musk is knowledgeable enough to understand the basics and is lying or simply cannot wrap his head around the basic way an old age insurance program works." The author continues. "As Alex Larson of Social Security Works explained to me, the right has been trying to destroy Social Security since its inception. This is for a few reasons. First, a lot of vultures stand to benefit from privatization, just as the privatized Medicare Advantage program has enriched insurers like UnitedHealth. Second, the right believes that individuals should be responsible for their own fates. Has an ideological opposition to government social welfare programs, even if this results in a bunch of old people being poor."

(07:14:25)
"They see Social Security as an offensive, big government intrusion into the free market, something that compels people to put money into a retirement program whether they want to or not. The problem is that most of the public doesn't share this hatred for the concept behind Social Security, and the program is overwhelmingly popular on both sides of the political aisle because they have failed to win the ideological argument. The right must therefore convince the public of a different argument. That the program is collapsing and doomed and can only be saved through major benefit cuts, which will be stated as a euphemism of raising the retirement age. Hence, the propaganda about unsustainability and Ponzi schemes. This can be effective if you don't know much about how Social Security works. It's easy to be convinced that there's something fishy about its payment structure or that it's heading for some dire financial apocalypse, but this is not the case."

(07:15:22)
"Baker and Westbrot are right that the threats to Social Security come from those who say they're trying to save it from a crisis. We need to have a clear understanding of what's going on so we can fight to save the program that works just fine and can easily be made to continue providing retirement benefits to every subsequent generation of Americans, ideally ensuring that nobody has to endure old age poverty." And so why are they cutting Social Security staff? Thousands of people? Again, I've said this time and time again. I'm standing here because this is not a usual time. I think our country is facing a growing crisis. But I am quoting so many Republicans because a

Senator Cory Booker (07:16:12):

A lot of us who've run stuff know that you don't just fire people and then realize the mistakes you've made and beg them to come back to work. They know that you don't just fire people that do essential functions in a program before you've even done assessments of what your goals and ambitions are for social security. It's clear that their goals and ambition isn't the best customer service to improve the complaints that I've heard over the years about waits, unreturned calls, challenges at Social Security offices. That's not their ambition.

(07:16:52)
We've missed a big opportunity to come together in this nation and start to really reimagine our government that works for people, that can do big things, that can serve folks, and instead, we are trying to demonize people. We're trying to lie about critical programs, call it a Ponzi scheme, make up out of thin air that somehow we're paying thousands of people that are over 150 years old, fraudulently. We're better than that. To that point, I just want to again, make my facts clear.

(07:17:38)
Here's an Associated Press fact check from the President's speech, "Tens of millions of dead people aren't getting social security checks, despite Trump and Musk's claims. The Trump administration is falsely claiming that tens of millions of dead people over 100 years old are receiving social security payments. Over the past few days, President Donald Trump and billionaire advisor Elon Musk have said on social media and in press briefings that people who are 100, 200, or even 300 years old are properly getting benefits. 'A huge problem,' Musk wrote, as his Department of Government of Efficiency digs into the federal agencies to root out waste fraud to allegedly root out phrase fraud and abuse." It is true that improper payments have been made, including to some dead people, but the numbers thrown out by Musk and the White House are way overstated and misrepresent Social Security data.

(07:18:26)
Here are the facts. What has the Trump administration said about payments to centenarians? On Tuesday, Trump said in a press briefing in Florida that we have millions and millions of people over 100 years old receiving social security benefits. 'They're obviously fraudulent or incompetent,' Trump said. 'If you take all those millions of people off Social Security, all of a sudden we have a very powerful social security with people that are 80, 70, 90, but not 200 years old,' President Trump said. He also said that there's one person in the system listed as 360 years old last Monday. Musk posted a slew of posts on social media, including, 'Maybe Twilight is real, and there are a lot of vampires collecting Social security,' and, quote, 'Having tens of millions of people marked in Social Security as alive when they're definitely dead is a huge problem. Obviously, some of these people would have been alive before America existed as a country. Think about that for a second,' end quote.

(07:19:19)
On Wednesday, Social Security's new acting Commissioner Lee Dudek acknowledged recent reporting about the number of people older than 100 who may be receiving benefits from Social Security. He said, quote, 'The reported data are people in our records with a Social Security number who do not have a date of death associated with their record. These individuals are not necessarily receiving benefits.' Quote, 'I am confident that with DOGE's help and our commitment of our executive team and workforce that Social Security will continue to deliver for the American people,' Dudek said."

(07:19:50)
How big of a problem is Social Security fraud? A July, 2024 report from the Social Securities Inspector General states that, "From fiscal years 2015 through 2022, the agency paid out almost 8.6 trillion in benefits, including 71.8 billion or less than 1% in improper payments. Most of those erroneous payments were overpayments to living people. In addition, in January, the US Treasury clawed back more than 31 million in a variety of federal payments, not just social security payments, that improperly went to dead people. A recovery that former treasury official David Lebryk said was just the tip of the iceberg. The money was reclaimed as part of a five month pilot program after Congress gave the Department of Treasury temporary access to the Social Security Administration's full death master filed for three years as part of the omnibus appropriation bill in 2021.

(07:20:46)
The Social Security Administration maintains the most complete database of individuals who have died, and the file contains more than 142 million records, which go back to 1989. Treasury estimated in January that it would recover more than 215 million during his three-year access period, which runs from December, 2023 through 2026." So are tens of millions of people over a hundred years old receiving benefits? No. No, no. But the letters I read from scared people across the country show what happens when a president lies. When his unelected, biggest campaign contributor, richest man in the world just continue to make public statements to insinuate fear and doubt and chaos, and then make announcements that they have to take back, that they're going to end the call in service, which so many seniors rely on.

(07:21:50)
Then they create more fear when people see that posted government buildings that are to be sold at auction to the private sector are actually the addresses of their Social Security offices. Why, everywhere I'm going around my state, everywhere I have gone around the country in the last few weeks, and my mom and her mostly Republican senior community are all up in arms and feel this fear. Or the people that we read about who write letters about losing sleep. It's because of the chaos, the crass cruelty, the unjustified cuts and attacks on a program that is the bedrock between security and financial ruin for so many Americans. Here's a Wall Street Journal writing about this. How Trump and Musk are undermining social security. "Dealing with Social Security," Wall Street Journal writes, "is heading from bad to worse. The agency administers benefits is cutting staff and restricting services as part of the Department of Government Efficiency's review." The Wall Street Journal writes, "The federal agency that administer Social Security benefits is facing a customer service mess. The Social Security Administration is cutting staff, restricting what recipients can do over the phone and closing some local field offices that help people in person. The number of retirees claiming benefits has risen in recent eight years as Boomers age.

(07:23:30)
Few federal agencies reach as far into American's lives as Social Security, which delivers a monthly check to some 70 million people. Many of those people now fear that the changes, part of President Trump's powerful overhaul of the federal government through the Department of Government Efficiencies, are eroding confidence in the nearly 90-year-old program." The Wall Street Journal continues. "Agency officials have acknowledged that because of planned reduction in services over the phone, there will be longer wait and processing times. An estimated 75,000 to 85,000 additional visitors a week could show up at local field offices, according to an internal memo sent by Doris Diaz, the acting deputy commissioner for operations. Details of the memo, which were reviewed by the Wall Street Journal, were reported earlier by the Washington Post.

(07:24:21)
This is likely to tax the agency's 800 number, where people typically make appointments for office visits. Already, Social Security recipients have complained about customer service. Holly Lawrence made several unsuccessful attempts to reach a human before she filed her Social Security claim. Holly Lawrence, 64-year-old, made several unsuccessful attempts to reach a human before she filed her Social Security claim online. The Washington DC based freelance journalist said she called the agency's 800 number several times starting in February. Each time, she got an automated voice that warned of a two-hour wait on the phone. Her calls were disconnected before she could leave a message or request a call back.

(07:25:03)
She gave up trying to reach a customer service agent and created an online account on the agency's website on March 3rd. She had to wait two weeks for an account activation code to arrive in the mail before she could submit her claim. She's still waiting for that claim to be reviewed and processed. Lawrence said she has virtually no retirement savings. 'I'm financially strapped and cannot afford to get a financial advisor. It was important for me to be able to talk to someone at Social Security,' she said.' [inaudible 00:39:24] that she's concerned that the customer service delays she encountered could negatively affect others who don't have the strength to persist."

(07:25:44)
Wall Street Journal continues. "Social Security has a reputation as the third rail of American politics, a benefit to which elected officials make cuts at their own risk, make cuts risking their reelection. Donald Trump has found not to cut benefits, but he and DOGE's leader, Elon Musk, have made unfounded claims of widespread fraud in the program." I'm going to repeat that sentence from the Wall Street Journal. "He and DOGE's leader, Elon Musk, have made unfounded claims of widespread fraud in the program." Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in a recent podcast interview that if social security checks were hypothetically delayed, it might catch those guilty of fraud because they would make the loudest noise, screaming, yelling and complaining.

(07:26:39)
Critics say turmoil at the agency is undermining trust in the safety net programs. "The killing those programs from the inside," said Illinois Governor Pritzker, "the result of which is we don't know what they are doing to tear down the scaffolding that holds Social Security together." DOGE has gained access to systems containing personal information, but a federal judge has temporarily blocked those efforts. On Friday, Leland Dudek, acting Social Security Commissioner threatened to shut down the agency because of the judge's order, but later reversed course. Dudek, the acting Commissioner said, "The changes are designed to make sure the right payment is to the right person at the right time. It's a common sense measure."

(07:27:29)
Even before DOGE's plans went into motion, the agency's customer service operation had shown signs of strain. Roughly 47% of the quarter million people who call Social Security's 800 number on an average day have gotten through to a representative this year. Only 47% got through to a rep. This is down from nearly 60% in 2024. The average time to wait for a callback is over two hours. There has been a steady decline in the agency staff and DOGE plans to cut employment by another 12%. That would bring the total number of employees to about 50,000 from about 57,000 today and nearly 68,000 in 2010. "Customer service has been going downhill for years," said Bill Sweeney, senior vice president at AARP. "It's going to get worse."

(07:28:25)
"Some Social Security Administration changes amounts to cuts and services." Wall Street Journal continues, 'Starting March 31st, people who want to file for retirement, survivor or disability benefits, or change their direct deposit information can no longer complete the process by phone,' the agency said Tuesday. 'Instead, they must do so online or at a field office.' The agency said it's stopping phone calls as part of an effort to reduce fraud and strengthen identity proofing procedures. So Social Security Agency has estimated that improper payments represent 0.3% of total benefits. Dudek to acknowledged that recent changes including the shift away from claiming on the phone are likely to drive up the numbers, making appointments at field offices over the next 60 days.

(07:29:15)
He said field employees would be trained over the next two weeks to respond to the changes. 'We're going to adjust our policy and procedures to adapt to the volume,' he said. 'These changes are not intended to hurt our customers.' Dudek said in the call Monday with advocates that the phone service policy change and quick timeline were directed by the White House, according to people familiar with the call. Directed by the White House. Kathleen Romig, director of Social Security and Disability policy at the Center on Budget and Policies Priorities says, 'It isn't clear why the agency chose to discontinue identity verification over the phone while allowing it online and in person.' She says, 'Other advocates say that by discontinuing the phone option, the agency is creating hurdles for those who lack internet service or live far away from the field office.'.

(07:30:04)
'The agency has also largely stopped serving walk-in customers in field offices,' said Maria Freese, senior legislative representative at the Nonprofit National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. 'Most waiting in person must book appointments on the 800 number.' In February, 45% of people who schedule a phone or in-person appointment to file a claim got one within 28 days. DOGE plans to close nearly 50 of the agency's approximately 1200 field offices, according to Social Security works. Although spokesman for the nonprofit said some of the offices on the list don't seem to exist. The chairman and CEO of [inaudible 00:44:36] has been picked by Trump to serve as Social Securities Commissioner and will appear before the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday."

(07:30:54)
I mean, this is the Wall Street Journal pointing out utter incompetence. Utter incompetence. And they're rolling back trying to catch up, but they don't seem to care and the way they're going about this, they're hurting seniors. They're undermining the security of the program. The title of the Wall Street Journal's article is the best, it's Social Security Services Are Now Going From Bad to Worse, under this leadership who promised they were going to serve people. I see the senator standing and I'll yield for a question while [inaudible 00:45:21] the floor if he has one.

Senator Andy Kim (07:31:34):

Senator Booker, I'm going to pose to you a pretty simple question here, but first let me lay down a little bit of a predicate. We've heard already some talk tonight about this extraordinary statement, but not terribly surprising from the Secretary of Commerce. This is a close friend of the president, somebody who's very close to all the decisions being made in the White House where he said that if a Social Security recipient misses their check for a month, then they should not complain. " My mother-in-law wouldn't complain." That's easy for him to say.

(07:32:17)
Maybe you wouldn't complain if your son-in-law was a billionaire. You probably are not going to be harmed by missing a Social Security check if you've got a billionaire in the family. But 99.99% of Americans do not have a billionaire that they can get on the phone if they miss a month, and one month's Social Security check disappearing is a cataclysm for a lot of families. As I was listening to you, I just did a little bit of easy back of the napkin math. So the average Social Security check on a monthly basis in this country, it's somewhere around $2,000. Obviously, it varies based upon how much money you put in and what your income was, but on average it's about $2,000.

(07:33:01)
Now, some Americans have supplemental retirement income, but fewer and fewer do today because it's just not the case any longer that employers are going to provide for you a defined benefit plan. So if you were working minimum wage your entire life, or if you were working a low wage job, you're not going to have money to put away in Social Security. I remember during one of my walks across the state of Connecticut, spending about a half an hour walking with an elderly gentleman in Willimantic, Connecticut, and he told me a story that is not atypical. He worked his entire life, most of his adult life, he worked for Walmart. He was really proud of working for Walmart. He helped a whole bunch of people in his community.

(07:33:49)
He was working for a great American company, a company he was proud of. He was helping people every single day that lived in his neighborhood get what they needed when they came into the store. But you know the wage he was making at Walmart, he was making very little and they didn't have any defined benefit plan. They would let him save a little bit of money if he could find the means, but he couldn't because every single dime that he made from Walmart had to go to rent and groceries and medicine and cell phone bill and transportation. And so he worked for 20 years at Walmart and when he retired, you know how much he had in savings? Zero. Zero.

(07:34:33)
And he felt like he had done everything people had asked him for. He worked for a great American company, he helped people. He worked full time. He didn't miss time, he didn't goof around. And when he retired, he had nothing, nothing saved. So the Social Security check, which to him was probably about $2,000 a month, was everything he had. And he's walking with me explaining to me what his life is like today. He was coming out of the liquor store and that was one of the things he did every day was go down to the liquor store and buy a nip or two and just pass a couple hours.

(07:35:13)
He didn't like to spend a lot of time in his house because he has roommates. He lives in a small apartment with two other guys, strangers. He doesn't know them. And he says to me as we're walking, "This is not how I expected my life to go. I thought if I worked my entire life and I played by the rules and I worked hard, that'd have a little bit more dignified retirement than this. I share a room with two other guys that I don't know." And that's the reality for a lot of Americans. That's the reality for a lot of retirees. $2,000 is the average social security check.

(07:35:59)
I don't know why I picked Tallahassee, but I just picked Tallahassee. I said, what's the average one bedroom rent in Tallahassee? It's $1,200. Utilities, probably another couple hundred dollars. The average senior citizen spends about $500 a month on food. Rent, utilities, food, that's it. That's your $2,000. You got nothing left. If you are one of the 7 million Americans who rely only on Social Security like my friend from Willimantic, you got nothing left for medicine, for transportation. You have nothing left for a cell phone. You have nothing left to go to the movies once a month. You have nothing left for presents for your grandkids for Christmas or for their birthday. If you're relying on Social Security, and many people who work their entire life are, you go without that check for one month, your whole life falls apart.

(07:37:02)
And so this just cavalierness that Musk and Trump have about Social Security, that the billionaires that advise them have about social security, "Don't worry about it," if you miss a check for a month or two months. You're a fraudster. You're trying to defraud the government if you complain about missing a Social Security check. It is so disconnected from reality. I know we're going to talk later today about the plans to shut down the Department of Education. It shows this similar disdain for public education, the way that they are showing a disdain for working Americans who are relying on social Security as their primary means of retirement income. The disdain for the 40 million working Americans who rely on Medicaid.

(07:37:56)
And it's not hard to understand why. Because if you're a billionaire, if you're Elon Musk, if you're Donald Trump, you don't have to rely on the public school system. Your kids go to fancy private schools. You will never need to rely on Medicaid. You have lived fortunate lives. In Donald Trump's case, because he was born into wealth. You'll get a Social Security check, but that's not going to be your primary retirement. And so you can understand, if you put a bunch of billionaires in charge of the government who don't lead lives that are remotely connected to how average people live, they will say things like, Social Security is just some big Ponzi scheme, and that's the big one to eliminate." Or, "You know what? America will be all right if we impose $880 billion of cuts to the insurance program for 24% of Americans." Or, "Let's shut down the Department of Education because, I don't know, public education doesn't matter to me." So I think it's just the reality that we're living in today in which we have people who are making these decisions who just don't understand how normal people's lives work. And in particular, how a person's life falls apart if they have any diminution in their Social Security income when the average check is $2,000 a month, and the average expenses in most cities for a senior citizen who relies on social security is going to be far higher than $2,000 a month.

(07:39:33)
Here's my question for you. You laid out what's going on in Social Security today. It's like the opposite of efficiency, right? It's called the Department of Government Efficiency. And what we know for certain in the Social Security system is that everything they're doing has the intent of making the system less efficient, right? You don't just close dozens of offices and shut down the phone system to make the system more efficient. You do that to make the system less efficient. And so I'm trying to figure out why. I'm trying to figure out why. And I'll give you two theories and then let you tell me if you think I'm right or I'm wrong.

(07:40:21)
It could be a pretext to eradicate the whole system. What did they say about USAID? They said that USAID was a corrupt enterprise. It was corrupt. No evidence of corruption in USAID. No evidence of corruption, no allegations of specific corruptions, but they just made these accusations that USAID was criminal. Musk and Trump said this, "It's a criminal enterprise, it's a corrupt enterprise," and that became their justification to eliminate it. Within weeks, USAID, one of the most important vehicles of US national security was gone, was gone. They didn't run on that. Nobody saw that coming. It was two weeks of allegations about criminality and corruption, and then USAID vanished and people were looking around, "What happened? They didn't tell us they were going to do that," and now it's gone.

(07:41:21)
They certainly didn't run on eliminating Social Security or cutting people's benefits. But boy, the playbook seems a little familiar here that all of a sudden there are these lies being told, lies being told. Let's say what it is about the corruption inside Social Security. As you said, the improper benefit payments are minuscule, right? 0.3% of overall payments. And so is this a pretext to ultimately make big cuts in Social Security? Or alternatively, is it just part of a plan to just sort of put the entire country on edge? To just make everybody wake up in the morning wondering whether they're next, right? "Is it my Medicaid benefit that's going to be cut? Is social security going to be there for me if I'm a federal employee? Is my job here next week?"

(07:42:28)
And is that a means of distracting you from the corruption and the thievery that's happening at the highest levels of government? Is that in service of an agenda to try to convert this country from democracy to something else? If everybody is just so focused on the next hit, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, my son losing his federal job. Is that a means to ultimately try to drive an agenda through the back door while people are looking at the threats coming at them through the front door? It's clearly not about efficiency. I mean, that's what we know. The changes they're making to Social Security are not about efficiency. The question is, what's the agenda here if it's not efficiency?

Senator Cory Booker (07:43:22):

Again, you and I, presiding officer, there's a lot of people here I know that operate from just a place of just decency. There are problems with government, we need to fix them. We need to make government more efficiency. We need to deal with the national debt. There's so many things that people on the right and the left in this country can agree on. You and I could agree that, God bless America, government can be a lot more efficient. But the question is is they're not playing on the level. There are lies about USAID, like, I don't know, 5 million condoms going to Gaza or something outrageous, and easily proven false time and time again.

(07:43:59)
A President of the United States, again, this doesn't shock people anymore, he's a president more than any other modern president, by independent fact-checkers has proven to lie over and over again. But as I sat there listening to his speech, and he just goes on and on about transgender mice, when that was proven to be utterly a lie. Or else somebody just misreading the kind of mice that are used in medical experiments, which have a similar word. So are they lying in order to attack these programs? DOGE is insidious in the fact that they keep posting things and then having to pull them down because just independent folks.

(07:44:41)
And I have article after article, we're so far behind in this agenda of things to get through, I'm not going to read them all. Some of them I'll submit to the record, but not people on the left calling them out for what they're doing and saying being a lie about Social Security. So you're pointing out a pattern. First, they tell terrible lies to try to whip up public sentiment against entities created in a bipartisan way, by the way, using congressional powers, approving spending, approving programs, approving agencies. Let's create incredible lies, magnify them on social media, try to spread them with our influencers and everybody.

(07:45:24)
So now people believe that somehow, "Oh, the president talked about all this money going to transgender mice." That's a lie, but we're going to use that as an excuse to attack scientific funding. We're going to use that as an excuse to attack Medicaid. We're going to use that excuse to pull the people fighting Ebola out of East Africa. And so I was told by a colleague, a Republican colleague of mine, "When you come here, don't try to get into the head of your colleague and understand what their motivations are." But this to me is a pattern in which they're trying to undermine public confidence. And the result of this pattern has seniors,

Senator Cory Booker (07:46:11):

Letter after letter I wrote using things like I'm losing sleep, I'm terrified, I'm scared, help me please, telling the most painful stories about retirement insecurity, about health challenges. And so again, I have this expectation, whether you're a Republican or a Democratic president, you don't insinuate fear amongst vulnerable communities. You don't insinuate fear amongst our elders who deserve our respect and deserve to retire with dignity. You don't do that. You stand boldly in front of them and say, you know what? There are some things we're going to improve. We're going to try to bring the best minds in America to make the best customer service because every independent group has been saying that customer service is failing.

(07:46:59)
And yeah, we want to go after fraud and abuse, but we're not going to do it. First thing we're going to do is fire the inspector generals who have a better record than Elon Musk has over this last decade in rooting out fraud and abuse under Democrat and Republican presidents. So it just doesn't add up. It's not on the level. And so before I allow you to ask the next question, what does this amount to, Senator Murphy? Ultimately what this amounts to is an attack on the programs, the healthcare, the services, the retirement security that millions of Americans rely on. And often for them what they're relying on is the difference between safety and security and chaos and destitution. I'm not exaggerating that. When somebody's Social Security check is the only income they have and they've already downsized, as you said, brought in roommates doing everything they can to cut costs because under this president costs are going up. This is why we have to stand and not let this happen.

Speaker 1 (07:48:04):

The gentleman yields?

Senator Cory Booker (07:48:05):

Yes, I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Senator Andy Kim (07:48:09):

So there's also a third agenda here. We were not necessarily both here at this time, but a few Republican administrations ago, there was an attempt to privatize Social Security, to take the corpus and move that money into the hands of the private sector for them to manage the money and, of course, charge a fee or a commission for the management of the money. The Social Security Trust Fund, if sort of fully handed over to investors on Wall Street, could make a lot of money for that industry. The American people rose up against that. It was stopped in its tracks, but that is still a priority for a lot of allies of the president, to get their hands on that money inside Social Security. And, again, I'm previewing a future conversation, but I keep on making the analogy to what is happening inside of the education space because those same industries, whether it be investment banks or private equity firms, get wide-eyed at our public education dollars as well, because they would love to get their hands on those public education dollars and have private equity companies running our elementary schools and middle schools and high schools and skimming a little bit of money off the top to pay back their investors.

(07:49:40)
And so the other potential agenda here is to attack the public administration of Social Security, attack the public administration of our public schools in order to shift that administration and the oversight of the investments, in the case of Social Security, to the private sector so that the president can hand those functions and that oversight to friends in the private sector. And once again, it just becomes a moneymaking vehicle for folks who already are doing very well instead of an exercise in just trying to promote good governance. Instead of the agenda simply being the education of our kids or the administration of a benefit program, it just becomes about making somebody else money. I pose that as a question to my friend because we saw this attempt to try to privatize Social Security, and you can certainly see at the end of this assault, this false assault, on the inefficiency of the public administration, the solution being to turn the program over to the private sector, the privatization of Social Security that many Republicans have wanted for a long time finally coming to fruition.

Senator Cory Booker (07:51:03):

So that's the problem, right, is that if you have an idea, bring it. Let's have a national debate. Let's bring in experts. Let's have a debate. The person you're talking about, Bush, who had that idea, he had the good sense to say, you know what? I'm not going to try to kill the agency. I'm not going to lay off thousands of their employees. I'm not going to drive the services it provides, make them worse to be called out by right-leaning newspapers and right-leaning writers. I'm actually going to bring my idea forward and let's have the debate in Congress. Let's bring people together. Let's hold the hearings. Let's have the conversation.

(07:51:39)
I can deal with that because, this is going to surprise you, Senator Murphy, is I've had conclusions about policy positions that I've changed over the years. When I've had a debate, I had a contest of ideas, people have persuaded me. But that's not the way Trump operates. He tried to kill healthcare without a plan. The powerful letter I read by John McCain about why he voted no is because it was first kill this thing that people rely on, don't worry, trust me, we'll figure it out later. That's what's happening with Medicaid right now. There's no conversation about how to better provide healthcare to the tens of millions of people that rely on Medicaid, from our seniors to expectant mothers to people with disabilities. No conversation. They're just sending people into dark rooms and saying, here's $880 billion I need. Find a way to cut it. Let's kill it, and then see what happens.

Senator Andy Kim (07:52:37):

Ready, fire, aim.

Senator Cory Booker (07:52:38):

Ready, fire, aim. Look, Senator Murphy, I prepared for so many days on this and we are talking about the point, so I'm going to submit… There's lots of articles here that I'm going to submit to the record. Without objection from the presiding officer, I'd like to submit Washington Post article about long waits, waves of calls, website crashes, Social Security is breaking down. May I submit this for the record?

Presiding Officer (07:53:06):

Without objection.

Senator Cory Booker (07:53:08):

Thank you to the presiding officer and my friend who I'm keeping up at 3:00 AM. He's a kind, generous man to be here. Here's a closure of Social Security offices, 47 closures across the country in red states and blue states, everywhere in between, closures of Social Security offices. I know everybody's talking about cutting Social Security, but what they're doing right now, right now, is grinding the services of Social Security, grinding them down. So with the permission of the… I'd like to submit an article for the record from the Associated Press, a list of Social Security offices across the US expected to close this year.

(07:53:59)
Thank you very much. I want to read some of the places. Without the rest of the language I just put in the record, but just for folks out there that are watching, these are the places Social Security offices provide really important services to your community that this administration, Elon Musk, are closing: Alabama, 634 Broad Street; Arkansas, 965 Holiday Drive, Forrest City, 483 Jefferson Avenue in Texarkana. In the great state of Colorado, they're closing 825 North Crest Drive, Grand Junction. In Florida they're closing 4740 Derry Road in Melbourne. In Georgia they're closing 1338 Broadway, Columbus. In Kentucky they're closing 825 High Street in Hazard. In Louisiana they're closing 178 Civic Center Drive, Houma. In Mississippi, there's three places they're closing: 4717 26th Street, Meridan, Meridian, excuse me to the great people that live there; 604 Yalobusha Street in Greenwood; 2383 Sunset Drive in Grenada, Mississippi. In Montana they're closing 3701 American Way.

(07:55:20)
They're closing Social Security offices in North Carolina, 730 Roanoke Avenue, Roanoke Rapids. They're closing 2123 Lakeside Drive in Franklin, North Carolina. They're closing 2805 Charles Boulevard in Greenville, North Carolina. I know that town. They're closing 1865 West City Drive in Elizabeth City, North Carolina. In North Dakota they're closing 1414 20th Avenue, Southwest, forgive me the great people that live in this community, but Minot I'm pronouncing it and I'm sure I'm butchering it. In Nevada where my mom lives, in the city my mom lives, they're closing 701 Bridger Avenue, Las Vegas. In New York, 75 South Broadway, White Plains, my mom worked there and 332 Main Street in Poughkeepsie, New York. In Ohio, 30 North Diamond Street, Mansfield; in Oklahoma, 1610 Southwest Lee Boulevard; in Texas they're closing two offices: 1122 North University Drive, I know that people are going to write me letters that I'm mispronouncing their town's names, Nacogdoches. Anybody from Texas here? No? I'm sorry. 8208 Northeast Zac Lentz Parkway. In West Virginia they're closing 1103 George Kostas Drive. In Wyoming, they're closing 79 Winston Drive, Rock Springs, Wyoming.

(07:56:52)
There're cuts to Social Security staff. How deeply are they cutting? They're cutting thousands. We've already talked about it, but, if I can, from the Associated Press, can I enter this article, "Social Security Administration Could Cut Up to 50% of Its Workforce"?

Presiding Officer (07:57:08):

Without objection.

Senator Cory Booker (07:57:08):

Thank you. The article that I won't read, out of generosity to my dear friend who's presiding, but it details in painful ways what these cuts could mean to people in our country. Just trying to move a little quicker through my documents because I'm way behind. The impact of these cuts, one of the big places they're going to impact is in rural America, is already suffering so much. There's a lot of sources that are talking about the rural areas of our nation they're going to cut. And I'd like to enter the record another Associated Press article entitled "New Social Security Rules Present Barriers to Rural Communities Without Internet and Transportation, A new requirement that the Social Security recipients go online or in person to a field office to access key benefits instead of just making a phone call will be difficult for many people to meet in those rural areas." This is an article from March 22nd. Can I enter that into the record?

Presiding Officer (07:58:02):

Without objection.

Senator Cory Booker (07:58:03):

Thank you. Thank very much to the kind friend who's up with me late or early, I should say. One more article I want to read, I want to ask for the record. I feel like I can take liberties with the presiding office because I've known him for 20-plus years. I consider him a real friend. He married up and he's going to teach me how to do that. I guess I'm not allowed to insult a colleague on this. That's a violation of Rule 19, I think. But it was a joke. But you did marry up. You know that.

(07:58:37)
Okay, so this is a former Social Security officers who are speaking out about what's happening, people that have worked in the agency, see what's happening. Two former senior officials at the Social Security Administration, one under a Democratic president, one under a Republican president, wrote this column published in The Hill. The title of the column is "Social Security Faces A Crisis With Staff Cuts, Closures." Again, these are folks from both sides of the aisle yelling into the wilderness, hoping that more people will understand what is happening to Social Security, what these cuts and staff are actually going to do to the quality of life of millions of Americans who rely on Social Security, disproportionately impacting people that are living in rural areas, red states, blue states, Republicans, Democrats. This is not a normal time, America, that a bedrock commitment made is being undermined by the most powerful man in our country and the richest man in the world. And the title the article, "Social Security Faces a Crisis With Staff Cuts and Closures" written by, again, somebody who worked under a Republican, somebody who worked on a president. May I enter this to the record?

Presiding Officer (07:59:46):

Objection.

Senator Cory Booker (07:59:49):

And I want to end with what I've been trying to do since I started some, I think, about eight hours ago. Yeah, eight hours ago I began. I want to begin by doing what I said I was going to do is not just lift my voice but lift the voice of New Jerseyans and Americans. And so here's some words.

(08:00:16)
This is one employee from New Jersey who contacted me to say that, "The teleservice center has received many calls from the public, from New Jersey to Georgia and other states. They all have in common is the fear of losing their livelihood as a result of identification verification in-person visits. Seniors, disabled, and others that are economically disadvantaged need a voice, Senator Booker, and the voice I hear all throughout the day from seniors are voices of fear. Please review any policy of in-person identification for the public." Person from my state begging because they're hearing the fear of the seniors that they've pledged themselves to serve.

(08:00:58)
Another Social Security employee from New Jersey who contacted me said, I quote, "I worked at Social Security for almost 19 years. I was approaching my 19 years in July. However, I took the early-out retirement because there's a lot of uncertainty within the agency. The resignation of others also brings additional phone calls and workloads into the office. This adds additional stress and no additional bodies to handle the workloads. It also provides poor unfair service to the public."

(08:01:30)
Here's another story from a Social Security employee in New Jersey. "I am a claims representative for our Social Security field office. The most dramatic changes I've noticed from our… field office. The most dramatic changes I've noticed from our recent change in operations is that our appointment calendar seems to be filling up more quickly for simple post-entitlement changes that were formerly handled over the phone. This occupies appointment space for most urgent and critical issues that would warrant an office visit. We have identity verification protocols already in place to keep identities thieves in check. To the extent that some fraudsters are still getting through, requiring people to come into our office to verify their identity is an obviously less efficient solution to the problem. A better solution to enhance security question protocols is to use two-step verification systems and document fraud attempts in our technician experience dashboard so scammers can't just shop around for field offices to fool. Regarding the in-person identifying policy, I believe that it is causing more harm than good. I've had claimants appearing in person frantic that they will lose their benefits because of this. My office has lost four staff members, two who are members of management. This is nothing but chaos here and I can foresee more loss and a further decline in employee morale." That's from a Social Security employee in my state describing what's going on in their office.

(08:03:06)
Another New Jersey Social Security worker, "I work in one of the smaller offices in New Jersey, and we are currently combined with another office that is undergoing renovations, which has caused the number of claimants coming into the office to double over the last few months. And although we do have extra staff because the staff have been deployed to our location, it doesn't change the infrastructure of the building, such as the number of desks available to do in-person interviews and provide adequate waiting space for double the amount of claimants. In our office we only have nine desks where we can interview the public due to safety and safety protocols. Three of these are front windows where we can do quick changes and six of them are where we could do short interviews or benefit applications. Right now, being that most interviews are being done over the phone, we have over 20 people interviewing at a time now. Imagine having to do these interviews in person. We can only have six to nine interviews at a time instead of 20-plus because there's only six by nine desks available. This doesn't seem very efficient." Maybe they should… Too bad they can't call the Department of Government Efficiency who caused the problem.

(08:04:30)
Here's another Social Security worker, their story. "The foot traffic in the field office on a daily basis is already overwhelming. The public coming in randomly to show their identity would be a disadvantage for the elderly, people with vision issues, disabled, and someone with no car. This really hits home with me. My older brother lost his right leg to diabetes, is legally blind, and unable to drive. He called me concerned about this, knowing there is no way he can get to his field office and cannot afford to lose his retirement. I'm hoping this is reconsidered."

(08:05:03)
Social Security is not a program, it's a promise. We owe it to seniors and working people who've paid into the Social Security their whole lives to make good on the promise of a secure retirement, not to attack Social Security, to drive them into fear and worry, and, when they call for help, to put them on hold for hours or drive them into offices that may be closing or are overcrowded or are unable to help our elders. Does this sound like America at its best? Does this sound like America being made great again? This is outrageous. These are our elders. They deserve dignity, respect, and they deserve their Social Security.

(08:06:02)
I'm going to move on to the next item, but I want to reiterate again, I'm determined to stand here as long as I physically can. We're eight hours into it. Dozens and dozens of people, I've read their stories. As I've gone around the country, I've gone around my state, there's this growing anger and rage and fear. There's chaos, there's confusion, and they read the newspapers and see that programs are helping them when an unexpected disease or cancer or a crisis hits them. And they see that a bunch of folks are trying to figure out how to cut $880 billion from things like Medicaid. The stories got me a little emotional just because hearing about so many people who, not to their fault, not to their problem, were hit by a crisis, a challenge, an accident at work, are now sitting back and are going to see what we do. People who have told us that their whole delicate, fragile world works because they have a transportation program that could be on the blocks of cuts and Medicaid or that their home healthcare worker or that their medications…

(08:07:43)
And even while these big issues are being discussed, we're seeing, as we've been documenting here again from Republicans and Democrats, how the administration's already taking steps to roll back programs, to seize funding that people have been used to access the ACA or to lower their prescription drug costs or that are funding their research that we're competing with China through the NIH. Republicans and Democrats we've read already who have been saying, hey, wait a minute, you shouldn't cut the things that actually produce money for your country in the long term.

(08:08:18)
But now here's something that I want to get into, which is education in our nation. I believe that genius is equally distributed in the United States. There's as many geniuses being born in the wealthiest parts of New Jersey and Pennsylvania as are being born in the lowest incomes. And in the global knowledge-based economy, the most valuable natural resource any nation has is the genius of its children. One genius, one Einstein, one Madam Curie, one genius could change humanity forever. And I hear these stories about China graduating more people in STEM than we have total graduates in our entire country. It's a global competition. And if we are to be this nation that Andy Kim talked about, where every generation has the right as an American to expect that the next generation will do better, not worse, so much of this revolves around what we all know: how important education is to a democracy, especially the best ideas, the best innovations, the best artists, innovators, entrepreneurs, scientists, doctors, teachers. We need to invest in the best pipeline possible, but now, not with Congress who established the Department of Education but by executive fiat, undermining the separation of powers, the administration wants to dismantle, defund, destroy the Department of Education and scatter its responsibilities across agencies that themselves are going through massive personnel cuts and are not equipped to handle them.

(08:10:16)
This is ultimately about whether or not we as a nation believe that every child deserves an education and we should organize ourselves to meet that calling. Our nation's children are that precious resource. One of the most noble professions are those people that teach our children. And so let's go right into it. At the signing ceremony to commemorate the establishment of the Department of Education, President Jimmy Carter said, "Today's signing fulfills a longstanding personal commitment on my part. My first public office was as a county school board member. As a state senator and governor, I devoted much of my time to education issues. I remain convinced that education is one of the most noble enterprises a person or society can undertake." Pastor Carter also said, "The Department of Education was created because education is so important to our nation's future that it must have a robust level of national support."

(08:11:24)
Now, here's a letter that I really wanted to read. I'm a member of a Baptist church with the great Pastor Jefferson, but I actually study Torah. And in my Torah study with Rabbi Davidson, when I heard about all these cuts to the Department of Education, he wanted me to hear from the great rebbe, Rebbe Menachem Schneerson, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, who in 1979 wrote a letter not in support of religious schools but wrote a letter in support of public education, in support of the creation of a special Department of Education. He wrote this letter in 1979. I was so moved by it, thank you, Rabbi Davidson, I want to read it here. This is the Rebbe.

(08:12:08)
"I am certain that you will agree that the state of education in this country, as in many others, leaves much to be desired." He was not happy. "And the status quo as reflected in juvenile delinquency, et cetera, is far from satisfactory and, what's worse, has been steadily eroding and that some determined nationwide effort is called for us to upgrade the quality of public education in this resourceful country. I trust you will agree that such an enormous effort, which is surely in the highest national interest, can come only from the federal government with the fullest cooperation of state, county, and city. In my view, a separate, adequately funded, cabinet-level Department of Education subject to legislative safeguards to ensure that the traditional primacy of the states and localities in education affairs would not be jeopardized could well meet the challenge. The main reason why I support said proposal are as follows: one, the creation of a distinct cabinet-level Department of Education would have a salutatory impact on all who are involved in education, particularly parents, teachers, and students. The very innovation of upgrading the status of education from that of an adjunct to or division of another national agency would pointedly underscore its proper place among the nation's priorities."

(08:13:30)
Look how prescient the Rebbe was and what he might say if he was alive today. "Number two, the workshops of education are the school and the home. For various reasons which need not be discussed, I'm worried about the home," he basically says. "Too much of school is left to the streets. In so far as the street is concerned, there is very little that we can do. As things stand more can be done and needs to be done, but in the final analysis, it's the public school where the greatest improvement can and must be achieved. Among the factors that lie in the roots of the shortcomings of public education two, in my opinion, command primary attention. One has to do with the general curriculum, which should place much greater emphasis on character building and moral and ethical values. The other has to do with the quality of teaching by qualified, dedicated, motivating teachers. The latter point requires the upgrading of teachers' salaries on par with comparable professions in other fields of science and relieving them as far as possible of other frustrations and stresses."

(08:14:43)
I just want to do a side note here. I'm a big believer that we should slash public school professionals' tax rates. We need the best minds coming into the profession. Why not as a country to say, if you're going to take a job as a teacher, which unfortunately pays too low in our country, let's do that instead of, again, giving these massive tax cuts disproportionately to the wealthiest in our country?

(08:15:10)
" The upgrading of our nation's educational system will of course require considerable federal investment. But this is one area where spending has built-in returns, not only in the longterm but also in the immediate gains in terms of diminishing expenditures in the penal system, crime prevention, reduction of vandalism, drug abuse. In the longer term, it would also bring savings in expenditure on health and welfare and, one may venture to say, even in the defense budget, since a morally healthy, strong, and united nation is in itself a strong deterrent against any enemy."

(08:15:41)
And finally, five, he says, "The creation of a separate cabinet-level Department of Education, as I understand it, has been conceived not for the purpose of merely improving administrative efficiency nor merely as a coordinator of existing programs or for technical reasons. The main purpose is to breathe new life into the whole educational system of this nation and to involve the whole nation through its federal government in this massive concerted effort, and as such, I am convinced

Senator Cory Booker (08:16:11):

… a national Department of Education cabinet level deserves everybody's support. Thank you, Lubavitcher Rebbe. Unfortunately, this administration is not listened to the Rebbes. What does the Department of Education do, and how is this administration attacking it? Let me read you an excerpt from The New York Times.

(08:16:35)
Can Trump Abolish the Department of Education? It's from March 20th. President Trump signed an executive order on Thursday to the director of the Federal Department of Education to come up with a plan for its own demise. Only Congress can abolish a cabinet-level agency, and it is not clear whether Mr. Trump has the votes in Congress to do so. I will tell you, in the Senate if you need 60 votes, he doesn't. But he's already begun to dismantle the Department, firing about half of its staff, gutting its respected education research arm and vastly narrowing the focus of its civil rights division, which works to protect students from discrimination. Mr. Trump's long history of attacking the Department of Education represents a revival of a Reagan-era Republican talking point. It has unified Democrats in fiery opposition. Yeah. But is shuttering the Department possible? And if not, how has Trump begun to use the agency to achieve his policy goals?

(08:17:29)
What does the Department do? It's founded in 1979. Its main job is distributing money to college students through grants and loans. It also sends federal money to K-12 schools targeted towards low income and disabled students and enforces anti-discrimination laws. The money for schools has been set aside by Congress and is unlikely to be affected by Mr. Trump's executive order. I don't agree with the New York Times, because time and time again, the money set aside by Congress is being clawed back by the President against the people that the Constitution of the United States of America says has spending power.

(08:18:08)
The federal dollars account for only about 10% of K 12 school funding nationwide. While Mr. Trump has said he wants to return power over education to the states, states and school districts already control K through 12 education, which is mostly paid for with state and local tax dollars. The federal department does not control learning standards or reading lists in countries. The agency plays a big role in funding and disseminating research on education, but those efforts have been significantly scaled back by the Trump administration. It also administers tests that track whether American students are learning and how they compare with their peers in other states and countries. God forbid we measure people's performance.

(08:18:49)
It's unclear whether those tests will continue to be delivered given the drastic reductions in the staff and funding necessary to management. Still, closing the Department would not likely have much of an immediate effect on how schools and colleges operate. The Trump administration has discussed tapping the Treasury Department to disperse student loans and grants, for instance, and the Health and Human Services to administer funding with students with disabilities. Any effort to fully eliminate the Department would have to go through Congress. Republican members would most likely hear opposition from superintendents, college presidents and other education leaders in school districts. Schools and Republican regions rely on federal aid from the agency just as schools in Democratic regions do. "They're going to run into opposition," said Joe Valant, an education expert at the Brookings Institution. "They have a laser thin majority and a filibuster to confront in the Senate."

(08:19:44)
Even if congressional Republicans stuck together, Dr. Valent predicts their constituents would protest given the Department's role in distributing money from programs like Pell Grants, which pay for college tuition, and IDEA, which provides support to students with disabilities. "It's a very hard sell. I'm skeptical." Efforts to eliminate the Department threaten the enforcement of critical laws. There's the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which has supported school districts since 1965 in low-income areas, Individuals with Disabilities Act, which ensures 7.5 million students with disabilities receive an education. The Higher Education Act, which helps more students afford college Title IX protections to guard against sex discrimination. This doesn't just hurt our country, but undermining those resources for our students hurts generations to come.

(08:20:45)
I want to submit for the record New York Times article entitled Trump Firings Gut Education Department's Civil Rights Division. Thank you, my friend. Thank you, presiding officer, sir. How Education Department Cuts Could Hurt Low-Income and Rural Schools in Particular, an article on March 21st, 2025. May I submit that too, sir? Again, rural communities are really taking a hit. And if I can give disability rights testimonials.

(08:21:26)
Gutting the Department of Education will be devastating for students with disabilities. Right now, the Department of Education, the Individuals with Disabilities Act, which guarantees more than 7 million students in America the right to a free, appropriate public education, it ensures that provides services like speech therapies, counseling, personalized learning plans. Without federal oversight, these protections could disappear, schools could delay evaluations, cut corners or deny support altogether for parents. Consider Catherine a resident of Westwood, New Jersey. Right by Harrington Park where I grew up. Catherine has 7-year-old twin boys who receive special services. They currently attend an out-of-school district specialized program, but are very much a part of Westwood Regional School District, and may even one day transition back into the school.

(08:22:22)
In her words, "The Department of Education plays a critical role in enforcing the IDEA and ensuring that students with disabilities receive the accommodations and support they need to succeed. Without this oversight, many students risk losing essential services, widening existing gaps and disparities and they will face greater barriers to academic success and reaching their highest potential. This is not a partisan issue. It's a matter of ensuring that all students regardless of ability have equal access to education." Her story is one of thousands of parents, educators, and advocates across the country who are standing up for children's rights to an equitable education, for Catherine's family, for her boys, and for every child who deserves a fair shot at success. Their fight for an inclusive education is essential.

(08:23:12)
Here's Ashley from Wayne, New Jersey who knows firsthand how important the Department of Education's funding is. Her daughter whose legally blind relies on Bookshare, an online learning tool that provides accessible materials to students with print disabilities at no cost to schools or families. Without it, her daughter would be left behind. As Ashley put it, "This is a service she absolutely needs in order to access information that regularly-sighted people do, not even have to think about. Cutting programs like this isn't just irresponsible, it would be cruel."

(08:23:50)
Kimberly from Dumont, New Jersey, the mother of twin boys with nonverbal level three autism. They attend an amazing school in Nutley because of IDEA. Without it, their future would be uncertain. In her own words, she says, "It was not long ago that kids like them would've had to have been institutionalized. Now they're able to have a beautiful life and go to school. I am terrified of the future if IDEA is eliminated. I am begging you, please consider families like mine." Kimberly, I see you.

(08:24:27)
Michelle from New Jersey shares this fear. Her daughter who has neurofibromatosis, who's one, and has apraxia, depends on in-class support to succeed. She knows firsthand how essential the Department of Education is in protecting students with disabilities. This is her words now, "Gutting, weakening, and ultimately closing the Department of Education is disastrous and dangerous for the disabled students who depend upon it." She reminds us that education is a civil right and laws like IDEA and Section 504 ensure that students with disabilities receive the support they need to succeed. Alana from my state is deeply concerned about her 20-year-old son who depends on the protections of Section 504 to have a fair shot at the future. Her 10-year-old child with autism relies on these protections every single day. She's asking for help because as she put it, "Section 504 and its rules are very important to the disability community. We need your help to save it."

(08:25:33)
Roger, who's a grandfather from New Jersey, is also pleading for action. His granddaughter has relied on a 504 plan since seventh grade and will continue to need it as she applies to college. He raises the essential question, "Which programs are directly helping students?" The answer is clear laws like IDEA, IEPs and Section 504, they're not luxuries, they're lifelines. Again, this is not about politics and as we see from various writings, people from both sides of the aisle are worried and concerned. I'd like to submit for the record this article from one of the publications in my state, What Happens to Special Education Programs in New Jersey if Trump Shuts Down the Department of Education? It's by Gene Myers.

Speaker 2 (08:26:29):

Without objection.

Senator Cory Booker (08:26:30):

Thank you very much. I want to say something about student loans too. The Department of Education is also responsible for operating the $1.6 trillion student federal loan program, which benefits 42.7 million borrowers in America and allow students to access higher education, something that is shown unequivocally to strengthen our economy. This administration plans to move student loan funding to the small business administration, a plan that even some of my Republican colleagues in Congress have expressed serious concerns about. Here's an article that Republicans are hesitant to stand behind Trump's plan for student loans.

(08:27:22)
Although SBA managed a wealth of COVID relief programs, it normally runs a much smaller operation than the student debt program. President Trump has yet to win over his own party to push "immediately" in transfer of the Department of Education's massive student loan operation to another agency that slated for deep staff cuts. Trump was expected to propose moving the agency's $1.6 trillion portfolio to the Treasury Department, a concept long discussed on Capitol Hill and suggested in Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation's conservative policy blueprint. Instead, the President announced this month that the SBA would get it, surprising many lawmakers and conservatives who track the issue. Although the SBA, which provides financial support to companies for disaster relief, training, and other needs, managed a wealth of COVID relief programs, it normally runs a much smaller operation then student debt. It's also slated to lose 43% of its staff.

(08:28:27)
Now Republicans are worried about the size of the debt and the staffing needed to manage the complex system of servicers, borrowers and loan applications, and with about 43 million borrowers and a record number of them starting to fall behind on their payments since the pandemic era hiatus ended in 2023, transferring this work may be one of the most challenging hurdles for unwinding the agency President Trump has pledged to close. "A lot of us were thinking it would go to Treasury. We're talking about the huge nature of student loans," House Education and Workforce Chair Tim Walberg said in an interview. "They have much larger staffing capabilities right now than SBA, but the President may have something specific in mind that I'm not aware of."

(08:29:15)
Early legislation from Senator Mike Rounds aimed at dismantling the Education Department also recommended the Treasury Department for the job. At a recent House Rules Committee meeting, Walberg suggested that moving the portfolio to the SBA, which likely requires an act of Congress to complete, might not be permanent. Some Republican lawmakers have been hesitant to say the move is official. Neither the Education Department's Federal Aid office, which manages the loan program, nor the SBA have provided a timeline or detailed plans to move the portfolio, but Education Department officials skeptical of Trump's SBA plan met the week after his announcement to discuss if the Treasury Department should manage this massive portfolio instead of the SBA, according to a person with granted anonymity to discuss the manner.

(08:30:05)
Some conservatives are concerned about the SBA's lack of experience with colleges and universities and the time crunch and staff will be under to learn the complex student loan system. "The plan to move the portfolio sounds rushed. It sounds like no one has been briefed on it and it's not clear what the purpose is," said Jason Delisle, who served on the Education Department's Review group on Trump's presidential transition team. FSA largely works with direct loans, meaning that instead of a bank lending the money, the Education Department disperses the funds directly to institutions in the students' names. Colleges and universities, however, aren't on the hook. If the loan isn't repaid, the borrower is. The SBA only started working with the REC loans at a massive scale in the aftermath of the pandemic.

(08:30:53)
"They're laying off 43% of the SBA staff at the same time SBA is being handed $1.6 trillion portfolio. That's three times the size of what they have and they're laying off 43% of the staff," said Michael Negron, who worked on the small business and student loans for the National Economic Council during the Biden administration. The administration has not clearly stated whether the FSA workers who have expertise on the student debt system would be transferred to the SBA, which is a concern for Negron. "That doesn't mean it's impossible. The SBA could be a fit," he said, "But the conditions need to be right. "There is a world where this can work," he said optimistically, who is now a fellow at Groundwork Collaborative, a left-leaning think tank. The White House did not acknowledge questions about how it would transfer.

(08:31:44)
"President Trump is doing everything he can within his executive authority to dismantle the Department of Education and return education back to the states while safeguarding critical functions for students and families," said press secretary Karoline Leavitt in a statement. "The {resident has always said Congress has a role to play in this effort and we expect them to help the President deliver." That sounds like a president who doesn't care about Congress, cares about what he's trying to do, hasn't approached this in a intelligent way, making grand statements and opinions without not considering that the department you're transferring loans to might actually be incapable with a severely diminished staff of doing the job.

(08:32:34)
Here's an incredible article by Fareed Zakaria about what this is really going on and how it affects the United States, especially relative to other nations. There is no area in which the United States' global dominance is more total than higher education. With about 4% of the world's population and 25% of its gross domestic product, America has 72% of the world's top 25 universities by one ranking and 64% by another, but this crucial US competitive advantage is being undermined by the Trump administration's war on colleges. Hat tip to the New York Times' Michelle Goldberg for raising this issue as well. "We have to honestly and aggressively attack the universities in this country. The professors are the enemy," said JD Vance during a speech to the National Conservatism Conference in 2021.

(08:33:35)
The administration has put those words into action. The most dramatic assaults have been financial. A freezing or massive reduction in research grants and loans from the federal government. Some of these efforts are under court review, but the cumulative impact could be that billions of dollars in cuts to basic research, much of its disrupting ongoing projects and programs. High quality research in the United States has emerged in a unique ecosystem. The federal government provides much of the funding through prominent institutions such as the National Institute of Health and the National Science Foundation. Private foundations and companies account for the most of the rest. Professors at universities both public and private use these funds to conduct research. No other country has a system that works as well.

(08:34:27)
What is risk now is what Holden Thorp, the Editor-in-Chief of the Science of journalists calls the social contract that the federal government institutions have had to enable the scientific research enterprise in America in the last 80 years. That is what is at risk. Take Duke University, which ranked number 11 in total grants received from the NIH last year. Of its 1.33 billion research budget, 863 million came from Washington according to the AP. That includes funds for critical research projects on cancer and other diseases, but also supports more than 630 PhD students at the medical school. If the cuts go through, these projects and students will have to be paired back substantially. Just on Thursday, John Hopkins announced huge layoffs, saying it would let go of more than 2000 employees after losing $800 million in federal grants.

(08:35:40)
One crucial mechanism to cut funding is through a massive reduction in the overhead or indirect costs that universities get reimbursed for by the federal government. Overhead makes up 40 or 50% of a grant, but last month the NIH ordered that it be capped at 15%. That sounds more rational than it is. Universities divide their costs on science grants into research costs, the salaries of the professors and graduate students, and overhead, the costs of the buildings, labs, energy and utilities and administrative staffs. When you are building a complex lab to conduct experiments, the structure and equipment is often far more costly than the salaries and stipends of the researchers. Michigan State University has declared that these cuts could make its stop construction of a 330 million research building for cancer research, for cardiovascular disease and neuroscience studies. Government funding plays a unique role in America. It often supports basic research, the kind that companies have less incentive to do and its results cannot be hoarded by any one company, but rather are provided free to the entire scientific community, to the entire technological community so that all can use it to experiment and innovate.

(08:37:20)
It's an incredible American system that has reaped billions and billions of dollars of rewards to our economy. Take the mapping of the human genome. It costs less than $3 billion and took 13 years because it was government funded. One of its key requirements was that the research should be made publicly available for all within 24 hours of being generated. "The other assault on the universities is a strange new attack on free speech," Fareed writes. It began from a principled critique that bureaucracies, universities, and elites all became too woke, but the government response to this problem has been Orwellian. Searching through these institutions for any mentions of the words diversity or identity or inclusion, and then shutting down those programs without any review. Worse, it now punishes universities on their campuses people who might espouse certain views on topics like Israel and Palestine and now is punishing the protestors themselves.

(08:38:37)
I have long argued that universities have a huge problem. They have far too little intellectual and ideological diversity, which is the most important kind of diversity on a campus, but the way you fix that is not to restrict radical left wing speech, but to add voices and views from other parts of the spectrum. The answer to censorship by the left is not censorship by the right. The fury with which of the Trump administration has turned on academia resembles nothing so much as the early days of the Cultural Revolution when an increasingly paranoid Mao Zedong smashed China's universities, their established universities and a madness that took generations in China to remedy. Meanwhile, in Beijing last week, the Chinese government announced its intention to massively increase funding for research and technology so that it could lead the world in science in the 21st century.

(08:39:48)
So as America appears to be copying the worst aspects of Chinese history, China is copying the best aspect of America's, striving to take the edge away from the United States as though we are going through our own Cultural Revolution. Learn from the fascist in China. Fareed's article's over. This is me now. Learn from the fascist in China and don't do what the Chinese did. Do what America has done to lead humanity in the sciences, in innovation, in research, in breakthroughs, in science. We are the global model and one administration in 71 days has our best universities cutting the number of PhD students they bring in, cutting the research that they're doing, cutting the planned development of research buildings.

(08:40:55)
This is insanity. Insanity. We are America. Why is the President of the United States attacking the science and research at the top universities on the planet Earth? Bullying them, undermining them. I've had universities from my state. I've had universities from my neighboring state, not Connecticut, New York. I've had my college Stanford come to see me. Top researchers. The academic community, not the political community, not the history majors, not the political scientists, not the literature students, not the Af Am departments, the scientists of America have been coming to the Senate to say, "What the heck? What is going on? How could you take America's edge, America's advantage, America's strength, America's brilliance and undercut it in 71 days of your administration?" We are killing the golden goose. Why? Because we have a president who is taking money that we already approved the Article I branch of government and claiming that he could claw it back all on some trumped-up charge that these institutions are too woke. The solution to that is not to cut science funding. This should make people mad, but more importantly, it should make people stand up and not be bystanders and wait until we lose our edge because our adversaries globally are smiling as we destroy our institutions from Duke to Rutgers, to University of Michigan, to Berkeley to Stanford. This is madness. This is insanity and one of a dozen reasons we're going through, a dozen reasons I'm standing here that we should not be doing things normal. If we are complicit in what Donald Trump is doing…

(08:43:19)
I'm hearing it not from political people but from scientists that show up in my office from Cornell, medical researchers that show up in my office from our research hospitals in New Jersey and are saying they're not political, they're just saying, "What the heck? You are undermining the research of today that will affect the breakthroughs five years from now, 10 years from now." What's China doing while we're doing this? They're investing record numbers, record levels. The country of Tiananmen Square cracking down on college students is now trying to out-America America while America is acting more like them because our president is violating the separation of powers, taking away the money we approved and we're letting it happen by doing things normally here and not holding one hearing. Here's another example of what Fareed was talking about. It's an article entitled Graduate Student Admissions Paused. Graduate Student Admissions Paused and Cut Back as Universities React to the Trump Orders on Research. And again, this is not from a political magazine, it's not from the New York Times or the Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal. This is from STAT News. When did science become political? Acceptances for biomedical graduate students and professional scholars are being cut back at some universities and medical centers across the country as many grapple with the potential impact of the Trump administration's order to cut National Institute of Health research funding. That paragraph alone should have people all in this chamber upset.

(08:45:23)
Let's just give European universities, Australian universities, Canadian universities, Chinese universities a leg up because we're going to cut the number of graduate students and postdoctoral students. The geniuses in our country will have less opportunity. Here goes the article, it continues, the cuts come even as the proposed reductions to funding for overhead expenses set to start on February 10th were temporarily halted last week by federal judges at least until a court hearing. Universities appear to be exercising caution with some freezing positions and not taking new applications or accepting fewer students than normal according to interviews, public

Senator Cory Booker (08:46:11):

… public announcements and internal emails obtained by STAT. The abrupt narrowing of training opportunities is leaving many future researchers at the start of their scientific journey in limbo. The academic calendar runs to the rhythm of its own sessions right not. It's typically this time of year when offer letters for PhD programs and postdoc positions in labs start hitting inboxes. Universities and academic medical centers were in the thick of that process when the NIH under President Donald Trump put out a policy about overhead costs known as indirect costs.

(08:46:54)
This couldn't be worse timing for doing this. Waverly Ding, an Associate Professor at the University of Maryland who studies the biomedical sciences workforce. It's creating a jolt in the market that is going to be disabling for labs, especially the smaller labs because they won't have the human capital to do their science. It's also going to create chaos for PhDs. It's going to be a cascading chain effect through the entire ecosystem.

(08:47:32)
I know we don't read science… Actually, we have a few doctors in here that do. But look at the alarm that they're sounding that this is not normal. The slowdown is happening at some universities and not at others. Some students may be unaware of the issue as they anxiously await acceptance letters without fully understanding the role national politics is playing in those decisions. Some faculty are grappling with admissions that are paused and then unpaused while others say they're receiving little information or guidance from leadership.

(08:48:06)
At the University of Southern California and as a former Stanford football player, it's hard for me to talk about USC. I had to jab them, senator Murphy. At the University of Southern California, faculty in some departments were told last week to pause admissions and not formalize offers to students, even those who had visited and been given verbal acceptances. The awkward part is that we already told these applicants that they were provisionally accepted and invited them to an in-person recruitment day. Many have already purchased a flight and made hotel reservations. I mean, that is just cruel.

(08:48:52)
One professor said in a faculty discussion, listserv observe by STAT, I know Senator Murphy hangs out in faculty discussion listservs, "The pause on admissions in psychology was lifted this week," STAT was told.

(08:49:08)
Jennifer Unger, a professor who runs a doctoral program in health behavioral research in the Department of Population and Public Health Sciences at the University of Southern California, keck School of Medicine said Wednesday she was still not able to admit the six graduate students for her department that had been accepted after a visit day on February 3rd. We had flown them out. We told them, "We love you, we want to admit you. And then, everything just stopped," Unger said. On the day Donald Trump announced they were cutting indirect costs, USC paused all PhD admissions. "I just don't know what to tell them," Unger said of the students. "Some of them have their offers and will likely go somewhere else. We've probably lost them." Despite USC's unpausing of all admissions in many departments, Unger said Wednesday she was still not able to admit students. She hoped her portal of admit students would open soon, but said, "This disruption was coming at a time when her field," public health, "was already reeling from the actions of the Trump administration, something affecting potential graduate students as well. It's very stressful for them. This is a major life decision," she said, adding, "They were already worried about their futures. They were asking, 'Do you think we'll be able to get jobs in this environment? Do you think we'll get grants?'"

(08:50:55)
The dean of the graduate school at USC told STAT late Friday that the university's briefly paused PhD admissions to assess the uncertainties around federal funding, but that the admissions process was now open. Some schools though were continuing to accept students who had accepted graduate students before the recent turmoil and said that offers were there intact. "We have no knowledge of any disruptions to graduate student admissions in the science fields," Rachel Zentz, Senior Director of Communications said.

(08:51:29)
In some cases the pauses in hirings and admissions were implemented ahead of the NIH policy change, evidence of how quickly the Trump administration's threats to withhold federal research dollars over diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts are shifting the financial footings of universities. On February 6th, faculty at Vanderbilt University were instructed to reduce graduate admissions by half across the board according to an email obtained by STAT. Reduce graduate admissions by half. On the same day, the faculty at the University of Washington School of Public Health received an email to pause offers to doctoral students as well as offers of financial support to graduate students. "Faculty hiring was also frozen," the email said.

(08:52:15)
This Tuesday, the public health school sent out another email informing the community that some faculty hiring and PhD students would continue, some, but at a greatly diminished level. The school is also planning to take more cost containment measures, including a hiring freeze, a reimportment freeze through the end of the academic year due to the volatility caused by the Trump administration.

(08:52:42)
"Existing offers will be honored," wrote Hillary Goodwin, Dean of the University of Washington School of Public Health.

(08:52:52)
Marian Pepper, Chair of UW's Immunology Department said she was instructed by the university leadership to keep her program's next generation cohort smaller than the usual five to nine students admitted each year. That's easier said than done because the proportion of students who accept offers of admissions varies years to year. Pepper told STAT that while she expects the incoming class to be slightly smaller than usual, she has spoken with program heads at UW and elsewhere who are reducing class sizes by half or more. "I know for other programs they're feeling bleak about how they're going to keep labs running without funding or students," Pepper said. "It's pretty overwhelming." Medical schools are hit hard. Medical research, hit hard. It's unclear how many other universities are taking similar preemptive belt-tightening measures, but schools of public health and medical schools are particularly vulnerable because they tend to have many faculty postdocs and graduate students supported by grants. Boston University School of Public Health has also ordered an across-the-board hiring freeze on all new faculty and staff positions including student workers and postdocs. In a campus-wide announcement, Dean Ad-Interim, Michael Stein said, "The move was being made due to the uncertainty of the moment."

(08:54:25)
A spokesperson for the school told STAT that the graduate admissions are unaffected by the freeze. Unger said, "USC had cut funding for some teaching assistants in their department early in the year before the executive orders," which reduced the number of graduate students in her program from 10 to 6.

(08:54:42)
On February 11th, Columbia's University Medical School faculty were told that the school was putting a temporary pause on hiring as well as other activities like travel and procuring equipment according to an email obtained by the Columbia student newspaper, the Columbia Spectator. A Spokesperson for Columbia declined to comment on the pause.

(08:55:03)
In other cases, schools may accept fewer graduate students than they had planned, not because of an overt directive from university leaders, but because faculty feel unsure about the future, given the Trump administration's intent to cut billions of dollars in overhead funding.

(08:55:21)
At the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, "25% fewer graduate students will be admitted this year," 25% fewer, "based on a survey of faculty members taking new students said, Mark Pilfer a professor in cell biology there. "That means the school will admit about 75 students across the biomedical sciences." He noted, "The number of graduate students vary each year, so the decline was not unprecedented as the numbers continue to go down."

(08:55:57)
In an interview with STAT, Robert Farms, Director of UNC's Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center said, "The hiring freezes, fewer PhD students, and other similar cost containment measures are being considered as the Center is eyeing the same financially turbulent waters of other research institutions. Every one of these things is on the table, unfortunately," Ferris said. "There's so much uncertainty. Can we hire this faculty member? Can we purchase this equipment? They just don't know exactly what or how many measures the Center has to take," he said, "as there are simply still too many unknowns. For instance, the outcome of the NIH indirect rate cut policy is still up in the air. Not knowing how it's going to shake out, it just freezes everybody into inaction."

(08:56:46)
Adding to the uncertainty is disruptions to key parts of the National Institute of Health approval process for proposed grants. Although some meetings of study sections in which grant applications are reviewed resumed at the start of the month, meetings of advisory councils have not. Each of the 27 institutes of the National Institute of Health have its own advisory council, which meets three times a year to issue final recommendations on new research projects. None of these councils, none, have met since January 22nd. Communications freezes were ordered across all health agencies.

(08:57:24)
A law called the Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that advisory councils post meeting details in the Federal Register 15 days prior to their scheduled date. But because submissions to the Federal Register have been put on hold indefinitely, these meetings can't take place. And without these meetings, no new grants can be funded. According to one NIH employee, "At least one NIH meeting scheduled for this Friday to allow an institute director to provide updates that could proceed because it has been posted to the Federal Register was nonetheless canceled Wednesday." This was because the meeting was specified it would include a session open to the public. But because a ban remains in place on any public communications, meetings with open sessions cannot be held, and they can't update the Federal Registry with a revised agenda stating no open session because the Federal Registry is closed.

(08:58:22)
Principal investigators who had been counting on awards to pay the salaries of new graduate students and postdocs are now left wondering if their labs will be able to make it through the summer, let alone take on new members. Referencing the hold on submissions to the Federal Register, MIT Neuroscientist, Nancy Canwisher proposed on social media Wednesday, "So much for the grant I submitted last September, which was supposed to be reviewed last week. Hardly the biggest tragedy on the current scale of things, but it will force me to severely downsize my already small lab."

(08:59:07)
Fears were similar for one computational genomics researcher at a prominent East Coast institution who asked for anonymity for fear of being targeted by the Trump administration. "We have people coming to visit the lab next week and these are students we haven't made offers to yet because we can't. I don't know what I'm going to tell them." Beyond the immediate harm to young scientists, he worries about the long-term damage to fields like computer science and biomedical engineering, areas where the US has long been the world leader. "If we stop training students, we're going to lose the lead very quickly," he said. "It's not clear anyone else is going to pick up the ball. We're just going to be worse off and people won't even be aware of it. It's hard to notice when it takes 20 years instead of 10 to get a cure."

(09:00:06)
Cuts within the NIH are also adding to the rapidly constricting pool of places prospective scientists can go and train. Since the 1960s, the NIH has provided opportunities for recent college graduates to spend one or two years in a full-time research position within one of the institute's labs, which many scientists see as a key tool for recruiting young people into biomedical fields. On February 1st, a notice appeared on the NIH website announcing that all training programs had paused recruitment pending guidance from Health and Human Services. "The NIH post-bac program, which provides recent college graduates with research positions in career advising, and last year admitted roughly 1,600 people, will not be accepting any new applicants for 2025" according to an NIH employee who asked for anonymity for fear, of course, that's my add, of repercussions. It's a vital link in the training of doctors and biomedical scientists in the country. The NIH employee said, "You can't find a medical school or a biomedical program that doesn't have students from the post-bac program." And it's ended.

(09:01:34)
While the Trump administration may be hoping that the headwinds in creating for academic hiring may push recent graduates or newly minted PhDs into the private industry, it's unlikely to play out that way because of the speed and scale of the disruption. "Pharmaceutical firms are not going to suddenly open up more jobs for graduates to adapt to this situation," said Ding. "More likely is that people will start looking for opportunities outside the United States or wind up without jobs altogether. At this point, it's still too early to say if these are the first signs of losing a generation of scientists." But even people like Ding who track the data that could provide clues about how extensive the damage will be are facing uncertainty about their ability to continue their own work. Her plan to hire a postdoc are currently on hold is she waits to find out if a grant she has through the National Science Foundation, which is facing its own dramatic cuts, will come through.

(09:02:38)
I mean, honestly, I'm here because I said at the beginning, some nine hours ago, that I was going to stand here because what is going on in America is not normal. We've gone through healthcare cuts, we've gone through Social Security being attacked and undermined and slashed, Department of Education, but if those things don't worry you, statements like this should. "It's still a little too early to say that these things are the first signs of losing a generation of American scientists."

(09:03:22)
I know this. I've been privileged. I've studied at Oxford University overseas, have studied at Stanford University in Silicon Valley, and I've studied at Yale, and watched friends get degrees in the sciences in things I couldn't spell, and they had options not just in America, but the brightest minds on the planet Earth, there's a global competition going on for them from Canada to Oxford to countries in Asia. If you are telling me thousands of people right now, 71 days into the Trump administration, are losing opportunities in the sciences to do research in the most important areas of human endeavor, can't get hired, they will go elsewhere.

(09:04:20)
For over a generation, America has led the planet Earth because of this combination between research universities, private sector industry, and government. How do I know this? Because I'm here because of it. The whole computer revolution in America was because incredible computer science researchers at academic institutions were partnering with industry and being funded in many ways by the government, and it helped companies like IBM with their mainframes dominate. My dad was one of IBM's first Black people hired as a salesman in the Washington DC, Maryland area. My parents were IBMers, because when scientific endeavor explodes into new industry, new ideas, new biomedical breakthroughs, it creates a ripple effect through our economy lifting so many people up, and in 71 days, Donald Trump's actions have led scientific articles like this to talk about a postdoc program which provides bright recent college graduates, brilliant people, 1600 of them, to usually get jobs, has been canceled. And this article laments from scientists, not political people, not politicians, that this is a crisis.

(09:05:53)
It's a crisis in America and we haven't held one hearing on this in Congress. Yet, university after university. I can't be the only senator having this happen, not just from my state, the universities are coming from New York to California sounding the alarm that we are going to lose our competitive edge against one of our greatest competitors, China, who is doubling down as the article said in research on the sciences.

(09:06:26)
But let me just give you some examples and then I'll yield for a question. I just want to talk about some New Jersey institutions that have written me out. Rutgers has been a partner in the Air Force Research Laboratories, Minority Leaders Research Collaborative Program. That grant, which has been led by the Ohio State University, is on pause. God forbid they use the word, minority. And the annual program review and summer internship programs are not expected to happen this year.

(09:06:55)
Rutgers School of Nursing has been with the Institute of Human Virology in Nigeria on an action to sustain precision and integrated HIV response towards epidemic control, and they were funded through a CDC and PEPFAR grant, a stop work order came in. Multiple Rutgers entities have received communications from federal agencies related to DEIA cancellation of apprenticeship programs. Many conferences have been canceled that are trying to find the best minds wherever they might be because there's many geniuses at Howard and Fisk and Morehouse that are often overlooked.

(09:07:47)
Anika Barber faculty of the Rutgers Department of a Molecular Biology and Biochemistry writes me this, Rutgers holds an NIH initiative for maximizing student development training grant that supports an additional five doctoral students. This grant expires in January 2026, and we put in for a renewal this fall for which I wrote a letter of support. However, it seems likely that this grant proposal will not even be reviewed. I just completed the first year of funding on my NIH Maximizing Investigations Research Award and put in my progress report for the next years of funding. These are non-competing renewals, which means they don't go through peer review. In the past, they were reviewed by the NIH program officials to ensure that the funds are being managed in accordance with the approval grant and the research findings. However, NIH has been extremely slow to process even these non-competitive renewals. This type of grant requires a plan for enhancing the work."

(09:09:03)
I want to read this last letter. It's handwritten. "I am writing you not only as a concerned parent who believes in progress, education and the power of science improves lives. My daughter is a PhD in neuroscience, dedicating her life to research that has the potential to save countless lives. As a minority in science, she has worked tirelessly to overcome barriers in a field that is already competitive and demanding. Watching the current political attacks on research funding is devastating not just for her future, but for the future of the American country. Science is not political. It serves all people. Yet funding cuts to agencies like NIH and the National Science Foundation threaten to halt critical research that leads to medical breakthroughs."

(09:09:54)
"These cuts will not only slow progress in fighting diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, but they will also discourage young, diverse scientists, many of whom have already fought hard to be in these spaces, from staying in the field. This is not just about scientists. It's about every American. Diseases do not know political parties. Without adequate research funding, we are all at risk of losing the chance for better treatments, new cures, and improved healthcare. If we truly want a stronger and more innovative America, we must invest in science, not abandon it. Defunding research will also harm our economy. Scientific innovation drives job creation, medical advancements, and global progress. A country that does not invest in science is a country that falls behind."

Senator Andy Kim (09:10:49):

[inaudible 02:24:47].

Senator Cory Booker (09:10:59):

I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Senator Andy Kim (09:11:05):

I thank the senator. What the senator's outlining is an extraordinary assault, not just on education but on the knowledge economy. I want to bring manufacturing jobs back to this country, but I understand, I think everybody understands, that we are not going to be a nation filled with low-skill manufacturing jobs. We are going to be a nation that does high- skill manufacturing. We are going to be a nation that invents things. We are going to be a nation that is dependent on engineering and on invention. We're going to be a knowledge economy. We are today, but we're going to be even more reliant on maintaining and expanding our knowledge edge on the rest of the world given the fact that the pace of change and the oncoming transformation that will come from robotics and AI will make it even more important for a nation to have the most highly skilled, most highly educated workforce possible in order to stay ahead of the curve and not have employment be buried by automation and artificial intelligence.

(09:12:37)
So this is a moment in which we should be doubling down on our support for the knowledge economy on that integration of public sector research and private sector research, which has always been the genius of the American economy. We did that integration better than anybody, and it is not coincidental that we leapfrog the rest of the world when it came to that innovation economy. But what the senator is explaining is that the Trump administration is waging a war on the knowledge economy, is literally signing our economic death warrant by coming after the foundational strength of our nation, which is that public-private sector integration.

(09:13:21)
I just checked in with the University of Connecticut, which is going to lose $165 million dollars because of this illegal change that the Trump administration has implemented, dramatically cutting the amount of research dollars that go to institutions with NIH grants. I'll just read half their list. They gave me the list of all the research projects that are going to either be eliminated or slowed or diminished. A Project for improving physical and cognitive function in aging, a project on improving outcomes for people with autism, a project on understanding neural mechanisms for language and reading, including for people with dyslexia, funding for prevention and care for HIV patients, projects for studying the leading causes of death and disability in the United States, including cancer, obesity, Alzheimer's disease and substance abuse, a project studying treatments for rare diseases and genetic disorders with specific impacts on health including sickle cell, mitochondrial disorders, Rett syndrome and Prader-Willi syndrome, muscle and bone regeneration research, tick-borne diseases.

(09:14:35)
The University of Connecticut faces the same crisis as all the other institutions listed in that incredibly long and comprehensive STAT news article.

Senator Murphy (09:14:48):

And as you mentioned, researchers are not going to wait around for this crisis to pass. They are going to accept offers from research institutions in other countries, from our European allies to our Asian competitors. We are going to lose our competitive edge when it comes to research. It is worth noting that this change in research funding is illegal. Article One vests the spending power of the federal government in Congress. That's plain and simple and there's lots of good reasons why our Founding Fathers did that, Senator Booker. They were determined to keep the spending power out of the hands of the executive branch because they had seen how the British King had used the Treasury in order to compel loyalty and to punish opposition. You get money if you're loyal to me. I withhold money from you if you are disloyal to me. And so Congress got the spending power.

(09:15:58)
We decided the exact rate of reimbursement for medical research. We were very specific about it in the statute that we passed, Republicans and Democrats. This cut in funding for institutes of higher education's research that has been implemented by the administration is illegal on its face. Congress said exactly how research funding should be allocated. The president is ignoring that statute and implementing a unilateral cut. It has been enjoined by the federal court. Hopefully if the courts follow the law, it will be permanently stopped.

(09:16:39)
But it is important to note that it stands in a larger context of the federal government using its spending power… Excuse me, the Trump administration trying to seize control of federal spending in order to do that work that our Founding Fathers were so worried about. We have seen over the past several weeks the administration march through school after school, trying to cut individual deals with institutions of higher education. We will release your funding only after you sign a bilateral agreement with the administration lining your Institute of Higher Education's priorities up with the political interests of the administration. This is exactly what our Founding Fathers were trying to avoid. The executive using the spending power to compel loyalty from individuals and institutions.

(09:17:55)
What they are doing is illegal and it is beyond me why my Republican colleagues, our Republican colleagues stand idly by while the spending power vested in Congress by the Constitution is ripped from us. But Senator Booker, I guess I'm going to ask you the same question I did when it came to this assault on Social Security, and it's a simple question and I'll lay out a little bit of a predicate. The question is why. What the administration has done is extraordinary, proposing to close the Department of Education. Wildly unpopular. Nobody's asking for that. Waging this illegal and unconstitutional assault on our knowledge economy, suspending funding for institutions of higher education. Research budgets, when plainly the statute says they cannot do that. So why engage in this extraordinary action to essentially destroy America's knowledge economy from elementary school all the way up to graduate education?

(09:19:16)
Well, as we've talked about, as you laid out, it can't be because you're trying to help the economy. This destroys the economy. I mean, this is the worst thing that you could probably do for the economy is to wage this open, transparent, proudful assault on research because we will not survive as an economy unless we are the place where cutting edge research and invention happens. We just won't. And so researchers now who are having all of their offers suspended by major colleges and universities, they're looking elsewhere. Maybe they're hoping that the offer still comes through, but they're dialing up other competitors, many of them outside of the United States. There was a story out of the University of Cambridge in England a couple of weeks ago in which their administrators were talking about the bounty that they are receiving as some of the highest class researchers in the world are coming to them because they don't believe that they'll have any source of stable funding from the United States.

(09:20:23)
So it can't be about helping us create jobs or supporting our economy. This is no doubt an assault on the economy. One of the complaints that I hear often about elementary and secondary education is that the Department of Education was engaged in micromanagement, right? That it was a federal school board and we want to get the federal government out of the business of dictating what local schools will do. Well, that's not a credible explanation for what's happening because in fact, the Trump administration is telegraphing that they are going to actually jump into the micromanagement of our local schools. Nobody has any idea what DEI means. Like let's just be honest. It means something different to every single official in the Trump administration. It's just a proxy to impose a set of reactionary right-wing values on our schools or on our federal agencies.

(09:21:29)
I asked a question of the nominee to be the alleged last Secretary of Education as to whether or not African-American history could be taught in our high schools any longer. And her answer was essentially, maybe not, I don't know. But DEI might mean that you can't teach African-American history. It might mean that the federal government is going to comb through every syllabus in every high school in the entire country and tell you what courses you can teach and what courses you can't. And if there's any words in there that our AI algorithm doesn't like African, can't teach it. That's a level of micromanagement never seen before in the federal government. And so the reason that they are cracking down on the Department of Education or eliminating funding for research is not because they're trying to get the federal government out of the management of our schools because they're doing exactly the opposite.

(09:22:41)
They're telling you that your school is not going to be able to make decisions on what classes it offers its students. It's going to be Linda McMahon, the former CEO of the World Wrestling Federation that is going to be in charge of whether your school can teach African-American history. So then what's the reason Senator Booker, and I'll just give you a couple suggestions. Well, maybe it's just to compel loyalty, right? Maybe it's just to use that money to compel loyalty so that boards of education or colleges are only teaching conservative or right leaning curriculum. Maybe it's to try to quell protest on campuses so that there isn't an ability for students to robustly protest the policies of the regime. Maybe it's just to destroy the idea of objective truth. I mean, this whole scandal over Signal has lots of elements to it, but I think one of the most worrying things for the American public, why it's still a story a week later is because the Secretary of Defense looked the American public in the eye and said, two plus two equals nine, right?

(09:24:11)
He said, those Signal texts you saw did not involve war plans, did not involve classified information. And the American public was like, wait a second. We read them. I'm not dumb. I know those were war plans. I know that that was classified information. But if you are in the business of trying to unwind a democracy, you have to destroy objective truth. You have to make everything political. You have to make everything subjective. Where is objective truth? In our education system, that's where we learn that two plus two equals four every time. But if you want to undermine the foundation of a democracy, then you undermine the place where truth happens. Okay. Maybe it's the same agenda with Social Security. Just come up with an excuse to privatize it all. Just take all the money that's going to good public sector research and just move it all into the private sector so it can be a source to reward the friends of President Trump. That could be a rationale as well. Or maybe it's even simpler. Maybe it's just to own the libs. Maybe it's just that historically Democrats in the left have maybe talked about education more than Republicans have. Even though to me it was always something we both cared about. Whether or not I agreed with George Bush's No Child Left Behind plan, at least he was walking into the capitol with a plan to try to improve education. But maybe it's just that Democrats on the left have historically talked more about education, and if you believe as Donald Trump does, that all politics is zero-sum, anything that Democrats are for must be by definition bad for America.

(09:26:06)
And Democrats seem to like college and they seem to really support our schools. So we have to destroy our colleges and we have to destroy public education because if the left is for it, it must be evil. Maybe that's the reason they're doing it, but that's the question I pose to you because it has nothing to do with our economy. It has nothing to do with getting the federal government out of the management of schools and colleges. There's another agenda here, and it doesn't seem to be an agenda that squares with anything the American people have been asking, Senator Booker.

Cory Booker (09:26:44):

Well, I just want to answer you. Again, I would drive myself mad trying to understand what the ambitions of Trump was or the ambitions behind some of the crazy stuff in Project 2025 that he said wasn't there. They tried to run away from me because it was so unpopular, and now so much of it is being done. It almost sounds like too partisan, too insane. What I do want to do Senator Murphy, and answer to your question, all I can do is try to be as fair and factual and describing what's happening in our country and appeal to people who are moderates in this country. The people who are fair arbiters of what's happening to try to appeal to them that this is a crisis.

(09:27:30)
So when university, after university, after university is cutting scientific research, stopping bringing in the best minds, PhD candidates, post-docs, when they're telling you that they're stopping investment in state-of-the-art research buildings, when they're telling you that they're shutting down programs to bring the youngest brightest minds in, and our competitor China is doing the exact opposite, flowing money through, because China understands if we get two steps ahead of America on quantum computing, we can break all kinds of encryptions. We could locate every submarine they have. China understands if we can get two steps ahead of America on artificial intelligence, it's an end game for them.

(09:28:24)
This is a global competition and a president in 71 days, if you are a moderate in America and just want America to win in human endeavor, look at what the president is doing. And here's to the point you were driving Senator Murphy. It is Orwellian, the bastions of freedom that are our universities. As an article from Fareed Zakaria has said, "Even if universities got too woke and had two excesses, the antidote to that isn't to try to shut down the thought of the left. It's to try to make a fair more competitive marketplace for ideas from all around the political spectrum." But this isn't about politics, it's about science, it's about research. It's about cutting NIH funding, science funding. But I want to stick with that because that's the controversial nub, right? We need to go after DEI programs. I'm hearing it all the time.

(09:29:35)
It was like the confusion I had five years ago when people were asking me, oh, the Republicans are talking about critical race theory. As my father says, I got more degrees in the month of July, but I'm not hot. But I had to go back and research what is critical race theory. Oxford, Stanford, Yale. I didn't sure what they were talking about. And this is the rub on that because I don't want to just talk about what's obvious, which should enrage people on both sides of the aisle. Not just rage people on both sides of the aisle because of the China out competing us, but because we allocated this money in a bipartisan way that he's now trying to pull back. That should raises a violation of Article One of the Constitution. But I want to stick in this more controversial era that you talked about that has all across the country people banning books.

(09:30:22)
When I heard Tony Morrison's Bluest Eye was being taken out of libraries, when I heard my favorite author James Baldwin was being taken out of libraries, what kind of world do we live in? Where somehow studying what they call black history is something that Trump feels like is a rally people to stop where a person going for the Department of Education can't look you in the eye and says, yes, we need to study black history. Well, I get upset with that because black history is American history. I had a brilliant friend of mine, brilliant, look with me in deadpan embarrassment and tell me he just found out that year about the bombing in Tulsa, Oklahoma, something I worked with Senator Lankford to do more to memorialize, but just never knew about it. That this thriving African-American financial community was the first recorded aerial bombing, not Pearl Harbor, in the United States of America. And he was never taught it.

(09:31:33)
Is that black history or is that American history? Why do these people who attack our history think they have to sanitize, homogenize, Disney-ify American history to make us proud? I am more proud of our country when we tell the truth about what happened, when we learn from the wretchedness and the difficulties and the bigotries and the hates and the demagogues who pit us against each other and how we all overcame that. That's our greatness. How the genius of inventors that were women or blacks in the most oppressive of times still manifested their genius to transform humanities. These are stories that should make every American more proud.

(09:32:21)
So yeah, when you have a president now that is making people scrape through programs that they don't even know what they're doing, but if they've word diversity in it, that's bad? That's insanity. My mom worked for IBM before they used words like DEI, and one of her jobs was to find a bigger pool of highly qualified applicants. And so you know what she did is what is being stopped by the Trump administration. She just made sure that they were going to HBCUs to find the brightest students, so that their applicant pool would be better. This isn't about preferential treatment for one group over another. It's about trying to create a more competitive pool where we get the best of the best. It's about merit based. And this president talks about merit, and I watched Senator Whitehouse ask one of the top lawyers in the EPA if he'd ever brought a case, if he had had a hearing, if you ever did a deposition.

(09:33:18)
"No, no, no, no, no, no." And he's like, wait a minute. How are you qualified for this job? And that's the conflict in the logic that I'm observing. In one sense, they're exalting the wealthy elites. I have never imagined that I would see a presidential inauguration where billionaires, leaders of tech companies would sit in front of cabinet members, many of whom were billionaires themselves, but that kind of elitism, but yet they call academic excellence, brilliance and achievement in the sciences at these universities, the elites that we need to go after. If we start going after our educational institutions and weakening their ability to advance excellence in human endeavor, we are injuring ourselves and we have models for that. As Fareed Zakaria says, "The best model is [inaudible 00:19:23] and the cultural revolutions where one of the first groups they went after were their universities." But now they're reversing that and they watched what we did so well that they're doubling down on their funding of universities.

(09:34:22)
They're taking their best scientists and taking away their passports because they don't want them to come here and study. Because they're trying to get ahead of us with DeepSeek and AI. They're trying to get ahead of us in quantum computing. They're trying to get ahead of us in robotics. They're trying to get ahead of us in biomedical engineering. They're trying to get ahead of us in all of these things. And they know the way they do it is to do what America did in the 60s, the 70s, 80s, the 90s, the [inaudible 00:19:58], the 2010s to do what they did in all those times and look at them now. Look at them now.

Senator Murphy (09:34:51):

Will the gentleman yield?

Cory Booker (09:34:53):

I will yield while still retaining the floor.

Senator Murphy (09:35:00):

I take the gentleman's point, my friend's point, right? I am probing tonight for the why, because it's the obvious question. It doesn't make sense. On its face, this intentional chaos, this intentional chaos in Social Security, in Medicare, in higher education, it doesn't make sense. It's not about efficiency. It's not about jobs. So what is it about? But your point is a good one. That may not actually be the conversation that a lot of apolitical Americans are asking. They may just be looking at this on the face and say, how does it impact me? It doesn't matter to me why it's happening. It just matters to me how it's going to impact me. And there's just no doubt that this assault on higher education has an impact. It does. Because we are, as you've said it better than I have. We are just in a race. We are just in a race, and we just decided to slow down to a walk, which is a shame because we're fast.

(09:36:14)
We're fast. This country is quick, and our coach just told us start walking while the other guys speed up. And this is why we have urgency because the races, this one's not… Maybe it's a marathon, but it is one of those races where if the other team gets too big a lead, it's going to be hard to catch up. And so in the next three and a half years, if we just stand down in terms of supporting the knowledge economy, we are going to shed millions of jobs, millions of jobs. And once those centers of excellence, research excellence are outside of the United States, it's not like the next president can just come back in and fix it.

(09:37:08)
That becomes a permanent liability for us. So the reason that I'm here on the floor with you, Senator Booker, is because I agree with you that this is not normal, but I also agree with you that we now wake our colleagues up fast because a second ago, I thought we all agreed on the fact that we need to support the knowledge economy. Two seconds ago, we were all raising hands together, Republicans and Democrats, that we finally started putting big new dollars into NIH. We did a $2 billion increase I think a few years ago, and it was a big bipartisan achievement. And all of a sudden, just because Donald Trump is in the White House, we've lost the bipartisan consensus around supporting the knowledge economy.

Cory Booker (09:38:02):

Then you go back to your question. I know you want to get your last question out before I jump into the next area. So related to this, immigration. I mean the brightest minds on the planet earth that are coming here now are terrified to come here, but we'll talk about that.

Senator Murphy (09:38:16):

I made my point. You made your point.

Cory Booker (09:38:18):

I just wanted to say something to you because you just got me triggered when you said we had some consensus over the last four years that we were here. I love how you said just yesterday, I remember the Chips and Science Act. That was a bipartisan bill. I was sitting in a skiff with all of us, and I watched our whole national security apparatus talk about why science endeavors and chip making and the breakthroughs that are happening on chips are so essential for our national security and how we had to stay ahead of the competition and we marched out of that meeting in a bipartisan fashion. We saw this in the bipartisan work we've been doing on AI here, talking about how America has to lead in this area here. And with all of that bipartisan vigor, we let a president come in, in 71 days and halt scientific research, pausing, literally experiments in their tracks, halting researchers in their tracks, shaking universities to the core that are afraid of free expression for getting on the past wrong side of dear leader that it might cost them their science funding.

(09:39:44)
So you are putting your finger on it, but can I just say something on a personal level? Because I just want to remind folks as we close it in the 10th hour that you and I were here for 15, and you are here. You are here because you agree with me, you agree with me, that from science and research to higher education, to the Department of Education, Social Security, to healthcare in America, we are at a crisis. Any one of those alone should have Americans. But the case we're making going through all these, pulling from people on the left and the right, we've quoted Republican governors, we've quoted Republican mayor organizations represented by organizations. We've quoted public and business people. We've quoted for the Wall Street Journal and Cato Institute's coming up. This is not a partisan crisis that people across the spectrum are pointing to.

(09:40:45)
But I do want to point out that you've been such a good friend to me to spend 10 hours almost on the floor, and it means a lot to me tonight. So thank you for that as I switch to healthcare. And I appreciate the sentiment that you have and that you had after the Pulse shooting that you were so worried about when I listened to your maiden speech when you first got here to the Senate, that we would normalize gun violence in this country. And what I'm worried about, I share your worry there. I grew up in a time where fire drills were the big thing, and that space between people ducking and covering because of nuclear fears and left school before… We were a country that had more active shooter drills than fire drills. And we just sort of are normalizing this terror in our country and haven't stepped up to the challenge of really doing something about it.

(09:41:46)
But this is one of these crises where if we act like business as usual, 71 days so far of the Trump administration, when we get to a hundred days catastrophic things could have happened to Medicaid and healthcare. The crashing of research for science, the attacks on the programs our senior citizens rely on. We as a country have to, as I said at the very beginning, 10 hours ago almost, we have to do what John Lewis challenged us to do, to stand up, to speak up, to get into good trouble, necessary trouble. And tonight, my friend, in the wee hours, so many songs about 4:00 in the morning, it's like the hour that nobody should be awake, and I want to thank the presiding officer for being here. I want to thank the clerks and the parliamentary staff and the impositions, but the cries of American citizens for their leaders to do something different, to stand up, to speak up.

(09:42:57)
I felt like this has to be done, and so let's keep going. Almost 10 hours in. I'm thankful, but we're going to start the next section, and I'm trying to do in all of these is I'm trying to elevate the voices that don't get to come to this place. The voices that I'm hearing from. Voices that identify themselves sometimes as I'm a Republican veteran and I'm a Democrat, but most of them are just people that are just saying, this is not normal. Many of them are saying, do something. Some of them who get me very emotional saying, what can I do? I get that question a lot. What can I do? Tell me what I can do to try to stop this. We're going to take this issue of immigration, and here is… I'm not sure where this person is from. My staff has covered it up probably to protect a person's identity, but I'm going to read this handwritten note. Oh, it's from New Jersey. Thank you.

(09:43:51)
"Senator Booker, please continue to fight the good fight against the injustices being done by the current administration. I am the pastor of Emmanuel Lutheran Church in New Brunswick. As a faith leader and your constituent, I'm deeply concerned about the treatment of LGBTQ people and immigrants by this administration. The demonization and marginalization of these groups is unchristian and deeply offensive to the values of my faith. I ask that you continue to oppose all executive orders and legislation that targets these groups. You have been a consistent ally. Please continue to be a champion for justice for all people, but especially the most vulnerable."

Cory Booker (09:44:52):

Another person. Late yesterday, in fact, court filings from the Trump administration revealed that they mistakenly deported a Maryland father with protected legal status to this horrific prison in El Salvador. Abrego Garcia is married to a United States citizen and has a five-year-old disabled child who is a US citizen. He has no criminal record in the United States, but despite receiving a legal status called Withholding Of Removal, where a United States immigration judge found that it is more likely than not to face persecution if deported to El Salvador, the Trump administration deported him, where? To the very country from which he fled gang violence.

(09:45:39)
Here's the story that was written about him in the Atlantic, "The Trump administration acknowledged in a court filing Monday that it had grabbed a Maryland father with protected legal status and mistakenly deported him to El Salvador, but said that the US courts lack jurisdiction to order his return from the mega prison where he is now locked up. The case appears to be the first time the Trump administration has admitted to errors. When it sent three plane loads of Salvadorans and Venezuelan deportees to El Salvador's grim Terrorism Confinement Center on March 15th. Attorneys for several Venezuelan deportees have said that the Trump administration falsely labeled their clients as gang members, because of their tattoos. But in Monday's court filing, attorneys for the government admitted that the Salvadoran man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, was deported accidentally.

(09:46:36)
"Although ICE was aware of his protection from removal to El Salvador, Abrego Garcia was removed to El Salvador, because of an administrative error the government told the court. Trump lawyers said the court has no ability to bring him back now that Abrego Garcia is in Salvadoran custody.

(09:46:57)
"Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, Abrego Garcia's attorney, said he's never seen a case in which the government knowingly deported someone who had already received protected legal status from an immigration judge. He is asking the court to order the Trump administration to ask for Abrego Garcia's return, and if necessary, to withhold payment to the Salvadoran government, which says it's charging the United States $6 million a year to jail US Deportees.

(09:47:26)
"The Trump administration told the court to dismiss the request on multiple grounds, including Trump's primacy in foreign affairs"

(09:47:36)
Primacy in foreign affairs? I'm not going to stop now, but I ask anybody who's read the Constitution to understand that the President of the United States is not king. He does not have primacy in foreign affairs.

(09:47:55)
I continue with the article, "The claim that the court is powerless to order any relief, Sandoval-Moshenberg told me, 'If that's true, the immigration laws are meaningless, all of them, because the government can do whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want, and no court can do anything about it once it's done.'

(09:48:12)
"Court filings show Abrego Garcia came to the United States at the age of 16 in 2011, fleeing gang threats in his native El Salvador. In 2019, he received a form of protected legal status, known as Withholding Of Removal, from a US immigration judge who found he would likely be targeted by gangs if he was deported back. Abrego Garcia, who is married to a US citizen and has a five-year-old disabled child, who is also a US citizen, has no criminal record in the United States, according to his attorney. The Trump administration does not claim he has a criminal record, but called him a danger to the community. They called him an active member of MS13, the Salvadorian gang that Trump has declared a foreign terrorist organization.

(09:48:58)
Sandoval-Moshenberg said those charges are false, and the gang label stems from a 2019 incident when Abrego Garcia and three other men were detained in a Home Depot parking lot by a police detective in Prince George's County, Maryland. During questioning, one of the men told Officers Abrego was a gang member, but the man offered no proof, and police say they didn't believe him, filings show.

(09:49:18)
"Police did not identify him as a gang member, Abrego Garcia was not charged with a crime, but he was handed over to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement after the arrest to face deportation. In those proceedings, the government claimed that a reliable informant had identified him as a ranking member of MS13. Abrego Garcia and his family hired an attorney and fought the government's attempt to deport him. He received Withholding Of Removal six months later, that protective status, it's not a path to permanent US residency, but it means the government won't deport him back to his home country, because it's more likely than not that he'll face harm there.

(09:49:56)
"Abrego Garcia has no contact with any law enforcement agency since his release, according to his attorney. He works full-time as a union sheet metal apprentice, has complied with requirements to check in annually with ICE, and cares for his five-year-old son who has autism and a hearing defect, and is unable to communicate verbally.

(09:50:17)
"On March 12th, Abrego Garcia had picked up his son after work from the boy's grandmother's house, when ICE officers stopped the car, saying his protective status had changed. Officers waited for Abrego's wife to come to the scene and take care of the boy, then drove away with him in handcuffs.

(09:50:36)
"Within two days, he had been transferred to an ICE staging facility in Texas, along with other detainees the government was preparing to send to El Salvador. Trump had invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 and the government planned to deport two plane loads of Venezuelans, along with a separate group of Salvadorians. Abrego's family has no contact with him since he was sent to the mega prison in El Salvador, known as the CECOT," C-E-C-O-T.

(09:51:05)
"His wife spotted her husband in the news photographs released by Salvadorian President Bukele on the morning of March 16th, after a US district judge had told the Trump administration to halt the flights. 'Oopsie,' Bukele wrote on social media, taunting the Judge.

(09:51:24)
"Abrego Garcia's wife recognized her husband's decorative arm tattoo and scars. According to the court filing, the image showed Salvadorian guards in black ski masks frog-marching him into the prison with his head shoved down toward the floor. The CECOT is the same prison Department of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, visited last week recording videos for social media, while standing in front of a cell packed with silent detainees.

(09:51:56)
"If the government wants to deport someone with protective status, the standard course would be to reopen the case and introduce new evidence arguing for deportation. The deportation of a protective status holder has even stunned some government attorneys. I've been in touch with who are tracking the case, who declined to be named, because they weren't authorized to speak to the press. One of those people texted me, "What, period, the, period, expletive, period.'

(09:52:37)
"Sandoval-Moshenberg told the court he believes Trump officials deported his client through extrajudicial means, because they believed that going through the immigration judge process took too long, and they feared that they might not win after all their cases. Officials at ICE and the Department of Homeland Security did not Respond to a request for comment.

(09:53:02)
"The Monday court filing by the government indicates officials knew Abrego Garcia had legal protections shielding him from deportation to El Salvador. ICE was aware of this grant withholding the removal at a time of Abrego Garcia's removal from the United States. Reference was made to a status on internal forms. Abrego Garcia was not on the initial manifest of the deportation flight, but was listed as, 'an alternate.' The government attorneys explained. As other detainees were removed from the flight for various reasons, 'Abrego Garcia,' moved up the list.

(09:53:46)
" The flight manifest did not indicate that Abrego Garcia should not be removed. The attorneys said through administrative error, Abrego Garcia was removed from the United States to El Salvador. 'This was an oversight,' the government admitted, but despite this, they told the court that Abrego Garcia's deportation was carried out in good faith." I'm going to go into this section now, and I'm going to read things by conservative justices, and liberal justices, to some of the most conservative Supreme Court justices, that say, "This is outrageous in this nation."

(09:54:37)
No one, there are parts of this constitution, and I'm going to talk about them, that talk about due process, about fundamental American ideals, but this story, and the few others I've heard, where Americans that have the status to stay here, that have an American spouse, American children, who will be traumatized by this. This case, a disabled child. Who's working father who is struggling to take care of one of our children, an American child with an American mother. We were told that the President said he was going to be focusing on criminals, and these trumped-up charges, where they admit in court, and made a mistake, but write such mocking things to judges like, "Whoopsie," on social media, this cruelty, this is not who we are.

(09:55:46)
So let's talk about the Constitution first. The Fifth and the 14th Amendment. The Fifth and the 14th Amendment. The Fifth and the 14th Amendments say that, "No one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law." The central promise of those words is an assurance at all levelS of the American government must operate within the law and the bonds of this constitution that everybody in this chamber swears an oath to uphold the constitution. But every single day it just seems our President is challenging constitutional principles, pushing past constitutional boundaries. Every day we're hearing new stories of immigrants, some here legally, some awaiting trial, most charged with no crimes, being rounded up, detained, arrested, deported, often just disappeared. This is happening without charges, evidence, trials, hearings, without what the Constitution says, "Due process." This is what other governments done, we've talked about it. In the Foreign Relations Committee, we complain about it. To nations across the earth when they do not show due process, where they disappear people.

(09:57:14)
Maybe you're an immigrant that's never broken the law. Maybe you're a citizen. Even if you think the administration's immigration agenda doesn't apply to you, please know that the reckless behavior we're seeing erodes all of our rights. And the American mother and the American child, right now, whose husband was unjustly and illegally deported and is right now in an El Salvadorian prison. Think about them.

(09:57:45)
Denying due process is a slippery soap. We've seen it in other countries with democratic backsliding, it is a slippery slope. If people can be detained and deported without a hearing, detained and deported without due process, without seeing a judge, nothing will stop from slipping towards deporting others, making mistakes with an American.

(09:58:09)
I am one of these people, in this body, that thinks our immigration system is in desperate need of reform. It was last updated 40 years ago. 40 years ago was the last time we acted to update our immigration laws. The failure to update our laws has resulted in our country's inability to manage unprecedented levels of global migration, that are not just affecting our country, but are affecting others. It's an unprecedented influx of applications to enter the United States. It's put pressure and strain on our immigration system. It's slowed down processing times for millions of people trying to immigrate or naturalize legally, and made it more difficult to incentivize the world's brightest minds to come here to contribute to our country's long-term success.

(09:59:09)
For millions of Americans, immigration is not a political issue, it's a personal one. There are immigrants around my state, and in every state, who have waited year after year for Congress to find bipartisan agreement to improve our system in ways that most Americans agree on, whether you're right or left. They've been waiting for Congress to fix our outdated immigration laws, to secure our borders, to dedicate the resources necessary for USCIS to fix the outrageously long processing times for immigrations, and provide a pathway to legal status for long-term American residents who have followed our laws, contributed to our societies, and some of them know no other country because they came here when they were just months old.

(09:59:56)
Our immigration laws are so outdated, even the conservative Cato Institute published a comprehensive policy analysis in 2023 titled Why Legal Immigration is Nearly Impossible. In it, the Cato Institute explains, I quote, "Today, fewer than 1% of the people who want to move permanently to the United States can do so legally. Legal immigration is less like waiting in line and more like winning the lottery. It happens, but it's so rare that it's irrational to expect it in any individual case."

(10:00:36)
The Cato Institute continues, "For some immigrants, this restrictive system sends them back into the black market of illegal immigration. For others, it sends them to other countries, where they contribute to the quality of life in their homes. And for still others, it requires them to remain in their homeland, often underemployed, sometimes in danger. Whatever the outcome, the system punishes both prospective immigrants and Americans who would associate, contract and trade with them. Congress and the administration can do better."

(10:01:13)
I've met with conservatives, I've met with business groups, I've met with agricultural leaders, who all talk to common sense things we should be doing to improve our immigration system, to protect our borders, yes, but to improve our economy, to improve our scientific research, to improve our quality of life.

(10:01:46)
The only way to fix our broken immigration system is for Congress to fix it, to pass comprehensive immigration reform. But instead of a leader, strong leaders, who go before Congress taking on the most complex issues, but yet have the courage to stand before Congress and pull them together to do hard things, instead of doing that, the last time we made progress in this body, President Trump actively blocked bipartisan legislation. Now he's imposed policies that aren't just going after criminals, they're dragging in so many others.

(10:02:29)
When President Trump stopped Republicans from voting on the bipartisan bill that was negotiated in the Senate last year, he stopped us from making strides towards the larger fixes we need. The administration's immigration plans are not helping American citizens who are submitting applications so that their spouse, or fiance, who is waiting in another country can finally join them in the United States. The administration right now is not helping American citizens who have been waiting for years for a visa for their brother, or their sister, or their mother, or their father, uniting families is an American value. Americans aren't getting any relief from these extraordinary long wait times.

(10:03:23)
On the USCIS website, you can check the average processing times for these cases, and most Americans would be shocked, maybe even horrified, to learn just how long it will take for you, as an American citizen, to bring a husband, or a wife, or even a child, back to the United States with you.

(10:03:39)
We checked this past weekend and here are the numbers. For the I-129 Fiance Visa, the processing time for 80% of the cases is eight months to three years. For an I-130 visa, if you're a US citizen petitioning for your spouse, parent, or minor child, then the waiting time is any time from 17 months to 64 months. That's an average from anywhere from a year and a half to over five years. For an I-90, if your green card is destroyed in a flood or a fire, 80% of people will be waiting for almost a year and a half, 17 months, to just get a new copy.

(10:04:21)
These numbers are shocking, and they don't even take into account long wait times for visa appointments at the US consulate or embassies. In India, for example, the average wait time for an appointment is well over 400 days. American citizens, including thousands of my constituents in New Jersey, are so angry, they're waiting far too long for the cases to be prioritized and adjudicated. But when Trump relocates all the resources within our immigration system to conducting the largest mass deportation of people in history, American citizens are paying the price, not just from USCIS processing times, we pay the price, because to do this, he is diverting actual law enforcement resources away from solving crimes and stopping terrorisms, his actions are actually making us less safe. We pay the price, because these policies are eroding constitutional principles, as well as making us less safe, by taking law enforcement away from their efforts. This plan is about conditioning Americans to the suspension of due process. First for immigrants, if we let due process erode for immigrants, it erodes for Americans.

(10:05:35)
Let me outline a little bit about how this is happening and why this is a crisis. Two weeks ago, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act. The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 allows the President to detain or deport the natives and citizens of an enemy nation that we are at war with. 1798 Act, the President can detain or deport these immigrants without a hearing, with no due process, even ones who are lawfully present in the United States.

(10:06:08)
The Alien Enemies Act was last used during one of our country's darkest moments, the internment of Japanese, German, and Italian nationals during World War II. But even then, we still ensured that due process was followed prior to detention. People subjected to the Alien Enemies Act in the 1940s appeared before the Alien Enemy Hearing Board where they could at least present evidence that they had no ties to Axis Powers.

(10:06:37)
As one circuit court judge recently said of Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act, "There's no regulations and nothing was adopted by agency officials that were administrating this. The people weren't even given notice. They weren't told where they were going. They were getting those people on the planes on Saturday, and had no opportunity to file habeas, or any type of action to challenge their removal." The standards of 1940, during World War II, were higher than the standards of this President? The following are people that Trump has targeted and removed without criminal charges, without a hearing, without evidence to a prison rife with human rights abuses in El Salvador. These are the people that he has sent there, a tattoo artist seeking asylum who entered the country legally. An aspiring pop musician with a tattoo of a hummingbird. A 24-year-old who used to teach swim classes for children with developmental disabilities and has a tattoo of an Autism Awareness ribbon in honor of his brother. A Venezuelan who had fled violence in Venezuela last year and came to the United States to seek asylum. His lawyer wrote on social media, "ICE alleged that his tattoos are gang related. They are absolutely not. Our client worked in the arts in Venezuela. He is gay. LGBTQ. His tattoos are benign. He has no criminal record." Another Venezuelan removed to this El Salvadorian prison is a barber with no criminal history. Another professional, is a professional soccer player, has a tattoo with a soccer ball and a rosary closely resembling the logo of his favorite soccer team.

(10:08:36)
This is stunning, what we're doing. These people were swept up and sent to another prison known for its human rights abuses, because they were Venezuelan and had tattoos. Benign tattoos. An article was published in one periodical about the anguish from families. Here are a few excerpts from the article, "You are here because of your tattoos. The Trump administration sent Venezuelans to El Salvador's most infamous prison. Their families are looking for answers. On Friday, March 14th, Arturo Suarez Trejo called his wife, Natalie Sanchez, from an immigration detention center in Texas. Suarez, a 33-year-old male native of Caracas, Venezuela, explained that his deportation flight had been delayed. He told his wife he still would be home soon. Suarez did not go back to Venezuela. Still, there was at least a silver lining.

(10:09:32)
"In December, Sanchez had given birth to their daughter Naira. Suarez would finally have a chance to meet their three-month-old baby girl he had never ever seen. But Sanchez told the outlet she had not heard from Suarez since. Instead, last weekend, she found herself zooming in on a photo the government of El Salvador published of Venezuelan men the Trump administration had sent to President Nayib Bukele's infamous Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT. 'I realized that one of them was my husband,' she said. 'I recognized him by his tattoo, by his ear, and a scar on his chin. Even though I couldn't see his face, I knew it was him.' The photo of Sanchez examined a highly-produced propaganda video promoted by the Secretary of State and the White House, showed Venezuelans shackled in prison uniforms as they were pushed around by guards and had their heads shaved.

(10:10:27)
"The tattoo on Suarez's neck is of Colibri, a hummingbird, his wife said it was meant to symbolize harmony and good energy. She said his other tattoos, like a palm tree on his hand and an homage to Suarez's late mother's, use of Venezuelan expression about God being greater than a coconut tree, were similarly innocuous. Needless to say, they may be why Suarez has been effectively disappeared by the US government into an El Salvadoran mega prison."

(10:11:16)
We must keep our country safe. Violent criminals, people with long criminal records who are not citizens, I think every American would agree, they should be deported. Immigrants to this country, surprisingly, have a much lower rate of breaking laws, but if they break laws, I agree. But maybe you're an immigrant that's never broken a law. Maybe you're a naturalized citizen. Maybe you were born here. The problem with this idea of disappearing people with no due process, is once that foundation is laid, if they're able to defend that lack of due process to use that law from the 1700s, we begin a process in this country, that even conservative justices of the Supreme Court, said is unjustifiable.

(10:12:15)
Denying people due process pushes us down a road where more exceptions can be made. You cannot deny fundamental rights to another and not endanger them for yourself. We have created a system, now, if Trump is successful, where you can just say, you can just claim, you can just point to someone and say they're from X country, or claim that they're part of a gang, and without any due process, without any vetting, without going before any independent arbiter, you are disappeared, because there's just no way to challenge them. No due process for non-citizens means that we are a country in violation of those ideals I talked about from here, that says at the beginning of this country, that says very simply, " No one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property. No one without due process of law." As soon as we break that, as soon as we violate that, we're going down a road.

(10:13:34)
Anton Scalia, I confess, I've disagreed with him on so many things, but this conservative justice once sat in an interview with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They had a relationship that I think was special, and shows that even people that have distinctly different views can still make real human connection in our country. They were asked by an interviewer whether undocumented people have the five freedoms, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom to petition the government. Here is what the conservative Justice Scalia said, "Oh, I think so. I think anybody who is present in the United States has protections under the United States Constitution. Americans abroad have that protection. Other people abroad, do not. They don't have the protections of our constitutions, but anyone who is present in the United States has the protections of the

Cory Booker (10:14:47):

… United States Constitution. Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative members of the highest court in our land. And of course, Ginsburg, his ideological opposite, she concurred when she said, "When we get to the 14th Amendment, it doesn't speak of citizens as some constitutions grant rights to citizens, but our constitution says persons, and that the person is every person who is here in our country, documented or undocumented." Our constitution is clear on the face.

(10:15:19)
If you are an originalist like Antonin Scalia and you read the Constitution's words, you have to stand for the idea that no one should be denied due process, that the government can't walk up to a human being and grab them off the street and put them on a plane and send them to one of the most notorious prisons in the world and just say, as one of our authority did, "Oopsie." Think about that. And that happened to a father of an American child. Think about that. That happened to a husband of an American woman. Think about that. That happened to a man who a judge already said he had the right to stay. When the rights of some are violated, they are a threat to the rights of all of us.

(10:16:32)
In January, ICE agents in New Jersey raided a small business without a warrant and detained a Puerto Rican military veteran of Boricua, an American citizen, detained him, even after he presented his valid ID to those ICE agents. This is one example of so many.

(10:16:51)
Some Americans Have Already Been Caught in Trump's Immigration Dragnet. More Will Be: an article by Nicole Foy. "About a week after President Trump took office, Jonathan Guerrero was sitting at a Philadelphia car wash where he works when immigration agents burst in. The agents didn't say why they were there and didn't show their badges, Guerrero recalled. So the 21-year-old didn't get a chance to explain that although his parents were from Mexico, he was born right there in the city of brotherly love. An agent pointed his gun at Guerrero and handcuffed him. Then they brought in other car wash workers, including Guerrero's father, who's undocumented. When agents began checking IDs, they finally noticed that Guerrero was a citizen and quickly let him go. I said, 'Look, man, I don't know who these guys are and what they're doing. With anything law-related, I just stay quiet.' Less than two months into the Trump administration, there has been a small, but steady beat of more and more reported cases like Guerrero's."

(10:17:58)
"In Utah, agents pulled over and detained a 20-year-old American after he honked at them. In New Mexico, a member of the Mescalero Apache nation more than two hours from the border was stopped and questioned by agents who demanded to see their passports. Earlier this month, a Trump voter in Virginia was pulled over and handcuffed by a gun-wielding immigration agent. It's unclear exactly how many citizens have faced the Trump administration's dragnet so far, and while previous administrations have mistakenly held Americans, too, there's no firm count on these incidents either. Government doesn't release figures on citizens who have been held by immigration authorities, neither Customs and Border Protection, neither Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which handles interior immigration enforcement."

(10:18:43)
"Experts and advocates say what is clear to them, though, is that Trump's aggressive immigration policy, such as arrest quotas for enforcement agents, make it more and more likely that citizens will be caught up in immigration sweeps." In quotes, "It's really everyone, not just non-citizens or undocumented people who are in danger of having their liberty violated in this kind of mass deportation machinery."

(10:19:13)
"Asked about reports of Americans getting caught up in administration's enforcement policies, an ICE spokesman told the outlet in a written statement that agents are allowed to ask for citizens' identification. Any US immigration officer has authority to question without warrant any alien or person believed to be an alien concerning his or her right to be or to remain in the United States. The agency didn't respond to questions about specific cases."

(10:19:38)
"The US has gone through spasms of detaining and even deporting large numbers of citizens. In the 1930s and 1940s, federal and local authorities forcibly exiled an estimated one million Mexican-Americans, including hundreds of thousands of American-born children." That's our past. An estimated one million Mexican-Americans, including hundreds of thousands of American-born children, swept up and deported. "The US Government Accountability Office report found that immigration authorities had asked to hold roughly 600 likely citizens during Trump's first term. The GAO also, the Government Accountability Office, also found that Trump actually deported about 70 likely American citizens. The GAO report did not get into any individual cases, but lawsuits brought against federal immigration agencies detailed dozens of cases where plaintiffs received a settlement." This will accelerate if there's no due process. In his first administration, there was some process. But this will accelerate if there's no due process.

(10:21:04)
I live in Newark, New Jersey, and there are dozens of languages spoken in my city, and some of the elders from some of these many different ethnic groups, from European folks who don't speak English to folks from Asia that don't speak English, and imagine one of these Americans gets stopped and doesn't have papers on them, and they see a tattoo, and next thing you know they're sent to Louisiana or Texas, and next thing you know they're on a flight. That's not hyperbole. That's not some impossible thing. We know once due process is eliminated in this country for some, all are in danger. It is a constitutional slippage that Scalia and conservatives who believe in the Constitution nobly object to.

(10:22:04)
Canadian citizen Jasmine Mooney was detained by ICE for two weeks. I saw an interview of her, this white woman stunned. Here's what she wrote. It's Canadian. "There was no explanation, no warning. One minute I was in an immigration office talking to an officer about my work visa, which has been approved months before and allowed me, a Canadian, to work in the United States. The next, I was told to put my hands against the wall and patted down like a criminal before being sent to an ICE detention center without the chance to talk to a lawyer."

(10:22:46)
" I grew up in Whitehorse, Yukon, a small town in the northernmost part of Canada. I always knew I wanted to do something bigger with my life. I left home early and moved to Vancouver, British Columbia, where I built a career spanning multiple industries, acting in film and television, owning bars and restaurants, flipping condos, and managing Airbnbs. In my 30s, I found my true passion working in health and the wellness industry. I was given an opportunity to help launch an American brand of health tonics called Holy Water, a job that would involve moving to the United States. I was granted my trade work visa, which allows Canadian and Mexican citizens to work in the United States in specified professional occupations. I got it on my second attempt. It goes without saying, then, that I have no criminal record. I also love the United States and consider myself to be a kind, hardworking person."

(10:23:42)
"I started working in California and traveled back and forth between Canada and the US multiple times without any complications until one day, upon returning to the United States, a border officer questioned me about my initial visa denial and subsequent visa approval. He asked why I had gone to San Diego border the second time to apply. I explained that that was where my lawyer's offices were and that he had wanted to accompany me to ensure there were no issues. After a long interrogation, the officer told me that it seemed, quote, shady and that my visa hadn't been properly processed. He claimed I couldn't work for a company in the US that made use of hemp, one of the beverage ingredients. He revoked my visa and told me I could still work for the company from Canada, but if I wanted to return to the US, I would need to reapply. I was devastated. I had just started building a life in California."

(10:24:42)
"I stayed in California for the next few months and was eventually offered a similar position, but with a different health and wellness brand. I started the visa processes and returned to the same immigration office in San Diego at the border, since they had processed my visa before and I was familiar with it. Hours passed with many confused opinions about my case. The officer I spoke to was kind, but told me that due to my previous issues, I needed to apply for my visa through the consulate. I told her I hadn't been aware I needed to apply that way, but I had no problem doing it. Then she said something strange, 'You didn't do anything wrong. You are not in trouble. You are not a criminal.' I remember thinking, why would she say that? Of course I'm not a criminal."

(10:25:26)
"Then she told me they had to send me back to Canada. That didn't concern me. I assumed I would simply book a flight home. But as I sat searching for flights, a man approached me and said, 'Come with me.' There was no explanation, no nothing. He took me to a room, took my belongings from my hands, and ordered me to put my hands against the wall. A woman immediately began patting me down. The commands came rapid-fire, one after another, too fast to process. They took my shoes and pulled out my shoelaces. 'What are you doing? What's happening?' I asked. 'You are being detained.' 'I don't understand. What does that mean? For how long?' 'I don't know.' That would be the response to nearly every question I would ask over the next two weeks, 'I don't know.' They brought me downstairs for a series of interviews and medical questions. They searched my bags and told me I had to get rid of half my belongings because I couldn't take everything with me. 'Take everything with me where?' I asked."

(10:26:20)
"A woman asked me for the name of someone they could contact on my behalf. In moments like this, you realize you don't actually know anyone's phone number anymore. By some miracle, I had recently memorized my best friend Britt's number because I had been putting my grocery points on her account. I gave them her phone number. They handed me a mat and a folded-up sheet of aluminum foil. 'What's this?' 'Your blanket.' 'I don't understand.' I was taken to a tiny, freezing cement cell with bright fluorescent lights and a toilet. There were five other women lying on their mats with aluminum sheets wrapped around them looking like dead bodies. The guard locked the door behind me. For two days we remained in the cell, only leaving briefly for food. The lights never turned off. We never knew what time it was, and no one answered our questions. No one in the cell spoke English, so I either tried to sleep or meditate to keep from having a breakdown. I didn't trust the food, so I fasted, assuming I wouldn't be there long."

(10:27:18)
"On the third day, I was finally allowed to make a phone call. I called Britt and told her that I didn't understand what was happening. No one would tell me when I was going home and that she was my only contact. They gave me a stack of paperwork to sign and told me I was being given a five-year ban unless I applied for reentry through the consulate. The officer also said it didn't matter whether I signed the papers or not. It was happening regardless. I was so delirious, I just signed. I told them I would pay for my flight home and asked when I could leave. No answer."

(10:27:48)
"They then moved me to another cell, this time with no mats or blanket. I sat freezing on the cement floor for hours. That's when I realized they were processing me into real jail, the Otay Mesa Detention Center. I was told to shower, given a jail uniform, fingerprinted, and interviewed. I begged for information. 'How long will I be here?' 'I don't know your case,' the man said. 'Could be days, could be weeks, but I'm telling you right now, you need to mentally prepare yourself for months.' 'Months?' I felt like I was going to throw up."

(10:28:23)
"I was taken to the nurse's office for a medical check. She asked what happened to me. She had never seen a Canadian there before. When I told her my story, she grabbed my hand and said, 'Do you believe in God?' I told her I only recently found God, but now I believed in God more than anything. And she said, 'I believe God brought you here for a reason. I know it feels like your life is in a million pieces, but you will be okay through this. I think you're going to find a way to help others.' At the time, I didn't know what that meant. She asked if she could pray for me. I held her hands and wept. I felt like I had been sent a guardian angel."

(10:28:59)
"I was then placed in a real jail unit, two levels of cells surrounding a common area, just like in the movies. I was put in a tiny cell alone with a bunk bed and a toilet. The best part, there were blankets. After three days without one, I wrapped myself in mine and finally felt some comfort. For the first day, I didn't leave my cell. I continued fasting, terrified that the food might make me sick. The only available water came from the tap attached to the toilet in our cells or a sink in the common area, neither of which felt safe to drink. Eventually, I forced myself to step out, meet the guards, and learn the rules. One of them told me, 'No fighting.' I joked, 'I'm a lover, not a fighter.' He laughed. I asked if there had ever been a fight in there. 'In this unit? No,' he said. 'No one in this unit has a criminal record.'"

(10:29:55)
"That's when I started meeting other women. That's when I started hearing their stories. And that's when I made a decision. I would never allow myself to feel sorry for my situation again. No matter how hard this was, I had to be grateful because every woman I met was in an even more difficult position than mine. There were around 140 of us in our unit. Many women had lived and worked in the US legally for years, but had overstayed their visas, often after reapplying and being denied. They had all been detained without warning."

(10:30:28)
"If someone is a criminal, I agree they should be taken off the streets, but not one of these women had a criminal record. These women acknowledged that they shouldn't have overstayed and took responsibility for their actions, but their frustration wasn't about being held accountable. It was about the endless bureaucratic limbo they had been trapped in. The real issue was how long it took to get out of the system with no clear answers, no timeline, and no way to move forward. Once deported, many have no choice but to abandon everything they own because the cost of shipping their belongings back is too high."

(10:31:03)
"I met a woman who had been on a road trip with her husband. She said they had 10-year work visas. While driving near the San Diego border, they mistakenly got into a lane leading to Mexico. They stopped and told the agent they didn't have their passports on them, expecting to be redirected. Instead, they were detained. They were both pastors."

(10:31:23)
"I met a family of three who had been living in the US for 11 years with work authorizations. They paid taxes and were waiting for green cards. Every year, the mother had to undergo a background check, but this time she was told to bring her whole family. When they arrived, they were taken into custody and told their status would now be processed from within the detention center."

(10:31:42)
"Another woman from Canada had been living in the US with her husband who was detained after a traffic stop. She admitted she had overstayed her visa and accepted that she would be deported, but she had been stuck in the system for almost six weeks because she hadn't had her passport. Who runs casual errands without their passport?"

(10:32:02)
"One woman had a 10-year visa. When it expired, she moved back to her home country, Venezuela. She admitted she had overstayed by one month before leaving. Later, she returned from a vacation and entered the US without issue. But when she took a domestic flight from Miami to Los Angeles, she was picked up by ICE and detained. She couldn't be deported because Venezuela wasn't accepting deportees. She didn't know when she was getting out."

(10:32:27)
"There was a girl from India who had overstayed her student visa for three days before heading back home. She then came back to the US on a new visa to finish her master's degree and was handed over to ICE due to the three days she had overstayed on her previous visa."

(10:32:47)
"There were women who had been picked up off the streets from outside their workplaces, from their homes. All of these women told me that they had been detained from time spans ranging from a few weeks to 10 months. One woman's daughter was outside the detention center protesting for her release. That night, the pastor invited me into a service she was holding. A girl who spoke English translated for me as the women took turns sharing their prayers, prayers for their sick parents, for their children they hadn't seen in weeks, for the loved ones that they had been torn away from. Then unexpectedly, they asked if they could pray for me. I was new here, and they wanted to welcome me. They formed a prayer circle around me, took my hands and prayed. I had never felt so much love, energy, and compassion from a group of strangers in my life. Everyone was crying."

(10:33:35)
"At 3:00 AM the next day, I was woken up in my cell. 'Pack your bag. You're leaving.' I jolted upright. 'I get to go home?' The officer shrugged. 'I don't know where you're going.' Of course, no one knew anything. I grabbed my things and went downstairs, where 10 other women stood in silence, tears streaming down their faces. But these weren't happy tears. That was the moment I learned the term transferred. For many of these women, detention centers had become a twisted version of home. They had formed bonds, established routines, and found slivers of comfort and friendships they had built. Now, without warning, they were being torn apart and sent somewhere new. Watching them say goodbye, clinging to each other was gut-wrenching. I had no idea what was waiting for me next. In hindsight, that was probably for the best."

(10:34:20)
"Our next stop was Arizona, the San Luis Regional Detention Center. The transfer process had lasted for 24 hours, a sleepless, grueling ordeal. This time, men were transported with us. Roughly 50 of us crammed into a prison bus for the next five hours, packed together, women in the front, men in the back. We were bound in chains that wrapped tightly around our waists, with our cuffed hands secured to our bodies and shackles restraining our feet, forcing every moment into a slow, clinking struggle."

(10:34:52)
"When we arrived at our next destination, we were forced to go through the entire intake process all over again, with medical exams, fingerprinting, and pregnancy tests. They linked us up in a filthy cell, squatting over a communal toilet, holding Dixie cups of urine while the nurses dropped pregnancy tests in each of our cups. It was disgusting. We sat in freezing cold jail cells for hours waiting for everyone to be processed. Across the room, one of the women suddenly spotted her husband. They had both been detained and were now seeing each other for the first time in weeks. The look in their faces, pure love, relief, and longing, was something I'll never forget."

(10:35:31)
"We were beyond exhausted. I felt like I hallucinating. The guard tossed us each a blanket and said, 'Find a bed.' There were no pillows. The room was cold as ice, and one blanket wasn't enough. Around me, women lay curled into themselves, heads covered, looking like a room full of corpses. This place made the last jail feel like the Four Seasons. I kept telling myself, 'Do not let this break you.'"

(10:35:57)
"30 of us shared one room. We were given one styrofoam cup for water and one plastic spoon that we had to reuse for every meal. I eventually had to start trying to eat. Sure enough, I got sick. None of the uniforms fit, and everyone had men's shoes on. The towels they gave us to shower with were hand towels. They wouldn't give us more blankets. The fluorescent lights shined on us 24/7. Everything felt like it was meant to break you. Nothing was explained to us. I wasn't given a phone call. We were locked in a room, no daylight, with no idea when we would get out. I tried to stay calm as every fiber of my being raged toward panic mode. I didn't know how I would tell Britt where I was."

(10:36:47)
"Then, as if sent from God, one of the women showed me a tablet attached to the wall where I could send emails. I only remembered my CEO's email from memory. I tapped out a message, praying he would see it. He responded. Through him, I was able to connect with Britt. She told me that they were working around the clock trying to get me out, but no one had any answers. The system made it next to impossible. I told her about the conditions in this new place, and that was when we decided to go to the media. She started working with a reporter and asked whether I would be able to call her so she could loop him in. The international phone account that Britt had previously tried to set up for me wasn't working, so one of the other women offered to let me use her phone account to make a call. In that cell, we were all in this together."

(10:37:38)
"With nothing to do in my cell but talk, I made new friends. Women had risked everything for their chance at a better life for themselves and their families. Through them, I learned the harsh reality of seeking asylum. Showing me their physical scars, they explained how they had paid smugglers anywhere from $20,000 to $60,000 to reach the US border, enduring brutal jungles and horrendous conditions. One woman had been offered asylum in Mexico within two weeks, but had been encouraged to keep going to the US. Now, she was stuck living in a nightmare, separated from her young children for months. She sobbed telling me how she felt like the worst mother in the world. Many of these women were highly educated and spoke multiple languages, yet they had been advised to pretend they didn't speak English because it would supposedly increase their chances of asylum. Some believed they were being used as examples as warnings to others not to come."

(10:38:34)
"Women were starting to panic in this new facility, and knowing I was most likely the first person to get out, they wrote letters and messages for me to send to their families. I felt like we all had been kidnapped, thrown in some sort of sick psychological experiment meant to strip us of every ounce of our strength and dignity. We were from different countries, spoke different languages, and practiced different religions, yet in this place, none of that mattered. Everyone took care of each other. Everyone shared food. Everyone had held each other when someone broke down. Everyone fought to keep each other's hope alive."

(10:39:10)
"I got a message from Britt. My story had started to blow up in the media almost immediately after I was told I was being released. My ICE agent, who had never spoken before, told my lawyer I could have left sooner if I had signed a withdrawal form and that they hadn't known I would pay for my own flight home. From the moment I arrived, I begged every officer I saw to let me pay for my own ticket home. Not a single one of them ever spoke to me about my case."

(10:39:36)
"To put things into perspective, I had a Canadian passport, lawyers, resources, media attention, friends, family, and even politicians advocating for me, yet I was still detained for nearly two weeks. Imagine what the system is like for every other person in there."

(10:39:56)
"A small group of us were transferred back to San Diego at 2:00 AM. One last road trip once again shackled in chains. I was then taken to the airport where two officers were waiting for me. The media was there, so the officers snuck me through a side door trying to avoid anyone seeing me in my restraints. I was beyond grateful that at the very least, I didn't have to walk through the airport in chains. To my surprise, the officers escorting me were incredibly kind, and even funny. It was the first time I had laughed in weeks. I asked if I could put my shoelaces back on. 'Yes,' one of them said with a grin, 'but you better not run.' 'Yeah,' the other one added, 'or we'll have to tackle you in the airport. That'll really make headlines.' I laughed and then told them I spent a lot of time observing the guards during my detention, and I couldn't believe how often I saw humans treating other humans with such disregard. 'But don't worry,' I joked, 'you two get five stars.'"

(10:40:58)
"When I finally landed in Canada, my mom and two best friends were waiting for me. So was the media. I spoke to them briefly, numb and delusional from exhaustion. It was surreal listening to my friends recount everything they had done to get me out, working with lawyers, reaching out to the media, making endless calls to detention centers, desperately trying to get through to ICE or anyone who could help. They said the entire system felt rigged, designed to make it nearly impossible for anyone to get out."

(10:41:32)
"The reality became clear. ICE detention isn't just a bureaucratic nightmare. It's a business. These facilities are privately owned and run for profit. Companies like CoreCivic and GEO Group receive government funding based on the number of people they detain, which is why they lobby for stricter immigration policies. It's a lucrative business. CoreCivic made over $560 million from ICE contracts in a single year. In 2024, GEO Group, more than 763 million from ICE contracts. The more detainees, the more money they make. It stands to reason that these companies have no incentive to release people quickly."

(10:42:16)
" What I had experienced was finally starting to make sense. This is not just my story. It is a story of thousands and thousands of people still strapped in a system that profits from their suffering. I am writing in hopes that someone out there, someone with power to change any of this, can help do something. The strength I witnessed in those women, the love they gave despite their suffering, is what gives me faith, faith that no matter how flawed the system is, how cruel the circumstances, humanity will always shine through. Even in the darkest places, within the most broken systems, humanity persists. Sometimes it reveals itself in the smallest, unexpected acts of kindness, a shared meal, a whispered prayer, a hand reaching out in the dark. We are defined by the love we extend. We are defined by the love we extend. We are defined by the love we extend. We are defined by the love we extend, by the courage we summon, and the truths we are willing to tell." That's the end of the article. And stories continue. A 10-year-old citizen in Texas recovering from brain cancer was detained at a border patrol checkpoint, and eventually the American citizen was deported to Mexico with her undocumented parents, even though they were in need of medical attention for their brain cancer.

(10:44:16)
Here's the article from NBC: US citizen child recovering from brain cancer removed to Mexico with undocumented parents. "A family that was deported to Mexico hopes they can find a way to return to the US and ensure their 10-year-old daughter, my fellow American, who is a US citizen, can continue her brain cancer treatment. Immigration authorities removed the girl and four of her American siblings from Texas on May 4th, five Americans in total.

Cory Booker (10:44:48):

… when they deported their undocumented parents, the family's ordeal last month when they were rushing from the Rio Grande City where they live to Houston, where their daughter's specialist doctors are based for emergency medical checkup. The parents had done the trip at least five other times in the past, passing through an immigration checkpoint every time without any issues according to attorney Danny Woodward from Texas Civil Rights Project, a legal advocacy and litigation organization representing the family. In previous occasions, the parents showed letters from their doctors and lawyers to the officers at the checkpoint to get through, but in early February, the letters weren't enough. They were stopped at the checkpoint. They were arrested after the parents weren't able to show legal immigration documentation. The mother who spoke exclusively to NBC News said she tried to explain her daughter's circumstances to the officers, but they weren't interested in hearing that.

(10:45:40)
"Other than lacking valid immigration status in the US, the parents have no criminal history," Woodward said. Protection which detained and deported the family according to the lawyer, said in an email Wednesday, "For privacy reasons, we do not comment on individual cases." On Thursday, a CBP spokesperson said via email that the reports of the family situation are inaccurate because when someone is given expelled removal orders and chooses to disregard them, they will face the consequences of the process. They reiterated that they couldn't speak about the specifics of the case for privacy reasons. The 10-year-old girl was diagnosed with brain cancer last year and underwent surgery to remove a tumor. "The doctors practically gave me no hope for life for her, but thank God she's a miracle," the mother said. An American citizen is a miracle. The swelling on the girl's brain is still not fully gone, the mother said, causing difficulties with speech and mobility of the right side of her body.

(10:46:45)
Before the family was removed from the US, the girl was routinely checked in with doctors monitoring her recovery, attending rehabilitation therapies, and taking medication to prevent convulsions. "It's a very difficult thing," the mother said. "I don't wish anyone to go through this situation."

(10:46:59)
"What is happening to this family is an absolute tragedy and is something that is not isolated to just them," said. Rochelle Garza, president of the Texas Civil Rights Project. "This is part of a pattern in practice that we've seen in the Trump administration," Garza said, adding that she has heard of multiple other cases concerning mixed-status families, but for now, this is the only case of this nature the organization has taken on. The Trump administration's border czar, Tom Homan, has said families can be deported together regardless of status. Homan said it would be up to the parents to decide whether to depart the US together or leave their children behind.

(10:47:39)
But undocumented parents of US-born children, if picked up by immigration authorities face the risk of losing custody of their children without the power of attorney document or a guardianship outlining who will take care of their children left behind, the children go into the US foster care system, making it harder for the parents to regain custody of their children in the future.

(10:47:59)
According to the girl's mother, she recalled feeling like she could not do anything, she said in Spanish, "You're between a rock and a hard place." NBC News is withholding the name of the mother and the rest of the family members since they were deported to an area in Mexico that is known for kidnapping US citizens. In addition to the parents and their 10-year-old sick American daughter, four of their other American childrens, ages 15, 13, 8 and six were also in the car when they were detained. Four of the five children born in the US.

(10:48:35)
According to the mother, the family was taken to a detention center following their arrest where their mom and daughters were separated from her husband and sons and she realized she wouldn't be taking her daughter to the doctors. " The fear is horrible. I can't explain it, but it's something frustrating, very tough, something you wouldn't wish on anyone," she said, adding that her sick daughter was laying on a cold floor beneath incandescent lights. Hours later, the family was placed in a van and dropped on the Mexico side of the Texas Bridge. From there, they sought refuge in a nearby shelter for a week.

(10:49:13)
The mom said the safety concerns keep coming up at night and the children haven't been able to go to school. The 10-year-old daughter and 15-year-old son who lives with a heart disorder known as Long QT syndrome, which causes irregular heartbeats and can be life-threatening if not treated well, have not received the healthcare they need in Mexico. The teen wears a monitor that tracks his heart rate. "The authorities have my children's lives in their hands," she said in tears. "The authorities have my children's lives in their hands."

(10:49:49)
Both parents arrived to the US from Mexico in 2013 and settled in Texas hoping for a better life for their family, the mother said. She and her husband both worked for a string of different jobs to support their six children. The couple also has a 17-year-old son they left behind in Texas following their deportation.

(10:50:06)
Just two weeks ago, another undocumented mother in California caring for her 20-year-old daughter, a US citizen undergoing treatment for bone cancer, was detained by immigration authorities and later released under humanitarian parole. "We are calling on the government," Garza said, "to parole the family, to correct the harm and to not do this to anyone else."

Senator Murphy (10:50:31):

Gentleman yield?

Cory Booker (10:50:33):

I think I need to. I'll yield to a question while retaining the floor and I thank my brother, I thank my friend who's now stood with me for almost 11 hours.

Senator Murphy (10:50:54):

Those are hard stories to read, Senator Booker, but I appreciate you showing the coldness of this current administration's immigration policy. The tragedy to me is that there's an opportunity to fix what is undoubtedly a broken immigration system, and yet we're into 71 and Donald Trump has not proposed to us any proposals to fix the broken system. Instead, what he is doing is spending like a drunken sailor on an enforcement system that wastes tens of millions of taxpayer dollars.

(10:52:00)
You described this harrowing experience that this Canadian woman had and as I was listening to this two-week ordeal that she went through, being transported from site to site, being processed and reprocessed, as the top Democrat on the Homeland Security Subcommittee of Appropriations, I'm just cataloging in my brain how much money that cost us. Ultimately, this was somebody working in the United States. This was somebody that posed no threat to United States citizens, but we probably spent several million dollars on that two-week ordeal. Overall, the Trump administration is going to blow through all of the money allocated to border patrol. They're going to have to come back to Congress for a massive additional appropriation, all at the same time that they are shuttering medical research in this country. They are closing down social security offices. There are measles outbreaks all across the country. Planes seem to be falling out of the sky as the FAA is enduring layoffs. There are consequences to these spending decisions. The amount of money that's being spent at the border, much of it wasted in a showy ineffective response, the consequence of that is that the services that average everyday Americans need, like help on their social security claims are being impacted.

(10:54:08)
But we need to fix the broken immigration system, and we had an opportunity to do that last year when Republicans and Democrats came together and wrote a bipartisan border security bill that frankly would've allocated tens of billions of additional dollars that would've fixed our broken asylum system, would've given the president new authorities and Donald Trump instructed all the Republicans in this chamber to oppose it. In the end, I think four senators, including the author, Senator Lankford, supported it, but every other Republican here opposed it. And the reason Donald Trump told them to oppose it was that he would fix it when he became president. But we are now in day 72 and there has not been a single proposal from Donald Trump to fix the broken immigration system, just a whole bunch of spending essentially money down the drain because the system itself needs to be reformed.

(10:55:15)
And so it speaks to my confident belief that Donald Trump does not want to fix our immigration system. He wants to keep this issue open as a sore in our politics. If I was wrong, he would've proposed legislation here to deal with the underlying inefficiency of the system instead of just throwing money at the problem. And so we will see what the result of this campaign is. We were told that immigrants to this country represented a very specific national security threat, that we needed to crack down on immigration including expelling from this country legitimate asylum seekers because that was what was necessary to protect the nation. Well, we'll see what the crime data tells us for the first few months of this administration. I have a feeling I already know what the story is, crime is not going to have gone down. Why? Because in fact, whether people want to acknowledge this or not, natural-born American citizens commit crimes at rates higher than first-generation immigrants or people born outside of the United States of America.

(10:56:46)
But Senator Booker, I guess the question I want to ask you is this, I think you and I agree that Americans right left and center acknowledge that the immigration system is broken. They didn't love it when they saw thousands of people crossing on an average day, and they know that when it takes 10 years to process an asylum claim, something's wrong and that it then just provides an incentive for people to come here without documentation.

(10:57:23)
But my impression is that that cross-section of Americans that believes that the existing immigration system is broken also believes three other things. One, that the way to fix it is to change the laws and that they believe that we have not done our job until we have changed the laws. For instance, building a better asylum system. And once again, not a single proposal from the Trump administration on how to fix our broken immigration system, not a single proposal. Second, I believe that they understand that immigration is a core strength of this nation, not a liability. And that if we want to thrive as an economy, we are going to have to bring people to this country legally. But to turn our backs on immigration as a mechanism to grow economically, that's not in line with what Americans believe, even those that think the existing system is broken.

(10:58:33)
And then lastly, I just don't believe this country is as mean as Donald Trump thinks it is. I get it that everybody wants this nation to be a nation of laws, but when an American citizen looks at a child with a medical condition, when American citizen looks at an individual who will face certain death from a drug gang if they stay in their home country, when they look at individuals in war-torn nations overseas, they believe that America is strong enough, is big enough, is generous enough to be able to protect those people from harm. Why? Because that's what America always has been.

(10:59:34)
And so this idea that President Trump has that Americans mean and spiteful and don't want to help people just because they were born outside of the United States or their parents were born outside of the United States, I just don't think that's right. It obviously betrays the best traditions of this nation. But I think it also fundamentally misreads the American people.

(11:00:03)
So I think people want our immigration to be fixed, the system to be fixed, but I think they want us to do it. They understand the laws are broken. They do not want to abandon America's tradition of bringing people here from all around the world. They understand that our economy and our economic prosperity is linked to our ability to bring hard-working immigrants to this country, and they're just not as mean as Donald Trump thinks they are.

Cory Booker (11:00:28):

Senator, I appreciate your question, but I just have to say this to you. You worked so hard with Senator Lankford and one of the things I have to say, and I hope I don't hurt his politics by telling people how much I love Senator Lankford, we disagree fundamentally on a lot of issues maybe that will help him, we both are people though of faith. We just recently were together at a massive, I think there must've been like a thousand people there, maybe 500 at least at a national prayer breakfast event. He's such a man of character and what I like about him is I know his values because he every day tries to be a good Christian.

(11:01:16)
And this idea of "love thy neighbor" or "you were a stranger in a strange land," I just kind of took a lot of pleasure watching you, my friend, who I know for the last 12 years and him sit down in this honest, sincere negotiation and let's be real, everybody on your side of the aisle didn't agree with you and everybody before Trump's involvement on his side of the aisle didn't agree, but you guys had the makings of a comprehensive bill that would've passed.

(11:01:47)
Now, I'll tell you also that I came here in 2013, right after a Gang of Eight had done the same thing. They actually got the bill out and it died in the house. There are people in America despite Lankford and you, who many people would put on opposite sides of a political spectrum, that on these issues they agree. And why do they agree, Senator Murphy? Why? Because our economy is dependent upon immigration.

(11:02:16)
You want to talk about a conservative leaning group, Senator? Republicans, the Chamber of Commerce will tell you, the National Chamber of Commerce will tell you, our economy will be crippled if we don't find a way to bring more people in legally to work on work visas. When I go to the tech community or the biotech community or the AI community or the community who's trying to go forward in quantum computing, all of them are saying this is crazy that we are not allowing the brightest minds on the planet when they get here and get PhDs and have things half of Congress can't spell, that we drop-kick them out of the country. There are so many points of agreement. Take dreamers, who people on both sides of the aisle have held up as a group of people that are Americans in every way except for the piece of paper. They have no memory of another country. I could keep going through all the things in the immigration world we agree on, including the need to secure our southern border.

(11:03:15)
And so I listened to you on this section and I look at you and I remember your frustrations. You're standing up in front of our caucus saying, we're so close.

Senator Murphy (11:03:27):

The Senator yield.

Cory Booker (11:03:28):

I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Senator Murphy (11:03:33):

I just want to drill down on this for a moment because it gets back to a theme that you've been hitting on throughout the evening and early morning. And that is not everything has to be zero-sum politics. I mean, this is part of what is so exhausting about the last 71 days for many, many Americans. I think it's part of why Donald Trump's approval ratings are sinking by the day. Because listen, you and I are pugilists when we need to be. We fight when we think that there's a worthy fight. That's what this is today. It's a fight. We understand it's a fight for our values, but we don't think everything has to be a fight. We see our jobs as standing up for our convictions, but then finding that common ground. I did not expect to be in that room with Senator Lankford.

(11:04:29)
I was surprised pleasantly when we came to an agreement. You spent months and months hammering out really difficult criminal justice reform with a colleague of yours that you have equal numbers of disagreements with because we feel like we have a call from our constituents to fight, but then find the common ground. But this administration has zero interest in common ground. Every single day they wake up thinking only about conflict, thinking only about defeat of their opposition. And they have been frustrated because they've been trying to do a lot of illegal things and the courts have been telling them no.

(11:05:29)
They're now talking about extraordinary measures like impeaching judges or defunding the courts. Instead, they could reach out to Democrats, they could decide to do what every previous president has tried to do, which is instead of ramming through a one-side only policy on immigration, for instance, come to people of goodwill on the opposing party and try to work out a compromise. This is what exhausts the American people is this administration's complete total unwillingness to find common ground on anything. That is not where the center of this country is.

(11:06:20)
And on the issue of immigration, we found common ground last year. It was hard. It did not satisfy everyone. But we have proven that on this issue that is hot, that is difficult for even family members to talk about sometimes, that even on this issue of immigration, we can find that common ground. And so we are here, you are here because there's a fight to be waged. But I think we both wish on a litany of these topics, we were instead sitting down with our colleagues. But that is just not in the DNA of this administration. And that is part of why this president is becoming more and more unpopular by the day is because they expect any president, any president to make at least a minimalist effort to try to reach out and find compromise. And that never happens from the Trump administration.

Cory Booker (11:07:22):

For the question I see in there, and again, great presidents have great ideas they bring to Congress and they fight to pull together and cobble together legislation that will last. The problem we have right now is this whiplash between Trump's executive orders and Biden's executive orders and Trump's executive orders. And it's not solving the problems. And we've shown that there's enough common ground to do something on it. But I don't want to stick with common ground now actually because there's some things in here that are not common ground, like private prisons. I'm one of these folks that doesn't want to criticize. I've flown out to a private prison down south to get a tour met really kind and nice people. But there is something problematic to me about a profit motive for imprisoning, shackling, detaining and holding people and this combination of that and a corporate reality where you are giving campaign contributions to people that will then turn around and give you government contracts to restrict the liberties of human beings. And the story that I read about this woman feeling like they lied to her lawyer and said if she had only said she could pay for her own flight home, but they were keeping her and every day they were keeping her they were getting more money from American taxpayers. This wasn't a system designed for justice. This isn't a system that's designed for the rights of human beings in our country. This is a system that has every day an incentive to deny the liberty, to hold people… It's wrong, it's wrong. It's broken. And with a president that doesn't care about these things, that is giving greater latitude so that more stories like the Canadian woman's story, it's stunning.

(11:09:42)
I want to keep moving though, and I just want to talk about children and the way this system is extended to children. Last week, the government canceled the contract to provide legal services to 26,000 unaccompanied immigrant children. Remember, remember what Anton Scalia said about due process in his strict interpretations of the literal writings of our founders. But 26,000 unaccompanied migrant children no longer have legal representation. We started on that idea. We started on that idea. We started on the idea, the fifth and the 14th Amendment, "No one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process." And our country has now rolled back. Trump got rid of a policy that prevented ICE from arresting kids at schools and people from their places of worship. Now, every day, families face the impossible choice of whether to send a kid to school and risk permanent separation from their families.

(11:10:53)
There's a story from New Jersey and I quote, "Recently, when I was home in Newark, New Jersey, a woman in my neighborhood came up to me to tell me a heartbreaking story. One morning she was on her way to walk to school the mom of another child's children…" I won't make this anonymous. One of my closest friends, she's like a sister to me, she lives in the Ironbound in Newark and was very emotional because her neighbors were so terrified that they came to her and asked her to walk their children to school. They're American children. There are so many teachers and school administrators who are speaking out now that they've been ordered that they must allow ICE to enter their schools. Trump has plans to revoke temporary protected status protection for hundreds of thousands of people from various countries, from Venezuela to Haiti, paving the way for those deportations, we know who they are. He's done this despite the State Department maintaining a level four do not travel warning to Haiti and Venezuela due to widespread violence, danger, sexual assaults, kidnappings and more.

(11:12:22)
He claims that he's tough on crime because he wants to go after child sexual abusers, but when you're sending children, running into schools and churches and sending them back to environments that are known for sexual assaults on young girls.

(11:12:42)
The Department of Justice Office of Civil Rights recently dropped its case it had filed against Southwest Key, the nation's largest provider of housing for migrant children in which the DOJ alleged sexual abuse and neglect perpetrated against undocumented children in federal custody. It was a case the DOJ brought against this company who housed migrant children because of alleged sexual abuse. And what did our government do under Trump? They dropped charges. They dropped charges.

(11:13:24)
Why? Why? Children being sexually assaulted, it's not worth an investigation? Is it because the administration thinks that pursuing the lawsuit and holding perpetrators accountable will somehow interfere with their immigration agenda? They literally let alleged sex abusers go free with no explanation. The hypocrisy.

(11:14:02)
The family detentions are restarted. They fail. Failed in the past to meet basic child welfare standards and exposed children to trauma. President's own Department of Homeland Security concluded in 2018 that family detention centers posed a high risk of harm to children and families. And despite his own Department of Homeland Security back in 2018 saying that, they've restarted it.

(11:14:30)
One of the points I want to make is crime. I was a mayor. The number one issue my residents were concerned about was fighting crime, fighting crime, fighting crime. I went back to Newark recently for a

Cory Booker (11:14:47):

Horrible, tragic death of a police officer by a 14-year-old with a ghost gun. It was horrible to send off hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of police officers from all over our state, from New York. This police officer was murdered by a 14-year-old. I still pray for their family, his mom. And as I was standing there looking at this parade of police officers who were waiting for the casket, I had police officers come to me and complain that they're having harder and harder time in New Jersey solving crimes because now victims of crime, victims of sexual assault, victims of robbery who happen to be undocumented, are afraid to go and talk to local police because of all this rhetoric that's creating the fear that they'll be turned over to ICE.

(11:15:46)
Imagine in our country there are people out there that are sexually assaulting people, but are getting away with it because they're targeting immigrants. And if you don't think that hurts American safety, you're wrong. Afraid to go and talk to police officers to report crimes. They're subverting people's constitutional rights, incarcerating people in foreign prisons who have no criminal records, the harms to children. We've talked about all of this, but diverting law enforcement resources away from investigating national security threats, terrorism, drug smuggling, human trafficking, illegal arms exports, financial crimes, and sex crimes, taking law enforcement away from investigating those crimes, and forcing all federal law enforcement agencies to enforce low-level immigration crimes, or I should say undocumented people with no criminal activity beyond their being in our country.

(11:16:51)
Reuters wrote about this misguided redirection of federal resources. I read their article, federal agents who usually hunt down child abusers are now cracking down on immigrants who live in the US legally. Homeland Security investigators who specialize in money laundering are raiding restaurants and other small businesses looking for immigrants who aren't authorized to work. Agents who pursue drug traffickers and tax fraud are being reassigned to enforce immigration law. As US President Donald Trump pledges to deport millions and millions of, "criminal aliens," thousands of federal law enforcement officers from multiple federal agencies are being enlisted to take on new work as immigration enforcers. Pulling crime fighting resources away from other areas, from drug trafficking and terrorism and sexual abuse and fraud.

(11:17:43)
The account of Trump's push to recognize to reorganize federal law enforcement, the most significant since September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks is based on interviews with more than 20 current and former federal agents, attorneys and other federal officials. Most had first hand knowledge of the changes. Nearly all spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss. "I do not recall ever seeing this wide spectrum of a federal government resources all being torn turned towards immigration enforcement," said Teresa Cardinal Brown, a former Homeland Security offer who has been served in both Republican and Democratic administrations. When you're telling agencies to stop what you're doing and do this now, whatever else they were doing takes a back seat.

(11:18:32)
In response to questions from Reuters, Homeland Security assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin said, "The US government is mobilizing federal and state law enforcement to find, arrest and deport illegal aliens." The FBI declined to respond to questions about its staffing. In a statement the FBI said, "It is protecting the US from many threats." The Trump administration has offered no comprehensive accounting of the revamp, but it echoes the aftermath of 2001 attacks when Congress created the Department of Homeland Security, and pulled together 169,000 federal employees from other agencies and refocused the FBI on battling terrorism. Trump's hardline approach to deporting immigrants has intensified America's already stark partisan divide. The US Senate's number two Democrat, Dick Durbin describes the crackdown as wasteful, misguided diversion of resources. It's making Americans less safe by drawing agents and officials away from finding corporate fraud, terrorism, child sexual exploitation, and other crimes.

(11:19:31)
The focus of immigration is drawing significant resources from other crime fighting departments according to the more 20 sources we spoke. Until January, pursuing immigrants living in the country illegally was largely the part of two agencies. ICE, Immigration and Customs Reinforcement, and Customs and Border Protection with a combined staff of 80,000 other departments spent on crime. In Detroit where immigration prosecutions have been rare, the number of people charged with immigration offenses rose from two in February to 19 last month. Case managements from the Justice Department show that fewer than 1% of the cases brought by prosecutors by the DEA, ATF over the past decade involved allegations that someone had violated immigration law. Since January, however, DEA agents have been ordered to reopen cases involving arrests up to five years old where prosecutors have declined to bring charges.

(11:20:34)
As Trump and billionaire Elon Musk flash the size of the federal government bureaucracy, jobs that deal with immigration enforcement appear largely exempt. In January 31st, email to ICE employees, a human resource official told them they wouldn't be eligible for retirement, buyouts offered to some 2.3 million federal workers. All ice positions are excluded, they said recently in a previously unreported email.

Senator Murphy (11:21:00):

Will it, Senator, will Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Cory Booker (11:21:05):

Yes, I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Senator Murphy (11:21:09):

Thank you, Senator. I have been listening to many of your hours of the speech. And you're talking about immigration now. And I have another question about the immigration policy. I think all of us understand that it's absolutely essential that our country secure its borders. And from time to time the country forgets that. But I think we've had this debate about immigration that's been going on for several years. And I don't know if the senator had an opportunity to address, the opportunity we had in the Senate, when last year there was a realization on the part of both the Republicans and Democrats, that the only way we were going to get a secure border in a sensible, beneficial immigration policy was to work together. I know the Senator was watching that very carefully.

(11:22:21)
And we had the terrific work of Senator Langford from Oklahoma, Senator Murphy from Connecticut, and Senator Sinema, of course from Arizona. And despite the enormous political tension that surrounds the immigration issue, and for understandable reasons, the three of them worked very hard and came together for a tripartisan proposal in effect. Senator Sinema, of course being the independent who always played a constructive role in trying to bring the parties together. And what was included in that legislation was a major commitment embraced by Senator Murphy on behalf of the Democrats for border security. There was an acknowledgement we can't just have, we have to control our borders. It's really that simple.

(11:23:29)
But when you control your borders, you also have the opportunity to have an immigration policy that the Congress and the President, I think will benefit the American people. And it benefits us of course if there's security at the border. But it also benefits us if we have legal immigration that is controlled by the American people. And of course I've noticed that Elon Musk who is against immigration, he's for everything that the President Trump is for, he likes having very highly educated computer people. It can help him go from very rich to even richer. So he carves out an exception for people that will be beneficial and helpful to him in his various enterprises.

(11:24:26)
But we've got in Vermont, a lot of dairy farms, and we have a tourist industry, and we have a real hard time filling those jobs. So legal immigration can really be helpful and constructive and beneficial to the people of the state of Vermont. And I know talking to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, many of us in our states have tourist industries and we have agricultural enterprises. Just to mention two, where the reality is we don't have the number of people we need to fill those jobs. And it's not just a matter of paying more because I do think we have to be very mindful that we want to do every single thing we can to help elevate the wages of American workers. Which by the way, this is a little bit of an aside. Why in the world haven't we raised the minimum wage? I know Senator, you're for that and I certainly am. But it astonishes me that we still have, what is it, $7, 7.50? It's unbelievable what the minimum wage is. A lot of the states have raised it. Vermont certainly has.

(11:25:39)
But we on immigration had the opportunity, and the bill, and the will to make enormous progress, so that we'd have an immigration policy that secured the border, had the validation of bipartisan majorities in the house and in the Senate, would have also addressed issues about legal immigration that would help us strengthen our economy, and also would've included a pathway to citizenship for dreamers, folks who were brought here by their parents, who when they were four or five or six years old. And whose the only country they know is the United States itself.

(11:26:32)
And my understanding from talking to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is that there's an enormous amount of respect for many of these dreamers, many of whom have been heroes for us in the military. So this is not a republic, my view, it's not a Republican, Democratic situation. It is a desire on the part of almost everyone in this body to accommodate a reality of a child being brought here by his parents, going to school, getting an education, serving their country, firefighters, Marines, teachers, doing all these things that are really helpful to our country and where they're here through absolutely no fault of their own. And if we were to require them to be deported. And that's an effort that the current administration is making, you'd literally be taking people who might be 30 or 40 years old now, have families, and send them back to the country from which their parents brought them. And they don't even speak the language.

(11:27:51)
And that obviously makes no sense. And when I talked to the Vermonters who have very, very strong views of having a strong border, and I asked them what about this situation? They think, wait a minute, well that's different. That's a person who lives here. That's like my neighbor. Sp I was so disappointed when we were on the cusp of being able to get this legislation passed. When then candidate Trump in his candid way said, "Kill it." And he was candid about why. It would, "Give the Democrats a win." I never saw this as a win for Democrats. I saw this as a win for America. And the reality is that when we have to do really hard things here, and we're not doing hard things these days, but when we're trying to do hard things that are really important for the American people, my experience is you really do have to get to a bipartisan place.

(11:29:14)
Because we've lost elections and we lost the last one. And that is on us. It's not on the voters. They made a decision. That's their right to do. And we have to learn and we have to listen. But when we were listening, and hearing loud and clear from the American people that we want a secure border, and then we worked with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to get a secure border, why in the world would the leader of the party kill it? Why? We know the reason. We thought it was good politics. But this is not about what's good partisan politics. It's about what's good policy that's going to help the American people.

(11:30:15)
So I'm really, among the many things you're focusing on of course, is this question of immigration. And this is incredibly important, but I want it to be clear that I as one member of the United States Senate am absolutely all in for the immigration reform that we need. And that is a secure border. That is legal immigration as we determine the type of immigration will be beneficial to the American people, insustainable. And it also includes a pathway to citizenship for these children in many cases who were brought here by their parents, who had no agency, no involvement whatsoever in the decision to come here, how they got here me. Pardon me. For those of us who don't stay up all night, some of us use alarms to wake up. So pardon me for being here earlier than I thought I'd be here. And you're here later than maybe than you thought.

(11:31:26)
But it's such a privilege for you, and it's such a privilege for me. It's such a privilege for the other 98 citizens of this country who serve with us in the United States Senate. That any chance we get, any chance we get to do something that's helpful to the people we represent, don't we want to grab it? Don't we want to do it? And it doesn't matter if our name lives in memory that we were here. It doesn't. What matters is what we do here. And whether when we leave, we can look back and have the satisfaction of knowing we gave it our best. And I hope there's enormous pressure on folks in this job from the cross currents of the political world that we live in.

(11:32:36)
And all of us are fallible, and all of us have plenty of opportunity to get it wrong. And we do. But what I've seen in the people I've admired on both sides of the aisle, I think of Senator McCain who Senator Murphy worked with so much, there was a heart and soul to that man. And it was the heart and soul in his spirit that guided him. And when I think about immigration and we're talking about how tough it is, he worked together with the so-called gang of eight to come up with a reform that the Senate passed years ago. I was in the house then. And I remember being so excited. So excited when I heard that the Senate had actually come up with a proposal. It just made sense. It wasn't perfect. What is? Send it to Earth. What's perfect? We do the best we can. That's about it. But you know what? When I say that's about it, that's what life is. Do your best and then move on.

(11:33:47)
And by the way, that's one of the reasons why I think, senator, the bipartisanship, which we don't have now at all, but why it has to ultimately, we have to have enough humility to understand that either side has the answers, and where we try in earnest to come up with the best solution we can at the moment, where we listen to each other, what happens is that if we didn't get it fully right, and we never will, we understand that we have an opportunity to fix it and make it better based on that experience. And when there's just our way or the highway, there's no resolution and no progress. Number one, you don't get the bill passed as we saw with the immigration bill. And then number two, if you get it passed the other side just tries to tear it apart and repeal it, as opposed to improve it.

(11:34:59)
Now, every single one of us knows that the American people want progress. But what we're talking about with something is hard, it truly is hard, the issue of immigration. When we're talking something that's hard politically, that spirit of wanting to get to a solution, that was what animated the work of Senator Langford, Senator Murphy and Senator Sinema. They wanted to get to a solution even though they had significantly different points of view going in, on what was the right outcome. But they wanted to get to a solution. And where they represented the points of view of the disparate views of our caucus, and they came up with a compromise that by all accounts would be such a better place for us to be now than what we're in. No progress.

(11:36:05)
We haven't been able to act on that immigration bill since the Senate acted with the leadership of Senator McCain and others. And I was mentioning how excited I was. I was in the house at the time. And I was so excited that this bill came over. And Vermonters were asking me all the time, "Peter, we've got to do something about our borders. We've got to do something to make sure our farmers don't fear having their farms raided, and them not being able to milk their cows." It's that essential. And I'm talking a lot of pretty conservative people who politically sometimes agree with me, sometimes don't. But what was so exciting to me was that on the cusp of this coming to the house, I was thinking, I'm going to have a chance to vote for secure immigration, for securing our borders, rational immigration plan, and I'm going to be able to give a fairness to the dreamers. I was so excited about that.

(11:37:08)
And then what happened is it was announced that the house would not even take up the bill. And why? It was the same reason that then candidate Trump proposed to his colleagues or to his party members in the house, or pardon me, in the Senate, kill it. And why was that? Really in all candor, it's the most cynical of all reasons. Sometimes people in politics prefer to have the issue that they can fight about rather than use the responsibility and opportunity they have to solve the problem. And that's pretty much what happened with that. And here we are and we're seeing it again.

(11:37:59)
The other, there's another thing that's happening with the immigration policies of the current administration. There's a lot of cruelty that's part of it. Yes, we have to have a secure border. Yes, criminals who came here illegally should be deported. But should the consensus that we have about a secure border, about the legitimacy of deporting criminals who are here illegally be used to justify a wholesale roundup? Where the people who are rounded up are almost randomly picked up. Some may be on the basis of good information, but it's clear in this roundup where so many people were flown to the jails in El Salvador that the minimal amount of due process, which is inquiry into who is this person? Where are they from? Does that tattoo mean they're in a gang or is that a tattoo of mob? Are we a society where we don't provide that minimal inquiry? It's called due process. Our country was founded on it. And it appears in many cases we haven't done that.

(11:39:45)
And then what we're seeing also is that a number of people are being rounded up who are here legally. They're here on a student visa. And they published an opinion in a school newspaper, expressing their point of view about the suffering in the Middle East. And this country, of course, is founded among other things, on the First Amendment right, the free speech. And it's a pretty astonishing thing that people who express that, who are here legally by the way. Legally, legally, legally, I want to emphasize that, are suddenly confronted by people who are essentially wearing mask, put in handcuffs, taken away, and then put in a jail at some unknown place until something maybe days later you find out where they are.

(11:41:03)
How does that solve the border crisis? How does that protect the liberties that have been the hallmark of the United States of America since the Constitution? It is cruel. You have a person who essentially disappears, and that's a term I know Senator Murphy used once, and I think unfortunately accurately. So we have a challenge. And it's really not who wins this vote and who wins that vote. And it's not even who's in the majority and who's in the minority, because this country only works, and this Senate only works when whatever your political views are, you approach the problems that America has from the perspective of your obligation as the United States Senator to make progress, to make it better.

(11:42:22)
And I was in the State Senate for 13 years. I'm not going to say my life's been downhill since then, but what I so appreciated about the Vermont Senate and I learned working with other people there. Bipartisan doesn't have a meeting almost now because it's like you've got to be on one side or the other. But I remember when I first went to the State Senate, Senator Booker, I won an election that was an upset. So I was feeling pretty good about myself. And when I got there, it was a majority in the Republican Party. And I was ready to cause trouble. And not necessarily in the John Lewis good way. It might've been more of a Peter Welch ego way. So I had a lot to learn. And what I remember was showing up in these two Republican senators who were just really icons for me in my life-

Senator 1 (11:43:39):

As it turns out, they and the Lieutenant Governor made decisions about who would be on what committees, and I really wanted to be on the finance committee, but that's not a committee you get on when you just show up and you've won an election and you're acting like you're more important than you are. They put me on the finance committee and I said, "I'm doomed," and the reason is I knew I had to cooperate. They've been so good to me and so generous. They gave me a seat at the table, and it was such a thrill for me to be able to actually sit at the table with these people that I held in such high regard and who knew so much more than me, but they invited me in. They didn't push me aside just because I had different points of view and was from a different party.

(11:44:34)
A few years later, I became Senate president, so I had a lot to do with who was on what committees. I remember, I started then the process that we still do in Vermont, and I appointed a number of Republicans to chair committees. I was in the Senate a second time with the now governor of Vermont, Phil Scott, and he became the chair of the institutions committee, which was kind of, that's a big deal in Vermont. When I tell folks we did that in Vermont, where sometimes you'd appoint somebody who's on the other party, they want me to have a mental status exam around here. You just don't do that kind of thing. What I do know and what I do see is that there are a lot of people here who do have that, I'll call it the Murphy/Lankford/Sinema attitude. "Let's solve the problem. Let's make progress. Let's find a way where we can move ahead." You're talking about immigration, which, because we've been going around and around on this for so long without making progress, it's almost creating this cul-de-sac or this sinkhole where people think it's pointless. "Why even talk about it? Why try to solve it? Can't be done." Well, we know it can be done because we are the people here, 100 of us, that actually have the ability to do it, and I would say we have the responsibility to do it because it's a serious issue that faces the American people, and they're entitled to the safety of a secure border. The Dreamers are entitled to some justice and respect for the commitment they've made to being fully participating citizens here in the United States.

(11:46:31)
I just applaud the efforts of my colleagues, who, despite all of the outside noise, do want to make some progress. When we don't make progress, we descend into a bad place. Yes, deport a criminal. Our people are entitled to safety. People are not entitled to come here illegally, and people who are, illegally, certainly are not entitled to commit any crimes, but when we go round and round and just use the challenge of immigration reform as a political cudgel, we end up going into some pretty dark places, and that's where we're heading now, where a person gets rounded up who's legally here, because the administration doesn't like the opinion they expressed. It's not that their opinion was necessarily subversive, and it's not even wrong. It's debatable. You and I would have a free opportunity to debate. What should be our policy in the Middle East? What should be our policy on immigration? But, the administration decides, "That speech, I don't like, arrest that person, disappear that person." Then we get into debates that are really not about making progress, but mutual recrimination. I'm just very delighted that you're focusing a good part of your effort here on the vital question of immigration.

(11:48:24)
I do hope … I haven't been watching everything, but if it's okay, I just want to direct your attention to these tariffs that are happening, a little bit. I know you're going to have an opportunity to talk about a fair number of things, you already have, but I've never seen anything so dumb and reckless as these tariffs on Canada. We have a library in Newport, Vermont. Derby Line, actually, the Haskell Free Library. Half of it is in Vermont, half of it is in Canada. Is that cool or what? Canadians come into what I call the back door, but they call the front door, and we come in the front door, which they call the back door, and we read books together. We've had this library for decades, and I was with the … We had a roundtable up in the Canadian border, Canadian-Vermont border, and the Member of Parliament from Stansfield, which is the town next to Newport, Madame Bibeau, was with us.

(11:49:54)
When we were with some folks who ran businesses on the Vermont side and on the Canadian side, and some of whom had operations on both sides, most of these were family businesses. Some were very large, some were small, and it ranged from farmers on the Vermont side who got a lot of their fertilizer from Canada. That's true, by the way, all across the northern border, so it can be Minnesota, it can be Idaho, so many of our farmers all along the Canadian-American border have cross relationships with Canada and they get their fertilizer. It's going to cost 25% more, and we all know how hard our farmers work. Nobody works harder. The margins of what they make is tiny, and you add a 25% tariff? I mean, these people are just … They don't know what's going to happen, and our maple syrup makers, back and forth, we get a lot of syrup from Canada and blend it and make it into products with Vermont syrup. Canada's the biggest producer of maples, the second-best maple syrup in the world. Vermont is the biggest producer of the best maple syrup in the world, in the United States, but the equipment is largely made, that our sugar makers use, is largely manufactured in Canada. 25% tariff on that. That's going to hammer the Vermont maple producers.

(11:51:32)
Again, they operate on a small margin, and a lot of these farms, as you know, and the sugar producers, or, we've got a family company up there, second generation, that makes high-quality furniture, these are family businesses and they have tight margins. They're competing, they're really working hard. The Northeast Kingdom is really a pretty low-income part of Vermont with wonderful, incredibly hard-working people who are very proud of where they live and who they are, and who their neighbors are. They're asking really tough questions about how they can make it and whether they can stay in business, and this is not the same as immigration, but there's an element here that is the same as immigration. Shouldn't any policy that we pursue start with the premise that we'll do no harm? Madam President, it might be a policy you're advocating, and I know when you served in your previous job, you'd be wanting to make certain that what you did did no harm. In fact, you'd be insisting that it did some good. My question with the tariffs is whether the administration is starting out from the premise that I think all of us should start with. Yeah, we may have an idea, we hope it might work, but we've got to make sure it does no harm.

Senator Cory Booker (11:53:24):

I'm sorry, I was going to answer that question, but-

Senator 1 (11:53:25):

Yeah, go ahead.

Senator Cory Booker (11:53:26):

Did the Senator finish his question?

Senator 1 (11:53:27):

Yeah, well, that's a long question and I'm waiting for a long answer.

Senator Cory Booker (11:53:31):

Okay. I want to first start by saying that the Senator has a reputation around this place, that there's a deep penetrating goodness that's in you. I love to watch my Senate colleagues when the other people are not. It's a habit of mine, because I think what you do when no one is watching is really telling. It's a belief I have that someone who is nice to you but not nice to the waiter is not a nice person, and we have a body full of people that show some deep, decent goodness. You are one of those people, and what I love watching you is that it could be the farthest ideological person away from you, and you just have this … You look at people like you see their divinity, whether it's a person at the highest position, a leader of the Senate on either side, or someone that holds the door.

(11:54:33)
What I love about you is when I watch you, you're one of the Senators … Some people just keep to their side of the aisle. I always look up and I find you over there talking to somebody, and I just rely on that decency in you as a friend and I've come to love you like a brother, and I want to thank you for being here before your alarm in the morning goes off. It really touches me, and I don't know if you remember this, but about 12 hours ago and you sat right here and you embraced me in a hug, and I leaned on that hug because I wasn't sure that I would even make it 12 hours. I take strength from you, my friend, and I take strength from you to hold to my kindness, to look for it everywhere.

(11:55:19)
This is a story I don't think I've ever shared with you, but it speaks to how we get things done and how we should get things done. When I first got to the United States Senate, my mentor, Bill Bradley, gave me three real lessons for me to learn. I think I've obeyed two out of the three. One was to know the rules of procedure really well. That's the one I've probably failed. I'm still learning things 13 years into this, about the rules of procedure. The second one was, become a specialist in some areas, don't be a mile wide and an inch deep, and I feel like I've done a pretty good job on that. The one that he called me, that was most fruitful, I've already mentioned one of the benefits I had in doing this with John McCain earlier in this 12 hours, but he commanded me to go and meet with all your Republican colleagues, take them out to dinner, sit with them for lunch, whoever they are.

(11:56:17)
I went out to dinner with Ted Cruz. It was hard to find a restaurant because I'm a vegan and Ted Cruz is from Texas, but I still remember that we went out and how people were sort of shocked just to see two human beings breaking bread. The story I want to tell my friend about is when I went to see Jim Inhofe, Republican from the same state as Lankford, and I couldn't get him to meet with me. Couldn't get on his schedule, and I found out that he had Bible study in his hideaway, and so I go up to his hideaway for Bible study. Thune was there, and we all have implicit biases. We all have implicit biases. My implicit bias was that I did not expect this older conservative man, that I would walk in and see on his mantle this beautiful picture, centered, of him hugging a little Black girl.

(11:57:30)
I'm embarrassed by that, that it so surprised me, and I, especially in those days, I didn't talk to the senior giants in the Senate, I didn't call them by their first names. I still have a problem calling Senator Durbin by his first name, for example. He's a lion of the Senate in my opinion, and one of the kindest people to me since I've been here. I go to him, I go to Jim Inhofe, I go, "Mr. Chairman, sir," and I look at the picture and I go, "Who dat?" He smiles and chuckles, and then he tells me the most beautiful story of his family adopting this little Black girl out of some of the most terrible circumstances. I was so moved, and thinking about my friend Bill Bradley. I would've never known this incredibly beautiful thing about somebody who, ideologically we disagreed on so many things, but knowing this personal moment, it created this thread between us. Not a rope, not a cord, but a thread that connected me to him and created a deeper affection.

(11:58:36)
Fast forward many months in this body, and there's a big education bill, which Chris Murphy referenced earlier. A big education bill was going through the Senate because No Child Left Behind, we were going back the other way, and Senator Durbin has told me about this. Pendulum sometimes swings and swings back in this place, and it was a deal. Lamar Alexander was, in the well of the Senate, he was the manager of the bill, and there was no amendments allowed, no amendments allowed. Of course, I'm sitting back here, this is where I sat, and you talk about egos. My ego, I think I had this great amendment and I was frustrated that they were having this rule, no amendments, but I've got a great amendment to do something about homeless and foster children, that have the worst educational outcomes. I thought I had a modest amendment to try to make a difference for American children that are in foster care or that were homeless, and I'm frustrated.

(11:59:25)
I'm sitting back here, something that I dream of doing again one day, sitting, and just kind of upset. Then I see walking through those doors, Senator Jim Inhofe, and he walks to the well, kind of talking, and I remember the story he told me about this little Black girl and his family, and something tells me to get up. I walk into the well, down these steps, and I say to him, "Mr. Chairman, sir, I know how much you care for children in tough circumstances. I have an amendment." I explained my amendment to him, and he looked at me and he gave me the Senate version of no, which is, "I'll think about it." I got frustrated and I said, "Thank you, sir, for considering it," and I walked back and I sat down right here, and then when I picked my head up, he's marching into our side like you do on the other side, like his GPS coordinates were off, marches up to me and just sort of grunts at me, "I'm in," and then turns around and starts walking away from me.

(12:00:25)
I step up, I go, "Wait, excuse me. What do you mean?" He goes, "Cory, I'm going to co-sponsor your amendment," and I was so happy. Now I go over to Senator Grassley and say the same thing to him, a relationship that, thanks to Dick Durbin, I really bonded. I have this sweet relationship with him, even though, again, we disagree on so much, and he doesn't even make me wait. He looks at me and he goes, "You got Inhofe?" He signs on my … By the time I go to Lamar Alexander, I look at him and I'm like, "I've got a full house. I'm sorry, I got no other Democrats, but I got all these Republicans," and he looks at me and he laughs and he goes, "Really?" He puts the amendment on the bill. It's the law of the land now.

Senator 1 (12:01:09):

That's great.

Senator Cory Booker (12:01:13):

What you said in the beginning of your long wind-up question, my dear friend, my dear brother, is how real change is made. That man, Dick Durbin, when I first got to the Senate, he knew how much I cared about criminal justice reform. He brought me to the table, and I started working. As I presided, I started working in conversations with Mike Lee, in conversations with Chuck Grassley. We cobbled together a bill. It wasn't done by Executive Fiat, it was done in the Senate, 87 votes. It's the law of the land. Thousands have been liberated from unjust incarceration, and so my point to the Senator is, his spirit is so right, is so true about what it takes to make real change, but the President we have right now doesn't seem to be coming to this body with any kind of bold, bipartisan legislation to solve the problems of our nation, to cobble together the common ground of this country on immigration. No, he's not acting like that. He's using language like, "Presidential primacy." He's defending his corrupt practices in immigration by saying things like, "Presidential primacy." He's invoking the Alien Enemies Act. He's invoking the Alien Enemies Act, an act from the 1700s, to deny due process, which Anton Scalia, a textualist, says that whether you're born in this country or not, you have due process here.

(12:03:07)
The Constitution states only one thing twice. Both the 5th and the 14th amendments say that no one, not no citizen, no one shall be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law, and yet this President is disappearing people, and as we documented here, disappearing the wrong people. As we documented here, detaining unjustly Americans, separating families, all while pushing his agenda and doing things that the values of people on both sides of this aisle don't believe in, like stopping the investigation of children for alleged sexual molestation. This is wrong. I sat down with some of the advocates who were telling me and who were trying to fight to stop the law from being broken, and they scared me, Dick Durbin, because they said what I said on this floor. If someone is willing to violate the Constitution for some, it endangers the constitutional rights for us all. Do not think this is, oh, those people. If they are-

(12:04:20)
This is what the person said. They talked about the Insurrection Act. They've been hearing people in the administration talk about the Insurrection Act. Every person in this Congress and across the country wants a safe and secure bordering, but scapegoating immigrants to erode basic constitutional freedoms does not make America safer, does not make our community safer, does not reform our immigration system like we should be doing, in a bipartisan manner like Lankford and Murphy. It does not stand, our longstanding problems from our agricultural industry to our tech industry. History has shown that when due process and basic constitutional rights are eroded for some people, it does not stop. It continues to erode. The shoreline that kept you safe will shrink until it reaches you.

(12:05:36)
I am reminded of German pastor Martin Niemoller's quote about fascism in Germany. "They first, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak up because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews. I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and no one was left to speak." Well, everything that has happened in the last few months contradicts American values, shared values. I am most concerned about what this signals for the future and the potential invocation of this President of the Insurrection Act. Some of our country's most prominent lawyers have warned that the invocation of these two antiquated laws, the Alien Enemies Act and the Insurrection Act, may result in the true erosion of our constitutional rights. Trump's recent invocation of the Alien Enemies Act is the first step to subpoenaing people without due process, as Justice Scalia says is wrong.

(12:06:48)
Then, on the first day in office, Trump directed the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Secretary, excuse me, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Trump directed them to initiate a 90-day review to determine whether the President should invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807. That 90-day review, when do those 90 days come up, folks? This month, in 19 days, April 20th. The President of the United States, who's already invoked a 1780-something law, also asked his immigration folks, his Homeland Security folks, to do a 90-day review about the Insurrection Act of 1807. Now, there's people probably watching and saying, "What is the Insurrection Act?" I bet a lot of folks. I had to look up what the Alien Enemies Act was, so let me tell folks what the Insurrection Act that our President on his first day in office, of all the things a President has to do, he turned to the Secretaries of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to initiate a 90-day review of the Insurrection Act.

(12:08:10)
America, what is the Insurrection Act of 1807? It's among the President's most powerful authorities that he can deploy the US Armed Forces and militia during a national emergency. He can declare a national emergency. This president has already wrongfully declared national emergencies. He called declared a national emergency on energy. Senator Kaine talked about the outrageousness of somebody declaring a national emergency on energy when we were at the highest level of petrochemical extraction in our country's history, and until he started rolling back what we were doing on wind and solar, we had an all-of-the-above strategy. Nobody drilled baby drilled more than Joe Biden. The Insurrection Act gives the ability of the President to declare a national emergency to suppress insurrections, to quell civil unrest or domestic violence and enforce the law when he believes it's being instructed. When can the President invoke the Insurrection Act? Well, nothing in the text of the law defines insurrection, rebellion, or domestic violence. Those are the prerequisites for deployment, but they don't define those things.

(12:09:37)
One of Trump's first executive orders, signed the evening he took office on January 20th, was titled Declaring a National Emergency at the Southern Border of the United States. In that order, he said American sovereignty is under attack. He has already declared a national emergency. Neither Congress nor the courts played a role in deciding what constitutes an obstruction or a rebellion. If Trump does unlawfully invoke the Insurrection Act, he can conceivably use our military to carry out his deportation agenda within our country's borders, all while any due process or opportunity to prove that their presence in the US is lawful or even that they are a citizen … Trump himself said he wants to deport American citizens to foreign countries. Trump himself has said, "I want to deport American citizens to foreign countries." On February 4th, he said, and I quote, "I'm just saying, if we had a legal right to do it, I would do it in a heartbeat. I don't know if we do or not. We're looking at it right now." This is what he has asked his Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to say. "Can I invoke the Insurrection Act?"

(12:11:14)
Don't be mistaken. This is not just about immigrants. This is not just denying immigrants the due process that Anton Scalia said that immigrants have a right to, so you don't disappear the wrong people, like the Trump administration has done, that you don't wildly disagree with what a citizen is saying and use that as a pretext to disappear them. He is creating the pretext to invoke that 1800 law, 1807 law, the Insurrection Act, and if he does that, when they came for the immigrants and denied them due process, he's trying to get us to surrender our commitment to the constitutional guarantees that Americans have. He has said he would invoke, he would deport Americans if he could. When the President denies due process to some in America, it threatens the due process of all.

(12:12:21)
Let's see what happens on April 20th, if this President who's already invoked the Alien Enemies Act follows through and invokes the Insurrection Act, but why wait until April 20th? Raise your voice now. Stand up now. Do something now. Cause some good trouble now. Let this President know that if he does ever do that, there will be a rising up of people's voices, a rising up of good trouble, as John Lewis would say, to say, "Not in my country. This is unacceptable."

Senator Dick Durbin (12:12:55):

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Senator Cory Booker (12:12:56):

To Senator Dick Durbin, somebody who's been my mentor and friend, I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Senator Dick Durbin (12:13:07):

Thank you. I first want to acknowledge this extraordinary moment in the history of the Senate. I believe you've been holding the floor now for more than 10 hours, and perhaps will go on even longer, and you've been joined by your colleague and friend, Senator Murphy of Connecticut. I'm sorry to take the early morning shift, but I didn't want to miss this moment in history, not just for the historic nature of it, but for the substance of it as well. I just remind my colleague and fellow member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, it was only three, maybe four weeks ago that we had witnesses before the Judiciary Committee. I asked a question, and one of them is pending on the calendar, the executive calendar on the floor. His name is Dean Sauer of Missouri, and he's seeking the position of Solicitor General of the United States.

(12:14:07)
Along with him was the lady aspiring to be the Assistant Deputy Attorney General for Civil Rights, Harmeet Dhillon, and Aaron Reitz, who has been approved by the Senate for a legal policy position. The questioning went to the basics of our Constitution, which you have noted here today, and that is, what is the check and balance on a President? What is the accountability of a President under the Constitution? As I read it, and I don't profess to be expert, I'm still learning, as I read it, the accountability of the President is in article two, in article three, I'm sorry, article three, the judiciary. Ultimately, the President can be held accountable by impeachment in Congress or by decision of court, that some of the orders that he is promulgating are inconsistent with law and the Constitution, and the question that was asked of the witnesses who are seeking positions in the Department of Justice, does a public official, can a public official defy a court order?

(12:15:27)
It seems so fundamental and basic. The answer is no, of course, but these three witnesses all equivocated in their own ways, which raises the question, if this President is not held accountable by a court order, what then can control a President who misuses their office to the detriment of the nation or the people who live here? That I thought was a fundamental question. It was interesting to note. You may remember that one of our Republican colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, after hearing these witnesses equivocate on whether a public official can defy a court order, came to the committee and basically said, "What are you saying? The answer is obvious. You can criticize a decision of the court within the bounds of propriety as a member of the bar, you can appeal a decision of the court, but if that doesn't satisfy you, your recourse is to quit, resign, leave. The Constitution has the last word. The courts have the last word."

(12:16:40)
I think that's the question that you're raising today. Where is the accountability of the President of the United States when he misuses the power of office? In the cases that you've mentioned, the Alien Enemies Act, it's a law that's been around since I think 1807, or somewhere that time. I think it's clear. Unless you have declared a war or unless you are invaded, you cannot invoke the Alien Enemies Act, as this President has done, and he's being challenged in that regard. Yesterday our friend Senator Grassley, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, and I say friend. Some people back home say, "Don't say that anymore, we don't talk to those people. They're wrong." This is a body where we do talk to one another, and we should, for good reason. Well, he raised the question yesterday, why is President Trump being challenged so often in court?

(12:17:36)
Well, he has issued 102 executive orders. I don't know if that's a record, but I'll bet it is. 102 executive orders, questioning something as basic as birthright sovereignty, birthright citizenship. The point that I'm getting to is, in obvious situations here where President Trump has gone too far, where is the accountability? It's not going to be an impeachment. We're realists. We know that the Republican House of Representatives is not likely to ever consider that. It could be in the courts, and if it goes to the courts, the question is, will this President follow a court order if it goes against his policy? If he won't follow that court order, where is the accountability? Where is the check and balance? Where is the constitutional framework, which is supposed to be at the foundation of this democracy? I think you're raising important questions, and the Insurrection Act, the use of our military for political purposes is

Senator Dick Durbin (12:18:39):

… is a frightening prospect. It's something we have avoided throughout our history and should continue to. And I just commend you for raising this point because I believe it's timely. It's as timely as the questions that we asked of these Department of Justice nominees, about the enforceability of court orders. And the question is now will the American people speak up? I'm counting on some of our Republican friends to speak up too. Throughout history, there have been moments when the party, other than the President's party, showed extreme courage, political courage, and spoke up. We need that kind of voice now, I thank you for raising that on the floor this morning. My question to you is at this moment in time, as we ask these nominees whether they would follow a court order or defy a court order, doesn't that get to the basics of our constitutional democracy?

Senator Cory Booker (12:19:30):

Yes. Yes. Yes it does. I mean, you put forth this litany that will we have to ask ourselves is at what point do my colleagues in the House or the Senate and the Republican Party say, "Enough. Enough"? God bless John Kennedy for calling out the absolute absurd. I was in that hearing where you have nominees for some of the highest positions in the administration failing to say that they will abide by a court order. I mean, that is something we haven't heard people on either side of nominees just say So bluntly now, not, yes, I will follow the orders of a court. They're equivocating. And God bless one of my colleagues, John Kennedy, who said, "That's absurd. You either obey the order or you resign." Because we have a constitution. And so when is it enough? When is it enough?

(12:20:29)
This is the month of Passover, and there's a wonderful song I love singing when I'm at a Pesach, Dayenu. It Would Have Been Enough, is the song, if God just delivered us from the Egypt, it would've been enough if he parted the seas, it would've been enough. Dayenu, dayenu, dayenu.

(12:20:46)
This is a kind of a twisted version of that. When is it enough? When the President of the United States starts a meme coin on his first day, violating the emoluments clause immediately and enriching himself? When is it enough? When he takes an agency that is on the front lines of stopping infectious diseases like Ebola or drug resistant tuberculosis from coming here? Is that enough? When we created that in Congress and he has no right to stop that agency, would that been enough? When is it enough? For him to issue executive orders that trample on the highest ideals of this land. When he mocks members of the court so badly that even the current Chief Justice admonishes him? When is it enough? When Elon Musk is indiscriminately firing people and then realizing, oops, we need the FAA safety folks. Oops, we need the nuclear folks who are helping us keep our regulation. When is it enough that you will say, okay, I'll call them in and have a hearing to create some transparency in what he's doing? When is it enough? When he activates the alien enemies acts and starts disappearing human beings without due process? When is it enough? Well, it's enough for me. It's enough for me.

(12:22:13)
12 hours now I'm standing and I'm still going strong because this president is wrong. And he's violating principles that we hold dear and principles in this document that are so clear in playing. The powers of the Article one branch are spelled out and he is violating them. Don't take my word for it. Republican appointed judges, Democrat appointed judges are saying it and stopping him and then he maligns the judge that did that. When is it enough for people to speak out and not just fall in line? To put patriotism over a person that's in The White House?

(12:22:54)
So to your question, sir, to my friend, and I'm sorry to get a little animated at this early morning hour, but I am so frustrated and not just because of that, but I'm reading the stories. We're going into the next section, which is national security, and I'm reading the stories of our citizens of this country, not just New Jerseyans. There's a lot we've read in these 12 hours, but there are people from all over the country are reaching out to my office and I know they are yours. You're the second-highest ranking Democrat in here. I know they're reaching out to you because you're a man that stands for justice. I know they reach out to your office too because you're one of these outposts for sanity in a Congress that is being too complicit to an executive that is overstepping his authority and violating the Constitution and hurting people who rely on healthcare and Social Security.

(12:23:52)
I'm reading these stories, sir, because the voices of the Americans that don't have the privilege that the 100 of us don't get to stand here, but I believe the power of the people is greater than the people in power. That's the ideals of our democracy in our constitution. So I'm rip-roaring and ready. I'm wide awake. I'm going to stand here for as many hours as I can, 12 hours, and I recognize that my other friend, another person I consider more than a friend, like a sister to me from the state of New York, my neighbor.

Kirsten Gillibrand (12:24:27):

Senator Booker, would you yield for a question.

Senator Cory Booker (12:24:30):

My sister, for you. I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Kirsten Gillibrand (12:24:36):

Senator Booker, I've been listening to this debate all night and I got to say, you're on fire. And you're on fire because the American people are very, very angry about what is happening. They are not happy with what this administration has done. It's contrary to what was promised. It's contrary to what was expected. And I know we're going to talk about national security in a few minutes, but can I ask a question about one of the topics you talked about last night? Because it was exactly what my constituents were talking to me about yesterday.

(12:25:11)
So I was in New York yesterday and we talked about these cuts to Social Security. I have to say I was stopped by the gentleman who worked at Amtrak and said, "Madam Senator, Madam Senator, I just want to thank you for protecting my Social Security," that has never happened to me before, never happened at Amtrak to be stopped by someone who worked there to thank me for one thing I had done that day.

(12:25:41)
But I'm telling you, Senator Booker, when Elon Musk starts firing people at Social Security and tells the Social Security Administration, "You cannot answer the phone." What are our mothers and fathers and grandmothers and grandfathers supposed to do? Many of them are not readily available to be on a computer. Many of them can't ask their question online. And worse, Elon Musk is expecting them to show up in person at a Social Security office. How many of our older Americans are not able to drive anymore? Or are uncomfortable driving? How many of our older Americans feel uncomfortable getting in the subway to get to a Social Security Administration because there's stairs, or because the lighting's not good enough? These are the challenges that our older Americans have. And so I just want to talk about the things you told us last night about the risk to Social Security.

(12:26:43)
Social Security is our seniors' money. It's not the government's money, it's their money. So what happens when you make it hard for a senior to call and make sure their check's on the way or their check never showed up and they can't find it? For a lot of older Americans that Social Security check is the only money they have for that month. It pays for food, right? It pays for heating bills, it pays for their medicine, it pays for their rent. It pays for everything they need to survive. Elon Musk's office doesn't believe anybody should be answering the phones. Who is he to tell America how to run its Social Security Administration when our seniors need those checks?

(12:27:37)
They've crippled the phone service. Even though get this one, can't answer the phone crippled the phone service, you can only make an appointment on the phone. So how are you supposed to make an appointment if you are going to go in? I mean, that's absurd. They plan to cut 7,000 staff. That's a lot of staff, 7,000 staff. Even though the Social Security Administration staffing is already at a 50-year low. So they are lying when they are saying this is about efficiency. They just want the money. And what do they want the money for? Tax cuts for billionaire buddies of Elon Musk. It is an obscenity. It is an absurdity. It is an outrage. And everyone in America should be concerned. Hands off our Social Security, Elon Musk and President Trump, hands off. They are rallying all across the country to say, hands off my Social Security, hands off my Medicare, hands off my Medicaid. It's an outrage. And I don't think people should stand for it. Because your Social Security check is your hard-earned money. It is not for Elon Musk to play with to shift around or send it to tax breaks for his billionaire friends.

(12:29:01)
Now I have to say, my office has been working closely with one senior. Now she's a New Yorker with a disability, and she was told that she had to call a specific representative's extension by the end of March. Well, that was yesterday. And if she didn't get this person, her application could be denied. She's called every day, sometimes more than once a day. She has been on hold for four to five hours just to reach this representative. As of yesterday, when we reached out to her, she had still not reached the representative. So Americans across the country are panicked. They are stressed.

(12:29:48)
They're worried that they won't get their hard-earned money back, their retirement to pay for the things that they need. Now this is the money they've spent their entire careers paying into. Every time you get a paycheck, Senator Booker, there's a line that says Social Security because that money's been taken out of your paycheck and put into Social Security. So it's there for you when you retire. It's your retirement. The page is sitting here, right here. You are paying into your Social Security. Now imagine this is your first paycheck, isn't it? I bet it is. Your first paycheck. Your first paycheck, you're putting in dollars that you want saved so that when you… You can't even imagine what it's going to be like to be 65, but the day you're working here, the fact that you spent all night here supporting Senator Booker, that's your retirement. Wouldn't you be off if Elon Musk took your retirement money? You should be. He doesn't have any right to it. And what he's doing is he's doing it by cutting staff. So if you need help because your Social Security didn't arrive, then how are you supposed to get that check? They can't issue you a new one unless they know that it didn't show up in the mail like it's supposed to.

(12:30:59)
Ultimately, cutting individuals from Social Security doesn't just affect them, it affects the entire economy. So you can imagine if all our seniors are getting this Social Security benefit, you can't go then buy your groceries. You're not going to be able to then go buy whatever you need for your home. Those stores will get less money, and that means there'll be less resources in the economy. Social Security, if you didn't know it, it's our country's largest anti-poverty program. It keeps people out of poverty. That's what it does. When we designed Social Security however many decades ago, it was so that our seniors don't die in poverty, because they were dying. About half of seniors at that time were dying in poverty. They didn't have enough food to live. And so we created Social Security. It's one of the most popular programs. It's one of the most effective programs. So reducing access to this key program, Senator Booker, is an outrage. It's harmful, it's cruel, it's hurtful. So I know that this is something that you've really spent a lot of time on last night, but don't you think it's cruel to not allow phone service? Don't you think it's wrong to make it harder for people to get access to their hard-earned money? Don't you think this is something that America did not sign up for in this election?

Senator Cory Booker (12:32:32):

I read last night, thank you for the question my friend. I read last night some of the most painful letters of people over and over again from throughout my state and through other states who are living in fear, who use words like terrified and told stories that they couldn't sleep because of the rhetoric of this president, the rhetoric of Elon Musk calling it a Ponzi scheme telling lies during a joint address. And then I read stories from people that work in Social Security. They're telling about not having desks and the waiting lines and the inefficiencies that this has created and the horrible deteriorating customer service. And I've been trying as much as I can during this last 12 hours to read the stories of Republicans.

Kirsten Gillibrand (12:33:23):

Yeah, this affects everyone.

Senator Cory Booker (12:33:24):

Yes, to read editorials from the Wall Street Journal to just show that this isn't a partisan thing. This isn't about left or right, it's about right or wrong. It's about will we as a country honor our commitments that we made? And then I read independent folks that are saying, this is crazy that this program is even in jeopardy.

Kirsten Gillibrand (12:33:48):

I have another question for you, because I know you want to move on to some national security issues this morning.

Senator Cory Booker (12:33:55):

I will yield for a question while retaining the floor.

Kirsten Gillibrand (12:33:58):

Thank you, Senator Booker. So the other thing that stressed out my constituents that I talked to about this weekend is air safety. They're very, very stressed out about these cuts to the FAA. There was a plane crash not too far from here, helicopter crash, everyone on that helicopter perished. We've been reading about stories across the country about flight safety and the fact that there are near collisions all the time. We had a horrible crash in New York, in Buffalo, the Colgan air crash. I've gotten to know the families over the last several years because they've worked together for legislation to make sure we have pilot safety. But what I've been watching in terms of this administration is they don't seem to care. They just have made up this idea that cuts across the board are necessary to get rid of fraud and waste in the budget.

(12:35:06)
And I agree, we can make government more efficient, but the way you do that is at least learn what each of these agencies do, study what's happening in them and how to make them more efficient. Make sure the right number of personnel are hired. Make sure the right training is offered. Make sure there's no wasteful programs. That's good government. That is not what Elon Musk and his DOGE boys are doing. That is nothing like what they are doing.