Christopher Murphy

Murphy On Costs of Iran War: Everything is More Expensive Because of One Person's Insane Decision | U.S. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut

Position: Senator Murphy supports a War Powers Resolution to end the Trump administration's military conflict with Iran, arguing that the war is causing unsustainable economic harm to American families through increased costs for fuel, goods, and services, while the wealthy remain unaffected.

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) today spoke on the floor of the U.S. Senate, alongside several of his Democratic colleagues, in support of a War Powers Resolution to end Trump’s war with Iran. Murphy focused his remarks on the unsustainable, and still growing, economic impact of this war, forcing American families to pay thousands of dollars more for basic necessities like gas, clothing, and medical care. As Trump’s war approaches the 60-day mark, Murphy called on his Republican colleagues to stop the rampage on Americans’ wallets and join Democrats to end the war. Murphy stressed the economic chaos of this war is hitting working people hardest, while the billionaire class is left unscathed: “I think we all are angry that our [Republican] colleagues are not allowing this body to do its job. But we are also angry that the cost of this war is not being borne by members of the United States Senate, is not being borne by Donald Trump's billionaire and corporate friends. The cost of this war is being borne by American consumers, by American small businesses, by American farmers.” Murphy did the math on the outrageous dollar amounts Americans’ will be forced to shell out at the gas pump because of Republicans’ inaction: “The scoreboard is gas prices… Let's just put this in real terms. If you're a commuter in this country who has a longer than average commute, you are probably buying somewhere short of 1,000 gallons a year in auto fuel. And so when the price jumps by $1 - and it may soon jump by $2 - that's 1000 to $2,000 out of your pocket… 40 percent of American families have less than $400 in the bank in liquid assets ready to spend on an emergency like a car repair or an emergency medical bill. When you are spending $1,000 more every year just to fill up your tank, you go from being on the brink of financial crisis, into financial crisis.” Murphy warned the worst cost increases are still to come: “It's not just gas prices. You are about to see a spike in the cost of technological products, automobiles, fabrics, clothing, medical devices, everything is getting more expensive because of one person's insane decision.” Murphy slammed Republicans for standing by as Trump throws Americans’ finances into disarray, instead of voting to end this war: “As we head into the summer and the price of everything for American consumers gets higher and higher - their summer travel, their plane tickets, their clothing, their groceries - there is only one person to blame: Donald Trump. And there is only one party to blame: the Republican Party, which could choose to join us and vote for one of these resolutions to end the war, to allow us to get back to a point where prices are coming down instead of spiraling upward.” A full transcript of Murphy’s remarks is available below. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Schiff for bringing another war powers resolution before this body. I have lost count on how many votes we have had, but we are doing this for one reason and one reason only. The Republican majority refuses to do its constitutional and statutory responsibility. The Constitution says we declare war. The President doesn't get to make war without the consent of Congress. And our founders were very intentional investing that power in us. They did not want an unchecked, runaway executive being able to make war overseas without the consent of the people, and I hear in Senator Van Hollen's voice his anger. I think we all are angry that our colleagues are not allowing this body to do its job. But we are also angry that the cost of this war is not being borne by members of the United States Senate, is not being borne by Donald Trump's billionaire and corporate friends. The cost of this war is being borne by American consumers, by American small businesses, by American farmers. And so I just want to spend my few minutes updating you on what the state of the American economy and what the state of the global economy, inextricably linked to the American economy, is today, 60 days after this illegal war began. The scoreboard is gas prices. Americans today are paying, on average, about $4.30 a gallon. Gas prices are up 20 to 30% from the beginning of the war. The price of Brent crude is now over $120 a barrel, compared to $70 before the war. The only reason the gas prices have gone up by 20 to 30% is the war. That's the only reason that Americans are paying those extraordinary amounts at the pump. And let's just put this in real terms. If you're a commuter in this country who has a longer than average commute, you are probably buying somewhere short of 1000 gallons a year in auto fuel. And so when the price jumps by $1, and it may soon jump by $2, that's 1000 to $2,000 out of your pocket. Okay, 30 to 40% of American families are living paycheck to paycheck. 40% of American families have less than $400 in the bank in liquid assets ready to spend on an emergency like a car repair or an emergency medical bill. And so when you are spending $1,000 more every year just to fill up your tank. You go from being on the brink of financial crisis, into financial crisis. And again this isn't bad luck. This isn't a natural disaster. Donald Trump chose to increase gas prices in this country to $4.30 a gallon. Diesel prices are up even more. Diesel prices are up 50%. This is the fuel that America's farmers and America's trucking industry uses, and our farmers, were already dealing with the consequences of tariffs. 70% of farmers right now in this country say that they will not have enough money in order to plant the next crop, because the tariffs and the diesel prices are putting many of them out of businesses. Bankruptcies of farms are up almost 50% from before Trump was president. Inflation was 2.8% before the war, well above the Federal Reserve's target. It is now 3.5%. That's an extraordinary increase, largely driven by fuel costs. Cost increases for everything else are coming very soon as well. Airfare prices up by 25%. So if you're online right now, looking to book a ticket for your family's vacation, if you're planning far ahead booking tickets for Thanksgiving or Christmas, you're paying 25% more than you would have paid before the war. Reason for higher airline prices: the war. But this crisis is spiraling around the world because oil, $120 a barrel, is what fuels our fabrics and clothing industry globally. So the cost of polyester and nylon is going up and up and up and so in the sewing hubs of Bangladesh and other countries that send products to Walmart, where a lot of Americans buy their clothes, we're starting to see production interruptions because of the increasingly high price of the components of fabrics. In Singapore and Taiwan it's becoming more expensive for companies to produce medical devices like syringes and catheters because of the high, increasing price of plastic. Aluminum prices have been rising ever since the war in the Middle East started because of a tax on aluminum smelters in Iran and other Gulf countries. Helium, a product that is produced in the Middle East, the price going through the roof, and so the semiconductor manufacturing industry globally is facing shortages, because helium is an important product for semiconductors. So it's not just gas prices. You are about to see a spike in the cost of technological products, automobiles, fabrics, clothing, medical devices, everything is getting more expensive because of one person's insane decision. No president, Republican or Democrat, prior to Donald Trump, made the decision to invade Iran, to launch a full scale war against Iran, because they were told the consequence of doing that is the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and there is no military response by the United States that will reopen the strait. And so every president prior to Donald Trump, whether they were Republican or Democrat, decided not to wage a full scale war on Iran because they knew one of the consequences would be the meltdown of the American economy and the meltdown of the global economy. And it would be not billionaires and big corporations that would pay the price, it would be regular Americans, regular minimum wage Americans, middle class Americans, who would pay that price. And so as we head into the summer and the price of everything for American consumers gets higher and higher - their summer travel, their plane tickets, their clothing, their groceries - there is only one person to blame, Donald Trump, and there is only one party to blame, the Republican Party, which could choose to join us and vote for one of these resolutions to end the war, to allow us to get back to A point where prices are coming down instead of spiraling upward. This is a choice that our Senate Republican colleagues make every week to vote for continuing this war and for continuing this disastrous price escalation on ordinary Americans. I yield the floor.

Murphy Demands Trump Administration Comply With Law, Use Foreign Assistance Funding to Support Global Health, Food Aid, Help Save Lives as Congress Directed | U.S. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut

Position: Senator Murphy and co-signers demand the Trump administration release $3.2 billion in appropriated foreign assistance and global health funding that Congress directed be spent, arguing the withholding is illegal and undermines U.S. interests in global health, food security, and support for Ukraine.

WASHINGTON–U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) joined a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought demanding the Trump administration reverse course on illegally withholding $3.2 billion in appropriated funds for lifesaving global health and foreign aid programs, and spend the funding as Congress directed. “All of these funds were appropriated to advance U.S. interests in stabilizing overseas markets, advancing energy security, supporting Ukraine, combatting infectious diseases, and strengthening food security, among other purposes. In addition to abandoning our partners, ceding global leadership, and potentially wasting billions of taxpayer dollars, terminating these programs as part of the Administration’s illegal and reckless decimation of USAID has resulted in significant costs as legal fees pile up and overdue payments are owed to U.S. implementing partners. These implementers need to be made whole, and sufficient prior year funds exist to cover related expenses,” the senators wrote. “Withholding these investments will significantly reduce programming worldwide, with particularly severe consequences for populations already facing heightened hardship due to prior aid terminations and reductions. Holding FY25 health funds in reserve—while urgent needs go unmet—creates unnecessary risk and wastes taxpayer dollars. It is unconscionable that the Administration would leave these funds unspent at a moment when newly released Department of State data show a sharp decline in HIV testing and prevention, raising the risk of new infections and undermining long-term epidemic control; when malaria is resurging globally and antimalarial drug resistance is spreading; and when millions of children are projected to die this year from preventable diseases,” the senators continued. “We therefore demand that the Administration obligate the full $3.2 billion in expiring FY25 assistance, including the $2 billion global health funding, consistent with the law. The Administration also must satisfy its remaining payments owed to implementers and release the remainder of prior year funds,” the senators concluded. The letter was also signed by U.S. Senators Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.). The full text of the letter follows and is available here. Dear Secretary Rubio, Director Vought, and Deputy Director Ueland: On April 20, the Administration informed Congress that it is withholding $19 billion in taxpayer dollars as part of its plan to cover “costs associated with the close-out of terminated foreign assistance awards,” which is an appalling admission of waste of U.S. taxpayer dollars resulting from the misconceived foreign assistance review and abrupt drawdown of the U.S. Agency or International Development (USAID). The plan includes spending up to $3.2 billion in Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 development and global health funding on close-out costs, instead of lifesaving and other congressionally-directed programs, which constitutes an unnecessary and illegal impoundment of funds. We write to demand that you reverse this proposal and put the funds to their intended use to save lives and advance U.S. interests as directed by Congress last year. All of these funds were appropriated to advance U.S. interests in stabilizing overseas markets, advancing energy security, supporting Ukraine, combatting infectious diseases, and strengthening food security, among other purposes. In addition to abandoning our partners, ceding global leadership, and potentially wasting billions of taxpayer dollars, terminating these programs as part of the Administration’s illegal and reckless decimation of USAID has resulted in significant costs as legal fees pile up and overdue payments are owed to U.S. implementing partners. These implementers need to be made whole, and sufficient prior year funds exist to cover related expenses. The $3.2 billion in FY25 funds were signed into law by President Trump in March 2025 and expire at the end of this September. Notably, this includes $2 billion appropriated for health assistance, including $330 million for programs to combat HIV/AIDS, $250 million for malaria programs, $320 million for maternal and child health, and nearly $650 million for global health security, among other critical programs. The Administration should immediately begin using these foreign assistance funds to deliver results for the American people. There is no reason for this FY25 funding to be withheld to cover the wasteful costs this Administration has incurred because it chose to dismantle USAID. Withholding these investments will significantly reduce programming worldwide, with particularly severe consequences for populations already facing heightened hardship due to prior aid terminations and reductions. Holding FY25 health funds in reserve—while urgent needs go unmet—creates unnecessary risk and wastes taxpayer dollars. It is unconscionable that the Administration would leave these funds unspent at a moment when newly released Department of State data show a sharp decline in HIV testing and prevention, raising the risk of new infections and undermining long-term epidemic control; when malaria is resurging globally and antimalarial drug resistance is spreading; and when millions of children are projected to die this year from preventable diseases. We further note that award terminations cannot be used as a back door to illegally close USAID. The Administration requested legal authority to close USAID in the President’s FY26 budget request, and that was rejected by the Congress and excluded from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026 (P.L. 119-75). We therefore demand that the Administration obligate the full $3.2 billion in expiring FY25 assistance, including the $2 billion global health funding, consistent with the law. The Administration also must satisfy its remaining payments owed to implementers and release the remainder of prior year funds. We request that you respond by no later than May 8, 2026 with a timeline for making these funds available to the lifesaving and other critical programs for which they were provided.

Murphy Statement On Supreme Court Decision Gutting the Voting Rights Act | U.S. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut

Position: Senator Murphy opposes the Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, arguing it enables voter suppression and reflects the Court's political bias.

WASHINGTON–U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Wednesday released a statement on the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which effectively guts Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. "Republicans are already pulling out every trick in the book to rig our elections and now, the Supreme Court’s right-wing majority has paved the way for them to deny Black voters representation. This court’s disregard for the will of Congress and the law in service of a clear political agenda will only deepen the crisis of public trust the Supreme Court is facing.”

Murphy, Barrasso Lead Bipartisan Letter to Advance Zip Code Reform in Congress | U.S. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) led a bipartisan group of senators in a letter to U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs leadership, urging them to bring legislation before the committee to modernize the United States Postal Service (USPS) process of assigning zip codes. USPS’ broken zip code process is creating major disruptions and inconveniences for small and rural communities across the country, including lost mail, confusion over school zoning, and persistent problems with voter registration. Earlier this year, Murphy introduced a bill mandating the USPS assign Scotland, Connecticut - a community of 1,500 people that is presently forced to navigate six zip codes - a single, unique zip code. “We write you today to encourage the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs to take up zip code legislation that addresses a number of communities in our states. As you know, the United States Postal Service (USPS) has a process to issue unique zip codes for communities, but that process is broken,” the senators wrote. The senators emphasized there is growing momentum in Congress for a bill to provide lasting zip code reform to communities throughout the United States: “There are several bills that have been introduced in the House of Representatives and Senate that would direct USPS to issue unique zip codes. We believe these bills can be merged without removing any communities into a consolidated zip code bill to efficiently achieve this objective.” The letter was also signed by U.S. Senators John Curtis (R-Utah), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), and John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.). A full transcript of the letter is available below. A copy of the letter is available here. Chairman Paul and Ranking Member Peters: We write you today to encourage the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs to take up zip code legislation that addresses a number of communities in our states. As you know, the United States Postal Service (USPS) has a process to issue unique zip codes for communities, but that process is broken. There are several bills that have been introduced in the House of Representatives and Senate that would direct USPS to issue unique zip codes. We believe these bills can be merged without removing any communities into a consolidated zip code bill to efficiently achieve this objective. Thank you for your consideration and attention to these zip code bills. We standby to assist the Committee in this effort.

Murphy Statement On ATF's Dangerous Proposed Roll Back of Gun Regulations | U.S. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut

Position: Senator Murphy opposes the ATF's proposed gun regulations, arguing they will make it easier for criminals to obtain firearms and undermine recent progress in reducing gun violence achieved through commonsense gun regulations.

WASHINGTON–U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Wednesday released a statement on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)’s new proposed gun rules and regulations: “President Trump likes to talk about law and order, but his administration is pulling out all the stops to make it easier for criminals to get their hands on guns. These new rules are just a gun lobby wish list printed on ATF letterhead and they’ll make all of our communities less safe. The historic drops we’ve seen over the last few years in gun violence and crime thanks to commonsense gun regulations are now at serious risk, but Trump doesn’t care so long as his supporters in the gun lobby are getting rich.”

Murphy Calls Out Ed. Secretary Linda McMahon for Gutting Office of Civil Rights, Failing to Protect Kids | U.S. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut

Position: Senator Murphy opposes the Trump administration's dismantling of the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, including field office closures, attorney layoffs, and proposed budget cuts. He argues these actions harm vulnerable students, particularly those with disabilities, by preventing case resolution and reducing civil rights protections.

WASHINGTON–U.S. Senator Chris Murphy on Tuesday questioned Secretary of Education Linda McMahon about the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) within the department during a hearing of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies. Murphy grilled McMahon on OCR’s abysmal record under her leadership and what the Trump administration's proposed budget cuts for the office will mean for vulnerable students. Emphasizing the importance of the OCR, Murphy highlighted the story of a disabled child whose case was dropped when Trump assumed office: “Amy Cupp is a parent in Indiana. She was very alarmed when her daughter came home one day with severe bruising on her hands and arms. Her daughter has severe autism, a group of different disabilities. What she came to find out is that the school that her daughter was at had been restraining and secluding her daughter. In fact, her daughter spent 23 hours over 29 different times in what the school referred to as the Blue Room, a padded room in which this girl was thrown in by herself, spent 23 hours in the first just few months of her sixth grade year. This family got no resolution from the school district, and so they went to the Office of Civil Rights. Their case was proceeding until you were sworn in, and when you were sworn in, their case ended. They were given a notice that the Chicago field office was shut down and that there would be no further processing of their case.” Murphy pressed McMahon on the mass firing of OCR attorneys responsible for protecting students’ rights and safety: “Why did you decide to shut down these field offices, to illegally fire half the attorneys?...In Connecticut, in your home state, when you came into office, there were 127 pending claims at OCR, half of them were kids with disabilities who were relying on you to help them. Do you know how many cases got resolved positively for families in Connecticut in 2025? Zero. Not a single child got a positive resolution, got help from the Department of Education having filed a disability claim in 2025. That is unacceptable.” In a mystifying exchange, Murphy set the record straight after McMahon contradicted the Trump administration’s FY27 budget proposal, inaccurately insisting the proposed budget includes more money for OCR attorneys: McMahon: We brought people on board to handle these cases, because I believe that they should be handled. We should be dismissing these cases. We should be finding resolutions to them, and so those attorneys are being brought back. They were- Murphy: How many of them were brought back? McMahon: All the ones that were fired who didn't take early retirement, they came back. And we are, in this budget, have more money to hire more lawyers. Murphy: No, this budget proposes a 35% reduction to the Office of Civil Rights. So that's my final question. McMahon: No, but it, but it is a budget of increasing dollars for civil rights. Murphy: No it's not…this budget has a 35% proposed reduction for the Office of Civil Rights. McMahon: Well, we are moving forward to make sure that rapid resolution- Murphy: Wait, let's just, that's true right? Let's just agree to the facts, right? You will agree that this budget reduces, you're proposing to reduce funding for the Department by 35%? McMahon: No, I'm not agreeing to that. Here's what I'm saying. We are bringing back lawyers. We are hiring new lawyers to address this back load, with the person who had been so successful before in getting this done. When she left office, there was a 4,500 backlog, and now, from the Biden administration, there's 19,000 more. And so we're addressing them for rapid mediation, expanded resolution, and multi-regional teams that we've now put back in place, so addressing the issues that happened in the past. Murphy: I mean, it's like black is white. It's a 35% cut you’re proposing. A full transcript of Murphy’s questioning is below: Murphy: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, good to see you, Secretary McMahon. I want to just tell you a quick story so you can understand why Senator Murray and many of us on this committee care deeply about what you have been doing to try to destroy the Office of Civil Rights. Amy Cupp is a parent in Indiana. She was very alarmed when her daughter came home one day with severe bruising on her hands and arms. Her daughter has severe autism, a group of different disabilities. What she came to find out is that the school that her daughter was at had been restraining and secluding her daughter. In fact, her daughter spent 23 hours over 29 different times in what the school referred to as the Blue Room, a padded room in which this girl was thrown in by herself, spent 23 hours in the first just few months of her sixth grade year. This family got no resolution from the school district, and so they went to the Office of Civil Rights. Their case was proceeding until you were sworn in, and when you were sworn in, their case ended. They were given a notice that the Chicago field office was shut down and that there would be no further processing of their case. They went to court along with many other families, and I heard you say to Senator Murray that things are getting better at OCR and that you are now processing cases again. But my understanding is you're doing that not out of your own volition, but because the parents sued you, and the court found that you were in gross violation of the law, having fired half the attorneys at the office, having closed down all these field offices that parents rely on. So what was going on in 2025? Why did you decide to shut down these field offices, to illegally fire half the attorneys? I hear you and want to believe you that things are going to get better, but obviously you spent an entire year trying to eliminate the functions of this office. And I'll give you a numerical example, in Connecticut, in your home state, when you came into office, there were 127 pending claims at OCR, half of them were kids with disabilities who were relying on you to help them. Do you know how many cases got resolved positively for families in Connecticut in 2025? Zero. Not a single child got a positive resolution, got help from the Department of Education having filed a disability claim in 2025. That is unacceptable. So I guess, tell me why you did that. And am I wrong that the only reason that you're restarting anything at OCR is because the court is telling you you have to do it? McMahon: Oh, you're clearly wrong about that Senator. We definitely did not shut down the Department of Civil Rights at the Department of Education. Before I got there, and then the RIF happened, I think, a week after I was sworn in, but the process had been in place to reduce greatly the Department of Education – the number of people there under very stringent budgetary requirements that we were given. And so this was part of a RIF that happened, but we were in the process of looking at how to make sure that our Office of Civil Rights was, in fact, going to be able to handle cases, trying to make sure that we could get as many of them handled as possible. And so that is why Kim Richey was brought back, part of the reason that she was brought back, I hired her, I found her, because she had been the most effective person in the prior Trump administration and in the Bush but it's important that- Murphy: But you did the opposite. I mean you are trying to figure out how to better resolve cases. You resolved not a single case in Connecticut in 2025. I mean, how do you defend that? Not a single child in Connecticut got a positive resolution from the Department of Education for their discrimination claims. 70 of them have disability claims. How do you defend that? McMahon: Well, it is very difficult when I'm trying to address those particular issues, except to know that those things were happening, and we are looking forward to make sure that they stop happening. Murphy: But you fired half the department. McMahon: But that is hindsight. What we are doing now- McMahon: You know perfectly well what it is. We brought people on board to handle these cases, because I believe that they should be handled. We should be dismissing these cases. We should be finding resolutions to them, and so those attorneys are being brought back. They were- Murphy: How many of them were brought back? McMahon: All the ones that were fired who didn't take early retirement, they came back. And we are, in this budget, have more money to hire more lawyers. Murphy: No, this budget proposes a 35% reduction to the Office of Civil Rights. So that's my final question. McMahon: No, but it, but it is a budget of increasing dollars for civil rights. Murphy: No it's not. This office this, this budget has a 35% proposed reduction for the Office of Civil Rights. McMahon: Well, we are moving forward to make sure that rapid resolution- Murphy: Wait, let's just, that's true right? Let's just agree to the facts right. You will agree that this budget reduces, you're proposing to reduce funding for the Department by 35%? McMahon: No, I'm not agreeing to that. Here's what I'm saying. We are bringing back lawyers. We are hiring new lawyers to address this back load, with the person who had been so successful before in getting this done. When she left office, there was a 4500 backlog, and now, from the Biden administration, there's 19,000 more. And so we're addressing them for rapid mediation, expanded resolution, and multi regional teams that we've now put back in place, so addressing the issues that happened in the past. Murphy: I mean, it's like black is white. It's a 35% cut you’re proposing.

Murphy, Gillibrand Introduce Bicameral Bill to Protect Retirement Security for Unpaid Caregivers | U.S. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut

Position: The senators support legislation that would provide five years of Social Security retirement credits to unpaid caregivers who spend at least 80 hours per month caring for dependent relatives, recognizing caregiving as economically valuable work and protecting caregivers' long-term retirement security.

WASHINGTON–U.S. Senators Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) today reintroduced the Social Security Caregiver Credit Act, bicameral legislation to provide five years of Social Security retirement credits to caregivers who spend at least 80 hours per month providing care to a dependent relative. By allowing caregivers to earn Social Security Credits while they are out of the workforce, this legislation recognizes the essential, economic value of care work and would aid millions of Americans’ long-term financial security. U.S. Representative Brad Schneider (D-N.Y.-10) introduced companion legislation in the House. According to a joint report from AARP and the National Alliance for Caregiving, sixty-three million American adults – nearly a quarter of the U.S. adult population – provide care to adults or children with a medical condition or disability. Tens of millions of Americans will significantly reduce their work hours, or leave the workforce entirely, to provide care for a dependent relative at some point in their career. Family members are often best equipped to provide sensitive, individualized care to dependent relatives and the Social Security Caregiver Credit Act would lower the financial stakes for individuals facing the difficult choice between continuing their careers or caring for their loved ones. “Caregivers shouldn’t lose out on Social Security benefits because they step away from the workforce to care for a loved one. Caregiving is work, and it’s time we start treating it that way. This legislation would make clear that the selfless decision to care for a family member no longer jeopardizes if and when you can retire,” said Murphy. “Caregiving for an aging parent, relative with a disability, or ailing loved one is a full-time job,” said Gillibrand. “Individuals who leave the workforce to care for their loved ones should receive compensation for that critical work. This commonsense bill would ensure eligible caregivers receive essential Social Security benefits in retirement, helping them to continue to provide for themselves and their families after leaving their jobs. As the top Democrat on the Senate Aging Committee, I am committed to getting this legislation passed.” “The cost of a care facility or in-home nurse is simply out of reach for many American families caring for a relative in need. Too often, families must risk their own financial security when doing what we all would do – providing essential care for spouses, parents, grandparents, or children,” said Schneider. “The Social Security Caregiver Credit Act would help ensure that people who step away from the workforce to care for loved ones aren’t penalized in retirement.” The Social Security Caregiver Act is endorsed by the following organizations: Social Security Works, National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services Programs (NANASP), The Arc, Sibling Leadership Network, National Alliance of Caregiving, ALS Association, and Alliance for Retired Americans. “Every day, spouses, partners, and loved ones give up their own jobs, savings, and retirement security to care for someone living with ALS. Even children are often called upon to be caregivers. The Social Security Caregiver Credit Act helps address these issues by allowing caregivers to earn social security credits while they are out of the workforce caring for their loved ones,” said Calaneet Balas, CEO of the ALS Association. “We thank Senator Murphy and Congressman Schneider for standing with the ALS community and protecting caregivers from being financially punished for caring for their loved ones.” "This legislation is long overdue, and we thank Rep. Schneider and Sen. Murphy for recognizing the value unpaid caregivers bring to our families, communities, and economy,” said Richard Fiesta, Executive Director of the Alliance for Retired Americans. “Caregivers often sacrifice their financial security to care for loved ones. By recognizing caregiving as work and providing Social Security credits, this bill takes a vital step toward fairness and equity and will help ensure more older Americans get the care they need." "Americans, disproportionately women, who drop out of the paid workforce to care for children or other family members are doing essential work. Yet as a result, they not only forego income now, they also are likely to receive lower Social Security benefits. Social Security Works is delighted to endorse the Social Security Caregiver Credit Act, which addresses this injustice by having Social Security explicitly recognize and compensate the invaluable work of caregiving," said Nancy Altman, President of Social Security Works. Full bill text for the Social Security Caregiver Credit Act is available here.

Murphy Warns Local Leaders Against Bringing Deadly ICE Facilities Into Their Communities | U.S. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut

Position: Senator Murphy opposes ICE's conversion of warehouse properties into immigrant detention facilities, arguing they are unsafe, inhumane, create unfunded local costs, and will be defunded by Democrats when they regain congressional control.

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, on Tuesday sent letters to 21 local governments throughout the United States that are actively considering whether to allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to buy residential warehouse properties in their communities for use as immigrant detention facilities. These warehouses are not designed to house human beings and individuals detained at these facilities would be subjected to unsanitary, inhumane, and unlawful living conditions. Noting the depraved human rights abuses at Trump’s existing DHS detention facilities, which have led to the deaths of dozens of individuals in ICE custody, Murphy warned local governments about the significant risks associated with greenlighting projects to convert local warehouse properties into DHS facilities. Murphy emphasized Democrats will immediately defund these inhumane warehouses once back in power, leaving local governments to foot the bill: “Democrats oppose the warehousing of humans in former office spaces and will make defunding these facilities a major priority when we take back control of Congress. Already this year, there have been at least 11 deaths in ICE custody. Last year, there were 31 reported deaths in ICE custody. The buildings ICE is now looking to covert to detain humans are not designed for this purpose and thus are likely to be completely unsanitary and unsafe, especially for pregnant women, children, and medically compromised detainees. The potential for a serious humanitarian catastrophe is very real and, as a result, these warehouse detention facilities will almost certainly be closed by a Democratic president or Congress.” Murphy stressed these detention centers will not only create a fiscal crisis for cities, but also strain life-saving local, public services: “Such facilities are likely to strain essential local public services like your community’s fire department, 911 call center, ambulance services, and hospital services, all of which would be responsible for answering emergency calls from the proposed facility. The federal government will not be able to offset these costs, meaning state and local officials will have to fill the gap between local taxpayers. Other issues, such as sewage treatment or water usage, may also create local challenges, as essential water and waste removal services will be burdened by the sudden addition of thousands of potential detainees in warehouses built for commercial purposes. Without a doubt, this facility will impose unfunded mandates on local taxpayers and budgets, all of which will be without federal reimbursement, meaning state and local leaders will need to find the money.” Murphy cautioned municipalities will face years of costly litigation related to these warehouses, draining local resources and exposing city leaders to potential liability: “These facilities will undoubtedly face repeated and prolonged litigation. As noted above, there is a serious risk to the health and safety of human life in these facilities. In nearly every federal circuit court, there is at least one applicable settlement agreement, consent decree, former litigation, or ongoing litigation related to the custody conditions in a DHS detention facility. In modern history, ICE has not attempted to detain people in commercial buildings, and courts will likely move to shut some of these facilities down, even before they are closed by a new president or Congress. Regardless, city and state leaders will be ensnared in years of depositions, sunshine law requests and disputes, and questions about liability in this untested concept.” Murphy’s letter was sent to the elected leadership of the following localities: Surprise, Arizona; Romulus, Michigan; Tremont, Pennsylvania; Scranton, Pennsylvania; Hagerstown, Maryland; Merrillville, Indiana; Shakopee, Minnesota; Flowery Branch, Georgia; Social Circle, Georgia; Orlando, Florida; Kansas City, Missouri; Byhalia, Mississippi; Port Allen, Louisiana; Los Fresnos, Texas; San Antonio, Texas; Hutchins, Texas; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; El Paso, Texas; Ledgewood, New Jersey; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Socorro, Texas. A copy of the official letter is available here. A full transcript of the letter is available below. As you may be aware, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is purchasing warehouse properties in residential communities and local commercial areas to develop them into detention facilities. This sometimes comes with little to no advance warning for local governments or residents. Public reporting indicates ICE may be planning to build a detention warehouse in your community. As the Senate looks to address funding for the Department of Homeland Security (“Department”) for this and next fiscal year, I am writing to you today, in my capacity as Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, to convey the serious risks involved with allowing these facilities in your community. First, these facilities are likely to be vacated, and remain empty, incomplete and blighted eyesores. Democrats oppose the warehousing of humans in former office spaces and will make defunding these facilities a major priority when we take back control of Congress. Already this year, there have been at least 11 deaths in ICE custody. Last year, there were 31 reported deaths in ICE custody. The buildings ICE is now looking to covert to detain humans are not designed for this purpose and thus are likely to be completely unsanitary and unsafe, especially for pregnant women, children, and medically compromised detainees. The potential for a serious humanitarian catastrophe is very real and, as a result, these warehouse detention facilities will almost certainly be closed by a Democratic president or Congress. Second, these facilities will undoubtedly face repeated and prolonged litigation. As noted above, there is a serious risk to the health and safety of human life in these facilities. In nearly every federal circuit court, there is at least one applicable settlement agreement, consent decree, former litigation, or ongoing litigation related to the custody conditions in a DHS detention facility. In modern history, ICE has not attempted to detain people in commercial buildings, and courts will likely move to shut some of these facilities down, even before they are closed by a new president or Congress. Regardless, city and state leaders will be ensnared in years of depositions, sunshine law requests and disputes, and questions about liability in this untested concept. Third, as you know, such facilities are likely to strain essential local public services like your community’s fire department, 911 call center, ambulance services, and hospital services, all of which would be responsible for answering emergency calls from the proposed facility. The federal government will not be able to offset these costs, meaning state and local officials will have to fill the gap between local taxpayers. Other issues, such as sewage treatment or water usage, may also create local challenges, as essential water and waste removal services will be burdened by the sudden addition of thousands of potential detainees in warehouses built for commercial purposes. Without a doubt, this facility will impose unfunded mandates on local taxpayers and budgets, all of which will be without federal reimbursement, meaning state and local leaders will need to find the money. As you rightly know, decisions made at the local level can have a profound effect on the wellbeing of all residents, irrespective of their immigration status. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to reach out.

Murphy on Trump's Iran War Chaos: We Are Becoming a Laughingstock in the World | U.S. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut

Position: Senator Murphy supports passage of a War Powers Resolution to end the ongoing military conflict with Iran, arguing that the war is being mismanaged, harming American economic interests and global reputation, and should be terminated immediately.

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Wednesday spoke on the floor of the U.S. Senate in support of a War Powers Resolution to end Trump’s war with Iran. In his remarks, Murphy chronicled the last two weeks of President Trump’s chaotic and confused public negotiations with Iran, marked by a dizzying, almost-daily onslaught of unhinged social media rants, contradictions, and falsehoods by the president. Murphy argued Trump’s incompetence is harming American families and America’s global reputation. He called on his Republican colleagues to stand up to the president and force an end to the Iran war. “I get it that we have come to kind of normalize this kind of incompetence, this kind of planned, executed chaos, but we are on the floor week after week asking our colleagues to end this war because this is an embarrassment to the United States of America,” said Murphy. “So many of us believe this war has to end right now, because as each mistake gets bigger than the next, the hole for the United States, for the American families, for our national security, is deeper and deeper.” Murphy blasted Trump’s erratic diplomacy and the unserious people Trump has elevated to lead high-stakes negotiations: “The president and his negotiators arguing in public with each other. The president literally deciding by the hour whether his son-in-law is in charge of the negotiations or whether the vice president is in charge of the negotiations. The president lying consistently about the nature of the negotiations, saying things that have been agreed to that clearly have not been agreed to, helping the Iranians blockade the Strait. We've never seen a foreign conflict mismanaged in public like this before.” Murphy warned the costs of this war are compounding, extending far beyond the sticker shock Americans face at the gas pump: “We are hurting Americans [who are] paying billions more in gas prices. We are risking a global famine as fertilizer is unavailable to farmers all over the world. And the economy is shutting down because of the high price and shortage of fuel. The costs of keeping this war going one more day are just too high, both in reputational cost to the United States but also in the cost to lives and the pocketbooks of millions of Americans.” He concluded by urging his Republican colleagues to recognize the potentially irreparable consequences of this war and join with Democrats to protect America’s interests: “I understand many of my Republican colleagues want to support their president, but we are becoming a laughingstock in the world… It is time for my Republican colleagues to join us in one of these resolutions, because it is so clear that if this war continues, even for another day, the reputational cost to the United States is potentially unrecoverable.” A full transcript of Murphy’s remarks is available below. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleague, Senator Baldwin, and others, for continuing to bring this debate before the Senate. Again, it's just extraordinary that this is the most significant military action that the United States has taken in decades, and there has yet to be one single hearing, one single debate, one single vote on an authorization of military force. I want to target my remarks today on just what has happened over the past two weeks, because we tend to bounce from one news cycle to the next without really being able to connect together the growing incompetence that has defined the management of this war. We shouldn’t sugarcoat or normalize this degree of gross, unacceptable incompetence being exercised here. We essentially have a talkshow host and a couple of real estate developers who are in charge of our war strategy. We are getting, essentially what you would expect if you put a talkshow host and a couple of real estate developers in charge of a major, middle east war. If millions of lives weren’t at stake, and that’s really what's at stake as the global economy threatens to meltdown because of rising gas prices and the fact that one third of all fertilizer supplies right now are stuck in the Strait of Hormuz. If this wasn’t really about millions of lives being at stake, this would be the stuff of farce. One mistake just compounded by another. So many of us believe this war has to end right now, because as each mistake gets bigger than the next, the hole for the United States, for the American families, for our national security, is deeper and deeper. So I’m just going to very quickly run you through what has happened in the last two weeks. So, we all remember on April 7th when Trump posts on social media that he is going to destroy Iran’s entire civilization. He says the whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. Later that day, he announces that there has been a ceasefire. But within hours, there is, essentially, diametrically opposed interpretations from Trump and the Iranians as to the terms of that ceasefire. The next day he puts out a series of posts, saying a big day for world peace, Iran wants it to happen. They’ve had enough. Likewise, so has everybody else. The United States of America will be helping traffic built up in the strait of Hormuz. There will be lots of positive action by the end of the day. On April 8th, the ceasefire has fallen apart. Iran says that a ceasefire in Lebanon is also necessary in order to get the Strait of Hormuz opened. Trump is unable to secure that, and so by the end of the day, the day after the ceasefire is announced, the ceasefire no longer exists. Two days later on April 10th, Trump sent his Vice President JD Vance to Pakistan for negotiations. On April 11th, those negotiations are concluded after what appears to be an hour or two of face to face negotiations. Vance gets right back on a plane, after having spent an entire day, one day, negotiating the end of this war to come back to the United States. That day, Trump says their leadership is dead. Not true. The Strait of Hormuz will soon be open. Not true. The US delegation led by Vance comes back to the United States without an agreement. On April 12th, Trump announces, this is the day after the negotiations fall apart, that he’s setting up a blockade. So, the Iranians have a blockade on the Strait, now Trump announces a layered second blockade. But he’s still saying that negotiations are going great. He says the meeting that day before went well, most points were agreed to, but not the only point that really mattered. Nuclear. Of course, that’s not true. Virtually nothing was agreed to in that meeting. He says the next day that his negotiators, who were talking about a twenty year moratorium on enrichment of uranium, do not have his support. He says “I’ve been saying they can’t have nuclear weapons, so I don’t like the twenty years.” I mean we’ve never seen this before. Literally in public contradicting his negotiators who were negotiating the terms of an agreement just two days ago. Three days later on April 17th, Trump says that Iran again has agreed to everything including removing enriched uranium. Trump says our people are just going to go get the uranium and bring it back to the United States. Within hours, Iran says this is not true. They say “we have the right, a sacred right, to enrich uranium on our soil.” Trump says his negotiators are not considering releasing sanctions; two of his negotiators go to the press saying they were talking about releasing sanctions. This is diplomatic malpractice, the president of the United States and his negotiators argue with each other -- arguing with each other in public through the media. Then Trump says he is sending more people for new talks. The Administration then says Vance is going to Pakistan. Trump goes back to the President and says Vance is not going to Pakistan. The White House scrambles again and confirms Vance will be going. The problem: the Iranians have not agreed to the negotiations. A day later, the president says Vance and a delegation are on their way, come to find out they are not leaving for Pakistan because the Iranians are not agreeing to negotiate. I get it that we have come to kind of normalize this kind of incompetence, this kind of planned executed chaos, but we are on the floor week after week asking our colleagues to end this war because this is an embarrassment to the United States of America. The president and his negotiators arguing in public with each other. The president literally deciding by the hour whether his son-in-law is in charge of the negotiations or whether the Vice President is in charge of the negotiations. The president lying consistently about the nature of the negotiations, saying things that have been agreed to that clearly have not been agreed to, helping the Iranians blockade the strait. We've never seen a foreign conflict mismanaged in public like this before. And so I understand many of my Republican colleagues want to support their president, but we are becoming a laughingstock in the world, and we are hurting Americans paying billions more in gas prices. We are risking a global famine as fertilizer is unavailable to farmers all over the world and the economy is shutting down because of the high price and shortage of fuel. The costs of keeping this war going one more day are just too high, both in reputational cost to the United States but also in the cost to lives and the pocketbooks of millions of Americans. I know my Republican colleagues have a hard time breaking with their president. I will say that many of us, in closing, on the democratic side certainly had a hard time breaking with our president as well, whether it was Barack Obama or Joe Biden. But on multiple occasions, we did. Many of us argued against President Obama's war, and many argued against other policies, but we thought it was important to separate ourselves from our party loyalty when we thought that our president had gotten it wrong for national security. It is time for my Republican colleagues to join us in one of these resolutions, because it is so clear that if this war continues, even for another day, the reputational cost to the United States is potentially unrecoverable.

Murphy: Republicans Could Have Used Reconciliation to Address Skyrocketing Costs But Chose to Write a Blank Check to ICE Instead | U.S. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut

Position: Senator Murphy opposes Senate Republicans' use of budget reconciliation to fund the Department of Homeland Security, arguing the agency violates court orders and law while targeting non-threatening immigrants and citizens. He contends Republicans should instead use reconciliation to address gas prices, healthcare costs, tariffs, and manufacturing job losses.

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Wednesday took to the floor of the U.S. Senate to condemn Senate Republicans’ unprecedented move to bypass the traditional appropriations process and fund the Department of Homeland Security through budget reconciliation. Highlighting recent instances of DHS’s continued lawlessness and deadly abuse of children and detainees, Murphy called on his Republican colleagues to join Democrats and ensure the Department of Homeland Security is operating in compliance with the law. Murphy laid out the hard facts of DHS’s unflinching violence towards citizens and children in ICE custody: “The cameras aren't in Minneapolis like they were, but 17 people have died in custody in just the last month. … People are dying in ICE custody at a rate four times higher than during the Biden administration. ICE has detained 6,200 children. We've put 6,000 children in jail. 73% of the people that ICE have arrested have no criminal record. 95% of them have no violent criminal record. They say they're locking up the worst of the worst. 5% - one in 20 - have a violent criminal record. 170 U.S. citizens have been detained. Almost all of them were Latino.” He exposed the shocking scale of DHS’s violations of the law: “A judge in Minnesota issued a ruling… that ICE was in violation of almost 100 court orders… How do you defend an agency that was told to stop acting illegally, and on 100 occasions, when reading the court order, just said, ‘forget it. We are not obeying what the court tells us to do.’ … We can't fund that kind of agency. We would be violating our oath of office, all of us, to fund an agency that just doesn't care about the law. To get 100 court orders telling you to obey the law, you have to be in violation of the law thousands of times.” Detailing the full damage of Trump’s mass deportation campaign in American cities, he continued: “We're debating funding an immigration enforcement operation that is going after legal citizens, that is not targeting people who are a threat to this country, that exist just to try to stoke fear of our neighbors, that tries to make people think that immigrants are the biggest threat to this country so you're distracted by the fact that Donald Trump is stealing from you, the most corrupt president of this country.” Murphy slammed Republicans’ twisted priorities and apparent disinterest in addressing any of the crises upending Americans’ lives: “Republicans could have spent their reconciliation process on gas prices or the health insurance catastrophe that's about to hit Americans or reversing Trump's tariffs or trying to actually do things that will bring manufacturing jobs back to this country. But they're doing none of that. There's no conversation on the Senate floor right now about gas prices. There's no conversation on the Senate floor being led by Republicans about inflation. There's nothing being done to bring our manufacturing jobs back.” Murphy called out Republicans for rejecting basic, common sense reform proposals from Democrats: “Our asks were pretty minimal. All we wanted was to make sure that the money we were sending to the department of homeland security wasn't used for illegal purposes, it wasn't being used to tear-gas elementary schools or conduct ‘show me your papers’ raids in our cities… We're here today because Republicans didn't want to negotiate with Democrats over the Department of Homeland Security budget, because they knew they could pass that budget with only Republican votes.” Warning Republicans they’d come to regret this blatant power grab, he continued: “Let's just be clear -- once Republicans have taken the lid off this jar, there's no putting it back. Republicans are now using reconciliation to fund the ongoing appropriations of the government in an area where it was hard to get agreement with Democrats. Democrats are going to do the same thing, regardless of how the rules change, now Democrats are just going to say, you know what? When we have power, we don't need to negotiate with Republicans over the hard stuff. You've changed the practice of the Senate here. And you're going to have to live with the changes that you've decided to make.” A full transcript of Senator Murphy’s remarks is available below. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, I was out in the hallways a week ago, and a reporter asked me a reasonable question. She said, do you think Democrats overplayed their hand in the negotiations over the DHS budget? Did you ask for too much, thus prompting the moment that we are in today as we do something unprecedented, debate using reconciliation to appropriate money for the ongoing expenses of the federal government? My answer was a confident no. For a few reasons. First, our asks were pretty minimal. All we wanted was to make sure that the money we were sending to the department of homeland security wasn't used for illegal purposes, it wasn't being used to tear-gas elementary schools or conduct show me your papers raids in our cities. A lot things about here -- a lot of things around here are about politics, but this didn't seem to be about politics. We all have an obligation to only appropriate money to the federal government when the federal government is acting lawfully. But there's another element to this. We definitely didn't anticipate that Republicans were going to pull the plug on those negotiations when they did. I was part of those negotiations, up until the last minute. We thought that we had a potential deal in place in order to bring Republicans and Democrats together around funding all or most of the department of homeland security. We didn't get that done because Republicans decided, the Republican leader decided, instead to fund the federal government through this process, reconciliation, is whereby Republicans only need 50 votes. Now, both sides have used reconciliation to get things done that they wanted to get done, but never before has reconciliation been used as just a straight substitute for the appropriations process. Traditionally, appropriations bills need 60 votes. That means that the budget we write for the country every year needs to be one that Republicans and Democrats support, but we're here today because Republicans didn't want to negotiate with Democrats over the Department of Homeland Security budget, because they knew they could pass that budget with only Republican votes. Now, listen, I'm actually somebody that believes it's probably time to change the rules of the Senate. So I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I am defending or willing to defend all of the current rules of the Senate. But let's just be clear…once Republicans have taken the lid off this jar, there's no putting it back. Republicans are now using reconciliation to fund the ongoing appropriations of the government in an area where it was hard to get agreement with Democrats. Democrats are going to do the same thing, regardless of how the rules change, now Democrats are just going to say, you know what? When we have power, we don't need to negotiate with Republicans over the hard stuff. We don't need your votes, because we'll just go fund the government through reconciliation. So you've changed the practice of the Senate here, and you're going to have to live with the changes that you've decided to make, because there are a lot of folks here who have defended the 60-vote threshold for appropriations. Well, that's probably going away, open if the rules don't change now, because of the actions that you've taken. But I guess I come back to this sort of basic obligation we have, which is to just make sure we don't fund illegality. A judge in Minnesota issued a ruling, this is at the height of the assault on Minneapolis, that ICE was in violation of almost 100 court orders. That is stunning. Again, this isn't 100 instances where ICE was violating the law. This is 100 instances where ICE was violating the law, a court told them to stop, and ICE didn't stop. My Republican colleagues claim they're for law and order. How do you defend an agency that was told to stop acting illegally, and on 100 occasions, when reading the court order, just said, forget it. We are not obeying what the court tells us to do. When we say this is an agency that was and is out of control, this is what we mean, an agency that does not care about the law, does not care what courts say, thinks it is accountable to no one except for the president of the United States. We can't fund that kind of agency. We would be violating our oath of office, all of us, to fund an agency that just doesn't care about the law. To get 100 core orders telling you to owe -- court orders telling you to obey the law, you have to be in violation of the law thousands of times. In fact, federal courts have ruled, just between October of 2025 and February of this year, that's October, November, December, January, February, over five months federal courts ruled that ICE unlawfully detained, not hundreds of people but thousands of people 4,400 times in five months courts have ruled that Americans or legal residents of this country have been unlawfully detained. That is illegal behavior at scale. And I don't care what your politics are, whether they're right or left, they're inclusionary or nativist, you should not be willing to fund an agency that just doesn't care about the law, at scale. 48 people have died in ICE custody, 17 in just the last four months. The cameras aren't in Minneapolis like they were, but 17 people have died in custody in just the last month. Between 2017 and 2021, when Biden was president, there were a total, in those four years, of 52 people have died. People are dying in ICE custody at a rate four times higher than during the Biden administration. ICE has detained 6,200 children. We've put 6,000 children in jail. 73% of the people that ICE have arrested have no criminal record. 95% of them have no violent criminal record. They say they're locking up the worst of the worst. 5%, one in 20, have a violent criminal record. 170 U.S. Citizens have been detained. Almost all of them were Latino. You saw the videos of ICE and CBP officers going through the streets just detaining people based upon their accent. Just this week, ICE detained the wife of sergeant first class Jose Cerrano. He's an active duty U.S. Army soldier who has served our military for 27 years, including service in Afghanistan. His wife wasn't not following the rules. She was obeying the rules. She was showing up to her court appointments. But they detained her anyway, and now they are threatening to send her to Mexico, a country with which she has no ties. Sergeant first class Cerrano, because of his U.S. Military service, is not allowed to travel to Mexico. 27 years he's been serving this country, and they're going to deport his wife, who's following the law, to Mexico, and basically guaranteeing they will never see each other again. Last month, a 5-year-old, who is nonverbal, with significant disabilities, was put in jail at the Dilley detention center in Texas, a detention center that I tried to get into to inspect because of claims of horrific conditions, and I was not allowed to go into that facility. Again, this should trouble Republicans and Democrats. I didn't show up unannounced. I gave them notice. They still didn't let me in, even though the law explicitly states that any member of congress, Republican or Democrat, has the right, the statutory right, to inspect facilities. This little 5-year-old, nonverbal 5-year-old, was in jail for three weeks. This place is called the baby jail. The boy literally melted down while he was there. He struggled to eat. His stomach became visibly swollen, because he was literally suffering from malnutrition, and he couldn't go to the bathroom. He was only released after a children's entertainer named Ms. Rachel highlighted his case in a video. Like what are we doing? What are we doing? Like intentionally abusing children? This wasn't before Minneapolis. This happened just a month ago. Yesterday it was reported that the Trump administration is in discussions to send more than 1,000 Afghans, who are in the United States because they helped us during the Afghanistan war, they would be under the threat of death if they stayed in Afghanistan, we emergency evacuated them to the United States, because they helped us, because they protected our troops. And the Trump administration said yesterday that they are going to take a thousand of those Afghans, heroes that helped protect our troops in Afghanistan, and they're going to send them to the Congo. Just for the point of being cruel. Just because it's mean. Just because it would be kind of funny to send a whole bunch of Afghans who helped us in the war to a country that is in a humanitarian meltdown right now. So, no, none of us should be signing on to fund an agency that is this lawless and this inhumane. That's the bottom line. Here's the second bottom line. People are suffering in this country right now. And they're not suffering because we let immigrants into America. They are suffering because gas prices in some parts of the country are over $6. On average, gasoline is over $4. It was just $3 a few months ago, and it's $6 and $5 and $4 for one reason only, this insane incompetent war that's being waged in Iran. That's the only reason these gas prices are so high right now. The national average, as I said, is over $4. Americans have now paid more than $16 billion more at the pump than they should have simply because of Trump's war. $16 billion out of the pockets of American consumers, American families, American small businesses, sent to the oil companies, who are, by the way, making a killing off these high prices, just because of Trump's incompetent war in Iran. Americans, since Trump came into office, have spent $2,300 more on goods and services because of inflation and tariffs. The average family has spent an extra $2,000 in the last year and a half on the things they buy every day because of Trump's inflation and because of his tariffs. There are 15 million people in this country who are on the verge of losing their health insurance because of a law that Donald Trump and Republicans passed in this congress, ripping health insurance away from seniors, the poor, and the disabled. The consumer price index is up 3.3% over last year. That is closing in on double what the federal reserve's target is. Unemployment is up since Trump took office. Long-term unemployment is way up since Trump took office. Unemployment for Black workers is up since Trump took office. The tariffs, which are part of the reason that Americans have spent more than $2,000 extra because of Trump policies, were supposed to be tough, hard medicine in order to bring factory jobs back to the United States. Biden had increased the number of manufacturing jobs in this country. We had more manufacturing jobs at the end of Joe Biden's term than at the beginning. Do you know what's happened since Trump took office? He's reversed all of that progress. The tariffs are not bringing more jobs to the United States. We've lost them. We've lost 100,000 manufacturing jobs since Trump became president. So we're paying higher tariffs and losing manufacturing jobs. It doesn't make any sense. And so we're going to spend this week, on the floor, giving a blank check to an immigration enforcement agency that is out of control while ignoring the real problems that Americans are facing. We could have spent this week -- Republicans could have spent their reconciliation process on gas prices or the health insurance catastrophe that's about to hit Americans or reversing Trump's tariffs or trying to actually do things that will bring manufacturing jobs back to this country. But they're doing none of that. There's no conversation on the Senate floor right now about gas prices. There's no conversation on the Senate floor being led by Republicans about inflation. There's nothing being done to bring our manufacturing jobs back. There's no second look at the last reconciliation bill they passed, which is going to end insurance for 15 million Americans. Instead, Republicans are handing billions of dollars in a blank check to an immigration enforcement agency that is right now hunting 5-year-old kids with severe disabilities and locking them up in baby prisons to the point that they have swollen bellies because of their sickness due to the inhumane conditions. They are locking up the family members of 27-year military veterans, fighting for this country, just because it's mean and cruel. So we're going to have a chance to debate this over the next 24 hours and vote on it, but I think the American people are seeing where Republican priorities are, not on the stuff that matters to American families. I'm not saying that the people of this country don't want a secure border. They do. But that's not what we're debating here. We're debating funding an immigration enforcement operation that is going after legal citizens, that is not targeting people who are a threat to this country, that exist just to try to stoke fear of our neighbors, that tries to make people think that immigrants are the biggest threat to this country so you're distracted by the fact that Donald Trump is stealing from you, the most corrupt president of this country. We could be spending this time -- we could even try to come together, Republicans and Democrats, to do something about inflation or the cost of gas. We've been begging our Republican colleagues to vote us with on these resolutions to stop the war in Iran because that's probably the fastest way to get the gas prices to come down. We could spend time working across the aisle to try to address the issues that are a real crisis for American citizens right now, costs, inflation, gas prices, health insurance, but, instead, we're about to send another blank check to an agency that is unconscionably out of control.