At Budget Hearing, Senator Murray Slams Trump for Gutting SSA, Calls for Billionaires to Pay Their Fair Share into SSA

Senator Murray: “I don’t think we can ignore the immediate threat to Social Security. And that really is President Trump. Because seniors right now, today—are having a very hard time getting their benefits. Why? Because Social Security has pushed out—without any kind of plan—7,700 workers since Trump took office.”

Los Angeles Times: ‘It’s a shambles’: DOGE cuts bring chaos, long waits at Social Security for seniors

***WATCH: Senator Murray’s remarks and Q&A at the hearing***

Washington, D.C. — Today, at a Senate Budget Committee hearing on Social Security, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, slammed the Trump administration’s cuts to the Social Security Administration (SSA) workforce and emphasized how it is making it harder for seniors to get the help they need to access their Social Security benefits. Senator Murray questioned witnesses on the very wealthiest Americans paying their fair share into Social Security and how to address SSA solvency—noting that tens of millions of hard-working Americans rely on Social Security for the majority of their income, and have paid their entire careers into Social Security—but could lose 24 percent of their benefits if Congress doesn’t act. Murray made clear there is no reason for working people to face drastic benefit cuts when the very wealthiest could simply pay their fair share.

In opening comments, Senator Muray said:

“Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. We absolutely need do need to talk about how we protect Social Security. But in addition to the long-term solvency that people are focusing on here, I don’t think we can ignore the immediate threat to Social Security. And that really is President Trump.

“Because seniors right now, today—are having a very hard time getting their benefits. Why? Because Social Security has pushed out—without any kind of plan—7,700 workers since Trump took office. We now have just one field office representative per 4,000 Social Security beneficiaries, and there are at least [40] field offices that lost more than 25% of their staff.

“And that’s just the beginning. The Trump administration wants to cut field office visits in half. That would mean over 15 million people who were able to go to a desk and speak to a person last year—would be out of luck this year. This is really a slow moving trainwreck. Last summer the Social Security Administration moved 1,000 field office employees to the phone lines. At the end of the year it moved 500 more. In January—it moved nearly 800 more employees from the processing centers and the field office support and workload support—to phone duty—often with very little training.

“That’s trying to fix one problem they created—worsening telephone service—by creating new problems and backlogs everywhere. This is really hurting seniors—who can no longer get an SSA meeting close to home when they need it. It is hurting people with disabilities—as people who could be processing their claims, are now answering phones. And it’s burning out the hardworking staff Trump hasn’t pushed out.

“But this is all the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Trump’s Social Security sabotage. Because there was the attempt to punish a state by revoking contracts to report births and deaths. There was a proposal to end many of the phone services—an idea that was quickly reversed because it was so bad. And then there was the DOGE purge—which wrongly kicked seniors off Social Security—including a constituent of mine they incorrectly declared as dead!

“And mind you—that’s just the sabotage in the light of day. But thanks to a whistleblower report, and ongoing internal investigations, we know there was even more damage happening in the shadows. Like when Trump let Elon and DOGE muck around with highly sensitive, Social Security data. That is private, personally identifiable information on hundreds of millions of Americans.

“We are talking about potentially unprecedented data breaches here. Blatantly unqualified people getting practically unfettered access—even after court orders. Private data copied onto unauthorized third-party servers, or, according to reports even copied onto a thumb drive!

“Believe me: I want everyone to know; I’m watching this investigation closely and demanding accountability. If we want to protect Social Security for decades to come, yes, we do need to talk about solvency. But we also need to talk about the President who is gutting the Social Security Administration right now—today—and callously putting our seniors’ benefits, and their personal data—at risk.”

[BILLONAIRES PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE]

Senator Murray began her questioning by asking Dr. Molly Dahl, Chief of Long-Term Analysis at the Congressional Budget Office, about who is and isn’t paying their fair share into Social Security, “Now with that, Dr. Dahl, I want to turn to you, I do have a few questions, particularly about who is and isn’t paying their fair share into Social Security, and I want to make sure I have a few numbers right. Is it right that those making under $184,500, their effective payroll tax rate is roughly 12.4 percent?”

“That’s right, the statutory rate is 6.2 percent, but consensus view is that the employee pays, basically the employer cost is passed onto the employee, so the employee basically faces a rate of 12.4 percent,” responded Dr. Dahl.

“12.4 percent, for anybody earning under $184, 500. What is the effective payroll tax for someone making a million dollars a year?” asked Senator Murray.

“So, they would pay the 12.4 percent on that first $185,00 roughly and then would not pay additional tax on the labored income above that amount, and so that math would work out to about 2.2 percent,” answered Dr. Dahl.

Senator Murray replied, “Ok so, 12.4 percent for someone under $184,500, a millionaire would be about 2.2, what if you’re a billionaire—like Trump or Musk—your Social Security tax would be effectively, on my understanding—”

“Very, very much smaller,” Dr. Dahl interjected.

“0.002 percent?” Senator Murray finished.

“Yes,” Dr. Dahl replied.

“That just doesn’t make sense to me. I mean when the richest people in the country have the smallest effective tax rate—that does not seem to me like a very fair system. Especially when we are now six years away from retired workers facing this 24 percent cut in their Social Security benefits, so I hope we all understand that and focus on that,” Senator Murray concluded.

Last year, Senator Murray released a new report featuring testimonials from Washington state residents—including employees at the Social Security Administration who were recently fired through no fault of their own—and detailing how the Trump administration’s wide-ranging attacks on SSA risk depriving Washingtonians of the Social Security benefits they have earned and deserve. More than 70 million Americans, including 1.4 million—or one in six—people in Washington state rely on Social Security benefits. Half of seniors nationwide rely on Social Security for most of their income, and a quarter of seniors rely on Social Security for at least 90 percent of their income. Senator Murray has an extensive record of protecting Social Security benefits and fighting to secure essential funding for the Social Security Administration—and she has been tirelessly raising the alarm about the threat Elon Musk’s DOGE poses to Americans’ hard-earned benefits. Last March, Senator Murray held a press conference to lift up the stories of SSA employees who are being pushed out by Elon Musk through no fault of their own and hear from Washington state residents who rely on Social Security. Last February, Murray released a fact sheet warning of the Trump administration’s plans to make it harder for Americans who’ve paid into Social Security to get the benefits they have earned.

Senator Murray has fought throughout her career—including as top Democrat on the HELP Committee from 2017-2022—to ensure a secure retirement for all Americans for decades. She was instrumental in establishing a special financial assistance program to the Central States Pension Fund in the American Rescue Plan, saving the pensions of over half a million workers and retirees in 2022. Murray has long held that we can protect and expand benefits for working Americans by responsibly rightsizing our tax system to ensure that giant corporations and billionaires simply pay their fair share.

###


Murray, King, Warren Urge Secretary Kennedy to Return to Data-Based, Cost-Effective Preventive Health

Senators: “The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force should restart its work immediately and without political interference.”

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Angus King (I-ME), and Elizabeth Warren joined several of their Senate colleagues in calling for a return to evidence-based, cost-effective preventive health services after a key federal task force has been dormant for over a year. In a letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the Senators raise concerns that the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has not met for a full year, which is delaying critical decisions that directly affect health outcomes and the affordability of health services. The scientifically independent volunteer panel is responsible for reviewing evidence in preventive medicine to help guide clinical practice and improve the health of the American people.

More specifically, the USPSTF helps people of all ages stay healthy and live well for years to come, as setting up healthy practices ahead of time often results in longer lives and better outcomes. Its evidence-based recommendations empower patients and their clinicians to make informed choices based on what works—and what doesn’t—in preventive care. The USPSTF systematically reviews the best available evidence to make a conclusion about the potential benefits and risks of certain clinical preventive services. Each step of the recommendation development process—from topic nomination to publication of the final recommendations—is transparent.

“Since its inception in 1984, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF or Task Force) has issued nearly 300 evidence-based recommendations across 90 different topics to support preventive care, ensure that health care services are affordable, and help people live longer, healthier lives,” the Senators began. “The independence and scientifically-backed nature of the Task Force is paramount to its operations, and we urge that the future work of USPSTF, including meetings, agendas, appointments of new Task Force members, and revisions of recommendations, continues to adhere to principles of independence and scientific rigor.”

The Senators continued, “As a result of Task Force recommendations, preventive health services are accessible for all Americans and save lives through screening for heart disease, screenings for breast, colorectal, cervical, and lung cancer, folic acid supplements for pregnant women to prevent birth defects, behavioral counseling, prevention of maternal depression, childhood vision screenings, adult diabetes screenings, and many more.”

Preventive services can help people avoid acute illness, identify and treat chronic conditions, prevent cancer as well as lead to earlier detection, improve health outcomes, and reduce the burden of end-stage chronic disease. To that end, we look forward to hearing from you in response to these questions, and urge that the administration prioritizes resuming the cost-a-life-saving work of the Task Force,” the Senators concluded.

In addition to Murray, King, and Warren, the letter was signed by U.S. Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Bernard Sanders (I-VT), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Dick Durbin (D- IL), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Jack Reed (D-RI), and Jackie Rosen (D-NV).

The full letter is available HERE and below:

Dear Secretary Kennedy:

Since its inception in 1984, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF or Task Force) has issued nearly 300 evidence-based recommendations across 90 different topics to support preventive care, ensure that health care services are affordable, and help people live longer, healthier lives. Section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act (as added by the Affordable Care Act) mandates that USPSTF recommendations that receive an “A” or “B” rating be provided to enrollees at no cost. The USPSTF recommendations impact access and affordability for these life-saving interventions for all Americans. The Task Force has not met for a full year – the first time it’s not met consistently in at least a decade – delaying critical decisions that directly impact the health of Americans. It should restart its work immediately and without political interference. The independence and scientifically-backed nature of the Task Force is paramount to its operations, and we urge that the future work of USPSTF, including meetings, agendas, appointments of new Task Force members, and revisions of recommendations, continues to adhere to principles of independence and scientific rigor.

USPSTF is a scientifically independent volunteer panel of national experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine that is established in law. The mission of the Task Force is to systematically review the best available evidence to develop recommended preventive services, such as cancer screenings and more, to help guide clinical practice and improve the health of the American people. The independent and scientifically-backed nature of the Task Force is paramount to its operations, and was recently affirmed by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026 (P.L. 119-75), which provided over $11.5 million in funding for the Task Force and directed members of the USPSTF to “continue to uphold their mission and commitment to scientific evidence, transparency, and ensuring that Americans have access to affordable preventive health services.”

Based on USPSTF recommendations, insurers must provide coverage without cost-sharing for preventive services that have been proven to prevent disease based on evidence and empirical research. As a result of Task Force recommendations, preventive health services are accessible for all Americans and save lives through screenings for heart disease, screenings for breast, colorectal, cervical, and lung cancer, folic acid supplements for pregnant women to prevent birth defects, behavioral counseling, prevention of maternal depression, childhood vision screenings, adult diabetes screenings, and many more.

USPSTF recommendations have directly impacted millions of Americans, enabling them to have potentially fatal or debilitating conditions diagnosed at much earlier stages, thereby affording them a greater chance of living longer, healthier lives.

The Task Force membership historically has been comprised of experts in clinical medicine, scientific research, and public health. Its members are extensively vetted for conflicts of interest, and their service is completely voluntary and uncompensated. USPSTF’s process for developing recommendations and its agenda is transparent to the public and based on high quality, methodologically sound, scientifically defensible, reproducible, and unbiased scientific evidence that is rooted in a clearcut process laid out in the Task Force’s procedure manual. Thus, the Task Force’s recommendations can be considered neutral, unbiased and evidence-based by all stakeholders: policy makers; payers; providers; and most importantly the public.

However, we are particularly troubled by actions that have effectively rendered the Task Force dormant, and brought its life-saving work to a grinding halt. While the procedure manual clearly dictates that it is supposed to meet three times per year, the Task Force only met once last year. The July meeting was abruptly cancelled two days before USPSTF was scheduled to meet, and the November meeting was cancelled amidst the government shutdown. And HHS just recently confirmed that the March 2026 meeting has been cancelled. Without these meetings, the Task Force cannot vote on or move forward on its work, including recommendations and research plans. CNN has reported that in addition to previous departures due to Reduction in Force and Deferred Resignation Program efforts, much of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) staff that support the Task Force have left in recent weeks, further reducing the ability of the Task Force to function. As noted in the procedure manual, USPSTF meetings are used for formal votes for procedural and methodological decisions, for draft and final recommendations, and to reconsider the grade of previously voted recommendations. As the work of the Task Force languishes absent meetings, we are extremely concerned that the Administration is allowing the incredibly important work of USPSTF to stagnate.

Additionally, the terms of five of the sixteen Task Force members expired in December without any indication from the Department about the process to extend appointments or replace the members. Going back to at least 2002, HHS under Democrats and Republicans (including under President Trump’s first term6 ) has consistently used either the Federal Register or the Task Force’s website to announce and solicit requests for nominations.

However, previous reporting from the Wall Street Journal suggests that you may look to remove the entirety of the Task Force. While the Supreme Court affirmed the Secretary’s authority to appoint and remove Task Force members at will in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc., we are concerned that you may appoint unqualified members to the Task Force, as you have done with the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Doing so could undermine longstanding preventive health coverage policies, totally abandon any sense of continuity or institutional memory on the Task Force, and could directly harm patients by limiting access to cost- and life-saving preventive services.

Following the repeated cancellation of meetings and with a diminished workforce for USPSTF, we are deeply concerned that the work of the Task Force will be irreparably hindered— jeopardizing critical access to new or updated preventive interventions, services, and guidance, and potentially leading to worse health outcomes for the American people. In addition to an inability to finalize recommendations and research plans that are languishing, the Task Force has failed to submit an annual report to Congress for the first time since it was statutorily required to. While the Department must now implement minimum staffing levels as a result of the Fiscal Year 2026 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill, previous staffing cuts to AHRQ undoubtedly curtailed USPSTF’s work in 2025. Together, these developments leave us extremely worried about the work of the Task Force going forward.

Given the diminished activities last year, potential for detrimental upheaval within the Task Force, and possibility that USPSTF may no longer be guided by integrity, independence, scientifically-backed processes, or evidence-based recommendations, we request answers to the following questions by April 15, 2026:

1. As required by the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 299b-4(2)(F)), the Task Force is required to submit an annual report to Congress identifying gaps in research, such as preventive services that receive an insufficient evidence statement, and recommending priority areas that deserve further examination, including areas related to populations and age groups not adequately addressed by current recommendations.

a. When does the Department and the Task Force plan to release the 2025 statutorily required annual report?

b. With two-thirds of the Task Force meetings cancelled and AHRQ’s staff cut significantly last year, what components of HHS were involved in developing the annual report?

i. Were experts on clinical medicine, scientific research, and public health involved?

2. The Task Force’s authorizing statute stipulates that the AHRQ Director shall convene an independent Task Force to be composed of individuals with appropriate expertise.

a. The Task Force has not met since March of last year, and the July and November meetings were not rescheduled. Please share the justification for the cancellation of the March 2026 meeting, and when the Task Force will next meet.

b. The Task Force has had five vacancies since December 2025. Will the Task Force or Department solicit through the Federal Register or Task Force website a request for nominations? If so, when will that process begin? If not, will the process otherwise provide opportunity for public review and input? c. Unless it is already underway, when new potential Task Force members are undergoing vetting, will their qualifications be transparently judged on previous metrics and relevant expertise?

3. As stipulated within the authorizing statute, the Task Force shall review the scientific evidence related to the effectiveness, appropriateness, and cost-effectiveness of clinical preventive services for the purpose of developing recommendations for the health care community, and updating previous clinical preventive recommendations, for individuals and organizations delivering clinical services.

a. In making changes for vaccine coverage, you and your hand-picked ACIP have baselessly and without evidence made changes to vaccine schedules including for SARS-CoV-2 and the Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule, resulting in professional societies making their own declarations for appropriate vaccine schedules and policies. A preliminary ruling in American Academy of Pediatrics v. Kennedy found that your previous efforts to dismantle ACIP and make changes to the childhood vaccine schedule were likely illegal.

i. How will the Task Force make recommendations going forward?

ii. When, if not now, will the Task Force or HHS determine whether to reexamine existing evidence-based recommendations?

iii. Will USPSTF continue to rely on the processes and guidelines laid out and prescribed under the Task Force’s procedures manual?

iv. If there are changes to the procedures manual processes, will you look to maintain transparency, scientific rigor, and independence of the process by requesting public input for any process changes?

4. On President Trump’s first day in office, he issued a number of Executive Orders including an Executive Order on Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing. This has led to the cancellation of grants and programs across HHS related to gender- and racial-based work.

a. Many USPSTF recommendations incorporate age-, gender-, or race-specific guidance because the evidence and data clearly demonstrate that there are risks for these specific populations, and that targeted interventions can prevent disease. Of note, recommendations that incorporate factors such as age, gender, race etc. do not do so as a matter of “DEI”, but rather because the scientific evidence suggests that certain populations are at greater risk for the disease of concern. Population-based recommendations allow policymakers, payers and providers to target screening interventions in the most cost-effective manner possible. Will there be changes to these existing recommendations to align with the President’s Executive Orders on DEI?

b. Will the Task Force continue to make recommendations based on the evidence and data, even when the evidence and data require those recommendations to be age-, gender-, or race-specific?

c. We are concerned that the Task Force, under your guidance, may re-examine recommendations for the prescribing of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Please share if you plan to direct them to do so.

You have said you aim to “Make America Healthy Again” by addressing chronic disease; however, you are not prioritizing the maintenance, support, and continuation of the USPSTF. As you know, the most common causes of chronic disease in the United States include tobacco use, obesity, high blood sugar, hypertension, and high cholesterol, and the Task Force has made recommendations regarding prevention of all of those causes for both children and adults.

Preventive services can help people avoid acute illness, identify and treat chronic conditions, prevent cancer as well as lead to earlier detection, improve health outcomes, and reduce the burden of end-stage chronic disease. To that end, we look forward to hearing from you in response to these questions, and urge that the administration prioritize resuming the cost- and life-saving work of the Task Force.

###


Senator Murray Slams Republicans for Voting to Uphold Trump’s Extreme VA Abortion Ban

ICYMI FROM AUGUST: Senator Murray’s Statement on Trump Ripping Away Access to Abortion Care for Women Veterans Who Were Raped or Whose Health is in Danger

ICYMI FROM DECEMBER: Senator Murray’s Statement on Trump Administration Quietly Banning Abortion Care for Veterans & Families

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and a senior member and former Chair of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, released the following statement slamming Republicans for voting to uphold the Trump administration’s near-total abortion ban at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

“Today’s vote was about protecting one of the most basic freedoms for people who risked their lives to protect all of our freedoms—it was about making sure veterans who are survivors of rape or incest are able to get abortion care,” said Senator Murray. “But today Republicans sent a clear message that they don’t care if your health is in danger, if you’re a veteran, or if you’ve been raped—they want abortion outlawed everywhere, in every circumstance, for everyone. That is completely unacceptable and I will keep fighting to restore abortion care to our veterans and every woman in America.”

In December 2025, the Trump administration instituted a near-total ban on abortion care at VA, with only an exception for care when “a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term” with no exceptions for the health of the veteran or for rape or incest. The policy impacts women enrolled in VA Care—including women veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries. It also bans VA providers from even discussing abortion with their patients. There are more than 462,000 women veterans of reproductive age who are enrolled in VA health care, and approximately 232,000 of them live in states that have enacted abortion bans or restrictions.

Senator Murray was the first woman to join the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee and the first woman to chair the Committee—and advocating for women veterans and their access to reproductive health care has been a longtime focus for Senator Murray. Senator Murray called on VA to provide abortion care to veterans early in the Biden administration, and she applauded the Biden administration’s announcement later in the year that would begin to provide abortion care for veterans and their eligible dependents to protect the health and life of the individual and in cases of rape or incest. Murray has helped lead the charge in calling out Republicans for their attacks on, and attempts to undo, this limited and commonsense policy. Senator Murray also leads the Veteran Families Health Services Act, comprehensive legislation that would expand fertility treatments—including IVF—and family-building services for servicemembers and veterans who are unable to conceive without assistance, and she has sought unanimous consent to pass the legislation on multiple occasions. She introduced new legislation last summer with Senator Duckworth to help cover IVF costs for servicemembers and military families—and slammed Speaker Johnson for working behind the scenes to strip an amendment mirroring that legislation from the final National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2026. Senator Murray voted against the NDAA earlier this month, citing—among other things—the failure to include her provision to expand IVF care for servicemembers and veterans. Senator Murray slammed the Trump administration’s initial move to ban abortion care at VA in August, and sounded the alarm again in December when the Trump administration quietly implemented a near-total abortion ban at VA.

###


WATCH: Padilla Blasts Republicans’ False Narratives About Sanctuary City Policies

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, slammed Republicans’ lies about sanctuary city policies during a Constitution Subcommittee hearing. He denounced Republicans for deflecting from the Trump Administration’s failure to adhere to their promise to target the “worst of the worst” individuals, as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers and agents indiscriminately sweep up people with no violent criminal history.

Padilla stressed that despite Republicans’ claims, sanctuary cities have lower rates of crime, poverty, and unemployment, with higher median household income. He emphasized that these policies do not block the federal government from entering a city or state — they merely affirm that state and local authorities cannot be forced into conducting immigration enforcement. The courts have repeatedly upheld sanctuary policies because the federal government is in charge of immigration enforcement, not cities or states.

“I’d like to call out what this debate really is about. It’s not about public safety because the evidence shows communities can be safer. It’s not about the law, because courts have upheld sanctuary policies time and again all the way to the Supreme Court. It’s clearly about politics and scapegoating,” said Senator Padilla. “At a time when Americans are asking us to help make their lives better, and more affordable, by the way, we should be focused on real solutions in that direction, not recycling the same tired, misleading talking points.”

Earlier this month, Padilla dismantled Republicans’ lies about sanctuary city policies during a Senate Budget Committee hearing. As Republicans try to falsely cast sanctuary cities as lawless, Padilla set the record straight that sanctuary policies simply affirm that immigration enforcement is the job of the federal government — not of state and local authorities, who have to focus their often limited resources toward the specific public safety needs of their own communities.

Video of Padilla’s remarks at today’s hearing is available here.

Remarks as delivered:

I want to thank all the witnesses for coming here today and for participating, particularly Mr. Abraham, for your loss — inexcusable, regardless of who the perpetrator was. I can imagine how heartbreaking it is. So I just wanted you to know that we feel for you, and it takes a lot for you to be here to share your story.

But Mr. Chairman, I know we’ve heard a lot, not just today, but for days and weeks and months, frankly, years, about the dangers and threats of sanctuary cities. I think my colleagues that may not be as informed about sanctuary cities sometimes choose to describe a city or state as some sort of lawless wasteland where anything goes, and that’s either a misunderstanding, intentional or otherwise, of what sanctuary policies are. And I think the American people deserve to know what sanctuary policies are and what they are not.

So, sanctuary policies do not mean that there are no laws or that these communities are areas where anything goes — it’s not Mad Max. In fact, as the National Immigration Law Center and others have found, there’s a notable decrease in crime overall in cities and states that prioritize welcoming immigrant communities rather than targeting them.

These jurisdictions also report, by the way, higher median household income, less levels of poverty, and lower rates of unemployment. I think these are all positive indicators for communities as a whole — not immune to an occasional tragedy, of course — but by and large, these are positive indicators.

And Mr. Chair, I ask that I’m able to enter into the record studies with these findings by researchers at the University of Texas, Austin, University of Arizona, the University of North Carolina, the American Immigration Council, the Center for American Progress, and the National Immigration Law Center. Thank you very much.

So, sanctuary policies, again, to be clear, also does not mean that the federal government doesn’t have the ability to enter into that state or into those cities. All sanctuary policies do is simply affirm that state and or local authorities cannot be co-opted into performing immigration enforcement.

As Professor Vladeck explained in his testimony, that’s because immigration is a federal responsibility, and enforcing it is the job of the federal government. Now, I know some state and local jurisdictions choose to cooperate, but they can’t be forced into it. That’s been upheld by the courts.

So while federal agencies continue to carry out immigration enforcement, state and local law enforcement can choose to focus their time, their energy, and their finite resources on providing for the needs, the safety, and wellbeing of the people living in their communities, as they best determine.

So let me say that again, sanctuary policies do not prevent ICE from going into any state or any city to arrest someone who served time for a violent crime when they’re being released from prison, and the federal government is indeed notified of every single individual booked into a jail or a prison.

What we’re not discussing today is this Administration’s failure to live up to their own claim that they’re arresting simply the “worst of the worst.” Their own data tells us that the vast majority of the people that have been picked up by ICE and CBP do not have a violent criminal history.

So I wish we were talking about that failure instead of trying to distract from this Administration’s failures by going down a sanctuary policy misperception rabbit hole.

My colleagues are free to disagree with these policies. That’s the nature of our work here in a democracy, and I know that many of them fundamentally do. But the disagreement doesn’t make sanctuary policies unlawful, and it clearly doesn’t make our communities less safe, based on the data that researchers have provided.

So I’d like to call out what this debate really is about. It’s not about public safety because the evidence shows communities can be safer. It’s not about the law, because courts have upheld sanctuary policies time and again all the way to the Supreme Court. It’s clearly about politics and scapegoating.

At a time when Americans are asking us to help make their lives better, and more affordable, by the way, we should be focused on real solutions in that direction, not recycling the same tired, misleading talking points.

Sanctuary policies are constitutional, they’re practical, and they allow local and state officials to do what they do best: focus their time, their energy, and finite resources on providing for the safety of their communities as they best see fit.

So let’s give the American people honesty. Let’s end the fearmongering on these false narratives.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

###


WATCH: Padilla Pushes to Lower Energy Costs and Stop Trump Administration’s Rule Punishing Clean Energy Projects

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla, a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, spoke on the Senate floor to call on his colleagues to revoke the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) arbitrary and vengeful rule that is making it significantly harder for wind and solar projects to qualify for clean energy tax credits. As Trump’s disastrous agenda continues to raise energy costs — with California household electricity costs up 15% since President Trump took office — Padilla pushed his colleagues to pass a resolution under the Congressional Review Act to repeal this misguided rule to restore certainty for companies and support vital clean energy projects.

Padilla emphasized that companies have been counting on these critical tax credits, including the clean energy production and clean electricity investment tax credits, to support wind and solar projects that will build cleaner and more reliable energy solutions while lowering Americans’ costs. He warned that as more projects struggle to receive these credits, fewer will be completed — and those that are finished will be more expensive, raising the price of electricity for working families and businesses.

Video of Padilla’s remarks is available here.

Remarks as delivered:

Mr. President, I rise today in support of my colleagues’ effort to overturn the IRS’ new rule, which is making it harder for wind and solar projects to qualify for critical clean energy tax credits.

Now, families across the country are already struggling to get by with rising costs, costs that are going up at the grocery store, at the doctor’s office, when you’re trying to pay the monthly rent or your mortgage, at the pump, and increasingly, our energy bills.

Now, since President Trump took office last January, California household electricity costs have increased by 15%. That’s more than five times the rate of inflation.

And so it makes no sense that this Administration is making it harder to build the very energy projects that would help. Energy projects that would increase supply of electricity, energy projects that would help bring down the cost of electricity. And one of the many ways they’re doing it is with this new IRS rule that is changing the rules in the middle of the game.

Now, for years now, companies could qualify for a clean energy tax credit once they had invested at least 5% of a project cost into the project. It’s what we refer to as “the 5% safe harbor.”

That’s how businesses make their plans, that’s how businesses make their investments, and that’s how businesses were able to break ground on a number of necessary projects.

But now, even with projects that are already underway … they may not qualify for their tax credits anymore that they were counting on, that they were planning on.

The net result — not project by project, but overall — is that fewer of these projects will get built. And the projects that do power through somehow may get to the finish line, but they will be more expensive.

It means less energy comes online, and once again, the price of that electricity is going to be higher for families and for businesses and for everybody.

Now, I’m proud to represent California, where we’re leaning in on clean energy production, not just to meet the growing demands on the grid of our growing economy and our growing population, but also modernizing in a way that will make us more resilient to the threats of wildfires and extreme heat.

So we have experience in this, and we know, I can share with you colleagues, that building more clean, reliable, and affordable energy projects isn’t just an option — it is fundamentally essential. So we have to recognize the impact of this rule and recognize that it’s part of a broader pattern.

Over the past year, we’ve seen repeated efforts to block or delay clean energy projects, whether it’s halting offshore wind, canceling funding, or undermining projects that are already underway, as I just explained. And at the same time, my colleague and friend from Virginia just articulated, global instability is driving up fossil fuel costs even further.

This, colleagues, is a perfect example of why the Congressional Review Act exists. When an agency takes an action that harms the American people, we in Congress don’t just have the authority, we have the responsibility to step in, and that’s what this resolution does. It overturns the misguided IRS rule, it can restore certainty for business, and it can help get clean energy projects back on track. So I urge my colleagues to support the Energy Investment Credits CRA.

###


WATCH: Padilla Unveils New Effort to Lower Energy Costs, Strengthen Transmission Lines

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources (ENR) Committee, joined an ENR hearing to discuss critically needed improvements to the grid and unveil his new legislative effort to modernize transmission infrastructure, reduce skyrocketing energy costs, and meet surging electricity demand.

The draft transmission bill — co-led by U.S. Senators Padilla, John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), and Angus King (I-Maine) — would improve how the United States builds next-generation transmission lines while strengthening existing systems to make them more cost-effective, efficient, and reliable. Building on the bipartisan Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024, the draft legislation includes new additions to support implementation of advanced grid upgrades and high-voltage direct current (HVDC) lines, planning for demand growth, improving interconnection procedures, and reauthorization of grid resilience grant programs.

During today’s hearing, Padilla stressed the urgency of the “State of the Bulk Power System” discussion as families pay high prices for an outdated, overworked, and increasingly vulnerable electric grid. He questioned Dr. Liza Reed, Director of Climate and Energy Policy at the Niskanen Center, about the significant ratepayer and reliability benefits of interregional HVDC transmission lines and procedural roadblocks preventing these lines from being established. He asked Todd Snitchler, President & CEO of the Electric Power Supply Association, about the importance of strengthening interconnection procedures to speed up the connection of power generators to the grid.

Video of Padilla’s questioning is available here.

Full text of the discussion draft is available here.

Key Excerpts:

PADILLA: We know that families and businesses, for that matter, are paying the price for an aging and overworked grid that’s delivering not just higher bills, but more frequent outages and missed opportunities, frankly, for significant investments in job creation. I’d like to think both sides of the aisle here agree when I say that America cannot lead the next generation on a grid built in the past and using older technologies. So this week, I was proud to work with Senator Hickenlooper and other colleagues from this committee to build on the bipartisan Energy and Permitting Reform Act from last Congress and develop new legislative language to tackle these issues and lead us towards the construction of a next-generation electrical grid. I believe our effort represents not just a commonsense plan, but one that will build a cheaper, stronger, more reliable electrical grid that protects ratepayers, respects communities, and keeps our economy competitive.

PADILLA: Since the era of Edison and Westinghouse, there’s been talk about the potential promise of high-voltage DC transmission. But now these technologies are not just proven, they’re ready to provide efficient transfer of power over long distances. I think that’s important to recognize. My first question is for Dr. Reed: if we built out the backbone of an interregional high-voltage DC transmission line over the next couple of decades, what would be some of the benefits in terms of ratepayer bills, reliability, particularly during extreme weather events?

REED: Thank you, Senator, for the question, and I’m happy to discuss the benefits of high-voltage direct current, because this need for a backbone to our alternating current system is particularly clear when we see severe weather such as winter storms and even extreme heat because HVDC can dispatch power long distances very quickly and directionally. In our alternating current system, electrons flow where there is the least resistance; HVDC can move it exactly where it needs to go, and so it works very well with that alternating current system to move around congestion and provide economic power. Where you have excess power, you can move it to an area that needs power, while also providing reliability benefits. There’s tremendous opportunity for building this type of transmission, particularly across regional lines, for economic and reliability reasons that will ultimately save hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

PADILLA: Are there any key regulatory or procedural barriers that you think are holding us back?

REED: Thank you, Senator. There are very specific barriers that are holding us back from adopting HVDC technology. One of them is the siting constraints on interstate and interregional transmission lines. These types of lines face the most number of siting and permitting barriers because even though they are participating in interstate commerce, they are subject to the specific rules and regulations of each state individually. That’s an incredible burden for a utility or a merchant developer to take on that risk and that timeline to complete. We also … do not have the expectation in markets — FERC has not set the expectation — that these technologies can receive compensation for the benefits that they provide. They are providing the same benefits. They are built on the same semiconductor technology of the products that we do allow to be remunerated in the markets.

PADILLA: Mr. Snitchler and Dr. Reed, could each of you please explain where interconnection procedures may be best improved to expedite the connection of generation to the grid?

SNITCHLER: Thank you, Senator, for the question. I think it’s clear that the interconnection process has been slow. I think at FERC’s direction, all of the regions have worked to modify their interconnection queue process in an effort to try and accelerate that and we have seen improvement to the interconnection process. I don’t think it’s complete. I don’t think anyone would agree that that’s the case, but I think there has been improvement. And so we are going to need to accelerate that process to make sure that studies are done in a different approach than has been used in the past. In fact, FERC recently approved the [Southwest Power Pool]’s model, which is taking a more innovative approach to try and look at interconnection of generation and transmission at the same time in an effort to accelerate it more quickly and was very enthusiastic in their order about what it could do for the system. I think thoughts and approaches like that are going to be incredibly helpful to accelerate the need to meet the moment and move speed to power.

###


Ahead of FSOC Meeting, Reed Presses Bessent to Review Emerging Cracks in the Credit Markets

WASHINGTON, DC – As concerns about private credit and systemic stress on the U.S. economy intensify, U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), a member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, sent a letter to U.S. Treasury Secretary and Chair of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) Scott Bessent, ahead of FSOC’s meeting today, urging a “prompt review of risk that is building up in the credit markets and to assess whether these risks may become systemic.”

Private credit is generally defined as lending by non-bank financial institutions -- including private equity firms and alternative asset managers -- to businesses that are often highly leveraged. In his role at Treasury and FSOC, Secretary Bessent has the unique power and authority to regulate the private credit system as a whole and for identifying risks as a result of the market’s rapid expansion, hidden leverage, and complex interconnections that could cause widespread financial shocks. During his time at the helm of Treasury, there has been turmoil in the private credit market, even as the Trump Administration’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has presided over a huge increase in Main Street retail investor exposure to private credit.

Today, the private credit sector is estimated to be a multi-trillion dollar industry. As the private credit market reaches huge scale, the Trump Administration is allowing it to operate with limited visibility and oversight.

Senator Reed’s letter outlines concerns that U.S. regulators and investors may be blind to pockets of weakness in the private credit market because FSOC and the Office of Financial Research (OFR) -- which is designed to help regulators use financial data to see around corners and into dark areas -- have neglected their core responsibility to conduct forward-looking assessments of systemic risk.

Reed writes: “The gutting of the FSOC and the OFR have coincided with cracks emerging in the credit markets, particularly the less transparent private markets. Jitters about private credit quality have led Wall Street banks to restrict their lending and revalue their exposures. Many retail investors have requested to get their money out of business development companies and interval funds. Meanwhile, the Administration is preparing to place these exact funds into retirement plans and the FSOC is preparing to neuter the primary tool that Congress created to regulate nonbanks.”

The letter continues: “To assess whether emerging cracks in the credit markets may burst open, I request that the OFR immediately map all market participants and their financial obligations to each other and that the FSOC conduct a forward-looking analysis based on this information.”

Full text of the letter follows:

Dear Secretary Bessent:

I write in connection with tomorrow’s meeting of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) to urge you to conduct a prompt review of risk that is building up in the credit markets and to assess whether these risks may become systemic.

In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, Congress established the FSOC and its sister agency, the Office of Financial Research (OFR), to see into dark corners of financial markets and address risks before they get out of hand. But I am very concerned that under your leadership, the FSOC is neglecting this core responsibility to conduct forward-looking assessments of systemic risk. And staffing cuts of around 50% at the OFR have severely diminished its capacity to be an independent early warning system of financial crises.

The gutting of the FSOC and the OFR have coincided with cracks emerging in the credit markets, particularly the less transparent private markets. Jitters about private credit quality have led Wall Street banks to restrict their lending and revalue their exposures. Many retail investors have requested to get their money out of business development companies and interval funds. Meanwhile, the Administration is preparing to place these funds into retirement plans and the FSOC is preparing to neuter the primary tool that Congress created to regulate nonbanks.

To assess whether emerging cracks in the credit markets may burst open, I request that the OFR immediately map all market participants and their financial obligations to each other and that the FSOC conduct a forward-looking analysis based on this information. This is precisely the job that Congress gave to the FSOC and the OFR, to measure and evaluate risk cutting across different institutions and markets to protect the entire financial system. Without this data and analysis, the Administration will be flying blind into a potential crisis and less able to mitigate the effects on the economy and taxpayers.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,


Bipartisan Reed-Scott Bill Offers Hope for Life-Saving Research & Life-Enhancing Treatments and Care

WASHINGTON, DC -- In an effort to help thousands of patients suffering from diseases requiring bone marrow and cord blood transplants, U.S Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) today introduced the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Reauthorization Act of 2026 (S.4109). This bipartisan bill, co-authored by Reed and U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC), along with lead cosponsors Tina Smith (D-MN) and James Lankford (R-OK), will advance medical research, improve patient outcomes, and ensure that America’s bone marrow transplantation program and the National Cord Blood Inventory can continue to save lives and provide treatments and therapies derived from adult stem cell lines.

Specifically, the legislation would reauthorize the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) and the National Cord Blood Inventory (NCBI), which contracts with the U.S. Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA). The bill would renew, through 2031, federal programs for using bone marrow and umbilical cord blood to treat diseases and conduct research. It would make up to $280 million available, over a five-year period, pending appropriations, to help individuals diagnosed with diseases such as leukemia and lymphomas, sickle cell anemia, and rare genetic blood disorders and help them find suitable bone marrow or umbilical cord blood donors. Without Congressional action, these programs would expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

Approximately $115 million would be authorized for the National Cord Blood Inventory program which has cumulatively banked more than 122,500 cord blood units to be tapped for life-saving treatments.

The National Marrow Donor Program, which has impacted more than 140,000 lives through cell therapy, would be authorized $165 million over five years. Donating stem cells through the NMDP can save the life of someone battling blood cancer or another serious disorder.

“Ultimately, this is all about helping patients and families in their time of need as they face unimaginable circumstances. It provides direct support to these critical institutions that do incredible research, match donors and patients, help save live lives, and improve health outcomes,” said Senator Jack Reed. “Our bipartisan bill builds upon the highly successful National Marrow Donor Program that has been a lifeline for thousands of transplant patients over the last two decades. Bone marrow and cord blood transplants continue to offer effective treatments for a number of diseases and disorders. This bipartisan bill would help expand access to lifesaving therapies to patients with conditions that can be treated and even cured with bone marrow or cord blood. ”

“For patients and families facing life-threatening diseases like sickle cell anemia, bone marrow and cord blood transplants can offer a cure and a second chance at life. The Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Reauthorization Act of 2026 ensures these life-saving programs continue connecting patients with donors across the country. I’m proud to support this legislation to deliver hope to families while building on programs that have already saved tens of thousands of lives,” said Senator Tim Scott.

Companion legislation (H.R.5160) has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressman Christopher Smith (R-NJ).

There are three ways to donate blood stem cells: through transplants of peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC), bone marrow, and umbilical cord blood that is donated after a baby’s birth.

According to the Cleveland Clinic: “a stem cell transplant can treat — and sometimes cure — certain blood disorders, cancers and autoimmune diseases. The procedure replaces unhealthy stem cells with healthy ones” by either using “healthy stem cells from your own bone marrow” or from “donated stem cells from another person.”


Ricketts Issues Statement on EPA’s E15 Announcement

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Pete Ricketts (R-NE), a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, issued the following statement after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it would issue a temporary emergency fuel waiver to allow the sale of E10 and E15 this year.

“This is good news for Nebraskans and all Americans. E10 and E15 saves consumers money at the pump, supports Nebraska agriculture, cleans our environment, and promotes energy independence. The next step is a permanent fix. Congress should make year-round, nationwide E10 and E15 permanent.”

BACKGROUND


PSI Chairman Johnson Reveals Further Evidence of Biden Administration Downplaying COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Risk

Releases nearly 2,000 pages of Biden HHS records, including communications about COVID-19 vaccine adverse events

WASHINGTON – On Monday, U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, sent a letter to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), revealing yet another instance of the Biden administration’s failure to take immediate action to warn the public about a serious COVID-19 vaccine adverse event.

In the letter, Chairman Johnson described how as early as Nov. 2022, vaccine safety surveillance systems, run by Biden health officials, began detecting statistically significant safety signals for ischemic stroke among individuals age 65 and older following receipt of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 bivalent booster.

Rather than immediately issue a formal warning to the public, documents show that in Dec. 2022, the Biden White House and HHS pushed to “increase uptake of the booster” for people 65 years and older.

The following month, in Jan. 2023, a draft Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “communications plan,” which included edits from the Biden White House, appeared to underscore the Biden administration’s continued desire to “increase uptake of the booster.” Specifically, edits made to the plan downplayed the significance of the safety signal, changing a sentence that stated that the “signal is moderately elevated” to the “signal is slightly elevated.”

That same month, even as a safety surveillance system continued to detect a statistically significant safety signal for ischemic stroke, Biden health officials posted on FDA’s website that “no change is recommended in COVID-19 vaccination practice.”

However, even though Biden health officials continued to tell the public the vaccine was safe, behind closed doors, they initiated multiple studies and statistical analyses — including a so-called “Stroke Project” — to investigate the validity of their assertion. These investigations continued through at least Sept. 2025.

“I am sharing my preliminary findings to provide HHS and the public with even more evidence of the Biden administration’s unsupported and unyielding devotion to a harmful vaccine at the expense of the public’s health,” Chairman Johnson wrote.

The letter is part of Chairman Johnson’s ongoing investigative efforts to expose the Biden administration’s failure to warn the public about the adverse events associated with the COVID-19 vaccines.

The chairman included in the letter several requests for additional information about the detection of ischemic stroke following the booster noting, “the full extent of HHS’s awareness of the ischemic stroke safety signal remains incomplete and key records are still missing.”

In conjunction with the letter to HHS, which includes preliminary findings, Chairman Johnson released nearly 2,000 pages of relevant HHS records available below. In addition to documents showing the detection of ischemic stroke following receipt of the Pfizer bivalent booster, the records released also contain internal communications between Biden health officials acknowledging significant statistical limitations in their ability to detect safety signals through their data analyses – called empirical Bayesian data mining.

Full text of the letter can be found here.

Read more about the chairman’s letter in The Epoch Times.

The relevant HHS records released by Chairman Johnson, which at the request of HHS contain minimal redactions for personally identifiable information, are linked below:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

Part 10

###


NEWS: Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez Announce AI Data Center Moratorium Act

WASHINGTON, March 25 — Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) today announced the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Data Center Moratorium Act, legislation that would enact a reasonable pause to the development of AI to ensure the safety of humanity.

“AI and robotics are creating the most sweeping technological revolution in the history of humanity. The scale, scope and speed of that change is unprecedented. Congress is way behind where it should be in understanding the nature of this revolution and its impacts,” Sanders said. “Bottom line: We cannot sit back and allow a handful of billionaire Big Tech oligarchs to make decisions that will reshape our economy, our democracy and the future of humanity. We need serious public debate and democratic oversight over this enormously consequential issue. The time for action is now. We need a federal moratorium on AI data centers.”

“We have seen ICE partner with AI companies to surveil Americans, social media users employ AI bots to create sexually explicit deepfakes of women and children, and data center construction inflate electric bills in communities across the country. And all of this harm has occurred because of the absence of federal legislation to regulate AI,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “Congress has a moral obligation to stand with the American people and stop the expansion of these data centers until we have a framework to adequately address the existential harm AI poses to our society. We must choose humanity over profit.”

The legislation would slow down the development of AI to give democracy a chance to catch up. The AI Data Center Moratorium Act of 2026 would do that by instituting an immediate federal moratorium on AI data centers until strong national safeguards are in place to ensure that:

AI is safe and effective — preventing executives in the AI industry from releasing harmful products into the world that threaten the health and well-being of working families, our privacy and civil rights and the future of humanity.

The economic gains of AI and robotics will benefit workers, not just the wealthy owners of Big Tech.

AI does not increase electricity or utility prices, harm communities or destroy the environment.

Additionally, this bill will stop a global race to see which country is the first to eliminate hundreds of millions of jobs, or the first to build an AI that destroys the planet. It accomplishes this by banning U.S. exports of AI computing infrastructure to countries that do not have safeguards in place to guarantee AI is safe and effective, workers are protected and AI does not harm the environment.

More than 100 local communities around the country have enacted moratoriums on data centers and 12 states are pushing forward with statewide moratorium proposals.

In 2023, more than 1,000 industry leaders and scientists, including Elon Musk, Yoshua Bengio and Stuart Russell, called for AI labs to “immediately pause for at least 6 months” and, if such a pause were not enacted, called on governments to “step in and institute a moratorium.” In December, Elon Musk, who leads xAI, said he had “a lot of AI nightmares” and would “certainly slow down AI and robotics” if he could. In January, Demis Hassabis, the head of Google’s Deepmind, said he would support an AI pause if he knew other countries and companies also paused development. In February, Dario Amodei, the head of Anthropic, said he was “absolutely in favor of trying” to slow down AI development if other countries also slowed down.

Read a section-by-section summary here.


Hawai‘i Congressional Delegation Expresses Support For Approval Of Hawai‘i’s Presidential Disaster Declaration Request Following Severe Rain And Flooding Across State

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i) and Mazie K. Hirono (D-Hawai‘i) and U.S. Representatives Ed Case (D-Hawai‘i) and Jill Tokuda (D-Hawai‘i) today expressed their support for consideration of Governor Josh Green’s request for a presidential disaster declaration for communities across the state impacted by heavy rain and severe flooding. U.S. President Donald J. Trump’s approval of the request would help ensure that affected communities can access critical federal funding and resources needed to support response, recovery, and rebuilding efforts.

“We write in support of Governor Josh Green’s March 23, 2026, request that you issue a Major Disaster Declaration for Hawai‘i. The storms are causing continued damage to our infrastructure and utilities, with flood watches and warnings still in effect for parts of the State. Landslides, floodwaters, and debris caused washouts and closures of roadways,” the delegation wrote in their letter to President Trump. “Prior to this disaster, our communities were still rebuilding from devastating wildfires in Maui and Hawai‘i Counties that claimed 102 lives and destroyed more than 2,000 structures. State and County officials now need federal support for the extensive repairs required for flood-damaged homes, small businesses, roads, and public facilities across the islands.”

“As you know, approval of a disaster declaration can make a real difference for families and communities working to recover and rebuild. We appreciate the Trump administration’s continued attention to ensuring Americans have access to the federal support and resources they need in the aftermath of natural disasters,” the delegation continued. “We are grateful for your consideration of this request, and we look forward to working with your administration in the months and years ahead to help Hawai‘i recover and rebuild.”

The full text of the delegation’s letter can be found below and is available here.

Dear President Trump:

We write in support of Governor Josh Green’s March 23, 2026, request that you issue a Major Disaster Declaration for Hawai‘i. We ask that you consider expediting all federal assistance possible to help the State recover from the severe and ongoing impacts of two consecutive Kona Low weather systems that struck from March 10-16, 2026, and again beginning on March 19, 2026. As you know, approval of a disaster declaration can make a real difference for families and communities working to recover and rebuild. We appreciate the Trump administration’s continued attention to ensuring Americans have access to the federal support and resources they need in the aftermath of natural disasters.

Heavy rain and strong winds from a powerful Kona Low, a type of seasonal extratropical cyclone, began impacting Hawai‘i on March 10, 2026. The slow-moving system brought torrential rainfall across the State. Over a five-day period, 46 inches of rain fell on parts of Maui, and wind gusts of over 100 miles per hour were recorded across Maui and Hawai‘i Counties. Before the State could recover, a second storm hit—forcing thousands of people to evacuate, washing away homes, and requiring emergency responders to rescue hundreds of people with the support of the Hawai‘i National Guard and U.S. Coast Guard assets. Throughout the storms, shelters were open across the State.

The storms are causing continued damage to our infrastructure and utilities, with flood watches and warnings still in effect for parts of the State. Landslides, floodwaters, and debris caused washouts and closures of roadways. Thousands of customers remained without electricity as of March 22 because of public safety shutoffs. There were water outages for hundreds of homes, wastewater discharges on O?ahu, and boil water notices and brown water advisories issued across the islands. Critical facilities closed across the State, and Kula Hospital on Maui evacuated patients because of extensive water damage.

Assessments are ongoing, but the State estimates that the damage from the storms may exceed $1 billion. Prior to this disaster, our communities were still rebuilding from devastating wildfires in Maui and Hawai‘i Counties that claimed 102 lives and destroyed more than 2,000 structures. State and County officials now need federal support for the extensive repairs required for flood-damaged homes, small businesses, roads, and public facilities across the islands.

To effectively respond to these needs, we support the Governor’s request for the following assistance:

A Presidential Major Disaster Declaration for the State of Hawai‘i;

Public Assistance Categories A-G for all affected counties;

Individual Assistance for households where Joint Preliminary Damage Assessments confirm eligibility;

A 90 percent federal cost share, as combined damages far exceed the State’s cost share adjustment threshold under 44 C.F.R. § 206.47; and

Authorization of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

We are grateful for your consideration of this request, and we look forward to working with your administration in the months and years ahead to help Hawai‘i recover and rebuild.

Sincerely,

###


WATCH: Sens. Schiff, Curtis Highlight New Bipartisan Bill to Ban Sports Prediction Market Contracts on CNBC’s Squawk Box

The Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act is the first bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate seeking to regulate prediction markets

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and John Curtis (R-Utah) appeared on CNBC’s Squawk Box to highlight the new Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act, legislation they introduced this week to prohibit Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)-registered entities from listing any prediction contract that resembles a sports bet or casino-style game.

During the interview, the Senators reiterated that the authority to regulate gambling and sports betting lies with the states and emphasized their legislation as proof that there is momentum on both sides of the aisle in Congress to regulate this industry.

View the full interview here.

Key Excerpts:

On CFTC Chair Michael S. Selig greenlighting these markets:

Schiff: […] I asked the chairman about this during his confirmation hearings, did he have a position on whether these contracts were gambling or sports betting? He said he didn’t, that he was a tabula rasa, that he was going to leave it to the courts. But we’re seeing something very different with him actively intervening to support these prediction markets, notwithstanding that they’re really indistinguishable from sports betting. And in California, we don’t allow sports betting. It ought to be up to the states to decide what kind of gambling goes on within their state. This kind of end run around the law is encouraging vast amounts of gambling. We saw $1 billion of trading in prediction contracts just over the Super Bowl alone. That’s something that ought to be decided state by state and not decided for them by this industry.

On concerns about revenue for states and insider trading in these markets:

Schiff: […] In addition to the concern about revenue to the state, when it is completely unregulated like this, you could have, you know, vast amounts of insider trading, people who have particular insights, either because they’re government officials or because they’re the athletes themselves who can end up influencing the events they’re betting on. We’ve seen reports, for example, recently that someone with 93% accuracy has been predicting what’s been going on in the Iran war. That’s heavily suggestive of insider trading, and when it could be done using blockchain, there’s no way to really regulate that. At least, it’s not being regulated today. And we want to make sure that there is regulation of this.

Curtis: […] You have to ask what could go wrong. Imagine betting on a high school athlete getting hurt the day of a high school game, right? Like that’s what that’s why this needs the appropriate regulation. You could see how wrong that could go.

On companies taking steps to crack down on insider trading in these markets:

Schiff: I don’t think it’s enough because it’s one thing to say this is our policy, it’s another actually to put into place the steps to make sure it’s not happening on those platforms. You can say athletes can’t bet on themselves, but if an athlete does, how will it be caught? What if an athlete’s family member does? What if a government official’s colleagues or family or staff bets on insider information? It’s got to be more than an aspirational statement by these companies.

On building support in the Congress to pass their legislation:

Curtis: Well, this might be a good opportunity to use the prediction markets to bet on that. I actually think both of us feel that there’s a lot of momentum on both sides of the aisle on this. And I think you’re going to see further legislation not only from us, but from our colleagues on this, to get our arms around it and make sure it’s done properly.

Schiff: […] There’s a lot of bipartisan interest and concern over this that makes this one of those rare opportunities for the parties to get together and do something meaningful. So I’m optimistic. It shouldn’t really be left to litigation. Frankly, I think the law already makes this clear. But the CFTC chairman is moving in a completely different direction of essentially unlicensed, unregulated activity here. So, the Congress will need to step in.

###


ICYMI: Senator Schmitt Blasts Democrats for Holding DHS Funding Hostage Over Radical Open Border Agenda

WASHINGTON, DC — U.S. Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) joined Fox News’ Hannity to call out Democrats for holding Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding hostage as a way to prevent ICE from doing their jobs. Schmitt also slammed Democrats for forcing TSA agents to go without pay because of their radical agenda.

Watch the full interview HERE.

Senator Schmitt on Democrats’ War Against ICE:

“We’re not doing anything to kneecap ICE’s ability to do their jobs and deport the people who’ve come here illegally. The only reason the Democrats want to unmask ICE agents is they want facial recognition software to identify these ICE agents and harass their families, so nobody wants to be an ICE agent. Again, we lived through this with the defund the police movement Sean, where you saw a drop in people who want to be police officers. You saw early retirements. We’re not doing that again. We’re also not going to make it harder to do their job through all the hurdles that the Democrats want them to jump through. Because if you understand this fact, you realize that the central operating idea between the Democrat party now is that they believe in open borders, and they don’t believe that anybody that came here legally should have to go home, and we cannot give in on that fact. Now, if there is a scenario where we’re able to fund the other operations and maybe provide a 10-year revenue stream for ICE deportations moving forward through reconciliation, I’m all ears on that, but we’re not going to do anything to defund ICE. We’re not going to do anything that makes their job harder. We’re supporting making sure TSA agents get back on the job, Coast Guard, Secret Service, all those things. The Democrats have obstructed all this. And they believe in sanctuary cities. They believe in open borders. They’re being exposed, and I don’t think we should cave in on those fronts.”

Senator Schmitt on Democrats Holding TSA Agents’ Paychecks Hostage:

“We’ve done it five times. We’ll vote on again this week. Sean, they ought to go to work and look, I you know, you talk to real people. I talk to real people. The Democrats are so out of touch. These folks are going without their third paycheck. Most people in real life. They can’t do that, and the Democrats did this to them just a few months ago. It’s unfair, but they really want to they don’t believe in border enforcement, Sean, they don’t actually believe that ICE should exist, and that’s what this fight is all about. If you peel back the onion here, what this is really about is they want to defund ICE. They want de facto amnesty, Sean, for the 15 million people who came here illegally because they know they can’t pass a bill to get that. But if you actually get rid of all the enforcement mechanisms and the people who want to do that job, then they would get it, and we’re not giving in on that. So, I think we got to continue to fight here. There could be a path forward where we do it with a simple majority vote on reconciliation and make sure they’re funded. But the Democrats need to pay a price if we’re going to do that, then they need to be funded for 10 years, as far as I’m concerned, or multiple years, so the Democrats can’t play these games next year.”

###


Sen. Tim Scott introduces Sheria Clarke at nomination hearing

Click here or on the thumbnail above to watch the full introduction.

WASHINGTON — Today, U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) delivered an introduction for Sheria Clarke during her nomination hearing before the Senate Committee on Judiciary.

Full transcript of Sen. Scott’s remarks, as delivered:

“I am proud to introduce and strongly support the nomination of Sheria Clarke to serve as United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina.

“Her background is not typical for judicial candidates. She was homeschooled, and as I think of it, that’s a great way to be valedictorian. And she attended Liberty University, majoring in psychology and graduating with honors.

“She worked her way through law school at the University of North Carolina and clerked for judges before finding her way to Washington. Sheria has built a distinguished legal career rooted in service both in the courtroom and in her community. She has held several roles with increasing responsibility from her time at the Ethics Committee to eventually leading one of the most high-profile and consequential committees in Congress as a Staff Director for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

“Her experience also includes serving as an assistant United States attorney in the District of South Carolina, where she worked as a federal prosecutor focused on upholding the rule of law. Today, she continues her legal career as a partner at Nelson Mullins in Greenville, South Carolina.

“Her commitment to serve extends into the community where she serves on the board of directors of Jasmine Road, supporting women recovering from trafficking, addiction, and exploitation. She also serves as chair of the Miriam Foundation and has supported organizations like the Phyllis Wheatley Community Center and the Governor’s School for Science and Mathematics Foundation.

“These roles are clear evidence of her deep and consistent commitment to strengthening communities across South Carolina.

“Sheria’s faith is central to who she is and is reflected in her approach to justice, her respect for others, and her commitment to fairness. She understands that the law requires not just intellect, but sound judgment, restraint, and a deep awareness of how decisions impact people’s lives and she brings those qualities to the bench.

“Beyond her professional accomplishments, Sheria is a devoted wife and mother, balancing family life with an exceptional career in public service.

“I met Sheria Clarke nearly 15 years ago through a mutual friend, Trey Gowdy, who was a Congress[man] in the House at the time and she is one of the most outstanding people of character I have ever met. She brings a rare combination of humility and conviction to her work with a clear understanding of the responsibility that and trust required by a federal judge.

“In the decade plus since we’ve met, I have never heard her utter a single negative word about anyone at all. Not even about my bad singing voice. The one time a bunch of us called and tried to sing Happy Birthday to her.

“She has a quick mind. She picks up complex concepts with remarkable speed and ease. She is modest and never seeks attention or accolades. To the contrary, she deflects them in a genuine way. I cannot say she is slow to anger because in more than a decade, I have never seen her angry. And trust me, in this town and with the friends that I have, she’s had plenty of opportunities to show it.

“What I can say is that she was a frequent dinner guest when she was in Washington, joining an often-bipartisan table of friends, and she earned the respect and affection of everyone there. The Ranking Member of the committee she worked on had as much respect for her as a chairman who employed her.

“I am very proud to support her nomination without hesitation and am confident she will be an outstanding addition to the judiciary. And most importantly, I am proud to call her my friend. If more people were like Sheria Clarke, the world would be a better place.”

###


Senators Shaheen, Collins, Warnock, Kennedy Unveil Bipartisan Bill to Cap Cost of Insulin at $35 Per Month

(Washington, DC) – U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Susan Collins (R-ME), Reverend Raphael Warnock (D-GA) and John Kennedy (R-LA) are today introducing bipartisan legislation to lower the cost of insulin, removing barriers to care and making it more accessible for millions more Americans. The Improving Needed Safeguards for Users of Lifesaving Insulin Now (INSULIN) Act would cap the cost of insulin at $35 per month for Americans on private and employer insurance and create a pilot program to provide insulin at the same cost to Americans without insurance.

“The cost of insulin is getting more expensive year after year, forcing one in five Americans with diabetes to ration their insulin. That is completely unacceptable, and it’s particularly galling at a time when costs for Americans—including health care prices—are going up across the board,” said Senator Jeanne Shaheen. “Our legislation maps out a comprehensive, commonsense plan that will finally lower the cost of insulin for diabetic patients, regardless of their insurance status. In the greatest country in the world, patients shouldn’t have to go bankrupt for medication they need to live.”

“Tens of millions of Americans rely on insulin as part of their daily treatment, and for many, it is literally a matter of life and death. I have heard far too many stories from people in Maine and across the country who have been forced to ration their insulin because of the cost, and that is simply unacceptable,” said Senator Susan Collins. “This bipartisan legislation would cap the cost of insulin at $35 and address underlying issues in the insulin market so that more patients—both insured and uninsured—can afford the medication they need.”

“I’m proud this bipartisan coalition of Senators agrees insulin should be affordable for everyone, including uninsured Americans,” said Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock. “Our legislation finally caps the cost of insulin for everyone and provides a pathway of funding to community health centers so they can continue reaching uninsured people who need affordable insulin. No one should be forced to put their health or life in danger because they can’t afford insulin or don’t know where to get it.”

“When moms and dads lie down to sleep at night and can’t, they’re usually worried about the cost of living—and for a whole lot of families in Louisiana, one of the biggest worries is how they’re going to pay for life-saving medication like insulin. I’ve been working for years on legislation capping insulin prices and making it easier for folks living with diabetes to get the essential medication they need without going broke. Our bipartisan INSULIN Act would save Americans money, help them avoid life-threatening diabetes complications, and make our health care system look a bit more like we designed it on purpose,” said Senator John Kennedy.

Click HERE to view bill text.

The INSULIN Act would directly address the root problems in the insulin market causing high list prices, while simultaneously extending vital patient protections, fostering competition and broadening access to needed insulin products.

Specifically, the INSULIN Act:

Limits out-of-pocket costs for patients with diabetes by ensuring that group and individual market health plans must waive any deductible and limit cost-sharing to no more than $35 or 25% of list price per month for at least one insulin of each type and dosage form.

Mandates pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) pass through 100% of insulin rebates and other discounts received from manufacturers to plan sponsors, reducing perverse incentives in the insulin market that encourage high list prices and help patients in the form of reduced premiums.

Promotes generic and biosimilar competition to lower costs for patients.

Creates a pilot grant program for 10 states to implement programs to identify uninsured diabetes patients and provide them with insulin at $35 a month.

Establishes an insulin resource center and hotline for uninsured diabetes patients to connect them with resources about diabetes and programs to help them secure insulin.

As co-chairs of the U.S. Senate Diabetes Caucus, Senators Shaheen and Collins have also consistently pressed to hold insulin manufacturers, insurers and pharmacy benefit managers accountable for the skyrocketing cost of life-saving insulin, and otherwise support patients and families facing diabetes. Last week, at a Member Day meeting of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Shaheen and Collins previewed the INSULIN Act introduction and underscored the need to pass the legislation through both chambers of Congress.

The bipartisan INSULIN Act is supported by the American Diabetes Association, Breakthrough T1D, the Endocrine Society and others.

“Breakthrough T1D commends Senators Jeanne Shaheen, Susan Collins, Raphael Warnock, and John Kennedy for introducing this bipartisan bill to lower the cost of insulin for the millions of Americans who rely on it to live,” said Lynn Starr, Breakthrough T1D’s Chief Global Advocacy Officer. “The INSULIN Act builds on the meaningful progress made in recent years to reduce insulin prices and includes several long-standing priorities for which Breakthrough T1D has advocated. We are proud to support this legislation and urge the Senate to move swiftly to advance it.”

“The American Diabetes Association (ADA) has fought to make insulin affordable across the U.S. Unfortunately, insulin remains unaffordable for almost 30 percent of individuals according to an October 2025 national survey by the American Diabetes Association. Too many individuals have to choose between paying for life-saving insulin or paying for other life necessities like rent or food. The American Diabetes Association is proud to endorse the bipartisan INSULIN Act,” said Lisa Murdock, ADA Chief Advocacy Officer. “This legislation takes critical steps to improve access to and limit-out-of-pocket costs for people with private insurance who rely on insulin to live. The ADA strongly urges Congress to act without delay to pass the INSULIN Act.”

“Making insulin more affordable for people living with diabetes is a top priority for the members of the Endocrine Society,” said the Endocrine Society’s Chief Medical Officer Robert W. Lash, M.D. “We applaud the leadership of Senators Shaheen, Collins, Warnock and Kennedy to address this ongoing crisis. For years, our members have been alarmed about the lack of access to affordable insulin. We are pleased to endorse this historic legislation, which will make insulin more affordable for people enrolled in private insurance and people who are uninsured and need access to this lifesaving medication. This legislation will change and save lives. We stand ready to work with you to pass this critically important legislation.”

###


Thune: Day 40 of Democrats’ Dangerous DHS Shutdown

Clickhereto watch the video.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) today delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor:

Thune’s remarks below (as delivered):

“Mr. President, we’re on day 40 of Democrats’ shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security.

“Day 40.

“And that’s on top of Democrats’ record-breaking, 43-day full-government shutdown in the fall.

“Altogether, thanks to Senate Democrats, a lot of DHS employees have been working without pay for more than 80 days so far this fiscal year.

“Mr. President, that’s shameful.

“It’s no wonder TSA agents are quitting in droves.

“Anyone would be, if they’d been working without pay for almost 50 percent of the fiscal year so far.

“My Democrat colleagues, of course, are working with pay, having rejected a Republican proposal to stop senators’ pay while DHS is shut down.

“But I am hoping that Democrats can at least envision what it’s like for stressed-out Homeland Security workers wondering if they’ll be able to pay their rent.

“And I hope they’ll recognize that this situation cannot continue.

“Homeland Security workers are hurting.

“Travelers are beyond fed up with the disastrous situation at U.S. airports.

“And we cannot continue to keep this critical department unfunded.

“Democrats have a proposal before them with legislative text – the latest serious offer from Republicans to get this department back up and running.

“Democrats have repeatedly said that they want to pay TSA, Coast Guard, FEMA, and employees who defend America from cyberattacks.

“This bill would do it.

“I hope Democrats will work with us to finalize an agreement and reopen the Department of Homeland Security this week.”


Thune: Democrats Will Have to Show Americans Why They Oppose Voter ID

Clickhereto watch the video.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) today delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor:

Thune’s remarks below (as delivered):

“Mr. President, since we began debate on the SAVE America Act, my Democrat colleagues have spent a lot of time hedging.

“And that’s been particularly evident on the issue of voter ID – something that Democrats have spent years decrying as a tool of voter suppression, but are now suggesting they somehow support.

“Democrats can read the polls as well as any of us.

“And I suspect that Democrats are not eager to be seen as on the 20 percent side of an 80-20 issue.

“So they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too.

“And so the Democrat leader is out there claiming Democrats support voter ID … as long, of course, as he doesn’t have to vote for any ID proposal that we actually put forward.

“On Thursday, the junior Republican senator from Ohio offered an eminently reasonable voter ID proposal.

“All that it would have done is require a photo ID for voters when they go to the polls.

“Driver’s license. Military ID. Tribal ID. Passport.

“The types of IDs that are sitting in wallets right now – that the American people use on a regular basis.

“Democrats said no – we don’t like that.

“So they blocked it.

“And more than blocked it, Mr. President.

“The junior senator from Oregon offered an alternative bill that would have actually banned voter ID for absentee ballots.

“And then yesterday, Mr. President, yesterday Democrats said the quiet part out loud.

“The Democrat leader came down to the floor and made it clear that when Democrats say they support voter ID, they mean that they support voter ID just as long as the ID requirements in question are meaningless.

“That’s right.

“The Democrat leader brought up a bill Democrats introduced a few years ago that included a voter ID requirement.

“Well, sort of.

“Let me read a few of the ‘IDs’ that Democrats’ bill would have accepted:

“A debit card.

“A lease or mortgage document.

“A utility bill.

“Any document containing the individual’s name – name, not photo – issued by a government.

“Or a photocopy of any one of the above.

“Now, sure, Mr. President, some of these things are accepted or requested as adjunct documents when you’re trying to get something like a driver’s license or a library card.

“Along with, you know, things like photo ID or a birth certificate.

“But just showing a utility bill to prove your identity?

“Give me a break, Mr. President.

“If someone asks you for an ID in any other circumstance, are you going to pull out your electric bill?

“Can you get into a bar by showing your lease?

“Can you prove eligibility to work at your new job by pulling out the water bill?

“No, you cannot.

“And I’d like to see someone try to get on a plane by presenting a photocopy of their debit card.

“Mr. President, when Republicans say voter ID, we mean an actual ID.

“With a picture.

“Issued by a government.

“The kind of ID that’s required for a whole bunch of things in our daily lives:

“Starting a new job.

“Driving a car.

“Doing an early pick-up at school.

“Opening a bank account.

“Getting a library card.

“The Democrat leader suggested that photo IDs are somehow out of reach for voters – that they need ‘inclusive’ voter ID options.

“Mr. President, how does the Democrat leader think Americans are navigating all of the scenarios I just mentioned?

“Well, I’ll tell him.

“With their photo IDs.

“And yet it’s somehow an intolerable burden to ask Americans to bring those IDs with them to the polls?

“Give me a break.

“Requiring a photo ID isn’t onerous.

“It’s common sense.

“And the American people agree.

“Poll after poll shows that Americans of both parties strongly support requiring a photo ID at the polls.

“And just to reassure my Democrat friends, a 2019 study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found, and I quote, ‘strict ID laws have no significant negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any subgroup defined by age, gender, race, or party affiliation.’

“Mr. President, Democrats are going to have another chance tomorrow to support election integrity by implementing a commonsense photo ID requirement.

“Will they stand with Americans?

“Or will they continue to oppose any meaningful ID requirement at the polls?”


Maryland Delegation Members Statement on Two-Year Anniversary of Key Bridge Collapse

Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks and U.S. Representatives Steny Hoyer, Kweisi Mfume, Jamie Raskin, Glenn Ivey, Sarah Elfreth, April McClain Delaney, and Johnny Olszewski (all D-Md.) made this statement in advance of tomorrow’s two-year anniversary of the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge:

“The collapse of Baltimore’s Key Bridge was a tragedy bigger than Baltimore. This disaster took the lives of six members of our community and resulted in harmful aftershocks that reverberated throughout the Port of Baltimore, our state, and our nation. Working hand-in-hand with our state and local partners, Federal Team Maryland acted quickly to deliver federal funding to address the immediate priorities: recovering those we lost, clearing the shipping channel, and getting Port workers back on the job. We then took the fight to Congress, pushing relentlessly for months to ultimately pass our Baltimore BRIDGE Relief Act into law – a unified, bipartisan effort to ensure the federal government provides the full resources necessary to build a safer and stronger bridge for the future.

“But out of this tragedy, Maryland came together. Since the day the Key Bridge came down, our communities in Baltimore and throughout Maryland have demonstrated remarkable grit and resilience. Two years later, the Port of Baltimore is making a strong comeback while our state continues to make headway in the reconstruction process. As this work proceeds, our delegation will keep fighting every step of the way to ensure the federal government delivers on its legal commitment to fund 100 percent of the reconstruction until the new bridge is complete.”


Van Hollen Introduces Bill to Strengthen Social Security by Ending Republicans’ Tax Giveaways for Ultra-Wealthy Estates

Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) reintroduced the Strengthen Social Security by Taxing Dynastic Wealth Act, legislation to improve the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund with revenue generated by undoing Republicans’ major cuts to the estate tax in 2017 and 2025 which have enabled the richest families in America to pass down vast wealth from generation to generation. This bill returns the estate tax to 2009 levels and invests those funds in Americans’ retirement security.

“Donald Trump and Republicans are fueling the rise of an American aristocracy through their massive tax giveaways for the wealthy – including their cuts to the estate tax that have allowed the country’s richest people to leave increasingly exorbitant sums of wealth to their heirs. These are handouts to those who are already well off, given at the expense of investing in shared prosperity for all. This legislation ends Republicans’ estate tax giveaway and uses the proceeds to help shore up Social Security, an important step toward ensuring that Americans who work for a living – not just the wealthy few – can have financial security when they retire,” said Senator Van Hollen.

This bill has been endorsed by Social Security Works.

“Thank you to Senator Van Hollen for introducing this essential legislation, which would strengthen our Social Security system while also greatly reducing inequality. Over 220 years ago, founding father Thomas Paine advocated for using an estate tax to pay for pensions for older Americans and people with disabilities. This bill would make Paine’s vision a reality,” said Alex Lawson, Executive Director of Social Security Works.

The Strengthen Social Security by Taxing Dynastic Wealth Act:

Raises the estate, gift, and generation-skipping transfer taxes back to the levels they were at in 2009, as follows:

Increases the top estate and gift tax rate from 40 percent to 45 percent.

Exempts the first $3.5 million of an individual’s estate from estate taxes ($7 million for married couples).

Currently, the first $15 million for an individual and the first $30 million for a couple is exempted from a unified estate and gift tax.

Sets the lifetime exemption limit for gifts at $1 million for an individual ($2 million for married couples).

Maintains the generation-skipping transfer tax as an anti-abuse measure to prevent circumvention of estate taxes, and as under current law, the parameters of that tax would conform to the new estate tax parameters.

Combines Social Security’s two trust funds – the Old Age and Survivors fund and the Disability Insurance fund – into a single trust fund.

Deposits all of the revenues from the estate, gift, and generation-skipping transfer taxes into the Social Security OASI/DI Trust Fund.