Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, would it be in order if I ask what the basis of the objection is, given the fact that these are nonpartisan judges for the District of Columbia? Would that question be in order if I were to yield to the gentleman?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I am just wondering if my colleague from Kansas would like to explain the basis for objecting to a judge--this particular judge--in the DC court system.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I gather not, OK. I ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to Calendar No. 767, Sherri Malloy Beatty-Arthur, to be an associate judge for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, we all have State and local governments that have control over their own judicial systems. For example, in my State of Maryland, we have the Maryland Court of Appeals. We have the lower courts in the State of Maryland. Then, of course, we have the Federal court system. What I am talking about today has nothing to do with the Federal court system. What I am talking about today has to do with judges appointed to the District of Columbia, and because of current law, this Congress oversees those judicial actions. I think we would all agree that, if we were here in the U.S. Senate blocking decisions, nominations made for judges back in our States or our local jurisdictions, that would be a kind of bizarre thing to do. So I want to make it clear that today we are not talking about the Supreme Court of the United States or the U.S. courts of appeals or Federal district court judges. We are talking about the local judges for the people of the District of Columbia, and in that local court system, they have a commission that determines who the nominees are. But the President then nominates the local judges because of the statutes governing the District of Columbia within the U.S. Congress. I have heard on the floor of the Senate, many times, legitimate concerns expressed about crime in the District of Columbia and a backlogged court system in the District of Columbia. And yet some, until today--and I hope today will be different--have blocked consideration or votes on the judges for the people of the District of Columbia. Because of that, Washington, DC's court system has been plagued by vacancies for years. They currently have 11 vacancies--9 on the superior court that handles civil, criminal, and small claims cases; and 2 on the court of appeals. And because of these vacancies, fewer judges are having to take on significantly more case, leading to long delays. In some cases, these proceedings take years. Judges in the civil division are handling things like landlord and tenant disputes, medical malpractice, and discrimination, and they are handling double the casework that they used to, an average of 473 cases a year. Without the appointment of a new judge--in other words, if we don't allow the appointment of a new judge here--there will be only one judge handling all of the criminal domestic violence misdemeanors--30 to 60 cases per day. I want to say that again. Unless we take this action, you are going to have only one judge overseeing criminal domestic violence misdemeanors--30 to 60 cases a day--with longer waits for litigants and significant delays in resolving domestic violence cases. Judges are double- and triple-booking trial dates. One hundred to 200 cases every year are delayed in the court of appeals. Again, not the U.S. court of appeals. I want to make it clear: This is the District of Columbia system and their court of appeals. The judges before us today are all nonpartisan. In fact, two of them were previously nominated by President Trump. It gives you an idea how long they have been waiting. They are not interpreting Federal law. They are overseeing local criminal and civil cases, just like judges in our State and local courts, as I said. So I just want to be really clear for our colleagues who are going to delay these judges. They are going to make it even more difficult for the people of DC to deal with criminal justice issues and with their civil litigation. I really hope, given the fact that we are not talking about Federal judges, we will be able to proceed with these nominations and support them. With that, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that, as if in executive session, the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nomination: Kenechukwu Onyemacchi Okocha, to be an associate judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to Calendar No. 768, Erin Camille Johnston, to be an associate judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I ask that it be made in order to make the same request with respect to Calendar No. 769, Ray D. McKenzie, to be an associate judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I ask that it be made in order to make the same request with respect to Calendar No. 770, Rahkel Bouchet, to be an associate judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I ask that it be made in order to make the same request with respect to Calendar No. 771, John Cuong Truong, to be an associate judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I ask that it be made in order to make the same request with respect to Calendar No. 838, James Graham Lake, to be an associate judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I ask that it be made in order to make the same request with respect to Calendar No. 839, Nicholas George Miranda, to be an associate judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I ask that it be made in order to make the same request with respect to Calendar No. 774, Carmen G. Iguina Gonzalez, to be an associate judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I am going to try one more time. I ask that it be made in order to make the same request with respect to Calendar No. 775, Joseph Russell Palmore to be an associate judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I would just say that based on what I said in my earlier remarks, I have not heard and the body has not heard of any good reason to be blocking these judges for the District of Columbia, have not heard one substantive objection to any of these individuals, have not heard any other rationale for why we are not going to act on these judges right away. As I indicated, the result of inaction in blocking these judges is just to back up the entire court system of the District of Columbia-- criminal cases, civil cases. It makes no sense. If someone was looking out on the Senate right now, they would see this as one of the many examples of complete dysfunction because of the kind of obstruction based on who knows what rationale for doing the right thing for the District of Columbia. This is just one reason why many of us support statehood for the people of the District of Columbia. They shouldn't have to have the U.S. Senate sign off on their judicial nominations, just as we don't sign off on judicial nominations for State courts, whether it be the State of Wisconsin or my State of Maryland. We don't sign off on nominations for local courts in our States, but we do have that power for now and responsibility for now in the U.S. Senate, and this is just an example of total failure to live up to our responsibility to make sure there is a functioning court system in the District of Columbia. So it is another bad day as we come to the close of this Congress, another unnecessary obstruction that just makes it more difficult for people to get justice in civil cases or in criminal cases and for people to be held accountable in criminal cases, including, as I mentioned, the many domestic violence cases. I yield the floor.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, the National Defense Authorization Act under consideration by the Senate today provides crucial resources to our Armed Forces and our national defense. This year's defense bill invests directly in the men and women in uniform through a significant pay raise for junior enlisted members along with improvements in housing, healthcare, and support for all servicemembers and their families. The bill also provides funding authorization for the many Federal Agencies in Maryland whose missions support our national defense, including resources for critical projects taking place at Fort Meade and Aberdeen Providing Ground, as well as the construction of a contained burn facility at Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head, protecting air quality in our local communities. I also worked with my colleagues to expand the scope of the SERVE Act, which I helped pass into law in the FY22 NDAA, by ensuring that high school students applying to attend the Merchant Marine Academy do not lose the opportunity to be nominated because of a vacancy in the office of one of their U.S. Senators or Representative in the U.S. House. The bill also includes the State Department Authorization Act and takes meaningful steps to improve the quality of life for our diplomatic corps and their family members, such as greater flexibility for foreign service families' housing arrangements and fairer pay for locally hired foreign service staff. There are many important provisions in this legislation, and I support funding a robust national defense that meets the challenges of emerging threats and an increasingly unstable world. Maryland is the proud home of tens of thousands of military personnel and civilians working in the defense sector, as well as critical military installations, and I am glad that this legislation invests over $200 million in our State's critical assets to address the security challenges of today and tomorrow. Maryland's bases are innovating in fields from cybersecurity to energetics and are conducting critical research to protect our military. Protecting our national security goes hand-in-hand with advancing U.S. innovation and competitiveness. Maryland has a key role to play in developing the technologies of the future that will keep our Nation at the cutting-edge. Today's bill authorizes the Department of Commerce to utilize up to $500 million from spectrum auction proceeds for the Regional Technology and Innovation Hubs (``Tech Hubs'') program, which was established in the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, to fund designated Tech Hubs and to expand the program. In 2023, the Baltimore Region Tech Hub was designated as one of the 31 inaugural Tech Hubs, and this funding could further its efforts to become a global leader in advancing biotech and equitable artificial intelligence to improve national health outcomes. While I support important investments in our national defense, I remain concerned about the continued growth in defense spending, especially when the Pentagon as a whole continues to fail independent audits, with only half of the Department's 28 Agencies passing their own individual audits. While I do not believe that across-the-board cuts are the best way to reduce spending, I do believe we need to put our defense dollars to much more strategic use and make the hard choices necessary to right-size our defense spending. As we discuss ways to achieve greater government efficiency, we must apply the same standard to the Department of Defense, which represents over half of total Federal discretionary spending. Today's bill also includes harmful language unfairly targeting transgender youth and their families. It is not Congress's place to decide what health decisions our military families make; these decisions should be left to servicemembers, their families, and their doctors. It is especially galling that this bill restricts some healthcare and fails to expand access to IVF to help military members struggling with infertility. We should be supporting our military families, not limiting their access to care. Given these concerns, I supported Senator Baldwin's amendment to remove section 708 entirely, and I am disappointed this language remains in the final bill. In addition, despite promises to the contrary, the new definition for what is considered an ``electronic communications service provider'' that was included in the April 2024 reauthorization of section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was not amended in this bill. This new definition, while intended to clarify the term to account for changing technology, broadly includes ``any other service provider who has access to equipment that is being or may be used to transmit or store wire or electronic communications.'' This overly broad definition, among other reasons, is why I voted against the reauthorization of section 702 of FISA. While I accept the representations from proponents that this language is not intended to open the door to requiring a slew of service providers to comply with government demands to intercept communications, its plain language is very broad. I, along with other Members who were concerned with this provision, were told by our colleagues that this language would be altered in the final bill. I appreciated that the Senate's version of the Intelligence Authorization Act included revised language addressing this concern, but that provision unfortunately wasn't included in the final NDAA, and I am deeply disappointed with this outcome. Ensuring that our men and women in uniform have the tools they need to defend the United States is critical. Like any bill, this package isn't perfect, but overall, I believe it will meaningfully advance our national security goals, support our defense workforce, and invest in crucial priorities for Maryland. That being said, I have serious concerns with several important issues within this legislation. We must right-size our defense spending. We must protect our military families and their access to healthcare. And we must protect Americans from the possible misuse of surveillance authorities. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the next Congress to address these serious concerns.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, let me start by thanking my friend and colleague, the Senator from Mississippi, for working on these two pieces of important legislation. One which the Senator from Mississippi will talk about in a moment in greater depth is the Vicksburg National Military Park Boundary Modification Act. And coupled with that is the Chesapeake National Recreation Area Act, as amended, and unanimously passed by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources just last month. I introduced the Chesapeake National Recreation Area Act in July of 2023, after years of engagement with communities around the Chesapeake Bay and with the support of Senator Cardin, Senator Warner, Senator Kaine. And it has also been introduced in the House on a bipartisan basis by Congressman Sarbanes and Congressman Wittman. The idea for a Chesapeake National Recreation Area Act was born four decades ago. This has been a long time coming, and I am glad we arrived at this moment. It was motivated by a desire to formally recognize the Chesapeake Bay as the national treasure that it is and to provide all Americans with a greater opportunity to experience it. The Chesapeake National Recreation Act would unite voluntarily contributed sites and iconic Chesapeake Bay properties under the operation of the National Park Service in what we call a string of pearls that will help to tie together key areas of the Bay. The establishment of the Chesapeake National Recreation Area would improve public access to the Bay, allowing visitors to experience it firsthand, strengthening the culture of environmental stewardship, and providing visitors with an opportunity to learn about the region's rich history and culture. The National Chesapeake National Recreation Area would also create jobs and support economic growth throughout the region, promoting responsible tourism, and boosting the outdoor recreation and tourist economies. This bipartisan initiative has been driven by local leaders since the beginning, and it was developed through exhaustive public outreach and meaningful collaboration with a broad range of stakeholders. I want just, for a moment, to describe to my colleagues the outreach effort that brought us to this moment because it included the formation of a working group composed of a bicameral group of lawmakers, State government representatives, and more than 30 regional organizations to help develop the legislation. It included a public comment period which we used to gather input and compile over 1,300 comments, which we integrated the feedback into the bill. When we introduced the bill, it was accompanied by over 70 letters of support and 100 endorsements from local elected officials, environmental and historical preservation organizations, seafood and outdoor recreation businesses, and many more. We also worked closely with the National Park Service on technical assistance to guide the bill. So it has been a great pleasure to work with Senator Wicker on his Vicksburg National Military Park Boundary Modification Act as we also work on this Chesapeake National Recreation Area Act. This is collaboration for the public good, for people in both of our States and people throughout the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Virginia Senator Warner, who just addressed this very important issue, and my friend and colleague, the other Virginia Senator, Senator Kaine, who is making the motion today that we pass his Saving the Civil Service Act. This is a critical piece of legislation to protect one of America's best innovations, which is the idea of a nonpartisan, merit-based Federal workforce--one that serves all Americans, regardless of political affiliation; one where you don't take a political test to decide whether you have the credentials for the job; you take a skills- based, knowledge-based test to decide if you are best for the job. Our Federal workers are the air traffic controllers who ensure safe passage when Americans fly; they are the inspectors who protect our food supply; they are the folks who determine whether or not medicines put on the market are going to be both safe and do what they say they are going to do; they are the folks at the Social Security Administration in Baltimore City who make sure that people get their Social Security checks on time; they are the nurses and doctors at veterans hospitals who help our veterans; and many, many other essential functions. Today, the only criteria for their employment is performance. It is what they know, not who they know. They are qualified to serve based on those credentials, and they do a good job protecting the American public. And they serve in those jobs regardless of what President is in the White House and what party that President may belong to. Their duty is to serve the American people. So why are we here on the floor? Because the incoming administration has threatened to change the longtime practice of making sure we have a merit-based civil service. At the very end of the last Trump administration, they proposed something called schedule F, which would allow them to convert merit- based positions into politically based positions--in other words, substituting political cronies for qualified merit-based Federal employees. That is a recipe for corruption. Our predecessors, a long time ago, recognized that. That is why, back in 1883, the Congress passed the Pendleton Act to create the merit- based civil service. Prior to that, we had a spoils system, where people who worked on campaigns thought that they could get any job they wanted, regardless of their qualifications, because of their political party label. In fact, the reason we ended up getting the Pendleton Act--one of them--was that, in 1881, one of those people, who had worked on a political campaign and thought they should have gotten a job and didn't, assassinated President Garfield. So at that time, the country was shaken, and they said: We have to get rid of the spoils system and replace it with a merit-based system. I want to just make two other points because the incoming administration, as I said, tried this schedule F idea at the end of the last administration. This time, they are talking about doing it near the beginning of this incoming administration, which is why we are here on the floor today trying to take this action to prevent that from happening. I want to point out that Presidents have about 4,000 political positions to fill. We are talking about the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State. Presidents have the discretion already--the power today--to nominate people for those 4,000 positions. So we are not talking about taking that away. We are saying: You can't convert thousands of other positions that today are based on merit into those political type of jobs. Finally, we have heard a lot about the need for more government efficiency, and count me in. Count all of our colleagues from Virginia and Maryland and I think probably both sides of the aisle in on the idea of trying to make sure that we achieve greater efficiencies in government. But I will not support and we will not support something that, under the cover of the claim of government efficiency, is simply a Trojan horse to undo our merit-based system and turn it into one based on political cronyism because that leads to corruption, which will erode the public's confidence and erode the quality of service that our Federal civil servants provide. So I want to again thank my colleague from Virginia Senator Kaine for all he has done. I want to thank my colleague from Maryland Senator Cardin, who has also been a great partner in this. I yield to the Senator from Virginia Senator Kaine.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise to honor a member of my staff Nan Sheridan-Mann on the occasion of her retirement. Nan is retiring after over 5 and a half years as my western Maryland regional director and will be sorely missed. Coming to my team from the Frederick County Chamber of Commerce, Nan has been instrumental in engaging with small businesses, nonprofit organizations, community leaders, and constituents alike throughout western Maryland. The daughter of a World War II veteran, she has been a champion for the veterans' community, serving as the cochair for Serving Together's Western Region Veteran Collaborative, an executive member of the Frederick County Community Veterans Engagement Board, and a member of the Veterans Advisory Council of Frederick County. Nan is tireless and always willing to lend a hand; Nan has not only been a community outreach resource but has worked to tackle individual cases for constituents across the State. Indeed, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, she helped to resolve over 1000 unemployment insurance cases and bring families security and peace of mind. A Midwesterner by birth, we are grateful to call Nan Sheridan-Mann a Marylander and emeritus member of Team Van Hollen. We have treasured her good humor, abundant generosity, authenticity, and buoyant spirit. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Nan for her outstanding service to Maryland and the U.S. Senate and wish her the best for a well-deserved and fulfilling retirement.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, it is with great pride that on behalf of the Maryland congressional delegation, I pay tribute to our incredible senior Senator and thank him for his service to our State and our country and, in fact, all he has done around the world. I want to recognize the fact that Steny Hoyer, Congressman Hoyer, is with us on the floor as well. Thank you, Mr. Leader, for being here. For those of you who don't know, when Ben Cardin was speaker of the Maryland House, Steny Hoyer was president of the Maryland Senate, so they have gone way back together. Thank you, Steny, for being here. Colleagues, I think all of us here know Ben Cardin for his many, many achievements and accomplishments and the fact that he is a wonderful colleague to work with. He has gone over some of those major highlights, so I am not going to repeat them all, but I do just want to flag a number of them, because the Magnitsky Act is the legislation that said the United States--it not only says we are going to stand up and protect fighters for human rights around the world, but we are going to create an enforcement mechanism to do exactly that. We had a hearing just the other day in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reviewing that legislation. That legislation would not exist but for the fact that Ben Cardin made it happen--first through the original Sergei Magnitsky Act and then the Global Magnitsky Act--as a champion of human rights. So this is why Senator Cardin is known not only for his accomplishments in Maryland and in the United States but indeed around the world, as is true with his service on the Helsinki Commission--his partner, of course, Senator Roger Wicker--which has been standing up for human rights, fighting against hate and anti-Semitism around the world, and doing more here at home. It is a fight against discrimination. I want to thank him for his global reach but also for all he has done here in the United States when it comes to healthcare. He recounted the story of a Marylander whose name was Deamonte Driver who died because he did not get the dental care he needed. Senator Cardin worked to make sure that never happens again. Whether it is housing or protecting the Chesapeake Bay or many other areas that are so important to our national life, Ben Cardin has been a leader. In Maryland, we are very proud of all of those achievements, but in Maryland, Senator Cardin is known as ``our friend Ben.'' If you look at his TV commercials when he runs for reelection, you can find everyday people, whether it is a waterman on the Chesapeake Bay, whether it is a construction worker near the Port of Baltimore and others, saying: Thank you to my friend Ben. And because of his great length and quality of service, many people around the State of Maryland have had a chance to meet their friend Ben. And he began to serve the State of Maryland when he was 22 years old. When he ran for the State delegate, he was still a law student at the University of Maryland Baltimore; and for 58 consecutive years, he has served the people of our State. And he didn't just dream of winning elections. That was not the goal; that was the means to achieve his efforts in public service. And that ethic, as he has said, began in the Cardin family long before he first ran for office. He is the son of Dora, a school teacher, and Meyer, a State legislator and judge. His wife Myrna and his late cousin Shoshana made their names as champions for Soviet Jewry. The Cardin family believes in America as a beacon of liberty and human rights, a beacon that first inspired Ben's grandparents to immigrate here from Russia at the turn of the last century. So I think it is fair to say that Ben Cardin did not fall far from the Cardin tree of public service, but he has taken that family's commitment to public service to new heights, becoming, at 35 years old, the youngest ever speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates. And I want to talk a little bit about his role here in the U.S. Senate on behalf of Team Maryland. Because he is a dear friend, there are many congressional delegations that don't have the spirit of unity that we have had in the State of Maryland, and that is a tribute to Ben Cardin's leadership. He has been the quarterback for Team Maryland, bringing us together to make sure that we work on behalf of the priorities of the people of our State--all parts of our State, from the Baltimore area to the Washington suburbs, Eastern Shore, and Western Maryland. I could not ask for a better partner and a better friend in the U.S. Senate, somebody who welcomed me here after I served in the House of Representatives. I do want to relay briefly to our colleagues in the Democratic caucus something that is not as well-known, but when Ben Cardin first arrived in the Senate from the House, having served previously as the speaker of the house of delegates in Maryland, he was interested in what the rules are of the Democratic caucus. It turns out, at the time, that the rules were not publicized among the Democratic Members of the caucus. Former Democratic leaders clearly viewed it as in their interest to keep them secret, to keep the Members of the caucus in the dark. And so when Ben Cardin asked for the rules, it took a little search to find them. But it is an indication, both of his attention to detail but also his understanding of his responsibility to his colleagues and in the body, that every Member, whether they are a long-serving Member or a new Member has a chance to participate in the process. And we have since used the good work of Senator Cardin as rules, as the chairman of the Senate Caucus Rules Committee to help expand democracy, little D, in the Democratic caucus. Finally, I just want to say that while much has changed over those 58 years that Senator Cardin has served our State, one thing has remained constant--bedrock--and that is the character of Ben Cardin. You will not find a person of greater decency, a person of greater integrity than Ben Cardin. And whether you agree or disagree with him on any particular issue, you always know that the position he has taken is one that is based in values and principles that he brings to the debate. And for that, we should all be eternally grateful. So I know that he will be leaving this body. I have said--as I have traveled around the State, I have just been marveling at the fact that while Senator Cardin announced that he wasn't running for reelection over a year ago, he is running so hard through the finish line. It is hard to keep up with him. In fact, he just mentioned that we were at one of the Baptist Churches in Baltimore the other day--we had been on the Eastern Shore, Western Maryland, all over the State. So I want to thank him for that deep commitment he has to our country and the State of Maryland. I want to thank his beloved partner and wife Myrna Cardin for giving him all that strength over many years. And while he will be leaving the Senate, both myself and our incoming Senator Angela Alsobrooks know he is only a phone call away. So don't turn off your phone too often, Ben Cardin. To my colleagues, thank you all for being here to celebrate an incredible U.S. Senator, someone we are so proud of in the State of Maryland, our friend, my friend Ben Cardin.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the remarkable life of the late Vincent ``Vince'' Leggett of Baltimore, MD. Mr. Leggett was born in East Baltimore in 1953 to Charlie and Willie Mae Leggett. After attending local schools, Mr. Leggett attended Morgan State University before continuing on to Central Michigan University, where he earned his master's in public administration in 1999. Mr. Leggett would often spend his summers as a child traveling south to North Carolina to tend to his family's farm. It was through this and his love for experiencing the outdoors with his family that inspired his career in conservation. In 1984, Mr. Leggett materialized his passion into the Blacks of the Chesapeake Project in which he worked tirelessly to not only preserve African-American maritime history in our region but also to advocate for environmental justice for African- Americans in the DMV area. His efforts led to the establishment of the Blacks of the Chesapeake Foundation that we know today. Under Mr. Leggett's direction, the Blacks of the Chesapeake Foundation cultivated a tremendous archive of Black maritime stories. In 2000, the foundation was designated as a Local Legacy Project by the Library of Congress and U.S. Congress. Because of his work, Mr. Leggett was also awarded the honor of Admiral of the Chesapeake, a lifetime achievement award given by the Governor to those committed to conserving the bay. Most recently, he was working with the Enoch Pratt Free Library and the Maryland State Archives to digitize the collection and make it more accessible to the community. I offer my heartfelt gratitude to Mr. Leggett's family for his service. In honoring those who came before him, Mr. Leggett also cemented his own legacy as a conservationist champion to all in our community. He will be sorely missed by all, but his impact will continue to carry on for years to come.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the terrible ongoing humanitarian situation in Sudan, and the atrocities that are being perpetrated against innocent civilians there every day and to discuss measures that the United States and the U.S. Senate can take to help end the suffering. Since that brutal conflict erupted in April 2023, a staggering 11.8 million people have been displaced within Sudan or fled to neighboring countries. More than half the population--over 25 million people--face acute food insecurity, including 13 million children. And 1.5 million of them are at risk of or facing famine. While the total casualty numbers have been difficult to determine, a new study from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine's Sudan Research Group estimates that more than 60,000 people died in the Khartoum region alone between April 2023 and June of 2024. That study found that 26,000 people have died as a result of violence. But it also highlighted another awful reality, that starvation and disease are increasingly becoming the leading causes of death reported across Sudan. In a hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in May of this year, U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan Tom Perriello suggested that the total death toll could be as high as 150,000 people. Given the scope and scale of this human suffering, the United States and the international community should be doing everything in our power to end the carnage and end the suffering in Sudan. Toward that end, I want to commend America's Special Envoy to Sudan Tom Perriello for his tireless shuttle diplomacy and his ongoing efforts to seek and negotiate an agreement to end the conflict that is fueling this crisis. But he can't do it alone. And his job is made much more difficult when other parts of the U.S. Government fail to effectively use our leverage to support his efforts. One thing we should not be doing is shipping advanced American weapons to any country that is fueling the misery and suffering and killing in Sudan, and yet that is what the Biden administration is proposing to do. They are proposing to send weapons to the United Arab Emirates at a time that the UAE is reportedly supplying weapons to a vile and murderous militia group in Sudan, a group called the Rapid Support Forces, or the RSF for short. So I am here on the floor today urging my colleagues to prevent the sale of American weapons to the UAE until and unless the Biden administration provides us--the Senate, the Congress--with credible assurances that the UAE will not, in turn, supply additional weapons to the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan. So let me step back for a moment to put all of this in context. About 3\1/2\ years ago in May of 2021, I traveled to Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, with my colleague Senator Coons. At the time, Sudan was experiencing a difficult transition to democracy after a popular revolution in 2019 succeeded in ousting the brutal regime of the dictator Omar Bashir. It wasn't easy, but there was hope for a brighter future. Then the Sudanese Armed Forces--or the SAF--and the Rapid Support Forces--the RSF--who had backed the popular protests in 2019 and who had helped oust the dictator Bashir usurped the newly formed civilian- led government in 2021 and then proceeded to violently suppress mass protests. Following pressure, both from the people of Sudan but also from the international community, to restore the civilian government and merge their forces, instead, a long-simmering rivalry between the SAF and the RSF erupted in April 2023, and Sudan descended into chaos and civil war. Now, there is plenty of blame to go around, but one of the many drivers of the collapse of the fragile democracy was the refusal of the Rapid Support Forces, that militia group, to come under the umbrella of the Sudanese Armed Forces. And the RSF has an especially sinister lineage. They have their roots in the Janjaweed militias that former dictator Bashir used to brutally crush rebellious tribes in the western Darfur region in the early 2000s. I think many who followed those terrible days remember that the United States determined that those mass killings constituted genocide. The current leader of the RSF goes by the name Hemedti. He is a former Janjaweed militia leader who was complicit in those atrocities in Darfur, and he hasn't changed. In the current conflict, the United States has charged the RSF with committing ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Reputable human rights organizations and news outlets have also reported widespread acts of sexual violence, including rape, by the RSF. As our Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield noted in March of this year: Children are starving . . . wasting, [and] dying. Far from their homes and their communities, millions of refugees are praying in over-crowded camps. People in Darfur . . . wake up not to the call of prayer, but to the sound of gunfire, of shelling, of cries for help. And the situation has not improved since then. Famine has taken hold in Darfur, and the RSF's siege of Al-Fashir city in Darfur has only exacerbated the already terrible humanitarian situation there. So it should be clear that providing weapons to the RSF is tantamount to aiding and abetting ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, and yet that is what the UAE is reportedly doing. Now, I should make it very clear that the UAE denies that it is arming the RSF. They say they are not doing it. Indeed, when I traveled to the UAE in July of this year, Emirati officials told me they were not sending weapons to the RSF. And yet numerous credible reports and sources indicate just the opposite. They reveal that the UAE is, in fact, supplying the murderous RSF militia with weapons that they use to commit atrocities. In January, a U.N. panel of experts documented what they described as ``credible'' allegations that the UAE was violating the Darfur arms embargo, which was the embargo put in place in 2005 to stop the genocide at that time. Their findings have been corroborated by credible human rights organizations and by an independent investigation by the New York Times, which found that the UAE smuggled weapons to the RSF under the guise of humanitarian aid. The front page story of the New York Times-- and I have it here, Mr. President--is entitled ``How a U.S. Ally Uses Aid as a Cover in War.'' And they go on to point out that the UAE is expanding a covert campaign to back a winner in Sudan's civil war, and they point out that the UAE was smuggling in weapons and deploying drones. Beyond the New York Times independent investigation, the Sudan Conflict Observatory group--which is a group funded by the State Department--also tracked 32 Emirati flights between June 2023 and May 2024 going into Sudan, and they concluded--again, this is a group funded by the U.S. Department of State. They concluded with ``near certainty'' that they constituted weapons transfers from the UAE to the RSF. Now, the Biden administration has also acknowledged that the UAE has been supporting the RSF, although you have to read carefully between the lines to determine that. Again, our Ambassador to the United Nations, Ambassador Thomas- Greenfield, said: We are aware that both sides are receiving weapons and other support to fuel their efforts to destroy Sudan, and yes, we have engaged with the parties on that, including with our colleagues from the UAE.'' So the question is this: If the Biden administration acknowledges that the UAE is arming the RSF against our demands and our interests and that they are lying about it, why are we, the United States, not doing more to stop it? I understand that we have a very important bilateral relationship with the UAE. They are an important security partner in the Middle East. Major American companies, like Microsoft, are talking about collaborating on building data centers for advanced AI in the UAE with companies like G42. They may also be cooperating with us on other important American priorities. But that is not a good reason to approve this sale of advanced weapons to the UAE at a time that the UAE is reportedly aiding and abetting ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity in Sudan. That is why I have filed what is known as a joint resolution of disapproval--known by its shorthand, JRD--on the Biden administration's request to sell offensive weapons, including weapons worth $1.2 billion to the United Arab Emirates. In the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Sara Jacobs has filed a similar resolution, and both of us have introduced additional legislation on this issue. And I would submit that, if any Senator is serious about ending the suffering in Sudan, we should not be sending weapons to any country--in this case, the UAE--that is arming those engaged in ethnic cleansing there. A lot of Senators have talked about the need to focus on ending the humanitarian disaster in Sudan, and they are absolutely right to do so. Many of us have been addressing this and talking about it for a very long time. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee had an important hearing on this matter in May of this year. But, colleagues, you don't end the horrific suffering in Sudan by sending weapons to a country that is fueling the conflict in Sudan. That is why I am asking the Biden administration to provide us--the Senate, the Congress--with assurances that they have received credible commitments that the UAE will not send weapons to the murderous RSF in Sudan. And I would submit that, given the fact that the UAE denies that they are engaged in such actions, they should be able to provide assurances that the Biden administration deems credible. And if President Biden believes that those assurances are credible, he should so inform the U.S. Senate as we consider their request for this arms sale. As Representative Jacobs and I indicated in our letter to President Biden that we sent a short time ago, if we receive those assurances, we will, of course, take them into account as to how we decide to proceed on the joint resolution of disapproval. I say that because our goal is not to prevent the sale of arms to the UAE. The objective is to ensure that the UAE is not fueling the very crisis and conflict in Sudan that we, the United States, are seeking to end. Indeed, in September of this year, President Biden said: The United States will not abandon our commitment to the people of Sudan, who deserve freedom, peace, and justice. We call on all parties to this conflict to end the violence and refrain from fueling it, for the future of Sudan and for all Sudanese people. I will say that again: and to all people who are fueling it. The Biden administration has rightly put pressure on the RSF by sanctioning several high-level commanders for their atrocities, but it has yet to use the full leverage at its disposal to hold their primary external backer, the UAE, accountable. Indeed, just days after the New York Times story about their independent investigation of UAE arms sales to Sudan broke, the President finalized a major defense partnership with the UAE. And now, as we see, the administration is pushing for a billion dollars-plus arms sale to the Emirati Government. The title of an op-ed in the Washington Post not that long ago put it bluntly, and I just quote the title of that editorial: ``Biden needs to pressure the UAE to help end Sudan's civil war.'' That is exactly right. And that is what we are calling on the Biden administration to do. I support a mutually beneficial bilateral relationship with the United Arab Emirates, and I am certainly not seeking to permanently end arms sales to that country. But a partnership with the United States needs to account for U.S. interests and values and priorities, and we need to make sure that foreign governments that benefit from a security relationship with the United States understand the importance that we hold on those important issues. The bottom line is that the United States should not be sending weapons to the UAE so long as it is aiding and abetting a group that is one of the primary drivers of the humanitarian disaster in Sudan, the RSF. And the RSF has committed atrocities and crimes. That is why the United States should pause offensive arms transfers to the UAE unless and until the Biden administration can provide the U.S. Congress with assurances that the UAE is not providing and will no longer provide materiel support that aids and abets the killing spree of the RSF. I hope that the Senate will come together on this important question, and I hope the President and the Biden administration will agree that securing those assurances from the UAE is essential to our goal of achieving peace and stability in Sudan, just as the President indicated we should be doing. I yield the floor.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 908.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I have five requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: committee on finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet in open executive session during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 5, 2024, at 10 a.m., to consider a nomination. committee on foreign relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 5, 2024, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on health, education, labor, and pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 5, 2024, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on homeland security and governmental affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 5, 2024, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. subcommittee on chemical safety, waste management, environmental justice, and regulatory oversight The Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management, Environmental Justice, and Regulatory Oversight of the Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 5, 2024, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 185, S. 1868.