Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Honorable Adrienne A. Jones, who concluded her historic tenure as speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates on December 4, 2025. A native of Baltimore County, Speaker Jones has dedicated her life to serving both the county and our entire State. Her passion for public service was evident early on. After graduating from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, she performed a variety of public roles and quickly became a well-known, dynamic advocate. Notably, she served as director of the Baltimore County Office of Minority Affairs, opened the Baltimore County Office of Fair Practices and Community Affairs as its inaugural executive director, and founded the Baltimore County African American Cultural Festival. In 1997, Speaker Jones was appointed to fill a vacancy in the House of Delegates, and she won election to her first full term the following year. She has served on numerous committees, including appropriations, rules, and executive nominations, spending affordability, and ways and means. Never one for ideological grandstanding, Speaker Jones maintained a rapt focus on the issues affecting the day-to-day lives of her constituents. She worked tirelessly to direct State dollars to county and community projects, including much-needed school modernizations. In 2003, after just 5 years as a delegate, Speaker Jones' colleagues recognized her integrity, leadership ability, and inexhaustible work ethic by electing her speaker pro tempore. She served faithfully in this role for 16 years before becoming acting speaker following the death of her predecessor. On May 1, 2019, after a brief and lively campaign, she shattered barriers and made history by being unanimously elected as the first woman and first African-American speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates. Speaker Jones' tenure was defined by her courage, vision, and steadfast commitment to those she was elected to serve. During the chaos of the COVID-19 pandemic early in her speakership, she met the moment and ensured Marylanders received the State support they needed to stay safe and informed. Speaker Jones presided over the passage of consequential legislation, including the Blueprint for Maryland's Future, the largest education investment in Maryland's history, steered resources to historically underfunded Black colleges and universities, staunchly pursued commonsense police and education reform, and spearheaded the successful campaign to enshrine a woman's right to choose in the Maryland Constitution. In recognition of her many achievements, Speaker Jones was named Outstanding Alumna of the Year by her alma mater in 2003, was given the Casper R. Taylor, Jr. Founder's Award--the highest honor the speaker may grant to a sitting member of the House of Delegates--by her predecessor in 2019, and was inducted into the Maryland Women's Hall of Fame in 2024. She has also received honorary doctoral degrees from Goucher College and Morgan State University. Throughout her time in public service, even in moments of intense personal tragedy, Speaker Jones has remained unshakably dedicated to improving the lives of all Marylanders. I am very glad that she will continue to serve as a delegate and that our State will retain the benefit of her great wisdom and experience. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Speaker Jones for her many years of transformative service to the State of Maryland, the impact of which will be felt for generations to come.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, today we consider the nomination of Mr. Jared Isaacman to serve as NASA Administrator, a critical position whose leadership will help determine the success of America's ambitious scientific and exploratory goals in space science. The next NASA Administrator will be tasked with leading the United States and all of humanity to places humans have never ventured, but they will face equally great challenges here on Earth, leading a workforce that has faced a year of upheaval and navigating an administration that has grounded progress rather than fostered it. Last Spring, President Trump requested a $6 billion cut to NASA, the largest cut in the Agency's history, with cancellation of more than 40 missions and cuts to others, including some already in the final pre- launch stages, such as the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope. Then, only a few months later, the administration worked to push out as many scientists and engineers as possible through their resignation program, resulting in thousands of experienced and dedicated workers leaving the government, often as a result of fear and uncertainty around the future of their jobs. Some of these top scientists were recruited to research labs and universities in other nations, further eroding America's competitive edge. Now, 11 months since the inauguration, the workers remaining at NASA are simply looking for the stability and opportunity to do their world-leading work. The next administrator must bring a greater respect for and commitment to the NASA workforce. In addition to their attacks on the workforce, vital earth science missions have faced cancellation because the Trump administration dislikes that they provide us with information about our changing climate. There has been bipartisan pushback to this direction for the Agency coupled with bipartisan support for providing NASA the resources they need to conduct their operations. Despite this resistance, the tension between the branches of government remains, and the next administrator will have a vital role to play in standing up for the Agency. Maryland is the cornerstone of innovation in space science, centered around the crown jewel of American space science, the Goddard Space Flight Center, the Space Science Telescope Institute, AURA, and the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, alongside contractors and small businesses who support their essential work. Wallops Space Flight Center is just over the border in Virgina, but many of its employees and contractors call Maryland home. Space research and technology are a critical and productive part of Maryland's economy, and in turn, these entities are critical to the United States' broader space goals. When President Trump attempted to cut NASA's fiscal year 2026 budget by an unprecedented amount, he did not target all parts of NASA equally. NASA Science was singled out for a 46-percent reduction in overall budget, which would disproportionately impact Goddard. The next Administrator will need to be ready to fight not just for individual parts of the Agency or flashy programs, but for the entire mission. If NASA seeks to take us back to the Moon and eventually to Mars, it will be cutting-edge science that takes us there and that path runs through Maryland. I have had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Isaacman twice and watch both of his confirmation hearings, and I appreciate his willingness to engage on Maryland and national priorities for NASA's mission. During both my meetings with Mr. Isaacman, he relayed his belief in the importance of the NASA Science mission and the work done at the Goddard Space Flight Center. At the same time, however, I was alarmed to read Mr. Isaacman's Project Athena, his proposed plan for the Agency that suggested that NASA science should be a service to the commercial industry, rather than continuing to serve the public. I was further discouraged by his proposed plan to move certain mission control operations away from Goddard and to mark other Goddard facilities for possible ``deletion.'' The next NASA Administrator will need to approach the highly technical work and the people who perform it with respect and understanding for how their contribution fits into our larger goals. I expect Mr. Isaacman's nomination to be confirmed, and it is my sincere hope that he means it when he says that he intends to prioritize and foster the cutting-edge research and science done by NASA, rather than cut it. I intend to work with him and the entire Agency through my role as Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce, Justice, Science--CJS--Appropriations Subcommittee to support and provide critical oversight over the important work of NASA in Maryland, across the country, and around the world. Mr. Isaacman's actions on the job, not his words during the confirmation process, will be the true test of his commitment to the workforce and the future of the Agency. I look forward to working with him to achieve those goals.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, every year, Congress considers the National Defense Authorization Act which has critical investments in our national defense, including in Maryland. In my State, tens of thousands of military personnel and civilians work at military installations and in the defense sector, driving innovation and research to advance our defense. The NDAA governs this work and provides essential support to our servicemembers and veterans. But at this moment, we are at an inflection point in the United States. We are witnessing increasingly authoritarian actions by President Trump and his administration. The President is using tools of government to pressure and silence dissenting voices, terrorize communities, lead our Nation into conflict without congressional authority, and undermine institutions critical to our democracy. As I noted during Senate consideration of the NDAA a few months ago, the President has played politics with our Nation's military and tried to use them to advance his authoritarian agenda, be it here at home or abroad. He has deployed the National Guard to the District of Columbia, Los Angeles, Memphis, and Chicago and has attempted to deploy the National Guard to Portland. These deployments are a flagrant violation of U.S. law, including the Posse Comitatus Act, as noted in recent court decisions. Not only have these deployments created chaos in American cities and communities, they have also pulled the military away from its mission and expended funds meant to defend our Nation. Senator Warren and I, along with several other colleagues, put out a report that outlines how the Pentagon has diverted at least $2 billion from its core missions to support the President's mass deportation agenda. The President's decision in DC and others cities to activate the National Guard without the recipient State Governor's or mayor's consent is why I offered an amendment to the Senate version of the NDAA to block the President from deploying the National Guard to a State, or the District of Columbia, if that State's Governor, or the DC Mayor, objects. Unfortunately, the effort failed, and this bill does not prevent the President's efforts to militarize American streets. And abroad, Trump has resurrected a policy of a bygone era: the Trump version of the Monroe Doctrine, carrying out an illegal airstrike campaign against boats in international waters, which have been flagrant violations of both U.S. and international law, and can only be seen as extrajudicial killings amounting to state-sanctioned murder. Trump has pursued these actions not to stop ``narco-terrorists,'' as the administration claims, but as a pretext to start a regime change war in Venezuela. There is simply no evidence that these vessels posed an imminent threat, nor is there an active armed conflict between the United States and Venezuela. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, making the President's acts flat out illegal. Trump's warmongering with Venezuela, including the recent declaration of a blockade on oil tankers from Venezuela is not about stopping drug traffickers. The real goal is regime change and to grab Venezuelan oil and gas reserves for the President's billionaire friends. These escalating abuses demonstrate an administration increasingly willing to sidestep the law using military force. They also underscore my broader concern about unchecked increases in defense spending, despite the Pentagon's repeated audit failures, including in November 2024. From FY 2021 to FY 2025, defense authorizations rose from $740 billion to $895 billion, a 21 percent increase, and this bill would raise that to $900.6 billion, approximately $8 billion more than the President's budget request. That excludes the July 2025 reconciliation bill, which added over $150 billion in mandatory spending. We need to more carefully examine how our defense spending increases year after year, seemingly without fail, and demand the same accountability from the Department of Defense as from every other Agency. In addition to these concerns, embedded within this legislation is a provision that walks back a key National Transportation Safety Board recommendation implemented in the wake of the deadly air collision between a commercial airplane and a U.S. Army helicopter near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, DCA, specifically that military aircraft in the area broadcast their location to other aircraft using the most effective collision avoidance technology available. It also allows the military to waive their own requirements for usage of any collision avoidance technology in the DCA area. The inclusion of these provisions is unconscionable when families are still grieving, and the airspace congestion has not improved. I also remain concerned by the Trump administration's actions to weaken the merit-based civil service across the Federal Government, including at the Department of Defense. One such action was a recently issued executive order that misuses national security exemptions, expanding them to cover two-thirds of the Federal workforce, including many civilian employees at DOD who have long been protected by collective bargaining. For decades, collective bargaining agreements at DOD have enhanced transparency and allowed employees to perform their work free from political interference. The Trump administration's move to limit these protections undermines employee trust and could harm the DOD's ability to maintain a skilled workforce. The bill before us strips out a House-passed bipartisan amendment to restore collective bargaining rights of DOD employees. I appreciate that the NDAA process each year gives us the opportunity to conduct oversight, update our defense policy, and assert congressional prerogatives. This bill does include important provisions, including an increase in pay for servicemembers, investments in research, and reauthorization of the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. It includes a provision I worked on to ensure continued public access to Greenbury Point near the Naval Academy and my efforts with Senator Kennedy to protect investors from foreign insider trading. And there are provisions that will assist in future oversight by requiring the Department of Defense to share more information with Congress. But these are not ordinary times. We must go farther to stand up to an administration that is currently diverting the military to conduct local law enforcement operations. That is conducting unlawful military operations in service of regime change and threatening further actions, including troops on the ground. Our military is meant to protect and defend our homeland and our citizens, not carry out actions against them. It must be governed by the rule of law, not undermine it. I am opposing the NDAA because we must do more to rein in these abuses.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking my colleague Senator Merkley for bringing this resolution before the Senate and Senator Kaine and colleagues for focusing on this question of war and peace. This is a very simple resolution. It says that no U.S. taxpayer dollars should be spent to go to war against Venezuela absent congressional authorization. I just heard the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee say to the Senate: If you are opposed to this, go to court. Last time I checked the Constitution of the United States, it gives Congress, this body, the power to decide questions of war or peace, which is exactly why this resolution is before us saying that we shall not spend taxpayer dollars going to war against Venezuela unless the Congress invokes that awesome power. Now, I know the President of the United States, when he was asked a couple months ago whether he had to comply with the Constitution, he said: ``I don't know.'' Well, I would hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle here in the U.S. Senate would recognize that the President has to comply with the Constitution, and we should fulfill our constitutional responsibilities as well and not run away from them. President Trump is bringing us to the brink of war, a regime change war in our hemisphere, and we are running out of time to stop it. We know the President has already authorized the CIA to conduct operations in Venezuela. We know that we are witnessing the largest naval buildup in the Caribbean in decades. We know, as Senator Kaine just mentioned, that today the United States intercepted a Venezuelan oil tanker bound for Cuba, and we know that for weeks and weeks now the Trump administration has been striking boats in international waters, killing more than 80 people. Now, the President claims to be going after so-called narcoterrorists, but this operation they are conducting is not about drugs. All of us in the Senate want to make sure we address the scourge of drugs in the United States of America, but that is just a cover story presented by the President of the United States because if the President really cared about addressing illegal drugs, he wouldn't have proposed deep cuts to the DEA, the Drug Enforcement Agency, nor would he have proposed to shutter entirely the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. I serve on the Appropriations Committee. I am the ranking Member of the subcommittee that oversees the Justice Department and some of these operations. The President's budget cuts our investment in those antidrug operations. If they cared about actually reducing the flow of drugs to the United States, the President would not have just pardoned the former Honduran President, who was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 45 years in Federal prison. If you want to send a message that we don't want illegal drugs coming into the country, why would you pardon the person who was convicted of doing exactly that? That simply sends a green light to others to go ahead. And, in fact, just this week we learned that President Trump had pardoned a Baltimore drug kingpin. This is somebody whom the DEA called ``one of the largest cocaine and heroin dealers to be arrested by the DEA in recent history.'' President Trump just pardoned him. So don't tell me, President Trump, that this is about drugs. In fact, we also know that fentanyl, which is primarily fueling the drug overdose deaths in America, is not originating or transiting through Venezuela, that fentanyl is typically manufactured in Mexico, with precursors from China. It is true that Venezuela has become a source of cocaine, but even that is mainly bound for destinations in Europe and West Africa. So that is not what this is about. This is about their efforts to engage in regime change. Look, the Trump administration has concocted this fanciful legal theory that it is engaged in an armed military conflict with these drug boats and drug runners. In fact, we have seen, as my colleagues say, the President of the United States releasing these videos where they are blowing up these drug boats and killing people as if they are engaged in a military conflict with the U.S. Navy. That simply is not true. They are engaged in criminal activity, but their purpose is not to engage the United States militarily--far from it. I would just ask my colleagues how we would react if another country began bombing boats with U.S. citizens on them and then claiming that those boats were being used by U.S. citizens to transport drugs. Even if that were the truth, what would we say if the other country claimed that they would be at war with those American citizens? I think we would see it as a hostile act. I know that we would. Now, even if you take the Trump administration's framing here--which is that we are engaged in a military conflict--then it is a fact that the video, which has been well reported, indicates that some of the survivors of the first attack on September 2 were seeking help. Here is what Congressman Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, had to say about those survivors: that they were ``basically two shirtless people clinging to the bow of a capsized and inoperable boat drifting in the water until the missiles come and kill them.'' So, as my colleague said, if Donald Trump has nothing to hide here, he should provide the full videos to the Congress and to the American people. That would be a war crime only if you take the framework presented by the Trump administration, which is that we are at war with these boats. But we are not. And what that means is that these are simply extrajudicial killings, just killing people on the high seas. What that means is that this is simply state-sanctioned murder of these individuals. And that is why it is very important for the Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities. But I want to close by making a more simple point about the resolution that Senator Merkley has introduced here. Even if you for some reason agree with President Trump with respect to the drug boats despite their fanciful legal theories, what this resolution says is: Don't spend taxpayer dollars to take military action against Venezuela. There is no argument that a U.S. attack on Venezuela doesn't constitute an act of war--an act of war that does come under the jurisdiction of this Senate under the Constitution of the United States. Now, all of us would like to see a different leader in Venezuela. Maduro is an authoritarian. He is a dictator. He is not a legitimate President. But that doesn't mean that we go after every leader who is not legitimately elected by the people of their country. In fact, this President is cozying up to dictators and authoritarians all over the world. In fact, if you just read their National security strategy that came out last Friday, you will see it completely abandons the idea that the United States will stand up to dictators and authoritarians, abandons the idea that we stand up for democracy and freedom and human rights and the rule of law. It is a document that actually green lights cozying up to people like Maduro. So what they are doing is using the American military in an attempt of outright regime change. And I just read the words of James Madison, who really put it best back in 1793 when he wrote: In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive. . . . The trust and . . . temptation would be too great for any one man. As I said earlier, Donald Trump has been asked directly whether he has to comply with the Constitution of the United States, and he said he doesn't know. It is our obligation to uphold our duties under the Constitution of the United States. That is what Senator Merkley's resolution does. It says we shouldn't be spending any of our country's precious resources on going to war against Venezuela unless this Congress undertakes its responsibility and were to decide to declare war. In my view, going to war against Venezuela is a very bad idea. Let us not simply slide into it through negligence. That is what we are trying to avoid through this resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of former Howard County Executive Edward Leo Cochran, Jr., a distinguished public servant and scientific researcher, who passed away earlier this month at the age of 96. Born in Maryland on March 18, 1929, Dr. Cochran was committed to public service, education, science, and family. Dr. Cochran attended what was then Loyola College before pursuing a master's degree in chemistry at Duquesne University and a Ph.D. at the University of Notre Dame. It was during his time at the University of Notre Dame that he met his wife Catherine Joan Flanagan. The couple were married for 62 wonderful years and had six children. Dr. Cochran was a tremendous Marylander, making a positive impact and leaving a lasting legacy in our State and for the good of our entire country. As a scientist, Dr. Cochran made significant contributions to the understanding of free-radical chemistry, which he worked on at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Beyond scientific discovery, Dr. Cochran's impact was felt through his dedication to public service. He served on the Howard County Board of Education and the Howard County Council prior to being elected as county executive in 1974. In each of these elected offices, he served his constituents with distinction and fulfilled his commitment to creating a more just community shaped by equal rights for all. During his service, he helped move that goal forward by working to end segregation in county schools. He also formed many government agencies, including the Citizens Services Department, the Office of Human Rights, the Office of Aging, the Office of Law, and the Office of Consumer Affairs, with a focus on bettering the community he served and the lives of Howard County residents. He made more affordable housing options available to local seniors and enhanced consumer protections. A true believer in the value of education, Dr. Cochran was critical to the founding of Howard Community College and served as the first chair of its board of trustees. There is no doubt that Dr. Cochran's legacy lives on in Maryland and especially in Howard County. Just as enduring is the example he set at home, where he was an engaged and loving father who modeled for his children responsibility for the environment in a hands-on way while working on the family farm. Dr. Cochran is survived by his brother Donald; six children; Maryland Delegate Courtney Watson, Ted Cochran, William Cochran, Mark Cochran, Mary Catherine Cochran, and Christopher Cochran; 23 grandchildren; and 13 great-grandchildren. The people of Maryland have lost an incomparable leader, but Dr. Cochran's many legacies will continue to shape the future of Howard County and beyond. I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our condolences to his family.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I was listening carefully to my colleague and, of course, she raises the question: If the UAE is telling us the truth when they say that they are not sending any of their weapons to the RSF to help fuel the genocide in Sudan, why do my colleagues protest so loudly against this measure? It must mean that they don't believe the UAE when it is doing it because the pausing in the transfer and sale of U.S. weapons to the UAE in this legislation is predicated on a finding from the President that the UAE is, in fact, arming the RSF. So if their denials are true, then my colleagues should have nothing to worry about in terms of the impact of this legislation. And, in fact, if they are lying to the United States, that should cause concern. Now, I agree that the UAE is an important partner, and they have been an important partner in a variety of interests in the Middle East region, including countering Iran's malign influence there. But, colleagues, does that really mean that we should look the other way while they are supplying an entity that our own government has concluded is committing a genocide in Darfur? Surely, the UAE needs the United States for all sorts of things. They clearly want our AI technology, our semiconductor technology. In fact, as I described, they went to great lengths to essentially provide $2 billion for the President's family crypto schemes in order to get that American technology. So this is not a situation where its either-or. We can continue a partnership with the UAE, which, again, says that they are not supplying the murderous RSF with weapons or we can choose just to look the other way. And I will just close again with this. I remember Secretary Rubio-- and I hear so many of my colleagues take to the Senate floor--calling out human right abuses around the world. It is always convenient to call out human rights abuses by our adversaries. We all talk about the awful things China does when it comes to the Uighurs. We talk about what Russia is doing in Ukraine and other places. But for some reason, we cannot find it in ourselves to say to a partner that we value our relationship with the UAE, but we are not going to stand by and supply you with weapons while you continue to provide weapons that are fueling a genocide in Darfur. What happened to any semblance of a values-based American foreign policy? We can pursue our interests, and we can pursue our values. We don't always do it perfectly. But for goodness' sake, Senator Rubio talked about the importance of human rights; Secretary Rubio, apparently, has thrown that out the window along with the President of the United States. I am very disappointed that our colleagues cannot join together in a bipartisan manner to just use a little American influence to try to stop a genocide in Darfur. I yield the floor. Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, on October 23, a genocidal militia called the Rapid Support Forces, also known as the RSF, entered the city of El Fasher in the Darfur region of Sudan. Countless reports describe how they murdered men and boys and raped women and girls. Credible reports indicated that RSF fighters entered a maternity hospital and slaughtered 460 people--doctors, nurses, patients, and their loved ones. They turned the city into a killing field, going house to house, rounding up people to torture and murder because of their ethnicity. RSF forces entered a shelter for displaced people near El Fasher University and raped at least 25 women at gunpoint. Over 100,000 survivors have fled the city, making it out, trying to take the roads. But the RSF has targeted those who try to escape. The massacre has been so brutal and so bloody we can see it from space. The Yale Humanitarian Research Lab has flagged satellite photos that appear to show incidents of mass killings, with dozens of unarmed people lying dead and sand stained with blood. In late October, the same Yale lab was told that more than 10,000 people were killed in 3 days. Human rights groups also report that hundreds of unaccompanied children, some carrying babies, have fled El Fasher to other Sudanese towns, seeking to escape the violence. Sadly, we have seen this story before because the RSF have a horrible history and lineage. They are part of what is known as the Janjaweed militias, who committed genocide in Darfur 20 years ago, and they want to continue the Janjaweed's genocidal mission of eliminating other ethnic groups. I do want to salute the journalists and human rights analysts who are working to expose these terrible truths, but it is up to us as to what we do with that truth. And the truth is this could have been prevented. We had warning, and we could have done more to stop it. And we can still do more now to stop the ongoing genocide. El Fasher was under siege for 18 months. The civil war in Sudan has been raging for more than 2\1/2\ years. More than 150,000 people have died, and approximately 14 million have been displaced in Sudan, marking the largest and fastest displacement crisis in the world. Earlier this year, at the beginning of his administration, Donald Trump gutted USAID and suddenly cut off our humanitarian aid to Sudan. More than a thousand soup kitchens closed overnight. While others have stepped up, the vacuum left by AID's departure means that even more innocent people are dying. And even as we cut humanitarian aid for the victims of genocide, we have not effectively used our leverage and influence to end the war, because throughout this conflict, we, the United States, have continued to send weapons to the United Arab Emirates, the UAE, whom we know are arming the murderous RSF. Report after report from the United Nations, human rights organizations, and journalists have provided evidence that the UAE is doing this. In fact, in January of this year, the Biden administration confirmed to me directly that the UAE was providing material support to the RSF, even though the UAE had assured the United States that it wasn't and that it wouldn't. So this is not a question for debate, and, in fact, if the UAE is not supplying the RSF with weapons, then they should have no concerns about this legislation. And around the same time that I heard from the Biden administration about the UAE supplying the RSF, the U.S. Government concluded what is clear from plain sight, that the RSF and their allied militias are committing genocide in Darfur. According to the State Department's assessment, ``the RSF and allied militias have systematically murdered men and boys--even infants--on an ethnic basis, and deliberately targeted women and girls from certain ethnic groups for rape and other forms of brutal sexual violence. Those same militias have targeted fleeing civilians, murdering innocent people escaping conflict, and prevented remaining civilians from accessing lifesaving supplies.'' End of quote from the State Department of the United States. So we know this has been going on. We have known it for years. And the Trump administration has reiterated the finding by the Biden administration State Department that the RSF is engaged in genocide in Darfur. We are not helpless. We are not innocent bystanders in the face of these unspeakable crimes. We have leverage. We just need the political will to use it. And I should say, I recognize--we recognize--that the RSF is not the only party to this conflict in Sudan. The State Department has determined that the Sudanese Armed Forces, known as the SAF, have also committed atrocities throughout this war. And there are also other external actors fueling the war in Sudan, including countries like Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Russia, and others. I commend the U.S. mediators who have been trying to bring peace to the region, both in the previous administration and now. But at the same time, we have got to recognize, after 2\1/2\ years and after all the bloodshed and the ongoing genocide, that talk is not enough; that we have to use at least the leverage we have and use our influence more effectively when it comes to the UAE and its army of the RSF. I would gladly work with my colleagues across the aisle to say that the United States should not be supplying U.S. military assistance to any country that is fueling the ongoing war and genocide, but surely-- surely--we can agree that we should begin by not providing weapons to a country that is, in turn, fueling a genocide--what we have determined is a genocide in Darfur. And I should say that Secretary Rubio, during his confirmation hearing for Secretary of State, was asked about this very issue, and here is what he said: We need to ``raise the fact that they''-- referring to the UAE--``are openly supporting an entity that is carrying out a genocide.'' That was Secretary Rubio, nominee. But I asked the Secretary and I asked the President and I asked my colleagues: If we agree that there is a genocide going on and we agree that it is being committed by the RSF, shouldn't we agree that we should at least pause the transfer of weapons to the UAE, which is fueling the genocide in Darfur? And why haven't we done that? Well, Donald Trump visited the UAE over the summer. Instead of demanding accountability for their role in the genocide in Darfur, he gave away the crown jewels of American AI, and many of our most sophisticated chips were promised to the UAE. In return, a UAE-backed firm gave the Trump family's newly launched stablecoin business a $2 billion boost. And it was just days before President Trump visited the UAE that the administration green-lit the sale of $1.4 billion of arms to the UAE. What about the genocide they were fueling in Darfur? Did he say anything about that? It doesn't seem that he raised those issues during his visit to the UAE. In fact, President Trump said just yesterday in a speech that Sudan was ``not on my charts'' until the Saudi Crown Prince brought it to his attention. Really? Really, President Trump? This has been going on for 2\1/2\ years. You have been sending military assistance to the UAE that, in turn, is fueling the RSF's murderous rage in Darfur, and it just wasn't on the President's charts until yesterday. What was on his charts was all the corrupt deals that were going down in the UAE. So here are the facts. The UAE is aiding and abetting a genocide in Darfur. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has been providing highly sophisticated U.S. technology to the UAE, removed many of the safeguards that have been in place to prevent that technology from falling into China's hands, and shipping them advanced technology and deadly weapons, while a UAE state-owned company invested $2 billion in the Trump family's crypto scheme. Now, earlier this year, in the summer, Senator Murphy and I, along with colleagues, filed a joint resolution of disapproval to try to stop those weapon sales to the UAE, sending a message--or trying to send a message--that the U.S. foreign policy could not be manipulated by corrupt bargains. Unfortunately, that effort failed. If we want to stop the ongoing horrors in Sudan, we need to begin by applying our leverage and stop the UAE from funneling weapons to the RSF. That is why I have been working for years during this conflict with Congresswoman Sara Jacobs. We introduced the bill. It is called the Stand Up for Sudan Act. It would prohibit the United States from selling weapons to the UAE until the President certifies that the UAE is not arming the RSF. So if the UAE is really not doing this, they shouldn't have to worry about it because President Trump won't make that certification. And I acknowledge that the UAE is an important partner to the United States. But that doesn't mean that even with partners, we shouldn't use our leverage to stop them from fueling a genocide. I remember many days when Senator Rubio took to the floor of this Senate, and he talked about having an American foreign policy based on values and principles, on human rights, on self-determination. That has all gone out the window in this administration. It seems like a quaint thing, but it doesn't have to be a quaint thing in this body, in this Senate, where Senators can stand up for our values and can make sure we exercise our leverage to prevent the ongoing genocide in Darfur. I am going to close with a story about an orphan boy in Sudan. He told the Norwegian Refugee Council and the New York Times that ``his parents and siblings were killed . . . in a strike as they tried to flee El Fasher: On a broken foot, he wandered alone to the northern gates of the city until others who were fleeing put him on a truck''--a truck to another city. Then he told reporters: Now I'm here alone. At night I find places where people gather and sleep on the ground near them. I hope someone helps me. That boy needs our help. Thousands of innocent people need our help, and for goodness' sake, we could take one small step to exercise just some of our influence to end the ongoing genocide in Darfur, and that is by adopting a resolution that Congresswoman Jacobs and I have put forward. So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of S. 935 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I think what Senator Murphy was objecting to was calling Donald Trump the most pro-law enforcement President in American history, and I think he laid out all the reasons why that simply isn't true. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1975 Mr. President, I am here because today marks the 50th anniversary of the Senate's passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, known as IDEA. It was just a few weeks after the Senate passed that bill that it was signed into law on November 29, 1975, by President Ford--a bipartisan achievement and a landmark achievement for the United States of America. I am grateful that my colleagues Senator Kaine and Senator Hirono are also on the floor with me today to discuss this important achievement 50 years later. When that passed the Senate and, of course, when it was signed into law, it guaranteed the right to a free, appropriate public education for children with disabilities. For the first time in America, the law required that schools meet that commitment to all our kids, including kids with disabilities. That is why schools have now developed individualized education programs for students who need them, to meet that requirement. Now children with disabilities share classrooms with kids without disabilities. And it created a process for families to challenge schools that don't uphold their child's right to a good education. This was a watershed moment in our history and the history of education. IDEA helped end a very dark chapter in our not too distant past when our public schools excluded 80 percent of children with disabilities, and many States forced disabled people to live out their entire lives hidden away in institutions. For decades, the Federal Government wrote off people with disabilities as ``uneducable,'' and they claimed they could not learn in schools, and they claimed that they could not fit into our society. The government was wrong. It was dead wrong. It was wrong on the facts because people with disabilities can succeed in school and in the workforce with the right accommodations, and it was wrong morally because that discrimination violated one of the most fundamental American values--that all people are created equal, and all deserve equal dignity and opportunity. It was IDEA that helped right that wrong. I would be remiss if I did not take the occasion of this anniversary to acknowledge all the people who make special education work every day in America. They are the students with disabilities and their families and their caregivers. They are the teachers, the special education teachers, the paraprofessionals, and the teachers' aides. Then there are the researchers, the advocates, and so many more--the people who created IDEA and the people who keep it alive today. I commend and salute all of them on this important anniversary. But I can't say the same about this Congress or, in fact, any of the Congresses that convened between that passage 50 years ago and today because while today marks the 50th anniversary of the Senate's passage of IDEA, it is also true that today, 50 years later, we are seeing the continuation of Congress's failure to actually fund the IDEA at the level we promised, at the level the Federal Government committed to. You see, when Congress established IDEA, when they passed it into law and gave schools new responsibilities to uphold the rights of students with disabilities, Congress also pledged to cover 40 percent of the cost per pupil so that schools had the resources needed to meet these new responsibilities. In other words, we established a Federal mandate for a very good purpose, but then we failed to fund that mandate at the level we promised. As a result, every year since it was first passed into law 50 years ago, Congress has failed to provide the promised funds for IDEA. In fact, today, we find that IDEA is funded at 12 percent--a little under 12 percent, in fact--of the cost per pupil instead of the 40 percent, leaving schools and students short a whopping $38 billion every year. In my State of Maryland alone, we are getting $670 million less per year than was promised. All across the country, States--Virginia, Hawaii, other States--struggle to make up that gap for themselves. When we don't live up to our obligations at the Federal level, it strains the entire education budgets at the State and local level, hurting disabled students and also all other students. Now, 20 years ago, when I was in the House of Representatives, I had the privilege of passing a number of bills related to helping people with disabilities. That included the ABLE Act, which was a bipartisan piece of legislation to help provide families with kids with disabilities with access to tax-advantaged accounts so that they can help those kids and better prepare for their futures. I have had the great opportunity both in the House and the Senate to pass many other pieces of important legislation, but one of my greatest disappointments has been the fact that the Congress has never fully funded IDEA, never did what we promised we would do. Way back in 2003, I introduced a bill to end the funding gap, to fully fund IDEA, to require that the funding be phased in over a period of time until the Federal Government met its responsibilities. I have introduced that legislation every Congress for the last 22 years. I have watched as Democrats and Republicans from the Senate and the House go back to their States and to their districts and tell people that they really support IDEA and that they really want to make sure kids with disabilities have that education, that quality education. They say to families that we are all in to support IDEA. But too many, when they come back here to Washington, DC, and have to make real decisions as to where funds are allocated in the Federal budget, when they have to choose between kids with disabilities and another tax break for the ultrawealthy, somehow many have a way of forgetting what they told folks back at home. You know, I introduced this bill again this Congress, and I am glad we have 39 Democratic Senators as cosponsors, and we may get more. We have zero--no Republican Senators as cosponsors. I hope that will change. I really hope it will change. As I said at the outset, it was President Ford, a Republican President, who signed into law the IDEA 50 years ago this year. He signed that law. That law requires that the Federal Government provide that 40 percent, and we are at 12 percent today. So I hope, on this 50th anniversary of the time the Senate passed it, our Republican colleagues will join us on this legislation because the consequences of failing to fund IDEA are visible all over the country. Expenses are only rising as more students struggle with disabilities. The good news is that we are developing new techniques for screening our children and helping them succeed in school. Some of those techniques require more resources, not less. Yet we are continuing to fail to meet our responsibilities. Today, because we don't fully fund the IDEA here at the Federal level, schools make IEPs for their students, but many cannot follow through on their own plans, those individual education plans. Deaf students are going to class without sign language interpreters. Students with intellectual and developmental disabilities are going without the one-on-one aides--the aides who help them learn and make sure they don't get physically hurt. Underresourced special education staff burn out huge numbers, leaving tens of thousands of vacant positions. In classrooms all over America-- in each of our States--there is a child who is sitting at the back of the room, struggling to follow a lesson, falling further and further behind. While that child is trying, the Congress is not doing its job. It would cost $38 billion for Congress to keep its promises to fund special education this year--$38 billion. That could be made up by the entire funding gap, three times over, that was included in the so- called Big Beautiful Bill--more tax cuts for very wealthy people. If you were to add up all of those tax cuts, it would be $132 billion only for the part of the population that was in the top 1 percent. So folks in the top 1 percent income category got $132 billion in tax cuts. That is three times what would be needed to simply fulfill our obligations under the IDEA this year. The Trump administration chose tax cuts for the top 1 percent over the IDEA just like it chose to give away trillions of dollars to the very wealthy and pay for it, in part, by defunding programs that working families depend on, including healthcare, Medicaid, SNAP, and public education funding, while failing to fully fund the IDEA. It actually gets worse because, since March, the Trump administration has fired half of the people at the Department of Education. Then, during the recent shutdown, the Trump administration attempted to fire the remaining staff--all of the remaining staff--at the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. Those are the people who implement the parts of the IDEA that we do fund. These are great American patriots, these Federal employees. Some of them are Marylanders, some of them are from Virginia, and some of them are from other parts of the country. They have experience in helping these kids, and they have knowledge that is very difficult to replace. Fortunately, a Federal judge paused the firings of these individuals during the shutdown. The judge wrote that those attempted firings were nothing more than ``political retribution,'' and that judgment was reflected in the recent continuing resolution, at least through the end of January. Nevertheless, the Trump administration keeps looking for new ways to take resources away from our schools. In fact, just yesterday--just yesterday--it announced the near total dismantling of what is left of the Education Department's advancing education programs. Secretary McMahon has said that her mission at the Department of Education is to shut down the Department of Education, to put out of business the Federal Department of Education. She claims that her objective is efficiency. She claims that kids won't be hurt. She, obviously, hasn't talked to the parents of kids all over the country, including the parents of kids with disabilities. You know, she specifically said at a Senate Appropriations Committee, on June 3, that ``we are not cutting any of the IDEA funding.'' That claim covers up what is really happening here because, in September, the Department of Education and the administration cut 34 grants for special education, saying that they conflicted with the Trump administration's priorities. Their targets included teacher training, parent resource centers, and assistive technology for children with both hearing and vision loss. Somehow, helping those kids did not meet with the Trump administration's priorities. Let me just say that what we are witnessing in realtime is an effort to gut the special education programs that exist today at the Department of Education. At the same time, we see a refusal to fully fund the IDEA program at levels promised by the Federal Government when it was first launched 50 years ago. You know, there has always been a credibility gap since that first commitment was made 50 years ago. I have been standing on the floor-- first in the House and now in the Senate--and making remarks about the IDEA and the importance of closing this funding and credibility gap for over 20 years. We still haven't moved ahead. Again, as I said, every Member of Congress, when they go back home from here, says they really want to support the IDEA. Now, it is time that people actually mean what they say and follow through because we are now at the 50th anniversary of the IDEA. Some of the children I was hoping to help back in 2003, when I first introduced the full funding legislation, now have children of their own. Some of the children we promised to help in 1975--``we'' being the Congress back then--are now grandparents. We should not allow another generation to grow up under the shadow of our broken promises. We passed the IDEA 50 years ago in the same spirit in which we signed the Declaration of Independence almost 250 years ago. In both cases, we made great and noble promises. We promised that all men and women were created equal and that the government would uphold that equality. But when it comes to funding education for kids with disabilities, that promise remains broken. Judy Heumann, who is the mother of the disability rights movement, once wrote: Change never happens at the pace we think it should [happen]. It happens over years of people joining together, strategizing, sharing, and pulling all the levers they possibly can. Gradually, excruciatingly slowly, things start to happen, and then, suddenly, seemingly out of the blue, something will tip. Something tipped 50 years ago, when the Senate, on this day, passed the IDEA bill. It has been a long, excruciating length of time since then. I hope that now, 50 years later, we will see another tipping point wherein Members of the House and Senate finally live up to the obligations that were made 50 years ago to really fully fund special education at the levels which we promised. We celebrated the passage of the IDEA 50 years ago. Let us commit ourselves to finally fulfilling that promise now. With that, I am happy to yield the floor to the great Senator from Hawaii, who has been so focused on education generally and special education in particular, Senator Hirono.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, today I voted yes on the motion to table Senator Paul's amendment No. 3941 to strike a provision modifying the definition of hemp from the Agriculture Appropriations Act because I am concerned that existing Federal law creates the opportunity for unregulated and intoxicating synthetic hemp products to be marketed and sold to children. Current Maryland law bans these products, but without Federal action, they can still be distributed in our State. The language in the underlying bill would close that loophole while the Paul amendment would leave the loophole in place. While I support closing the loophole that allows these intoxicating products to be marketed and sold to children, we should use the implementation period in the bill to ensure a sustainable pathway forward for safe hemp products like CBD, which many people depend on to safely manage pain and other health conditions. We ultimately need balanced, science-based regulation that preserves access to safe products while protecting public health.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I want to start where Senator Reed, the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee left off, and that is with the U.S. Constitution, which should be the North Star for every Senator in this body, regardless of party, and that is why I rise in support of this bipartisan resolution, barring U.S. military action within or against Venezuela without congressional authorization. I think it is always helpful just to read the words of some of these resolutions, and the one we are debating right now is S.J. Res. 90, a joint resolution to direct the removal of U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress. Pretty straightforward statement of what the Constitution requires because article I of the Constitution vests the responsibility to go to war explicitly and exclusively in Congress, not in one person in the Oval Office. James Madison put it best in 1793 when he wrote: In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive. . . . The trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man. We are seeing Donald Trump succumb to the temptation in real time as he wantonly strikes boats in the Caribbean and Pacific: 16 strikes to date, 67 people killed, extrajudicial killings, no evidence to support their claims, and even if they were to provide evidence, still not a justification to engage the Armed Forces of the United States. And now--and now--the Trump administration is threatening lethal operations against Maduro and the Maduro regime in Venezuela itself. We all understand that the President has the authority to defend the United States from imminent attacks. That is an authority that this resolution clearly recognizes. But it is also crystal clear that there is no imminent attack or danger from Venezuela--zero. Now, after illegally striking boats and killing people in international waters, President Trump is now threatening to start a war against a sovereign nation in our own hemisphere. As my colleague and friend Senator Kaine pointed out earlier, the President has been taking this series of actions that are displayed on this chart. On October 15, Trump confirmed that he authorized the CIA to conduct covert action in Venezuela. October 16, Trump says: We are certainly looking at land now. Meaning not only using the Armed Forces of the United States to strike in the waters but on land in Venezuela. October 24, Pentagon announces that the Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group has been directed to U.S. SOUTHCOM. October 31, several Trump administration officials tell the press that a secret list of targets in Venezuela has been drawn up. Headline in the New York Times: ``Trump Weighs Options, and Risks, for Attacks on Venezuela.'' Washington Post: ``Trump beats the drums of war for direct action in Venezuela.'' That is what people are discussing and contemplating, as we speak, within this administration, and it is not just this series of actions and comments that have surfaced, but the President of the United States has deployed lots of U.S. military assets to the region. I am not going to go through all of these, but this is a massive deployment of U.S. naval power off the coast of Venezuela. In other words, President Trump is openly threatening a regime change war that could cost American and Venezuelan lives. You know, I think we all agree. I think we all agree in this body that Maduro is a terrible dictator. He is a plague on his own people. But we have learned from history that bombs don't turn dictatorships into democracies. The American people, particularly our veterans who sacrificed so much in Afghanistan and Iraq, understand that lesson very clearly, as do the American people, because recent polling found that a majority of Americans would oppose a U.S. military invasion of Venezuela. And the U.S. Navy deployment near Venezuela has become even less popular over the last month as the Trump administration's boat strikes and saber-rattling against Venezuela has intensified. I want to take a moment to contrast this resolution regarding Venezuela with the one we considered recently in the Senate regarding applying the War Powers Resolution to the President's action, blowing up boats and people in international waters. And I see my colleague Senator Kaine on the floor, and I want to thank him for bringing both these resolutions before the body. But I wanted to mention the earlier resolution because, just earlier today, I read the Trump administration's so-called justification for the actions that they are taking in international waters to strike these boats that have killed 67 people. I have followed the War Powers debate for a very long time, as have many of my colleagues. What I read was 35 pages of pure gobbledygook, pure mumbo jumbo. Clearly, a lawyer had to work really hard to justify a decision that had already been made. That is what that 35-plus-whatever-page report was, as my colleague Senator Reed talked about, to justify the actions that the President has been taking about going after boats in international waters. It requires such a strained reading of the war powers set out in the Constitution, and subsequently, that it would blow up a hole so big that it would essentially absorb the article I requirement that Congress be the one that declares war. Based on my reading of that statement, there is zero justification for what the President is doing with respect to strikes in the Caribbean. I do want to point out, as have my colleagues, if you are actually serious about preventing drugs from coming to the United States, as we all should be, the way you do it is you interdict those boats. You go up the chain to find the kingpins, and you go after them. I will tell you what you don't do. You don't submit a budget to the U.S. Congress that cuts the funding for the Drug Enforcement Agency and cuts funding for the task forces we developed to go after major organized crime syndicates involved in the drug business. I happen to be the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee that oversees the Justice Department. And all my colleagues have to do is take a look at the request from the President of the United States when it comes to resources for fighting drugs coming to the United States. They cut them. They cut those resources. So that is not what this is about. What this is about is a violation of the Constitution. It was just a few months ago that President Trump was asked whether he needs to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I don't know if my colleagues remember what his answer was, but it is right there on the record for all of you to read it. The President said: ``I don't know''--``I don't know.'' Our job here is to make it clear to the President and to everybody else that all of us have to adhere to the Constitution of the United States, and that is what this War Powers Resolution does. We don't want to surrender those constitutional responsibilities to the President of the United States. We need to vote for this resolution, which, as I read at the very beginning of my remarks, is very clear. It simply says the President cannot go to war against Venezuela without congressional authorization. Let me just end this with, we are here in the middle of a government shutdown. I have now voted seven times to reopen the government without giving President Trump a blank check and dealing with the healthcare crisis that is in front of us. President Trump has not engaged in any way in that discussion. He has been traveling around the world. He wanted to meet with Kim Jong Un, the North Korean leader, who apparently said no. He is using at least $20 billion of U.S. taxpayer money to bail out his buddy in Argentina. Meanwhile, here at home, prices are going up and up and up. The President promised he was going to bring them down on day one. Right now before us, we have a ticking time bomb that is going to explode healthcare costs in America, especially when it comes to the Affordable Care Act. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle passed what they called the Big Beautiful Bill--``beautiful'' if you are a billionaire, because they extended the tax cuts for billionaires permanently. The one tax relief provision that they let lapse was that which helps middle-class Americans better afford their healthcare. So the message all of us should send to the President of the United States is: Quit engaging in illegal actions in the Caribbean and international waters, blowing up boats and people in an extrajudicial fashion. And when it comes to Venezuela, stop making these threats and amassing military assets off the shore and claiming you somehow have the authority to do that. The Constitution invests the authority to go to war with the U.S. Congress. That is what this resolution is all about. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, yesterday evening, I missed rollcall vote No. 583, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Stephen Chad Meredith to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Had I been present, I would have voted no. Yesterday evening, I missed rollcall vote No. 584, confirmation of the nomination of William W. Mercer to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Montana. Had I been present, I would have voted no.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. As I said to the Senator from Wisconsin, I am happy to sit down with him and his team to see if we can put together a proposal based on the principle that no Federal employee should have to bear the burden and the pain of a decision they had nothing to do with as well as many of these Federal contractors who are also involved. So I welcome the chance to sit down with the Senator from Wisconsin. I also hope that the President of the United States will sit down with Democrats to resolve the overall issue and open the government. That way we wouldn't even have to go through this exercise right now. With that, I want to yield the floor to my colleague from Maryland Senator Alsobrooks.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I am more than happy to sit down with your team and try to resolve this.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Let me just say, Mr. President, just to say to Senator Johnson: I am more than happy to sit down with you. I think we should do that maybe later today, get our teams together and see if we can resolve some of these points because if we have the shared view that, No. 1, no Federal employee should be punished for something they had nothing to do with--and then, at least for the period of the shutdown, the President should not be able to fire additional people, which is, I think you well know--and this was partly considered by the Federal court already--the President actually has less authority to do it in a shutdown than when the government is open. But I don't want to debate these issues on the floor right now.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I would love to see that.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. OK. Why don't we sit down together.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you. Look, it would be great to work this out because there seems to be some agreement that Federal employees should not be the ones to bear the burden of a decision they had nothing to do with. I see the Republican leader is here with us on the floor. I think the best way to proceed would be to delay moving forward on the cloture vote on the motion to proceed on your bill and let's sit down and let's talk about whether or not we can find that common ground. We may not be that far apart. I will just say to the Senator. I will say to the Senator that if you give the President the authority, as your proposal currently does, to decide who to send home and furlough and punish--but it sounds like you are willing to change that--but here is the scenario I am worried about. If you listen to Russ Vought and the President, they would just fire those people during the shutdown. That is what they are doing. In fact, they are illegally firing people during the shutdown.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Let me speak.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. But that is an important piece here, right, because--

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. The short answer is, we do want to pay all Federal employees because none of them should be punished, but we also don't want them to be fired and RIF'd during this period of time. You said, in the private sector, people don't like to fire employees. I know, Senator, you have read the remarks of Russ Vought, the head of OMB. He wants to visit ``trauma'' on Federal employees, and he wants to fire a lot of them. He has said so.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. If you are yielding the floor?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, and other colleagues who are joining together to support the proposal that we are putting forward today. But I think we should all say that the best way to make sure that Federal employees--all Federal employees--get paid and that the American people get the benefit of their services is to reopen the Federal Government and do it now, which is why I and my Democratic colleagues have voted seven times now--seven times now--to reopen the government without giving Donald Trump a blank check and while making sure that we prevent a healthcare crisis in this country when people's healthcare premiums and costs go through the roof, because when Republicans passed their so-called Big Beautiful Bill, they extended the tax breaks for billionaires and very wealthy people. The one tax cut they did not extend was the one that allows middle-class families to afford health insurance. And so they left in place a ticking timebomb that is going off now. We would like to defuse that timebomb. Instead of negotiating on that, the President has been AWOL. He has been engaged in discussions overseas regarding the Middle East. He has been on the phone a lot with Vladimir Putin. That is all good, but you would think the President of the United States could carve out just a little time to help reopen the government, to have a negotiation on reopening the Federal Government. Instead, he is bringing down Republican Members of the House and Senate to the White House and wining and dining them and patting them on the back and saying: Good job for keeping this government shut down and not entering into a negotiation to bring it to a close. And, of course, with our House colleagues, the Speaker of the House, Speaker Johnson, has essentially got the House on a 5-week--I don't know if we are on 6 weeks--paid vacation. I mean, they are AWOL here in the middle of this shutdown. What is the President focused on? He is asking the Justice Department to pay him $230 million for legal bills, right directly into his pocket. He is talking about giving his buddy in Argentina a $20 billion taxpayer bailout, while farmers across the country are getting hit hard because they can't sell their soybeans to China. And he is demolishing the East Wing of the White House, which is a metaphor for what he is doing to the country and people who worked for him to get him elected. He is betraying the very people he said he was going to stand up for when he said he was going to focus on prices and costs, and yet, when it comes to trying to just prevent this huge spike in healthcare costs that people are experiencing, the President doesn't want to talk about it. So we should not be punishing Federal employees for something they had nothing to do with. They are not responsible. They are innocent bystanders. They all want to get back on the job and provide services to the American people. And I will be putting forth a proposal to say that they should not be punished and they should be paid. Now, we will hear later today that we are going to be taking up here in the Senate a piece of legislation from Senator Johnson, and that proposal would pay Federal employees who are currently working right now. Our proposal doesn't discriminate among Federal employees. And here is the really dangerous part, I would argue, about Senator Johnson's proposal. We have a President, President Trump, who, along with Russ Vought, who is his, you know, guy in the cockpit at OMB--this is the guy who said publicly that he wanted to inflict ``trauma''--that is his word not mine--inflict ``trauma'' on the Federal workforce. If you allow them to decide who they are going to keep on the job in the Federal Government and who they are going to pay, you are giving them also a blank check as to who they are going to send home and who they are going to punish by not paying them. That is what they have been doing. Much of what they have been doing is illegal, in fact, and we have a Federal court in California that has already said that their layoffs of some of the Federal employees at some of the Agencies are illegal. But if you just let them decide who is going to get paid and who is not, you weaponize that illegality; you weaponize the Federal Government. And, by the way, I think we all know this: If President Trump gets to keep the folks he wants on the job and pay the folks that he wants who are on the job and nobody else, he will have even less incentive to end the government shutdown. He will have the government he wants, not the one that has been supported on a bipartisan basis by the U.S. Congress. So giving the President a blank check to decide which Federal employees to punish and which ones not to punish is a very dangerous thing at this moment. That is why the proposal I am putting forward-- and Senator Peters will have an even narrower version that he will be putting forward, if our Republican colleagues don't support the one that I am advancing, along with Senator Warner, Senator Kaine, Senator Alsobrooks, and others--these proposals say that Federal employees should not be punished. Now, we have already made that decision. We have already made that decision as a Congress in the past. During the first Trump shutdown-- that was the 35-day Trump shutdown. During that shutdown, Senator Cardin and myself and others, we passed a piece of legislation that was signed by the President that says: At the end of a shutdown, Federal employees get fully paid. They are held harmless. Why did we decide to do that? Because we collectively made the right decision that Federal employees who have nothing to do with the government shutdown should not be the ones punished for something they were not culpable in. That was the right decision. What my proposal and our proposal will do is based on that idea that no Federal employees should be punished for something they had nothing to do with. And not only should they get repaid at the end of this, but why would we say to them that you can't have enough pay to make your electric bills or pay your water bills or provide for your family? Why should Federal employees be the ones who are punished for the government shutdown? Why should they be the ones that have to overdraft their bank accounts and penalized for that? That is not fair. So the proposals that we are putting forward say that in this government shutdown, Federal employees and, yes, certain Federal contractors who have nothing to do with this political situation that we face, they should not be the ones to bear the burden, and we certainly shouldn't set up a system where the President of the United States gets to decide what Agencies to shut down, what can stay open, who to pay and who not to pay, who to punish, who not to punish. That just gives him a blank check to put in place political cronies and pay them and send home hard-working civil servants who perform important functions. So that is what our proposal will do. And for any of our colleagues, regardless of the side of the aisle, who agree that Federal employees should not be the ones who are punished for something they have nothing to do with, I hope we will all agree to support this measure. Now, I don't know if Senator Peters wants to talk at all on this particular proposal. He is going to be talking on the next proposal. I know that some of my colleagues are on the way to the floor, as we speak--Senator Kaine and others--and when they arrive, I will return the floor to them to have them say their piece. But, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3039, introduced earlier today; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I want to start my question by saluting the Senator from Oregon, Senator Merkley, for standing strong and long in defense of our democracy and our Constitution and ringing the alarm bells. Authoritarianism is here, and it is here right now. We are facing a lawless President, who, when he was asked whether he had to comply with the Constitution of the United States said, ``I don't know,'' and a President who, every day, is attacking the foundations of our democracy and of the rule of law. I know my colleague from Oregon joined 7 million Americans last Saturday to say no Kings in America. I was very heartened to see thousands of people come out across the State of Maryland joining their fellow patriots from around the country in saying: In America, we have no Kings. You have been highlighting all night the way the President of the United States, Donald Trump, is assaulting the foundations of that democracy and our Constitution. On No Kings Day, we reminded one another--all fellow Americans were out there saying--that we are not going to go back to the days of King George III. We fought an American Revolution to secure the blessings of liberty. It was out of that experience that our Founders developed the Constitution of the United States and then the Bill of Rights. I want to zero in on a couple of those things and then ask you a question about one of those pillars that is being attacked right now by Donald Trump. You just mentioned the attack on due process, and we did witness that in the case of Abrego Garcia--Kilmar Abrego Garcia--who was abducted in the streets of Maryland and ended up locked up in a gulag in El Salvador. And the Supreme Court of the United States, by 9 to nothing, said that his rights have been violated. A Fourth Circuit judge, who had been appointed by Ronald Reagan said that what happened to Abrego Garcia was a textbook case of violation of due process. Despite that overwhelming evidence, for a period of time, the Trump administration took the position that they would never allow him to set foot back in the United States. We prevailed, and, ultimately, he is now back here before the courts of the United States. In fact, the Federal district court judge down in Tennessee recently indicated there was strong evidence to indicate that the Trump administration had brought this other claim against him purely for malicious reasons and that it was a vindictive prosecution--in other words, a political prosecution--that they were prosecuting him simply because he exercised those due process rights. It should not be a liberal, a conservative, a Democrat or a Republican idea that in the United States of America, we are not deprived of our liberty without due process. As you have been saying all night, that was a foundational principle based on the experience that we had under King George III, where people could just be abducted and, without due process, arrested. You have spoken about the assaults on the First Amendment. We saw very early in the Trump administration the crackdown on students who were expressing their views on college campuses. The administration didn't like the views they expressed about what happened in Gaza, and so they literally locked them up. Now, again, fortunately, the courts have intervened, and most of them have been released from prison. Their cases are still pending, but the judges have made clear that what these students experienced was a gross violation of the First Amendment of the United States. And, of course, we saw that continuing, as you have indicated, with the weaponization of the Federal Government--whether it is the FCC or other instruments of the Federal Government--to try to deter, crack down, stop speech that the President of the United States doesn't like. We saw the whole Jimmy Kimmel case where, for a period of time, ABC did take him off the air. I want to thank all people across the United States who rose up and said: That is wrong; that is unconstitutional. Many people canceled their Disney subscriptions. This is a moment where all of us as Americans need to stand up and recognize, as you are this evening, that we are right now living under an authoritarian President. We have seen--and you have experienced it firsthand in your State of Oregon--the President trying to implement the statement he made, the outrageous statement he made, that we are going to use American cities as training grounds for our military. I mean, regardless of someone's political views, they should recognize how un-American that is. The list goes on and on, but another major assault by the President of the United States on our Constitution is one that you have been speaking about and, as the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee-- senior Democrat on the Budget Committee--have been really leading the way on, is this direct assault on article I, this direct assault on the power of the purse--because there are very good reasons that the Framers invested the Congress with the power of the purse and that power of taxation and the power of spending the people's money--to make sure that our budgets reflected the will of the American people. As you pointed out, it is simply illegal for the President of the United States to look at that budget and say he is going to cherry-pick the parts he likes and implement those and discard the parts he doesn't like. That is not how it works. You have talked about the Nixon line-item veto and how the Supreme Court shot that down, but this President is trying to do that--is doing it right now as we speak. As part of the proposal the Democrats have put forward to reopen the government--and we want to reopen the government--we also would like to establish some guardrails to ensure that the President of the United States cannot engage in that illegal activity. And I call it illegal, and I am on strong grounds to say so. The GAO, which is an independent watchdog, has reached that conclusion, that the President has illegally impounded funds--that is the technical term--and they have found that the so-called pocket rescission is illegal. I do want to also just quote from Senator Susan Collins, the chair of the Appropriations Committee, which we both serve on. She goes into a good description of why this unilateral impoundment of funds is illegal and unconstitutional. She says: Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law. That is one of our Republican colleagues. Senator Murkowski, who is also on the Appropriations Committee, has also pointed out that this is an illegal action. It is one of a series of illegal actions the President has taken. I want you, if you could, to talk about measures that we need to take to put up some guardrails and protections about it. You have done that through an amendment, the Merkley amendment, with regard to the other part of the rescissions process. You have spoken eloquently about this issue. But if you could just go to the heart of the matter: why the President's unconstitutional withholding of funds is a direct assault on our democracy and the vision our Framers had of checks and balances. When they said ``checks and balances,'' they didn't mean a blank check for a lawless President. So maybe, if you could, Senator Merkley, if you could talk to that and answer that question.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I was going to ask if my colleague would yield for a question.