Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, yesterday marked 100 days since Donald Trump was sworn in as President. It happened right down that hallway. He promised a golden age for America. He has not delivered that golden age. In fact, in that 100 days, all he has delivered is chaos and destruction. Consumer confidence is plummeting, and today we learned that our economy is shrinking. This is all a totally self-inflicted, Trump- inflicted wound on America and American families. That is here at home. On the world stage, Candidate Trump promised to be the great peacemaker, to end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza on day one, but he has nothing to show for that other than distrust from our allies and smiles from our adversaries. He has thrown the Ukrainian people under the bus, and in Gaza, the hostages have not been released, and we are witnessing a humanitarian catastrophe. Over the last 100 days, Donald Trump has embarked on a lawbreaking spree that has torn up our Constitution, torn apart our government, and torn down our economy. Over 200 lawsuits have been filed in Federal courts around the country because we are watching this President break laws on every front, on everything from his illegal freezing and impoundments of taxpayer funds for important public programs that benefit communities all over the country, to his illegal firing of patriotic Federal employees, including many veterans who provide critical public services, to letting Elon Musk loose on Federal Government programs with a chain saw--not to make government more efficient but to rig government for the already rich and powerful like Elon Musk at the expense of everybody else. President Trump has also been abusing his authority to create tariff chaos that has sent consumer confidence plummeting, badly damaging our economy. He is violating the First Amendment by cracking down on students at colleges and universities for their exercise of free speech and right to assemble and also violating another vital constitutional provision: the constitutional right to due process for those who live in America. It is a staggering amount of lawbreaking in just 100 days. That is why all of us should fight back--in the courts, in this Congress, and in communities all over America. We know that the American people don't like what they are seeing, what they are experiencing. They are rising up in communities all over America to voice their disapproval with President Trump's performance. They are giving him a big fat F for the first 100 days--total, miserable, failure. The only people who don't seem to get it are some of our Republican colleagues here in the Congress who apparently live in constant fear of being on the wrong end of a tweet from Donald Trump or Elon Musk and want to look the other way in the face of this massive lawbreaking and ripping up of the Constitution. So I want to take a little inventory, just a small sampling of the actions of this lawless President. I want to cover four categories: his violations of constitutional due process rights; his violation of First Amendment rights; his illegal withholding and impoundment and freezing of public funds that benefit communities all over America; and fourth, exceeding his authorities, claiming emergency powers that he doesn't have in the area of tariffs, making sham claims to justify his tariff chaos that is sabotaging our economy as we speak. I want to start with Trump's violations of the constitutional right of due process--a bedrock American principle. As we speak, President Trump is violating the due process of many, many individuals, including the rights of a man by the name of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was snatched off the streets of Maryland and illegally shipped to one of the most notorious prisons in Latin America, called CECOT. As I have repeatedly said, this case is not about one man alone. It is about all of us. I am not vouching for Mr. Abrego Garcia, but I am vouching for his constitutional right to due process--because, if Donald Trump can ignore court orders and trample over the rights of one man, he threatens the rights of everyone who lives in the United States of America. Mr. Abrego Garcia had legal status in the United States. He lived in Maryland with his family. He had a work permit. He was an apprentice with the sheet metal workers, SMART Local 100, where he worked full- time to help support his family. He was driving in his car with his 5- year-old autistic son when he was pulled over by Federal agents. He was taken to some facility in Baltimore where he asked to make a phone call to let folks know what was happening. He was denied the opportunity to make that phone call. He was then shipped to the State of Texas. From there, his feet were shackled. He was handcuffed. He was put in a plane where he couldn't see out the windows, and he didn't know where he was going, and he landed in El Salvador and was taken to one of the most notorious prisons in our hemisphere, a place reserved for the worst of the worst, for terrorists. Now here is the thing: There was a standing court order not to deport him to El Salvador because doing so could put his life in jeopardy from gangs. Indeed, the Trump administration admitted in Federal court that Abrego Garcia was wrongfully seized and shipped to this prison in El Salvador. But instead of fixing the problem they admitted to in court, what did they do? They punished the lawyer who told the truth in court. And now the Trump administration is ignoring orders from the Federal district court, the Fourth District Court of Appeals, and a 9-to- nothing order from the Supreme Court. We don't get 9-to-nothing decisions out of the Supreme Court very often. But that is what all those courts ordered the Trump administration to do with respect to facilitating the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia, to facilitate his return. This is not just trampling over his rights. And, again, I want to emphasize: If you allow the President to trample over the rights of one person, you do threaten the rights of everybody who lives in America. That is why yesterday I wrote to President Trump about this case, and I am going to read that letter to the Senate so no one can say they don't know what is going on in this matter. Here is what I wrote in that letter: Dear President Trump, I read with great interest your interview with Time Magazine regarding the Supreme Court's 9-0 decision ordering you and your Administration to ``facilitate'' the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who your lawyers admitted in federal court was wrongfully seized and deported to prison in El Salvador. You conceded in that interview-- This is the interview he had with Time magazine just a short while ago. You conceded in that interview that you have not asked President Bukele-- That is the President of El Salvador-- to return him. You also said, regarding this case, that you ``don't make that decision'' because your lawyers do. Your comments and the actions of your Administration clearly demonstrate your failure to comply with court orders as you continue to violate Mr. Abrego Garcia's constitutional and due process rights--and when you deny the due process rights of one person, you threaten them for everyone in America. The American public knows this. Recent polling shows that a majority of Americans reject your trampling over constitutional rights in this case. I went on to write this: During my visit to El Salvador, I had the opportunity to meet with [the] Vice President. . . . My conversation with him revealed the extent to which you and your Administration are violating the orders of the federal courts and the Constitution of the United States. Our discussion-- Again, referring to my discussion with the Vice President of El Salvador-- showed that your Administration is doing nothing to comply with and implement the Supreme Court order to ``facilitate'' Mr. Abrego Garcia's return to the United States and revealed that the Government of El Salvador is holding him solely at the request of your Administration and, specifically, because you are paying them to imprison him. While I had expected a private meeting with Vice President Ulloa, when I arrived at his office there were several cameras rolling-- I think they were probably his own private cameras. I don't know, but they were rolling to record the conversation. [So] I agreed to have our conversation on the record. And then I write: [Mr. President,] I want to report some important details of our [conversation]. Vice President . . . told me that, ``El Salvador is not able to take any action regarding the case because the case is in the U.S. and usually we do not express any opinion on domestic affairs.'' He went on to say-- I quoted him again-- I mean, the ball is in your court. Meaning the ball is in America's court, and he used that expression multiple times during our conversation. I went on to tell President Trump that the Vice President of El Salvador: . . . made clear that ``once the case will be resolved definitely and there will be clear instruction regarding this case . . . El Salvador's government will apply [our] principles . . . of course we will act accordingly.'' He indicated that, ``at this current moment we cannot take any actions because the case is still in the United States' situation.'' He reinforced this point throughout our conversation, saying the ``bottom line is this is an issue that has to be solved in the United States. We have not expressed, we cannot express any opinion on that case, because it is up to you.'' Again, this is what the Vice President of El Salvador told me and what I reported to President Trump in this letter. I went on in my letter to President Trump to say: All of this makes crystal clear that, even though your Administration's lawyers admitted in federal court that Mr. Abrego Garcia was wrongfully detained in Maryland and sent to prison in El Salvador and despite the Supreme Court's order to ``facilitate'' his return, your Administration has not lifted a finger to comply with the court order. As [the] Vice President. . . . indicated, ``the ball is in your court.'' When I asked-- And I am continuing to report this to the President of the United States. When I asked [the] Vice President. . . . whether El Salvador had any evidence that Mr. Abrego Garcia had committed a crime, his response was, ``how can I have it?'' He said the Government of El Salvador does not ``qualify those persons who are there, we just take them.'' I asked if El Salvador is imprisoning Mr. Abrego Garcia simply because the United States is paying to keep him and others there. His response was, ``exactly, that's it.'' He also said, ``I mean, if the person that you send is not a criminal, is not whatever, I mean it is up to you, that's what I'm saying. I don't want to express any opinion . . . I think it is up to you . . . The ball is in your court.'' And the Vice President of El Salvador ``made it clear that they did not review the file of Mr. Abrego Garcia.'' He said, ``we have a deal with the U.S. government. They send people. We host them. They pay. And that's it.'' When I asked the Vice President why El Salvador cannot release Mr. Abrego Garcia from prison when the U.S. government conceded in court that he was wrongfully abducted--and whether he is being charged under El Salvador's law--he responded, ``What is your recommendation to El Salvador's government? We can take him to the airport and ask an airline to take him to the States? Are you saying the airline would take a person without a passport? What kind of visa should we carry?'' He went on to say--this is the Vice President of El Salvador: President Bukele said we cannot smuggle a person to the United States. Because if we send a person without a visa, tourist visa, working visa, student visa, what kind of reason can we call to get legally into the United States?'' Regarding his papers, he asked, ``Who will provide that? We don't have it.'' So I continued to report on this conversation in my letter to President Trump, and I said: I repeatedly pointed out that neither I nor anyone else was asking El Salvador to ``smuggle'' Mr. Abrego Garcia back into the United States. That argument is, of course, a red herring. I repeatedly pointed out that Attorney General Bondi had said, when President Bukele was in the Oval Office with you-- Referring to the President of the United States-- that the U.S. would send a plane to pick up Mr. Abrego Garcia. So, I was not asking the Government of El Salvador to ``smuggle'' him into the United States, only to release him from prison. And I pointed out to President Trump that ``Your Administration illegally took Mr. Abrego Garcia to El Salvador in a plane, and Attorney General Bondi has said the United States could send a plane to pick him up. And the U.S. government can certainly provide him with the papers necessary to return.'' I went on in my letter to President Trump to say this: My conversation with [the] Vice President. . . . clearly demonstrates that the Government of El Salvador has no independent legal basis for imprisoning Mr. Abrego Garcia; that, as they readily concede, the only reason for keeping him in prison is that they entered into an agreement with your Administration to be paid by the United States. This also reveals that your Administration could easily facilitate his release by letting El Salvador know that--given his wrongful detention--they are not contractually bound to continue imprisoning Mr. Abrego Garcia. My conversation with Vice President Ulloa shows that your Administration's claim that El Salvador is exercising its ``sovereign'' decision to continue to hold Mr. Abrego Garcia is a farce. The Government of El Salvador is imprisoning him because your Administration is paying them to do so and they claim to be contractually obligated. Obviously, your Administration could say El Salvador was no longer contractually obligated to imprison Mr. Abrego Garcia. Then El Salvador can release him, and Attorney General Bondi can, as promised, send the plane. I went on to write to President Trump that: It is outrageous that Mr. Abrego Garcia and his family have been forced to suffer through this trauma because your Administration has, to date, refused to follow the requirements of the Constitution and the orders of the federal courts. Instead of fixing the egregious ``administrative error'' that the Administration conceded has wrongfully deposited Mr. Abrego Garcia in a prison in El Salvador, your Administration chose to attack and punish the lawyer who told the court the truth. That is shameful. I went on to write to the President--I think this is important. It is also shameful that you and your Administration continue to try to change the subject in this case. You-- Referring to President Trump-- continue to put out information on social media asserting that Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13 and Vice President Vance falsely asserted that he has been convicted of crimes in the United States. Yet the federal district court judge in this case said your Administration had presented the court with ``no evidence linking Abrego Garcia to MS-13 or to any terrorist activity.'' So your Administration should put up or shut up in court. I am not vouching for the man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, I am vouching for his rights. I am going to take a little departure here. I don't know if my colleagues witnessed the interview that President Trump had with an ABC reporter, Mr. Moran, yesterday, but it is all over social media because it turned out that, you know, President Trump had taken a picture of what was Abrego Garcia's fingers, and he had superimposed--or someone in the administration put an ``MS-13,'' written that on. That had been photoshopped or otherwise falsely there. Apparently, no one informed the President of this, or he just decided to pretend he didn't know. In this interview, he said: He had MS-13 on his knuckles, tattooed. The reporter said: That was photoshopped. And Trump's response was to the reporter: Terry, they are giving you a big break of a lifetime. I picked you, but you are not being very nice. Well, my point here, again, is whatever evidence there may be, the proper form to submit it is in the courts of the United States. And at least today, judges in those cases have made clear that the declaration has not relied on such evidence. I went on in my letter to President Trump to say this: It is also dangerous for you to suggest that we cannot fight gang violence without trampling over constitutional rights. More than two decades ago [I pointed out to him] I helped establish a regional anti-gang task force to combat MS-13 and other gang violence in the Maryland-Virginia-D.C. area. We have made substantial progress in this fight, but there is more that can be done. But that is not what you and your Administration are doing. You are engaged in gross violations of the Constitution and due process rights. I then, in this letter, cite Judge Harvie Wilkinson, who wrote on behalf of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit the following. I am going to quote him, and I have this in my letter to President Trump: It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has [already] rid itself of custody there is nothing [else] that can be done. This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear. I should point out that Judge Wilkinson was a Reagan administration appointee and this was a unanimous opinion of the three-court panel. I went on in my letter to President Trump to say: The Fourth Circuit got to the heart of the case. Kilmar Abrego Garcia was snatched from his car while he was driving in Maryland with his five-year-old autistic son, then illegally stashed away in a prison in El Salvador. His wife, his mother, and his brother have been unable to communicate with him in any way. He has a work permit and his fellow sheet metal workers have been organizing to bring him back [home], as have thousands of Americans. His constitutional rights must be respected. I close with this paragraph in my letter to the President: This case is not about Kilmar alone. It is about everyone in America. While Mr. Abrego Garcia is at the center of this case, its consequences impact the due process rights of everyone who lives in America. If your Administration can strip away the constitutional rights of one man in defiance of court orders, it can do it to all of us. I will continue to fight to defend the Constitution and due process rights of all who live in America. That was my letter to President Trump. I haven't heard anything back from them, and they continue to violate the Supreme Court orders. You know, colleagues, Members can look the other way but cannot deny the fact that this is happening as we speak today. I would urge every Senator to recognize the threat to everybody's rights under the Constitution. Now I want to turn to another area of lawbreaking--constitutional violations being committed by the Trump administration because not only are they violating the due process clause of the Constitution in the Abrego Garcia case and others, but they are also tearing up the First Amendment and trampling over free speech rights of individuals in America, especially students on college and university campuses but many others as well. The Trump administration and Secretary Rubio apparently think the First Amendment is like an a la carte menu. In other words, they seem to believe that the U.S. government can punish those who engage in speech that they don't like. That is not how it works. They don't get to cherry-pick speech under the First Amendment and use governmental power, state power, to sanction those who disagree with their points of view. But that is exactly what they are doing in cases like those of Rumeysa Ozturk, Mahmoud Khalil, and Mohsen Mahdawi. Mohsen Mahdawi was illegally snatched as he was taking his citizenship test in the State of Vermont. I want to read one of the questions that is on the U.S. citizenship test. It is important that everybody recognize what we ask those who are working to become citizens to understand. Question 6 on the citizenship test reads: What is one right or freedom from the First Amendment? And under it there are a number of things, but the first one on there is speech. The second one on there is assembly--speech and assembly. I think members of the Trump administration need to take a refresher course, the kind we ask citizens to take in this country because, apparently, President Trump, Vice President Vance, Secretary Rubio, and others would like to cross that question right off the citizenship test. We observed recently, when Vice President Vance took an overseas trip, that he lectured some of our European allies like the UK and Germany about freedom of speech. He said that they had too many limits on freedom of speech; that they were curtailing freedom of speech for people who lived in their countries, but here at home, they are tearing up the First Amendment of the Constitution. Apparently, here at home for the Trump administration, freedom of speech exists only for those who agree with their point of view. Mr. President, you know that our colleague who served with us, Senator Rubio, used to take to this Senate floor regularly to talk about an American foreign policy based on democracy, based on human rights, based on freedom of religion, and, yes, based on freedom of speech and suppression around the world, telling other countries that it was wrong to have the governments lock them up for expressing their points of view. And yet now in their home, Secretary of State Rubio is trashing freedom of speech. He is ripping up the First Amendment of the Constitution, and it is shameful. The American people should not stand for it because if you rip up the First Amendment for some people, you threaten it for everybody who lives in the United States of America. I was fortunate to grow up in a Foreign Service family. We sort of went back and forth between the United States and other countries. I was proud to be from a family that represented the United States overseas. We are far from perfect, and we have a lot of work to do to live up to the principles that we say we stand for around the world. But one of the things we do--or used to do--is stand up as a beacon for human rights and freedom of speech. That is no longer happening. You can't say you want everybody else around the world to live up to that principle when you are violating it right here at home. Now Secretary Rubio has doubled way back into a McCarthy-era statute from what was called the McCarran-Walter Act. That was a law passed at the height of the McCarthy era, and he is using that to claim that these students represent a threat to the foreign policy of the United States. It is pretty pathetic that students expressing their views represent a threat to the foreign policy of the United States. We have students of all different faiths who are protesting the war in Gaza and advocating for Palestinian rights. Others may agree or strongly disagree with what they say, but to claim that they somehow represent a threat to the foreign policy of the United States is ridiculous. It is so clearly being used as a ruse to deny their First Amendment freedom of speech rights that I hope the courts will see right through it. What it is, is an effort to punish speech. Donald Trump's lawbreaking doesn't end with his efforts to tear up the constitutional rights of due process and the First Amendment. He is also tearing up article I of the Constitution by illegally freezing, withholding, and impounding funds for important public purposes--funds that have been appropriated by the Congress and signed into law. The Trump administration has frozen billions of dollars of investments to support public services in communities all over America. The latest count is they are holding up about $430 billion that was appropriated by the Congress. You know, just this morning, we had a hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee about the Trump administration's freezing and cutting of funds for NIH, the National Institutes of Health. There was lots of powerful testimony from witnesses, including from a mom who was there with her daughter who had suffered through childhood cancer. And because of past research at NIH, her daughter's cancer was, thankfully, in remission, gone away. But she was there--the mother was there--to say she wants other families who have kids with cancer to have the same opportunities and that those opportunities only exist if we continue to do research into lifesaving cures and treatments. And yet, the Trump administration is sowing chaos at NIH and has frozen some clinical trials. Meanwhile, Elon Musk and his DOGE cronies are taking a chain saw to the Federal Government and are destroying the ability of the Federal Government to deliver reliable services to the American people, like the damage they are doing at the Social Security Administration. First they say there is no more phone service, use the internet. People couldn't get through on the internet. Go to the local Social Security offices. We are closing the local Social Security offices, and, by the way, we are also firing thousands of people so there won't be anyone in those local offices. And then they say: Oh, well, maybe we better turn the phones on again. This isn't about government efficiency. This is about rigging the government for people like Elon Musk at the expense of everybody else. This is an issue that should concern every Member of Congress because it is a direct attack on article I, and it is an attack on the American people and their rights to have these investments made when their elected officials direct them to be made on their behalf. And yet, just yesterday, the head of the Government Accountability Office, as we know by GAO, testified before a Senate appropriations subcommittee that the Trump administration was stonewalling GAO's efforts to investigate this illegal withholding of funds. Gene Dodaro, who is the Comptroller General, testified that the Office of Management and Budget ``has not been responsive'' to GAO's questions about the freezing of billions of dollars in funding Congress had already approved. Now, this is not the first time we have seen a Trump administration violating the Impoundment Control Act. The last time President Trump was in office, he illegally withheld funds that the Congress had appropriated for helping the people of Ukraine, and he refused to spend those funds--Donald Trump did. So, back at the time, I wrote a letter to the GAO, asking them to investigate that withholding to see if it violated the Impoundment Control Act. That is a statute of the United States of America. In that case, the GAO found that, yes, the Trump administration--the first round--had illegally withheld those funds. It was an illegal impoundment. So that is what we are seeing right now, and they are not even working too hard to show that they are violating the Impoundment Control Act. When the head of OMB--the Office of Management and Budget--Russ Vought, was before the Senate Budget Committee for his nomination, at his confirmation hearing, I asked him about the Impoundment Control Act, and I asked him about the past violations of the Impoundment Control Act because, guess what, he also was the head of OMB at the time of the earlier violation, and Russ Vought is back at it again as the head of OMB. So when I asked him about the Impoundment Control Act at his hearing, I got this answer. I asked him about President Trump and the Impoundment Control Act. Here was his answer at the hearing: Senator, the President ran against the Impoundment Control Act. My response to him: Mr. Vought, I know what the President did. He wants to change a lot of things. He can submit legislation to do that. But you are going to be the head of OMB, and here today, at this hearing, you are refusing to comply--to commit to comply--with the Impoundment Control Act; is that right? Are you refusing to commit to complying? This dance went on and on, and never did he commit to comply with the Impoundment Control Act. So that is what we are witnessing right now--a violation of the Impoundment Control Act. We, the Senate, were supposed to get the Trump administration's spending plans for the remainder of fiscal year 2025 a few days ago. For many Agencies, we haven't seen them yet. So we don't know what they say their plans are, but we do know that, as of now, they are withholding about $430 billion of appropriated funds. Finally, I want to talk about another area where Donald Trump is violating the law to the detriment of our economy, and that is in the area of tariffs. Now, Presidents, of course, have some authority to apply tariffs, and I have supported targeted tariffs in the past for strategic purposes. But a number of small businesses around the country and others have filed lawsuits against the Trump administration for their illegal use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. I see the ranking member of the Finance Committee on the floor here, and he has spoken to this many times, and I want to thank him for his leadership. I do want to read directly from the complaint that has been filed because the complaint--and this is one. Congress passed the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to counter external emergencies, not to grant Presidents a blank check to write domestic economic policy. They go on to point out that, yes, we have a fentanyl crisis in America--all of us agree with that--but using this statute, which is for economic emergencies, and using the statute in the way the Trump administration is doing is a gross violation of the President's legal authority. As we can see by the downturn in the economy--we just learned that we are seeing the economy contract; we are seeing consumer confidence plunge--President Trump's illegal use of that statute is causing incredible economic pain across the country. So I want to end with this: When you see this kind of massive lawbreaking going on--violations of the due process clause, violations of the First Amendment, violations of article I and the Impoundment Control Act--I mean, you can just take a marker through the Constitution and cross out those provisions, right? The 14th Amendment--cross it out. The First Amendment--cross it out. Cross out article I. That is what everybody in this body who is not standing up to the President is complicit in right now. What bullies do--and make no mistake, President Trump is a bully. What they do is they try to pick on people they think are weak. If the rest of us don't stand up for the rights of those people, then it is a very fast and slippery slope to losing the rights of everybody who lives in America. So I hope that, as we review this first 100 days and the massive lawbreaking that is going on and the tearing up of the Constitution and the tearing apart of the government and the tearing down of our economy, we will all wake up because the American people are waking up. They understand what is going on, and they don't like what they see. So we had better do our jobs here in the U.S. Senate, and I hope, starting today, all 100 Senators will begin to do exactly that. I yield the floor.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, before I deliver the body of my remarks, I do want to respond briefly to my colleague, the Senator from Wyoming, on the question of national security because just last night, we learned that President Trump had fired the head of the National Security Agency right after his meeting with Laura Loomer, a rightwing activist. Not only was the head of NSA fired, but so were some other folks who worked at the National Security Council. This is part of a pattern of President Trump firing people who have experience, people who know their subject matter, and replacing them with political cronies. We already saw the results of that amateurism and amateur hour when it came to Signalgate, which is a big violation, of course, of classified information that very well could have put our troops at risk. So I think when we talk about national security, it is important to recognize what is happening in this administration that is undermining our national security. H. Con. Res. 14 Mr. President, I want to focus on the great betrayal. When he was a candidate going all over the country, Donald Trump said that he was going to look out for the forgotten Americans, that he was going to focus on kitchen-table issues. He was going to bring down prices on day one. On day one, he was going to bring down prices. Yet, what we are witnessing right now is just the opposite. We are witnessing the rigging of the American Government to gut services for working families. We all saw Elon Musk proudly brandishing a chain saw not that many weeks ago at a CPAC conference in the State of Maryland. Well, they are cutting away at services that benefit every American family. And for what purpose? To help the billionaires. The centerpiece of the great betrayal is arriving on the Senate floor today. That will be the kickoff for the next phase of that great betrayal because Republicans are going to be taking the next step toward implementing a giant giveaway to the very, very wealthy, the already-powerful, and big corporations, and they are going to pay in part for it at the expense of the rest of America. But they are also not going to pay for a big part of it, and that will come at the expense of the rest of America when you blow up the deficits and debt and put upward pressure on interest rates. Where they are talking about cutting are places like Medicaid. We will talk more about the very, very harmful impact that will have on the American people. The President is talking about offsetting the costs of the tax cuts for the very rich with revenues from tariffs which amount to nothing more than a huge national sales tax. We will talk a little bit about that as well. Then, of course, Elon Musk is claiming to find all these savings in the Federal Government. He is not making the government more efficient; he is actually rigging the government to help the very powerful, like trying to get rid of things like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has returned billions of dollars to American consumers who were cheated by fraudsters. Some people don't like that. CFPB made some powerful enemies, so they want to get rid of that. That is just one example of how this is not about efficiency but actually putting the government to work for billionaires and powerful people at the expense of the rest of the country. Donald Trump has called this budget resolution that we are going to be debating on the floor as the first step to what is going to be the ``big, beautiful bill.'' Well, it is going to be a beautiful bill if you are a billionaire tech titan or if you are a billionaire in the Big Oil industry or in Big Pharma. It is going to be great news for all of you, but for the rest of America, it will be the great betrayal. Mr. President, we know this because we have seen this movie before, although this time, we are going to see it on steroids. Back in 2017, during the first Trump tax cut for the wealthy, a lot of promises were made, and so we now have the reality of what happened to compare to the promises that were made at that time. Let's look at those promises. Donald Trump promised that giving tax cuts to wealthy people and big corporations would generate so much additional economic activity by trickling down to everybody else and somehow lifting everybody up. He claimed that would generate so much dynamic activity that it would generate additional revenue, and the additional revenue would be enough to offset the revenue lost because of tax cuts to rich people. That is not even close to being true. In fact, what it did was it added $2 trillion to the deficit. Just check with the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. I actually asked this question in repeated hearings in the Senate Budget Committee. I serve on that committee. I asked it of Republican witnesses, Democratic witnesses, witnesses that are just called for their expertise. Not a single person has tried to claim that the tax cuts from 2017 actually paid for themselves--not even close. So that didn't happen. We also heard the claim from Donald Trump back then that corporations that got these tax cuts would use some of their additional revenue to quickly boost wages by $4,000 on average to their workers, to their employees. That didn't happen either. What did happen was that some of those savings went to much bigger CEO bonuses. So that didn't happen for regular workers. It was really good for the CEOs. Another thing that Donald Trump and our Republican colleagues claimed back then was that when corporations got these big tax cuts, they would take those additional moneys and invest them in plant and equipment and therefore help the overall enterprise and grow it. That didn't happen either. What did the corporations use that extra savings for? Well, they used it for stock buybacks. They used it to jack up the price for the stockholders, but they did not use it to help expand plant equipment that helped the overall economy. By the way, about 30 to 40 percent of those stockholders are actually foreigners. They don't live in the United States. They are not Americans. So that big tax cut for the rich here, when it was used in the form of stock buybacks, was a great bonanza for a lot of very wealthy people overseas. Now we are back here on the eve of passing a Republican budget resolution. I hope we don't pass it, but appears Republicans have the votes. And we are seeing this movie all over again. Deja vu. It is worth, therefore, again reminding us of what happened. Senator Wyden and I were on the floor the other day when he released a really blockbuster report about how major U.S. drug companies--Big Pharma--were able to exploit provisions of the 2017 Trump tax giveaway in a way that allowed them to dramatically lower their taxes. Pfizer's tax returns, we showed, had 50 percent of their revenues coming from U.S. sales but only listed profits in the United States at zero. So Pfizer, when you look at their returns, acknowledge that 50 percent of their revenues came from American customers, but they booked zero profit on those revenues and sales in the United States. How did they do that? They did it by essentially using overseas tax havens. It is called round-tripping. Essentially, they took profits here, funneled them through these schemes overseas, and as a result, they lowered their taxes by 40 percent. That is a pattern we have seen with other pharmaceutical companies as well. Other Americans don't have that ability, right? Those Americans who get their W-2 forms, you pay your taxes on those earnings. You don't get to funnel them through overseas tax havens. Mom-and-pop shops, small businesses--they can't make secret deals with foreign governments to hide their profits. So these schemes are designed to benefit one group and one group only, and that is very profitable corporations and very wealthy individuals. The result is, when Pfizer does the kind of schemes--employs the kinds of schemes--that it has and they lower their effective tax rates, it means they are not paying their fair share here in the United States that we use to invest for the common good, whether it is infrastructure, whether it is our public schools--all things that, of course, Pfizer benefits from just as other major corporations do. So it is just a form of freeloading on the rest of the American people. That is what the Trump tax cuts for the wealthy are all about--big handouts for the very wealthy and freeloading on the rest of Americans. If you look at the folks who were cheering on Donald Trump at the swearing-in, at the inaugural, they were the folks who were going to be benefiting the most. Elon Musk was right behind him. Of course, Elon Musk spent $280 million to help elect Donald Trump. He is sort of getting more than his money's worth these days. There were other billionaire tech titans and other billionaire members of the Trump Cabinet--the most billionaires, by far, of any Cabinet in American history. Those are the people who are going to benefit from the tax giveaway to the very wealthy. Everybody else is going to pay for it in one way or another, and I want to talk about some of the ways they are going to pay for it, the rest of America. One way is, it is going to send our deficits and debt skyrocketing again. As I said earlier, back in 2017, they claimed that no, no, no, no. It would all pay for itself. Well, it increased our deficits and debt by $2 trillion. This time, it is an even bigger, whopping increase on the deficits and debt: $6 trillion over 10 years and a $37 trillion increase in the debt over the next 30 years according to the Congressional Budget Office. These are the nonpartisan, green eyeshades guys--just the facts. That is the consequence of the Republican tax giveaway to the rich: huge deficits and debt. As I said, it will be three times higher than the last one, which was bad enough. And we are not incurring this additional debt because we are fighting a war. We are not incurring this debt to fight a pandemic or a recession. We are incurring all of this additional debt just to give the big corporations and the wealthy another round of tax cuts. So maybe it is not surprising that we are already seeing an effort to hide what is happening. So how do you hide $6 trillion in deficits and debt? Well, there are a lot of accounting gimmicks that are being employed. One of them is to say: Well, let's just use the current policy baseline. Now, bear with me for a moment because this does get a little technical, but it is important, and it also reveals the scheme that is being employed by Republican Senators to try to cover up the costs of their tax cuts for the very wealthy. You know, normally, we use what is called a current law baseline. In other words, the Congressional Budget Office tells us how much the deficits and debt will increase by the policy changes we are making to current law. That makes sense because current law is what exists until we change it. So current law tells us what our deficits would be now under the framework we currently have, but Republicans want to change this to a current policy baseline. What they are saying is, Well, they gave tax cuts to the very rich and corporations for 10 years, and now we are going to do it for at least another 10 years. So let's not count the additional costs of that when we compute the deficits and debt. Well, it doesn't really work that way in the real world. I mean, if you were, let's say, a wealthy person and if you went through your family budget, and last year you bought 600 Rolexes, which put a lot of strain on the budget, and then you were sitting around the kitchen table this year to draw up the budget for the upcoming year and you said, ``Well, you know, my dear, you know, it really won't make our budget this year any worse if we buy another 600 Rolexes because we bought them last year,'' now, that doesn't make any sense, and Americans know that, but that is exactly what Republican Senators are trying to do with their budget gimmicks. They are going to try to pretend away $6 trillion in new debt. Now, if you look at the budget resolution, it does anticipate that kind of addition to the deficit. They say: Well, we are also going to offset that by cutting $2 trillion. Now, when I do the math, if you claim you are cutting $2 trillion-- and we will talk a little bit about how they plan to do that--you are increasing the deficits and debt by $6 trillion. Even if you cut the $2 trillion, you are ending up with a whopping net deficit-debt increase. That is going to drive up interest rates for every American and make it harder for all other Americans to pay for things like cars and houses and mortgages and interest payments on cars--all this, again, in service of a tax cut for billionaires and big corporations. Now, what is another way that President Trump says he is going to pay for this tax cut to the rich and big corporations? Well, he says we are going to have all this additional revenue coming into the government through tariffs. He called it ``Liberation Day.'' We saw how the country responded. We saw how the markets responded. They went way, way down. Economists of all political stripes are predicting a much higher risk of a recession. Some say it is much more likely than not at this point because of those tariffs. The President has unleashed a tariff war, and let's talk about what they are because, in effect, this is a national sales tax. This is pretty simple math. When you put a tax on goods coming into the United States, it is the importer, the American importer, who pays that, and if you have to pay that extra amount and you have tight margins already, tight profit margins, you are going to have to pass that cost on to whom? The American consumers. That is why economists estimate that the Trump national sales tax is going to cost the average American household up to $4,200 a year. That is what the President is doing. That will come in many forms. The National Association of Home Builders predicts it will cost up to $10,000 more to build a home because we import lumber and gypsum from other countries. We have lumber and gypsum here in the United States, but in order to accommodate the demand for new homes, we also import, and that will jack up the price, according to the National Association of Home Builders, up to $10,000. Others are predicting even more. A researcher at Cornell University estimates that new cars could cost as much as $20,000 more because of how many times certain car parts cross boundaries and will face tariffs. You may send a part to the United States through some business in the United States that works on enhancing that part. It goes back to another business overseas. They do something more. Then it comes back and is then used in an American car. If every time it crosses a border you are facing a big tariff, the costs of those cars are going to go up. In the case of the U.S.-Canada border, sometimes auto parts cross them as many as six times before the final assembly. So whether it is buying a car or buying a house, these are things families work hard to purchase, to save up for. The Trump tariffs are going to put them farther out of reach. This is a Trump tax increase on the American dream. Again, for what purpose? All to provide tax cuts and a big tax windfall to the very wealthy and the biggest corporations. But the harm from this national sales tax is not only the additional prices Americans will pay here at home; it is also the losses to businesses in the United States that produce products here and export them overseas because the rest of the world is not going to stand still and do nothing while Donald Trump slaps a big tax on the products they are sending to the United States. They are not going to do that. In fact, China has already responded. They just imposed a 34-percent tariff on American products. They have also taken other measures to make it harder for the American businesses that produce goods here to export those to China. When China puts on a 34-percent tariff and when other countries around the world respond as they inevitably will, it means American companies here at home will not be able to sell as many of their goods around the world. That is pretty obvious. Again, that is pretty simple math. That means they will have to lay off people. That means less economic activity here at home. Again, all for what purpose? To say you are offsetting tax cuts for the very wealthy. If anybody doubts this does not cost American producers and manufacturers, let's just look back to the first Trump administration, where there was a mini version of this tariff war, a much smaller one, and even that smaller one cost the American taxpayers dearly because what happened was, when President Trump in his first term imposed tariffs on Chinese products coming into the United States, China responded. They slapped on tariffs to American exports, especially American agricultural exports--wheat, soybeans. What did that mean? Again, it is simple math that those American producers sold fewer goods in China, and it cost them. What did President Trump do then? He actually used a big taxpayer subsidy--it was around $28 billion--to pay off American farmers who had been hurt by his mini trade war at that time. Well, the best way not to hurt American farmers is to not slap on these tariffs in the first place, which inevitably invites retaliation. Why should the American taxpayer have to foot the bill for all this? The last time, this was a mini trade war. Now he has taken this worldwide. Imagine if you had to cover the costs for the losses of every American business through some taxpayer subsidy. I mean, it would be just a huge number. So here we have the President of the United States wreaking havoc on the American economy--again, to pay for tax cuts for the very rich. You know, I had some very small businesses in my State of Maryland writing to me about some of these costs that they are facing. Here is one I got just a couple of weeks ago. This is from, again, a very small business in Greenbelt, MD. This is a person who has a small hand-dyed cotton/yarn business. She writes: Most of my yarns are imported and can't easily be replicated by domestic suppliers. In 2 weeks, I will receive my first custom-blend yarn from Peru, which has taken me and the mill the better part of a year to develop. The 10-percent tariff on Peru imposed with no warning and no provocation means this yarn will suddenly cost me about a mortgage payment extra. Several of my existing yarns will also cost 10 to 25 percent more now when I go to reorder, thanks to the Canadian and EU tariffs. This cuts severely into my already tight margins. Again, this woman is talking about cutting losses, cutting her income, and missing a mortgage payment. This is a very small business. Here is another letter: My daughter and I own a greeting card and paper packaging distribution company. It is our 45th year in business. We employ some 20 Baltimore City and County residents and have 100-plus independent sales reps throughout the United States selling our product. While most of our products are manufactured in the UK and the European Union, 20 to 25 percent of our product, which is designed in the UK, is manufactured in China. And because of the first Trump administration, the cost of that went way up. But now, with this new round, it brings the total sales tax cost, the tariff on this small business, to 45 percent, with 10-percent increases each month. This person says they have 20 people, 50 people. They are going to lay off about 10 percent of their employees if this happens. And it just did happen. So this imposes real harm and costs on the American people. As I say, it is a double whammy. First, it is a national sales tax, and so American consumers pay more. And then, American businesses get socked because they can no longer export as many of their goods and products overseas. Let's look at another way that Senate Republicans want to pay for this tax cut for the very rich and the big corporations, and that is by cutting Medicaid. All you have to do is look at the instructions in the House budget resolution, which will be part of what is considered here today. And as the Congressional Budget Office has told all of us that the only way to find the $880 billion that they want to cut under the jurisdiction of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is to come after Medicaid. I mean, it is just mathematically impossible to do it otherwise. So while Donald Trump said he ``loves and cherishes'' Medicaid, that is not what they are actually doing. In addition to taking direct hits at Medicaid--and we have discussed the impact of that on the floor of the Senate at length, and we will discuss them at greater length--we also see Elon Musk and Donald Trump going after the people who administer Medicaid and Medicare benefits. In fact, just last week, they fired at least 300 civil servants at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS. They provide and deliver those healthcare benefits to 160 million Americans across our country. I want to read just one message from one of those fired civil servants. I just got this letter on Monday: Today, my life was changed so swiftly I can barely catch my breath to consider what I have now lost. Just wanted to share my story after 44 years of public service (30 in the military and 14 in the federal government). I was proudly serving the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, and I got a letter today ending my public service--cold and hard. It said--and she quoted: ``Thanks for your service . . . we basically don't need you anymore.'' This is to a disabled veteran who loves her country and has been serving, as she writes, ``since I was 18 years old.'' I have raised my right hand more times than I can remember. . . . I want my story out there to help others. . . . Federal workers and especially Veterans don't deserve this treatment. No one does. That is a story we are hearing across the Federal Government--people fired indiscriminately based on a big lie. Many of these people, just to add insult to injury, got letters saying they were being fired for poor performance, only to find out that they had actually received glowing performance reviews, and, in many cases, they had been recently promoted based on their merit. That is not only happening at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid-- again, these are the people who helped deliver those benefits. You know, benefits don't do much for you if the people who deliver them and administer them are gone. Of course, that is what is happening at the Social Security Administration as well. At the Social Security Administration, they came in. They randomly, indiscriminately fired a lot of people. And now reports indicate they want to get rid of over 8,000 more folks at the Social Security Administration. These are the folks who deliver Social Security benefits to 73 million Americans--1 in 6 Marylanders. Social Security keeps 20 million Americans, including kids, out of poverty. We have 73 million people on Social Security. For 20 million of them, that is the difference between being in poverty or not being in poverty. I should point out, this is not about government efficiency, as I said earlier. If you look at the 12,000 Federal employees who work at the Social Security Administration, which is in Baltimore--we are proud that they have their home there--they have been running the Social Security Administration for the past 90 years and have never missed a payment. So when Secretary of Commerce Lutnick said, ``You know, I don't think Americans would miss 1 week of their Social Security payments. Only the fraudsters would feel that. They are the only people who would notice''--what a pile of garbage. He said his mother wouldn't notice. Well, you know, how many moms and dads have billionaire sons? That is the question. I will tell you, 73 million Americans will notice. But that is the kind of attitude--the attitude--we are seeing from Elon Musk, the richest person in the world, and Donald Trump. I see my colleagues are on the floor here, and so I am going to wrap up my remarks. But I will be speaking more in the coming days. I see both of my colleagues, the ranking member of the Finance Committee and Senator Klobuchar from Minnesota. I will tell you, the proposal we are going to hear from the Republicans is to add $6 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years to pay for tax cuts for the rich. You know, if you really want to blow through the deficit like that, there are a lot of other more important things we could do for the country with that money. We could save Social Security. Think about that. We could fund special education fully in our schools and finally meet those promises. We could expand Medicare to give seniors dental, vision, and hearing benefits--something that Senator Sanders from Vermont has been calling for, for a long time. We could expand the child tax credit. If you want to blow through the deficit and debt by $6 trillion or $37 trillion over 30 years, we have a lot better uses for that money than tax cuts for rich people and big corporations. I yield the floor.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise to support the Sanders resolution and to oppose the transfer of over $8 billion of U.S. taxpayer-financed bombs and other offensive weapons to the Netanyahu government as it continues to block all humanitarian aid to civilians in Gaza, which is a clear violation of international and American law, and as it promotes the reprehensible Trump plan to push 2 million Palestinians out of Gaza. There is no doubt that Israel has the right to defend itself. In fact, I would argue, the duty to defend itself in the aftermath of the brutal Hamas attack of October 7, 2023, that murdered over 1,200 individuals and took over 250 hostages. Hamas is a despicable terrorist organization and there must be no more October 7s. This act of terrorism was the worst act of violence and attack on the Jewish community since the Holocaust. And that pain endures, especially as not all of the hostages have returned. It has been 544 days, and we must bring home every remaining hostage. I have met with their families, both here and in Israel, and their emotional pain and anxiety are unbearable. Israeli and Palestinian families across the region face the reality--the brutal reality--of this hostage crisis and the devastation that this war brings every day in Gaza. Yet through his actions, Prime Minister Netanyahu and his extremist rightwing government have made it very clear that ending the fighting and securing the release of the remaining hostages is not their principal objective. It is very well understood in Israel that Netanyahu's priority is not bringing them home; his priority is own political survival. Like the mother of one of the hostages who was protesting just last week said: The hostages are held captive by Hamas, and the entire Nation of Israel is held captive by Netanyahu. Prime Minister Netanyahu has locked arms with the most extreme elements of his coalition, people like Finance Minister Smotrich and Minister of National Security Ben-Gvir, people who have made their political careers based on inciting hatred against Palestinians, against Arabs, against Muslims. And in Ben-Gvir's case, also associating with groups that espouse the expulsion of Christians. Together, they have readily embraced the twisted, shameful, illegal, and immoral plan advanced by Donald Trump to push 2 million Palestinians out of Gaza. According to Trump, the United States would ``take over and own Gaza.'' And at least, initially, he didn't rule out using military force to do that. Netanyahu and the far right in Israel embraced the Trump plan from the start. Prime Minister Netanyahu called it ``remarkable'' and ``the first good idea'' he had heard. On March 30, he said: We will implement the Trump Plan. . . . This is our strategy. Shortly after the Trump plan was announced, Smotrich called it an excellent idea, and he said: With God's help, I will work with the Prime Minister and the cabinet to develop an operational plan to implement this as soon as possible. Ben-Gvir echoed that support, noting: We have a huge opportunity and we must not miss it. Even before October 7, I encouraged emigration and they mocked me. . . . It is time to implement and promote it. Remember, Ben-Gvir left the cabinet in January because he was opposed to the cease-fire and the return of hostages agreement. Now that Netanyahu has abandoned the cease-fire agreement, Ben-Gvir has returned to the cabinet, again, as Minister of National Security. And listen very carefully to what Netanyahu's Minister of Defense Katz said recently: Gaza residents, this is a final warning. The first Sinwar destroyed Gaza and the second Sinwar will bring its complete ruin. Soon, the evacuation . . . from combat zones will resume, and what follows will be far more severe. He said, referring to the civilian residents of Gaza: You will pay the full price. Return the hostages and remove Hamas--the alternative is total devastation. You should listen very carefully to those words because he is threatening the civilian population of Gaza. That is collective punishment, and that is the Trump-Netanyahu plan. Mr. President, American taxpayers should not be paying for this reprehensible plan. And let me be clear, that is what these bombs and offensive weapons are supporting. It is not about providing for Israel's defense, like Iron Dome, which I have and will continue to support. Instead, these offensive weapons are furthering the extremist goals of Donald Trump and Netanyahu. It surely is not ``America First'' to use billions of dollars of American taxpayer money to pay for bombs and other weapons to facilitate such a grotesque, illegal, and immoral plan. You know, it is often said that Israel and the United States have a set of shared values that bind us together. Those values have included a belief in democracy, a respect for the rule of law, support for freedom and universal political rights. I believe those remain the shared values between the people of the United States and the people of Israel. But that cannot be said of either Donald Trump or Netanyahu. They have zero respect for those values. They have a different world view. They both see themselves as above the law. Trump and Netanyahu have both demonstrated an utter contempt for an independent judiciary. Here at home, Donald Trump is calling for the impeachment of judges that uphold the rule of law and illegally bullying law firms and institutions that don't bend to his will. In Israel, Netanyahu and his rightwing government just implemented changes to weaken the independence of the judiciary. And when Trump called for impeaching judges here, this is what Netanyahu said: In America and in Israel, when a strong rightwing leader wins an election, the leftist Deep State weaponizes the justice system to thwart the people's will. They won't win in either place! We stand strong together. Both Trump and Netanyahu have also worked to replace people of independence and integrity with political puppets. Netanyahu is in the process of trying to fire the head of Shin Bet, Ronen Bar, while he was presiding over an investigation into potential financial ties between Netanyahu's office and Qatar. Here at home, of course, Trump fired the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, installed a completely unqualified Secretary of Defense, and has fired at least 17 independent inspectors general across the Federal Government. Trump and Netanyahu don't believe in checks and balances. They believe in unchecked power for themselves, like other autocrats, Erdogan in Turkey or Orban in Hungary. Let's be clear that Donald Trump is pursuing policies in Israel that are not pro-Israel. They are pro-Netanyahu and pro-Smotrich and pro- Ben-Gvir. Donald Trump said on the campaign trail he was going to stop the war in Gaza. He took credit for securing the January cease-fire and the exchange of those hostages at the time. That was phase one--phase 1 of the three-stage framework that the Biden team had negotiated. Prime Minister Netanyahu waited until the eve of Trump's inauguration to begin phase 1 so Donald Trump could claim that success. But ever since then, Trump has backed off and stood back as Netanyahu and his rightwing government resumed the bombing of Gaza, imposed an embargo on humanitarian aid for civilians there, and put the lives of all the remaining hostages at risk. Indeed, it has now been 32 days since Netanyahu cut off all humanitarian assistance and electricity to civilians in Gaza. That is a blatant direct violation of Israel's duty under both international law and under American law. Indeed, section 620I of the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act, also known as the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, prohibits the transfer of any offensive weapons by the United States to any country that fails to ``facilitate and not arbitrarily deny, restrict, or otherwise impede, directly or indirectly, the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance.'' Well, for 32 days, we have seen a blockade of humanitarian assistance. It is also a violation of the assurances that the Netanyahu government gave to the United States just last year--which I actually witnessed the signatures--where it said that it would facilitate the delivery of U.S.-supported humanitarian aid in Gaza. So the Netanyahu government is flouting those commitments. Just this week, the United Nations' World Food Programme, WFB, said all 25 of its bakeries had been shuttered in Gaza. And meanwhile, the Trump administration says nothing and does nothing. What happened to the man who pledged to bring peace to the Middle East? After cutting off humanitarian aid, the Netanyahu government resumed its bombing campaign in Gaza and unleashed strikes where the initial one killed 430 people in one of the most lethal days of the entire world. Here is the headline of a March 27 story in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz: In one of the Gaza war's most horrific nights, the Israeli Army killed nearly 300 women and children. A surgeon from the United Kingdom who was on the ground said: What stunned doctors was the number of children. Just child after child, young patient after young patient. We all know that Hamas has no regard for Palestinian civilians and puts civilians in danger. But that does not absolve the Netanyahu Government of the duty to reduce civilian harm, and it is violating that duty. Indeed, as I read, the Minister of Defense has said there will be ``total destruction.'' The death toll in Gaza has now surpassed 50,000, and more than half of those killed are women and children. Palestinian civilians--many of them who recently put themselves at great risk to protest against Hamas--are trapped. The recent Netanyahu bombing campaign has also taken a severe toll on medical and first aid workers inside Gaza. As the newspaper Haaretz and others have reported, 15 Palestinian paramedics, including a U.N. worker, were killed as they traveled in their ambulances within the last 2 weeks. Jonathan Whittall, the head of OCHA, said the aid workers had been killed ``one by one'' and that the IDF bulldozers then buried them and the ambulances in the sand. To date, over 400 aid workers have been killed since the war started. Following the deaths of seven World Central Kitchen aid workers, almost a year ago, the Netanyahu government said they would improve efforts to protect aid workers, but those promises have been forgotten. Just a few days ago, the IDF hit an International Committee of the Red Cross, or ICRC, office in Gaza, and while that strike did not result in casualties, it was another reminder of the Netanyahu government's total disregard for the safety of these humanitarian operators. Speaking of the ICRC, throughout the war, the Netanyahu government has suspended all humanitarian visits by the ICRC to Palestinian prisoners in both the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and it has yet to resume that access despite reports of the terrible abuses at Sde Teiman. This is a prison. These abuses were revealed by Israel's own security service, Shin Bet, as well as Israel's NGOs and media. Now, Netanyahu has attacked virtually everyone who questions his conduct in the war in Gaza as pro-Hamas. When his former Defense Minister, Gallant, said that the Israeli military had done all it can in Gaza, he was fired. Netanyahu has even criticized the protests by hostage families, saying that they serve the interests of Hamas-- deplorable. And the Netanyahu government has tried to punish and sanction Israeli newspapers, specifically Haaretz, which I have been quoting from, for reporting the facts about what is happening in Gaza. In fact, Netanyahu's Communications Minister suggested that the law enforcement in Israel should go after them for ``dangerous incitement by the newspaper,'' as if people cannot be horrified about what happened on October 7, care about the terrible plight of hostages, and care about Palestinian civilians without being pro-Hamas. Of course, claiming that newspapers and his political opponents are aiding and abetting Hamas is a convenient and deeply dishonest rhetorical tactic. It is the same kind of tactic that Trump uses here at home, threatening and sanctioning newspapers that report inconvenient facts. As we consider how Trump and Netanyahu are pushing forward their plan in Gaza, we should also pay close attention to what is unfolding on the West Bank, where extremist settlers have been fueling violence and destruction. The Biden administration had put in place an Executive order that sanctioned anybody destabilizing the West Bank. It applied to militant Palestinian groups and to extremist Israeli settlers involved in attacks against Palestinians. Trump revoked it. Last week, in the South Hebron Hills, masked settlers attacked Hamdan Ballal, a Palestinian filmmaker, who, alongside Israeli director Yuval Abraham, produced the Oscar-winning documentary entitled ``No Other Land.'' The film is about the life and struggles of Palestinians under Israeli occupation in Masafer Yatta, the very place where he was attacked. Over the last year, we have seen many, many people killed as a result of this violence. You know, if you listen to President Trump's nominee to be our Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, you would think that the expulsion of Palestinians from their land and Israel's occupation is not a problem. When asked during his nomination hearing what would happen if Israel annexed the West Bank and whether Palestinians would have equal rights as Israeli Jews on the West Bank, he couldn't say. He just said, well, Palestinians would have some ``opportunity.'' Let's step back and take stock of where all of this leaves us. As I said at the start, Israel has a right to defend itself. Of course, it does, and the United States will always stand with Israel's right to do so, and the United States has consistently provided Israel with the weapons it needs to defend itself against its many enemies, including Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. But there is a big difference--a very big difference--between providing Israel with the ability to vigorously defend itself and the goals of Trump and Netanyahu, as well as those of Smotrich and Ben Gvir, which are increasingly embracing the goals of building a greater Israel by annexing the West Bank and reoccupying Gaza. Smotrich and Ben Gvir made no secret of that objective. At a large ultranationalist conference held on the border of Gaza, in October of 2024, Smotrich endorsed the idea of rebuilding settlements in Gaza, stating on his way to the event that the strip was ``part of the land of Israel'' and that ``without settlements, there is no security.'' It is very clear that Netanyahu has hitched his political survival to Smotrich and his whim, and Trump's calls for the displacement of over 2 million Palestinians in Gaza only plays further into their hands. Just yesterday, Netanyahu and Defense Minister Katz announced that Israel would, as Defense Minister Katz said, ``seize large areas'' of the Gaza Strip. The response of the Hostages and Missing Families Forum, which represents most of the hostages' families, was swift and clear. They said they were horrified by Katz' statement and asked: Did you decide that we are sacrificing hostages for capturing land? Instead of getting hostages out in a deal and ending the war, Israel's government is sending more soldiers to Gaza to fight in the same places that they already fought over and over again. And yet Trump continues to stand with the extremist Netanyahu government and his own reprehensible plan and calls upon American taxpayers to spend billions of dollars to support that plan. Israel is now operating as the undisputed superpower in the Middle East. It is a nuclear power. Hezbollah is on its back foot. Iran's air defenses have been severely degraded. Assad is, thankfully, out of power in Syria, and Israel has destroyed much of Syria's military infrastructure. So the question is, What does Israel want to do with this power? What are its long-term goals? The answer from Smotrich and Ben Gvir is to build a greater Israel, one that demolishes the possibility of a future two-state solution, and Netanyahu is in their corner. The annexation of the West Bank and the reoccupation of Gaza will not make Israel safer. To the contrary, it will condemn it to perpetual conflict. The only sustainable way forward is to ensure that the 5 million Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank who have nothing to do with Hamas can live with dignity and have their human rights respected. That is the only way to ensure the long-term security for Israelis and Palestinians alike. That is the only way, colleagues, to prevent the United States from being dragged into permanent conflicts in the Middle East, and that should be painfully obvious to anyone who has followed the history of this region. I will close where I started. This is not about whether someone is pro-Israel. I believe you can be pro-Israel and anti-the policies of Netanyahu, just as you can be pro-America and oppose the policies of Donald Trump, and that is what this is all about. This is about whether you support the approach that Netanyahu and Trump are taking at this time: Trump's vision of a Gaza cleansed of its Palestinian population and Netanyahu's, Smotrich's, and Ben Gvir's vision of a greater Israel without basic human and political rights for Palestinians. I will not support that future. I will not vote to support American taxpayer dollars to advance that future. It is not in America's interest nor is it in the interest of Israelis, Palestinians, or anyone else who lives in the Middle East. I yield the floor.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont. Can I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. All right. Listen, I want to emphasize a couple of key points that the Senator from Vermont made. First of all, as we all know, Israel not only has the duty and the right to defend itself, but it has to make sure that this never happens again. But I did not hear the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee respond to the key points the Senator from Vermont and I have been making--No. 1, that what is happening right now is a clear violation of American law. Even if you want to throw international law out the window--and, in my view, we do that at our great jeopardy because the United States has many times invoked international law to advance what we consider to be important rights and interests--it is a violation of the plain meaning of U.S. law because under 620I of the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act, also known as the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, offensive sales to any country that is preventing the delivery of U.S.-supported humanitarian assistance is not allowed. It says very plainly that we should not transfer any offensive weapons to a country if they are not facilitating and if they are arbitrarily denying and restricting or otherwise impeding directly or indirectly the transfer of humanitarian assistance. It is indisputable here that for 32 days, all humanitarian assistance to the civilian population in Gaza has been cut off. I haven't heard a response to how that is not a violation of U.S. law. Beyond that, it was just last year that the Netanyahu government provided the U.S. Government with written assurances that they would allow the delivery of humanitarian assistance into Gaza. Apparently, it doesn't matter anymore because Donald Trump is in the White House, which, of course, brings us to the other point which both the Senator from Vermont and I have emphasized--that the extreme right in Israel has been emboldened even further by the comments made by Donald Trump-- the Donald Trump comments that we would essentially push 2 million Palestinians out of Gaza. That has been cheered on by extremists like Ben-Gvir and Smotrich and now adopted and embraced by Netanyahu and his government. I don't think the American people want to use their taxpayer dollars to supply bombs and other offensive weapons to support that twisted, illegal, and immoral vision of clearing Gaza of 2 million Palestinians. Yet, as I quoted earlier in my remarks, just today--check it out in the Washington Post and other newspapers--Israel is saying they are going to seize more land in Gaza. The families of the hostages have said that is a really bad idea. Focus on ending the war and getting every hostage returned. That is what we should be focused on. That is why I support the Sanders resolution, and I oppose spending $8 billion on bombs and other offensive weapons to support the Netanyahu-Ben-Gvir-Trump vision, which is a terrible future for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking our colleagues from Virginia, starting with Senator Kaine, who brought us to this debate here on the Senate floor today on a very important question, and to my other colleague from across the Potomac River from Maryland, Senator Warner. We sometimes disagree on various issues. On this, we have solidarity across the Potomac River. That unity comes from a very simple result, which is that we are here to sound the alarm about the trade war that Donald Trump just unleashed today. He calls it ``Liberation Day.'' If he had made this announcement yesterday, on April Fools' Day, people would have thought it was an April Fools' joke. But this is no joke, and it is not liberation day. It is a national sales tax day because that will be the result of the President's action--a sales tax on the American people, a national sales tax, because today the President announced he was levying massive, across-the-board tariffs on countless goods, making big promises but at the end of the day betraying the American people, who are going to be hit hard by rising prices. We have heard the President make a lot of promises about what these tariffs will do. It is like a miracle cure. They are going to revive American manufacturing. They are going to stop fentanyl. They are going to balance our budget. They are going to make all of us rich, and all of those other countries are going to pay for it. The problem is, none of that is true. Other countries don't pay these tariffs; we do. It is a sales tax on goods imported from other countries. American importers pay the tax at the border, and they pass the cost on to the consumers. What else are they supposed to do? American manufacturers that put together products here in the United States but import some of the parts they use in those products will face higher costs, higher prices on the parts they import. They are going to have to pass on those costs to American consumers, so they are going to have to jack up their prices. When they jack up their prices, not only do American consumers pay more, but those American manufacturers and American producers, when they are exporting goods overseas, they are having to export at higher prices, and that makes their products less competitive overseas. On top of that, it is a double whammy because when you have these big tariff increases on products from other countries, other countries aren't just going to sit back and take it. They are going to respond. They are going to retaliate. They are going to put tariffs on American products that we export to their countries. What will happen then? That means that an American producer exporting products overseas, whether manufactured products or agricultural products, their products are going to face higher prices in those countries. They will be less competitive, and people in those countries will buy less of those American products. So that means, here at home, they will have to lay off workers. It is going to hurt the economy back home in both those ways. We saw a little miniversion of this during the first Trump administration. Back then, Donald Trump raised tariffs on Chinese products, and China responded with retaliatory tariffs on many American farm exports like wheat, soybeans, and pork. What happened? Well, American farmers sold less of those products overseas. They got more expensive. Do you know how we know this was all a big fake-out? When American farmers were not able to sell their products into China's market because of China's retaliatory tariffs, we bailed them out--we the American taxpayer. We spent $23 billion in taxpayer money from the American people to pay American farmers not to be more productive--they were productive--but because China raised tariffs on their products in retaliation for Donald Trump raising tariffs on theirs. Look, we all recognize that tariffs can be an effective tool when they are used in a targeted way with strategic industries, but that is not what Donald Trump is doing. This is not strategic. He is starting an all-out trade war and apparently does not care about the consequences. It is leading already to chaos in the markets. I am not going to go through all those because Senator Warner, Senator Kaine, and others have spoken to that. But at the end of the day, the direction we are heading could well take us into a recession. As Senator Warner mentioned, some of the President's people have said this is going to be $6 trillion worth of tariffs over the next 10 years--by far the largest effective tax hike in American history. Economists estimate that it will cost the typical American household up to $4,200 more per year. That is a whopping sales tax. The National Association of Home Builders says that tariffs will make new homes cost up to 10,000 more, at a time when we are already facing an affordable housing crisis. North America's Building Trades Unions sent a letter opposing these tariffs, saying: We are seeing construction projects slowing down, infrastructure investments being delayed, and economic momentum weakening--resulting in smaller paychecks, fewer jobs, and shrinking opportunities for skilled building trades and workers. A researcher at Cornell University said that a new car could cost up to $20,000 more because of all the back-and-forth across borders and all the additional tariffs that are applied each time a border is crossed. U.S.-made cars are estimated to increase by up to $3,000. So buying a house, buying a car--these are all things that families save toward. So what this comes down to is a tax on the American dream. These increased costs may not mean a lot to the billionaires in the President's Cabinet. After all, we had the Secretary of Commerce say recently with respect to Social Security benefits that, hey, if Americans didn't get their Social Security benefits one week, nobody would notice except the fraudsters. That is the kind of attitude we have from this administration when it comes to increasing prices that we will all experience as a result of these tariffs. They think people won't notice, but they will. Finally, I do want to talk to the other part of this issue--and I am not going to belabor the point because others have spoken to it eloquently, especially the chief sponsor of this effort, Senator Kaine--which is that President Trump is abusing the International Economic Emergency Powers Act to apply these tariffs to Canada. That is a law aimed at protecting our national security. It is a law that we have used against adversaries like Iran, Sudan, North Korea, and Russia. But here, President Trump is using it to target our longtime friend, our longtime ally Canada. He has declared a phony ``emergency'' on our northern border to target our friends there. He claims that these punitive tariffs will somehow address the fentanyl crisis. Of course, we should be addressing the fentanyl crisis in the United States of America, and this Congress has done a lot. It needs to do a lot more. But in the fight against fentanyl, the Canadian people are, No. 1, our allies, and No. 2, they are not the ones who are causing the problem. Only 0.2 percent of fentanyl trafficked into the United States comes across the U.S.-Canadian border, and Canada is right now putting together a $1.3 billion plan to strengthen that border security and stop it altogether. So this is a fake emergency declared by the President, putting on these massive tariffs. I will close with why, and we are going to find out more about this in the next couple of days. I heard the chairman of the Finance Committee speaking a little bit earlier about how the proceeds from collecting tariffs might be counted and used to offset tax cuts which are going to be aimed at the very, very wealthy in this country--tax relief for the wealthy paid for in part by a national sales tax on all the other Americans in the country; paid for, as we have heard, by going after Medicaid. So whether it is a national sales tax or other efforts aimed at the American people that will hurt the American people and hit them in the pocketbooks, that is all done in service to pay for tax cuts for the very wealthy, people like Elon Musk. So I want to say thank you to the Senator from Virginia, Senator Kaine, for blowing the whistle on this phony action taken at our friend Canada, all as a pretext to increase tariffs, which amounts to a huge sales tax on the American people in service of a tax cut for the very wealthy. I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I want to thank my friend, and I want to start by thanking the Senator from New Jersey, the senior Senator from New Jersey, for shining a spotlight on what is happening in our country at this moment and specifically what is going to be happening here in the U.S. Senate later this week or next. And I have a question for the Senator, but I want to take some of the threads of what you have been saying as I put this to you because you are shining a light on the great betrayal. And that is, Candidate Trump went all over the country saying that he was going to be a President for the forgotten Americans, that he was going to be a President that looked out for working people, and he said he was going to focus on bringing costs down and prices down in the United States of America. And yet, ever since he was sworn in, he has done just the opposite. Prices are going up--including, as the Senator was talking about, housing prices. Affordable housing is a crisis in this country, and yet we see Elon Musk and his DOGE cronies cutting deeply into affordable housing programs over at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. We see also--and tomorrow, he calls it Liberation Day; it is actually going to be Sales Tax Increase Day--there was testimony that we got in the Banking and Housing Committee that when you increase these tariffs on Canada, as he has proposed to do--not in a targeted way but in an across-the-board way--according to the National Association of Home Builders, that will increase housing prices for Americans up to 10 percent more at a time when we are already facing an affordable housing crisis. And, of course, the folks who benefit the most are those billionaires who are part of his Cabinet and others in the hedge fund industry who are going out and buying up a lot of houses, not because they need the house for their family but because they want to flip it at a big profit, making it even less affordable to the American people. So the housing crisis is one part of what is getting even worse because of the actions of Donald Trump and Elon Musk. And it is part of this greater theme of the great betrayal. Later this week, Republicans here in the Senate say they are planning to bring to the floor what we call a budget resolution, which is a framework that will be providing for very big tax cuts for the ultra- rich Americans, tax cuts for big corporations, some of which are offshoring all of their profits. Senator Wyden and I were on the floor, just last week, talking about how Pfizer has half of its sales revenues here in the United States but books none of its profits here, and, therefore, by this scheme called round-tripping where you sort of push your money around the world, they lower their taxes, which means the American people get shortchanged. So all of this is part of a scheme to provide tax cuts for the very wealthy at everybody else's expense. The Senator from New Jersey has been shining a light on what it means when we say this will come at the expense of other Americans, that this tax cut for the very rich and big corporations will come at the expense of the rest of America. I want to amplify that as I do a windup to the Senator. No. 1, it is Elon Musk and the DOGE operation. Let me be very clear that this is part of the most corrupt bargain we have seen in American history. Elon Musk spent $280 million to help elect Donald Trump President, and Donald Trump has turned the keys to the Federal Government over to Elon Musk, not for efficiency but to rig the government in favor of people like Elon Musk. That is why they want to get rid of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This is a Bureau that has returned billions of dollars to Americans who were cheated by scam artists, and they are coming in to dismantle the CFPB because they want to be on the side of the scam artists and deny American consumers the benefit of getting their dollars back when they have been cheated. So this has nothing to do with government efficiency. It has to do both with rigging the government for people like Elon Musk and trying to lay the groundwork claiming lots of cuts that they will then use to pay for, they say, tax cuts for the very rich. So who is being cut by Elon Musk? I don't know, Senator, if you saw the other day in the sort of spin room at the White House--did you catch that, where Elon Musk and some of his folks were explaining the work they did? They said: We are really doing this with a scalpel. Well, the reason that is especially interesting is it was just weeks earlier when Elon Musk brandished a chain saw, right?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. At CPAC, which is actually--they met over here in my State of Maryland. That is what they are doing. They are taking a chain saw, and they are taking a chain saw to Departments that help our veterans. These are people who care for our veterans, and our veterans are being especially hard-hit, including when they did these firings--arbitrary firings, right?--of probationary employees, and veterans were saying: Why are we being hit so hard? The White House spokesperson said: Perhaps they are not fit to have a job at the moment. That was the response from one of the White House spokespersons, as if the individuals who served our country in the military were not fit to serve our government as civilians. That is the kind of attitude we have got. We just learned today that the RIFs--the reduction-in-force letters-- were received by the folks in the Department of Health and Human Services. So these are people who help with the public health of all Americans. And they do important work at FDA, or the Food and Drug Administration. They make sure that the foods we eat and the medicines we take are safe and that they do what they say they are going to do in the case of medicines. They do work at NIH, the National Institutes of Health, to develop cures and treatments for diseases that hit every American family, and they are cutting there. They are cutting in these places not for government efficiency but to create what they believe is the space for tax cuts for the very rich. We talked about what they are doing over at the Department of Health, at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. At the Social Security Administration--which, by the way, has its headquarters in my State of Maryland--we have thousands of workers who were there to deliver hard-earned benefits to the American people. And the reality is that the Social Security Administration operates incredibly efficiently. You know the former Commissioner for Social Security, Martin O'Malley, reminds us that Allstate Insurance Company operates at an 11- percent overhead. Liberty Mutual operates at a 23-percent overhead. The Social Security Administration: .5 percent overhead. The Social Security Administration workforce is now at a very low level in terms of personnel, compared to what it was years ago. And yet they are serving a record number of Americans--73 million Americans-- and they have never missed a payment. They have never missed a payment. So this talk about going after Social Security and that they are going to somehow make it more efficient--and, of course, Elon Musk called it a Ponzi scheme, when the Senator and I know it is not a Ponzi scheme. It is a promise to the American people. So, first, they discontinue telephone service, as if all the seniors could, somehow, just connect, you know, by Wi-Fi, or whatever it may be. A lot of people, of course, rely on telephones. So they cut that. They said: Well, if you have trouble, go to one of the local regional Social Security offices. Well, they are cutting regional Social Security offices--lots of them. And then, when you go there and you don't find many people there--you know, whoops, we just cut 7,000 people from Social Security. So a benefit is meaningless if you can't actually access the benefit. And what they are doing is making it harder for Americans to get those benefits. So when we hear about the Musk-DOGE operation, make no mistake, it is not about efficiency. It is about trying to put together some kind of savings that they then want to use to at least just partially pay for tax cuts for the very rich. Another way they are doing that--we have heard a lot about that; the Senator spoke about it--is cutting Medicaid and food nutrition programs. In fact, I think we recall, a number of weeks ago, that we had a couple of amendments here on the floor of the Senate, saying: OK, if you are going to do these tax cuts, at least don't cut Medicaid or Medicare or food and nutrition programs. Every Republican Senator voted against those amendments--in other words, not to protect those programs--meaning they are fair game for big cuts to pay for tax cuts for the very wealthy. So that is another area where they are very focused, which is cutting important programs that benefit millions and millions of Americans. There is another way they are doing it--and to the Senator from New Jersey, again, thank you for shining a light on all this; he has talked about it--which is these across-the-board tariffs. So I think all of us know that strategically targeted tariffs can be useful, at certain points in time, to protect strategic American industries. I am for those. But across-the-board tariffs and across- the-board tariffs on a friend and ally like Canada or Mexico--all that is, is a tax increase on the American people. Let's be clear. So these are the areas where Donald Trump, having said that he was going to be there for working people, is doing the opposite, right? These across-the-board tariffs are going to increase costs and prices for the American people. Cutting Medicaid and food nutrition programs is going to hurt the very people that Donald Trump on the campaign trail said he was fighting for. And the DOGE-Musk operation is taking a chain saw to important services and important consumer protections that benefit all Americans in order to claim that they are providing some savings for tax cuts for the rich. So it wasn't that long ago that, just down the hall here, Donald Trump was sworn in as President. And I remember what he said. He said: This is going to be a golden age for America. And who was sitting right behind him? Elon Musk, the richest person in the world, and other billionaires in the Trump Cabinet, including one who just said, not that long ago, that Americans on Social Security wouldn't miss one of their Social Security checks; only the fraudsters would notice that. Say that to the 73 million people who get Social Security. But that is the attitude of the billionaires in this Trump Cabinet, the people he is really looking out for. So when he says ``a golden age for America,'' that is who he means. He means Elon Musk and the billionaires--Elon Musk, who is rigging the government for the billionaires and all the others in the Cabinet who don't think Americans would miss a Social Security payment that they earned. So my question to you--and I want to, again, thank the Senator from New Jersey. I know it has been a long day's journey into the night, but it is important that we address these issues in the courts--and the courts are upholding the rule of law--that we address these issues and then fight them in Congress, and that we do so in communities across the country, and people need to understand what is happening. So the core issue here, is it not, my friend, that Donald Trump really is betraying the people he said he was going to fight for, and, at the end of the day--and we will see that later this week in the Senate--the goal is to provide these big tax breaks to wealthy people at the expense of everybody else in America. That is the big betrayal. So if you could just zero in, once again, on the central narrative that we are seeing play out in the Trump administration.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. And I see my friend and colleague Senator Alsobrooks from the great State of Maryland is on the floor, so I am going to be very brief with this question. I want to thank you for reminding us, of course, of the other great betrayal that has been going on over the last 70-plus days. There is the betrayal against the American people and working people here at home, but there has been a betrayal of our allies, like the Ukrainians, whom Donald Trump is throwing under the bus as we speak, and other close partners and allies around the world. I have to depart here for a moment because we have a hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and I am privileged to serve on that committee with the gentleman from New Jersey. One of the people before the committee is their nominee to be our Ambassador to Turkey. Now, of course, Erdogan just locked up his major opponent, the popular mayor of Istanbul. We have not heard a peep from the Trump administration about the question of how this undermines democracy. But I want to close on the point that you just raised. It is kind of hard for Donald Trump to complain about Erdogan disappearing people when right here in the United States of America, you had a Turkish student at Tufts disappeared by people who showed up without any identification, some with hoods on, and sent her apparently to Louisiana because she spoke out on an important issue of national concern. The First Amendment is pretty clear that you can engage in controversial speech that someone may like or dislike, but you are protected. That includes everybody here in America because that is an important value to us. Apparently, it is not an important value to Donald Trump, who, like Erdogan, essentially wants to whisk away anybody who disagrees with him. I again thank the Senator from New Jersey and just ask him, you know, to elaborate on that. But I also see my friend and colleague the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Wyden for bringing us together to shine a spotlight on one of the biggest tax heists in American history: the huge 2017 Trump tax giveaway to the very rich and the biggest corporations that came at the expense of everybody else in America because everybody else in America has to pick up the tab for that giveaway to big corporations and the very rich. And that tax heist played out right here on the Senate floor. So why are we gathered here today to talk about something that happened here 8 years ago? The answer is because it is about to happen all over again. In fact, this time, it may be on steroids. And the American people need to know what will go down right here on the Senate floor in a matter of months if we don't stop it. So let's take a look at what Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress promised 8 years ago when they passed their big tax giveaway for the rich and then look at what actually happened. They promised that tax cuts to the very rich would trickle down and somehow benefit everybody else in the country. It didn't happen. They promised that it would generate so much new economic activity that it would pay for itself, but that didn't happen. It added $1.5 trillion to our national debt, and if you extend that out another 10 years, that will be another $5.5 trillion on the debt. They promised that if they gave these benefits to big corporations, like Pfizer and others in the pharmaceutical industry, they would use their tax savings to provide raises of $4,000, on average, to all of their workers. It didn't happen. I will tell you who did get big bonuses. It was the CEOs and the executives. And they promised that they would use their savings--that the corporations would use another part of their savings--to reinvest in plants and equipment and, therefore, help the whole economy. It didn't happen. What those big corporations did was use a lot of their tax savings for stock buybacks to jack up the price of their own stock. This plan that they passed--the Trump tax plan passed 8 years ago-- did something else. It provided that mechanism to help some of the biggest corporations in America duck their tax obligations to the American people by shipping their profits overseas and engaging in all sorts of scams, and today we have even more evidence of that fact. I want to again thank Senator Wyden and his team on the Senate Finance Committee staff for the report he is presenting today because it is one of several reports he has done to expose how Big Pharma exploits the tax provisions of the 2017 Trump tax giveaway to magically make their profits from selling drugs here in the United States disappear. Somehow, all of those profits made here disappear when it comes time to pay taxes, and that is how they miraculously reduce the amount of taxes they have to pay. And this report that Senator Wyden and his team put together shows that this round-tripping scheme is how they do it--``round-tripping'' meaning you make your revenues here in the United States, at least 50 percent of the revenues in the case of Pfizer sales, but somehow, when it comes time to pay your taxes, you have taken those profits and filtered them through all sorts of overseas schemes and entities to reduce that tax liability dramatically. What the report shows is that while 50 percent of Pfizer's revenues are generated here in the United States, when it comes to booking its income for tax purposes, they show zero profit on their U.S. operations and, by playing that game, dramatically reduce their overall tax liability. This was facilitated by the 2017 Trump tax cuts, and it has allowed Pfizer to reduce its tax obligations by billions of dollars, cut its taxes by a whopping 40 percent--a whopping 40 percent--since that Trump tax scam was passed. And while big corporations win, everyone else loses. You know, American families, they can't use this round-tripping scheme. You can't somehow erase the taxes you owe on the earnings you make by running your earnings through various offshore schemes. Small businesses in America can't erase their American-based tax profits by using these round-tripping schemes, but the Donald Trump tax scam allows big corporations like Pfizer to do exactly that. By doing that, they have reduced their overall effective tax in the pharmaceutical industry to about 11 percent, far less than the rates paid by most middle-class families in America. When Big Pharma and big corporations shortchange America on the taxes they pay, they shortchange every citizen of this country. It means they are contributing less to modernize our infrastructure, less for public schools, less for our common defense. They become free riders on everybody else. So that is why we are here on the floor to blow the whistle. I will just close with this: I have said this before, but I am going to say it again because we are heading toward our big debate here on this issue. And that is, when on Inauguration Day, just down the hall here, President Trump was sworn in, he talked about a new golden age for America. Come to find out that when he is talking about a golden age, he is talking about a golden age for the people who were sitting right behind him on that platform when he was sworn in: Elon Musk and the billionaires. There are more billionaires in the Trump Cabinet than at any time in American history by far. And so on the campaign trail, Donald Trump says he wants to go after the elites. On the campaign trail, he says: I am going to look out for the forgotten Americans. Well, I will tell you what: He has forgotten Americans unless they happen to be a big corporation or the head of a big corporation. This is the big betrayal in action, and we are going to witness this big betrayal in action even more in the coming months here on the Senate floor if we don't stop it. I want to thank Senator Wyden and his team for exposing exactly what will happen if we don't stop it. I yield the floor.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, the bill that Senate Republicans have brought to the floor today and which we will vote on sometime soon is the latest example of the ``great betrayal'' in action. On the campaign trail, Candidate Donald Trump promised that he was going to help Americans deal with their pocketbook issues, kitchen table issues, and he said that on day one--day one--he was going to bring prices down; that he was going to bring down costs for American families. Well, costs are going up, and President Trump and Republicans are taking actions that will raise those costs on the American people even further, and today's bill is exhibit A. I want to take a step back and put this bill that we are considering today in context. You know, one of the infuriating experiences that so many American consumers have is the mountain of junk fees they face. These are hidden fees that are sometimes in very fine print in contracts. They are all these fees that get added to their bills, where they really have no idea what additional value they are getting for those fees because often there is no additional value for that fee or that the additional value is minuscule in comparison to the fee they are being charged. So people pay these fees and grind their teeth and essentially get ripped off. We also see many predatory lending practices, where financial interests prey on those who are living paycheck to paycheck. So, years ago, after the financial crisis of 2008, Congress created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--also known by its shorthand CFPB--to help protect American consumers from a whole range of predatory practices. Senator Warren was one of the people who thought of establishing that important consumer protection Agency. Now she is the ranking Democrat on the Banking and Housing Committee, on which I am privileged to serve. Since its creation, the CFPB has gone after all sorts of fraudsters, all sorts of con artists, all sorts of people who try to find different ways to cheat American consumers out of their hard-earned money. They have been successful, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. They have returned over $21 billion to American consumers who have been cheated out of their hard-earned money. In other words, they brought lawsuits to go after these fraudsters or changed practices in order to make sure that people could keep more of their hard-earned money. That includes $71 million that was returned to my constituents in the State of Maryland who were ripped off. Along the way, the CFPB made some powerful enemies, and many Republicans have been trying to dismantle the CFPB for years. Now they have Elon Musk to help do their dirty work. In one of the most corrupt bargains in American history, Elon Musk spent $280 million to help elect Donald Trump, and Donald Trump has turned around and given Elon Musk the keys to many Federal Agencies. Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with making the Federal Government more efficient and has everything to do with rigging the government to serve people like Elon Musk at the expense of everybody else in America. In fact, one of the great examples of that is that they went right after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I find it just gross that the richest man in the world would go after a Bureau whose purpose it is to help return money to American consumers who have been cheated out of their hard-earned dollars, but that was one of the very early targets of Elon Musk and his DOGE cronies. Now, apparently, that wasn't enough. It was not enough just to go after and try to dismantle that Agency. That step and the one we are dealing with here in the Senate today is an effort to go back and undo some of the important consumer protections that the CFPB put in place under the Biden administration. One of those protections was a rule that is in place now to prevent banks from charging consumers exorbitant fees when a consumer overdraws their account balances using a debit card. So how does this work? Well, let's say you have got your debit card. You go into the grocery store. You are going to buy some groceries for the family. You use your debit card to pay, and you overdraw your account. Now, some of the biggest banks in the country will typically charge you $35 for each of those overdrafts no matter how big your overdraft amount is. So you overdraw your account by one buck, $35; by 5 bucks, $35. The average overdraft amount is $26. So you can see on each one of those transactions those banks are making a hefty return. In fact, it is like a loan with an APR of 16,000 percent. And it happens time after time. In other words, you leave the grocery store. You go pick up your kids at school. You go to a local convenience shop. You get a cup of coffee. You pay with your debit card, and--boom--you get hit with another $35 overdraft fee. And on and on and on. In fact, every year, some of the biggest banks--Wells Fargo and Chase--make over $1 billion from consumer overdraft fees. And some of these banks have built an entire system to try to maximize the amount they get from their consumers through these overdraft fees. If you look collectively at the banking system, this is a $5 billion-a-year rip- off. So if you look at the people who are being primarily hit by this, not surprisingly, it is people who are living paycheck to paycheck--in fact, many of the people who Candidate Trump said he wanted to look out for when he was campaigning in the last election. If you look closely, you will find that 79 percent of overdraft fees are charged on about 9 percent of accounts. These are accounts where people have an average balance of around $350. So these big banks are preying on the people who literally are going paycheck to paycheck. And for those households, the average hit every year is about $225 in exorbitant fees. So you make a tiny miscalculation, and you get hit hard by these predatory practices. Last year--this last year--the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau-- the one that Elon Musk and DOGE are trying to shut down as we speak-- last year, they developed a rule to help protect consumers. It was something many of us had pushed for years, and we were glad to see them do it. The rule was pretty straightforward. It would cap the overdraft fees at $5 a time instead of $35 a time. And it would also require banks to be transparent in their pricing and their overdraft penalty structure so that consumers would know and have eyes wide open as to what penalties they were going to incur. So you wouldn't have people inadvertently hit with 35 bucks for a cup of coffee, 35 bucks when you go pick up some more groceries. This has become a way for some of the biggest banks to rip off consumers, especially those who are going paycheck to paycheck, as I said, to the tune of $5 billion. So that is the rule. That is what the CFPB did, pretty simple measure: Make sure that consumers don't get ripped off and not even know they are being ripped off sometimes until they know about the overdraft fee. What Republicans have brought to the floor today is a proposal to override that consumer protection bill to allow those banks to continue to collect $5 billion from American consumers, so many of them who are living paycheck to paycheck. Everybody should know that that is what is going on here. We have got the richest man in the world trying to shut down an Agency that was created to help protect consumers, and here in the Senate, we have Senate Republicans trying to overturn a consumer protection rule that saves working people a little bit of money and makes sure that they don't get slammed for making a small overdraft on their accounts. I urge my colleagues to vote to uphold the consumer protection law that was adopted. If you want to vote yes to protect the rule, you vote no on this effort to overturn it. I urge my colleagues to vote no. I yield the floor.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise to join my Senate colleague Senator Alsobrooks to talk about the 1-year anniversary of the collapse of the Key Bridge in Baltimore. We speak today on the floor on the eve of that solemn anniversary, and we remember those who died that day. We probably all remember--at least all of us in Maryland--where we were when we learned that the Key Bridge had collapsed. It was a local, national, and, in fact, international tragedy. It echoed around the world, and its impact was felt far from Maryland's shores. First and foremost, it was a human tragedy for the six Baltimore construction workers who were working the overnight shift that day. As my Senate colleague Senator Alsobrooks has said, each of them had loved ones who depended on them, and four of them were fathers. I, too, would like to read their names into the Record on this solemn anniversary eve of their passing away: Alejandro Hernandez Fuentes was 35 years old. Dorlian Ronial Castillo Cabrera was 26 years old. Maynor Yassir Suazo Sandoval was 38 years old. Carlos Daniel Hernandez Estrella was 24 years old. Miguel Angel Luna Gonzalez was 49 years old, and Jose Mynor Lopez was 37 years old. These six men came to Maryland in search of better lives, and they made our State and, indeed, our country a better place. Their tragic deaths came as they quietly worked on the overnight shift to maintain the bridge that millions of people depended on. We know that 1 year does not take away any of the pain or the grief of their families or their loved ones. We know that this anniversary can be an especially difficult time, bringing up the most painful memories, and, today, we grieve with them. The Key Bridge collapse also disrupted the lives and the livelihoods of countless Marylanders. For 47 years, the Key Bridge was an indelible part of the Baltimore City skyline and a vital part of our lives. More than 34,000 travelers crossed that bridge each day. It was the gateway to the Port of Baltimore, which welcomes 1,800 ships every year and supports 20,000 direct jobs, including 2,400 union longshoremen, as well as 24,000 jobs spurred by local purchases, and then an additional 7,200 indirect jobs. So you can see its huge economic impact. In fact, it generates $70 billion annually of economic revenue for the city. The Port of Baltimore is the busiest in the Nation for farm and construction machinery and imported forest products and is the second busiest for automobiles and light trucks. When the bridge collapsed that morning, the debris blocked the channel to the Port of Baltimore, putting 8,000 individuals temporarily out of work and halting the flow of trade for millions of Americans. But, as the bridge came apart, we came together, and out of this tragedy came unity of purpose and unity of action. We will remember the first responders, including the three Maryland Transportation Authority officers who were on site and quickly acted to stop additional traffic from going onto the bridge, preventing further tragic loss of life: Sergeant Paul Pastorek, Corporal Jeremy Herbert, and Officer Garry Kirts. Those officers and all of the first responders on scene that morning deserve our thanks and enduring gratitude for preventing more loss of life and rescuing the two workers who did survive the crash that day. After the bridge fell, I woke up, sometime in the middle of the night to early morning hours, to a call from my team. Immediately, everybody sprang into action. First of all, President Biden and Secretary Buttigieg quickly reached out to the Maryland congressional delegation at that time, Senator Cardin and Congressman Mfume; and at the State level, to Governor Moore and Mayor Scott and our State and local partners, all of whom quickly rallied to the site of the bridge collapse to both get briefed on what happened and to plot the early stages of the way forward. Federal, State, and local agencies established what was called the unified command, led by the U.S. Coast Guard, to manage the scene and begin the recovery effort. The Maryland State Police worked to recover the bodies of the six workers from the depths below the river. We were grateful for their quick and their careful work. Today is Maryland Day, and I want to commend our first responders for embodying the very best of our State. Following the recovery efforts, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers led the charge at the unified command to clear the debris from that channel. They deployed precision explosives to remove a large section of the bridge from the top of the Dali--the Dali was the ship that crashed into the bridge--and they coordinated the response across agencies. On May 20 of last year, the ship was finally floated away from the site, and on June 12--just 78 days after the bridge collapsed--the Port of Baltimore was fully reopened, which is a testament to the unified efforts of Federal, State, and local partners. I would like to thank COL Estee Pinchasin, who was the Army Corps of Engineers person in command of the effort to clear the debris from under the bridge, for her leadership as commander of the Baltimore District at the time. As the colonel noted when we all spoke about reopening the Port of Baltimore, ``it is not a hope--it is a plan.'' As the Army Corps and others cleared the channel, Federal Team Maryland worked to secure the resources that Baltimore City and our State would need to rebuild the bridge. Senator Cardin, Congressman Mfume, and I worked to coordinate the Federal response, and we quickly secured the Biden administration's approval of Baltimore's eligibility to receive emergency highway funding to aid in the recovery effort. That was a critical first step. We then introduced the bipartisan Baltimore BRIDGE Relief Act, legislation to ensure 100 percent Federal funding for the bridge replacement, with bipartisan support and the entire Maryland delegation. We also ensured that, with any government litigation regarding the bridge, the proceeds from that, as well as insurance proceeds stemming from the collapse, would go directly to the costs of replacing the bridge. This bridge merited the 100 percent Federal match because of the scale of the disaster and the precedent that we have applied to similar disasters of that scale. It was not simply a Baltimore City tragedy. It did have economic consequences across our region and, indeed, rippled across the Nation. But securing those funds required a monthslong effort and an all- hands-on-deck mission. We worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and that bill finally passed in December of last year. Included in that legislation was an increase in funding for the national emergency relief fund. I want to thank a number of our colleagues who worked with us hand in hand to secure those funds at this moment of tragedy for Baltimore and the country. I want to thank Senator Capito and former Senator Carper of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I want to thank Senators Collins and Murray of the Appropriations Committee, as well as their staffs and our other colleagues. I appreciate all of those who came to visit the site of the bridge collapse and to learn of our needs and what would be required to rebuild. At the end of the day, passing this bill was not just about the funding. It was about keeping the promise that our government made to Baltimore and upholding a deeper national tradition that lies at the foundation of our Union: that when one huge disaster strikes any one State, the rest of us assist and come to their help. No one has to go it alone. I also want to thank my former partner in the U.S. Senate, Ben Cardin, for all his work in this endeavor and our Governor, who worked so hard here on Capitol Hill to help make the case. I also want to thank my new partner in the Senate, Senator Alsobrooks, as she takes up the baton and makes sure that we move full speed ahead. Because of the Federal funds, we have gotten the necessary permits to proceed. We must continue to work to rebuild not just the bridge itself but to rebuild all that was lost that day. And the way we do it is by being united. That is the message that I just want to close on, which is that out of this terrible tragedy that happened in Baltimore City, first of all, people came together to comfort the families who lost loved ones. People came to support our first responders. People worked together to clear the channel of debris so the Port of Baltimore could reopen. And colleagues here in the U.S. Senate and those in the House of Representatives rallied to help Maryland in its time of need. So I thank my colleagues for their efforts, and I thank everybody across America who helped Baltimore City and the State of Maryland at that moment of tragedy. As I say, out of that horrible moment came a ray of hope and unity that has helped us get to this point. I yield the floor.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise today in pay tribute to the memory of the late Kendolyn Louisa Hodges-Simons, a dedicated public servant and Marylander. Originally from Brooklyn, Mrs. Hodges-Simons was raised in a loving household by her parents and grandmothers. After the loss of her father, her mother and grandmother taught her the values of resilience, faith, and commitment to excellence. She carried these values throughout her life and career as a public servant. Before her career with the government, Mrs. Hodges-Simons excelled academically. She earned a full academic scholarship to Vassar College and graduated with honors. Her passion for justice led her to earn her juris doctor at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Mrs. Hodges-Simons followed her pursuit for justice and practiced law as a clerk and as an attorney specializing in telecommunications law. She continued to use her law degree as a public servant, serving our Nation through her positions at the Federal Communications Commission, the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, the Federal Aviation Administration, the District of Columbia's Office of the People's Counsel, and the DC Department of the Environment. Mrs. Hodges-Simons was a champion for strengthening our environmental policies. As chief of the Office of Enforcement and Environmental Justice for the DC Department of the Environment, she advocated for better environmental policies to protect underserved communities. Mrs. Hodges-Simons was committed to serving her local community as well. She dedicated herself to community service, made a lasting impact as the first PTA president of Ernest Everett Just Middle School, and was an active member of her church, the First Baptist Church of Glenarden. Mrs. Hodges-Simons' memory is cherished by the many people whose lives she touched, but especially by her family. She is survived by her husband Don; her children Donielle and Kenneth, who is a treasured former member of my Senate staff; her mother Mary; and her sister Karin. I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our appreciation to the late Mrs. Hodges-Simons and her family for all she has done for our community and country.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated public servant and Marylander Mark Sweeney, Principal Deputy Librarian of Congress. With almost 40 years of unwavering service to the Library of Congress, Mr. Sweeney has faithfully served our Nation by preserving our knowledge, history, and culture. Throughout his distinguished career, Mr. Sweeney served the Library of Congress in multiple positions. He began his career at the Library in 1985 as a Library technician. His hard work, expertise, and dedication led to multiple promotions, including to Chief of the Preservation Reformatting Division, Chief of the Humanities and Social Sciences Division, and the Library's Director of Preservation. Throughout his career, Mr. Sweeney's dedication to preserving and enhancing knowledge strengthened the experiences of visitors to the Library of Congress. As Principal Deputy Librarian of Congress, he envisioned the Library's first user-centered strategic plan and contributed to the implementation of the Visitor Experience Master Plan. In addition, through Mr. Sweeney's leadership and support, access to our Nation's historical newspapers increased, conserving our history and culture. As the Library's technical adviser to the U.S. Newspaper Program, Mr. Sweeney contributed to the locating, preservation, cataloging, and dissemination of newspapers from the 18th century to the present that were published in the United States. In addition, Mr. Sweeney guided and supported the Library's team for the National Digital Newspaper Program to strengthen access to newspapers through technology. Mr. Sweeney's leadership also extends past the Library of Congress; his efforts to increase the accessibility of America's history and culture have been used as a model throughout our Nation to better the conservation of newspapers. I commend Mr. Sweeney for his remarkable commitment to preserving our Nation's history and strengthening accessibility to sources of knowledge. His legacy is one of drive, passion, and encouragement of his colleagues and many others. I congratulate and thank Mr. Sweeney for his dedication to our Nation. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking him and wishing him a well-earned, enjoyable, and fulfilling retirement.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, together with my Maryland and Virginia Senate colleagues, I call up my amendment No. 1272 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, this amendment shuts down the illegal Musk DOGE operation, which has nothing to do with government efficiency and everything--could I have order, please, Mr. President

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, this amendment shuts down the illegal Elon Musk operation, which has nothing to do with government efficiency and everything to do with rigging the government for people like Elon Musk and powerful special interests. That is why they started by firing all the independent inspectors general in the U.S. Government, which just opens the door to more corruption. And they have lied and lied to the American people. They illegally fired over 200,000 patriotic Federal employees, including 6,000 veterans, and added insult to injury by lying that they were fired for poor performance. That was untrue, and this is why judges are ordering the Trump administration to return them to their jobs. They gained access illegally to highly sensitive personal information on Americans, and just today we learned--

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I ask unanimous consent for 10 seconds. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Finally, they also have essentially tried to clear the way--clear the way--for tax cuts for very wealthy Americans. And I will end with this. They have also lied about their savings.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I say it is time to delete DOGE. Please adopt the amendment. Thank you, my colleagues.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I want to thank Senator Collins for working on an emergency basis to fix this problem in the House bill. She said it well, so I only want to emphasize two points. One, what the House did does not save the Federal taxpayer one penny--not one penny. What it does is cap what the District of Columbia can spend in using its own money and based on its own decisions. So taxpayers are not saved a dime by what they did nor will they gain by our fix. The people of the District of Columbia should be able to make these decisions, and if they are having to make a budget with $1 billion less, it will mean fewer resources, fewer firefighters, and less money for schools. So I want to thank the Senator from Maine for working with us on this. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues from Virginia and Maryland--Senator Warner, Senator Alsobrooks, and Senator Kaine. We urge its adoption unanimously.