To repeal certain provisions relating to notification to Senate offices regarding legal process on disclosure of Senate data, and for other purposes.

Mr. President and my colleagues, last week, the Senate agreed to discharge our bipartisan War Powers Resolution from the Foreign Relations Committee so that we could finally, after months, debate military action against Venezuela and Venezuelans, on the floor of the Senate, and not just allow the administration to wage combat on its own with no information shared except in classified settings.

I thank my colleagues, two of whom are here on the floor today, who voted for this resolution. They did not vote to rebuke a President, although, for some reason, he has chosen to see it

that way. Instead, they voted to uphold a basic constitutional principle that we should not be waging offensive hostilities without a debate and vote in Congress.

As I described last week, the reason for that principle is clear: Don't send our sons and daughters into military hostilities without the debate and vote in Congress that would put the thumbprint of the Nation's leadership on the validity of the mission.

I believed that today we were going to have a debate about the War Powers Resolution, possibly consider amendments to it, and then hold a vote on final passage. But I have now learned that some want to foreclose the possibility of a debate and allow the President to carry out this unauthorized campaign with no public debate and no vote. And they are apparently preparing a parliamentary move to deprive our resolution of the privileged status given it under the War Powers Resolution and, thus, shut debate down.

First, an effort to declare this resolution not privileged-- apparently, by arguing that the campaign in and against Venezuelans is not hostilities--is something that the House has actually been doing, but the Senate should not emulate.

Some of you remember that the Senate has passed a number of resolutions against President Trump's unilateral tariff taxes that are privileged. They are also privileged--or they used to be--in the House, but the House was so afraid to even have a debate or vote about this matter that they used a procedural parliamentary trick to turn off the privilege. I don't think that is worthy of emulation by the ``greatest deliberative body'' in the world. We shouldn't be afraid to debate or discuss anything, especially matters of war and peace.

Second, an argument that the Venezuelan campaign is not ``imminent hostilities'' within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution is a violation of every reasonable meaning of that term.

Let's begin with the boat campaign against boats with Venezuelans on it, starting in mid-September, that has now killed more than a hundred designated combatants; the amassing of U.S. military assets, what the President calls an armada in and around Venezuela; the President' authorization of covert action in Venezuela; the U.S. military's use in the interdiction of oil from Venezuela; the attack, over two weekends ago, to seize the Venezuelan President, President Maduro, and his wife, where more than a hundred combatants were killed, where U.S. troops were injured; and now ongoing control facilitated by the U.S. military.

The United States is determining who can govern Venezuela. We have tapped the Vice President of Venezuela and determined that she is somebody who should be the leader, rather than the opposition who won an overwhelming election, just a year ago.

We have said we can determine when Venezuela will finally be entitled to have its own election, saying that they are not going to be ready for that for some long period of time.

We are seizing the nation's primary economic asset, its oil. We are deciding how the oil revenues--every penny of the oil revenues--of this nation should be spent, and President Trump is even saying that he gets to determine which U.S. companies can even invest in the Venezuelan oil economy.

And it is all being done with the active participation of the U.S. military. The U.S. military assets in place around Venezuela are, as President Trump said, an armada, 16,000 U.S. personnel. This is open source reporting as of 2 days ago, arrayed around Venezuela:

The USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group: Carrier Air Wing 9, the USS Winston Churchill, the USS Bainbridge, and the USS Mahan.

The Iwo Jima Amphibious Readiness Group, which includes: the USS Fort Lauderdale, the USS San Antonio, and the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit.

The USS Thomas Hudner (DDG-116), the USS Stockdale (DDG-106), the USS Lake Erie (CG-70), the USS Gettysburg (CG-64), the USS Wichita (LCS- 13), the USNS Waters, the USNS Joshua Humphreys, and the USNS Kanawha.

And that is in addition to air assets that are arrayed all around the region that have been used and are likely to be used in the future.

Everything that is being done to control Venezuela, its politics, and its economy are being facilitated by the U.S. military, but it is more than assets in place. Operation Southern Spear, the boat strikes of Venezuelan boats in international waters, is still being carried out by the U.S. military. The U.S. military is engaged in a naval blockade of Venezuela, transit out and transit in. Would we think that was an act of war if Russia was blockading the United States and not allowing commerce to come into or out of our ports?

The U.S. military is engaged in active interdiction of Venezuelan oil in the Pacific and the Caribbean and elsewhere in the world, and the United States is threatening future military action.

President Trump said about Vice President Rodriguez, if she didn't act well, she would have a fate worse than President Maduro. President Trump was going to do a second invasion, last Friday, that he called off after our vote Thursday afternoon--threats of future invasion.

If this is not ``imminent hostilities'' with the death now of more than 200 combatants, with U.S. troops injured, with an armada arrayed around, a naval interdiction of oil, and a blockade of this country's economy, it would violate every reasonable meaning of this term, and to pretend otherwise would weaken the respect that this institution should aspire to.

Finally, to my colleagues, there has been some recent correspondence between the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Risch of Idaho, and the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, that basically underlines my points.

Some Senate colleagues wanted to use this procedural maneuver today, and they felt that it would help if they could have a clear definition or description from the administration that the military operation is over.

And so, I have the letter here that Senator Risch wrote to the President of the United States yesterday, and he asked two simple questions: First, ``provide Congress with an official correspondence confirming that Operation Absolute Resolve has ended''--first request-- and second, specify ``that U.S. military personnel are no longer involved in hostilities in Venezuela.''

Two simple questions. I don't know that those questions would have been sufficient for me, but, apparently, Senator Risch thought if he could get ``yes'' answers to both of those questions, it would be sufficient for him.

Secretary Rubio sent a response today and would not answer yes to either of the questions. The letter from Senator Secretary, dated earlier today, January 14, very explicitly does not say that Operation Absolute Resolve is over. He was asked to say that it ended; he would not say that it has ended.

How could it be ended when the President is still threatening other sanctioned and indicted Venezuelan officials with a fate worse than Maduro's if they don't meet the U.S. standards?

So in this letter which my colleagues sought to justify this parliamentary maneuver that is coming up, Secretary Rubio would not specify that Operation Absolute Resolve has ended.

Well, how about the second question: Please specify ``that U.S. military personnel are no longer involved in hostilities in Venezuela.''

Secretary Rubio would not say that either. ``There are currently no U.S. Armed Forces in Venezuela.'' He didn't say U.S. forces aren't involved in hostilities in or against Venezuelans because he couldn't say that with the interdiction, with the blockade, with the boat strikes.

And so even the effort of my colleagues to try to find a parliamentary escape hatch--oh, there is no hostilities--and softball set of two questions to the Secretary of State to justify their position produced a response where he would not agree that the operation is over--the military operation--and he would not agree that the United States is now not in hostilities in or against Venezuela.

This is the third vote we have had on Venezuela in the last 3 months. Only now--only now--does the administration and its supporters make the claim that there are no hostilities. They didn't make that claim in the first 2 months, as the armada was amassing, as we were killing people in open

waters, as we were committing to covert action, as we were preparing and practicing for an invasion.

They knew that it was hostilities, and that is why they didn't challenge it. But only now, on the third vote, are they challenging whether this is or is not hostilities, and they are doing so to avoid public debate. That is the reason they are doing this.

If this cause and if this legal basis were so righteous and so lawful, the administration and its supporters would not be so afraid to have this debate before the public and the U.S. Senate.

For that reason, I urge my colleagues to avoid a parliamentary gag rule on discussion of this military operation and support the bipartisan War Powers Resolution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in a moment, I will make the motion that my colleague from Idaho mentioned, the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 298, but I do want to just address the points that he made very briefly.

My colleague from Idaho had said there is no current use of U.S. hostilities in Venezuela, and he has also said that the military operation Absolute Resolve is over. That is what he has just told this body. And he has said, because of those two facts, he is making the motion that we will hear in a moment, the inquiry.

I just want to refer my colleagues to the letter exchange between Senator Risch and Secretary Rubio because that is not what the letters say. The letters do not say what has been represented by my colleague.

Let me read what Senator Risch asked the President, and then let me read Senator Rubio's response.

Senator Risch said: I respectfully request that you provide Congress with an official correspondence confirming that Operation Absolute Resolve has ended and that U.S. military personnel are no longer involved in hostilities in Venezuela.

Those were the two questions posed to the President.

Let me read you Senator Rubio's answer. He did not confirm in his answer that Operation Absolute Resolve has ended. The letter does not mention Operation Absolute Resolve because it hasn't ended. The President himself has said that he is holding out the possibility of doing the exact same thing that he did to President Maduro to other Venezuelan officials who have been indicted by the United States, and that is why Secretary Rubio, in the letter, could not give an affirmative answer to Senator Risch's question. Operation Absolute Resolve has not ended.

There was a second question Senator Risch asked: Confirm that U.S. military personnel are no longer involved in hostilities in Venezuela.

Secretary Rubio wouldn't confirm that either. All Secretary Rubio says is: There are currently no U.S. Armed Forces in Venezuela.

What about the boat strikes? What about the naval blockade? What about the naval seizure of Venezuelan oil? Those are all hostilities under domestic and international law. They are all hostilities. And that is why Secretary Rubio, I think, being intellectually honest, refused to give an affirmative answer to my colleague's question. He said there are no troops currently in Venezuela, but he would not say that the U.S. military is not involved in hostilities.

So even on this record, with my colleague posing two questions to the administration--tell us the operation is over; tell us the United States is not involved in hostilities--the administration would do neither. And for that reason, I ask that we proceed on the path we are on to have this debate finally before the American public.

Mr. President, we are here on the floor of the Senate today to discuss the War Powers Resolution, to discuss the recent war activities in Venezuela, and yet there still is a debate. Some say there is not a war; some say there is a war; some say we won't know for a while if there is a war or isn't a war.

Last year, we had this debate. The junior Senator from Texas came forward and presented a War Powers Resolution for Gaza. He said that President Biden's decision to send U.S. troops in to build a beachhead, to build a pier, was sending them into a war zone.

Interestingly, every Republican Senator at that time voted against a point of order, and the point of order said no hostilities existed. The point of order at the time said Gaza is not a war. And every Republican voted against that point of order because every Republican considered that Gaza was a war zone and that the War Powers Resolution applied.

Fast forward to today, the proposition that the majority of Republicans will put forward is a point of order saying there isn't a war in Venezuela. So they all believed that there was a war in Gaza, but they all now believe that there is not a war in Venezuela.

Now, there are arguments, I think, actually for both being war. In Gaza, the troops that were building the beachhead were fired on multiple times, so I think U.S. troops under fire sounds a bit like you are putting them into a war.

Now, we have a situation in Venezuela where hundreds of troops were sent in--dozens and dozens--and pilots and planes were sent in. You bombed a nation's capital. You had extraordinary rendition of the nation's President, and now, we have a blockade involving hundreds of ships and thousands of sailors, but that is not a war.

It is somewhat boggling to the mind that almost every Republican Senator believed there was a war when a few soldiers were shot at in Gaza trying to build a pier. I agreed with them. I think that was putting U.S. troops into war.

But now every Republican--not every Republican--virtually all Republican Senators who believed that it was a war in Gaza now believe it is not a war in Venezuela.

Now, some of them on the quiet will tell you: Well, it was a war, but it is all over. It is all done. Yeah. We are not going to quibble. We really weren't arresting somebody. It wasn't a drug arrest. It was a war. It is a mini-war. But it is all over, so the War Powers Resolution doesn't apply because the war is over.

And yet, we still have an entire military blockade of a country, and that is not a war. This is a real question.

So we have been given a legal opinion by the current administration, and we had one of their assistant attorneys general come and explain to us why this is not a war. You have to realize this is an important part of the debate because, if it is a drug bust, it is not a war. So they told us this is really just a drug bust. We had to bomb the entire capital. We had to remove all their air defenses. We have an armada of 20,000 ships and hundreds of airplanes flown from all over the world, but it really was just a drug arrest; it really isn't a war.

But this young man came in to us, and he explained to us that we probably don't know yet whether it is a war. The way we will know it is a war is by the scope, the extent, and the duration, including how many people die in the war.

So the problem we have, though, is the Constitution gives us the power to initiate war, to declare war. But if we don't know if it is a war until after all the people die and we add up how many people died and they call it a constitutional war because a lot of people died, wouldn't it then be a little bit late to vote on initiating a war?

See, this is an enormous debate. This is an important debate, and this should not be sluffed over as, Oh, no big deal. The war is already over.

Well, we actually don't even know if the war is already over. We are under a blockade. The current administration has said they will send troops back in if they need to. They said they will send troops into other countries if they need to. The blockade is said to be, Oh, we are going to control the ships, and we are going to sell the oil, and we are going to run. We are in charge. It is our oil. We are going to be in charge of Venezuela.

But that sounds to me like a military blockade, a long-term military blockade, and I don't know how we argue that that is not war. But the position of the administration and probably the position of other Presidential administrations--because this isn't really and shouldn't be Republican versus Democrat--this should be legislative prerogative versus Presidential prerogative, and it should be about the Constitution.

The Constitution specifically, thoughtfully, vested the power of initiating war and declaring war to Congress. They talked about it. They talked about it in the Constitutional Convention. They wrote about it in the Federalist Papers, and from Hamilton to Jefferson, the spectrum of our Founding Fathers concluded they didn't want the President to have this power. They said the initiation--the declaration of war shall be vested by Congress in the legislature.

So what we have is an elaborate song and dance. They know the declaration of war resides here. They know initiation of war--so they argue first that it is not war; it is a drug bust. But then they say: Well, internationally, people say it probably is a war, so in case you think it is a war, we are going to tell you that it is not really a war because we won't know if it is a war until it is over. We will tell you more about it. We will know when the war is over whether it actually was a war and whether we should have voted to initiate war when the war is over depending on how many people die.

And then they say: Well, we are going to look at the scope, extent, and duration of the war, but since we don't know what that is, we are going to guess based on what the policymakers say. And they say to us now we are not going back in, so we don't have to vote on whether or not we are going to war with Venezuela.

This, to me, is an absurdity; it is logic that runs in circles, and it doesn't get us any closer to where we need to be. The reason the Founding Fathers gave this power to the legislature is because they wanted to make war less frequent, they wanted to make war hard to initiate, they wanted to see war more as a defensive notion, not as an offensive enterprise.

During the debate over whether Gaza was a war, the resolution was introduced by the junior Senator from Texas, and virtually every Republican voted for it. Interestingly, Marco Rubio voted for it. The Secretary of State actually voted to say that the war in Gaza where troops were being shot at that were building a pier was a war. But now, things seem to have reversed, and all those who thought Gaza was a war where there were some shots being fired at the people trying to build a pier--which by many people's interpretation would be a lot less than an entire invasion of a capital and removal of a President and a blockade of an entire country--every Republican in this body, including the current Secretary of State, voted that Gaza was a war.

In making the arguments that Gaza was a war, the junior Senator from Texas expressed the reality that the Senate had abdicated its constitutional responsibility. So at that time, the junior Senator from Texas argued that Gaza was a war. He said:

Over recent decades, we have seen the Senate hand away much

of our responsibility on foreign policy and national security

to the Executives. That is contrary to the design of our

Constitution, and it is frankly harmful to the Senate and

harmful to this country.

I couldn't agree more, but I don't understand how it was harmful when we were talking about Gaza and it is no longer harmful when we are talking about arguably a much greater military incursion into a country. It seems as if--and I know this would be shocking to people-- that there is some partisanship here, that there is a different definition of war under Democrats than there is under Republicans.

My colleague from Texas went on to highlight the flagrant hypocrisy of both parties, saying on the Senate floor:

[Now], far too often, the Senate has stepped out of our

historic role in foreign policy and [has] said: Whatever the

President wants, we, the Senate, aren't going to say anything

about it.

When there is a Republican President, Democrats suddenly

discover their voice and say: Hey, the Senate ought to say

something.

But when it is a Democrat President, it seems no matter how

incoherent and disastrous the foreign policy from the

Democrat President, [the] Democrat Senators don't want the

Senate to exercise its authority.

I would argue today is evidence that both sides are guilty of this. I would argue that if Gaza was a war, that bombing of the Venezuelan capital and removal of the President and the blockade of an entire country might qualify as a war.

If a few soldiers shooting at our soldiers who are trying to build a temporary pier or a temporary port in Gaza is war--which every Republican in the body voted for--certainly they must think the invasion of a capital is a war, that removing a President is war, or that blockade of a country.

So even though the first incursion, the first invasion, may well be over, is the blockade of a country not a war? Are we not at war when we have a military blockade of a country?

The American people are sick and tired of their elected officials disregarding the Constitution when their party is in power and then becoming ardent defenders of the Constitution when the opposing party is in power. Each of us took an oath to the Constitution to defend it that applies at all times, not just when it is politically convenient.

Congress maintains a constitutional duty to debate matters of war. Playing politics when the lives of our brave servicemembers are on the line and our country is at risk of being entangled in yet another foreign conflict is an inexcusable dereliction of duty.

At this point, I think we need to have a fulsome debate--a debate in the country, a debate in the Senate--over what war is. But I think anyone who accepts the ludicrous notion that they will tell you what war is after the war is over should not be treated seriously.

How can we do our duty? How can we do our duty to initiate and declare war if we don't know what war is until it is over?

If after the war we can count the casualties, and there are a significant amount of casualties, or the incursion took a significant amount of time, then there is war. Or some will say: Well, we can just defund the war. You know what, it has never happened.

Find me the Senator or Congressman who wants to vote against money for our troops who are being shot at. It is very difficult to stop funding a war once we start because a nation's patriotism rises up naturally.

The time to start a war is before it gets started. But if they are telling you they define war by how many casualties there are, you have got to wait until the war is over to determine whether it was a war, to determine whether we should initiate the war. This is an absurdity.

Both parties, frankly, have been guilty of hypocrisy on this, but the order today that we will be voting on is whether or not the point of order says that this is not a war.

Well, invasion of another country, blockading of a country, and removing another country's leader, to my mind, clearly is war, and I will vote against this point of order.

Mr. President, I rise as the ranking member of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee--known around here as CJS--to discuss the funding for critical national programs provided to those Agencies for fiscal year 2026.

This is one of the appropriations bills that is before the Senate right now.

I want to thank Senator Moran, the chairman and my partner on the CJS Subcommittee, and his staff Brian Daner, Kevin Wheeler, and Rachel Taylor, for working closely with me and my team to produce this important final bill for consideration of the Senate. I want to thank House CJS chairman Hal Rogers and ranking member Grace Meng and their staffs as well.

This bill is the result of many long days and nights of tough negotiations over the holidays, including a very productive call among the four of us on New Year's Eve to broker a final deal on the bill's remaining and outstanding items.

This bill has already overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives. The CJS appropriations agreement meets the allocation that was given to our subcommittee of $78 billion in discretionary spending. It rejects the very deep and reckless cuts proposed in the President's budget. At the same time, it is not much higher than the 2025 continuing resolution--so basically flat funding even as needs have grown in these important programs.

We had to make tough decisions when it came to what programs to cut and what to protect. Senator Moran and I were able to work together with our House colleagues in a bipartisan way to do our best to make those decisions.

I must say this is not the bill I would have written if I were doing it on my own, but it is the result of negotiations. Republicans currently control every branch of government--majorities in the House and Senate and, of course, control of the White House. But this bill, while not what I would have written alone, will ensure that Congress-- and not Donald Trump or Russ Vought--decides how taxpayer dollars get spent for the Agencies covered in this bill.

So I am happy to report to my colleagues that the CJS conference bill before us is a strong bipartisan one that rejects the very devastating, misguided funding cuts and program eliminations that had been advanced and suggested by President Trump, and it rejects dozens and dozens of extreme poison pill riders that had been proposed by our House Republican colleagues.

It makes smart and targeted investments in a wide range of critical initiatives that affect the lives of all of our fellow Americans. It prioritizes keeping our communities safe. It advances American leadership in science and innovation. It boosts economic opportunities around the country, including through the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program. It funds vital initiatives at Federal Agencies in my home State of Maryland, from scientific research at NASA Goddard, to operations at NOAA and NIST, to preparations for the next census.

Through the Department of Commerce, we maintain the current generation of NOAA weather and climate satellites, and we invest in next-generation satellites that will track severe weather. We also promote American businesses and exports through Department of Commerce efforts. We also help Agencies like NIST that are creating cybersecurity and AI standards for the future. Through NOAA, we are also enabling sustainable management of ocean resources that are so vital to our fisheries and to commerce throughout our country.

To promote American innovation and scientific discovery, the bill provides $8.75 billion for the National Science Foundation, sparing it from the 57-percent cut sought by President Trump.

Colleagues, we cannot expect to maintain our cutting edge in science and discovery and stay ahead of our competitors if we are not making the vital investments in research through the National Science Foundation.

The bill funds NASA at $24.4 billion to explore the solar system, to advance our understanding of climate change, to promote innovation and sustainability in aeronautics, and to protect our planet. This is another area where we rejected very deep cuts proposed by the Trump administration, including the 47-percent cut they had proposed to NASA's Science budget.

Colleagues, we won't have a space program if we don't understand what is happening in space and get to the fundamentals of science in space. You cannot have one without the other. So we reject those cuts.

The President's budget would have wrecked the exciting work being done right now at Maryland's Goddard Space Flight Center, where they are completing what is known as the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope. It is on time--in fact, ahead of schedule--and, right now, under budget, and is expected to launch later this year to investigate dark energy and the formation of galaxies and stars--all things that will add to the body of human knowledge and help the United States remain a leader when it comes to space discovery exploration.

The next step will be the development of the Habitable Worlds Observatory that can answer the fundamental question of whether we are alone in the universe.

That is another exciting project where America will take the lead, but only if we provide the resources to get it done, and that is another important program led by NASA Goddard.

I also included language directing NASA to preserve all the technical and scientific world-class capabilities at Goddard during any consolidation of the campus and calling for a National Academy of Sciences study to make sure that NASA Goddard is set up for long-term success. It is a national treasure, and we need to preserve it.

Reform, yes, but let's make sure we reform it in a way that can allow it to continue to be a leader when it comes to space science, Earth science, and the American enterprise.

Funding in this bill will also help better protect American communities. It invests in lifesaving grant programs from State, local, and Tribal law enforcement, to advancing criminal justice initiatives, to providing the highest level of funding ever for the Office on Violence Against Women.

In addition to these funding priorities, the bill also includes language I worked on to address the Trump administration's ongoing efforts to set aside and ignore the decades-long site selection process for a new FBI headquarters. The language in this bill requires that prior to spending any reprogrammed construction funds on a new headquarters, the FBI must submit the contracted and completed architectural and engineering plan for any new building, including the security plan, for review by the Appropriations Committee.

I think we would all agree that it is essential that the men and women who work at the FBI have a headquarters that meets the security requirements that have been set out for it over the last 15 years to two decades, which is Level 5 Security. It is the highest level of security and needed given the very sensitive work that the FBI does on behalf of our country.

This language is important to reasserting Congress' oversight role in a large and expensive project and ensuring that the new headquarters meets the mission and security needs of the men and women of the FBI. And I want to thank Senator Moran for working with me on this provision.

As I said earlier, this bill is not perfect. It does, however, include guardrails to safeguard the Congress' powers when it comes to spending the taxpayer dollars, at least within the domain of the Agencies in this particular appropriations bill. And that is one of the very important features of this legislation compared to what we would otherwise see in a straight continuing resolution. In this bill, we make sure that congressional prerogatives are protected, not just in report language, but in the statute itself.

As I said, the bill is not perfect. There are many things that I would have chosen to do differently if I was doing this on my own. I will say one problem with the bill before us is that a provision that had been unanimously adopted in the Senate Appropriations Committee regarding the Epstein files was taken out of this bill. That provision would have required the Department of Justice to retain those records.

It also required them to submit not just the files, but a report that provided information and analysis on various aspects of the Epstein files, from financial questions to links regarding foreign intelligence, anything that the documents reflected. And I will say, at a time when we have seen just a small percentage of those files actually released to the public and to the Congress, we need to do much better, which is why I have filed an amendment to this conference bill to restore the identical language that the Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously adopted.

Despite those shortcomings, I do think if you look at its full scope, that this bill is something that is worthy of bipartisan support. I think it will advance very important national interests, both when it comes to science and discovery, when it comes to law enforcement, and when it comes to other major national priorities.

The funding in this bill and the resources it has provided will, in my view, strengthen our country, especially at a time when we are facing so many challenges around the world from competitors and adversaries, including China and others. We need to make sure that the United States invests in the future of our people and the future of our country. This bill is a positive step in that direction, and I urge my colleagues to adopt it.

If I could, I did want to thank some of the folks on my team. And I want to thank them for all of the work that they did, including Jessica Berry, who is the lead Democratic clerk on the committee, as well as other members of our committee, Lindsay Erickson, TJ Lowdermilk, and Blaise Sheridan. I thanked the Republican staff members, Senator Moran's staff, who worked with us, and I want to thank my own team as well.

And in closing, I also do want to thank the chair and vice chair of the Appropriations Committee--Senator Susan Collins and Senator Patty Murray--for their work in getting us to this point, and, again, I urge adoption of this legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last week, this body advanced a War Powers Resolution to rein in President Trump's unauthorized military actions in Venezuela. This week, we will vote on final passage. I urge my colleagues to support it.

It is important to recall how we arrived here. What happened on January 3--the military raid in Caracas, the capture of Nicolas Maduro, and the President's declaration that the United States will ``run'' Venezuela and seize its oil--was not an isolated incident; it was a culmination of a monthslong campaign built on dubious legal arguments, institutional failures, and Congress' willful abdication of our constitutional duties.

For months, my colleagues and I warned that President Trump's military campaign against the alleged drug boats was strategically incoherent and legally questionable. We warned that the massive military buildup was not about narcotics trafficking. We warned that this campaign was always directed at military action against Venezuela.

At every turn, this body had the opportunity to exercise oversight and demand accountability, and at every turn, we failed to do so. Now we must correct that failure.

President Trump began laying the foundation for this operation--all the operations in Venezuela--the moment he was sworn in. On his first day in office, he designated multiple drug cartels as terrorist organizations. Shortly thereafter, he ended temporary protected status for some 350,000 Venezuelan migrants and authorized holding some at the naval station at Guantanamo before deportation.

On March 15, the President invoked the Alien Enemies Act--a wartime authority that had not been used since World War II--and declared that Tren de Aragua, or TdA, was a cartel plotting to invade and actively invading the United States as an ``invading force.'' He did this despite a National Intelligence Council assessment in April of 2025 that concluded the Venezuelan Government was not directing an invasion of the United States by TdA.

It would not be the last time President Trump disregarded the law and the facts to achieve his policy goals.

Also, by last summer, it was clear that, in addition to Secretary Hegseth, Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and Secretary of State Marco Rubio were engaged in planning these various proposed operations, and their personal agendas converged. Their goal was ultimately to destabilize and depose Maduro and secure access to Venezuelan's oil reserves.

Over the summer and fall, the Department of Defense flowed massive military assets into the Caribbean: the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group, the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit, attack submarines, P-8 Poseidon aircraft, Aegis destroyers, F-35 fighter jets, and eventually the USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group. The administration never explained why this buildup was necessary other than vague references to drug interdiction. It was clear then and it is perfectly clear now that they were preparing for an attack on Venezuela.

By late summer, President Trump had signed a secret directive ordering the Pentagon to conduct maritime strikes on drug boats. Secretary Hegseth then signed an execute order, or EXORD, directing lethal military strikes against alleged drug boats. He has refused to submit that EXORD to Congress despite legal requirements for him to do so. By not following a statutory requirement to submit these EXORDs to Congress, Secretary Hegseth and the President are breaking the law.

On September 2, the U.S. military carried out its first strike, killing 11 individuals on an alleged drug boat. Additional strikes continued throughout the fall and winter, and to date, the U.S. military has conducted 35 known strikes, killing at least 120 people.

President Trump tries to justify these lethal attacks by creating a new term--``designated terrorist organization''--a term that does not exist in U.S. law or anywhere else, so far as we have been able to determine. What does exist in law--authorized by Congress--is the ``foreign terrorist organization'' designation, which authorizes legal and economic sanctions. In other words, designating a cartel as a foreign terrorist organization limits that group's financial, property, and travel interests. It does not authorize lethal military action. We have searched high and low for a designation authorized by Congress of a group that would automatically allow lethal action, and we have not found it. Congress is still waiting for the President to publicly release the legal opinion underlying these legal actions preceding the recent operation in Venezuela, Operation Absolute Resolve. They have not done so yet, although they have released the latest legal opinion.

Even more troubling is that, in the process of conducting these strikes on the alleged drug boats, the JAGs--the judge advocates general--who had to opine on the legality, did not have access to this controlling legal opinion by the Department of Justice. They didn't get access to it until November, which was long after many of these strikes took place.

The legal foundation for this campaign and the operations that President Trump engaged in became extraordinarily tenuous during the September 2 strike. According to numerous public reports, after the initial attack, two survivors were left floating on the wreckage of their boat, miles from land. The United States had complete control of the skies and waters for miles around. Yet, after monitoring these survivors on video for the better part of an hour or at least 40-some- odd minutes, the order was given to fire lethal rounds at these survivors.

Even if one accepts the President's determination that we are in an armed conflict with cartels, the Geneva Conventions still apply. Article 12 of the second Geneva Convention defines ``shipwrecked'' persons as those ``in peril at sea or in other waters from any cause.''

The U.S. Navy's ``Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations'' makes clear that ``following each naval engagement at sea, belligerents are obligated to take all possible measures to search for and rescue the shipwrecked.''

The Department of Defense's ``Law of War Manual'' states that members of the Armed Forces must refuse to comply with clearly illegal orders, including law of war violations. It even provides a definition and an example to avoid confusion:

For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be

clearly illegal.

That is our law. That is the manual of the Department of Defense.

The administration has released a video of all of these attacks except this one, and I think it would be helpful to the public--to all of us--to make that video available.

As we all know, on January 3, this campaign reached a climax. U.S. forces conducted airstrikes to neutralize anti-aircraft systems, carried out cyber operations to shut down power in Caracas, and executed a helicopter assault

on the Presidential compound to seize Maduro and his wife. The tactical success of this mission is a testament to their capabilities and also to the incredible courage and quality of the men and women of our Armed Forces.

However, military skill is not the same as strategic wisdom. Executing a successful raid does not constitute a plan for governing a nation. Indeed, alleviating the plight and misery of the Venezuelan people appears nowhere in the administration's stated plans for the future of Venezuela.

Instead, President Trump announced that the U.S. was ``going to run the country'' and seize control of Venezuelan oil production. He stated that ``we are ready to stage a second and much larger attack if we need to.'' So the possibility of hostilities certainly still exists in the President's mind, and he expects to be involved in Venezuela for years to come. This is not really a plan; it is an aspiration. Even the experts in the oil industry suggest that it is not one that is feasible at this moment.

Under international law, the raid on January 3 violates article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The United States is bound by treaty to follow the U.N. Charter. The Constitution makes treaties part of the ``supreme law of the land,'' and the President is bound by his oath to ensure the laws are faithfully executed.

The administration, however, seems to have determined that it can ignore the supreme law of the land because it claims it was simply enforcing the law. That is wrong and cynical, and we are in a situation where the President continues to assert that we can use hostilities at any time. In fact, on January 9, he said, ``We are not afraid of boots on the ground.''

Let me, for a moment, point out another great hypocrisy that has arisen in this situation. This all began as a way to prevent drugs from reaching this country and affecting families throughout this country. The President was standing up and down, spouting about how he has gotten rid of fentanyl. Of course, fentanyl does not come out of this area of the world.

But this is one of the interesting things that happened just last night: President Trump canceled $2 billion in grants for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. These were grants intended to fund overdose prevention work in communities, to provide lifesaving reversal drugs, and to fund treatment for people with opioid addiction. These are the very programs that put people on a path toward long-term recovery to avoid deaths through drugs. The Trump administration is prepared to commit billions of dollars to attack Venezuela but will take it from those people who are suffering from drug addiction in the United States.

It is our duty to ensure that the United States engages in armed conflict only after having the approval of Congress. This body has had every opportunity up until now to demand accountability, and too many of us have refused. The President has flouted the law, and we have failed in our duty to correct it. So we must, I think, vote for this resolution. It is our responsibility. It is the oath we took, and it is the oath, tonight, that we must follow.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, as a matter of fact, I have been here a while. I can't think of a time that I felt the need to object.

You are entitled to your opinion of me.

How do you get in this group of eight people? Jack Smith went after my phone records. I am the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. We found out later that this politically motivated hit job against President Trump by Jack Smith got eight of us, and there are probably more.

What did I do to deserve this, Senator? I will just tell you. I don't know where you were at January 6. I was here. I was probably the leading voice on this side of the aisle to say the election is over; Biden won; Trump lost. But you keep talking about Trump because--if there is a case of Trump derangement syndrome, I think it has spread throughout the building.

I didn't riot. I didn't give cover to the idea that the election was stolen--quite the opposite. What was my big offense? Being a friend of Trump's.

What are you trying to do here? Do the right thing? The right thing is to continue to investigate Jack Smith for turning the law upside down, for creating a precedent that should scare every Senator in this body.

The law is pretty clear--there is a statute on point--that the Senate, even with a nondisclosure order, is supposed to notify the Members when somebody wants our phone records. We are a separate branch of the government.

You don't seem to be upset at all because they are coming after Trump and a friend of Trump's.

Now, when we do something, you know, we are out to destroy Trump. And anytime we look at what you all did, you know, we are, I guess, a bunch of crooks.

Now let's talk about me and enrichment. The Democratic majority leader, Senator Schumer, signed off on this. I want the world to know-- and the world is paying no attention because it is blowing up right now--that this provision was coordinated between Senators Thune and Schumer because a lot of people worried that if they can do it to Republicans, maybe they can do it to Democrats.

So the idea that eight of us cooked something up is ridiculous. We talked to your Democratic leadership. The fact that they didn't talk to you is your problem with them.

What happened? We sent to the Ethics Committee what we are doing, and they didn't send anything back. Now they have.

So the bottom line is, Mr. President, this provision was a result of ``We are not going to take it anymore.'' The law was flagrantly violated, I believe, but he has already made a decision--Senator Peters has--that Jack Smith was lawfully in the right here. Have a hearing. He has already decided that Jack Smith was right--right--to find my phone records. Based on what? Being a friend of Trump's?

I will take this to the court. If your goal is to intimidate me, boy, you don't know anything about me. If your goal is to try to cover up a valid inquiry and stop Jack Smith from being

looked at, it ain't happening. I am more determined than ever to find out how Arctic Frost got so off the rails.

Within 3 days of Trump's announcing ``I am going to run again,'' the process started, and within 6 months, he had 91 felony charges in Manhattan; in Atlanta, GA; in Washington, DC; and in Florida. I had to spend $1.2 million to go down to Georgia for the Fani Willis debacle. So this will be looked at.

Was there a coordinated effort between Jack Smith--the special counsel--and the most liberal jurisdictions in the country to knock Trump out of the race by throwing everything you could at him, whether it made sense or not, and his friends? See, I don't know, but we are going to find this out, Senator Peters. We are moving forward.

You have made up your mind. If it were up to you, we would not be looking at Jack Smith. You made a mistake there by defending somebody when you had no idea, actually, what he did.

I think I pretty well know where you are coming from, so I object. I object because we did it in coordination with the Democrats. I object because we let the Ethics Committee know.

The House? The House did it quickly. There are provisions in this bill from the House that his amendment would strip out--the notification requirement. Every Member should want to be notified if anybody in the government, in the executive branch, is looking at your phone records. This provision would strip that out. A private cause of action would strip it out.

I live in America. We all live in America. If you cannot hold your government accountable for violating your rights or potentially violating your rights, you have a very dangerous government. I am no better than anybody else, but I am certainly--hell--no worse than anybody else. So I want to know why the government made a subpoena request that if you tell me about what is going on here, that I am likely to taint the witnesses and act irresponsibly. What have I ever done as a Senator to make you think that is me? There was no factual foundation that I would do anything illegal if you told me. I did nothing illegal except to be Trump's friend, apparently. I inquired as to whether or not I should vote to certify the election on January 6, and I did. I did not know this had happened, but if it can happen to me, then, to my colleagues over there, it can happen to you.

So this unanimous consent request would strip the notification out, and it would strip the private cause of action out. I think that is the wrong signal to send to a government out of control. With the private cause of action, the $500,000 is to try to deter people from doing this again. The bottom line is the private cause of action needs to stay if anybody else in the future gets hurt like this or a private citizen.

There are a bunch of groups out there--all conservative--that have had their phone records looked at, too, but we are not going to give up. No matter what Senator Peters says, we are going to look at it. There is Turning Point USA. There are a lot of shenanigans going on out there with Jack Smith, and we are going to look at it, whether you want us to or not. So I hope they can sue.

As to me, I am a Senator. If this provision--the private cause of action--is seen out of line with what the Senate rules now, I will gladly fix that. But you are off base if you think I am doing this for $1 million. I am going to sue for much more than that, not just to try to make my life whole but to make people pay for trying to--you know, forget my phone records, for God's sake. That will be in court. I will have to prove that. I will make sure--and I will have that in just a minute. There is a provision to change the law so that there is no doubt that I and the eight others won't get a benefit from the $500,000. It won't be personal. But we do want to proceed with our case, and I want other people to proceed with their cases. If we do this right now, Turning Point USA and a bunch of other groups will not have a private cause of action. I want to preserve that private cause of action for a lot of other people who are not Senators.

As to me, I don't know. You are implying that I did something to benefit me in the dark of night. You know, I will remember that, but life goes on. So I object. I object to what you are doing. I object to the fact that you think Jack Smith was legal when you have no idea what he did.

I object.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the unanimous consent request be modified to include the adoption of my substitute amendment, which is at the desk.

OK. Sorry about that.

So, Mr. President, the objection is heard.

Here is what the Ethics Committee said about my proposal, about my modification: that the amendment cures the Senate 37.4 issue previously identified in a letter sent to you.

So I asked the Ethics Committee: Will this amendment cure any concerns that people have about this provision regarding me or any other Senator? It does.

So, if that is what you want to do, I think we have fixed it.

However, with all due respect to my colleague, I am never going to agree to drop the notification requirement. I have had a ton of House Members say: Please, don't do that. All of us here should want to be notified if someone in the executive branch is looking at our phone records. That would be terrible.

The private cause of action goes away. I am never going to agree to drop that. Why? There are a bunch of people caught up in Jack Smith who are not Senators, who may have a cause of action, and they deserve their day in court. As to my cause of action under the statute, I am going to pursue it but in a way that is compliant with Senate rules.

I just want to put everybody on notice: The statute is just one avenue to finding out what happened. There will be others. I will go to the phone company. I will sue Jack Smith's and Biden's DOJ--that is where I am headed--but I will do it in a fashion that is consistent with the rules of the Senate.

But I am not going to drop the private right of action because there are a bunch of people out there other than me.

As to the notification requirement, given the environment in which we are all living, whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, I think we need to be notified if the executive branch is maybe doing something it shouldn't do.

So I look forward to working with you, and I appreciate ending this thing the way we have ended it. I will be pursuing my legal rights consistent with the ethics of the Senate, and maybe we could work something out. But, Senator Peters, we live in pretty dangerous times now, and I can see it going bad on our side or on your side. We need to protect these institutions the best we can from things that may come our way. It is me today, but it could be you all tomorrow. And I love the institution. People want to change the rules, you know, to make it like the House. I don't.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I do, too, and we will start it here soon.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I will get to the primary reason that I asked for time on the floor today. I did want to say that, if it was within the rules and I would be able to acknowledge people in the Gallery who happen to be my great staff who have done extraordinary casework for years and years, and they are visiting here--if it was within the rules for me to recognize them--I would. I understand the rules, and I will not. But I do welcome them, nevertheless.

I am here because yesterday, the President had a tour up in Michigan, I believe, and a reporter asked him a question about me in particular. He said: How do you feel about Senator Tillis saying that the potential indictment of the Fed Chair seems a bit excessive?

I didn't use those words, but that was how the question was postured.

The response to that was the President said: That is why Thom is not running for office anymore.

He went on to say very nice things, that he likes me and we work together. I like the President. As a matter of fact, I know many people would be shocked to hear this, but I never had a cross word with the President. We never had an elevated discussion in either direction. I suppose if it came from one direction, it would have ended up that way, but it never has.

As a matter of fact, the President has a quality to him that I find really endearing. When I called him out of the blue because my mom was talking about him--she is a big fan of the President. So I called him out of the blue on a Saturday afternoon, and he picked up the phone, and I said: Mr. President, would you speak to my mom? She loves you.

He got on the phone and graciously spoke to her for about 5 minutes.

A few months later, I was down in Florida. I had an aunt and uncle-- the same thing. I called him up--the same thing. He can be a gracious person.

The President, though, got it wrong. He was right in saying that I am not running anymore. But the reason that I made the decision not to run again--and I decided it was just easier to do it here versus answer the callous questions out in the hallway--is because in the moment where he and I had a disagreement, I had to make a decision about how I could be most helpful to him.

If I ran for reelection, I would necessarily always have to think about what boundaries I should have in expressing my concern, and that created complications for my campaign. There are redlines. There are just certain things I would disagree with and would have to take the heat in a campaign.

But I thought, in the moment, I would be far better equipped to give the President my advice on policy matters. So I removed any doubt, whatsoever, that my decisions would be based upon the consequences of either getting his support or not having his support in a campaign.

When I did my announcement and said I was wanting to put myself in a position where I could call balls and strikes, it was so that I could do something that I believe some people in the White House are not particularly concerned about.

The night that I told the President he should find a replacement--the press has gotten this wrong. The President did not ask for people to replace me, and then I decided to retire. The President and I were having a dialogue that night. I told the President that I thought it was time for him to look for a replacement; that I had decided not to run for reelection.

My last communication that night with the President--this is not verbatim, but pretty close--I said: Mr. President, if I prove anything else to you in the next year and a half, I hope that I can prove to you that I care about your legacy, and you have people around you who don't.

There are people who are surfing his wave until they go to the next one. They are young people who have never served in office and don't understand the consequences of looking around corners and protecting this President. There are people that are more concerned with their next job and the next Presidential campaign they may be able to get on than making sure this President is as successful as possible.

So I decided, by just making the decision not to run for reelection, I can speak truth to a President that, I hope, goes down in history as the most successful Republican President in the history of this country. He has that potential, if he starts to recognize advice that he is getting that I think is bad advice and won't age well.

I will get to a few. I am going to keep my temperature down. I told everybody, this isn't cranky Thom; this is Thom trying to explain a very serious subject.

Ladies and gentlemen, the thought of the United States taking the position that we would take Greenland, an independent territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, is absurd. Somebody needs to tell the President that the people of Greenland, up until these current times, were actually very, very pro-American and very, very pro-American presence. We had as many as 17 military installations in Greenland at our height.

Frankly, I bet that once we get through this tension we have today, they would be willing to accept us. We have the power to project some capability in Greenland, and we haven't necessarily put a 75-year alliance in NATO and dissolving it in the mix. That is the smart, sustainable way to achieve the President's goal of securing the Arctic.

The not smart, unachievable way is whoever told the President that this was a viable path. It doesn't make sense.

I will give you another example. Over the weekend, the President--the question yesterday had to do with Chair Powell. I made the statement that I felt like now that the Fed Chair is potentially under indictment, I will not support any vote for any Fed Board member until this matter is decided. Why? Well, because the whole argument about Fed independence comes into question, right? If all of a sudden, the Justice Department, apparently--according to the President, unknown to him--he reported it was a surprise to him. Since then, he has been briefed. He is standing by the Justice Department on this indictment.

Ladies and gentlemen, unless there is a really compelling reason, unless the prosecution succeeds--and I think it is unlikely, virtually impossible, that Chair Powell will be found guilty of anything. This is all about the testimony in a Banking Committee hearing. That is all it is. If they succeed, then they have created a device that really will put the Fed's independence in question and can cause serious problems for us in the future.

I think one of the reasons why the financial markets did not react precipitously in a negative way with the revelation of Chair Powell is because many people stood up in Congress and said this seems to be crossing a line.

I believe, if the financial markets thought it was almost certain that Jay Powell was going to resign or be prosecuted, I believe we would have a very different reaction.

This is another example of where--Jay Powell, I think, has made decisions that I disagreed with, similar to decisions that have been made by conservative Justices that I disagreed with, but I think they did it for the right reasons. It is just another example of where--in this case, according to the President's public comments, he was surprised about the indictment. It is another example of who in there thought this was a good idea?

Now, because it is a current investigation, we will just have to wait and figure it out after they either proceed with an indictment or they decide to dismiss it.

Then the final thing is, I am in a position now, without question, to say that anyone who thinks that President Trump adopting Elizabeth Warren's idea on capping credit card interest rates--it is literally what the President said over the past week. They are not the conservatives that I thought they were. Anybody that thinks this is a good idea will not speak truth to this President to say: You can't do that. If you want to unbank or underbank people, then not allow interest rates to be set based on the risk, and you will see what will happen.

I told Senator Warren on the floor yesterday: Good on you.

Senator Warren and I have a good relationship. We don't hardly ever vote on the same stuff, but I said: Good on you. You convinced the President of the United States to actually embrace something you have been pitching for as long as I have been here.

She said: Are you going to set the policy?

I said: No, I will work hard to kill it. I like good execution, even when it is not policy I like. And that was good execution. You convinced the President to embrace your policy.

Then, finally, there is the Credit Card Competition Act, which is another example, ladies and gentlemen, that other countries have tried, and it has failed. The industry is trying to come up with a compromise that works, but once again, somebody in the President's orbit thought capping interest rates was a good idea and told him. I don't expect him to be an expert in the consequences of that. Somebody thought to do the Credit Card Competition Act after it was unsuccessful here because Republicans thought it was a good idea, but it is still a bad idea.

So, to the President: Mr. President, I am going to live up to my promise. I am going to do everything I can to point out advice that you are being given by people who are not thinking about your legacy, who are not thinking about good policy, and from time to time, they are fading far out of the realm of what I consider to be good, conservative, free-market ideology.

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

Mr. President, we all remember the tragic murder of SPC Sarah Beckstrom on the eve of Thanksgiving. She was, as we all will recall,

one of the National Guard servicemembers working here in the District of Columbia. We are continuing to pray for the recovery of Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, who was injured in the shooting. But, of course, Specialist Beckstrom lost her life.

The news cycle moves very quickly, and it seems like while something happens today, tomorrow, it is something new. But it is important that we not allow the mistakes that were made by the Biden administration when it came to vetting Afghan nationals to be forgotten. We cannot ignore the reality that Sarah Beckstrom was another victim--an unnecessary victim--of President Biden's careless immigration policies.

The man who committed this heinous act was an Afghan national whom President Biden allowed to enter the country after our disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Unfortunately, it is too late to bring Sarah's life back, but her death should not be meaningless, relegated to headlines with no action. It is not too late to look back on the flawed decisions that allowed her killer to enter the United States in order to correct these mistakes and to prevent future harm.

Furthermore, this crime at the hands of an Afghan national parolee was not a one-off occurrence. The following week, another parolee--and I will define that further, but this is not pursuant to any law actually passed by Congress, like the Special Immigrant Visa Program. This was done outside of that program, with even fewer protections and less vetting.

But the following week after Thanksgiving, another parolee nearly committed a terrorist attack in Fort Worth, TX. Thanks to the Federal and local law enforcement, they were able to apprehend him and prevent him from carrying out that attack.

I am grateful to the Department of Justice, including the FBI, and our State and local law enforcement officials who prevented this attack from happening. But the fact that the perpetrator is here in the United States in the first place underscores yet again the failure to vet the individuals who came into this country via the Biden administration's parole.

The repeated incidents--and there are many more--committed or attempted by Afghan nationals demonstrate that something has gone terribly wrong with the way government has been vetting or failing to vet aliens who have entered the country, and I believe that these questions deserve answers.

For that reason, I am chairing a Judiciary Committee subcommittee this afternoon, alongside our colleague Senator Hawley from Missouri, entitled ``Biden's Afghan Parole Program--A Trojan Horse with Flawed Vetting and Deadly Consequences.''

At this hearing, we will carefully examine the policies implemented or those failed to be implemented by the Biden administration that led to these tragic events, particularly the flaws in President Biden's mass immigration and parole programs that were not just limited to Afghan nationals. As I have said, ``parole'' is a unique term under immigration law. But it is worth revisiting exactly how this happened, because, again, this happened not because of any program passed by the Congress but unilaterally by President Biden.

Under U.S. immigration law, ``parole'' in laymen's terms is kind of like an E-ZPass, like speeding through a toll booth. U.S. immigration service defines ``parole'' as ``the discretionary decision that allows inadmissible aliens . . . [who] are not admitted to the United States . . . to be physically present in the United States.'' It is sort of like a permission slip.

Parole is an authority that allows the Department of Homeland Security Secretary to waive people into the country who otherwise would not be allowed in.

Under Operation Allies Welcome, President Biden extended this immigration E-ZPass to hundreds of thousands of aliens who weren't eligible to come to the United States. This discretionary authority was only supposed to be used on a case-by-case basis. It is an authority that President Biden repeatedly abused not only in this program but at the southern border as well to admit hundreds of thousands, even millions of individuals into the country during the Biden years and their open border policies.

But even though this authority is supposed to be used only on a case- by-case basis, the Biden administration turned this exception into the rule. Now we also know that when it came to the Afghan parole program, Operation Allies Welcome, the Biden administration allowed in many aliens who had not been fully vetted, including the man who drove across the country to murder this young National Guardsman and the man who threatened to carry out the suicide bombing in Fort Worth, TX, who were not eligible to enter the United States but for this discretionary E-ZPass issued by the Biden administration without adequate protections for the American people.

As we will learn at the hearing, in most, if not all, cases, the Biden administration did not know exactly who these people were. Many of them could not say when they were born or even their own last name.

I think we sort of fail to recognize that the population we are dealing with, the individuals in Afghanistan--many of them are functionally illiterate. And, of course, many of them are coming from this country that was war-torn and literally run by the Taliban, which is an international terrorist organization. Consequently, many of these aliens have likely committed acts of terror or have ties to terror groups.

In some cases, the U.S. Government was asking the Taliban to verify information on these individuals. Now, that strikes me as rather bizarre. The Taliban, a terrorist organization that would kill many of the Afghans who cooperated with the U.S. military--we are actually asking them to verify the identity and eligibility of these individuals to enter the United States. In any event, the Taliban is hardly a reliable source of information.

The lack of information on these parolees also raises the possibility of a preliminary background check coming back clean because there simply wasn't enough information available to determine whether this person was safe or not.

Essentially, the policy of the Biden administration was--the default was, come on into the country, in the absence of derogatory information. But the fact of the matter is, in war-torn Afghanistan, now run by a terrorist organization, where you have literally functionally illiterate individuals, the absence of derogatory information is not any proof that these individuals could safely be allowed into the United States. So the default was, let them in, even in the absence of any information whatsoever.

At today's hearing, we will learn more about this and other problems with the Biden administration's mass parole of Afghan nationals into the United States.

Once again, let me just reiterate that tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of individuals were admitted into the United States due to President Biden's open border policies, using this same claimed discretionary authority, which should be used only on a case- by-case basis. But the Biden administration opened its arms and allowed hundreds of thousands of individuals--indeed, more likely, a million or more individuals--to come in on the parole program.

So the Afghan parole program was simply a subset of the larger policy of the Biden administration to welcome foreign nationals with open arms into our country without our knowing enough about them to know whether they would be a threat to public safety.

We will hear from two panels of experts who will help shine a light on the missteps of the Biden administration. Our first panel will include Mr. Craig Adelman, deputy inspector general at the Department of Homeland Security; Michael Roark, deputy inspector general with the Department of Defense, and Mr. Arne Baker from the Office of Inspector General at the Department of State. We have a second panel where we will hear from researchers and policy experts who will speak to the nuances of the vetting--or the lack of vetting--that the Afghan parolees underwent.

While it is important to treat our friends and allies with proper consideration, assuming that they are not a threat to the American people, if we want the cooperation of other foreign nationals in the future in some of our

conflicts, the bottom line is the nonnegotiable demand has to be the American people being able to sleep safe at night knowing they are safe from criminal aliens and terrorist sympathizers. That is the nonnegotiable bottom line.

They deserve to know--we all deserve to know what actions the Biden administration took or did not take that risked their safety. At this afternoon's hearing, we will give the American people the answers or at least begin to give them the answers that they and we deserve.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, today, I have the opportunity to rise here on the Senate floor and speak in support of the appropriations package that is currently before the U.S. Senate, which happens to include funding for Commerce, Justice, Science.

I chair the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and I am pleased that this legislation provides significant and important resources to support our Nation's Federal, State, and local law enforcement in their shared mission to keep America safe.

The package that we will debate and discuss and vote on this week makes targeted investments in the Federal Agencies and Departments that conduct critical scientific research, bolster economic growth, promote U.S. energy independence, and strengthen our Nation's national security. These priorities are achieved while also making thoughtful reductions in spending to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being wisely spent.

Many rural and local law enforcement agencies continue to face resource and equipment gaps that limit their ability to respond effectively and keep their communities safe, and the fiscal year 2026 CJS appropriations bill addresses these needs by investing in crime- fighting technology and equipment for sheriff's offices and police departments in Kansas and across the country. The legislation also equips the Drug Enforcement Agency and the FBI with resources necessary to dismantle drug trafficking networks that have gained, unfortunately, a stronghold and a foothold in the United States and to combat the fentanyl crisis that continues to claim way too many American lives.

This bill contains funding for the national security and counterintelligence missions that counter foreign threats and protect U.S. interests. By investing in the Office of the United States Trade Representative, this bill strengthens its capacity to enforce trade agreements and expand markets so that American producers like my farmers back home in Kansas and manufacturers in my State can compete and sell their goods around the world.

Finally, this bill invests in our Nation's science Agencies--NASA, NOAA, and the National Science Foundation--to advance U.S. leadership in scientific discovery and space exploration. At NASA, it bolsters American leadership in human spaceflight, space science, and aeronautics at a very critical moment. This week, in fact, NASA is rolling out Artemis II, the next consequential step toward sending astronauts around the Moon for the first time in more than 50 years. That mission and future missions depend upon a strong U.S. aerospace industrial base made up of engineers, machinists, suppliers, and researchers. This bill makes certain that America remains on course to lead in space and does not cede ground to our competitors.

Through NSF, the bill prioritizes critical research and advanced manufacturing that bolster private sector innovation, strengthen university-industry partnerships, and train the next generation of scientists and engineers right here at home--investments that are essential to our long-term economic growth, to our national competitiveness, and to our national security.

At NOAA, this legislation bolsters critical weather monitoring services, increases resources for lifesaving functions of the National Weather Service, and makes certain that the National Weather Service offices are staffed 24/7 to provide reliable forecasts to help keep America safe.

As a senior appropriator, I have long advocated for Congress to return to regular order in the appropriations process: debating, amending, and passing 12 separate appropriations bills that fund the Federal Government. I continue to be an advocate for that. This package reflects that work, and I commend Chairwoman Collins, Vice Chairman Murray, and my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their efforts. I also thank my colleagues in the Senate more broadly who have been so willing to allow us to proceed to get to this point today.

I want to thank the CJS Subcommittee staff for their hard work, dedication, and long hours. A lot of work has gone on throughout the year but with especially challenging time constraints within the last few weeks. This package would not be possible without those staff members.

I thank my staff: Kevin Wheeler, Brian Daner, and Rachel Taylor. I also thank as well the minority staff: Jessica Berry, Blaise Sheridan, Lindsay Erickson, and T.J. Lowdermilk.

This legislation that is Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommittee work product strikes a careful balance, funding critical resources while also protecting limited taxpayer dollars. The spending that we always worry about being too much is addressed in this legislation to make sure that we are on a different path than continued borrowing and spending.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this package to provide these Agencies with the resources they need to keep our Nation safe, promote U.S. leadership, and make certain that America remains a leader in space.

This bill funds the Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice, and a number of science Agencies, such as NASA and NSF. It is important to the country that this bill occur. It is also important to the country that we avoid a shutdown at the end of the month, and the bills that we pass this week go a long way in making that shutdown much less likely.

I thank the Presiding Officer for the opportunity to speak to you and my colleagues.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today, I rise to honor the passing of a 101-year-old Kansan, World War II veteran, and American hero, Horace ``Jim'' Sharp.

Mr. Sharp was born in Morris County, KS, and he spent his early years tending to the family farm--not an unusual thing in Kansas, certainly not in his generation.

At age 19, Jim surrendered his farm deferment, courageously volunteering to serve his nation in the U.S. Army during World War II.

Through his service, Jim fought in the Battle of the Bulge as part of Company B, 18th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division. It was during that battle that Jim earned three Battle Stars and a Bronze Star. Although injured by shrapnel during battle, Jim never received treatment, thus never receiving the Purple Heart.

Following Jim's combat service, he served as a guard during the Nuremberg trials.

Shortly after returning home to Kansas following the war's end, Jim would marry his wife Marilyn, with whom he would raise their three children and enjoy 69 years of marriage.

Following the passage of the GI Bill, Jim attended Kansas State University, where he graduated with a bachelor's degree in business administration. Jim then applied his degree by building a career in data processing, eventually retiring as the information systems manager for the Kansas Farm Bureau while also teaching information systems classes at Kansas State University and at Fort Riley.

Jim's life of service continued well after his time in the military. His dedication to his faith and his community showed itself in so many ways. Jim was an active member at his local Methodist church. His accolades also include being a founding member and the first president of the Northeast Kansas Battle of the Bulge Organization where he raised funds to support the preservation of the Manhattan, KS, Peace Memorial Auditorium and the K-State World War II Memorial.

Jim's World War II service is also featured at Fort Riley's 1st Infantry Division Museum, honoring his story and his service in the Nuremberg exhibit there.

Jim was an active member of the Kiwanis, his local VFW and American Legion, and many other local organizations focused on improving his community and aiding those in need.

Living to be 101 is remarkable in and of itself, but Jim used that long life that he was given to accomplish so much more. His life of courage, sacrifice, and compassion served as an inspiration to all who knew him, and he is dearly, dearly missed.

My prayers and concerns and care are with his children Janet, Doug, and Brian, his many grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and great- great-grandchildren--the entire Sharp family. It was my honor to see them as we celebrated Jim's 100 birthday at the American Legion in Manhattan, KS, now just about a year ago.

Jim was an authentic American hero. Sometimes, I think we look for heroes, and we can't seem to find them. You do not have to look past Jim Sharp. He was a hero to his Nation, to his community, to his family, and to his friends.

May Jim's legacy not be forgotten, his service honored. And we say to him in these days: Thank you for your service. We respect you, and we are grateful.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.