A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "Review of Final Rule Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act".

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. President, I certainly hope my Democratic colleagues can let us move forward on this, or we are going to stay all night until we get the President's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs confirmed.

Now, look, I know there was some concern about removing General Brown, CQ Brown. I actually really like General CQ Brown. I thought he did a good job. I publicly stated a number of times that he served his country very well.

But here is the deal: The President of the United States is entitled to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs that he wants. You look at history, senior military commanders on the Democrat's side, on the Republican's side--if the President doesn't feel comfortable with them, he has the right to remove them and move on. That is just our history. That has happened with Democrats.

George W. Bush wasn't comfortable with Gen. Peter Pace. He is a marine.

I happen to respect him a lot. He said: Hey, I am not comfortable. I am moving to another Chairman.

President Obama fired two very senior, four-star generals inside of 2 years. One was General McChrystal, one of the most seasoned warriors, you know, in a generation of warfighters, and he removed him.

So President Trump clearly had the authority to remove General Brown. He has now put forward General Caine, who, by the way--everybody on the Armed Services Committee thought he did a great job. He is going to get a really big vote here. So why are we delaying it? I don't know. It doesn't make any sense to me.

The President deserves his senior military adviser. That is what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is--his senior military adviser. The President needs to feel comfortable with that person. That person is actually out of the chain of command. We have seen throughout history that when the President doesn't feel comfortable, he can remove one general and bring in another one. That is what has happened here.

We should confirm General Caine immediately. I think he is going to do a really, really good job. As a matter of fact, I have interviewed, sat down with, served under hundreds of flag officers. General Caine is one of the most impressive I have ever met. So we need to get on with it.

You know, there are these press stories about why President Trump removed General Brown. I think it is just because he wanted to have a general whom he trusts and feels comfortable with, and that is exactly his right as the Commander in Chief.

So we should move on. General Caine is going to get a very, I think, significant bipartisan vote. He should. And if the minority leader wants to object, we will just grind it out all night and get it done.

Mr. President, I yield to my good friend from Mississippi.

My good friend from Mississippi, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, by the way--a Senator who knows probably more about the military than anyone else here--has it exactly right.

General Caine has this breadth of experience, not just as a fighter pilot with thousands of hours, combat hours, in flight but has worked very closely with our intel services and has very significant combat experience in Iraq and Syria.

Very interestingly--and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee knows this--he has private sector experience. You would say: Why does that matter? It actually matters a lot because of our military and the need to integrate our very powerful private sector.

So he brings a wealth of experience that, to be honest--in my 10 years in this position as a U.S. Senator on the Armed Services Committee and my 30 years in the Marine Corps, I have never seen a general that brings it all together. So I think he is going to be outstanding and exceptional.

Mr. President, I would yield to the distinguished minority leader. Maybe having him watch this distinguished debate between me and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee has convinced him to bow to the inevitable, and that is the confirmation of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

Mr. President, maybe the minority leader will explain why he is objecting given that we just laid out very cogent, strong reasons that we need to move forward on confirming the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff right now. It is a very dangerous world. Why would we wait? I am curious on what the minority leader says.

I yield the floor if he has an answer.

This Senator yields the floor to answer that inquiry that I asked about.

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

Mr. President, I just want the American people who are watching this that care about our national security--the chairman of the Armed Services Committee just had a colloquy here on the floor talking about why we needed to move the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to get confirmed in the Senate here. And I and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, respectfully, asked the question of the minority leader, Democratic minority leader, why are you blocking this? And you may have seen he just walked off the floor.

He didn't answer. I don't know if he has an answer. If he has an answer, it sure would be good to hear what the answer is because we need President Trump's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff confirmed. And I bet he gets strong bipartisan support, in terms of his confirmation, because he is very qualified. And yet, without any explanation, the minority leader of the U.S. Senate just said, ``I object,'' and he walked off the floor.

I hope the press reports on that. Holy cow. That is kind of big news. And if we have to be here all night, jamming down on them to get the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff confirmed because our country needs it during a very dangerous time, a general who is immensely qualified, then that is what we are going to do.

But it sure would be easier to just agree with us, start moving on the vote, and get this highly qualified general confirmed as President Trump's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

But what you just witnessed, for anyone watching, the American people watching, was a nondebate. My good friend from Mississippi and I were describing why we need to move this forward. The minority leader of the U.S. Senate, who has the power to do it, just said: ``I object.''

Normally, on the Senate floor when someone objects, they explain why. But he didn't want to do it. He just walked off the floor. So that is what we just witnessed. It is a little bit unusual, particularly when it comes to a confirmation that is so important. There are very few confirmations that the U.S. Senate does that are more important than confirming the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And I guess the Democrats are going to block it for now, and we will go all night to make sure President Trump has his principal senior military adviser, which he needs during these dangerous times.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is Thursday here in the U.S. Senate, and it is time for a great tradition--I think one of the greatest traditions in the history of the U.S. Senate. It is called ``The Alaskan of the Week'' speech, which I try to give most Thursdays. It has been a while. For the pages, this is the highlight of the week. Even our friends in the media like this speech because it usually signals the end of the work week, but not right now. You saw the minority leader's objection without any explanation on why on confirming the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, so we might be here for a lot longer.

So I wanted to highlight what is going on in Alaska, as I usually do during my ``Alaskan of the Week'' speech and just give a snapshot of what is happening back home.

It is still pretty cold, still have a fair amount of snow. Anchorage just got a bunch of snow that lasted a couple of days. The 53rd Iditarod just concluded in Nome with a stunning first-time win by Alaskan Jessie Holmes and his 10-dog sled team.

The Iron Dog Race, that is a snow machine race, longest, toughest snow machine race in the world, was won by--that is done in kind of tandem--Robby Schachle and Bradley George, their second victory of the Iron Dog snow machine race.

Things are starting to thaw, as I mentioned. It is beginning of the summer tourism season, right around the corner. The first cruise ship will dock in Southeast Alaska in less than 2 weeks, and thousands of tourists from all over the world will come to our great State.

Anyone watching in the Gallery, we would love to have you. Come to Alaska.

For many of these tourists, this is going to be the trip of a lifetime. For Alaskans, this is where we live every day. And our Alaskan of the Week does something that is very unusual: He is beloved by Alaskans and tourists--not an easy task--and this person is my friend Jay Ramras.

Like many Alaskans, Jay is a jack-of-all-trades. He owns restaurants and beautiful hotels. He has had a successful political career. He is a prolific philanthropist. He loves history. And more importantly, he loves Alaska and especially his great hometown of Fairbanks--by the way, my wife's hometown.

Now, I love to talk about our Alaskan of the Week. There are so many. We have talked about hundreds over the course of many years here on the Senate floor.

Jay was born in Fairbanks in 1964. His father Dan moved to Fairbanks from Brooklyn, NY, in 1948. And as Jay says: There has been a Ramras in Interior Alaska going on 80 years.

And Jay's entrepreneurial resume, which is legendary in Alaska, began in 1986 at the tender age of 22 years old when he started a chicken wing restaurant, expanding his business footprint to other eateries across Fairbanks and, eventually, purchasing the iconic Fairbanks landmark called Pike's Landing.

For anyone going to Fairbanks, you have got to stay at Pike's Landing.

It was this purchase that led Jay to uncovering some really incredible chapters of Alaskan history--as I said, Jay is a real history buff--and he credits this to his bachelor of arts degree in American history, but it all started with Pike's.

So let's talk about Pike's. Pike's Landing was established after World War II when Lloyd Pike claimed land along the Chena River--the Chena River runs right through Fairbanks--under the Homestead Act.

In 1959--by the way, the same year Alaska became the 49th State--Pike opened the original Pike's Landing. Throughout the years, Pike's Landing cemented itself as a landmark in the Fairbanks community.

When Jay purchased Pike's Landing in 2000, he found himself wondering about the history of the property and the man who established the landmark location of Pike's. The original owner had sort of disappeared from history. So Jay asked around, collecting oral histories from Fairbanks old-timers who had seen the growth of Pike's Landing over the decades.

Jay found that Pike's Landing had long faced congestion at the boat launch due to its prime location right there, as I said, on the Chena River. That was a problem Lloyd Pike solved by building a public launch to clear up some of the demand in terms of getting boats on the river.

The original boat launch was washed away when the Chena River flooded--huge flood by the way--in 1968. But decades later, Jay found himself building another boat launch, unknowingly, right at the same spot. As he said: If I hadn't already been born, I would have believed in reincarnation. I would have thought I had been reincarnated as Lloyd Pike because he put his boat launch right where Lloyd Pike lived. Since then, Jay has been working with Fairbanks North Star Borough Historic Preservation Commission to put Pike's Landing on the National Register of Historic Places. I have no doubt that is going to happen. ``It was so important to me that we rescue Lloyd Pike from obscurity,'' Jay said.

But this wasn't the only historical figure that Jay has connected himself

and the community of Fairbanks to. As Jay was in the process of building an aviation-themed extension of his hotel, he felt it needed a real airplane mounted in front to honor the lodge's proximity to the Fairbanks International Airport. While searching, he stumbled on a refurbished Cessna 140 on Craigslist. After purchasing this plane, Jay discovered it had been owned by none other than Noel Wien.

The Presiding Officer is a pilot. Maybe he knows who Noel Wien is. For those who don't, Noel Wien is considered the father of Alaska aviation--the first pilot to successfully fly from Anchorage to Fairbanks in 1924. Wien went on to found Wien Airlines, a commercial airline that operated in Alaska for nearly 60 years.

As the Presiding Officer knows, these were some intrepid pilots. That was 100 years ago he did that first flight--open-air cockpit, really cold.

Jay's interest in history, once again, piqued, and he dug into that period and discovered some great photographs of Noel Wien, Wien Airlines, and had a great celebration last year in July of 2024, celebrating the 100th anniversary of that historic flight in Alaska. Really, that was a historic flight for America. My wife Julie and I were there. Senator Murkowski was there. Our Governor was there. By the way, the Wien family was there, including Leslie Wien Hajdukovich, my former regional director. It was a great classic Jay Ramras event. Hundreds of people came out to celebrate a huge moment in Alaska history, Alaska aviation history--I would say, American aviation history.

In addition to preserving this incredible chapter in Fairbanks' history, Jay has invested in Fairbanks' future. Let me tell you about a few of his other endeavors. Each summer, Jay hosts the Yukon 800 boat race, the longest, toughest, roughest speedboat race in the world. It starts at Pike's, up to the Chena, gets out on the mighty Yukon--huge race.

Just as I mentioned, he just recently hosted the fourth Iditarod start at Pike's. Normally, the Iditarod starts down in Anchorage. That is the toughest, longest, greatest race in the world, the Iditarod. It occasionally starts in Fairbanks, but it did this year at Pike's. And as I mentioned, he regularly sponsors the Iron Dog snow machine race that, yes, is the toughest, longest, roughest snow machine race in the world.

Jay also had a successful political career, serving three terms in the Alaska House of Representatives. And he is a great philanthropist in Fairbanks--a key player in Fairbanks Food Bank and doing so many other things in terms of philanthropy.

On top of all this, Jay says his greatest legacy, he believes, will be something he recently did--which I think is just fantastic--the creation of a new synagogue in Fairbanks, the northernmost Chabad in the United States.

It began with a call from Rabbi Greenberg in Anchorage. He is a great friend of mine, one of the leaders of our Jewish community throughout the State. He asked Jay if he could host a young orthodox rabbi and his wife for a short visit. Of course, Jay, a very generous man, agreed. ``I think it would be around a two-week summer stay.'' Then they came again for a second visit, this time in January when it is 45 below zero in Fairbanks. It gets really cold in Fairbanks. And they still returned.

The young couple, Rabbi Heshy Wolf and his wife Chani have now chosen to make Fairbanks their permanent home.

Jay, generous as ever, purchased a small church with his own money. The previous congregation at the church had outgrown the place. They refurbished it, transforming it into the Fairbanks Jewish Center. The original congregation stayed on rent-free until they found a new home, a new church. Just a few weeks ago, five rabbis gathered in Fairbanks for the first time in over 120 years and hosted this new synagogue, the northernmost synagogue, I believe, in America, in Fairbanks.

Jay, thank you. What a life of accomplishment. What a legacy, not just for Fairbanks, but for all of Alaska. For every different community--sports community, Jewish community, historical community-- you have done it all. And now, Jay, you have been awarded one of the most prestigious awards anyone can achieve in their life, Alaskan of the Week.

China

Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor to discuss a recent op- ed in the New York Times just a few days ago. It kind of made a stir. A lot of people thought it was a really good op-ed. I didn't.

I wanted to come to the floor and talk about this op-ed because it is making the rounds. It is by the columnist Thomas Freidman, and it is on national security, economic security, and trade issues relating to China.

Now, I normally enjoy, respect--don't always agree with--the seriousness of Mr. Freidman's writings. He has written a lot of books, a lot of columns, especially on the Middle East, where he has a lot of insights, no doubt about it.

But when I read this latest column called ``I Just Saw the Future. It Was Not in America,'' I couldn't believe how shockingly naive Mr. Freidman was in writing this. So I just wrote a response. I just started writing after reading this thing. My goodness, this is very naive. Then I submitted that to the New York Times. They said: Hey, sorry, it is too long.

Maybe they didn't like it. Maybe they didn't think it was that good. I said: I can just read it on the Senate floor because I think this is a big debate, our relationship with China, how we view it, how he views it, how others view it, how President Trump views it, and it needs to be debated.

That is what I want to do the next couple of minutes, talk about the Freidman piece and, in my view, why it is so naive and misses so many things and, particularly, gives Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party a giant pass in terms of their history and what they have done to the international trading system.

First, the Freidman article kind of condescendingly mocks, to be honest, a lot of us. He quotes some Senators, U.S. Senators, and says, you know, these Senators ``need to get out more'' when it comes to China. That is a quote in the article.

Well, in my career, I have actually gotten out to China a lot, I mean in terms of working on the Chinese issues. I served on the National Supreme Court Council Staff under Condoleezza Rice and served as her Assistant Secretary of State in charge of economics, trade, energy, and finance. Again, under Secretary Rice, I was the Commissioner in charge of natural resources and energy in Alaska. I went to China then.

In all these positions, I met with Chinese leaders, traveled to China a fair amount. And, of course, China national security issues really bookended my entire 30-year Marine Corps career. My first deployment in the Marines was to the Taiwan Strait during what is now referred to as the ``Third Taiwan Strait Crisis,'' in 1995 and 1996. My last billet in the Marine Corps was chief of staff to the Marine Forces Pacific Commander at Indo-Pacific PACOM. It was all about China and Taiwan. As a Senator, I continued to focus on these issues, traveling to Asia frequently.

The lessons I learned when it comes to China are very different from those in the Thomas Freidman piece. As someone who has actually gotten out a fair amount to China, as Mr. Friedman tells us Senators we need to do, let's go into some of these lessons. For a smart guy, they sure were kind of naive to me.

First, Thomas Freidman talks about the need for an agreement between the United States and China. But the big worry is that President Trump would not ``stick by'' any agreement with China. That is what he says.

Now, he says this without even hinting at one of the Chinese Communist leadership's most consistent, salient, and frustrating traits, and this is it. They, the Chinese Communist leadership, almost never abides by their agreements with the United States--and I mean never. Big agreements, small agreements, it doesn't matter. They never abide by their agreements. I have seen this throughout my career.

In 2003, I was actually in this meeting right there. That is President George W. Bush and the Vice Premier of China, Madame Wu Yi in the Oval Office. I was a young staffer right there next to the President. And President Bush pressed her, Madame Wu Yi, on this theft of intellectual property that China does. He pressed her hard.

``Madam Wu Yi, you have to stop stealing our IPR.'' That senior Chinese official, 2003, looked at the President of the United States and solemnly and sincerely said: Mr. President, we will stop this. You have my word.

Well, we all know what happened. For decades, they lied about that. The last report USTR did on China's theft of intellectual property rights from the United States was $600 billion a year. Madam Wu Yi lied to President Bush in the Oval Office, no doubt about that.

I was also part of Secretary Rice's senior leadership at the State Department, taking part in the twice-yearly Cabinet-level meetings launched by President Bush and China's President Hu Jintao, called the Strategic Economic Dialogue. SED, it was called. That is more Bush- China. They never kept any of their SED commitments ever. I saw this.

This is what I refer to as ``promise fatigue''--promise fatigue. The United States makes an agreement with China, and they never keep it-- never keep it. You know who has made an art form out of promise fatigue and not keeping their promise? This guy, Xi Jinping. You remember this in the Rose Garden with President Obama--in the Rose Garden 2015. President Xi Jinping looked at Barack Obama, looked at the American people and said: We are not going to do any more cyber theft, and we are not going to militarize the islands of the South China Sea. That is what Xi Jinping told President Obama.

Guess what. That was a huge lie. They were already doing it.

Remember these? President Trump and then President Biden--Xi Jinping made commitments to both President Trump and President Biden: We are going to stop the importation of fentanyl into Mexico and the United States. Xi Jinping said that to President Trump and to President Biden. Guess what. He never kept that agreement--ever.

Of course, during the Trump administration--in the first term--the phase one China deal was signed with all this fanfare in the East Room of the White House--I was actually there when that happened--and they never kept any of those commitments.

So no matter what, when it comes to China, they just don't keep their word. They don't keep their word. And yet Tom Friedman's article focuses on President Trump's reliability?

As Joe Biden would say, ``Come on, man.''

These are the guys who cheat and aren't reliable at all, and we all know it.

Second, Friedman highlights what he sees as a great opportunity with China as it relates to our economic relations. Yet he never mentions the overriding goal of this guy, Xi Jinping. What is that overriding goal? He never mentions it once. That is to make sure the Chinese Communist Party stays in power and expands its power base at home and abroad through any means necessary, including coercion and violence. This is the goal that we all know drives his decision making.

Like many in the Senate, I frequently attend classified briefings on China. We just had the INDOPACOM Commander testify today, Admiral Paparo, who, by the way, is doing a great job. Make no mistake--it is in all the Intel briefings--this guy, Xi Jinping, is preparing for war in the Taiwan Strait. Look at him there; he is in his fatigues. His aggressive efforts might extend beyond that.

What am I talking about?

The Chinese military just completed another massive military exercise to not only blockade Taiwan but to stop any reinforcements from coming into Taiwan. Then they conducted offensive military exercises off the shores of our allies the Philippines and Australia. Their navy went all the way around Australia just a couple of weeks ago.

Friedman naively references Chinese Communist Party talking points: ``healthy interdependencies'' and ``win-win.'' These guys always use that ``win-win'' and ``We will rise together.'' Yet he ignores the military menace of the CCP abroad and its genocidal tendencies at home.

But, hey, that is OK.

Mr. Friedman says: Hey, there are a lot of smart people in China who can help us with AI.

Sorry. I am a little more worried about that.

Then he notes:

[Beijing] does not want a trade war.

No, in fact, they are actually preparing for a real war, and that is a fact for anyone who knows about China.

Finally, the entire thrust of Friedman's piece builds on and reinforces one of the biggest strategic blunders that the United States has made with regard to China and our China strategy, over the past four decades, and that is outsourcing much of our national security to corporate America.

Friedman argues that we should concentrate on letting both of our private sectors, in China and the United States, work together, and if we do that, ``Americans, working in partnership with benevolent Chinese capital and technology, will prosper just like the Chinese benefited from American capital and technology in the last four decades.''

And Tom Friedman has the nerve to call President Trump's thinking ``magical.''

Well, this is really magical from Tom Friedman. First off, the Chinese communist system doesn't really have a private sector. Again, anyone who gets out to China knows this. Everybody in China, ultimately, works for the CCP, for Xi Jinping, for the Chinese Communist Party.

Just as importantly, as we have so painfully learned over the past four decades, the U.S. private sector, especially Wall Street and some of the big corporate CEOs, are very poor guardians of America's national security and economic interests when it comes to China. The U.S. Government finally, during President Trump's first term, started to say: Whoa. Wait. Stop. We can't outsource our national security to corporate America. We, the U.S. Government, need to safeguard our own interests, and that is what we are trying to do.

I will say--and we just saw it a couple of years ago--the annual American CEO confab in Beijing with Xi Jinping, in the People's Hall, which, in my view, has become a national embarrassment, with Xi triumphantly leading the sycophantic-looking American CEOs behind him, does nothing to dispel the concern that this remains a strategic weakness in our national security relative to China.

As we speak, CCP--the Chinese Communist Party--propaganda is flooding the world to fan the flames of a narrative that Friedman seems to embrace, and it is this: Their narrative is that President Trump has broken the World War II liberal international trading system.

This charge is ridiculous, and it gives a pass to the real culprit. The Chinese Communist Party broke the system a long time ago, and that has been their intention all along.

In 2005, then-Deputy Secretary of State and future World Bank president Bob Zoellick delivered his well-received speech, called the ``Responsible Stakeholder'' speech. It noted that, more than any other country, China has benefited from the international economic order set up by the United States after World War II, and it was now time for China to safeguard and embrace and become a responsible stakeholder in this system to help it endure.

I was in meetings with senior Chinese officials, not long after this speech, and they deceivingly used the term ``responsible stakeholder'' much to the American policymakers' delight. But the CCP leaders clearly had other plans: to unleash policies that continued their rampant intellectual property theft of American businesses; to never keep their promises and commitments that they make to Americans; forcing U.S. companies to hand over proprietary technology in order to gain access to China's market; aggressively subsidizing important industries, like steel, where they flooded global markets and destroyed the American heartland; blocking U.S. exports from having fair and reciprocal access to China's market; and unleashing economic coercion on our allies, like Australia, Korea, and Japan, when they dared to question CCP orthodoxy.

The Trump administration's policies are a course correction to all of this. But make no mistake, it was the Chinese Communist Party and its policies that took a wrecking ball to the international trading system. Yet, like so many other aspects of Friedman's piece, he gives the CCP and Xi a pass on this most consequential point.

U.S. Senators on both sides of the aisle, including those who don't even get out much, according to Mr. Friedman, have recognized this truth. It would be good progress if an insightful observer of the international system, like Thomas Friedman is, would do so as well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, over the past month, we have seen a wave of righteous outrage across the country in response to President Trump's completely lawless move to disappear hundreds of people to a notorious megaprison in El Salvador, without even the barest semblance of due process.

And as I join my colleagues in calling for the Trump administration to abide by the Supreme Court ruling and facilitate the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia--a man they said in court was sent to El Salvador by mistake--I have to emphasize that his case is one of many where Trump has completely shredded our norms and laws.

In addition to Garcia, Trump sent off some 200 people, including innocent people who were in our country legally, to a foreign prison without any due process whatsoever, and they did it all on the basis of some arrangement negotiated in secret and paid for with millions of taxpayer dollars.

What we do know is that many of these people were sent there without any criminal conviction. The administration actually admitted that. In their own court filing, the Trump administration acknowledged that many of these people have no criminal records in the United States, and yet all of these people have now been imprisoned in a foreign country with no end date in sight.

Unconstitutional doesn't even begin to cover that.

There are so many questions--basic questions--about this that we all should be demanding answers to. At the barest, smallest, slimmest minimum--and I mean as a starting point--the administration must release more details about this secret agreement where it is paying El Salvador with our taxpayer dollars to imprison people without a trial-- details like:

Who all is being imprisoned? How long is El Salvador holding these people with Trump's orders? How many people is El Salvador going to imprison under this agreement? What outside contact is possible for those people? And how do we learn their status and condition? Are they alive? Are they healthy? What are the details?

Most of the details we do have are from reporting, and news reports say the deal was only for El Salvador to take convicted criminals. So why did Trump send people with no criminal record?

And, importantly, where in the world is this money coming from? Does anyone here remember voting to pass a single dollar in appropriations to fund a torture prison in El Salvador? Because I sure don't, and the last I checked, Congress has the power of the purse.

Do you know what else we don't know? We still don't know the names of everyone they did this to. Think about that. We don't have their names. That information should be released immediately--today--because there are families who still have no confirmation where their loved ones are. And the only list we have right now was not even released by the administration. It was reported by the press. Some families only learned their son was gone, their husband was gone, their father was gone through photos of them being marched into a torture prison. This is the first, last, and only update we have had on just about all of those people.

We do not know if they are alive. We don't know if they are being treated decently. We don't even know if they have been moved. Even their lawyers can't reach them.

Here is what we do know, though: There are many names on the El Salvador list of people who were here legally who had no criminal record. That seems to be getting lost in the debate for some of my Republican colleagues. This is not about any one case or any one person. It is about a lawless system for the President to deny due process. And when you cut out due process, you put innocent people in harm's way.

I heard one of my Republican colleagues say last week:

I don't see any pattern here.

Well, I ask him now, and I ask everyone now, to pay attention to the full picture because, of course, you won't see a pattern if you just look at one case and you ignore the many, many others.

There is the case of Andry Hernandez Romero. He is a barber who came here legally. He has no criminal record.

There is the case of Arturo Suarez Trejo. He is a musician. He came here legally. He has no criminal record.

There is the case of Merwil Gutierrez, who--you guessed it--came here legally. No criminal record. In fact, he was apparently grabbed by mistake. One officer reportedly said: No, he is not the one. And another said: Take him away anyway.

Trump sent them all to a maximum security prison in El Salvador with no trial--disappeared. They have no contact with their lawyer, no contact with family. We do not know if they are alive, and they don't know if anyone is even advocating for them--how hopeless that must feel, how dark.

So is that enough of a pattern for my Republican colleagues? Do you still need more? Because there is also Jerce Reyes Barrios. He is a soccer player. He came here legally. Again, no criminal record.

There is Gustavo Aguilera, a food delivery driver. Legally here, no criminal record.

Or Anyelo Sarabia--here legally, no criminal record.

I mean, how many more before my colleagues can actually admit this is a pattern? How many people have to be disappeared with no due process before it becomes a problem?

Because, for me, one is too many, and the pattern isn't even over yet.

Trump was reportedly ready to disappear even more people to El Salvador before the Supreme Court put its foot down. In this latest round, the Trump administration was preparing to disappear a man who came here legally and had no record, except a traffic violation. Another was a young man accused of being a gang member because of a photo with a toy water gun. That is the level of so-called evidence that gets you locked away in a foreign torture prison under President Trump.

And I will keep saying it. Most of the people they disappeared have no criminal records, and many were even here legally.

They came here for a better life, and Trump disappeared them based on nothing more than tattoos that say ``mom'' and ``dad,'' or that celebrate soccer teams or a daughter's birth or autism awareness.

And I realize I keep hammering home that many of these people are not criminals and that many of these people came here legally. But I do want to remind my colleagues that this question is not whether someone who has vanished to El Salvador without a trace is good or bad. The question is whether everyone in this country, including American citizens, have the rights they were promised in our Constitution? At the end of the day, it is not about who these people are; it is about who we are--whether we are a country of due process or not, a country of laws or not.

Trump has said where he stands. He literally said: We don't have time to give them due process.

If the Trump administration thinks that someone is a criminal, if they are really bad and dangerous, prove it in court. Prove it. Just simply prove it. It shouldn't be hard. That is how this works. Everyone in this country understands that. You can't just say: Criminals don't get due process when due process is how you determine who is a criminal in the first place.

I mean, in the case of one person they sent to El Salvador, not only did the government's file against him show no criminal record, but it also got his name wrong several times and used two different identification numbers. Those are pretty major errors to make when you are locking someone away, the kind of errors that due process helps to avoid.

That is not some theory. We are seeing it happen in another case right now. There is a couple that Trump is saying is part of a gang. But instead of just disappearing them with no trial to speak of, the administration was forced to prove it--to prove it in court. And do you know what happened? The government failed. The judge found the government's claims completely and wholly unsubstantiated and ordered the couple to be released.

That just goes to show, if we ignore our laws, if we tear down the guardrails that saved that couple, it is not criminals who pay the price; it is innocent people, because due process protects them too.

Due process allows us to confirm whether people are lawfully present. Due process lets us confirm whether Trump is about to send them to a foreign prison. Due process lets us confirm whether people are guilty, instead of going off how they look or what tattoo they may have. And at the end of the day, due process means they get an actual determination of guilt or innocence, instead of getting disappeared with a question mark.

But no one here was told they are facing x years in a foreign prison. There is no end date in El Salvador because there was no sentence, because there was no trial. There was just Trump ignoring our laws, ignoring our courts, and sending people to gulags to rot and die and never be heard from again.

How can anyone ignore that outrageous breach of our laws, of our values?

And as a coequal branch of this government, I want to impress upon my colleagues: It is not just due process that is getting trampled here; it is basic checks and balances.

Trump is imprisoning these people under the Alien Enemies Act. He is using a war power. We are not at war. Everyone here should know that. After all, Congress--we--have to vote to declare war.

I remember every war vote we have taken in my time here in Congress, and I can tell you there has never been a vote on this so-called war Trump declared all on his own.

As if that weren't enough, earlier this month, the National Intelligence Council--the National Intelligence Council--determined that Venezuela is not directing an invasion by gangs. That directly undercut what Trump claimed when he announced his illegal end run around Congress.

Here is the simple question for everyone. There is no invasion. There is no

war. So why is Trump invoking a wartime authority?

But add on top of that that Trump has reached some secret, multimillion-dollar deal to pay El Salvador to imprison these people without a trial.

I am vice chair of the Appropriations Committee. I can tell you, we did not include a single cent, not one penny, for running torture prisons in El Salvador in our last funding bill.

Congress has the power of the purse, but Trump is picking our pockets to fund his own personal gulag.

And, by the way, while we talk about checks and balances, let's not forget how the Trump administration is arresting judges. His allies and advisers are attacking judges publicly and calling to impeach those who disagree with him.

And, of course, Trump is blatantly ignoring the courts. And worse than that, the White House is in open defiance of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court wrote: The administration must facilitate Mr. Garcia's release.

The White House wrote that he is never coming back.

The Supreme Court wrote: People being targeted under the Alien Enemies Act must have a reasonable opportunity to file for habeas corpus.

The Trump administration said: No. We will give them 12 hours.

Foreign policy is not an end run around the courts or the Constitution. The President cannot just be given unilateral authority to cut completely unethical deals with foreign nations.

What happens when a President negotiates in secret to have his political rivals detained abroad? Is that allowed? Can he argue the courts can't require him to call such a deal off? Or maybe he just denies it and says any agreements are state secrets. Does that work?

If President Trump said he would pay El Salvador $6 million to assassinate his rivals, I think we would all agree that that is blatantly unconstitutional. And if the court said he had to facilitate the reversal of that deal, and he said, ``Well, it is a sovereign nation; I can't stop them from assassinating anyone,'' I think we would all have a huge problem with that.

So do we want to say that is wrong now, or are we going to have to wait until he tries it?

What are we waiting for? We cannot just all stand by silently as the President pries open a Pandora's box that is altogether unprecedented and that poses a direct threat to our Republic. And let's cut through this BS where Trump and El Salvador are both trying to pretend there is no way to facilitate the return of people sent there wrongly.

Here is the thing: El Salvador has already sent back people that Trump tried to disappear. El Salvador immediately sent back a Nicaraguan individual, and they sent back women--yes, Trump tried to disappear women to their all-male torture prison in El Salvador. If anyone wants to try and pretend this was some careful vetting process, please explain that to me.

It is not like El Salvador can't send people back. They have already done that.

The administration should be making clear, one, these people were wrongly sent, and, two, that as with others wrongly sent, they need to be returned.

Though I want to keep in mind, of course, that ``wrongly sent'' is still kind of an understatement. The reality is, these people were completely denied due process. The reality is, President Trump is not just disappearing these people to El Salvador, he is disappearing our most basic constitutional rights, and he is doing it in plain sight, not just in El Salvador either, right here in America.

His immigration crackdown is upturning lives and overturning some of our most basic values like freedom of speech. We have people who are here legally who are being detained and threatened with deportation, not for any crime, not for any violence, but for speech, for protest, for things as simple, as fundamental, as writing an op-ed the administration disagreed with--in America, the land of the free and the land of free speech.

Is dissent the bar for deportation now? Is that what this country has come to? What next? How far does Trump's new standard apply? Can you get deported for saying we shouldn't invade Canada? Can you get detained for an op-ed saying Greenland is not going to be a State? Are you going to have legal status revoked for admitting Biden won the 2020 election? Because this seems outrageous, but it seems perfectly in line with Trump's new policy which amounts to ``disagree with the President, your rights are gone.'' That is fundamentally un-American.

And beyond people who are being targeted for protest, there are thousands of students in this country that Trump is trying to push out over minor issues: fishing citations, jaywalking, speeding tickets, even charges that were dismissed. So far, some 1,800 foreign students are having their visas revoked with little to no explanation, to say nothing of due process. And that includes students in Washington State, my home State, at U-Dub, Gonzaga, Shoreline Community College where I once worked, my alma mater, WSU, and more. It is not clear whether these students have done anything wrong, and it is not clear, in some cases, what exactly they are supposed to do next because when the administration can't revoke visas, it has been trying to remove students' records, something courts have already ruled against.

One of the judges really put it best. I want to read this and quote it to you:

I've got two experienced immigration lawyers on behalf of a

client who is months away from graduation, who has done

nothing wrong, who has been terminated from a system that you

all keep telling me has no effect on his immigration status,

although that clearly is BS. And now, his two very

experienced lawyers can't even tell him whether or not he's

here legally because the court can't tell him whether or not

he's here legally, because the government's counsel can't

tell him if he's here legally.

The point seems to be, if we can't deport you, we can scare and confuse you. And to add even more confusion, DOJ announced they were reversing course on some of this only to then say they are still working on a plan to push out all these students.

By the way, we are only still scratching the surface of just how inhumane Trump's immigration crackdown has become. Trump is slashing funds to ensure 26,000 migrant kids have legal assistance, meaning more 4-year-olds are being marched in front of immigration judges expected to make their own legal case with a plushy toy.

Trump is also trying to mass cancel protected status for people who came here who were fleeing harsh conditions and dictators. Trump is sending Christian refugees and women back to live under the Taliban where they will face near-certain persecution.

Trump is sending ICE officials to elementary schools where they tried to gain access by lying about having permission from parents to speak with their kids. ICE officials are arresting people with maximum violence and lawlessness, showing up without judicial warrants, since the Trump administration says it is fine to storm into some someone's house without one; showing up in masks, grabbing people off the streets without any badge or identification to distinguish them from a kidnapper; whisking people away in unmarked cars and even smashing windshields.

Back in my home State of Washington, I heard from folks who saw that firsthand.

Last month, ICE aggressively detained Lelo, a farmworker in my State. And it appears he may have even been targeted because of his advocacy for better working conditions for his fellow farmworkers. They are still denying him bond despite no criminal charges.

I spoke with his wife last week who watched in horror as they arrested her husband shortly after he dropped her off at work. She told me through tears about how officers broke his window and pushed him against the car and how Lelo wants to be free so he can take care of his brothers and sisters and work so they can study. He wants to continue doing his work with the community and with the union. And they are working right now to try to get bond, something I strongly support.

This is not someone with a dangerous record. It is someone with a record of hard work and trying to make his community better.

Skagit County is known for its agricultural industry. That industry does not survive without the immigrant farmworkers who help power that local economy, period. More than that, we

are talking about many families who have been here for decades. They are part of our community. They are not just the people who feed this country, these are people who work hard. They followed the law. They should not be terrorized as if they were violent criminals.

Last week, I met with farmworkers there who told me there have been days they have been afraid to go to work because an unmarked vehicle was seen in their neighborhood. They are absolutely terrified of being grabbed off the street by ICE and locked up with no semblance of due process regardless of their legal status.

And this situation is not unique to Skagit County or even to my State. It is happening across the country. Let's not forget, Trump is trying to deport a cancer researcher to Russia where she fears retaliation for protesting the war in Ukraine. Sending her away would both put her in danger and completely upend groundbreaking cancer research. Her colleagues say her role is irreplaceable.

But it is not just cancer research. Trump also deported a little girl--a U.S. citizen--who was on her way to get cancer treatment. She was with her mother, an undocumented immigrant who was forced to choose being separated from her 10-year-old daughter or being sent away together. What an unthinkable choice to force on a mother. What an unthinkable thing to do to a child, a citizen--a citizen--who is fighting cancer.

And Trump has done that twice. That is right--twice. He has deported a mother along with a kid who is fighting cancer--a kid, by the way, who is an American citizen.

He is doing that without giving these parents any meaningful time to talk to a lawyer or a spouse or to figure out what is best for that child. We know that because Trump deported another U.S. citizen last week. That is right, another one. Trump deported a 2-year-old, an American citizen. They refused to tell this kid's father where his wife and kid were being held. They refused to let him talk to his wife for more than a minute. They even forced him to hang up the phone when he tried to give his wife their lawyer's number. And then, as the judge put it, they seem to have ``deported a U.S. citizen with no meaningful process.''

Now we are hearing about a family in Oklahoma--U.S. citizens who recently moved in who had their home raided by ICE. A mom and her daughters were forced out of their house in the rain in underwear. ICE agents seized their phones, their laptops, even their life savings, and didn't leave so much as a number they could call to get their stuff back. That happened to U.S. citizens who did nothing but move into a new house.

These horror stories underscore something important--Trump's cruel war on immigrants is hurting American citizens too. U.S. citizens are having their spouses ripped away. Even servicemembers are seeing their families targeted. They are having their parents ripped away. They are having their lives turned upside down.

Let's not forget, U.S. citizens are even being detained by this administration. We have several instances now where American citizens have been caught up in Trump's immigration crackdown. American citizens have been detained and wrongly locked up, even after someone showed them their birth certificates--even for days.

Let's keep in mind, if you are a citizen who is mistakenly detained and you are being denied due process and you can't reach someone to show them your birth certificate, how are you supposed to get released? What if you are put on the next plane for El Salvador before you get a chance to set the record straight?

Let's not pretend that is farfetched, not when citizens have already been mistakenly detained, not when the government has already admitted it sent some people to El Salvador by mistake, not when Trump has already disappeared some people who were here legally and many people who had no criminal record with no due process and not when Trump has already said he wants to send U.S. citizens to El Salvador prisons. He was caught on mic telling the President of El Salvador he needs to build more jails, telling him the ``homegrowns'' are next.

What happens when you get sent there, and you can't contact a lawyer? These are serious questions. What happens? Because if there is nothing we can do for the people there now, what precedent does that set for the people that are sent there next?

Mr. President, I have been speaking for a while and posed a lot of questions. I hope my colleagues think about this carefully. I am going to wrap it up, but I want to end with just one more. Where will Republicans draw the line because we are well past the bounds of law, and we are well past the bounds of basic humanity.

So I hope more of my colleagues will join me saying enough is enough and demanding transparency, accountability, and justice from the Trump administration.

That starts with some very basic things. First, accurate up-to-date information on the names of people who are being detained and then deported from ICE facilities across the country, including, by the way, the Northwest ICE Detention Center in Tacoma, so their loved ones and community members can at least know where they are.

And we need a clear list of every person who was disappeared to El Salvador, along with what evidence, if any, the government has as well as the full terms of whatever agreement the Trump administration has negotiated with El Salvador's dictator.

But it doesn't stop there. We need to see clear, good-faith efforts to abide by court orders and to bring back everyone wrongfully, unjustly sent to a foreign prison. We need to have lines of communication so these people can talk to their lawyers or talk to their loved ones and let us know they are OK. And we need due process with evidence, with judges, and a meaningful opportunity for people to present a defense.

Let's be clear, we are not saying everyone is innocent. We are saying no more than what the Constitution says, no more than what the courts have said time and again: Everyone in the United States of America gets due process.

I yield the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today for a rule on two measures, two lousy measures doubling down on the Republicans' agenda to help big banks and big polluters.

S.J. Res. 13 is a gift-wrapped giveaway to Wall Street, plain and simple. It would make it easier for big banks to get even bigger, hurting small businesses and communities in the process.

S.J. Res. 31 is even worse, a blatant handout to big polluters, putting corporate profits ahead of our constituents' health and safety.

This isn't new, Mr. Speaker. That has been the Republican playbook all Congress long: Help the polluters. Help the banks. Help Wall Street, and help the CEOs. They want to help everyone except the working people who actually need it.

Mr. Speaker, you may ask: Why?

I would say: Follow the money. Look at the donations.

One of the things we need to get serious about in this Congress and hopefully when Democrats take control of the House after the next election, this will be a priority, and that is campaign finance reform.

All this excessive money from big industries, from big banks, from corporations, and from people like Elon Musk pollute this Chamber in a way where the needs and the wants of regular people get put to the side.

It is disgraceful, if we are being honest here, Mr. Speaker. As bad as these two bills are--and I can't emphasize enough that they are really bad--they are just the warm-up act. In fact, this is filler. We weren't even supposed to be dealing with these bills. We were supposed to be dealing with the budget reconciliation bill. Mr. Speaker, because of the disarray within the Republican Conference, all of a sudden, these bills appeared.

That is because in just over 13 hours, Mr. Speaker, the House Rules Committee will meet starting at 1 o'clock in the morning to debate a bill that steals from the American people so they can help out the billionaire donors who write them big checks.

Now, let me ask: If this bill is so great, so big, and so beautiful as Donald Trump says it is, then why the hell are we debating it in the middle of the night?

Why not debate it in broad daylight where the American people can tune in and hear what it is really about?

We all know the answer.

I encourage the American people to pay attention to what is happening very, very, very early in the morning here in the United States Capitol. Watch what happens in the Rules Committee at 1 o'clock in the morning.

To all the insomniacs out there: Tune in at 1 o'clock in the morning and watch what unfolds in that committee. Republicans do not want you to pay attention to their tax scam.

Hell, Trump doesn't even want Republicans to pay attention to what is in this bill. Mr. Speaker, he told you guys to close your eyes and vote for this garbage.

Republicans were ordered not to say a word in committee, just fall in line and rubber-stamp it.

Now listen to this: Now they are sneaking a change into the rules buried in the fine print of this rule to give themselves same-day authority to bring the bill to the floor with a moment's notice. This bill is over 1,000 pages long.

They want to ram it through the Rules Committee, potentially changing it, and we know that there are changes coming, and then vote on it just hours later. It is a bill that adds trillions to the deficit and kicks millions of people off their healthcare.

Republicans once bragged about requiring 72 hours to review legislation.

Mr. Speaker, do you remember that?

Now Republicans are ready to toss that promise in the trash to serve Trump's demands.

If my colleagues in the Freedom Caucus vote for this rule, then they will have reached a new height of hypocrisy. It is unbelievable to me that they cry and whine about passing bills without the time to read them, and then they come down here and support ramming a bill through committee in the middle of the night and bringing it straight to the floor.

It is unbelievable and hypocritical.

Let's be real, Mr. Speaker. This budget reconciliation bill is a disaster. It is unpopular, and it is indefensible. This is all about massive and huge tax breaks to billionaires paid for by stealing from working Americans. That is not hyperbole. That is just the truth. It rips away Medicaid from parents and grandparents. It slashes food assistance for children. The biggest cut in food assistance in history is contained in this bill. It drains resources from the moms and dads all to fund giveaways for those at the very, very top.

Any backroom deals made in the next few hours to twist arms and to buy votes will only make this terrible bill even worse.

This is not what democracy looks like. This is what corruption looks like. Shame on every single person who votes to advance that awful process by torching any semblance of a fair process.

A vote for this rule is a vote to allow Republican leadership to jam this bill through the House without enough time to even read it. There is zero transparency and zero respect for this institution or the Members here. Just close your eyes and vote for it. That is what Trump told Republicans to do: Close your eyes and vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve a hell of a lot better than this rushed, reckless process. They deserve leaders who work for them, not for the billionaires.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of things. First of all, I want to correct the record. The gentleman said that this budget reconciliation bill reflects a full, fair, and open process in all the committees of jurisdiction. I hate to tell him, but I am on the Agriculture Committee, and the chairman actually cut off debate when there were dozens of amendments still yet to be offered. That is not a full, open, and fair process. Maybe by Republican standards it is, but by most people's standards, it isn't.

The gentleman is on the Rules Committee. We are debating the rule, so I have a question for my Rules Committee colleague. This rule contains a fast-track process for the Republican tax scam, this so-called budget reconciliation bill. We all know that deals are being made behind closed doors, changes are still being negotiated--big changes, we are told. I would like to know if the majority will commit to ensuring a Congressional Budget Office score is available on the final bill before it moves forward.

We need to know the impact on our constituents, not only how much it will cost, but how many people will lose their healthcare and how quickly they will lose their healthcare.

Those are legitimate questions that, quite frankly, Democrats not only want to know but Republicans should want to know, as well.

Can I get the gentleman to kind of give us some assurances that we know the impact? Will he commit to ensuring a Congressional Budget Office score is available on the final bill before it moves forward?

I am happy to yield to him.

I guess we are not going to get an answer.

I mean, I guess we all know why they don't want the nonpartisan, expert analysis to be made available before a vote on this bill. This vote is a monstrosity. This vote is going to throw at least 14 million people off their healthcare. This is going to constitute the largest cut in food assistance in history. People are going to see their nutrition benefits reduced, which will impact children, senior citizens, veterans, and those with disabilities.

It is relevant to what we are talking about here today because in this rule you provide the authority to immediately bring the budget reconciliation bill to the floor without giving people any time to debate the bill, to be able to analyze the bill, for CBO to do their work on this, or for us to even know what the impact is going to be on our constituents from something this big.

By the way, I hear Republicans say that they have this deadline. There is no deadline. There is nothing magic about having to pass this bill by tomorrow or the next day.

You could do this right. You could actually have a Rules Committee hearing in markup in the light of day. You could do it when you come back after the Memorial Day recess.

People should ask the question: Why are they rushing so quickly? Why are they doing everything they can to jam this through before people have a chance to understand the full impacts of this bill?

The reason why is that they don't want the American people to know what they are doing. They are ashamed of what is in this bill--again, throwing people off healthcare, throwing people off food assistance. Why? It is to give a tax cut to billionaires. Give me a break.

We are here to help lift up people in this country, to be there for people who are struggling. Instead, this Republican Congress is about enriching those who are well-off and well-connected.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am really confused after listening to the gentleman from New York complain about same-day authority. In this bill, the Republicans put in same-day authority to be able to jam this tax scam through.

The gentleman didn't answer my question. I guess he is basically saying that, no, the Republicans will not commit to a CBO score for people to be able to know what, in fact, the bill will do and the impacts the bill will have.

I mean, this bill is so awful that I can't imagine any Democrat voting for it, but it is so awful that I would like to think some Republicans who have a conscience wouldn't vote for it either.

I would like to think it would matter to Republicans that 14 million Americans will lose their healthcare. What if that number went up to 20 million or 30 million? Is there any number that will be so high that maybe some Republicans might pause and say, wait a minute, maybe we should not go down this road? I mean, this is crazy.

By the way, the difference in legislation that we are talking about, the Build Back Better bill, I remind the gentleman, was about helping people. This bill is about screwing people. There is a difference here.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 2753, the Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act, which would block the Republican budget from cutting Medicaid or SNAP benefits and kicking people off these lifesaving programs.

While we vote on two measures that would give even more power to big banks and large industrial polluters, Republicans are trying to jam their multitrillion-dollar budget scam down our throats in the dead of night by holding a hearing at 1 o'clock in the morning in the Rules Committee, hoping the American people won't notice.

Shame on my Republican colleagues.

The American people are noticing, and they are pissed off that working families are going to have to foot the bill for massive tax cuts for multimillionaires, wealthy heirs, and corporations.

Republicans claim they don't want to cut critical benefits for working people. I have heard many of you do press conferences and sign on to letters. Now, here is the chance to prove it by voting for my amendment to bring up the Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Boyle) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, can the gentleman name for me one meeting that the Rules Committee had, when Democrats were in control, where the hearing portion began at 1 o'clock in the morning?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, I thought he was intimating that that was the case. I don't know of a single meeting where we began taking testimony--we may have reported out Rules late at night, but not taking testimony.

Mr. Speaker, and, secondly, let me just say, with all due respect, I don't view it as theatrics to stand up for people's healthcare and food assistance. I feel that that is my job.

If Republicans think that somehow people are not going to be adversely impacted, read the CBO score on the current draft of the bill. Again, it is going to get worse.

On the current draft of the bill we are told because of the changes in this bill and because of the inaction by Republicans, CBO estimates right now 14 million Americans will lose their healthcare. That is not me. That is the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Republicans rely on that. Democrats rely on that. By saying somehow that people aren't going to be adversely impacted by the cuts in nutrition, I don't think you understand the nutrition title if that is what you believe.

Under this bill, if a mother of a 7-year-old loses her job, for whatever reason, she has 3 months to find a new job. Otherwise, she loses her food assistance.

You have lowered the age of when work requirements are mandatory, and it is a cruel thing to do because this is about children. I don't know, but if you are a single parent and you have got a 7-year-old--by the way, some schools end the day at 2 or 2:30. How do you pay for childcare? How do you try to make ends meet? What about the summer vacation when school is not in session?

My Republican friends are so in the pockets of billionaires and the well-off and the well-connected, I don't think they know what real life is like for so many people in this country, how difficult it is.

When we talk about programs like SNAP, I have a news flash for you. The majority of people on SNAP who are able to work, work. They earn so little they still qualify for the benefit.

By the way, the benefit is on average of about $2 per person per meal. You can't buy a cup of coffee in the United States Capitol Complex for $2.

Then what my friends don't talk about is how this is shifting some of the cost burdens on to States. All of a sudden States are going to be required to come up with hundreds of millions and, in some cases, billions of dollars in order to prevent people from losing their food assistance.

Who does that? Who does that, all while giving tax breaks to billionaires?

It just makes no sense to me. All we are asking for--and I think some Republicans may agree with me on this--is before you bring the bill to the floor--and I appreciate the gentleman saying that there will be a CBO score by the time it gets through the Senate--don't House Members deserve to know what the hell they are voting on before they vote on it?

We ought to insist that we all go into this with our eyes wide open, so that we know, in fact, what the impact is going to be on our constituents. I don't think that is a radical thing to demand or to ask for. Yet, my Republican friends seem to think that that is unrealistic.

This bill is going to need major changes for me to even take another look at it and show the priorities don't represent my values. We don't share the same values. It is clear when I look at this bill.

The bottom line is the process right now and what is relevant to this rule that we are debating right now. My friends on the other side put in same-day rule authority to expedite this so people won't even have adequate time to find out how it impacts their constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let's set the record straight. I have to go back and look 20 years ago? Yet, I can say this: Democrats never ever did anything like Republicans are doing here today, never. I don't even remember, and maybe the gentleman could enlighten us what the bill was.

Yet, on a major budget reconciliation bill, the majority is jamming this through? It is going to add to the deficit. It is going to throw people off of food assistance. It is going to throw people off of healthcare assistance.

That is not me saying that. That is the Congressional Budget Office saying it. Nothing like this has ever been done. Nothing like this has ever been done, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing it with a straight face as if it is no big deal. It is as if who cares if people lose their food assistance.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talks about that if we don't do something, taxes will be increased. The reason why taxes are going to be increased is because when my friends passed this tax bill when Trump was last in office, the majority made all the tax cuts for middle-class families temporary. They all expired. Mr. Speaker, do you know what Republicans didn't make temporary? The tax breaks for corporations; those are permanent. Those are permanent, and that says it all there. That is the difference between the two parties, it is that I think we have different priorities. We have a different set of values.

Mr. Speaker, I am really deeply concerned about those who will go without food, and I am deeply concerned about those who will go without healthcare. Those are my priorities. I am sorry it makes the gentleman and the Republicans uncomfortable, but that is where I am coming from.

I don't give a damn about whether Elon Musk gets another tax break or not. Maybe my friends do because he poured so much money into the last campaign. Again, that is why we need campaign finance reform. We need to get this place to focus in on what regular people are concerned about and not what billionaires and corporations are concerned about.

Mr. Speaker, before Republicans try to cut Medicaid and SNAP benefits in the dead of night, I should also point out that the majority is giving gifts to big polluters in broad daylight.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter signed by nearly 100 public health and environmental organizations laying out the extreme risks of increased incidence of cancer and birth defects if S.J. Res. 31 is enacted.

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that Republicans have betrayed the middle class of this country time after time after time. We are seeing that today with the CRA measures that uplift big banks and big polluters at the expense of our health, safety, and economic security.

Does anybody think that big banks need more help, that we want big banks to get even bigger, and we want big banks to swallow up community banks? I don't know. On what planet is that a good idea? It is a good idea only in the Republican-controlled Congress here.

We will see during the rest of this week Republicans' priorities all twisted as my Republican colleagues jam through Trump's one big, awful tax scam.

The Speaker has ordered Republicans on the Committee on Rules to meet at 1 o'clock in the morning. That is the middle of the night. Again, here is what puzzles me: We were supposed to meet at noon yesterday, and we are instead meeting at 1 o'clock in the morning.

Mr. Speaker, we know there are going to be changes. Republicans could have taken testimony and hearings from all the committees and waited to report out the rule until whenever final deals were made with their Members. Yet, Republicans are deliberately choosing to meet at 1 o'clock in the morning on something this consequential.

Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman thinks it is a good idea. The gentleman says that I will use my time and try to take every moment I can to make my points. I can say to the gentleman: You bet your life I will be. I am going to be fighting like hell for the people of this country. I am not going to sit back, and I can say this for the other Democratic Members and others who will come to this mike: We are not going to sit back and watch our constituents get screwed over. We are just not going to do that.

Republicans can do it at 1 o'clock in the morning or 2 o'clock in the morning. We are going to be there, and we are going to stay there. We are going to offer our amendments, and we are going to make our points. I would urge my colleagues to be prepared to be there for a very, very long time.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the gentleman can give us some assurance that, unlike in the Agriculture Committee where the chairman cut off debate and cut off amendments even though there were many amendments that were pending, we won't see the same thing happen in the Committee on Rules.

Clearly, our debate on this bill is something Republicans don't want the American people to see. I invite every single American--it doesn't matter if they are Republican, Democrat, Independent, or someone who doesn't follow politics--to tune in to the Committee on Rules. It will be up on our website. I will be live-streaming on YouTube. It will be on C-SPAN. Hell, maybe even cable will carry us live.

I urge Americans to watch it and judge for themselves what this bill means for them and their families and their communities. They will see how Republicans are gutting regular order to jam this thing through. They will probably see them walk in with a huge amendment at the last minute. It will be one that could dramatically change the bill, including accelerating the timeline for kicking millions of people off of their health insurance. As soon as next year, people could start losing coverage. That is what we are being told might be coming down the way.

If the rule that we are talking about right now passes, my Republican colleagues will be able to rush that newly changed bill to the floor just hours later, giving Members and the American public zero time to read it or to review it.

Make no mistake: A vote for today's rule is a vote to give the Republican leadership a blank check to fast-track Trump's one big, ugly bill through this House.

Mr. Speaker, here is what really gets me: Members of the House Freedom

Caucus have said over and over again that bringing a 1,000-page bill to the floor without time to read it is corrupt and immoral. They were the loudest voices demanding the 72-hour rule, so let's see if they mean it. Let's see if they actually mean what they say or if they fold under pressure.

Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member of this House to vote ``no'' on the PQ, ``hell no'' on this rule, ``no'' on the underlying legislation, and to send a strong message that we reject this Republican obsession with screwing over the middle class to give tax breaks to billionaires.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 426 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 426 provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 13 under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate each, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services, or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 31 under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, or their designees. It provides for one motion to commit.

Finally, the rule provides for the flexibility to consider a rule related to reconciliation on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee in order to expeditiously enact President Trump's agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.

The rule before us presents an important opportunity for Congress to continue its work to reverse the last-minute attempts at regulatory overreach by the former Biden-Harris administration.

The rule includes consideration of S.J. 13, to provide for congressional disapproval of a Biden-era Office of the Comptroller of the Currency regulation titled ``Business Combinations Under the Bank Merger Act.''

In September of 2024, the OCC and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, revised their approach to evaluating bank merger applications. The updated rule restricts a bank's ability to scale, manage risk effectively, and broaden product offerings, ultimately discouraging mergers altogether.

By dismantling a longstanding standard, and eliminating automatic approval for certain applications, the Biden administration's actions risk stifling competition and innovation in the financial sector. These changes will delay strategic decisionmaking among financial institutions and limit access to innovative financial services for everyday Americans.

For small- and mid-sized banks in particular, the rule imposes additional red tape and bureaucratic hurdles that hinder their ability to merge and compete with larger financial institutions. Despite what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may claim, the Biden administration's rule strengthens the dominance of the largest market players while undermining smaller, community-focused institutions, limiting consumer choice and consumer access.

We should strive for a regulatory environment that is streamlined, balanced, and rooted in practical oversight, one that protects consumers without obstructing innovation and competition. What we don't need are more Biden-era regulations that distort the market and smother opportunity with overreach.

S.J. Res. 13 will ensure that future bank regulators cannot repeat this ill-conceived rulemaking, and that financial institutions can continue to make strategic, innovative decisions that will ultimately benefit American consumers.

Also, the rule provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 31, providing for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Biden EPA relating to review of final rule classification of major sources as area sources under the Clean Air Act.

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act lays out stringent compliance standards for facilities emitting over 10 tons of a single hazardous air pollutant, or 25 tons of an aggregate. Facilities below those thresholds are classified as area sources and subject to more flexible requirements.

In 2020, under President Trump, the EPA adopted a more rational approach allowing facilities that significantly reduced their emissions to be reclassified as area sources. This commonsense change rewarded emissions improvements and reduced unnecessary regulatory burdens on American manufacturers and energy producers.

To no one's surprise, the Biden administration reversed course by reimposing the outdated and rigid ``once in, always in'' policy. This framework permanently locks facilities into strict major-source status, even if they make substantial efforts to reduce harmful emissions. That is not only unfair, it discourages environmental progress.

Whom did the Biden administration hurt?

They hurt the chemical manufacturing sector, which includes thousands of mid-sized companies representing hundreds of thousands of jobs. These companies have invested millions in cleaner technologies and equipment upgrades. Under this Biden-era EPA rule, their investments will not be rewarded with a lighter regulatory touch. In fact, despite upgrades

to reduce emissions, they will continue to face the same higher regulatory costs.

Moreover, there is the pulp and paper industry, a critical employer in States like Georgia, Wisconsin, and Maine. Mills that switch to cleaner fuels or have implemented advanced scrubber systems will receive no regulatory relief under the Biden-era EPA's ``once in, always in'' rule. In a sector that already faces stiff foreign competition and very narrow margins, the Biden administration heaped further unnecessary burdens onto this industry, jeopardizing the jobs of thousands of American workers in the process.

Additionally, there is the independent and smaller scale refiner that often lack the scale of larger competitors but serve critical regional fuel markets. They may have made substantial environmental progress in reducing hazardous air pollutant emissions, but the Biden-era ``once in, always in'' rule locks them into compliance regimes that do not reflect their improved emissions profile.

Finally, let's not forget our small and rural manufacturing facilities in communities across this country, including in my own district in New York's southern tier. These facilities include metal fabricators and food processors, many of whom have taken proactive steps to cut emissions in very good faith. Under the Biden-era EPA ``once in, always in'' rule, these improvements to reduce hazardous emissions do not matter. They will still be treated with the same costly and burdensome regulatory regime. Simply put, the Biden EPA and its ``once in, always in'' rule not only disincentivizes innovation and cleaner operations, but it also threatens plant closures and kills jobs.

Mr. Speaker, you would have to be more concerned with appeasing environmental extremists than protecting American workers to support this punitive and counterproductive regulatory framework.

Through S.J. Res. 31, House Republicans stand up for the American workers and job creators. The CRA, ensures regulatory fairness and restores real incentives for emissions reduction. Without this CRA, even the most environmentally responsible facilities are punished, trapped under heavyhanded rules that do not reflect their cleaner operation.

Upon returning to office, President Trump and House Republicans focused on restoring commonsense governance: prioritizing American jobs, economic strength, and practical solutions. S.J. Res. 31, like other measures undoing ill-advised Biden-era policies, represents a decisive step in the right direction.

Let's get back to smart, forward-thinking policies that actually serve the American people, not far left activists and D.C. bureaucrats.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the budget reconciliation bill is the work of 11 committees that have gone through full markup, that went through the full bipartisan process.

I sat through 27 hours in the Energy and Commerce Committee. I know full well that I had a front seat to the longest markup, just as my colleague did with his service on the Agriculture Committee.

That is not what we are here debating. Despite what some of my colleagues across the aisle are saying, the CRA that we are discussing right now is addressing standards for major and area sources that will actually promote cleaner and more environmentally conscious operations among manufacturers, refiners, and energy producers.

The rule implemented by the Biden administration reflects a flawed approach, one that eliminates incentives for voluntary emission reductions and imposes excessive regulatory burdens without delivering clear environmental benefits.

Under this policy, facilities that successfully reduce their actual or potential hazardous air pollutant emissions below the major source threshold are still prohibited from reclassifying as area sources. This means that even after substantial improvements, these facilities remain subject to the strictest and costliest regulatory framework forever, indefinitely.

This not only increases operational costs but also removes a key incentive for companies to invest in cleaner technologies and practices, something we should all be encouraging.

For example, take a chemical plant that emits hazardous air pollutants like benzene or formaldehyde. Under the Biden-era rule, if they invest millions in cutting-edge emissions control systems that reduce their pollution below the regulatory threshold, they get no relief from the major source permitting burdens.

The Biden-era rule entangles them in permanent red tape, discouraging innovation and undermining progress.

Under the Trump-era rules that S.J. Res. 31 would pave the way for, companies would have a financial incentive to invest in pollution control since doing so would actually reduce their compliance costs and regulatory delays. The result is cleaner air, a cleaner environment.

The reality is that most of these companies and the people who run them live in the very communities affected by emissions. They have every reason to care about cleaner air and healthier environments.

What they need is smart, flexible policy, not arbitrary and capricious restrictions that stifle growth and reduce competitiveness. S.J. Res. 31 would restore a proven framework that recognizes and rewards emissions reduction. It allows regulatory classifications to reflect a facility's current environmental impact, not a legacy status based on past emissions.

This flexibility fosters continuous improvement and aligns environmental goals with economic incentives. This is not about weakening protections. It is the contrary, actually. It is about applying regulation in a way that actually works, delivering clean air, encouraging innovation, and maintaining the strength of America's industry.

Mr. Speaker, this is a commonsense path forward to a cleaner, more sustainable future, one that supports jobs, growth, and the environment.

This should be a no-brainer for my colleagues who claim to be the champions of effective environmental policy. Let's not be fooled by their rhetoric. The reality is that many on the other side of the aisle are beholden to a vocal and uncompromising wing of the environmental lobby, groups that would rather see American workers laid off, manufacturing plants shut down, and entire communities economically gutted than support balanced, commonsense regulatory reforms.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing a lot of dramatic words from my friend and colleague across the aisle about the reconciliation process. Let's take a moment to remind them of what they did when they were in the majority.

During the 117th Congress, when a Democratic-led House considered the last reconciliation bill, also known as the Build Back Better Act, the process was a little messy, to say the least. The gentleman talks about CBO scores, and it is certainly something that we are working very hard on.

Mr. McGovern, in a meeting on November 4, 2021, was reading the manager's amendment to be self-executed. His response to not having a CBO score was:

I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will do

everything they can to slow this process down. I will also

assure the gentleman, as he knows, that this cannot become

law and will not move forward in the Senate without a CBO

score, and that will have to happen.

Regardless if we do have a JTC score or a CBO score or what that score says, I don't think any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will vote for this bill at the end of the day.

People in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones here.

In fact, this process on their side of the aisle was so messy that two separate rules had to be passed out of the Rules Committee, each one self-executing a new manager's amendment as negotiations were ongoing and changes continued to be made. It was constantly a shifting landscape and, frankly, chaos at times.

I know that the gentleman from Massachusetts won't let facts get in the way of a good story. He pounds the table over the use of same-day authority. The reality is that the first rule for Build Back Better extended what is essentially a martial law procedural lockdown of the House floor, granting broad, same-day authority that allowed the majority to jam through changes without proper scrutiny.

Let's not forget the second rule for that bill was brought to the floor and voted on the very same day. It was reported from the Rules Committee, exactly the kind of tactic our colleagues are now clutching their pearls while opposing.

The fact is that governing is hard. The process is rarely a smooth one, but the American people elected President Trump, a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, and a Republican majority in the United States Senate, and gave us unified government with a clear expectation for Congress to deliver on this agenda.

The Rules Committee will continue to use the tools at its disposal to facilitate the passage of historic legislation, just as our colleagues did when they were in charge.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle, they love to cherry-pick the facts when it comes to the timing of committee proceedings, especially in reference to the Rules Committee's upcoming meeting. They bemoan the late start and the timing of tonight's meeting. Yet, they actively ensured one committee markup after another for the legislation before us tonight, they ran hours and hours, if not days on end.

Why did those markups run as long as they did? They ran that long because Democrats engaged in the legislative process, which is their right.

The same principle applies to the Rules Committee. On this committee we have a long tradition of meeting late into the evening to complete our work. This isn't new, and it is not unique to our current majority. It is simply how the legislative process operates when the House has its full agenda.

We need only look at the Committee's operations under Democratic control to see a long history of meetings in the dark of night. Under Democratic control of the Rules Committee, we have seen things like House Resolution 587, which the report was filed at 3:46 a.m. House Resolution 481, the report was filed at 2:09 a.m. House Resolution 597, the report was filed at 3:43 a.m. House Resolution 903, the report was filed at 2:25 a.m. For House Resolution 445 in the 116th Congress, the Committee adjourned at 12:20 a.m.

Late-night sessions are not partisan anomalies and unique to the Democrats. These are precedents that Democrats themselves have maintained for years.

Let's be clear, this is the way the Rules Committee has operated when necessary, regardless of which party holds the gavel. It is about getting the work done. In fact, tonight we may not be reporting in the dark of night at all but rather as the new day has begun. I expect Mr. McGovern to take full advantage of our unlimited debate rules in the Rules Committee to make sure that that happens, and I see my second sunrise in a couple of weeks here.

I invite my colleagues to set aside the theatrics and focus on the work at hand, and I encourage my colleagues on the other side to prove me wrong.

Once again, my colleagues across the aisle are doing what they do best. They spread misinformation, and they try to sow fear into the hearts of the most vulnerable in this country about Republicans' work through the budget reconciliation process.

Let's set the record straight. President Trump and House Republicans are working to strengthen and secure and sustain Medicaid.

Democrats, through their reckless spending and unwillingness to enact commonsense guardrails themselves, have worked to undermine this critical program. We are laser-focused on protecting the absolute most vulnerable among us, Americans with disabilities, pregnant women, children, and our beloved seniors, by putting in place commonsense guardrails to ensure that those truly in need always get the care that they deserve. That means making sure that precious Medicaid resources go to the living, breathing Americans who actually need the care, not bureaucratic bloat, fraud, or people that have come into this country illegally and have been put on this system.

We are also ensuring Medicaid's long-term sustainability by rolling past costly Biden-era regulations that are driving up the program's price tag by hundreds of billions of dollars.

Let's be clear, Medicaid should always serve American citizens first and foremost, and that is why reinforcing citizenship verification, another commonsense step that the American people believe in, not only protects the program but saves the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.

Yes, we are, reintroducing Clinton-era work requirements. One of the most popular things Bill Clinton achieved in his Presidency, and he worked with Congress to get it done, was bringing commonsense work requirements to social welfare programs.

It would only apply to able-bodied adults without dependents. It is something that we should all be able to agree on. If you can work, you should work. It is a step that was once broadly bipartisan, but today, our Democratic colleagues would rather let Medicaid spiral into insolvency with no solution in sight than support a basic principle that if you are able to work, you should.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have heard noise from across the aisle, words like ``cruel'' and ``harsh,'' and all the hyperbole you could expect to be thrown around to score political points from their base. Let me be clear. Those labels belong not to those fighting for reform but to those who would refuse commonsense changes today and instead allow this critical safety net program to become fiscally unsustainable, leaving behind the very people that depend on it every single day.

If we want Medicaid to be there in its entirety for the next generation, for those that truly need us, who we need to be working for every day, we must act now. House Republicans are committed to doing just that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't serve then, so I am not sure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we had to go and do a little research, but in the 110th Congress on August 1, 2007, when considering House Resolution 3162, the Democrats did indeed convene a Rules Committee meeting at 1 a.m., and they gaveled out at 3:07 a.m.

They have done exactly the same thing that we have all heard about, the ranting and raving and the waving of arms here today. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. However, rules for thee and not for me is typically the way this works.

We will do the work of the Rules Committee. We will continue to pass this legislation and deliver real relief for working families in this country. We have listened to a lot of rhetoric about millionaires and billionaires. It sounds like Bernie Sanders is in the Chamber, but really this is about the working people of this country.

If we do nothing and the tax cuts expire in this country, it will be a $4.5 trillion tax increase on the American people. It will cut the child tax credit in half. It will cut the standard deduction in half that puts real money into the pockets of working families. In my district, it is about $1,700 a month that the current Tax Cuts and Jobs Act delivers. We deliver even more in this reconciliation package.

That might not sound like a lot to some of the people on the other side of the aisle. For my constituents, that is a couple of mortgage payments. That means real relief for working families in western New York.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are here once again to protect Americans from the heavy hand of Biden-era regulations. The slew of midnight rules forced on the American people by the last administration pose a direct harm to our Nation's economy, and it has threatened jobs.

The pieces of legislation before us today under this rule are not filler. They are quite the opposite. The resolutions passed by the Senate and here before the House are lawmaking exercises. Democrats' dismissal of these CRAs speak volumes as to their lack of care and compassion for the serious ramifications that the regulatory agenda has had on the economy, on consumer choice, and on the environment.

My Democratic colleagues certainly wouldn't want to focus our time today on these CRAs because they are part and parcel to dismantling the regulatory agenda that they wed themselves to for 4 long years under President Biden.

What was the result of their commitment in the Biden-era regulatory agenda: $450 billion in new regulatory costs on the economy. That may just be numbers on paper for a D.C. bureaucrat, but the amounts of jobs lost, manufacturing shuttered, and communities decimated for folks outside the beltway is what it is really all about.

The CRAs before us will allow Congress and the Trump administration to continue its important work of reversing harmful regulations and unleashing the promise of the American economy. I strongly support the rule before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.