Floor Statements

Mr. President, I think what Senator Murphy was objecting to was calling Donald Trump the most pro-law enforcement President in American history, and I think he laid out all the reasons why that simply isn't true.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1975

Mr. President, I am here because today marks the 50th anniversary of the Senate's passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, known as IDEA. It was just a few weeks after the Senate passed that bill that it was signed into law on November 29, 1975, by President Ford--a bipartisan achievement and a landmark achievement for the United States of America.

I am grateful that my colleagues Senator Kaine and Senator Hirono are also on the floor with me today to discuss this important achievement 50 years later.

When that passed the Senate and, of course, when it was signed into law, it guaranteed the right to a free, appropriate public education for children with disabilities. For the first time in America, the law required that schools meet that commitment to all our kids, including kids with disabilities. That is why schools have now developed individualized education programs for students who need them, to meet that requirement. Now children with disabilities share classrooms with kids without disabilities. And it created a process for families to challenge schools that don't uphold their child's right to a good education.

This was a watershed moment in our history and the history of education. IDEA helped end a very dark chapter in our not too distant past when our public schools excluded 80 percent of children with disabilities, and many States forced disabled people to live out their entire lives hidden away in institutions.

For decades, the Federal Government wrote off people with disabilities as ``uneducable,'' and they claimed they could not learn in schools, and they claimed that they could not fit into our society.

The government was wrong. It was dead wrong. It was wrong on the facts because people with disabilities can succeed in school and in the workforce with the right accommodations, and it was wrong morally because that discrimination violated one of the most fundamental American values--that all people are created equal, and all deserve equal dignity and opportunity. It was IDEA that helped right that wrong.

I would be remiss if I did not take the occasion of this anniversary to acknowledge all the people who make special education work every day in America. They are the students with disabilities and their families and their caregivers. They are the teachers, the special education teachers, the paraprofessionals, and the teachers' aides. Then there are the researchers, the advocates, and so many more--the people who created IDEA and the people who keep it alive today. I commend and salute all of them on this important anniversary.

But I can't say the same about this Congress or, in fact, any of the Congresses that convened between that passage 50 years ago and today because while today marks the 50th anniversary of the Senate's passage of IDEA, it is also true that today, 50 years later, we are seeing the continuation of Congress's failure to actually fund the IDEA at the level we promised, at the level the Federal Government committed to.

You see, when Congress established IDEA, when they passed it into law and gave schools new responsibilities to uphold the rights of students with disabilities, Congress also pledged to cover 40 percent of the cost per pupil so that schools had the resources needed to meet these new responsibilities. In other words, we established a Federal mandate for a very good purpose, but then we failed to fund that mandate at the level we promised.

As a result, every year since it was first passed into law 50 years ago, Congress has failed to provide the promised funds for IDEA. In fact, today, we find that IDEA is funded at 12 percent--a little under 12 percent, in fact--of the cost per pupil instead of the 40 percent, leaving schools and students short a whopping $38 billion every year. In my State of Maryland alone, we are getting $670 million less per year than was promised. All across the country, States--Virginia, Hawaii, other States--struggle to make up that gap for themselves.

When we don't live up to our obligations at the Federal level, it strains the entire education budgets at the State and local level, hurting disabled students and also all other students.

Now, 20 years ago, when I was in the House of Representatives, I had the privilege of passing a number of bills related to helping people with disabilities. That included the ABLE Act, which was a bipartisan piece of legislation to help provide families with kids with disabilities with access to tax-advantaged accounts so that they can help those kids and better prepare for their futures.

I have had the great opportunity both in the House and the Senate to pass many other pieces of important legislation, but one of my greatest disappointments has been the fact that the Congress has never fully funded IDEA, never did what we promised we would do.

Way back in 2003, I introduced a bill to end the funding gap, to fully fund IDEA, to require that the funding be phased in over a period of time until the Federal Government met its responsibilities. I have introduced that legislation every Congress for the last 22 years.

I have watched as Democrats and Republicans from the Senate and the House go back to their States and to their districts and tell people that they really support IDEA and that they really want to make sure kids with disabilities have that education, that quality education. They say to families that we are all in to support IDEA. But too many, when they come back here to Washington, DC, and have to make real decisions as to where funds are allocated in the Federal budget, when they have to choose between kids with disabilities and another tax break for the ultrawealthy, somehow many have a way of forgetting what they told folks back at home.

You know, I introduced this bill again this Congress, and I am glad we have 39 Democratic Senators as cosponsors, and we may get more. We have zero--no Republican Senators as cosponsors. I hope that will change. I really hope it will change.

As I said at the outset, it was President Ford, a Republican President, who signed into law the IDEA 50 years ago this year. He signed that law. That law requires that the Federal Government provide that 40 percent, and we are at 12 percent today.

So I hope, on this 50th anniversary of the time the Senate passed it, our Republican colleagues will join us on this legislation because the consequences of failing to fund IDEA are visible all over the country. Expenses are only rising as more students struggle with disabilities.

The good news is that we are developing new techniques for screening our children and helping them succeed in school. Some of those techniques require more resources, not less. Yet we are continuing to fail to meet our responsibilities.

Today, because we don't fully fund the IDEA here at the Federal level, schools make IEPs for their students, but many cannot follow through on their own plans, those individual education plans. Deaf students are going to class without sign language interpreters. Students with intellectual and developmental disabilities are going without the one-on-one aides--the aides who help them learn and make sure they don't get physically hurt.

Underresourced special education staff burn out huge numbers, leaving tens of thousands of vacant positions. In classrooms all over America-- in each of our States--there is a child who is sitting at the back of the room, struggling to follow a lesson, falling further and further behind.

While that child is trying, the Congress is not doing its job. It would cost $38 billion for Congress to keep its promises to fund special education this year--$38 billion. That could be made up by the entire funding gap, three times over, that was included in the so- called Big Beautiful Bill--more tax cuts for very wealthy people. If you were to add up all of those tax cuts, it would be $132 billion only for the part of the population that was in the top 1 percent. So folks in the top 1 percent income category got $132 billion in tax cuts. That is three times what would be needed to simply fulfill our obligations under the IDEA this year.

The Trump administration chose tax cuts for the top 1 percent over the IDEA just like it chose to give away trillions of dollars to the very wealthy and pay for it, in part, by defunding programs that working families depend on, including healthcare, Medicaid, SNAP, and public education funding, while failing to fully fund the IDEA.

It actually gets worse because, since March, the Trump administration has fired half of the people at the Department of Education. Then, during the recent shutdown, the Trump administration attempted to fire the remaining staff--all of the remaining staff--at the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. Those are the people who implement the parts of the IDEA that we do fund. These are great American patriots, these Federal employees. Some of them are Marylanders, some of them are from Virginia, and some of them are from other parts of the country. They have experience in helping these kids, and they have knowledge that is very difficult to replace.

Fortunately, a Federal judge paused the firings of these individuals during the shutdown. The judge wrote that those attempted firings were nothing more than ``political retribution,'' and that judgment was reflected in the recent continuing resolution, at least through the end of January. Nevertheless, the Trump administration keeps looking for new ways to take resources away from our schools.

In fact, just yesterday--just yesterday--it announced the near total dismantling of what is left of the Education Department's advancing education programs. Secretary McMahon has said that her mission at the Department of Education is to shut down the Department of Education, to put out of business the Federal Department of Education. She claims that her objective is efficiency. She claims that kids won't be hurt. She, obviously, hasn't talked to the parents of kids all over the country, including the parents of kids with disabilities.

You know, she specifically said at a Senate Appropriations Committee, on June 3, that ``we are not cutting any of the IDEA funding.'' That claim covers up what is really happening here because, in September, the Department of Education and the administration cut 34 grants for special education, saying that they conflicted with the Trump administration's priorities. Their targets included teacher training, parent resource centers, and assistive technology for children with both hearing and vision loss. Somehow, helping those kids did not meet with the Trump administration's priorities.

Let me just say that what we are witnessing in realtime is an effort to gut the special education programs that exist today at the Department of Education. At the same time, we see a refusal to fully fund the IDEA program at levels promised by the Federal Government when it was first launched 50 years ago.

You know, there has always been a credibility gap since that first commitment was made 50 years ago. I have been standing on the floor-- first in the House and now in the Senate--and making remarks about the IDEA and the importance of closing this funding and credibility gap for over 20 years. We still haven't moved ahead.

Again, as I said, every Member of Congress, when they go back home from here, says they really want to support the IDEA. Now, it is time that people actually mean what they say and follow through because we are now at the 50th anniversary of the IDEA.

Some of the children I was hoping to help back in 2003, when I first introduced the full funding legislation, now have children of their own. Some of the children we promised to help in 1975--``we'' being the Congress back then--are now grandparents. We should not allow another generation to grow up under the shadow of our broken promises.

We passed the IDEA 50 years ago in the same spirit in which we signed the Declaration of Independence almost 250 years ago. In both cases, we made great and noble promises. We promised that all men and women were created equal and that the government would uphold that equality. But when it comes to funding education for kids with disabilities, that promise remains broken.

Judy Heumann, who is the mother of the disability rights movement, once wrote:

Change never happens at the pace we think it should

[happen]. It happens over years of people joining together,

strategizing, sharing, and pulling all the levers they

possibly can. Gradually, excruciatingly slowly, things start

to happen, and then, suddenly, seemingly out of the blue,

something will tip.

Something tipped 50 years ago, when the Senate, on this day, passed the IDEA bill. It has been a long, excruciating length of time since then. I hope that now, 50 years later, we will see another tipping point wherein Members of the House and Senate finally live up to the obligations that were made 50 years ago to really fully fund special education at the levels which we promised. We celebrated the passage of the IDEA 50 years ago. Let us commit ourselves to finally fulfilling that promise now.

With that, I am happy to yield the floor to the great Senator from Hawaii, who has been so focused on education generally and special education in particular, Senator Hirono.

Mr. President, today I voted yes on the motion to table Senator Paul's amendment No. 3941 to strike a provision modifying the definition of hemp from the Agriculture Appropriations Act because I am concerned that existing Federal law creates the opportunity for unregulated and intoxicating synthetic hemp products to be marketed and sold to children. Current Maryland law bans these products, but without Federal action, they can still be distributed in our State. The language in the underlying bill would close that loophole while the Paul amendment would leave the loophole in place.

While I support closing the loophole that allows these intoxicating products to be marketed and sold to children, we should use the implementation period in the bill to ensure a sustainable pathway forward for safe hemp products like CBD, which many people depend on to safely manage pain and other health conditions. We ultimately need balanced, science-based regulation that preserves access to safe products while protecting public health.

Mr. President, I want to start where Senator Reed, the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee left off, and that is with the U.S. Constitution, which should be the North Star for every Senator in this body, regardless of party, and that is why I rise in support of this bipartisan resolution, barring U.S. military action within or against Venezuela without congressional authorization.

I think it is always helpful just to read the words of some of these resolutions, and the one we are debating right now is S.J. Res. 90, a joint resolution to direct the removal of U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.

Pretty straightforward statement of what the Constitution requires because article I of the Constitution vests the responsibility to go to war explicitly and exclusively in Congress, not in one person in the Oval Office.

James Madison put it best in 1793 when he wrote:

In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found

than in the clause which confides the question of war or

peace to the legislature, and not to the executive. . . . The

trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man.

We are seeing Donald Trump succumb to the temptation in real time as he wantonly strikes boats in the Caribbean and Pacific: 16 strikes to date, 67 people killed, extrajudicial killings, no evidence to support their claims, and even if they were to provide evidence, still not a justification to engage the Armed Forces of the United States.

And now--and now--the Trump administration is threatening lethal operations against Maduro and the Maduro regime in Venezuela itself.

We all understand that the President has the authority to defend the United States from imminent attacks. That is an authority that this resolution clearly recognizes. But it is also crystal clear that there is no imminent attack or danger from Venezuela--zero.

Now, after illegally striking boats and killing people in international waters, President Trump is now threatening to start a war against a sovereign nation in our own hemisphere.

As my colleague and friend Senator Kaine pointed out earlier, the President has been taking this series of actions that are displayed on this chart.

On October 15, Trump confirmed that he authorized the CIA to conduct covert action in Venezuela.

October 16, Trump says:

We are certainly looking at land now.

Meaning not only using the Armed Forces of the United States to strike in the waters but on land in Venezuela.

October 24, Pentagon announces that the Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group has been directed to U.S. SOUTHCOM.

October 31, several Trump administration officials tell the press that a secret list of targets in Venezuela has been drawn up.

Headline in the New York Times: ``Trump Weighs Options, and Risks, for Attacks on Venezuela.''

Washington Post: ``Trump beats the drums of war for direct action in Venezuela.''

That is what people are discussing and contemplating, as we speak, within this administration, and it is not just this series of actions and comments that have surfaced, but the President of the United States has deployed lots of U.S. military assets to the region.

I am not going to go through all of these, but this is a massive deployment of U.S. naval power off the coast of Venezuela. In other words, President Trump is openly threatening a regime change war that could cost American and Venezuelan lives.

You know, I think we all agree. I think we all agree in this body that Maduro is a terrible dictator. He is a plague on his own people. But we have learned from history that bombs don't turn dictatorships into democracies. The American people, particularly our veterans who sacrificed so much in Afghanistan and Iraq, understand that lesson very clearly, as do the American people, because recent polling found that a majority of Americans would oppose a U.S. military invasion of Venezuela.

And the U.S. Navy deployment near Venezuela has become even less popular over the last month as the Trump administration's boat strikes and saber-rattling against Venezuela has intensified.

I want to take a moment to contrast this resolution regarding Venezuela with the one we considered recently in the Senate regarding applying the War Powers Resolution to the President's action, blowing up boats and people in international waters.

And I see my colleague Senator Kaine on the floor, and I want to thank him for bringing both these resolutions before the body.

But I wanted to mention the earlier resolution because, just earlier today, I read the Trump administration's so-called justification for the actions that they are taking in international waters to strike these boats that have killed 67 people. I have followed the War Powers debate for a very long time, as have many of my colleagues. What I read was 35 pages of pure gobbledygook, pure mumbo jumbo.

Clearly, a lawyer had to work really hard to justify a decision that had already been made. That is what that 35-plus-whatever-page report was, as my colleague Senator Reed talked about, to justify the actions that the President has been taking about going after boats in international waters. It requires such a strained reading of the war powers set out in the Constitution, and subsequently, that it would blow up a hole so big that it would essentially absorb the article I requirement that Congress be the one that declares war.

Based on my reading of that statement, there is zero justification for what the President is doing with respect to strikes in the Caribbean.

I do want to point out, as have my colleagues, if you are actually serious about preventing drugs from coming to the United States, as we all should be, the way you do it is you interdict those boats. You go up the chain to find the kingpins, and you go after them.

I will tell you what you don't do. You don't submit a budget to the U.S. Congress that cuts the funding for the Drug Enforcement Agency and cuts funding for the task forces we developed to go after major organized crime syndicates involved in the drug business.

I happen to be the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee that oversees the Justice Department. And all my colleagues have to do is take a look at the request from the President of the United States when it comes to resources for fighting drugs coming to the United States. They cut them. They cut those resources.

So that is not what this is about. What this is about is a violation of the Constitution. It was just a few months ago that President Trump was asked whether he needs to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I don't know if my colleagues remember what his answer was, but it is right there on the record for all of you to read it. The President said: ``I don't know''--``I don't know.''

Our job here is to make it clear to the President and to everybody else that all of us have to adhere to the Constitution of the United States, and that is what this War Powers Resolution does. We don't want to surrender those constitutional responsibilities to the President of the United States. We need to vote for this resolution, which, as I read at the very beginning of my remarks, is very clear. It simply says the President cannot go to war against Venezuela without congressional authorization.

Let me just end this with, we are here in the middle of a government shutdown. I have now voted seven times to reopen the government without giving President Trump a blank check and dealing with the healthcare crisis that is in front of us. President Trump has not engaged in any way in that discussion. He has been traveling around the world. He wanted to meet with Kim Jong Un, the North Korean leader, who apparently said no. He is using at least $20 billion of U.S. taxpayer money to bail out his buddy in Argentina.

Meanwhile, here at home, prices are going up and up and up. The President promised he was going to bring them down on day one.

Right now before us, we have a ticking time bomb that is going to explode healthcare costs in America, especially when it comes to the Affordable Care Act. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle passed what they called the Big Beautiful Bill--``beautiful'' if you are a billionaire, because they extended the tax cuts for billionaires permanently. The one tax relief provision that they let lapse was that which helps middle-class Americans better afford their healthcare.

So the message all of us should send to the President of the United States is: Quit engaging in illegal actions in the Caribbean and international waters, blowing up boats and people in an extrajudicial fashion. And when it comes to Venezuela, stop making these threats and amassing military assets off the shore and claiming you somehow have the authority to do that.

The Constitution invests the authority to go to war with the U.S. Congress. That is what this resolution is all about. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, and other colleagues who are joining together to support the proposal that we are putting forward today.

But I think we should all say that the best way to make sure that Federal employees--all Federal employees--get paid and that the American people get the benefit of their services is to reopen the Federal Government and do it now, which is why I and my Democratic colleagues have voted seven times now--seven times now--to reopen the government without giving Donald Trump a blank check and while making sure that we prevent a healthcare crisis in this country when people's healthcare premiums and costs go through the roof, because when Republicans passed their so-called Big Beautiful Bill, they extended the tax

breaks for billionaires and very wealthy people. The one tax cut they did not extend was the one that allows middle-class families to afford health insurance. And so they left in place a ticking timebomb that is going off now.

We would like to defuse that timebomb. Instead of negotiating on that, the President has been AWOL. He has been engaged in discussions overseas regarding the Middle East. He has been on the phone a lot with Vladimir Putin. That is all good, but you would think the President of the United States could carve out just a little time to help reopen the government, to have a negotiation on reopening the Federal Government.

Instead, he is bringing down Republican Members of the House and Senate to the White House and wining and dining them and patting them on the back and saying: Good job for keeping this government shut down and not entering into a negotiation to bring it to a close.

And, of course, with our House colleagues, the Speaker of the House, Speaker Johnson, has essentially got the House on a 5-week--I don't know if we are on 6 weeks--paid vacation. I mean, they are AWOL here in the middle of this shutdown.

What is the President focused on? He is asking the Justice Department to pay him $230 million for legal bills, right directly into his pocket. He is talking about giving his buddy in Argentina a $20 billion taxpayer bailout, while farmers across the country are getting hit hard because they can't sell their soybeans to China. And he is demolishing the East Wing of the White House, which is a metaphor for what he is doing to the country and people who worked for him to get him elected. He is betraying the very people he said he was going to stand up for when he said he was going to focus on prices and costs, and yet, when it comes to trying to just prevent this huge spike in healthcare costs that people are experiencing, the President doesn't want to talk about it.

So we should not be punishing Federal employees for something they had nothing to do with. They are not responsible. They are innocent bystanders. They all want to get back on the job and provide services to the American people. And I will be putting forth a proposal to say that they should not be punished and they should be paid.

Now, we will hear later today that we are going to be taking up here in the Senate a piece of legislation from Senator Johnson, and that proposal would pay Federal employees who are currently working right now. Our proposal doesn't discriminate among Federal employees.

And here is the really dangerous part, I would argue, about Senator Johnson's proposal. We have a President, President Trump, who, along with Russ Vought, who is his, you know, guy in the cockpit at OMB--this is the guy who said publicly that he wanted to inflict ``trauma''--that is his word not mine--inflict ``trauma'' on the Federal workforce.

If you allow them to decide who they are going to keep on the job in the Federal Government and who they are going to pay, you are giving them also a blank check as to who they are going to send home and who they are going to punish by not paying them.

That is what they have been doing. Much of what they have been doing is illegal, in fact, and we have a Federal court in California that has already said that their layoffs of some of the Federal employees at some of the Agencies are illegal.

But if you just let them decide who is going to get paid and who is not, you weaponize that illegality; you weaponize the Federal Government. And, by the way, I think we all know this: If President Trump gets to keep the folks he wants on the job and pay the folks that he wants who are on the job and nobody else, he will have even less incentive to end the government shutdown. He will have the government he wants, not the one that has been supported on a bipartisan basis by the U.S. Congress.

So giving the President a blank check to decide which Federal employees to punish and which ones not to punish is a very dangerous thing at this moment. That is why the proposal I am putting forward-- and Senator Peters will have an even narrower version that he will be putting forward, if our Republican colleagues don't support the one that I am advancing, along with Senator Warner, Senator Kaine, Senator Alsobrooks, and others--these proposals say that Federal employees should not be punished.

Now, we have already made that decision. We have already made that decision as a Congress in the past. During the first Trump shutdown-- that was the 35-day Trump shutdown. During that shutdown, Senator Cardin and myself and others, we passed a piece of legislation that was signed by the President that says: At the end of a shutdown, Federal employees get fully paid. They are held harmless.

Why did we decide to do that? Because we collectively made the right decision that Federal employees who have nothing to do with the government shutdown should not be the ones punished for something they were not culpable in. That was the right decision.

What my proposal and our proposal will do is based on that idea that no Federal employees should be punished for something they had nothing to do with. And not only should they get repaid at the end of this, but why would we say to them that you can't have enough pay to make your electric bills or pay your water bills or provide for your family? Why should Federal employees be the ones who are punished for the government shutdown? Why should they be the ones that have to overdraft their bank accounts and penalized for that? That is not fair.

So the proposals that we are putting forward say that in this government shutdown, Federal employees and, yes, certain Federal contractors who have nothing to do with this political situation that we face, they should not be the ones to bear the burden, and we certainly shouldn't set up a system where the President of the United States gets to decide what Agencies to shut down, what can stay open, who to pay and who not to pay, who to punish, who not to punish. That just gives him a blank check to put in place political cronies and pay them and send home hard-working civil servants who perform important functions. So that is what our proposal will do.

And for any of our colleagues, regardless of the side of the aisle, who agree that Federal employees should not be the ones who are punished for something they have nothing to do with, I hope we will all agree to support this measure.

Now, I don't know if Senator Peters wants to talk at all on this particular proposal. He is going to be talking on the next proposal.

I know that some of my colleagues are on the way to the floor, as we speak--Senator Kaine and others--and when they arrive, I will return the floor to them to have them say their piece.

But, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3039, introduced earlier today; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

If you are yielding the floor?

The short answer is, we do want to pay all Federal employees because none of them should be punished, but we also don't want them to be fired and RIF'd during this period of time. You said, in the private sector, people don't like to fire employees.

I know, Senator, you have read the remarks of Russ Vought, the head of OMB. He wants to visit ``trauma'' on Federal employees, and he wants to fire a lot of them. He has said so.

But that is an important piece here, right, because--

Let me speak.

Thank you. Look, it would be great to work this out because there seems to be some agreement that Federal employees should not be the ones to bear the burden of a decision they had nothing to do with.

I see the Republican leader is here with us on the floor.

I think the best way to proceed would be to delay moving forward on the cloture vote on the motion to proceed on your bill and let's sit down and let's talk about whether or not we can find that common ground. We may not be that far apart.

I will just say to the Senator. I will say to the Senator that if you give the President the authority, as your proposal currently does, to decide who to send home and furlough and punish--but it sounds like you are willing to change that--but here is the scenario I am worried about.

If you listen to Russ Vought and the President, they would just fire those people during the shutdown. That is what they are doing. In fact, they are illegally firing people during the shutdown.

OK. Why don't we sit down together.

I would love to see that.

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

But I don't want to debate these issues on the floor right now.

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

As I said to the Senator from Wisconsin, I am happy to sit down with him and his team to see if we can put together a proposal based on the principle that no Federal employee should have to bear the burden and the pain of a decision they had nothing to do with as well as many of these Federal contractors who are also involved. So I welcome the chance to sit down with the Senator from Wisconsin.

I also hope that the President of the United States will sit down with Democrats to resolve the overall issue and open the government. That way we wouldn't even have to go through this exercise right now.

With that, I want to yield the floor to my colleague from Maryland Senator Alsobrooks.

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

Yesterday evening, I missed rollcall vote No. 584, confirmation of the nomination of William W. Mercer to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Montana. Had I been present, I would have voted no.

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

I want to start my question by saluting the Senator from Oregon, Senator Merkley, for standing strong and long in defense of our democracy and our Constitution and ringing the alarm bells. Authoritarianism is here, and it is here right now.

We are facing a lawless President, who, when he was asked whether he had to comply with the Constitution of the United States said, ``I don't know,'' and a President who, every day, is attacking the foundations of our democracy and of the rule of law.

I know my colleague from Oregon joined 7 million Americans last Saturday to say no Kings in America. I was very heartened to see thousands of people come out across the State of Maryland joining their fellow patriots from around the country in saying: In America, we have no Kings.

You have been highlighting all night the way the President of the United States, Donald Trump, is assaulting the foundations of that democracy and our Constitution.

On No Kings Day, we reminded one another--all fellow Americans were out there saying--that we are not going to go back to the days of King George III. We fought an American Revolution to secure the blessings of liberty. It was out of that experience that our Founders developed the Constitution of the United States and then the Bill of Rights.

I want to zero in on a couple of those things and then ask you a question about one of those pillars that is being attacked right now by Donald Trump.

You just mentioned the attack on due process, and we did witness that in the case of Abrego Garcia--Kilmar Abrego Garcia--who was abducted in the streets of Maryland and ended up locked up in a gulag in El Salvador. And the Supreme Court of the United States, by 9 to nothing, said that his rights have been violated. A Fourth Circuit judge, who had been appointed by Ronald Reagan said that what happened to Abrego Garcia was a textbook case of violation of due process.

Despite that overwhelming evidence, for a period of time, the Trump administration took the position that they would never allow him to set foot back in the United States.

We prevailed, and, ultimately, he is now back here before the courts of the United States.

In fact, the Federal district court judge down in Tennessee recently indicated there was strong evidence to indicate that the Trump administration had brought this other claim against him purely for malicious reasons and that it was a vindictive prosecution--in other words, a political prosecution--that they were prosecuting him simply because he exercised those due process rights.

It should not be a liberal, a conservative, a Democrat or a Republican idea that in the United States of America, we are not deprived of our liberty without due process. As you have been saying all night, that was a foundational principle based on the experience that we had under King George III, where people could just be abducted and, without due process, arrested.

You have spoken about the assaults on the First Amendment. We saw very early in the Trump administration the crackdown on students who were expressing their views on college campuses. The administration didn't like the views they expressed about what happened in Gaza, and so they literally locked them up.

Now, again, fortunately, the courts have intervened, and most of them have been released from prison. Their cases are still pending, but the judges have made clear that what these students experienced was a gross violation of the First Amendment of the United States.

And, of course, we saw that continuing, as you have indicated, with the weaponization of the Federal Government--whether it is the FCC or other instruments of the Federal Government--to try to deter, crack down, stop speech that the President of the United States doesn't like. We saw the whole Jimmy Kimmel case where, for a period of time, ABC did take him off the air. I want to thank all people across the United States who rose up and said: That is wrong; that is unconstitutional. Many people canceled their Disney subscriptions.

This is a moment where all of us as Americans need to stand up and recognize, as you are this evening, that we are right now living under an authoritarian President.

We have seen--and you have experienced it firsthand in your State of Oregon--the President trying to implement the statement he made, the outrageous statement he made, that we are going to use American cities as training grounds for our military. I mean, regardless of someone's political views, they should recognize how un-American that is.

The list goes on and on, but another major assault by the President of the United States on our Constitution is one that you have been speaking about and, as the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee-- senior Democrat on the Budget Committee--have been really leading the way on, is this direct assault on article I, this direct assault on the power of the purse--because there are very good reasons that the Framers invested the Congress with the power of the purse and that power

of taxation and the power of spending the people's money--to make sure that our budgets reflected the will of the American people.

As you pointed out, it is simply illegal for the President of the United States to look at that budget and say he is going to cherry-pick the parts he likes and implement those and discard the parts he doesn't like. That is not how it works.

You have talked about the Nixon line-item veto and how the Supreme Court shot that down, but this President is trying to do that--is doing it right now as we speak.

As part of the proposal the Democrats have put forward to reopen the government--and we want to reopen the government--we also would like to establish some guardrails to ensure that the President of the United States cannot engage in that illegal activity. And I call it illegal, and I am on strong grounds to say so. The GAO, which is an independent watchdog, has reached that conclusion, that the President has illegally impounded funds--that is the technical term--and they have found that the so-called pocket rescission is illegal.

I do want to also just quote from Senator Susan Collins, the chair of the Appropriations Committee, which we both serve on. She goes into a good description of why this unilateral impoundment of funds is illegal and unconstitutional. She says:

Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without

congressional approval is a clear violation of the law.

That is one of our Republican colleagues.

Senator Murkowski, who is also on the Appropriations Committee, has also pointed out that this is an illegal action. It is one of a series of illegal actions the President has taken.

I want you, if you could, to talk about measures that we need to take to put up some guardrails and protections about it. You have done that through an amendment, the Merkley amendment, with regard to the other part of the rescissions process. You have spoken eloquently about this issue. But if you could just go to the heart of the matter: why the President's unconstitutional withholding of funds is a direct assault on our democracy and the vision our Framers had of checks and balances. When they said ``checks and balances,'' they didn't mean a blank check for a lawless President.

So maybe, if you could, Senator Merkley, if you could talk to that and answer that question.

I call up my amendment No. 3872 and ask that it be reported by number.

Madam President, this amendment says that the Governor of one State may not deploy its National Guard to another State without the consent of the Governor of the recipient State.

As the Republican Governor of Oklahoma Kevin Stitt said today, ``As a federalist believer, one governor against another governor, I don't think that's the right way to approach this.''

I agree. And it is worth noting that Governor Stitt is the current chairman of the National Governors Association.

Voluntary cooperation is one thing, but I don't think any of my colleagues would appreciate it if the Governor of Maryland used Federal dollar-supported National Guard troops in Maryland to deploy to any of your States without the consent of your State. That is the principle behind this amendment.

I urge its adoption.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, we are considering the National Defense Authorization Act at a time when our democracy and our Constitution are under attack from a lawless President. We are also in the middle of a 9-day-long government shutdown, and we should be working to get the government open. Instead, Senate Republicans are seeking to conduct business-as-usual instead of addressing the impending spike in healthcare costs for American families and responsibly funding the government.

The NDAA includes critical investments in our national defense. Maryland has a key role to play in developing the technologies of the future that will keep our Nation at the cutting-edge and is the proud home of tens of thousands of military personnel and civilians working in the defense sector, as well as critical military installations. I have continually pressed for resources for our servicemembers and veterans and their families and investments in the military installations in our State that conduct groundbreaking research and support our defense.

But these are not normal times. We are witnessing an authoritarian power-grab by President Trump, and Congress has a responsibility to stand up as a coequal, not subservient, branch of this government. We need to call it what it is: President Trump is using the power of the government, including the U.S. military, to coerce and silence voices he disagrees with. This is a playbook that dictators have used around the world, and now, it is the Trump playbook.

To date, Trump has deployed the National Guard to the District of Columbia, Los Angeles, Memphis, and Chicago. He has also ordered the deployment of National Guard troops to Portland, which has been temporarily blocked by the courts, and earlier today, a judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the deployment of National Guard troops in Chicago as well. He is manufacturing claims of emergency and chaos to send the Guard to engage in domestic law enforcement rather than using Federal resources to work with local partners to keep communities safe and pulling members of the military away from other critical missions. The National Guard has also been supporting ICE as agents arrest and disappear people without due process. And as State and local leaders and courts of law stand in the way of these deployments, Trump has threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to bypass them and the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act.

Trump's deployment of the military to assist in domestic law enforcement is a clear violation of U.S. law, including the Posse Comitatus Act. And a Federal judge agrees. On September 2, a Federal judge in the Northern District of California found that the Trump administration ``willfully'' violated the Posse Comitatus Act in its deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles and stated that the Trump administration clearly intends to ``[create] a national police force with the President as its chief.'' Trump clearly telegraphed this intention in his speech to top military brass at Quantico, when he called for using American cities as ``training grounds for our military'' and asserted that ``we're under invasion from within. No different than a foreign enemy but more difficult in many ways because they don't wear uniforms.''

The deployment in Los Angeles marked the first time since 1965 that the National Guard has been activated without the State Governor's consent. And it has not stopped. Trump's power grab in DC and other cities is part of his accelerating effort to militarize the streets of our country. That is why I offered an amendment to block the President from deploying the National Guard to a State, or the District of Columbia, if that State's Governor, or the DC Mayor, objects. Sen. Duckworth also put forward an amendment that would require the President to provide notification to Congress before dedicating any military or defense equipment for local law enforcement purposes. Unfortunately, both efforts failed.

At its heart, Trump's politicization of the National Guard is sowing fear and distrust and is a danger to our democracy. Enabling the military to patrol American streets chills lawful protest, blurs the line between military and civilian authority, and erodes public trust in nonpartisan service.

Trump's illegal use of U.S. Armed Forces also includes his recent missile strikes against boats in international waters, which have been flagrant violations of both U.S. and international law and can only be seen as extrajudicial killings. There is simply no evidence that these vessels posed an imminent threat, nor is there an active armed conflict between the United States and any cartel or South American country. Trump has pursued these actions in gross violation of international law and without congressional authorization.

Back in March, Trump also dredged up an old war-time law, the Alien Enemies Act, to target immigrants and deport them without due process. The administration also reached deep into the dustbin of Cold War paranoia and pulled out the McCarran-Walter Act--a relic of the McCarthy era--to brand student protestors as threats to the foreign policy of the great United States of America, used a transnational crime unit to secretly target campus protesters, and then disappeared them into ICE detention facilities with the ultimate goal of deporting them. Peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy, but like the

McCarthy witch hunts of the 1950s, this campaign of fear and repression is eroding the foundational values of our democracy. A Federal district court judge found that the administration had targeted noncitizen students and scholars ``for speaking out'' and ``the facts prove that the President himself approves [of this] truly scandalous and unconstitutional suppression of free speech.''

Taken together, these abuses of power show an increasingly brazen and lawless administration that is misusing defense spending. These concerns only further my existing reservations around the continued uncontrolled growth in defense spending, especially when the Pentagon continues to fail independent audits, most recently in November 2024. In that audit, only 11 DOD components achieved clean audit opinions, but 13, including the Army, Navy, and Air Force did not. On top of that, from FY 2021 to FY 2025, authorization levels for defense spending have gone up from $740 billion to $895 billion, a 21 percent increase over the 5-year period. If this bill is enacted, we will be authorizing $924 billion, almost a trillion dollars in spending. This does not include the recent partisan budget reconciliation bill that passed into law in July 2025, which included over $150 billion in mandatory defense spending. I concur with the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen, that we need to put our defense dollars to better strategic use and make the hard choices necessary to right-size our overall defense spending. If we truly care about government efficiency, we must apply the same standard to the Department of Defense, which represents over half of total Federal discretionary spending.

This is the first time during my service in the Senate that I am voting against the NDAA. I do not make this decision lightly. Ensuring that our men and women in uniform have the tools they need to defend the United States is critical, and I will never waver in protecting our servicemembers. But what we are seeing in America today and over the last few months should be a wakeup call for everyone in this Chamber. We cannot and should not authorize almost a trillion dollars in defense spending for an administration that is currently using the military to conduct local law enforcement operations and to rip communities apart. That is using the power of the Executive to silence the media, undermine the judicial system, and chill speech.

We deploy a strong military to protect our democracy and freedom from foreign threats and adversaries. Sadly, today, the threats to liberties and the rule of law are coming from our own Commander in Chief, and I will not vote to give him a blank check.

Vote on S. 2296

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Alsobrooks, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Sue Hecht--a distinguished public servant, trailblazer, and protector from Frederick, MD, who passed away on September 23, 2025.

Born in Takoma Park on December 7, 1947, Sue devoted her life to public service and community betterment. She was a proud graduate of Hood College and later earned her M.B.A. from Frostburg State University. Before entering elected office, she worked as a freelance writer, a program specialist with the Frederick Job Training Agency, and, most notably, as the executive director of Heartly House, Inc., a nonprofit dedicated to supporting victims of domestic violence. These early roles shaped her lifelong commitment to giving voice to the vulnerable and building systems of care.

Sue was first elected to the Maryland House of Delegates in 1994. During her time in the statehouse, she served on numerous committees, including appropriations. In her second and third terms, she was appointed as deputy majority whip--a testament to her skill and initiative. She fought fiercely on behalf of her constituents, but always with grace and humility. Sue was well known in Annapolis and back home in Frederick for her leadership, compassion, and steadfast support of her colleagues and her community.

Sue also served as a leader among women legislators, rising to become president of the Women Legislators of Maryland. She was deeply committed to ensuring that women's voices were represented in every policy discussion and that issues affecting families, from childcare to healthcare to workplace fairness, received the attention they deserved.

Throughout her life, Sue served in numerous positions with a variety of organizations, including the Frederick County Commission for Women, the Frederick County Affordable Housing Commission, the Maryland Family Violence Council, the Frederick County Consortium of Human Service Providers, and the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence. Her contributions were widely recognized, earning her honors such as the Dorothy Beatty Memorial Award from the Women's Law Center of Maryland, recognition as one of Maryland's Top 100 Women, and the Consumer Legislator of the Year Award from the Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition.

Above all, Sue will be remembered as a mother, a wife, a friend, and an inspiration. She is survived by children, grandchildren, great- grandchildren, brothers, and numerous nieces and nephews. Her daughter Shannon Aleshire followed in her footsteps of public service, serving as the CEO of the Mental Health Association of Frederick County.

Maryland has lost a fierce advocate for the most vulnerable among us. Sue was an impactful legislator, a courageous leader, and a neighbor whose legacy will endure in Frederick, across Maryland, and beyond. We ask our colleagues to join us in extending condolences to Sue's family and in honoring the indelible impact she made in Frederick County and across Maryland.

Mr. President, I submit this statement for the Record, alongside my colleague Senator Alsobrooks, to honor and recognize an extraordinary leader, trailblazer, and native of Maryland VADM Sara A. Joyner, U.S. Navy, on the occasion of her retirement following an exceptional 36-year career in service to our Nation.

Vice Admiral Joyner, known by her call sign ``Clutch,'' hails from Hoopers Island, MD, and is a proud graduate of Cambridge-South Dorchester High School, where she was valedictorian of the class of 1985. She was appointed to the U.S. Naval Academy by President Ronald Reagan and graduated with merit in 1989 with a bachelor of science in oceanography. After completing flight training, she earned her ``wings of gold'' in 1991, becoming a naval aviator and embarking on a career that would break barriers and inspire generations.

Throughout her distinguished career, Vice Admiral Joyner achieved numerous historic milestones. She became the first woman to command a Navy strike fighter squadron, VFA-105, in 2010, and in 2013, she made history again as the first female commander of a carrier airwing. Her operational assignments included deployments aboard the USS Nimitz, USS John C. Stennis, and USS Harry S. Truman in support of Operations Southern Watch, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom. She accumulated over 3,700 flight hours and 750 arrested landings in naval aircraft, including the F/A-18 Hornet, Super Hornet, and Growler.

Vice Admiral Joyner's leadership extended beyond the cockpit. She served in numerous key positions ashore, including as an adversary pilot, a Joint Strike Fighter requirements officer, and as director of the Navy Senate Liaison Division in the Office of Legislative Affairs. Her flag assignments included leading the Physiological Episode Action Team (PEAT), serving as director for Manpower and Personnel (J1) on the Joint Staff, and commanding Carrier Strike Group 2. Most recently, she served as the Director for Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment (J8) on the Joint Staff, where she played a pivotal role in shaping the Department of Defense's strategic direction and resource allocation.

As Director of J8, Vice Admiral Joyner oversaw the formulation of three Department of Defense budgets and her leadership in global force management ensured the readiness and responsiveness of the Joint Force. Her efforts have left an indelible mark on the Department of Defense and the security of our Nation.

Vice Admiral Joyner's career is a testament to her resilience and determination. She entered naval aviation at a time when women were prohibited from flying in combat, yet she persevered, earning the respect of her peers and breaking barriers for future generations. She has often spoken about the importance of grit and passion, values instilled in her during her upbringing on Maryland's Eastern Shore. Her words of encouragement to the next generation, including as a commencement speaker at her alma mater Cambridge-South Dorchester High School, continue to inspire.

Vice Admiral Joyner's service has been recognized with numerous awards, including the Navy Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, and Air Medal, among others. At the time of her retirement, she is the highest ranking female flag officer in the U.S. Navy--a remarkable achievement that reflects her dedication, leadership, and trailblazing spirit.

As Vice Admiral Joyner retires, she leaves behind a legacy of service, leadership, and inspiration. Her contributions to our Nation's security and to the lives of those she served alongside will not be forgotten. On behalf of a grateful Nation, we extend our deepest thanks to VADM Sara Joyner, her husband of 32 years, Jim Joyner; their children ENS Sara Beth Joyner and Mark Joyner; and her family for their sacrifices and support throughout her career.

May her retirement be filled with the same sense of purpose and fulfillment that defined her remarkable career. Maryland is proud to call her one of our own, and her legacy will continue to inspire generations to come.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of Adrienne L. Ottaviani, who passed away on September 23, 2025, at the age of 78. Adrienne was a devoted wife, mother, grandmother, and great- grandmother, and a leader whose kindness and dedication enriched western Maryland for more than four decades.

Born in Denbo, PA, and raised in Baltimore, Adrienne married her husband Philip in 1968. Together, they shared 57 years of marriage and built a loving family. In 1980, the Ottavianis moved to Cumberland, MD, where Adrienne quickly became a pillar of the community. She was first active in the PTA and served on the Allegany County Board of Education. In 1990, she was elected to the Allegany County Board of Commissioners, becoming one of only four women ever to hold that office. Adrienne demonstrated leadership, dedication, and a deep commitment to public service throughout her tenure.

Adrienne's greatest legacy, however, may be the warmth and fellowship she shared through Ristorante Ottaviani, which she and her husband opened in downtown Cumberland in 2005. Known affectionately as ``Mama O,'' she welcomed every guest like family, serving food, friendship, and her signature hugs. The restaurant became a cherished community gathering place, reflecting her love of people and her belief that everyone deserved to feel special.

Adrienne Ottaviani was a trailblazer, a friend, and a source of light to all who knew her. She will be remembered for her service, her compassion, and her extraordinary generosity of spirit. She leaves behind her husband, three children, nine grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren, who will carry forward her legacy of love and community. Her memory will remain a blessing to her family, her community, and to the State of Maryland.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of Adrienne L. Ottaviani, who passed away on September 23, 2025, at the age of 78. Adrienne was a devoted wife, mother, grandmother and great- grandmother and a leader whose kindness and dedication enriched western Maryland for more than four decades.

Born in Denbo, PA, and raised in Baltimore, Adrienne married her husband Philip in 1968. Together they shared 57 years of marriage and built a loving family. In 1980, the Ottavianis moved to Cumberland, MD, where Adrienne quickly became a pillar of the community. She was first active in the PTA and served on the Allegany County Board of Education. In 1990, she was elected to the Allegany County Board of Commissioners, becoming one of only four women ever to hold that office. Adrienne demonstrated leadership, dedication, and a deep commitment to public service throughout her tenure.

Adrienne's greatest legacy, however, may be the warmth and fellowship she shared through Ristorante Ottaviani, which she and her husband opened in downtown Cumberland in 2007. Known affectionately as ``Mama O,'' she welcomed every guest like family, serving food, friendship, and her signature hugs. The restaurant became a cherished community gathering place, reflecting her love of people and her belief that everyone deserved to feel special.

Adrienne will be remembered for her service, her compassion, and her extraordinary generosity of spirit. She leaves behind her husband, three children, nine grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren, who will carry forward her legacy of love and community.

Adrienne Ottaviani was a trailblazer, a friend, and a source of light to all who knew her. Her memory will remain a blessing to her family, her community, and to the State of Maryland.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Sue Hecht, a distinguished public servant, trailblazer, and protector, from Frederick, MD, who passed away on September 23, 2025.

Born in Takoma Park on December 7, 1947, Sue devoted her life to public service and community betterment. She was a proud graduate of Hood College and later earned her M.B.A. from Frostburg State University. Before entering elected office, she worked as a freelance writer, a program specialist with the Frederick Job Training Agency, and most notably as the executive director of Heartly House, Inc., a nonprofit dedicated to supporting victims of domestic violence. These early roles shaped her lifelong commitment to giving voice to the vulnerable and building systems of care.

Sue was first elected to the Maryland House of Delegates in 1994 where we served together briefly. She was reelected to her position in 1998. During her time in the statehouse, she served on numerous committees, including appropriations. In her second term, she was appointed as deputy majority whip--a testament to her skill and her initiative. Sue was well known in Annapolis and back home in Frederick for her leadership, compassion, and steadfast support of her colleagues.

Sue also served as a leader among women legislators, rising to become president of the Women Legislators of Maryland. She was deeply committed to ensuring that women's voices were represented in every policy discussion and that issues affecting families, from childcare to healthcare to workplace fairness, received the attention they deserved.

In her leadership roles with Heartly House and the house of delegates, Sue fiercely fought for better resources for her constituents and did so with grace and humility. She held numerous positions with a variety of organizations including the Maryland Commission for Women, the Frederick County Affordable Housing Commission, the Family Violence Council, the Frederick County Consortium of Human Service Providers, and the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence. Her contributions were widely recognized, earning her honors such as the Dorothy Beatty Memorial Award from the Women's Law Center of Maryland, recognition as one of Maryland's Top 100 Women, and the Consumer Legislator of the Year Award from the Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition.

Above all, Sue will be remembered as a mother, a wife, a friend, and an inspiration. She is survived by her daughter Shannon Aleshire, who followed in her footsteps of public service as the CEO of the Mental Health Association of Frederick County.

Maryland has lost a fierce advocate for the most vulnerable among us. Sue was a legislator of impact, a leader of courage, and a neighbor whose legacy will endure in Frederick, across Maryland, and beyond. I ask my colleagues to join me in extending condolences to Sue's family and in honoring the indelible impact she made in Frederick County and across Maryland.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a distinguished public servant Pam Lewis, one of my office's long- standing congressional liaisons at the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Population, Refuges, and Migration.

Throughout her career at the State Department, Ms. Lewis has exemplified the highest ideals of Federal service. From her early work addressing complex casework to her later role as a leading expert on refugee admissions and immigration law, Ms. Lewis's contributions have been both exceptional and enduring. Her efforts have strengthened U.S. foreign policy and humanitarian assistance programs in profound and indelible ways.

Ms. Lewis' reputation for excellence is known throughout the halls of Congress and in congressional offices nationwide. She has been a trusted resource and guiding voice for countless offices and individuals across the country who have turned to her for clarity, guidance, and solutions. That kind of impact cannot be measured by titles or tenure alone; it speaks to a legacy built on knowledge, professionalism, and a steadfast commitment to doing what is right.

It is clear from those who have worked closely with Ms. Lewis, including during the creation of the Office of U.S. Foreign Assistance and later at PRM, that her dedication and institutional insight helped shape and elevate the work of our colleagues. Ms. Lewis' expertise in immigration regulations, particularly related to family reunification, has opened doors for thousands of individuals seeking safety and a new start.

I commend Ms. Lewis for her extraordinary service to our Nation. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Ms. Lewis and wishing her a well-earned, fulfilling, and enjoyable retirement.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Larry Neal Barron, a distinguished citizen of Maryland, who passed away on August 10, 2025, at the age of 83.

Born on September 3, 1941, in Friedens, PA, Mr. Barron embodied the values of service, commitment, and leadership throughout his remarkable life. Following his graduation from Somerset Joint High School, he proudly answered the call to serve his country as a member of the U.S. Marine Corps, assigned to the elite HMX-1 unit. His service exemplified patriotism and devotion to duty.

After completing his military service, Mr. Barron embarked on a 37- year career with Mack Truck, where he was not only a respected employee but also a leader within the United Auto Workers. His advocacy through the Community Action Program and recognition with two Bobby Fouche Awards--from both the Central Maryland Labor Council and the Western Maryland Democratic Summit--reflect his steadfast dedication to the dignity of working men and women.

Mr. Barron's commitment to community extended far beyond his professional life. He gave his time generously as a scoutmaster at Long Meadow Church of the Brethren, guiding young people for 8 years. For more than half a century, he was a devoted member of Covenant Presbyterian Church, where he held numerous leadership roles and exemplified faith in action.

In addition, Mr. Barron was a proud Freemason, joining Medairy Lodge in Williamsport in 1976 and rising to serve as worshipful master for two terms. He attained the 32nd Degree, served as grand inspector of Masons for the State of Maryland, and was past president of the Maryland Masonic Research Society. His leadership also extended to youth organizations, including service as past associate guardian of Bethel No. 26, International Order of Job's Daughters.

Larry Barron was also an active figure in civic life, especially within the Democratic Party. He served on the Washington County Democratic State Central Committee and was a primary organizer of the Western Maryland Democratic Summit, where his tireless work strengthened civic engagement and democratic participation across our region.

Above all, Mr. Barron will be remembered as a devoted husband, father, and grandfather. He is survived by his beloved wife Judy Mae Barron; his daughter Catherine Middlekauff; and his grandchildren Caitlin and Camden Middlekauff. His life was one of service to God, country, family, and community.

The people of Maryland have lost a dedicated citizen and leader, but his legacy of service will continue to inspire. I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing appreciation for and paying respects to Mr. Larry Barron's remarkable impact and memory.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of the late Samuel Jordan of Maryland, who left an indelible mark on our State and Nation. Mr. Jordan worked tirelessly to make a positive difference in his community and across the globe, and he will be remembered for his remarkable advocacy as a transit champion in Baltimore.

Mr. Jordan's dedication to justice and civil rights started at a young age. After graduating from Franklin and Marshall College with honors, he founded Black Arise, a community-based liberation group. As an avid learner and pursuer of justice, he returned to school and earned a law degree. He inspired the next generation at the University of the District of Columbia, teaching constitutional and criminal law.

Throughout his life, he pursued justice across multiple fields. He was a strong supporter of workers' rights, fought for a better healthcare system, and advocated for racial justice. He championed civil rights on the global stage, serving as a United Nations delegate at a world conference against racism in post-apartheid South Africa.

Back home, Mr. Jordan's leadership at the Baltimore Transit Equity Coalition and the Innovative Housing Institute has made a difference in the lives of many. His dedication to building equitable transportation, enhancing affordable housing, and eliminating structural racism is an inspiration to us all and a testament to his lifelong pursuit of creating positive change.

I offer my heartfelt gratitude to Mr. Jordan's family for his commitment to strengthening communities and dedication to social justice. I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our condolences to his family and in honoring Mr. Jordan's incredible legacy.