Floor Statements

Madam President, we have a challenge--a problem--and that is the President is exercising a line-item veto, and line-item vetoes are unconstitutional because the Constitution assigns the power of the purse to Congress, not to the President of the United States.

Laws are not suggestions. The Constitution is not optional. A President is not a King. That was the Founders' vision for our democratic Republic.

But on Friday, President Trump swung a wrecking ball at the Founders' vision, at the Constitution. He and Russ Vought, the head of the Office of Management and Budget, proceeded to--in the dark of night--notify that they were canceling nearly a billion dollars in programs authorized and funded by law.

Well, let's be clear. Canceling resources for these programs is both illegal and unconstitutional--illegal because the funding is in law, passed by Congress and signed into law by the President himself, and unconstitutional because the Constitution creates a separation of powers, with the power of the purse belonging to Congress, not the President.

This has been tested a few times. In 1996, Congress tried to give the President a line-item veto, and the Supreme Court struck it down. It struck it down as unconstitutional because it violated the Constitution's separation of powers.

Yesterday, the independent, nonpartisan Government Accountability Office reaffirmed that this strategy by Trump, called a pocket rescission--a fancy name for a line-item veto--is illegal. Here is what they said. I will quote it at some length.

GAO has previously concluded that the Impoundment Control

Act does not permit the withholding of funds past their date

of expiration.

The plain language of the ICA provides that amounts

proposed for rescission must be made available for obligation

unless Congress completes action on a bill rescinding them.

The legislative history of the ICA, Supreme Court precedent,

and the overarching constitutional framework . . . compel

this conclusion.

Therefore, the rescission proposals contained in the

President's September 25, 2026, special message to Congress

do not permit the President to withhold the appropriations

beyond the end of fiscal year 2026.

And that fiscal year--we are hours away from it ending.

So, in other words, more simply put, it is Congress' job to design, authorize, and fund programs. It is the Executive's job--the President and his team's job--to implement those programs. The assignment of responsibilities is designed to ensure that we have a government that serves the people.

In a democratic republic, the people's representatives in Congress-- from every part of the country, from every walk of life--debate and negotiate and legislate so that you will have programs and spending decisions that reflect the needs of every part of the Nation. We don't just deliver programs for red States when Republicans have the majority; we don't just deliver programs for blue States when Democrats have the majority--no. All of us, working together, produce spending bills to serve people throughout this country--urban and rural, north and south, east and west, plains and coast. However you want to divide up the country, we serve everyone. So a President taking those bipartisan agreements to serve everyone and canceling out individual programs is both illegal and unconstitutional.

But in an authoritarian, strongman state it is all different. The President alone decides what gets funded and can use that power to reward allies and punish opponents. In those states, there is no separation of powers; there is one authority. Call it a King. Call it a czar. Call it an emperor or a dictator or a tyrant. Whatever you call it, it doesn't fit in a democratic republic.

We do not have a tyrant or a dictator. We do not have a King. We have

a President with responsibilities under the Constitution to implement the programs that we design, authorize, and fund here in Congress. That is how you get government by and for the people rather than by and for a billionaire or by and for an elite class or by and for a King himself.

But last year, Trump did exercise his strategy of operating as a King in a, if you will, line-item veto through this fancy term ``pocket rescission,'' canceling nearly $5 billion in programs authorized and funded by law.

That tool, called a rescission, was created under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, and it allows the President to propose canceling a program, but it also says that cancellation does not take effect unless Congress votes to cancel the programs, and we haven't voted to cancel these programs. So, therefore, that is why it is illegal to cancel them.

Well, it is pretty straightforward. The law says that no rescission or cancellation goes into effect without Congress authorizing the cancellation by law.

Madam President, I have here what I would ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, a statement from the chair of Appropriations, Senator Susan Collins.

Madam President, we have heard tonight from the independent Government Accounting Office that what the President did in proposing and putting forward this line-item veto is illegal. We have heard in the words of the Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee that this is illegal. We have heard colleagues speak tonight from different directions about why it is illegal--because the Constitution makes it so. The Constitution says the power of the purse rests with Congress.

There have been undoubtedly a number of Presidents who wish they had a line-item veto. Nixon tried. He cut funds that had been passed into law, and the Supreme Court said: Nope, you can't do that. Have you read the Constitution, President Nixon? That is not just illegal; that is unconstitutional.

Then in 1996, Congress tried to actually shed its responsibility and give the President a line-item veto and say: Hey, Mr. President, we passed these bipartisan spending bills, but strike out anything you want.

The Supreme Court responded and said: No, Congress, you actually have this responsibility. You can't assign it to the Supreme Court. You can't assign it to the President. No, the Constitution places it squarely on Congress.

There is a reason for that, and that is, Congress represents the power of the people from every corner of the land coming together to craft programs and to decide how to fund them that serves this Nation. To delineate or to assign that important function representing people throughout the Nation and say ``None of that matters; the President can just kill any program he wants'' is to believe in a King.

I have news for my colleagues: There is no King in the Constitution. That is why we are here tonight.

There is also a very practical consideration. If you craft bipartisan spending bills that serve every part of the country, but then a partisan President can strike down the ones that, well, maybe are more likely represented by Senators from the other party or House Members from the other party, well, then you have undermined the whole concept of us working together to serve the whole Nation, and therefore you make it very difficult to do bipartisan bills in the future.

So that is why so many people have come to speak to this. That is why the chair of the Appropriations Committee put out such a powerful statement on it. That is certainly why I am here tonight. And that is why we have come to the floor with a bill, S. 5670, to fix this-- because the President, in exercising this line-item veto, said: I am going to do something clever. I am simply going to hold on to the funds that I am supposed to spend under the law until there is no time left in the fiscal year, in the financial year--a year that expires a couple hours from now.

So as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 5670, introduced earlier today; further, that the bill be considered read three times and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, the Constitution matters. And what does the Constitution say?

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in

Consequence of Appropriations made by law.

That is pretty straightforward, and yet my colleague from Wisconsin just wanted to shred the Constitution. He says: It doesn't matter. We want a President to cancel programs.

He said he wouldn't even care if it was a different President.

Imagine a different President canceling programs in his home State. Maybe that Senator would be singing a somewhat different tune.

And then we saw that debt chart. Wow, well, let's understand where that debt comes from: the war in Afghanistan, from a Republican President; the war in Iraq, from a Republican President; the Bush tax cuts--1 and 2--for the billionaires and megamillionaires, from a Republican President; the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires under Trump 1 and 2. Those are the sources of that debt.

And so it would be a nice thing if someone would come to the floor about debt--from the other side of the aisle--and would actually own that they are the problem, that they have been pissing away our national wealth on foreign wars and giveaways to the richest and most powerful Americans, running up last year a bill that added $30 trillion to the debt over the next 30 years.

I didn't hear that in the commentary from my colleague from Wisconsin nor did I hear from him that he knows that if the interest rate is 1 percent higher than the Congressional Budget Office estimated, that $30 trillion debt that he voted for last year will be $50 trillion over the next 30 years.

And do you know what else? The estimate used for that debt was 4 percent, and right now we are paying 5 percent. So we are already 1 percent higher.

It just would be nice that those who preach fiscal responsibility would not continue to be the ones who are spending this Nation into bankruptcy. That would be nice because then we would have funds to invest in families, healthcare, and housing and education and good- paying jobs.

This century is going to belong to the nations that invest in education and infrastructure, not to the ones that give away the national Treasury to the richest Americans and say: The hell with families across this great land.

Madam President, congressional stock trading is profoundly corrupt. We in this Chamber were elected to serve the public, not our portfolio.

But what do the American people see? They see Senators and Representatives who are thinking about their portfolios when they are voting on different measures, including a whole lot of tax credits and tax deductions. They are both different elements.

If someone in this Chamber is sitting on a significant holding--let's say renewable energy stocks--they might be thinking about: I want to promote those stocks, rather than ask the question: Is this the right move for America?

What if they are sitting on fossil fuel stocks or oil stocks or maybe Wall Street stocks and they are thinking, ``I want to give a big break to the banking community on Wall Street to inflate my personal wealth''? That is just absolutely wrong. It is a massive conflict of interest.

About now, 14 years ago, Senator Sherrod Brown and I introduced the idea that we should end this stock trading, and that means buying, that means selling, and that means holding.

It has been a while to build the momentum on this, but even the President of the United States, in his last State of the Union, said we should attack this problem.

And the American people see that, while Members here are thinking about their portfolios--trying to make themselves richer, corrupting their votes on the issues before us--they are suffering.

Instead of thinking about your stock portfolio, maybe you should be thinking about the price of gas at the pump, maybe thinking about the cost of diesel and fertilizer for our farmers, maybe thinking about a war of choice--an unconstitutional war of choice--that is spending more than $1 billion a day.

Maybe we should be thinking about the fact that we have the most expensive healthcare system that delivers the least effective healthcare for a person in the developed world, and maybe we need to improve it.

Maybe we need to think about the fact that the career technical programs in other developed programs--other developed countries--are pretty good and maybe ours should be better.

Maybe we should think about the fact that college debt is a millstone around the neck of our children, when children in other countries are able to go to college debt free.

Maybe we should care about families instead of thinking about our portfolios.

The American people see Congress--the House and Senate Members--and

the President of the United States cashing in on stock trades. The President of the United States actually invested in stocks before announcing big agreements for major companies--buying Dell stock before a major announcement, buying Nvidia stock before a major announcement.

Come on. This is massively corrupt, and we should be ending it. So let's end it.

Entry-level employees and executive branch Agencies are required to recuse themselves from conflicts of interest, but Senators and Representatives think it is just fine to get rich on conflicts of interest and corrupt their representation of the public.

That is why we need the ETHICS Act, which would ban Members of Congress and their spouses, their dependents, and the President and the Vice President and their dependents from owning, trading, or holding individual stocks. If they want to invest in America, invest in a broad-based mutual fund that has establishment in all of these industries at once, like the S&P 500 fund.

Members of Congress should be banned from making new trades, and Members of Congress will have to divest their holdings or move them to mutual funds.

There is so much corruption that we need to tackle--banning crypto corruption; banning funding for Trump's gold-plated, billion-dollar boondoggle; stopping insider trading on prediction markets; implementing a binding code of ethics for the Supreme Court; outlawing the taxpayer-funded ``cash for cronies'' slush funds, like the President arranged with his $1.8 billion fund when he sued himself to award himself $1.8 billion of money; banning Members of Congress to have a longer period before they serve as lobbyists; and more.

But Congress can lead by example. Right now, let's pass the ETHICS Act.

Now, some may say: Well, wait. Isn't there this bill coming from the House?

That House bill leaves people holding the very portfolios that we have to get rid of. It preserves the conflicts of interest. That is pretty damn weak tea--keeping the corruption and legitimizing it--and, meanwhile, throwing in an extra measure on the bill that proceeds to engage in the effort to rig the November election.

Wow, well, that is certainly not a serious effort to address this corruption. But the ETHICS Act, it is that serious effort. Let's pass it. Let's ban Members of Congress from trading stocks. Let's make it clear to every American that we are here to serve the people, not our portfolios

Madam President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the bill at the desk, the ETHICS Act; further, that the bill be considered read three times and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I wish my colleague had actually got a bunch of things right, but he got a bunch of things wrong.

I don't know what propaganda he was reading, from what source that wants to continue the corruption.

But he said that the bill that came earlier today said you could not hold stocks. It actually allows you to hold those individual stocks. It allows the corruption to continue. And yet, he is saying: Oh, I voted for this great bill because it bans holding of stocks. But he is wrong.

There is a reason this was done. It was to allow a vote in the House, a vote in the House that pretended to address the issue, rather than addressing the issue.

And we have had a bill virtually parallel to this bill come through committee. It has been worked on in committee. Many of these elements and nuances--great. Fine. Let's continue that conversation. But don't come to this floor and misrepresent the bill that you voted on earlier tonight as having banned the holding of stocks because it allows it.

And second, blind trusts. They are called bogus blind trusts. As one Member of this body said to me: I meet every quarter with the guy who runs my blind trust.

You want another example? Who runs a blind trust for the President of the United States? His family runs it. His son is involved in running his blind trust.

Are you kidding me? Everyone understands blind trusts are not blind. So bring a bill that doesn't have bogus blind trusts.

It has an extensive exemption for small businesses, and yet we heard a lot of conversation about small businesses.

And then voter ID. Can't we be honest about the voter ID strategy? It was written to disenfranchise--fancy word for block citizens from voting that Republicans don't want to vote.

The President put forward an Executive order that said: You have to submit your voter roll to the President's team, they will decide who votes, and send the list back to you.

And then they went and got an ethics act--not an ethics act--SAVE Act--the SAVE Act. What did the SAVE Act say? The same thing. The President gets to decide who votes. That didn't pass here. And it didn't even have a majority support here, let alone supermajority support.

So, the President did another Executive order. And under this order, the President would strike down--his team would strike down people that look suspect to them.

What are we talking about? We are talking about 64 million American women whose last names do not match their birth certificate. Your name doesn't match your birth certificate, you can't vote. And the President could strike this down right before the election, making it impossible for people to proceed to get reauthorized to vote. And they couldn't even get reauthorized to vote, reregistered to vote, using their birth certificate. Wow.

And they didn't want Native Americans to vote, so they put in a provision that said any ID that doesn't have an expiration date is excluded. Well, you know, you are not a Tribal member year by year or month by month, my friends. You are a Tribal member for life. They don't have expiration dates. They knew that, and they put it in to stop Native Americans from voting.

Why? Why do you want to stop women from voting? Because they vote more on the blue side of the aisle.

Why do they write those ID requirements to stop Tribal members from voting? Because they vote more on the ``D'' side of the aisle.

People have called this Jim Crow 2.0. What are they talking about? After the Civil War, we had a national consensus, we were going to protect people's right to vote. And in the South, you had a lot of States that had a majority of Black citizens.

To this very Chamber, 2 U.S. Senators were elected from Mississippi; 14 Members of the House were elected from the South that were Black Americans. And then reconstruction ended in a horrific deal that was struck and the result was almost a century of blocking Black Americans from voting. And that is what the President wants to do.

Not specifically Black Americans, not the same way, but any group that votes predominantly on the blue side of the aisle.

Now, we actually had a bill, and it was called the Freedom to Vote Act. It had ID in it, but it wasn't ID designed in a partisan fashion.

So I say to my good colleagues: How about you actually come forward with a version of ID that isn't designed for partisan advantage? That would honor the vision of the Constitution. That was what was in the Freedom to Vote Act.

And the President wants to attack vote-by-mail. And why is that? Vote-by-mail is the highest integrity system in the land, bar none. Why is that? Because on election day, it is easy to manipulate the election.

Here is what you do: You change the location of the precinct voting from the previous year so people go to the wrong place; you proceed to put out false information about the location; you put out the wrong date for voting; you put out text messages--and this has been done-- saying ``sorry you missed the election last week, hope you will vote next year'' when the election is actually coming up the next Tuesday; you put in machines that don't work; you put in staff members that don't work; you perceive to create 8-hour lines like they created in the urban areas of Georgia--recent history.

That manipulation can't be done in vote-by-mail. That is why the President hates vote-by-mail, because it stops the rigging of American elections on election day.

And it has this very powerful form of voter ID called a signature. The same thing we use to verify checks and so many other transactions in life. Same signature we use on our marriage certificates. Same signature we use on financial transactions. And if the signature doesn't match, it gets challenged, and a voter has a chance to cure it.

My point here is that the bill that came before this Chamber earlier today was designed to rig the November election--my colleagues know that--and it allowed the corruption in stockholding to continue.

That is why we are creating and putting forward a real bill with real ethics tonight.

Madam President.

Mr. President, they say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and that is certainly true when it comes to wildfires and smoke. And as climate chaos makes the fire season longer and hotter and more dangerous, wildfires are ravaging States across our country, certainly including my home State of Oregon.

This year, at the beginning of fire season, the risk maps showed that the State of Oregon was the epicenter of the highest risk for the most time anticipated. Unfortunately, that crystal ball prepared by the experts turned out to be right. We had a record 2.5 million acres burn this summer. Well, we broke the 2 million acres last summer and the 2.5 million acres this summer. It wasn't that long ago when 1 million acres would have been an extraordinarily horrific fire year. Forests burning, grasslands burning, more lightning strikes, more wind, more drought, more dryness, hotter temperatures--all of it combined to create that extraordinarily destructive summer we have just gone through.

I will never forget 6 years ago the Labor Day fires, at the beginning of September, when we had a combination of lightning strikes and wind that brought, basically, a force up from the east, wind over the top of the Cascade Mountains and down every valley, and every valley was burning. We had six cities burn to the ground, and we had another six that were badly scorched. When you saw those cities, it looked like a bomb had gone off. I mean, everything was reduced to ashes, with maybe a cast-iron tub over here, with maybe a metal staircase or a pipe dangling over here, then on the ground a pool of metal when the wheels on cars would melt and run across the ground. It was just devastating to go to the fairgrounds--where thousands of refugees were headed--and hear of their harrowing escapes. Sometimes their cars were starting to melt and smoke as they drove through the fire. Others were seeking refuge in the streams.

These fires? They are terrible, and they fill the air with toxins-- toxins

from the burning buildings and the burning homes and burning vehicles that are filled with plastics and electronics. Who knows what else is in that smoke? That smoke is incredibly dangerous as well. That is why we need to pass the bipartisan Wildfire Emissions Prevention Act on which I am so pleased to partner with my colleague Senator Curtis from Utah.

This bill prepares our communities in two different ways.

First, it makes it easier for communities to do prescribed burns. Now, if I turned the clock back about 16 years, communities would say to me: We don't want those prescribed burns. We don't want that day or two of smoke.

But after the 2020 Labor Day fires, communities are like: We want to do the prescribed burns. We want them carefully monitored so that they do not escape and cause a larger fire, which has happened on rare occasions. We want to make sure they are done on days when there is enough humidity and so little wind and so little risk of wind that they can't possibly become something other than the prescribed burns.

They have to be meticulously planned, carefully controlled, and then they reduce so much fuel on the ground and provide a lot of protection thereafter. So prescribed burns are--along with thinning and mowing-- significant ways to reduce the fuel load and reduce the devastation when there is a fire.

But here is the thing: a prescribed burn produces smoke, and that smoke may become a penalty under the Clean Air Act for our communities. So this bill solves that problem so that smoke from a prescribed fire does not create a penalty under the Clean Air Act.

Second, this bill helps communities prepare for smoke, to have locations that are safe for people, particularly people with lung problems, with asthma or emphysema or so forth or people who are particularly allergic to the content of the smoke to be able to get to places that have clean air through filtering. So that is essential.

And this bill incorporates the Smoke-Ready Communities Program based on the Smoke and Heat Ready Communities Act that I introduced before. It gives communities the tools and the resources to prepare for wildfire smoke and unhealthy air.

They say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That is a pretty good foundation for a bill--a bill, the Wildfire Emissions Prevention Act, that will give our communities the tools they need to prepare for wildfires and smoke pollution, and I would encourage that we adopt this bill today.

I yield to one of my colleagues.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to propose that Democrats and Republicans join together to stop a monumentally horrific idea, an idea called Trump's triumphal arch. It distorts our history while destroying historic views. It disregards the Constitution's separation of powers. It disrupts air safety at DC's Ronald Reagan Airport, and it disrespects the sacrifices of our veterans and their families.

How much worse could an idea possibly be?

Then, when Trump encountered fierce pushback about this unfunded, unauthorized construction, he invoked a national security justification, saying the arch would house drones and snipers and ammunition. This is a replay of the justification that he used on his billion-dollar ballroom, gold-plated boondoggle. Those oversight procedures called an authorization by Congress and funding by Congress are absolutely inherent to our Constitution, and we should absolutely not be going forward or be allowing anything to go forward that so blatantly violates so much of what we stand for.

Let's talk about why a memorial arch distorts our history.

We are a Republic. We are not a monarchy. We are not an imperial regime. It is called a democratic republic. I would like the President of the United States to actually understand the difference. With this arch, he is imitating what the Roman Empire did in commemorating great military victories and leaders. The Arc de Triomphe, in

Paris, was commissioned in 1806 by Emperor Napoleon.

While Trump may fancy himself a modern American emperor, his war in Iran is hardly a great military victory. It is quite the opposite. It is a towering, 250-foot-tall edifice, topped with golden statues--twice as tall as the nearby Lincoln Memorial that has such a place in the heart of every American, 100 feet taller than the Arc de Triomphe, and 30 feet taller than the largest triumphal arch in the world--the Monumento a la Revolucion in Mexico City. Imitating emperors and authoritarians is not what America is about. Constructing things with no authorization and no funding is in violation of the separation of powers.

Let's talk about disregarding the Constitution.

Under Federal law, only Congress has the power to approve the placement of new monuments and memorials on Federal lands.

It is written into law to ensure that memorials are the product of deliberation and consensus, accountability through the legislative process.

But there has been no legislative process in this Congress or any prior Congress that said something about putting a massive arch, disrupting the connection between the Mall and the Lincoln Monument and the Arlington Cemetery. No such discussion has taken place. No congressional deliberation. No congressional authorization. No congressional funding.

And yet Trump is planning to divert funds from other accounts while American families are struggling--struggling--because of the high cost of gas and diesel and groceries, fertilizer. Everyone is hurting, but Trump wants to build this massive monument to himself in violation of the very premises of our Constitution.

And now he has this brilliant idea. He says he is the smartest man around. His brilliant idea is to launch drones into the air in the runway up to the Reagan Airport.

Can someone please explain to him that launching drones into the air with oncoming jets is a bad idea.

Just last year, 67 civilians were killed in a flash of light when a plane collided there with a military helicopter.

In August of this year, the Presidential helicopter Marine One lifted off at the same time as a jet was taking off from the airport, and that gave a lot of people anxiety. They did not hit each other, thankfully, but close calls are scary as hell.

And now Trump says the arch will house a large number of drones to be launched up in the air to counter national security threats. Launching drones directly into the approach of DC's airports is a reckless invitation for a collision.

And Trump's proposed arch disrespects the sacrifices of our veterans and their families. Back when I was working for the Secretary of Defense, I traveled through Arlington Cemetery a lot. It is a sacred place. More than 400,000 military servicemembers are laid to rest there across the river. The Americans buried there died defending a Republic by and for the people, not defending a dictator or a sovereign, not defending an imperial regime. A triumphal arch in the tradition of dictators and authoritarians is an insult to their sacrifice defending our Republic.

Veterans and their families have come forth and said: Please don't do this. The observation deck that Trump wants to build violates the solemnity of the cemetery's hallowed grounds. As one Gold Star mother put it--a Gold Star mother is someone who lost her son or daughter in battle--she said:

We don't need tourists overlooking the funerals.

So this arch, it distorts our very premise and soul of our country as a Republic. It disregards the separation of powers of our Constitution. It disrupts the air safety of DC's Reagan National Airport, and it disrespects the services and the sacrifices of our veterans buried at Arlington Cemetery.

This legislation is very simple and cosponsored by several of my colleagues, and it simply says this: that this arch cannot be built without authorization in law.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of this bill at the desk and that the bill be considered read three times and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

I would ask my colleague from Utah--and I appreciate his staying for this--if I reframe this, if I come back and say unanimous consent, if I come back tomorrow and say let's have debate for an hour on this and actually vote on it, would you object to that or would you approve that, let us debate it and consider it?

Mr. President, I would like to think that at least, as those in the Senate carried the oath of our office to defend the prerogatives of our Constitution and separation of powers, we could at least debate such a bill rather than block it.

Unanimous Consent Request

Mr. President, I have a second bill I would like to see us pass tonight by unanimous consent. To be summed up in a sentence, a memorial to honor a President of the United States, designated by an act of Congress, may not be demolished unless authorized by an act of Congress.

This has, of course, to do with the President planning to demolish the Kennedy Center. Kennedy said:

A nation reveals itself not only by the men it produces but

also by the men it honors, [and] the men it remembers.

And those words have taken on special meaning this month. Following President Kennedy's assassination, Congress renamed the National Cultural Center the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts as a ``living memorial'' to our slain President--a ``living memorial'' to our slain President.

I was in second grade on the West Coast. The word came. Everything shut down immediately. The Nation wept. And this is the way we honored President Kennedy. It was a fitting memorial to a President who reminded us:

The life of the arts, far from being an interruption, a

distraction, in the life of the nation, is close to the

center of a nation's purpose.

But now we are in a chapter where President Trump wants to demolish this memorial. He wants to demolish this enormously incredible building, which hosts operas and plays and ballets, concerts, the Kennedy Center's Honors Program that is watched by millions of Americans every year celebrating our Nation's most revered artists.

But the doors have been locked shut at the Kennedy Center. How did that happen? Last year, when President Trump won election, took office, he filled the Board of the Kennedy Center with loyalists. He installed himself as chairman. He renamed the institution after himself, not because he asked for legislation to do so but because, with his imperial mindset, he can put his name on anything he wants because he is the imperial ruler of our country.

But we are not a nation with an imperial ruler, a man sitting on a throne to whom people must genuflect. We are a Republic. And there is a stark difference in the ways that the two Presidents' names were added to this building.

In 1964, the U.S. Congress passed a law to remember President Kennedy's commitment to the arts. That was the legislation that made the Kennedy Center this living memorial.

And then, in 2025, Donald Trump broke that law by renaming the Kennedy Center after himself. It is wrong--constitutionally, legislatively, morally.

Morally, the Kennedy Center has been a place for generations where people of both parties go to celebrate the arts. They put aside their politics. They honor America's artists. They revel in incredible performances.

Back in 1977, I dropped out of college for a year to be here, to be here during the first year of the Carter administration to see how a new administration would shape a change of course for our Nation.

And during that year, I worked all these different odd jobs and volunteered for different groups. And I was volunteering for an environmental nonprofit. They were working on the Law of the Sea, a treaty that never has come before this Chamber almost a half century later, Law of the Sea. In

walks someone--they said: There is a concert tonight that pertains to the environment and the Law of the Sea. Would anybody like a free ticket?

I said: Well, yes. Yes, I would. I would like to go.

And I went that night. And I have never been in a venue like that. I was just kind of struck in awe. Lots of folks from Washington's elite were there--Senators and House Members--and sitting up in the box was President Carter. And Rostropovich played a cello concert. It was stunning. I mean, I had never heard a cello played except for the kind of slow, droning sounds of my sister when she was learning the cello. I mean, this was just amazing.

And I have been there when President Trump was in the Presidential box. Politics set aside; American people rejoicing in the arts in this living memorial to President Kennedy, our President who was slain.

Constitutionally, the separation of powers means no President can ignore laws passed by Congress, which is exactly what a Federal judge ruled on May 29 of this year. He said that the President cannot rename the Kennedy Center unless Congress approves it because Congress, by law, made the Kennedy Center a living memorial to the President--by law. And you can't undo the law unless you pass a new law.

Immediately, Trump's handpicked Board tried to get around the judge's ruling by proposing to add the words: ``Restored and Renovated by President Donald J. Trump'' or by renaming the Kennedy Center's plaza, the President Trump Plaza. And the Federal judge, citing the law, on September 15 said:

Simply put, defendants cannot install memorials for

President Trump or anyone or anything else at the Kennedy

Center without Congress' blessing.

In other words, done by law.

So it isn't about President Trump; it is about the principle that would apply to any President who was proposing breaking the law, and the President's court says you can't break the law. You want to do what you do? Go get a law that says you can do it.

Apparently, that infuriated President Trump. A judge--how dare he tell him that he had to follow the law. After all, he is our King. He is our imperial leader. He is the ``on high'' who can do any damn thing he wants in this country. He can start wars when the Constitution says he can't start wars. He can spend money on projects where the Constitution says he can't spend money on projects.

And, boy, did it infuriate him that a judge said he had to follow the law. How dare we have a judge stand in his way?

So he called into the Kennedy Center Board meeting to scream at a Board member, Congresswomen Joyce Beatty. Beatty had filed the lawsuit defending the Kennedy Center.

Minutes later, the Board voted to shut down the Kennedy Center for 2 years because President Trump couldn't have his name on it.

Oh, they said: Well, we will shut it down for renovations. You are shutting down the beating heart of our arts world that reverberates across America because the President can't put his name on it? What kind of children are serving on that Board? And what kind of childish tantrum was thrown by the President of the United States shutting down the Kennedy Center?

Shortly afterward, Trump implied on Truth Social that the Kennedy Center would not reopen until he had his name on it.

Let's be clear, this is an aging building. It needs maintenance. It needs to have old boilers replaced and electrical wiring updated and old seats modified and ceiling tiles, water damage fixed. There is a lot of work to do, standard types of maintenance. You don't shut down the building to do these types of maintenance. But he can't have his name on it. So he is shutting it down for 2 years.

But the situation got a lot worse on September 16. Photojournalists captured images that show Trump looking at a large poster, talking about demolishing the Kennedy Center. The words said: ``Kennedy Center

Would my colleague object if I come back--

Thank you. I think I am recognized.

Would my colleague from Utah object if I come back with a proposal that we debate this for a limited amount of time so that this Chamber can weigh in on defending our Constitution?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to grant floor privileges to my interns on their shadow days at the following times: Sophie Adams on September 29; Kamryn Ford on September 30; Johnathan Propes on November 10; Phineas Papenfus on November 17; Benjamin Mueller on November 18; Henry Denner on December 1; Mubarika Shah on December 2; Kate Eames on December 8; Frances Currie on December 9; and Ana Sofia Mendoza on December 16.

Mr. President, the Chinese Government will do anything, at any cost, anywhere in the world to silence its critics.

Freedom House has documented hundreds of cases of the Chinese Government stalking, intimidating, even assaulting people outside of China, people all around the world--a lot of people right here in our United States of America. This stalking and intimidation of people on our soil is absolutely unacceptable.

This goes by the term ``transnational repression.'' It is China taking its tactics of suppressing dissent and extending them right here where we have freedom of speech in the United States of America. Thus, while President Xi is here in Washington, we need to send a message that says that this is unacceptable, that our Constitution guarantees that every person here in the United States has the right to speak

freely, including the right to criticize our government and certainly the right to criticize foreign governments without fear of retaliation. That is what freedom of speech is.

So I am calling on the Senate today to affirm our belief in and commitment to this principle of free speech. That is why this resolution is a bipartisan resolution, with Senator Dan Sullivan and Senator John Curtis bringing it forward, to say that these Chinese tactics to suppress freedom of speech in the United States and intimidate our citizens are unacceptable.

We have seen what China has done at home. We have seen what they have done to enslave the Uighurs with facial recognition technology. We have seen what they have done to force Tibetan children into boarding schools. We have seen what they have done in Hong Kong to arrest and imprison those who criticize the Chinese Government. We have seen their journalists jailed for reporting the truth.

But it hasn't been enough for China simply to conduct these practices on Chinese soil; they are exporting those practices here to the United States of America. Freedom House calls this ``the long arm of authoritarianism.'' It is stretching beyond the borders of China, all around the world--countless stories of how China has intimidated people on our soil into silence.

I was struck by a woman in California who said: This individual walked up to me, said ``We know where your family is located in China,'' and walked away.

Why did that happen? Because she had expressed disagreement with some of the policies of China, particularly their oppressive strategies back home.

Last week, I spoke with a woman who told me that a member of her family had criticized the Chinese Government, and in retaliation, the Chinese Government had arrested dozens of her family members, not one or two--it should be zero--but dozens.

I spoke with journalists from Radio Free Asia. More than 70 relatives of Radio Free Asia's Uighur news service have been imprisoned or harassed in China in retaliation for reporting done here in the United States by American journalists.

Beijing has been abusing international institutions, like Interpol and the U.N., to smear and stalk people who are testifying to what is happening to the Uighurs, what is happening in Hong Kong, what is happening to the Tibetan children.

In July, Beijing made their long arm of authoritarianism official law. Article 63 of a new Chinese law called the Ethnic Unity and Progress Law claims authority for the Chinese Government to hold people and organizations outside of China legally liable for undermining unity and creating division. That is obviously code for ``criticizing the Chinese Government.'' It is unacceptable that we are allowing this to happen right here.

We want to reinforce President Trump in conveying to Premier Xi that this is not OK or acceptable. There are lots of other discussions taking place about ships, about critical minerals, about trade, but absolutely we should affirm as a Senate that we stand behind freedom of speech and reject China's ability and authority to intimidate, stalk, and oppress people on our soil.

This week, I led my Senate and House colleagues in a letter to Secretary of State Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and others urging them to protect our freedom of speech here at home.

As noted by the FBI, ``If you are in the United States, including a U.S. territory, your freedoms are protected.'' That sums it up. Your freedoms are protected. And that is why we need to send this message.

Let's send this powerful, bipartisan message that in the United States of America, people are free to speak, that authoritarians don't get to bring their repression onto our American soil.

With that, let us fulfill our oath that we took to our Constitution to defend it, including defending our freedom of speech, and unanimously pass this resolution that says that the long arm of Chinese authoritarianism is unwelcome here in the United States, that it is unacceptable here in the United States.

And to do that, Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 247, S. Res. 226; further, that the committee-reported substitute amendment to the resolution be agreed to, the resolution be amended as agreed to, the committee-reported substitute amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the preamble as amended be agreed to, and that the motions to be considered be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, this resolution says the Senate condemns China for a systematic campaign of transnational repression, affirms that all individuals residing in the United States have the right to live free from foreign government intimidation, coercion, and surveillance. I do not understand--

I do not understand why any Member of the Senate would object to defending freedom of speech here in the United States of America.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to grant floor privileges to Mina Basmaci for the length of this Congress.

Mr. President, Americans are worried that the money in their pockets will not cover the increasing costs of gas and groceries and housing or healthcare. Meanwhile, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, is worried that the money in Americans' pockets doesn't currently have his face or his signature on it.

You know, in 2020, Congress passed a law to produce new coins to celebrate America's 250th anniversary. In that law, we wrote that the coins should be emblematic of our 250th anniversary--the U.S. semiquincentennial celebration of 250 years of the vision of a democratic Republic--of a government by and for the people; of our values as a free people, with the rights of free speech and free assembly and free expression. Well, certainly, this we know--that the symbol of putting a sitting President or leader on a coin is not a symbol of a democratic Republic; it is a symbol of an authoritarian strongman.

If we turn the clock back to the year 44 BC, Julius Caesar was Emperor and he decided to have a coin with his face on it. He was the first to do so. It was a radical departure from Roman tradition, and it alarmed the Senate. It was viewed widely as a blatant display of personal power--of personal authoritarian power. And if you missed the point, on the backside of this coin, it had the words ``dictator perpetuo''--``dictator in perpetuity'' or ``dictator forever.'' That is what it represents to put your face on a coin.

Then, at the time our Nation was founded--and, again, we are celebrating the 250th anniversary of that vision--King George III put his face on a coin, on the silver sixpence, and it was viewed, as it was with Julius Caesar and the Emperors who followed him, as an expression of authoritarian personal power.

Does our Constitution provide for an authoritarian structure of government, where power flows down from the King to the people? I think not. It flows up from the people through elections.

That is why putting your face on a coin just is absolutely wrong and why it violates the very premise of the law that created the permission to have this 250th anniversary coin. The design that Trump has come up with--that of a fake gold coin with his face on it--violates the law that we passed. It is widely out of sync with the values of our Nation. It is widely out of sync with our history and our best traditions. So these coins should never be made, and, if made, they should never be distributed.

It is part of a long list of this authoritarian, would-be strongman, dictator President, who is trying to stamp his name onto every public place available.

He is renaming the Kennedy Center for himself; renaming the U.S. Institute of Peace for himself; hanging ``Dear Leader''-sized, North Korean-style banners on the sides of the buildings here in Washington, DC; putting his face onto passports; putting his face onto the national park passes; naming a class of warships after himself; insisting that it be his signature, not the Treasury Secretary's signature on the currency; planning to build a massive triumphal arch to himself--and let's not forget: tearing down the ``People's House''--the East Wing of the White House--to build his gold-plated, billion-dollar ballroom boondoggle.

I say to my colleagues, whether they sit to the left of the aisle or to the right of the aisle, didn't we take the same oath to the same Constitution? Didn't we pledge ourselves to sustaining a democratic Republic, not a strongman state?

So I urge you: Join together--Ds and Rs together--to defend our Constitution; to defend the vision of a government by and for the people.

If we want to turn to the opinion of George Washington 250 years ago, what was his opinion? He was strongly opposed to having his portrait put on coins. Why? Because he considered it a King-like act, completely out of sync with the vision of the Nation we were founding.

Washington's example has endured. It has endured for 250 years until now. Well, my colleagues may say that there was one exception--one exception in 1926--when there was a coin of George Washington, and behind him, there was the outline of a face of President Calvin Coolidge, but it wasn't Calvin Coolidge on the coin. It wasn't his portrait; he wasn't alone; and you would have to be really knowledgeable to know that that outline hanging in the background happened to be of Calvin Coolidge.

Well, this is quite different. This is a full-on, Caesar-style, King George III-style, self-ego amplification that just doesn't fit with the United States of America. So Congress should immediately pass the Change Corruption Act, which I have introduced with Senator Cortez Masto, so as to ban all coins from featuring the image or signature of the sitting U.S. President or living former Presidents--aimed at the principle involved, not aimed simply at President Trump.

You know, families need foundations to thrive, foundations like healthcare, housing, education, and good-paying jobs. What they don't need is to have President Trump's face on fake gold Trump bucks. Instead of putting his face on our money, like a King, let's ask our President to focus on putting money back in the pockets of working Americans. Let's honor 250 years of government by and for the people. Let's prohibit this Caesar-esque-, King George III-, Louis XIV-style of displaying authoritarianism. Let's pass the Change Corruption Act.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill, the Change Corruption Act, which is at the desk; that the bill be considered read three times and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I so enjoy working with my colleague from Wyoming. But I did notice that her speech had nothing to do with my point that sitting Presidents don't belong on coins because it is an authoritarian symbol.

And I also noticed that her description of the bill passed last year involved changing the name of it. Trump called it the Big Beautiful Bill. And it became widely ridiculed because it cut nutrition, and it cut healthcare to fund tax breaks for the very richest Americans.

It had nothing to do with working Americans. In fact, when you take the impact of the healthcare cuts and the nutrition cuts, the little, smallest crumbs on the table that were sprinkled to the less affluent Americans don't make up for the cuts to healthcare and nutrition. So they come out the losers. It was a ``families lose and megamillionaires win'' bill, and I am happy to debate that all day long.

I realize they renamed it because it was such a horrific attack on ordinary people and, quite frankly, an embarrassment.

So I do support my colleague's vision of fighting for families. But to fight for families, we don't need legislation that is ``families lose and billionaires win.'' We need legislation that is ``families thrive and the affluent, they pay their fair share.'' Their marginal tax as a percent of their income is a tiny fraction of what the working American pays.

You know, in any sane system, the richest Americans would pay a higher

percent of their income in taxes, not a lower percent.

But these are disagreements that I am sure we will continue to debate. And I know my colleague is not planning to run for reelection and won't be here next year. I am going to miss that a great deal. But we still have time and several other things that we are working on together, and maybe that is a topic we will switch to in our next conversation.

Thank you.

Thank you. The Senator appreciates your pronunciation of my home State, which people across America have a hard time often figuring out.

Mr. President, I am here tonight joining my colleague from Wisconsin on a very serious topic: that our Nation is at war; that our servicemembers are dying; that for every one who dies, so many are injured--a war that is absolutely hurting us in every possible way.

Operation Epic Fury has become ``Operation Epic Failure.''

On February 28, President Trump and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu launched this unconstitutional war against Iran.

President Trump was asked how long would this last. He said: 4 or 5 weeks. He talked about how our overwhelming military power would produce Iranian leaders who would plead--who would plead--for an unconditional surrender.

Mr. President, 16 weeks later, the war was still going on, but then there was agreement to a 14-point outline of a cease-fire agreement. But because it was just an outline, because the countries hadn't worked out their different understandings of the points, just as President Trump completely blotched the war, he completely blotched the negotiation; so it was back to war.

President Trump announced new strikes on Iran, and we are now in the 21st week of that 4- to 5-week war. Time and time again, leaders think they can launch a war and make a series of assumptions that prove to be wrong, and here we are again.

We were wrong with the assumption you could occupy Afghanistan and build something resembling a modern democratic nation.

We were wrong in spending our resources to attack Iraq, which was a counterbalance to Iran and undid this balance in a way that created Iranian influence through an arc that extended clear across to Lebanon.

You know, our Constitution clearly assigns the question of war to Congress. So to my Republican colleagues: Why aren't you insisting that Congress make this decision rather than the President?

Madison summarized: The Constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. [The Constitution] has accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislative [branch].

That is us. That is us. It is not the President. And the reasoning was that an Executive can too easily make assumptions that something will be quick and easy, but you are committing the lives of our citizens--you are committing the treasure of the Nation--and that should require careful consideration. One person alone, our Founders said, should not be able to take a Republic to war. That is what Kings do. That is what authoritarian strongmen do. But we are not--need I remind you--a strongman authoritarian state--at least we are not by our Constitution. We are a democratic Republic, so let's start acting like it and let's start honoring the structure of our Constitution.

That structure assigns the power of the purse to Congress. So every single Senator should be down here protesting when the President cancels a program that has been authorized and funded. Every single Senator should be down here protesting when the President creates a slush fund to do projects that are not authorized and not funded--that is our responsibility. Unfortunately, this Chamber has failed, for the most part, to defend its role and to defend the Constitution.

We did have a concurrent resolution under the War Powers Act that directed the President to remove United States forces from hostilities with Iran, but the majority has acted like we didn't actually pass it, and the President has acted like it wasn't passed. And the majority has failed to protest to the President that he is not respecting the fact that it was passed.

If you can't stand behind the acts of this Chamber, if you can't stand behind the Constitution, then how far off track are we as a nation?

We just got through with a conversation about the fact that this Congress asked for a coin to be minted that reflected the values of our Nation upon our 250 years since our Declaration of Independence, but instead Trump did what dictators do, just as Caesar broke Roman tradition to put his face on a coin and to declare dictator forever, ``dictator in perpetuity,'' just as King George III put his face on a coin to reflect that power came from him down to the people rather than flowing up from the people--that is a mega difference between an authoritarian state and a democratic republic.

The consequences of Trump's war of choice and the consequences of the Republican leadership's failure to exert their constitutional responsibility to end President Trump's war of choice is that 18 servicemembers are dead and hundreds and hundreds of Americans are badly injured.

Thousands of Iranian civilians are dead--including a whole lot of children, many of whom died from a strike by America, by President Trump's team, on a girl's elementary school.

The war strengthened Iran's hardliners--that is what happens when you assassinate the religious leaders and the political leaders--people rally to their country.

It weakened Iran's reformers who wanted to see a different path for their nation.

It enriched Russia. In fact, President Trump proceeded to say that we would no longer enforce the restriction on the Russian sale of oil so they could sell at the world price. Billions and billions of dollars flowed into Russia because of this war--billions and billions of dollars that could be used in the war against Ukraine. That is a war started by a dictatorship against a democratic republic that we should be standing with.

We should be standing with the people of Ukraine, not enriching Russia to buy more weapons to attack them.

The taxpayers, they are certainly losers--$40 billion of national treasure was the estimate given to us yesterday from the Secretary of Defense. And by all estimates, that doesn't include repairing all of the facilities damaged throughout the Middle East that the United States is involved in.

Before the war, the Strait of Hormuz was open. Now it is closed. That certainly doesn't benefit us or the world.

It has driven up the cost of gas; it has driven up the inflation rate. So Americans, in addition to $40 billion of their collective treasure, are paying out of their pocket so much more at the pump. The price in Oregon has been over $5 a gallon.

Farmers, they have lost too. They were already hit hard by the tariffs, but now they are hit by the high diesel prices to operate their machinery and by the high cost of fertilizer, all of which could be envisioned if there had been a debate here over whether we should go to war with Iran.

We would have heard from the experts who would say: You understand the Strait of Hormuz is a very narrow channel, and Iran has cruise missiles that can proceed to hit ships in the strait, so they have cards to play. We would have debated that if we had had that debate and carried out our constitutional responsibility.

We would have observed that that would have a horrific impact on American families. We would have observed that it would have a terrible impact on American farmers. But we didn't observe that because we didn't hold the debate.

But, say you: Did we not hold oversight hearings at least? Not a single one--another failure of our constitutional responsibility. This group of Senators, through the committees, not a single oversight hearing of the war.

President Trump promised to lower prices and end wars, but he has raised prices, and he has started a war.

Trump posted on Truth Social:

From this point forward, any time the Islamic Republic of

Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz . . . the

United States will bomb and destroy ONE BRIDGE OR POWER

PLANT, including those located next to, or in, the Capital

City of Tehran.

From the beginning, President Trump thought the power to bomb was his ace up his sleeve. Is President Trump a strategic analyst of wars? No. He just had this instinct--his gut--saying: We have more bombs than they do, so they will fold.

But he was wrong. And through this campaign, he just keeps repeating the same thing: If they don't do what we want, we will bomb them even more.

We will bomb them even more--the echo time and time and time again.

In the beginning, Trump said this war was one we entered because Binyamin Netanyahu was going to bomb Iran anyway, and there would be retaliation so we might as well join the war with him. That was the justification for the United States going to war?

Eventually, he got around to saying: This is about the nuclear materials and making sure that they don't make a nuclear bomb. Our Director of National Intelligence had been very clear that Iran had never made a decision to build a bomb.

And the basic measures to prevent them from having a bomb--getting rid of their highly enriched uranium and moving it out of their country under international supervision; having the IAEA--the International Atomic Energy Agency--monitor everything they do; dismantle their plutonium nuclear reactor--all those measures were already done by an international agreement supported by five major powers--Britain and France and China and Russia and the United States--all together, insisting that these measures were necessary to make sure Iran never got a bomb.

So they did all those things. They dismantled their nuclear reactor-- their plutonium nuclear reactors called a rock reactor--and they proceeded to ship their highly enriched uranium out, and they let in all of the inspectors, and they followed all the rules of the centrifuges.

And who tore up that agreement and created a pathway for Iran to potentially covertly pursue a bomb? That man is President Trump.

So President Trump destroys the international agreement that prevents pursuit of a nuclear weapon and then proceeds to start a war to achieve the same result. And then he discovers the war doesn't work, so he has a 14-point plan.

Well, that plan kind of was jaw-dropping, particularly to my Republican colleagues. It called for America to organize an international Marshall Plan for Iran with some $300-plus million of help. It called for immediate access for Iran to some $24 billion of funds--after they had spent a decade complaining about Iran getting access to $1.5 billion, under the previous agreement, of its own money. What is $1.5 billion compared to the hundreds of billions of dollars that Trump was providing to Iran in the 14-point agreement?

Now we are hearing reports that homes have been hit, schools have been hit, hospitals have been hit. We are taking out bridges. The President is bragging about doing that. There was a report that two desalination plants have been hit in Iran. We don't have confirmation of it. I asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff yesterday if indeed we had targeted or hit desalination plants. He said he didn't know but that he would get back to us. So I am looking forward to getting that information.

And why is that important? Because targeting a desalination plant is widely considered to be a war crime. So I hope those reports are wrong.

Why is it a war crime? Because destroying access to drinkable water-- and one of these plants was reported to serve some 10,000 people in 20 villages--is considered unacceptable under international law. That is why it is a war crime--because it is not a strategic military objective, unless forcing people to have no access to water is a war strategy, which it is not.

I hope that report is wrong. I hope it is not the case that we targeted desalination plants. Iran is reported to have targeted a desalination plant as well.

So the war is potentially devolving here as we are hitting more and more

things that affect civilian life as well as having killed thousands of civilians directly. The laws of war prohibit attacks on objects indispensable to civilian survival, including water and food.

So where are we? Trump now claims the main mission of this war is to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But Iran's highly enriched uranium--that it only has because he tore up the agreement that prevented them from having that--is buried deep underground, so there is no easy way to extract it. If there is no easy way to extract it, how is this war supposed to solve that?

So the administration now believes negotiations are essential to be able to withdraw because there is no military answer. Maybe if we had had a debate here in Congress, we would have discussed the fact that there was no military strategy that would result in the extraction of that highly enriched uranium, that it would have to be done by agreement. So we are in the fifth month of Trump trying to bomb his way to an answer, the fifth month of that strategy failing.

Negotiators and facilitators of negotiators have proceeded to suggest a 10-day cease-fire to enable return to try to work out some of the details from that previous 14-point outline to solve this war. I support that effort because the path we are on is hurting America in every possible way and hurting a whole lot of civilians overseas.

So let's embrace and exercise our constitutional responsibility and pass Senator Van Hollen's War Powers Resolution to end this reckless war of choice. If the President ignores it after we have passed it, then let's collectively insist on defending the role of the Senate and the House under our Constitution to be the place where the decisions are made about going to war. It is time that we honor our responsibility.

I know there are a lot of Members who don't want to have to have that debate because they are afraid they will get it wrong--they will make a vote for war and it will be a disaster or they will vote against war and their constituents will disagree. But shirking the responsibility is unacceptable. So strap your big-boy pants on and do the work we were elected under our Constitution to do.

Mr. President, I am pleased to welcome Senator Armstrong from Oklahoma in his delivering his maiden speech. It is an important part of this institution, and I hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who weren't able to hear him in person will have a chance to listen to it and to get to know him during his stay here.

Welcome to the Senate.

Mr. President, Donald Trump's Operation Epic Fury has become ``Operation Epic Failure.'' He started a war of choice. It turned out, Iran had a lot more leverage than he ever anticipated.

The President thought that superior weapons, a huge number of bombs would give, well, the opportunity for America to conduct a war in which Iran would unconditionally surrender. The President expected that in short order.

But not all unfolds accordingly because Iran had an ace up its sleeve: It had the ability to stop traffic on the Strait of Hormuz. And if the President had listened to any expert, they would have said: You are totally underestimating the leverage and power Iran has over the world economy.

But he didn't listen. So like a dog that got skunked, he has slunk away humiliated--``Operation Trump Humiliation''--and the American people and the world are paying the price.

I am relieved that the bombs have stopped falling, but Trump's disastrous deal has left everyone so much worse off.

The American military: a huge number of munitions expended, 13 servicemembers killed, hundreds wounded.

The U.S. Treasury: depleted by some $50 billion to $80 billion.

American families are paying a much higher price for gas and now facing year-over-year inflation of 4.2 percent because of Trump's war.

American farmers are paying so much more for fertilizer, paying so much more for diesel; bad for the farmers for sure, but that is going to mean higher grocery costs for the American family.

And in international affairs, Russia has been enriched, the Iranian hard-liners have been strengthened; the reformers in Iran have been undermined; our alliances have been deeply, carelessly damaged. Now, of course, Iranian civilians have paid the price with thousands dead and far more injured.

And Iran's highly enriched uranium? Still in exactly the same place it was before his war started.

Now, Trump has signed a 14-point framework, and it has some troubling elements. Donald Trump calls himself ``Dealmaker-in-Chief,'' so let's look at the deal that he has struck.

What does Iran get? Access to $24 billion in unfrozen funds, waivers that allow Iran to sell its oil at the world price, a commitment by the United States to organize a $300 billion plan like a Marshall Plan to rebuild Iran, and a stipulation that after 60 days, Iran can work with Oman and work out fees for vessels traveling through the Strait of Hormuz.

Let's compare that to the JCPOA that President Obama negotiated. And for more than a decade, I have listened to colleagues across the aisle say President Obama did a side deal that returned $500 million to Iran in frozen funds and interest on that $500 million; that we had had it so long, it had stacked up to $700 million.

All right. We are talking about less than $2 billion. Here is Trump: $24 billion in unfrozen funds, $300 billion in redevelopment, waivers for your oil, and the ability to charge fees in the Strait of Hormuz-- not even vaguely comparable.

And those elements, those are not an exchange for a final nuclear deal. They are an advance of one, undermining America's leverage to get a nuclear deal done. And Trump calls himself a dealmaker, giving away all the leverage up front.

And what else does Iran get? No restrictions on cruise missiles or drones; no restrictions on ballistic missiles; no restrictions on funding proxy groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, militias in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen. Wow. Those are all important elements.

But the deal does deliver two things: America lifts its blockade of the Iranian ports, and Iran lifts its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. But those were the conditions before the war started. So the one positive thing it delivers was already in place before there was a war. So no improvement because of the war.

President Trump has recklessly squandered American lives and treasure. He has recklessly weakened America's standing in the world. He has recklessly raised costs for American families here at home.

This is absolutely the embodiment of why the Founders gave the question of war, not to the President, but to Congress. It is why we have to stand up for the constitutional vision that we swore an oath to when we became U.S. Senators.

Is there any Senator here who didn't swear that oath to the Constitution? Is there any Senator here who hasn't read the Constitution and read that the question of war was assigned to Congress, not the President?

Here is how Madison described it. He said: The Constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that it is the Executive most interested and most prone to war. The Constitution has accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislative branch.

Does anyone need a clearer explanation than that, under our Constitution, a President cannot take us to war and that there was very careful reasoning that went into making that decision: because Executives are too prone to go to war, and no one person should be able to put the lives and treasure of America at risk.

That isn't to say Congress always gets it right. This Chamber and the House Chamber, they had a debate over the authorization to go to war in Afghanistan. These two Chambers, they had a debate over going to war in Iraq. I believe they got it wrong on both occasions. But there was an opportunity to seek information, to compare ideas, to wrestle with the prospect--an appropriate debate on such a monumental question.

Now, this Chamber and the House Chamber have started to exercise their

responsibility to the Constitution. Because if we turn the clock back, in the wake of Vietnam, when there was no authorization, Congress passed the War Powers Act, and the War Powers Act attempted to create a framework so that we would know how to exercise the debate for the question of war. And it said the President--unless our interests are attacked--cannot go to war unless there is authorization from both Chambers. Pretty clear. It also said the President, if we were attacked, could go to war for no more than 60 days without getting authorization from this Chamber.

Now, in this case, America had not been threatened in the fashion envisioned in the War Powers Act, but the President went to war anyway. So in that case we shouldn't have been under the 60 days. But many of my colleagues in the majority thought that applied, and so we voted time and time and time again. And time and time again my colleagues failed to honor the Constitution and say to the President: Stop and get an authorization because that is what the Constitution says.

But then the House held a vote, and the House voted to actually pass a War Powers Resolution. And it automatically came over here, and it automatically came up on the floor. And we passed it this week 50 to 48. We adopted it. And that concurrent resolution--this one right here--this says: Mr. President, stop military hostilities unless you get authorization from Congress.

Here is the exact wording:

Congress directs the President to remove United States

Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of

Iran.

And at the close of it, it notes that action can only occur if it is ``explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or a specific congressional authorization for use of military force against Iran.''

So, Mr. President--and I am speaking Mr. President of the United States of America--Congress has spoken, exercising its power under the Constitution. You cannot restart hostilities against Iran unless you get an authorization.

You know, in 2015, many mocked the JCPOA. They said war is the only way to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. But now here we are at this moment, and it turns out that we had the war and that diplomacy is the only way to actually stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.

And that JCPOA, it restricted Iran's nuclear stockpile to 300 kilograms--that is 300 kilograms of uranium--and prohibited uranium enrichment above 3.67 percent. That is a very low level, way lower than bomb level. It shipped their more highly enriched uranium out of Iran to be under the care and supervision of another country. It dismantled and removed the bulk of their centrifuges. It created vigorous-- vigorous--verification by international inspectors.

There were a lot of details that were worked out to ensure that there was no path to a nuclear bomb. And, in fact, it required them to dismantle their plutonium reactor in Iran called the Arak reactor. It took 2 years to negotiate.

And our Republican colleagues cheered when Donald Trump tore up that extensive, detailed agreement blocking the path to a nuclear weapon. They cheered when President Trump tore it up.

Well, I don't hear any cheering now, when it turns out this war of choice has hurt everyone, in every possible way. More than 100 days of war, and Iran still has their enriched uranium. And because Donald Trump tore up the JCPOA, they now have 1,000 pounds of more highly enriched uranium, enriched to 60 percent, enough for 10 nuclear weapons, because Donald Trump tore up the agreement that blocked that from happening.

In return for ending the war, Iran has agreed to just 60 days of negotiating in which they will talk about maybe returning to some of the framework of the JCPOA. Pretty humiliating for Donald Trump.

But humiliation is not the question. I hope the President and his team will be successful in the negotiation to restore the many elements that blocked the path to a nuclear weapon. That is in the interest of all of us. I have little hope, however, that they will reach that agreement in 2 months, in 60 days.

So here is my crystal ball, Jeff's crystal ball: No detailed agreement on Iran nuclear material will be signed by mid-August when the 60 days expire. I hope I am wrong.

It is also the case that we have a law that says any nuclear deal must be submitted to Congress. So let's make sure that law is followed.

We have seen the costs in blood and treasure when a President goes it alone. We have been reminded of the wisdom of our Founders, who said the President is not allowed, constitutionally, to go it alone. We can't afford to have that happen again. And yesterday, finally, Congress passed a bill--a resolution to rein in Trump's war. Do you know that that is the first time that we have actually done that since the 1973 War Powers Act was signed--the first time that both Chambers approved a concurrent resolution directing the President to end a military conflict? It is a powerful condemnation of President Trump's war of choice.

I will tell you, I am concerned not just about how the negotiations will go, because I know how complicated they will be from how complicated they were when President Obama undertook those negotiations. Again, I hope they are successful, but I will tell you, I am worried that they won't be. And I am worried that an angry and a humiliated Donald Trump, who has slunk away from the war like a stuck dog, is going to try to distract from all of this--distract by trying to rig the November election.

In fact, today, he was here to talk to Senators of his party about how to rig the November election, that he wants his SAVE Act passed that stops American citizens from voting that he doesn't want to vote. He doesn't want college students to vote. He doesn't want Tribal members to vote. He doesn't want women to vote. He doesn't want people living in cities to vote. And he has crafted a bill to make it very hard for those people to vote because he wants to rig the election.

And I am also worried that he will create another international incident, perhaps with an attack or further action regarding Cuba, because when Trump makes one mess, he starts a new mess in order to distract from the previous mess.

Donald Trump's Operation Epic Fury has become ``Operation Epic Failure,'' devastating for the United States of America, and all Americans should be furious at this abuse of the Constitution and all the harm that has come from it.

Mr. President, I want to make a few remarks now about the Congressional Review Act vote we will be taking later tonight.

And here is the thing. This is so straightforward, in terms of, here in the United States of America, pursuit of an education to serve the people of this country should never be a privilege reserved only for the wealthiest Americans.

Indeed, don't we want every child to have the opportunity to thrive, to get a graduate degree, to get a professional degree, to be able to serve in the many capacities where we are desperately short of individuals? Of course we do.

And this is something very near and dear to my heart because I am a blue-collar kid, and my father said, when I was in grade school: Go to the doors of the schoolhouse. You go through those doors, and you study hard, and you can do just about anything in America, because we are so fortunate to live in America.

That is a beautiful idea--that every child has the opportunity to pursue their dreams, and if that requires a college education, to be able to pay for a college education without a millstone of debt around their neck or just the actual impossibilities of having access to enough funds to pay tuition.

So I pursued that vision. And my interest did take me to college. And I did borrow money, and I did get scholarship, and I did wash dishes, year after year, in order to help get through.

But that journey is becoming so much harder now, when college is so much more expensive. When I got out of high school, if you worked a minimum-wage job, the summer of 1974, at $3 an hour, you could save enough money, living at home, to pay the tuition for a public university in my home State of Oregon.

Or you might still have to work in order to, well, have a room to live in and have food to eat. But you could pay the tuition.

And now it is completely out of sync. You cannot save enough on minimum wage, which is still only, you know, in many States, only $7.50, or half that if you have a job that has tips, in many States. There is no way you can pay your tuition.

And so shouldn't we all be working to make it easier for children to actually get the expertise that we need in our services, in our economy? But, indeed, we are going in the other direction.

I have often spoken about how I feel the Big Beautiful Bill, as Trump called it, hurt Americans along the way, kicking millions of Americans off of health insurance and gutting nutrition and slashing funding for higher education. Why?

But now we have something else, which is a rule from the Trump administration that will make it very hard for ordinary children coming from modest means--families of modest means or very restricted income-- to be able to go on to college and to go to graduate school.

In fact, that bill--that Big Beautiful Bill, as Trump called it-- eliminated the Grad PLUS loans, which allowed students to borrow the full amount of their program, and replaced those loans with two categories. A graduate degree student is limited to borrowing $20,500 a year and up to $100,000 in total.

So that restriction--a graduate degree student--whom does that apply to? Well, it applies to nurses, to social workers, to physician associates, to teachers, to engineers, to physical therapists, and to many other categories.

And so those professions are told: You can only borrow $20,500 a year.

So what does that mean? It means that since tuition is often much higher than $20,500--and then throw in the dormitory and throw in the food--well, you are talking $40,000 a year.

There is a survey from the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, which reports the average cost of a nursing program is $38,500 a year--the average cost--so often over $40,000.

So what is the effect of putting this limit of $20,500? Well, this is a gift to the predatory lenders. Now, one friend of my son's, well, she had 6 percent loans that were the government loans, and then she had to get private loans. What was the interest rate on that? It was 11 percent.

We are basically saying: Hey, if you are wealthy and your parents can pay your tuition and your dormitory and your food, hey, you are golden. The avenue of opportunity is for you.

But if you are from a family that doesn't have the ability to pay that cash and you have to borrow, we are going to force you to borrow loans that are 9, 10, 11, 12 percent because we don't want that avenue of opportunity for you. We only want it for the rich kids.

This is a rule for rich America, and this is a penalty against normal people. That is wrong. I thought this democracy was supposed to be of, by, and for the people, not special, gold-plated avenues for the kids of the richest families.

And I know that this Chamber is full of multimillionaires--maybe a few billionaires--who don't know the darnedest thing about how families struggle across this Nation and how much they want their kids to have opportunity too.

So this is very simple. Let's reject this rule that puts up a huge barrier for the children of families of modest means and medium incomes or low incomes. Let's knock down that barrier. Let's not force them into predatory lending.

Now, there are some who say: But wait. We think that the schools will lower their tuition as a result of us making loans unavailable.

That is a false premise. Never worked anywhere because the schools have to pay the professors. They have to pay for the infrastructure. They have to pay interest on the buildings they have already built. And so they have to charge accordingly.

When we saw before--and we have been down this road--when there was a limit on public loans and people had to go to private loans--like the friend of my son--you end up with those 10, 11, 12 percent interest loans. They are predatory against our children of the next generation.

So who here wants to speak up for the rich to be the only ones with opportunity in this country? Let's strike down this rule and say to the President's team: When this bill was passed, no one in this Chamber meant to say that opportunity is only for the wealthy kids.

This is our opportunity. It is a Congressional Review Act. It means we can say no to a rule that puts up a hurdle to ordinary children.

So it isn't as if everything is rosy for the children of the next generation--hey, housing prices, up through the roof. Home ownership median age has risen from 33 to age 40 over just a 5-year period because the next generation can't afford to buy a home. Rents are pressing people against the wall. Tariffs have added so much cost to the families.

Why are we going to pile this predatory loan program on top of everything else? It is absolutely wrong. So let's just join together and say: Let's put this rule in the rubbish bin. Let's put it through the shredder because it only hurts the next generation that we should be striving to help thrive.

Will my colleague yield to a question?

I believe I understood you to say that you are citing a university that has lowered its tuition.

Did I understand that correctly?

Which university was that?

Is that a private or public school?

So here is the thing. There are 4,000 universities in the country. Do you have any idea how many have followed that example and lowered their tuition?

My colleague has got it completely wrong. There are less expensive ways to get a nursing degree. Indeed, my wife is a nurse, and she got her 2-year nursing degree at a community college. We were very, very fortunate to get even some scholarships to help her do that at a time when our income was extremely little.

But here is the thing: There aren't very many slots like that. With the 4-year programs that are throughout Oregon at private universities, you can't come close to paying your annual expenses at $20,500. We need a lot more nursing slots because there are a lot of folks who are coming out of high school with straight A's. They can do the statistics, and they can do all the prerequisites, but there just aren't enough slots. So we are wrestling with the fact that we are importing a lot of nurses from overseas rather than providing opportunities for our kids.

What this means is, yes, you are right. There are some ways to get a nursing degree--a 2-year degree in particular--that are less, but most folks have to do another 2 years because now hospitals won't take a 2- year nurse. They often have to go to a private program, and those programs average $38,500 a year.

The math is simple. For the families like the family I come from, wherein you have to borrow, borrowing at 6 percent is a hell of a lot better than borrowing at 11 percent. With the rich, their families have home equity loans. If they are going to borrow, they borrow at 6. So we are saying: Here is this big obstacle for ordinary people who don't have parents who are affluent.

It is just the math.

The idea that all of those programs are going to be able to lower their $38,500, on average--many are much more--to $20,500 is just false. There may be one or two universities that have lowered it, and by the way, they did it in anticipation--and maybe for different reasons--because this hasn't gone into effect yet. It is going into effect a few days from now. That is why we are talking about this now. It is going to affect folks who are going to school next year. So this is very disturbing to me that we are creating this obstacle for families who need help.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to proceed to Calendar No. 432, S.J. Res. 196.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to grant floor privileges to my interns on their shadow days on the following dates: Anjali Weerasinghe on July 15, 2026, and Kainat Deo on August 5, 2026.

Mr. President, I rise to address an issue of importance to our commercial fisheries and to our weather and to scientific studies. Specifically, that is the issue of sustaining the Ocean Observatories Initiative. It is a system of 900 sensors that we have in five different arrays around the oceans surrounding the United States that provide immense information--these anchored sensors--on the salinity, which is the salt content of the water, on the temperature, on the current direction, and on the phytoplankton at the bottom of the food chain. All of that information gives us enormously improved understanding of our ocean conditions. In fact, that information has been used in over 500 academic studies.

Now, what value is this?

Well, understanding our commercial fisheries is essential for maintaining the success of our commercial fisheries, and a huge amount of our weather is affected by the temperature of the ocean in different locations. That is why you hear weathermen talking about El Nino and La Nina--because they are large, massive bodies of water that are either colder than usual or warmer than usual and are changing all the patterns of weather.

It is also important for understanding climate change because the ocean stores some--I think it is--90 percent of the temperature increases that come from carbon dioxide and monoxide.

To get to the point, the National Science Foundation has started pulling out these arrays--it started yesterday--with an array called the Coastal Endurance Array off the coast of Oregon. But to everyone who represents any oceanfront in the United States, these are incredibly valuable investments. We have spent $386 million in developing these arrays. They are supposed to provide information for 30 years, and pulling them out makes no sense.

So this bill that we have teamed up on--Alaska and Oregon, myself and Senator Lisa Murkowski--is simple.

It says: National Science Foundation, stop dismantling this enormously valuable array until we can have a full study of the pros and cons and stakeholder input because we cannot make a mistake and undermine the success of our commercial fisheries, our recreational fisheries, and our understanding of the weather and climate.

With that, I would like to turn this over to my colleague from Alaska.

Mr. President, I would like to very much thank my colleague from Alaska. We were both shocked to hear about this plan to remove these sensors.

The sea off Alaska and certainly off the coast of the Northwestern United States--Oregon, Washington--are incredible assets that we need to understand. And I think about how, off Oregon, you have the California current and the Pacific upwelling that give some of the most productive fisheries to be found anywhere on the planet--from the salmon to the rockfish, to the groundfish, to the whiting, to the shrimp, to the crabs. And I know there are very similar, very rich conditions in the seas off Alaska.

So it is a pleasure to collaborate with my colleague and for us to gain the support of our fellow Senators on both sides of the aisle to say it is very important to protect this system of sensors, the Ocean Observatories Initiative, for the good work it is going to help provide for weather, for commercial fisheries, recreational fisheries, and understanding climate. So thank you.

Mr. President, I submit this statement on behalf of Senator Durbin, Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee; Senator Peters, Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and myself.

Federal law prohibits bills enacted through the budget reconciliation process from effectuating primarily substantive changes to law that are not related to fiscal policy. The budget reconciliation process is reserved for changes to the Federal budget and specifically precludes the inclusion of ``extraneous'' matters, including any provision whose budgetary effect is ``merely incidental'' to its nonbudgetary policy components. These limitations on the reconciliation process are commonly referred to as the ``Byrd rule'' after Senator Robert Byrd, who championed their enactment. So long as these limitations, among several others, are adhered to, a budget reconciliation bill can pass the Senate with only simple majority votes; but any language that does not comply with the Byrd rule is subject to a point of order that requires 60 votes to waive. In practice, the minority scrutinizes every provision of a reconciliation bill and challenges those it believes violate the Byrd rule in litigation before the Senate Parliamentarian, which occurs before the Senate considers the bill on the floor. In response to successful challenges, the majority often strikes or revises text ahead of floor consideration.

This statement highlights sections of S. 2, the Secure America Act, the fiscal year 2026 reconciliation bill passed by the Senate on June 5, 2026, to further demonstrate that provisions passed through the reconciliation process must be read in accordance with the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-457; 122 Stat. 5044), hereinafter the TVPRA, the Flores Settlement Agreement, and other applicable laws.

On May 4, 2026, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee--or HSGAC--Chair Paul released the

proposed Senate HSGAC title of what became S. 2, the Secure America Act. This proposed text included language concerning screenings of unaccompanied children in Section 3(a)(6) that was identical to Section 90004(a)(6) of Public Law 119-21, the fiscal year 2025 reconciliation bill commonly known as the ``One Big Beautiful Bill Act.'' The May 4, 2026, HSGAC title also included language to provide funding for the purposes under title IX of Public Law 119-21, therefore carrying forward section 90003 regarding detention capacity and section 90004(a)(6) of that law.

The Trump administration is currently relying on provisions of Public Law 119-21, which are identical to section 3(a)(6) and referenced by section 4 in the proposed May 4, 2026, HSGAC title, to contravene legislative provisions for the identification and screening of unaccompanied children and to override a settlement agreement governing the care and custody of children detained in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection--or CBP-- custody. For instance, the Department of Justice cited section 90003 of Public Law 119-21 in district and appellate briefs where they assert the authority to detain families indefinitely in family residential centers. In its implementation of section 90004(a)(6) of Public Law 119-21, CBP has changed its screening of unaccompanied children. Under this new processing mechanism, CBP claims it is now permitted to ask unaccompanied children from noncontiguous countries to withdraw applications for admission to the United States. Such substantive policy overrides would not comply with the Byrd rule.

Given the administration's position on the fiscal year 2025 reconciliation bill, the minority challenged section 3(a)(6) and section 4 of the May 4, 2026, HSGAC text as violating the Byrd rule because the administration would again incorrectly claim that this language constitutes congressional authorization of their new policies related to unaccompanied children and family detention. The Parliamentarian sustained the Democrats' challenges to section 3(a)(6) and section 4, as indicated by a May 14, 2026, press release published by the U.S. Senate Committee on the Budget. Senate Republicans then released a subsequent version of the HSGAC title, specifically the text reported out of HSGAC on May 19, 2026, and the Budget Committee on May 20, 2026, which removed the offending language regarding unaccompanied children in section 3 and the reference to Public Law 119-21 in section 4. These changes reinforce that neither congressional intent nor statutory authorization should be read into, or inferred from, either Public Law 119-21 or the Secure America Act, to change the implementation of immigration law or override settlement agreements, including the TVPRA and the Flores Settlement Agreement.

On May 4, 2026, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Grassley released the proposed Senate Judiciary Committee title of what became S. 2, the Secure America Act. This proposed text allocated funds to the U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security through fiscal year 2029. It included language in section 3 to provide $2.5 billion for the purposes provided in the title as well as in part II of subtitle A of title X of Public Law 119-21.

Since its passage, the Trump administration has relied upon section 100051(8) of Public Law 119-21 to set aside legal protections enshrined in the TVPRA for unaccompanied children. The TVPRA limits voluntary withdrawal to children from contiguous countries, and it states that, absent ``exceptional circumstances,'' children from noncontiguous countries must be transferred to Office of Refugee Resettlement custody within 72 hours of entering CBP custody and placed in full removal proceedings. In a recent letter to Senator Wyden, however, CBP Commissioner Scott wrote: ``The language in Section 100051(8) of [Public Law 119-21] makes it permissible to allow certain [unaccompanied children] who are screened and determined to be eligible--including those from noncontiguous countries--the opportunity to withdraw their application for admission and voluntarily return to their country of origin, if they choose to do so.'' In another telling example, the administration relied on section 100051(8) in attempting to overturn a 40-year-old permanent injunction requiring that unaccompanied children receive written notice of the right to a hearing in immigration court and access to a telephone to call a responsible adult or lawyer. As with the HSGAC title, however, such substantive policy changes would not comply with the Byrd rule.

Given the Parliamentarian's determinations with respect to the HSGAC title, and in light of the positions taken by the administration that provisions of Public Law 119-21 override the TVPRA, the minority then challenged the proposed text of section 3 in the Judiciary title. That text was also amended in the subsequent version released by Senate Republicans ahead of floor consideration. In order to meet the requirements of the Byrd rule, proposed section 3--which became section 203 of S. 2, the Secure America Act--was narrowed to remove references to provisions related to the treatment of unaccompanied children. The final language allocated $2.5 billion to the purposes provided in the Judiciary title or for paragraphs (3) or (7) of section 100051 of Public Law 119-21 only. Further still, to avoid future misapplications of funds issued through the budget reconciliation process, in section 202(9) of S. 2, the Secure America Act, provisions funding certain immigration enforcement actions emphasize that such funds must be utilized ``in accordance with existing laws.''

These changes reinforce that provisions in either Public Law 119-21 or the Secure America Act are not intended to change the implementation of immigration law or to override settlement agreements, including the TVPRA and the Flores Settlement Agreement.