Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise with my colleagues. I appreciate the Senator from Oregon and the UC he will seek in a few minutes about a very important bill to reclaim congressional authority over appropriations. I think both Senators Merkley and Murray have done a good job of laying out the law that appropriations are an article I power for Congress and the Impoundment Control Act requires that, once appropriated in a budget that the President signs, the dollars have to be spent.

And so they have done a great job with the law, and the President with these pocket rescissions is violating the law.

Since they have talked about the law, I want to talk about priorities. I want to talk about priorities and what this move of the President shows about his priorities.

When the news was announced that he was going to cancel $800 million of appropriated funding in a budget that he had signed, he and some others said they are trying to shrink government or make government more efficient.

Folks, that is a joke. That is a laugh line.

You heard my colleague from New Hampshire talking about spending money on ballrooms, on arches, on trying to put his name on buildings. He is not trying to shrink anything.

You see news in the last couple of days about President Trump stealing money from the Department of Homeland Security to run ``Love Me'' ads on television because he is so insecure about his low popularity.

Can I take money that is supposed to be going to protecting America's border and turn it into ``Love Me,'' ``Love Me,'' ``Love Me'' ads on television?

He is not trying to shrink anything. In fact, the White House is here trying to get us to agree to a 40-percent increase in the Pentagon's budget in the middle of an illegal war so he can continue to, as he says, restart bombing after the midterms.

Can I just ask this question: Has any President ever publicly put ``midterms'' and ``bombing'' in the same sentence?

I am likely to restart bombing after the midterms.

Who has that thought much less says it publicly? So the President who is cutting the $800 million is seeking more money for an illegal war, is running ads about himself on television, is trying to build ballrooms and arches and put his name on buildings--this is about priorities.

Can I tell you about just one of these items that the President is proposing to cut in the $800 million? It has been alluded to by my colleagues.

The $800 million in funding includes, in the midst of a housing crisis, when all of our constituents are talking to us about housing affordability--the Trump administration wants to cut $56 million to the HUD Housing Counseling Program, which aims to expand and preserve home ownership opportunities in every ZIP Code in America.

Now, this funding in Virginia enables nonprofit organizations in my Commonwealth and around the country to offer essential financial and support services for families looking to access the American dream of home ownership.

One of my providers in Virginia reports they have helped--using these funds--they have helped over 1,000 families in the past 2 years achieve the American dream of owning a home, and a large factor that has contributed to their success has been these funds that President Trump wants to cut.

With the funding, they have helped families build basic financial knowledge and the skills they need to become successful homeowners.

In other cases, they work with families for a year or more to help them repair their credit and pay down their debt and save for downpayments, which helps them afford to buy a home.

The long-term support has helped bridge the gap for families to find a home and ensure they are able to become successful and sustainable homeowners.

So the Trump administration's decision to cancel that funding when they are seeking money for ads or ballrooms or arches or names on buildings or illegal wars is directly affecting our constituents in their effort to have a piece of the American dream.

Everything my colleagues have said about the law is correct. This violates article I of the Constitution. It violates the Impoundment Control Act. It goes against the promise that the President made when he signed the budget, that he would implement it.

But the thing that makes me the maddest and the reason I am so excited to be here to support my colleague is, to cut programs that help Americans afford homes to fund ads and ballrooms and illegal wars shows that this administration's priorities are completely out of touch with what our citizens expect of us.

And I hope my colleagues--if they are not willing to stand up for their own prerogative as Members of the Senate to write a budget, at least stand up for your constituents who are crying out for housing relief and not let that money be taken away to be put into ballrooms and illegal wars.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the human rights reporting resolution that will be before the body within about 90 minutes. I am a cosponsor of the bill. Because this resolution is a little bit unusual, I thought I would describe sort of the procedural context and the reason for the statute and then describe why I strongly support a resolution to direct the Department of State to give us a human rights report about Israeli activities on the West Bank, violence against folks on the West Bank and in particular violence against Americans on the West Bank, for which there has been as of yet little or no accountability.

This is a provision that is called a 502B resolution. Like some other resolutions that I brought to the floor in the last year, it is a privileged resolution, and the ``privilege'' means that a single Senator can file it seeking a human rights report on any nation. The resolution cannot be locked up in committee. Within a certain number of days, it ripens, and it is guaranteed a floor vote with a simple- majority passage threshold.

The theme that seems to unify these privileged resolutions is it is an effort of a Senator--even a single Senator--to shine a spotlight on and demand accountability from the Executive. Whether that is on the declaration of an emergency or the transfer of arms or the initiation of war or, in this case, the provision of U.S. aid, a Senator has the right to force a vote on the Senate to explore in this case the human rights record of any nation receiving U.S. aid.

This is not the first such resolution I have brought to the floor. I brought one to the floor 6 or 8 months ago to seek a human rights report on El Salvador because El Salvador was receiving all these deported individuals from America--not Salvadorans--and imprisoning them in a notorious prison. In that case, I sought information about the conditions of imprisonment. What was the deal between the United States and El Salvador? What is the human rights record of that prison? Can someone in the prison from the United States demonstrate that they are the wrong person, that they picked up the wrong person?

So this is the second such resolution I have helped bring to the floor, and I have about two dozen others that I have filed and that are pending--all the nations into which the President is sending folks pursuant to these third-country deportations. I believe it would be important for Congress to get the information about the transfers, about the cost, about the agreements, and about the human rights records.

So this is part of a larger strategy that was put into statute to enable Congress to test the human rights record of nations that are receiving U.S. aid.

In this instance, this resolution, which was initially cosponsored by Senators Van Hollen, Sanders, and I but now has a number of cosponsors, is specifically to seek a State Department report on the Israel human rights record about the treatment of folks on the West Bank. It lists a number of circumstances in which U.S. citizens--mostly Palestinian American but U.S. citizens--have been killed or injured on the West Bank, and there has been no accountability for that by the Israeli Government.

The circumstances on the West Bank are pretty dire. If you just go based upon Israeli media or Israeli human rights organizations, there have been significant public instances of attacks on Palestinian communities on the West Bank for which there has been no accountability. But the notice of these particular attacks has not just been limited to Israeli press or Israeli human rights organizations; international organizations have raised the same issue, but also, importantly, so have U.S. officials serving in Israel during multiple Democratic and Republican administrations.

For example, I have attended briefings where U.S. military officials posted in Israel have described instances of violence on the West Bank committed by Israelis and in some instances even Israeli security forces or Israeli IDF reservists. So the violence is not just private- on-private violence, but some of it is being facilitated and even encouraged or participated in by members of the Israeli Government, and that is reporting from the U.S. military.

Recently, President Trump's Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, whom I knew as Governor Huckabee because we served as Governors together 20 years ago, has similarly complained about violence against folks on the West Bank perpetrated by Israelis--in this case, Israeli settlers--and the lack of any accountability for that violence. Obviously, that should raise serious, serious concerns, but when the violence is also perpetrated against Americans who are there on the West Bank to study, there on the West Bank to visit their families, there on the West Bank to be human rights observers or journalists--when the violence is committed against Americans, we need to take specific steps to make sure we understand that there will be accountability.

That is what this resolution would do. It would require the Department of State, within a set period of time, to issue a human rights report that specifically addresses the questions that are listed in the resolution and particularly those questions that bear upon violence committed against Americans and what Israel can or will do about it.

Anything dealing with United States-Israel relations or the Middle East, frankly, is controversial because it is such a challenging area. And let's be clear, Israel is a friend. Israel is an ally. That friendship is between the American people and the Israeli people. It is between the American Nation and the State of Israel. That friendship is a friendship that is really important regardless of which leaders are in place.

This is a relationship that goes back to the United States' decision under President Truman to immediately recognize the nation of Israel once the U.N. decided in 1947 that there would be an Israel for the Jewish people and a Palestine for Palestinian people. President Truman immediately recognized the nation of Israel, and that is one of the reasons why Truman is one of my favorite Presidents.

However, ``friendship and partnership'' are not the same as ``complete agreement.'' In fact, if you are not candid with your friends and if you can't have a friendship that can survive being candid with one another, it is not

really a friendship. A friendship is only tested when you are candid with each other and find out whether the relationship lasts through disagreement. This is an area of pretty profound disagreement between many of us and that nation of Israel.

As I conclude, I would say that the reason this resolution is on the floor is because of a deep perception by many of us in this body that despite that friendship, we are not being listened to. We are not being listened to.

Many of us in both parties and administrations of both parties have raised this issue of violence against Palestinians on the West Bank over and over and over again with those in the Israeli Government that we have interacted with.

I know I have, in my visits to Israel over the years as mayor and Governor and Senator, in sessions we have had with Israeli leaders on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and in discussions we have had with Knesset members and others--I have specifically raised in person and by letter and now in joining in this resolution this issue of violence against people living on the West Bank and what needs to be done about it.

I will be blunt. Despite raising this issue privately in the way that you would maybe first want a dialogue with a friend--raising the issue and seeking assistance--and raising it multiple times, I have come to the conclusion that I am not being listened to. I have come to the conclusion that even though this is a friendship that matters and even though the United States is Israel's most important security partner, they are completely ignoring us when we raise important human rights issues such as this one.

So when a friend is speaking to you as a friend and urging you to do better--that is what friends do for one another--and the friend is being ignored, you end up making resolutions like the one we will vote on later a necessity.

So it is my hope that we will get a robust vote on the need for the State Department to fully lay out the human rights record and particularly what will be done to stop violence against all on the West Bank but especially what will be done to stop violence against Americans on the West Bank.

For that reason, I am very happy to join my colleague Senator Van Hollen and others, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the resolution when it comes up later.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, President Trump's war against Iran has been deeply unpopular--from the very first day--in Virginia and among Americans, and it is growing more and more unpopular with each passing day.

It is unpopular because Americans don't want to see 18 troops lose their lives. They don't want to see the Pentagon undercounting troop deaths.

It is unpopular because the American people don't want to see hundreds of combat casualties for no legitimate purpose and a concern that the Pentagon is undercounting combat casualties.

It is unpopular because Americans--and Virginians, in particular-- don't want to see extended deployments of carrier strike groups and their loved ones away from home. A report came out yesterday that there were eight attempted suicides in the Lincoln Carrier Strike Group because of the extended deployment.

It is unpopular because having your sons and daughters deployed overseas,

as 1,200 Virginia Guard members were last Saturday, in a war of choice and with no clear plan or strategy, leaves families uncertain about the future.

It is unpopular because diesel prices are going up, and other prices are going up.

It is unpopular because Americans don't want to see a U.S. missile hit a school and kill hundreds of kids.

It is unpopular because Americans don't appreciate a leader who would tear up a diplomatic deal that was working and, instead, prefer a war that is not working.

It is unpopular because it is depleting our munitions.

It is unpopular because it is adding to our debt.

It is unpopular because Americans have spent now more than 100 billion extra dollars in fuel costs than they would have without this war.

The good news is that we can do something about it. We don't have to stand back and just say: Wow, the President has decided, for silly reasons, to start an illegal war, and I guess we just have to go along.

And that is what this vote is about.

We have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution. The Constitution says the President cannot declare war, only Congress can. There has been no congressional declaration of war. The President is violating the Constitution with this war.

There is a statute that allows the President to defend the country for 60 days without Congress, but it requires that that military action expire at the end of 60 days. We are well past 60 days. The President is not only not following the Constitution, he is not following the War Powers Act.

Third, we have passed a concurrent resolution--Congress, both Houses, under a Republican majority--declaring the war illegal. The President has ignored that.

We directed him: Withdraw troops or get an authorization.

He has done neither, and it is not likely he will do either.

But the American public is speaking loud and clear and saying: You in the Senate--you can do something about it.

And that is what this resolution is about.

The House, for the second time, has passed a concurrent resolution provided under the War Powers Act. We will now vote, and it is my hope we will vote with them to declare, yet again, that this is an illegal war and that the President should stop it.

In closing, I will just say this: The President appeared at the U.N. earlier this week and said it was his decision as to whether to do a peace deal or whether to annihilate the nation of Iran. We have never had a President who talks like this, and we never should again. But it is not his decision; it is our decision.

The time to make a decision to end this war is upon us. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the concurrent resolution.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to ask the Senate to join me in recognizing MCPO Kristina Lynne Koch for her 23 years of outstanding Navy Active-Duty service, including her time as my defense fellow in 2023 and 2024, and her subsequent assignment to the Navy's Office of Legislative Affairs. Prior to her exposure to the legislative branch, she served in the Navy's Office of Women's Policy, where she oversaw the critical parenthood and pregnancy portfolio. In this vital role, she served as a tireless advocate for military families and female servicemembers, spearheading landmark initiatives that modernized naval uniform regulations and directly enhanced the quality of life for thousands of sailors.

Master Chief Koch began her distinguished career as a cryptologic technician interpretive, studying Arabic at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, CA. Her assignments included serving as a language analyst and training branch chief at Naval Security Group Activity, Fort Gordon, GA, Air Operations Leading Chief Petty Officer for Navy Information Operations Command (NIOC) Georgia Air Operations Division, Arabic Apprentice Cryptologic Language Program Instructor at Center for Information Warfare Training (CIWT) Detachment Fort Gordon, and CTI & Intel Program Manager for the Navy Senior Language Authority at OPNAV N1, Chief of Naval Personnel.

As my fellow and during her tenure in Navy OLA, Master Chief Koch had a profound impact, spearheading the coordination of a Supreme Court amicus brief that protected vital veterans' benefits legislation and cementing an enduring legacy by overhauling the Navy's legislative fellows program and ensuring expanded senior enlisted representation.

For these reasons, I ask the U.S. Senate to join me in expressing our deepest gratitude to Master Chief Koch for her exemplary dedication to our Nation as she retires from the U.S. Navy. Throughout her 23 years of service, both in uniform and as the mother of two outstanding young adults Audrey and Austin Pyle, Master Chief Koch has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the defense of our Nation and the future of our country. Her profound patriotism, stellar leadership, and tireless work ethic leave an enduring legacy that has strengthened our national defense.

Madam President, I would like to recognize the 40th anniversary of the Transportation Community Awareness and Emergency Response, TRANSCAER, program and its contributions to hazardous materials transportation safety and emergency preparedness.

Since its establishment in 1986, TRANSCAER has become a trusted public-private partnership bringing together industry, emergency responders, government agencies, and community stakeholders to advance safety and preparedness nationwide. The program has provided critical training and outreach to hundreds of thousands of emergency responders across the United States and enhanced their ability to respond safely and effectively to hazardous materials incidents. It has also delivered a wide range of training initiatives, including classroom instruction, hands-on exercises, virtual learning, and full-scale drills that reflect real-world response challenges. TRANSCAER has also continued to evolve to address emerging risks associated with hazardous materials, including lithium-ion batteries and alternative fuels, while complementing Federal efforts to enhance our country's emergency response capabilities.

Through the dedication of volunteers, industry leaders, emergency responders, and partner organizations who have contributed their time, expertise, and resources, TRANSCAER has strengthened community resilience by improving coordination, communication, and preparedness before, during, and after hazardous materials transportation incidents. The program reflects the shared commitment of public and private sector partners to protect communities, safeguard the environment, and support those who serve on the frontlines of emergency response. On the 40th anniversary of the program, I would like to once again recognize TRANSCAER for its significant contributions to hazardous materials transportation safety, emergency preparedness, and community resilience, and express my gratitude to the emergency responders, volunteers, industry partners, and organizations who have supported its mission over the past four decades.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Oscar Baez, a legislative fellow in my office, be given floor privileges for the duration of his fellowship.

Mr. President, it is good to be together with my colleagues, and I needn't repeat, but what I will say is I view this effort by President Trump and the administration to go after collective bargaining rights as a larger attack on the idea of public service because we have seen Federal employees laid off in record numbers through the DOGE actions at the beginning of the administration, through buyouts that were somewhat involuntary. One of the things the administration did early was they sort of indiscriminately laid off probationary employees because those employees don't have the ability to easily challenge their layoffs.

Those probationary employees included massive numbers of veterans who because they had left Active Duty service and then joined the Federal civil service were probationary for the first 2 years, even though they were midcareer professionals who had patriotically served their country for decades.

So you have stripping away collective bargaining rights. You have laying off probationary employees. You have other DOGE cuts. You have forced purchases trying to buy people out, trading civil servant for political so that they can be more easily fired.

Announcing that you are going to move Agencies out of the DC area with the hopes that when you do, a lot of Federal employees may not move with it. This is all an effort to just dramatically shrink those who were serving the American public.

And so what do you see? My colleagues and I know, tax season is a season where a lot of people are calling Agencies to try to get help. We had done a good job in reducing waiting times on the phone so that people could actually get their questions answered. They ballooned again this year because of all these layoffs.

Of all the things that demonstrate the attack on public service that this stripping of collective bargaining is a piece of, the one that I think that just speaks most obviously was the one that came out about a week ago, that the administration put on administrative leave thousands of Federal employees and paid them anyway, but locked them out of their jobs so that they could not serve their fellow Americans.

How is this effective to pay billions of dollars--billions of dollars to people--but force them to stay home and not let them serve their fellow Americans answering their tax questions, inspecting for food safety, being part of the national security apparatus? It is just an overall effort to attack Federal employees, even if you are going to waste money to do it.

Our Federal employees want to serve their fellow Americans. We should allow them to do it free of intimidation or reprisal, and that is why I am so strong to stand with my colleague from Virginia to support the Protect America's Workforce Act.

Madam President, I rise today to congratulate Rear Admiral Jennifer S. Courture on her retirement from the U.S. Navy and to honor her for more than 31 years of distinguished service to our Nation.

Throughout her extraordinary career, Rear Admiral Couture has exemplified the highest ideals of leadership, professionalism, and public service. A native of Vineland, NJ, who spent much of her naval career in Virginia, she was commissioned through the Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps program at George Washington University in 1995 and went on to serve with distinction across multiple sea, shore, and flag assignments.

At sea, Rear Admiral Couture served aboard USS Wasp, USS Saipan, USS Elrod, USS Leyte Gulf, and USS Porter. She commanded USS Kauffman and Destroyer Squadron 28, deploying twice as Sea Combat Commander with the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group, one of the few women to command a carrier strike group in Navy history, highlighting her role as a trailblazer for women in the armed forces.

Her leadership style has focused on empowering sailors and fostering a culture of excellence within her command. Her operational service included support for Operations Joint Endeavor, Active Endeavor, Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom, and Inherent Resolve.

Ashore, she held key leadership and policy roles that strengthened the Navy's people, readiness, and operational effectiveness, including service with Commander, U.S. Atlantic Fleet; Naval Surface Force Atlantic; U.S. Joint Forces Command; the Center for a New American Security; and the Office of the Chief of Naval Personnel. Furthermore, Rear Admiral Couture completed studies at the U.S. Naval War College and the Joint Forces Staff College and earned a master of arts degree from Old Dominion University and a doctor of education in Organizational leadership from Northeastern University.

As a flag officer, Rear Admiral Couture continued to lead at the highest levels, serving as Commander, Naval Service Training Command; Commander, Carrier Strike Group Eleven; and Director, Military Personnel Plans and Policy, OPNAV N13. In each role, she advanced the development, readiness, and success of sailors and naval forces entrusted to her leadership.

Rear Admiral Couture's career reflects a sustained commitment to mission, mentorship, innovation, and the people who make the U.S. Navy strong. Her accomplishments--including numerous personal, unit, and service awards, among them the Legion of Merit--stand as a testament to her devotion to country and to the sailors she has led and inspired.

As she concludes more than three decades of honorable service, I congratulate her on an exceptional naval career and wish her and her family fair winds and following seas in retirement.

Mr. President, today I want to discuss legislation I am introducing, the School Infrastructure Modernization Act, with my colleague Senator Warner.

The Federal tax credit for historic preservation is a critical source of funding for renovating historic and aging buildings across the country. While the credit can often be used for turning an aging school building into a commercial building, such as an office or retail location, it is difficult to use the credit to rehabilitate a school while continuing to use it as a school postrenovations. The intent of this bill is to make it easier for schools to benefit from this funding while continuing to serve as a school.

As a Richmond city council member and later mayor, I faced challenges familiar to many municipalities--overcrowded schools, aging buildings, and limited dollars in the budget. But in one particular case, I and a group of local stakeholders identified a creative solution. On one hand, we had an overcrowded Thomas Jefferson High School with in-zone and magnet students. On the other hand, we had a closed Maggie Walker High School that needed renovations. We put together a financing package that made use of Federal and State historic tax credits to renovate Maggie Walker High School and satisfied the prior use rule by consolidating the magnet program from Thomas Jefferson into a new Maggie Walker Governor's School for Government and International Studies. Today, over 20 years later, this is one of America's highest performing public high schools. Without the Federal historic tax credit, this would have been too expensive to make happen.

This bill will make it easier to do similar projects around the country. More modern school buildings will bolster the quality of public education, and carrying out these projects will generate private sector infrastructure investment and jobs. In Virginia alone, according to a 2021 study, more than 1,000 K through 12 schools are at least 50 years old, representing more than half of all the K through 12 schools in the Commonwealth.

I encourage my colleagues to support this commonsense incentive that is good for education, good for infrastructure, and good for jobs.

Mr. President, today I want to discuss legislation I am introducing, the School Infrastructure Modernization Act, with my colleague Senator Warner.

The Federal tax credit for historic preservation is a critical source of funding for renovating historic and aging buildings across the country. While the credit can often be used for turning an aging school building into a commercial building, such as an office or retail location, it is difficult to use the credit to rehabilitate a school while continuing to use it as a school postrenovations. The intent of this bill is to make it easier for schools to benefit from this funding while continuing to serve as a school.

As a Richmond city council member and later mayor, I faced challenges familiar to many municipalities--overcrowded schools, aging buildings, and limited dollars in the budget. But in one particular case, I and a group of local stakeholders identified a creative solution. On one hand, we had an overcrowded Thomas Jefferson High School with in-zone and magnet students. On the other hand, we had a closed Maggie Walker High School that needed renovations. We put together a financing package that made use of Federal and State historic tax credits to renovate Maggie Walker High School and satisfied the prior use rule by consolidating the magnet program from Thomas Jefferson into a new Maggie Walker Governor's School for Government and International Studies. Today, over 20 years later, this is one of America's highest performing public high schools. Without the Federal historic tax credit, this would have been too expensive to make happen.

This bill will make it easier to do similar projects around the country. More modern school buildings will bolster the quality of public education, and carrying out these projects will generate private sector infrastructure investment and jobs. In Virginia alone, according to a 2021 study, more than 1,000 K through 12 schools are at least 50 years old, representing more than half of all the K through 12 schools in the Commonwealth.

I encourage my colleagues to support this commonsense incentive that is good for education, good for infrastructure, and good for jobs.

Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize an exemplary Virginian and outstanding citizen, LTC Mark L. Haaland, U.S. Army, Retired. Lieutenant Colonel Haaland is retiring from his position as director of government affairs for the Association of the United States Army, AUSA, where he has been a leading advocate and voice for the total Army--Regular Army, Army National Guard, U.S. Army Reserve, Army civilians, Army families, and veterans--for nearly 8 years. He exemplifies a lifetime of commitment and service to our Nation, his community, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and his family.

As the son of an Army officer and Vietnam war veteran, Lieutenant Colonel Haaland knew from a young age that his life's path would be one of service. After his family moved to Hampton, VA, in 1972, when his father was assigned to the Army Training and Doctrine Command, Mark attended Kecoughtan High School, where he met his future wife Toni Minetti. Following his graduation in 1975, he attended the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, graduating with the Class of 1979 before beginning a 20-year Army career as an armor officer serving in operational units and on the Army staff at the Pentagon.

Virginia has remained central to Lieutenant Colonel Haaland's life and service. He and Toni, a Hampton native whose father Pat Minetti devoted his own career to public service as a Hampton police officer before retiring as the city's chief of police, were married at Fort Monroe in 1979. During Lieutenant Colonel Haaland's Army service, the family returned to Hampton, while he served at the Army Training and Doctrine Command. Since his assignment to Headquarters, Department of the Army in 1993, Mark and Toni have made Fairfax County their home for more than three decades. Both of their children were born in Virginia, attended Virginia public schools, and graduated from Virginia universities.

After retiring from Active Duty, Lieutenant Colonel Haaland continued to dedicate his career to strengthening our national security. Whether serving on Capitol Hill, in the private sector, or in the nonprofit community, he has earned a reputation for steady leadership, a positive outlook, kindness, and professionalism. These qualities have been a source of strength for the many people he has led, mentored, and taught throughout his career.

At AUSA, headquartered in Arlington, VA, Lieutenant Colonel Haaland led the development and implementation of the association's outreach and advocacy strategy to advance AUSA's priorities before Congress and the executive branch. AUSA's government affairs mission is to educate, inform, and connect in support of the total Army through consistent, principled, and effective advocacy. Lieutenant Colonel Haaland has excelled in every aspect of that mission and has often remarked that it has been one of the greatest honors of his career to advocate for soldiers, Army civilians, veterans, retirees, and military families. He will be missed by all who have had the privilege to work with him.

Lieutenant Colonel Haaland's commitment to service extends well beyond his professional career. He and Toni are active parishioners at Saint Mary of Sorrows Catholic Church in Fairfax, where Mark ministers to homebound seniors and volunteers to help provide meals for those experiencing food insecurity. He also remains deeply engaged in Virginia's military and veterans community through the American Legion and the Military Officers Association of America.

Lieutenant Colonel Haaland has served the Nation he loves with distinction and has been an exemplary leader for soldiers, his coworkers, and his community. On behalf of the U.S. Senate, we thank LTC Mark L. Haaland, his wife Toni, and their entire

family for their decades of commitment, sacrifice, and service to our Nation and to the Commonwealth of Virginia. We join our colleagues in wishing him a long, healthy, and joyful retirement.

Mr. President, I rise to speak to what Americans all over this country are deeply feeling at this moment.

America is not a nation that prefers wars, but we are being led by an administration that is foolishly choosing war to solve problems that could best be solved by other means or--more troublingly--it is choosing to wage war to distract public attention from larger problems of its own making.

This pattern of foolishly choosing war, whatever the legality and whatever the price, is sacrificing the lives of American troops, killing innocent civilians, stressing our Nation's budget, imposing devastating costs on American families and businesses, dividing us from our allies, and shredding our reputation as a stabilizing force in the world.

The chaos and damage from these wars are mounting, even as the President contemplates more military misadventures in Cuba, Mali, and who knows where else.

Our constituents know that Congress is the only institution with the constitutional power to stop unnecessary war, and they are begging us to do so.

President Trump has launched three wars that are currently underway. He has not sought the approval of Congress for any of them. The wars are all, therefore, illegal.

But in addition to the illegality that naturally flows from a President starting a war without a congressional authorization, each war is also burdened by numerous other legal, moral, and strategic weaknesses.

The first war is Operation Southern Spear, a campaign that began nearly a year ago to use the U.S. military to strike boats in international waters near South America. To date, more than 65 separate strikes have killed more than 250 people on boats chosen as targets by our military.

The operation has been repeatedly justified by the Pentagon as attacks on narcotraffickers. But the evidence suggests that many innocent civilians--unarmed noncombatants who are not transporting narcotics--are being murdered in these strikes, even while reporting confirms that this bloodshed is not accomplishing its stated purpose of decreasing the amount of drugs coming into the United States.

Now, the administration has worked exceptionally hard to maintain all aspects of Operation Southern Spear as secret, as classified. Because it is all classified, I am severely limited in what I can say about it.

The President created a secret list of what he calls ``designated terrorist organizations,'' last July, as subjects for military attack. There is no law giving the President such a power to create such an attack list. I have reviewed the list, but because it is classified, I am not able to describe it here. And as a result of the fact that the list has never been made public, those marked by the President for execution have never been notified that the United States has placed a target on them.

The Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice produced a legal memo, last September, to justify boat strikes against narcotraffickers in very specific circumstances. The memo also carefully described prohibited activity that could not be legally justified. I have read that legal memo, but it remains classified. So I cannot discuss its contents.

In October, the Pentagon issued an implementation order to carry out the President's directive in accordance with the OLC legal opinion and limitations. That EXORD contains the targeting criteria that are to be used in choosing which boats to attack. I have reviewed the EXORD, but it has remained classified. So I cannot describe its contents.

Each of the attacks is accompanied by a file describing the strike. I have reviewed the files of nearly 50 of the strikes and will soon complete review of the remaining. Those files remain classified. So I cannot describe their contents.

So why--why--is the administration maintaining the classification of all of this Southern Spear information--the justification, the legal rationale, the target list, the targeting criteria, the strike files describing each attack? Why the secrecy?

It is obvious why the administration wants all this cloaked in secrecy. The President and the Pentagon don't want the American public to see what is being done in our name and with our tax dollars. They are trying to hide from the public--and even from this body--the flimsiness of their legal case and the exorbitant cost and ineffectiveness of the operation.

For example, the Pentagon is glad to show edited videos of an exploding boat to pat itself on the back about its lethality toward narcotraffickers. They proudly did so on social media, and all over mainstream media, following the first fatal strike of a boat last September--September 2.

But months after the administration produced this PR video of a fatal strike, it was revealed that the full video--the unedited video--also showed struggling survivors clinging to the boat's wreckage and seeking to be rescued.

In violation of U.S. and international law, the United States returned to the site in open international waters and killed the survivors.

I have seen the video, many of my colleagues have, and it is horrifying. The administration refuses to release it.

Now, remember that, at the time of that strike--September 2, 2025-- the existence of Southern Spear hadn't even been announced. Those struggling for their lives, clinging to shipwrecked wreckage, had not even been informed that they might be targeted. The United States killed them anyway and then selectively edited the video so that the American public would only see the flashy initial boat explosion but not see the cowardly and cold-blooded murder of desperate shipwrecked people that took place later.

And, you know, that is not even the most shocking thing about Southern Spear. The most shocking thing is that the administration has been lying to the American public about whether the campaign is even against narcotrafficking.

While I am not allowed to discuss the contents of the legal opinion, and I am not allowed to discuss the EXORD's targeting criteria, I can say this: In reviewing the targeting criteria and trying to match it up with the legal opinion, I was immediately struck by what was missing. So I am not going to describe the contents of either, but I was immediately struck by what was missing from the targeting criteria.

It is hard to believe this, but the targeting criteria used by the U.S. military to strike boats and kill people on open waters contain no requirement that there be any evidence that there are narcotics on board--no requirement that there be any evidence that there are narcotics on board--nor is there any requirement that the sailors on any of these boats be armed.

Now, these criteria could have been included by the Pentagon in the targeting criteria that they chose, but they intentionally chose not to include the presence of narcotics or the presence of arms.

Why not restrict U.S. military attacks on boats to those we know to be carrying narcotics? How could it be legally justifiable for the U.S. military to strike boats and kill those aboard with no evidence that the boats contain narcotics or arms? How could this be deemed self- defense, which is the requirement for the President to use lethal force without a congressional authorization?

I ask these questions as a proud member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I ask these questions as the proud father of a U.S. marine.

How could it be legally justifiable for the U.S. military to attack boats without evidence of narcotics and without evidence that those on board to be killed are armed?

Many of those killed in Operation Southern Spear--unarmed individuals not transporting narcotics--are not combat casualties. They are murder victims. Public reporting conclusively shows that some of those murdered have been humble fishermen, whose families saw them leave for an honest day's work and then never come home.

President Trump's second illegal war is Operation Absolute Resolve, the U.S. military invasion of Venezuela to topple the regime of dictator Nicolas Maduro.

I have long in this body, as the lead Democrat on the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, supported all kinds of policies to sanction and punish and isolate the dictatorial Maduro regime. But using the U.S. military to invade a sovereign nation without congressional approval, and without any explanation or strategy for what might come next, is another matter entirely.

The world follows the example of this country, and if invading another nation's sovereign territory to kidnap its President and topple its government is acceptable for the United States, we lose our standing to criticize dictators around the world who might decide to do the same thing--in fact, who are currently doing the same thing.

The actual military invasion of Venezuela was at least brief, and I think all recognize that the U.S. military performed in a very exemplary fashion in carrying out the mission they were ordered to perform.

But its aftermath has been highly problematic. The United States is now using the American military to control the Venezuelan economy and government, and thus contributing to the oppression and subjugation of the Venezuelan people.

Even though Venezuelans chose overwhelmingly to reject the Maduro regime in a 2024 Presidential election, in favor of the political opposition headed by the recent Nobel laureate Maria Corina Machado and the duly elected President Edmundo Gonzalez the United States has, following the invasion, thrown its support behind the Maduro regime by propping up his Vice President Delcy Rodriguez as the country's leader.

The United States just announced a potential process toward finding elections and democracy in Venezuela. And guess who is leading it. Vice President Rodriguez' brother, part of the Maduro regime that was and remains oppressive toward Venezuelan people.

Public reporting suggests that the administration has deliberately made it difficult for Maria Corina Machado, who just won the Nobel prize 7 months ago for her advocacy for Venezuelans, and for Edmundo Gonzalez, the duly elected President of the country. The United States has made it hard for them to return home to Venezuela, even in the aftermath of a horrible earthquake that has killed and injured thousands and thousands of their countrymen and women.

Why is this administration choosing to support the Maduro-Rodriguez dictatorship and impede authentic leaders who offer a new chapter for the Venezuelan people?

The Venezuelan people deserve a government by, of, and for Venezuelans. Maintaining Maduro's cronies in place and allowing them to continue the oppression of the Venezuelan people, primarily to benefit well-connected energy companies, is not a legitimate use of American military power.

Rodriguez and the remnants of the Maduro regime are moving aggressively to consolidate their hold on power that the overwhelming majority of Venezuelans want to dislodge. Like despots around the world, they have learned how to humor the administration in the short run and buy its affection, and then, hopefully, wait until we get distracted and move our attention elsewhere.

And it is Venezuelans who are suffering, especially in the aftermath of the earthquake, as they watch the government of the Maduro Vice President, Rodriguez, not be able to effectively provide services to those who are in need of disaster relief.

Finally, America has spilled much blood and treasure during President Trump's foolish war against Iran.

On February 27, we were not at war, and the Strait of Hormuz was open; and the price of gas and other key commodities were as normal as things can be in 2026. But President Trump--without a clear plan, a coherent rationale, the participation of allies, the approval of Congress, or the support of the American public--launched Operation Epic Fury.

The President ignored his own promise to avoid more war in the Middle East. He fulfilled a sad prophecy many of us made during his first term, when he tore up a diplomatic deal that was working to control Iran's nuclear program. Those who make diplomacy impossible make war inevitable.

Now, 5 months later, the folly of this illegal war has been made plain to all. Eighteen U.S. troops have been killed, and the President--it has recently been revealed--and the Pentagon are disrespectfully reclassifying some of those deaths as not being related to the war so that the President can downplay the true impact it has on service members. Hundreds of our troops have been injured, although the Pentagon is trying to downplay those numbers as well. Thousands of innocent Iranian civilians have died, including children-- schoolchildren--who were killed when the United States bombed a school in the opening days of the war.

The costs of the war to the American taxpayer has ballooned into tens of billions of dollars, and the Pentagon is

now seeking an astronomical extra increase in last year's record defense budget to pay for the costs of this war, which have all been self-imposed costs. American families are paying more for gasoline. American farmers are paying more for fertilizer and diesel. American businesses are paying more for goods and materials that normally flow through the Strait of Hormuz.

And, in recent days, a new challenge has emerged, one that the administration should easily have anticipated. The Houthis, who are together allied with Iran and are strategically positioned in Yemen, have started to cut off transit through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait in addition to the closures in the Strait of Hormuz. This is one of the world's major commercial routes and threatens even more inflation that will punish American consumers.

The endless rounds of start-stop and the frequent Presidential proclamations of victory or cease-fire, then to be interrupted by new rounds of the back-and-forth of attacks in the region, have produced a profound uncertainty that is endangering economic prospects in all corners of the Earth.

Now these three foolish and illegal wars--Southern Spear, Absolute Resolve, Epic Fury--are largely rejected by the American public. Our voters want us to make their lives better, not waste their money in pointless military engagements far from home, especially with regard to Trump's war with Iran.

Haven't we learned something from 20-plus years of war in the Middle East? The Global War on Terror cost the United States more than 14,000 lives, led to more than 65,000 American casualties, and skyrocketed costs into the trillions of taxpayer dollars that should have been spent on education and infrastructure and healthcare investments at home.

Americans want a President, but more than that, Americans want a government that will spend our dollars here to make energy, healthcare, childcare, and other necessities like groceries more affordable. The President has already punished us enough with his chaotic tariff taxes and his doubling down on illegal wars just to make things so much harder for everyday people.

So what can we do? What can we do?

Knowing that the President is likely to plow forward on this failed and destructive policy, Congress has to finally stand up. The Iran war is triply illegal.

First, it is unconstitutional because the President launched it without having the congressional approval required by article I of the Constitution.

Second, the war violates the War Powers Act of 1973. This act allows a President to initiate military action in very specific circumstances: if there is a declaration of war by Congress, which there hasn't been; if there is an authorization for use of military force passed by Congress, which there hasn't been; or in the case of a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States. None of those conditions were met prior to the President's launching of this war.

But even if one were to assume that one of those conditions had been met, the War Powers Act requires that any military activity started by the President without Congress has to hit a hard stop at 60 days unless Congress affirmatively votes to continue it. We are well past the 60- day point--we are now past the 5-month point--with no congressional authorization. Yet the President continues to send more troops to the region and threaten more attacks as the American public watches more flag-draped caskets come home.

Now both Houses of Congress, under Republican majorities, have passed legislation requiring the President to remove U.S. troops from hostilities against Iran unless Congress passes a war authorization. The President has not removed troops from hostilities. He is actually sending more into harm's way. The President has not sought a vote on a war authorization because he knows that such a vote would lose in both Houses in Congress in a dramatic fashion. Instead, he has taken the warmongering all on his own shoulders.

President Trump can ignore the law, and he can break the law, but he can't change the law. If the President won't abide by the Constitution, by the War Powers Act, or the express will of two Republican-majority Houses of Congress, we have one more power. Only Congress can appropriate funds for war or defense operations.

As the President and his Cabinet are here seeking even more funds to carry out his illegal wars and fighting against any guardrails against his warmongering, Congress has to stand up against him. We have to stand up against illegal wars. We have to stand up for our troops. We have to stand up for our military families. We have to stand up for citizens who want a government focused on making lives better, not waging warfare away across the world. And we have to stand up for America the peacemaker, not America the war wager.

It is telling that at the very moment we are in the middle of these three illegal and undeclared wars that are causing a huge cost to our troops and innocent civilians, the President and the Pentagon are choosing this moment to try to rename the Department of Defense as the Department of War. Of course, they are. They want performative war in the worst possible way. They care more about the optics and the trolling Twitter with flashy videos than they do about doing the hard work necessary to keep Americans safe and defend this country.

You know, most nations actually had a Department of War during much of their history, and the United States did too. America had a Secretary of War and a War Cabinet for many, many years during the history of this Nation. But after World War II, when President Harry Truman, who had seen the bloodshed of war as a military officer in World War I and had to make consequential decisions as the Commander in Chief to end World War II, stood back and said: Do you know what? The United States is a great nation. We shouldn't prefer war; we should prefer defense. Let's defend our Nation, and let's tell the world we will do anything necessary to defend our Nation, but let's make it clear to the rest of the world that the mission of our military is not war; it is defense. We changed, in 1947, the Secretary of War to the Secretary of Defense, and the Pentagon is the Defense Department, not the War Department. And guess what. It was a great thing the United States did.

When nations all around the world saw us do it, they did it too-- Britain and France, also World War II enemies like Germany and Japan, and current adversaries like Russia and China. All other nations followed the diplomatic lead of the United States and said: The mission of military should not be war. We don't prefer war. The mission should be vigorous defense. Brazil was actually the last nation to make the switch. They did it about three decades ago.

So now, in the world, the use of war to describe the mission or the Cabinet or the Secretary is virtually unheard of, except the United States wants to bring it back. President Trump and his self-titled ``Secretary of War'' want to switch us back so that we, instead, brag about the fact that we are focused and interested in war. It is a pending matter that is contained within the National Defense Authorization Act that will be debated on the floor here in the next few months. The Pentagon has even changed its email address to war.gov.

This is juvenile and embarrassing, and it would be comical if it weren't so tragic.

Is this who the United States of America has become now--war.gov?

Is that how we want to be known in our history?

Is that how we want to be known by allies and adversaries around the world--as a nation that prefers war to diplomacy? as a nation that sends its troops into harm's way for needless wars of choice rather than being focused on the vigorous defense of our homeland and our way of life?

I don't believe that is who this country is after 250 years, so I am going to keep challenging the President's illegal and foolish wars at every opportunity and with every tool granted me as a U.S. Senator, being mindful of Mother Teresa's wisdom: We are not called to be successful. We are called to be faithful.

If we focus on being faithful to our history, to our values, to our troops and their families and to our citizens, we are likely to be successful. In doing so, we can reclaim the role for Congress that our Founders envisioned as

they embarked upon this 250-year experiment in American democracy.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in a few minutes, we will move into a series of votes, and one of the votes is a motion to proceed to a resolution that I filed a number of weeks back, an Iran War Powers Resolution.

The current status of that resolution is that, about a month ago, we successfully discharged it from the Committee, and so it is now able to be called up on a motion to proceed.

I want to just inform all of my colleagues that, while I am always going to vote for a motion to proceed to my resolution, the resolution is completely superfluous. It is completely superfluous because both Houses of Congress have now taken the historic step of voting for the first time, under the history of the War Powers Resolution, that the President of the United States cannot restart a war legally unless he asks Congress for permission. That has left the station.

Both Houses--Republican majority--have said it will be illegal for Donald Trump to start back the war against Iran without a vote of Congress.

And so any action on the motion to proceed to my resolution is superfluous because that vote is done, Congress has spoken, and the will of both Houses is now clear.

So I will vote to proceed to my motion, but no one else should feel any stress about this one. Congress has clearly spoken and rebuked the President for starting an illegal war, and said he can't restart it without us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to address a very serious topic, one that I have often addressed on the floor of the Senate during my 13-plus years here but that I have particularly been focused on since President Trump decided to launch a war against Iran on February 28 of this year. And the issue is whether we should ever be at war without a vote of Congress.

The consequences of the war that President Trump started are pretty well known to the American public. We have now spent in excess of $50 billion of United States taxpayer money on the war, with the need to spend more to replenish munition stockpiles and repair infrastructure that has been damaged by Iran--United States infrastructure in the nations near that country.

More important than the dollars we have lost are the lives that have been lost--13 U.S. troops including a Virginian, CW3 Robert Marzan, have lost their lives in this war, and thousands of Iranian civilians have been killed.

The damage has not just been to the U.S. Treasury and taxpayers and to our troops and Iranian civilians; it has also been to everyday American families. Because of the instability of the war, the Strait of Hormuz was closed, as all predicted it might be if President Trump launched this war; and that has led to escalating fuel prices. The estimates are that Americans have paid already $50 billion more for fuel since February 28 than they would have if President Trump had not started this war.

I could go on about the consequences, now being 110 days or so into this war, but I don't think I need to because I think the American public understands them very well.

But I am here today to rise again, as I have beginning within the first few days of the war--essentially every week--to ask my colleagues to do what the Constitution says we should do and direct the President to cease hostilities against Iran until--until--Congress authorizes a war.

The most solemn power, in my view, in article I of the Constitution-- the most solemn power for Congress is Congress has the power to declare war, not the President. That was done very deliberately as the Constitution was drawn up in 1787 in Philadelphia because the delegates to the Constitutional Convention believed, even with someone as talented as George Washington ready to assume the Presidency of the United States, that the stakes and consequences of war were so vast that a decision about war should never be in the hands of a single person but, instead, should be vested in the legislative branch so that a decision about sending our best and brightest, our kids, into war-- and the Presiding Officer knows more about the real costs of war than virtually anybody in this Chamber--that before we send our best and brightest into war, it should be based upon a very careful and deliberate debate, in full view of the American public so they can understand the stakes, and then war can be initiated once Congress has decided this is in the national interest.

Congress has not done this with respect to the war in Iran, and that is not unusual. Congress has often abdicated this responsibility over the years. But we take an oath to a Constitution that brooks no end- running on this, that Congress has to own this responsibility. And so I rise again today for the 10th or 11th time--we have tried to have this vote virtually every week--on the floor of the Senate to say no war in Iran unless Congress, by vote, approves it.

In the earlier votes we have had, we have been voting on Senate resolutions, and most of the resolutions have failed, although they have failed narrowly. There was one positive vote on a resolution that I put forward, and it was a motion to discharge that resolution from committee that actually passed the Senate by a 50-to-47 vote. There were some absences that day, but it did pass. And so my resolution is still pending on the floor, but that is not the resolution we are going to be voting on today.

After lunch, I will ask to be pulled up a House concurrent resolution. The Republican-majority House has passed a resolution saying: Mr. President, no war in Iran without a vote of Congress. And this afternoon I will not be pulling up a Senate resolution, which, if successful, would have to go to the House. Instead, I am pulling up the concurrent resolution that the House has already acted upon.

Why is this vote different than the earlier ones we have had? Well, I have already explained procedurally it is a bit different because we are taking up the House concurrent resolution, but that may not necessarily be a difference maker as people try to decide how to vote.

Let me talk about why this vote is different than the earlier votes in terms of the merits of the case--the merits of saying right now to the President: No more war without a vote of Congress.

The first difference is, with each day, the consequences of the war become more apparent. We are acting with more knowledge. Even since the vote we had last week, we now have the administration has come to us with a supplemental request asking for $80 billion more, largely necessitated by the consequences of the war: to replenish munitions stockpiles and take other actions that wouldn't fully repair damages, for example, that the Pentagon has incurred but would start to.

So we have some more information than last week.

The second thing we have is, I think we have more information about where Members of this body are. Many of us believe the war was foolish and illegal and never should have been started. Many of us believe the memorandum of understanding that was revealed last week is insufficient. Many of us believe both of those things are true.

In fact, I have been trying to monitor the comments of my Senate colleagues, and I would venture to say that about two-thirds of the Senators--maybe even higher now--have either expressed

their belief that the war should never have been waged or their belief that the MOU is inadequate.

And so now we know a little bit more about where this body is, and that is also based upon each day brings more information. The terms of the MOU weren't completely available and hadn't been scrutinized the last time we had this vote.

But the most important thing, I think, that is different about this vote than some of the earlier votes is, thank God, we are in a cease- fire--a fragile one, a fragile one. And the cease-fire is a bit of an intermission where we get to step back--and we should step back--as Congress is engaged on the question of what is the next step.

This effort to cease hostilities is not coming in the midst of active back-and-fire kinetic action between the United States and Iran or Iranian allies. It is a fragile cease-fire, and it is interrupted. But we have stepped back from the most active phase of the war. That is a perfect time for Congress to step back and ask ourselves the question of what should the next chapter be, rather than allowing one man to make that decision.

In fact, it is interesting. I was thinking about this as I walked over this morning: What are the options right now? The options are either a negotiated peace deal or potentially returning to war.

If the Trump administration negotiates a deal that includes anything about the Iran nuclear program, they have to bring it to Congress pursuant to the Iran Nuclear Review Act that I helped coauthor about 10 years ago.

So in the event of diplomacy, the administration must come to Congress. If the administration wants more money for the war, they must come to Congress. They sent over a supplemental request last week. So if the administration has to come to Congress and engage us if diplomacy is the chapter, if they have to come to Congress and engage us if more dollars are needed, we shouldn't say: But you don't have to come to us if you just want to restart the war.

How odd would it be that they would need our permission for diplomacy and need our permission for dollars but not need our permission to start bombing again? I think that odd disharmony, that cognitive dissonance, demonstrates the wisdom of the Framers giving the power to declare war to Congress.

If you have to come to us for diplomacy and you have to come to us for money, you shouldn't be able to end-run us to initiate war on our own.

And so, after lunch, I will make the motion to pull up this House concurrent resolution. I am unaware of an earlier instance of this being done, but it is in accord with Senate procedure to pull up a House concurrent resolution and seek a vote on it.

And it is my hope that with the experience of these 100-plus days and the knowledge of the consequences and the magnitude of these issues to American families, Congress will stand and deliver on the oath we have taken that the Nation should not be at war unless Congress authorizes it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor and recognize the 30th anniversary of Camp Dogwood Summer Academy and its commitment to the children of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

I have seen firsthand how instrumental the Welters have been in improving the lives of children across Virginia. Since its foundation in 1996 by the AnBryce Foundation and its leaders, Mr. Anthony Welters and Mrs. Beatrice Welters, Camp Dogwood Summer Academy has supported learning experiences, educational enrichment, mentorship, and character development for more than 2,000 children throughout the Commonwealth.

Camp Dogwood embodies the belief that every child--regardless of ZIP code, background, or circumstance--deserves the support necessary to thrive. That is a belief worth uplifting, and those who put it into practice deserve commendation.

I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the three decades of contributions Camp Dogwood has made to the children of the Commonwealth and to express sincere appreciation for its continued dedication to building brighter futures for decades to come.