MEMBER OF CONGRESS

Chris Van Hollen

Democrat MD 9 statements translated

Senate

Nomination of Todd Blanche (Executive Calendar)

2026-08-05

“I don't like this nominee. He worked for Trump. Trump did bad things. The nominee let him. That's bad. I want you to vote against him.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the nomination of Todd Blanche to serve as Attorney General of the United States. The Attorney General is supposed to be the people's lawyer, someone whose loyalty is to the Constitution and to the rule of law, not to any one person--even the President of the United States. But in this administration, the Attorney General and the Department of Justice are focused solely on pleasing one person, one man, no matter the cost to our country. Lest anybody forget, huge banners like the one displayed here hang outside the Department of Justice, the front door, as pictured here, and the other entrance to the Department of Justice. Every single day, the folks who are supposed to uphold our Constitution and the rule of law walk beneath these banners, reminding them that in this administration, their loyalty is to Donald Trump, not to the people of the United States. One of the people who do that every day and who have demonstrated loyalty to the President over the Constitution is the person whose nomination is pending on this floor today to be the Attorney General. It is crystal clear from Mr. Blanche's record as Acting Attorney General and before that as Deputy Attorney General that he is still acting like Donald Trump's personal lawyer--a position he held before going to the Justice Department. His record has shown us very clearly that he will continue to put the President's personal interests above the interests of the American people; that when he walks through that door to the great Department of Justice that is supposed to serve justice for the American people, he looks up and he sees Donald Trump. He was formerly the personal lawyer to Donald Trump, and even now, at the Justice Department, he continues to demonstrate that he puts the President's interests above those in the Constitution and the rule of law. The Department of Justice has used taxpayer dollars to punish the President's adversaries, to reward his friends, and to pursue the President's personal vendettas. In a case that I am very familiar with, a Federal judge found that Mr. Blanche's statements about the Department's case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia showed clear evidence of a vindictive prosecution. In other words, the judge found that Todd Blanche and the Department of Justice brought a case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia in a Federal court because he had exercised his due process rights, to punish him for exercising his rights, so that judge threw out those charges. Under Mr. Blanche's leadership, Department lawyers have resigned rather than participate in blatant prosecutions, like the prosecutions of James Comey and others. Career, professional lawyers have resigned rather than participate in abuses of power, like the Department's criminal investigation against Renee Good's partner after the shooting in Minneapolis instead of holding accountable or pursuing accountability for those who killed Renee Good. Think about that. This Department of Justice launched an investigation into the partner of Renee Good, who was shot and killed by DHS agents, instead of investigating the shooting itself--again, to please the dear leader in the White House, not to uphold the rule of law. We also know that the Department of Justice has lost 10,000 employees since the beginning of fiscal year 2025 and nearly one quarter of its lawyers--lawyers who signed up to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution, not serve the dear leader acting through the dear leader's former personal attorney Todd Blanche. Now they are hiring prosecutors with no prior legal experience and asking many of them to sign a pledge supporting not the Constitution but the President of the United States. We have seen how Mr. Blanche has acted as the President's personal lawyer since he has been at the Justice Department. We know, of course, of the outrageous $1.8 billion slush fund that was created to make payments to the President's political allies. When I asked Mr. Blanche at a hearing if those who assaulted police officers here on Capitol Hill on January 6 would be eligible for those payouts, taxpayer-funded payouts, he wouldn't rule it out. He wouldn't rule that out. At the same time, he and the Department entered into a sweetheart settlement providing extraordinary tax liability protections to the President and his family and his businesses--essentially a get-out-of- jail-free card for nonpayment of taxes due if that was what had been ultimately found. Now, after Republican Senators and only after Republican Senators threatened to block his nomination did Mr. Blanche issue an order supposedly rescinding the slush fund and narrowing the scope of those tax protections. By the way, even if you narrow the scope the way it is supposed to there, the President and his family get essentially a get-out-of-jail- free card for past tax liabilities that may be due. So this deal is a sham. It is not worth the paper it is written on. It is not written into the law, and nothing prevents the Department from restarting the slush fund once Mr. Blanche is confirmed. That is not the only example of Mr. Blanche continuing to serve as the President's personal attorney while having the title of ``Acting Attorney General.'' We also see that in his handling of the Epstein files. During his time at the Justice Department, Mr. Blanche has withheld critical information regarding those files rather than seek justice for the brave survivors who have shared their stories of abuse by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. When Mr. Blanche appeared before the Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the Department of Justice, Senator Murray and I both asked him that if we connected him with the Epstein survivors, would he meet with them and hear them out? His answer: He promised he would do so if we connected the survivors to him. Well, we followed up multiple times. Nearly 2 months later, he had not fulfilled the promise he made in that Senate committee hearing. He had still not met with the survivors. So Senator Murray and I wrote him a letter demanding that he fulfill the promise he made because that should be a bare minimum for someone seeking this post. And it is pretty clear he had zero intent on keeping the promise made in public at that committee hearing until Senator Tillis said that he would not vote to move his nomination out of the committee until Mr. Blanche met with the survivors. After that threat was made, the meeting happened, but it was clear from reports about the meeting by the survivors that Mr. Blanche did not do so out of respect for them and out of a genuine interest to hear what they had to say but simply to preserve chances of his confirmation, because according to the survivors, it was nothing more than a check-the-box exercise. In fact, they said Mr. Blanche was condescending, that he was rude, and that he was dismissive. They were interrupted and told to ``get to the point.'' Well, someone who can tell the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's horrific crimes to ``get to the point'' is not a person we want defending the American people because a nominee for Attorney General should demonstrate that their loyalty will be to the Constitution and the rule of law and getting justice for everybody in America, including the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes, not to the President of the United States. So I hope we will recognize that if we look at the conduct and actions and record of the Acting Attorney General, we will recognize that he is not suited for this position because his record shows he has not been upholding the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead, he has been doing the business of this one man. This photo was taken today--taken today. These big banners of Donald Trump have been hanging outside the Department of Justice for a long time, and they send an unmistakable message to people who work inside that they better serve the interests of this one person. If, instead, there is a conflict between the interests of the people of the United States and this person, this tells them: Serve the interests of the President of the United States. That is not the job of the Department of Justice, and it is not the job of the Attorney General. I urge my colleagues to oppose the nomination of Todd Blanche to be Attorney General of the United States. I yield the floor.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Senate

Legislative Session

2026-07-29

“I object to the President's mass deportation agenda. The people here have work permits and go through security checks. They are here because their countries are dangerous. But now the Trump administration wants to send them back. That is wrong. Some have been here for years. They pay taxes. They start businesses. They help the community. I want my Republican colleagues to support these people. I want the Trump administration to stop deporting people.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, just to make a couple things very clear, the President has a mass-deportation agenda even though what the President says is that he is focused on going after the worst of the worst. We had a vote on a resolution here in the Senate not that long ago about going after the worst of the worst, and it passed unanimously. It was a voice vote. There is no argument there. The issue with these TPS holders is that they are here legally, with work permits. In fact, they are among the most vetted people in the country. Every year, they go through security and background checks in order to renew their work permits. The reason we provide them with the opportunity to stay here is because there has been a determination that their countries of origin are such dangerous places that their lives would be put at risk--places like Haiti, places like Syria, where our own government has determined it is too dangerous to go, and they warn people about going to those countries. Yet what this Trump administration action would do is force people back into danger in those countries. That is what the Trump administration wants to do, and that is what this Supreme Court, on a 6-to-3 vote, allows them to do. It allows them not even to have to make that determination in any serious way about what the circumstances are in the country these people would be forced back into. So there is a whole lot of misinformation that was put out there about this piece of legislation. I will just say that in my State of Maryland, many of these folks on TPS have become very important and valuable members of our community. As I have said, many have been here for years and years and in some cases, for decades. By the way, they are paying taxes. They are paying Federal and State taxes. They are paying into the Social Security trust fund. In many cases, they have started small businesses that actually create more economic opportunities for everybody in the community and the State. Go look it up. A lot of these TPS holders are small business men and women. They are hiring people in our communities and our State. Yet these are the people--some of the most vetted individuals in the country, people who pay State and local and Federal taxes--that the Trump administration wants to send back to countries where we say it is dangerous to go. So that is why we are here on the floor right now, because the first wave of this is about to happen, and the Trump administration is about to deport folks who came here from Haiti who have been here under TPS, this protected status, and now they want to force them back into harm's way. We want to uphold what had been a bipartisan position, which is that we as a country should not do that. We should not send people who have this legal status now back to countries where they will face certain danger. So it is disappointing to hear that our Republican colleagues don't want to move forward on this piece of legislation, but this debate is not over--not here in the Senate, not in the House, and not in communities across the United States. And with that, I yield the floor. I see my colleague from California, who has been such an important, strong voice on these issues on the floor. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ricketts). The Senator from California.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to protect people on temporary protected status. They've been here legally for up to 27 years. The Supreme Court said Trump can deport them to unsafe countries. That's wrong. Congress should pass a bill to let them stay. I request unanimous consent to advance the SECURE Act. It gives a path to lawful permanent residency. It shields them from deportation. It lets them work and travel. It increases transparency. And it says DHS must justify ending temporary protected status. We can write a better story.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, in a few minutes, I am going to ask unanimous consent to pass the SECURE Act to ensure that we don't force individuals who have been legally residing in the United States under temporary protected status--some for as many as 27 years--to return to countries where they will face danger and, instead, to provide them with a secure path toward lawful permanent residency. The need for Congress to do this, to take this step, has never been more urgent because, just over a month ago, the Trump-packed Supreme Court, in a 6-to-3 decision, allowed the administration to move forward with terminating temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of individuals who originally came to the United States from Haiti and Syria and to force them back--force them back--to countries where their lives would be at risk. That decision puts them and other TPS holders at risk of deportation to countries where violence, instability, and humanitarian crises continue to threaten their lives. There are already reports that ICE is planning to target Haitian TPS holders for deportation as soon as this week, which would force hundreds of thousands of people to return to a country that our State Department warns is unsafe for travel. In other words, the Trump administration would force people back to a country where the State Department says: Don't go there because it is unsafe. The Trump administration has also moved to lift lower court orders preventing the termination of TPS for other countries as well, putting thousands more lives at risk. In other words, these lower courts have said they have paused the ability for the administration to deport people on TPS, but the administration is moving to deport them anyway. In 1990--in 1990--Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, came together to create the TPS program because we all agreed that keeping our neighbors safe should not be a partisan issue. When conditions in another country make it unsafe for people to return, America should not force those people back into harm's way. And for over three decades that bipartisan principle has guided the TPS program. I think we all recall the Trump administration--at least the President--promised that they were going to target the ``worst of the worst.'' But that is not what they have been doing. Instead, it has targeted people, in the case of TPS recipients, with lawful status, targeting people who are here legally. TPS recipients are people who have already been determined that it would be dangerous to force them to return to their countries of origin. They are here legally, and the TPS eligibility requirements are very strict. Recipients undergo repeated vetting and background checks. They work, they pay taxes, raise families, start businesses, and contribute every day to communities across this country. Many have lived here for years; others, for decades. They have become part of the fabric of our communities. And yet the Trump administration's actions and recent reckless Supreme Court decisions place all of that at risk. The administration terminated work permits for Haitian and Syrian TPS holders on Monday. So people who had been legally here, had work permits, they have been terminated. And for those who also apply for asylum, the administration's new policy announced just this week would funnel their pending asylum claims directly into deportation proceedings without ever receiving a hearing. So even people who could show individual cause of certain harm or danger could be deported under these new procedures. It is all part of the same effort to strip legal protections from people who have followed the rules. Due to our country's broken immigration system, the TPS program is the only legal pathway for many to remain in the United States and keep out of harm's way, and the Court's decision is tearing up that pathway for many TPS holders, even as the facts on the ground are clear. As I said, if you go to the State Department website, it says: ``Do Not Travel to Haiti.'' There are warning signs on that website of violent crime, gang activity, kidnappings, and widespread instability. In the case of Syria, Syria continues to face armed conflict, terrorism, and an ongoing humanitarian crisis. The State Department warns--this is from our State Department--``Do not travel to Syria for any reason.'' That is what the State Department says, and yet the President and the Trump administration want to force people to go to Syria. In other words, the same conditions that led the United States to grant these individuals TPS in the first place remain true, and yet the Trump administration wants to send them to these countries. So the State Department warns against travel but wants us to believe that it is safe for TPS recipients to be forced to return. What has changed is this administration's determination to dismantle basic humanitarian protections that have been part of our bipartisan tradition in order to enact their mass deportation agenda, and now this Supreme Court has rubberstamped this administration's ongoing reckless efforts to gut the TPS program so they can terminate countries' designations across the board to advance that mass deportation agenda. The Trump ``rubberstamp'' Supreme Court, on a 6-to-3 decision, made the decision that rather than follow the letter of the law as Congress enacted it, the Department of Homeland Security can do whatever it wants--and free from judicial scrutiny. As Justice Kagan wrote in her dissent--she was one of three Justices dissenting from that Supreme Court decision--she said: In other words, Justice Kagan pointed out that the statute does make clear there should be a determination about whether or not an action taken to terminate TPS would, in fact, lead to harm. And Congress should not just sit back and allow this to happen. Decisions affecting hundreds of thousands of lives should be based on careful consideration of conditions on the ground, not political ideology or predetermined outcomes. This decision makes one thing unmistakably clear, that we, the Congress, should act to reaffirm what was clearly our intent when we passed the TPS statutes to begin with. And, for years, TPS recipients have lived in constant uncertainty, and every extension brings another deadline. Every new administration brings another question about whether the lives they have built here will disappear with the stroke of a pen. This is no way to treat people who have been here legally and have contributed much to our country. That is why we should pass the SECURE Act, legislation that provides qualified TPS and deferred enforced departure recipients with a pathway to legal permanent residence after years of continuous presence in the United States. It protects applicants while their cases are pending and shields eligible individuals from deportation during the application process. It provides work authorization and travel authorization. It also protects applicants' information from being used for immigration enforcement, except in limited circumstances. It increases transparency--which I would hope we would all support--by requiring the Department of Homeland Security to explain and justify future decisions to terminate TPS designations--something they have failed to do. Most importantly, it provides the certainty these families deserve after years--in many cases, decades--of living here legally in the United States. We have long used TPS to provide refuge to people who would otherwise face extraordinary danger if forced to return to their countries of origin. They sought safety and stability here. They have built new lives in our country and made lasting contributions to our communities, and the SECURE Act recognizes that reality. As I said, we should not be forcing these individuals back to countries where our own State Department has determined it would be dangerous to go. The Supreme Court decision does not have to be the end of the story. We can write the end of the story, and it is our responsibility as a Congress to preserve that bipartisan congressional intent from back in 1990. We must provide that certainty that these individuals deserve. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged and that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2106. I further ask consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Senate

Directing the Removal of United States Armed Forces from Hostilities Within or Against the Islamic Republic of Iran That Have Not Been Authorized by Congress--Motion to Discharge

2026-07-23

“I want to end the war against Iran. Congress should vote on it. The Constitution says Congress must decide. I think the war is bad. Many people are dying. It makes things expensive for families. I want senators to vote yes or no. The President should not decide war alone. I want Congress to stop avoiding responsibility. The President doesn't respect the law. But we in Congress should respect the law and the Constitution. We should vote on this war. Support my bill to say no to more war without Congressional approval. If you support the war, then put it to a vote.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I want to start by thanking Senator Sheehy for his service to our country in our Armed Forces and thank every single soldier who serves our country in uniform and mourn the deaths of every single American servicemember who has been lost in this war and any other war. I listened carefully to the Senator from Montana. He is right that the Iranian regime doesn't care about what is happening in the United States; doesn't care about politics of the United States. You know what else they don't care about? They don't care about the Constitution of the United States of America. They don't care about that either, but we--we, in the Senate--we should care about the Constitution of the United States of America because the Framers of our Constitution deliberately vested the power to declare war in Congress because they understood the enormous consequences of sending Americans into harm's way. So if our Republican colleagues have the strength of their convictions, they should bring an authorization to use military force in Iran to this floor. We have not seen that. In 140 days, we have seen nothing. If you want to be true to the Constitution of the United States, that is what Republicans would do. And the Iranians don't give a damn about our Constitution, but I would hope that those in this body have been sworn to uphold it would give a damn about our Constitution because the Framers understood--they understood that decisions involving war and peace should not rest with any one individual. You can glorify President Trump all you want, but the Founders--the Founders, those who helped write the Constitution--understood that that power should not vest with one person, whoever that person may be regardless of party. That is what the Founders said. The Constitution entrusted that solemn responsibility to the Congress where the elected representatives could openly debate and vote on those questions before any President sent our sons and daughters to fight and die in foreign lands. We may disagree about whether this is a good idea or a bad idea, but we should not disagree that that is what the Constitution requires, and that is what our oath requires. So, yes, I rise to urge my colleagues to support my War Powers Resolution to end this disastrous and illegal war against Iran that President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu launched over 140 days ago. The Constitution is unambiguous. This is not a close call. And yet, right now--right now--we are finding ourselves confronting exactly the circumstances that the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 were designed to prevent. They were designed to prevent one person from taking this country to war. They were actually designed in the hopes that this Senate and this Congress would do their constitutional duty and vote yes or no but take responsibility for decisions that send our men and women into harm's way--take responsibility. Nearly 5 months ago, President Trump launched this illegal war. He launched it against Iran. And as I said, he launched it without any authorization. Since then, Senate Democrats and some Republicans have tried to reassert the constitutional role of Congress. We have voted 11 times on resolutions to end the war. And finally last month, both Chambers passed H. Con. Res. 86, directing the President to terminate hostilities against Iran. It was a historic vote. It marked the first time since the War Powers Resolution was enacted in 1973 that Congress successfully used this mechanism that was designed to halt the unauthorized use of force by the President, by any President. That resolution was not a suggestion; it is legally binding. The Iranian regime may not care about that resolution, but we should care and the Constitution requires that we care. The passage of that resolution should have marked the end of this disastrous war, but time and again, President Trump has shown he has no respect for the Constitution. He was asked months ago whether he had to abide by the Constitution. His answer: I don't know. That is a President who has no respect for the rule of law, but we should. Instead, what the Trump administration has done is steadily expanded this conflict, moved further away from diplomacy and further away from a durable peace. When the memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran was signed in June, I stood on this floor and said I hoped it would become the foundation for a broader diplomatic settlement. Many Republicans opposed that memorandum of understanding. I hoped that it would finally begin the long task of climbing out of a big hole this illegal war has created. That hope is gone now. This moment--this moment we are in now--is a pivotal one in the war and for our role in it. Just this morning, the House of Representatives passed another resolution to end the war. That is how democracy works. The Iranian regime doesn't care about our democracy, but we should, and the Senate should pass this resolution just as the House passed a War Powers Resolution. This is the first War Powers Resolution since the United States resumed daily strikes against Iran and the first since we reimposed a full naval blockade. It is the first resolution since another four American soldiers were killed. It is the first resolution since shipping in the Strait of Hormuz has once again been ground to a halt. And I think all of us here in the Senate know the Strait of Hormuz was open before President Trump launched this war. In the weeks since the last vote, more civilians have been killed as well, and the United States and Iran are now deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure. President Trump said that he will destroy a bridge or a powerplant in Iran for every ship attacked in the strait. It did not have to be this way. Many of us warned before this war began that military force would not achieve the vague, constantly shifting objectives its advocates promised. We warned that abandoning diplomacy would make the region more dangerous, not less. We warned that military action would strengthen the most hardline voices inside of Iran rather than weaken them. We warned that this conflict would destabilize the region, threaten the global economy, drive up costs for American families, and ultimately leave the United States worse off. And since then, every single one of those warnings has come true. I wish they hadn't, but they have. We have heard the arguments warmongers have used to justify this stupid war before. The promises of quick victories, that just one more bombing campaign would finally produce lasting peace. We have heard that regime change is just around the corner. We have heard repeated calls for military adventurism while diplomacy was dismissed as some kind of weakness. Those arguments were wrong before, and they are wrong today. This is the same kind of delusional thinking that sucked the United States into endless wars in the past, the kind of endless wars that this President promised he would keep us out of. When he promised he would focus on bringing down prices, he has done the opposite. So we must make better choices, and we cannot allow the past to repeat itself. But that is what happens when your objectives keep changing. That is what happens when you convince yourself against all available evidence, that just 1 more week or 1 more month of fighting will bring victory. You know, on March 1, the day after starting the war, President Trump was asked how long the war would go on. Does anybody remember what he said? ``Four to five weeks.'' It will be over in ``four to five weeks,'' he said. Well, the President said that about 20 weeks ago, and it was all a lot of nonsense. In late March, he repeatedly claimed victory. President Trump said ``We won.'' Go look it up. It is all over his social media channels. ``We won.'' ``We won.'' Colleagues, I have some questions. If we won back in March, why are more Americans getting killed in July? If we won back in March, why is the Strait of Hormuz closed? If we won back in March, why is the war expanding as Houthis attack ships transiting the Bab el-Mandeb Strait into the Red Sea? If we won back in March, why are oil and gas prices and diesel prices shooting through the roof again, imposing costs on every American family? Is that their definition of winning? Well, I wondered what their answer to that question was. So earlier this week, I asked Secretary of Defense Hegseth what his definition of winning looks like. And there was no clear answer. That is because their objectives keep changing. He finally settled on the objective of making sure Iran does not get a nuclear weapon. But colleagues, remember this: Last year--just last year--shortly after Operation Midnight Hammer, the 12-day war, here is what Secretary Hegseth told the country ``our bombing campaign obliterated Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons.'' The President told us the same thing, and the President's Director of National Intelligence testified in this Senate just months ago that it was the assessment of the United States Government that Iran did not intend to start any enrichment program. The President, during the time the memorandum of understanding was in place, hailed the fact that the Iranians said they had no plans and would not build a nuclear weapon. Apparently, the President had not been informed that they had made that commitment over a period of years. The whole purpose of the JCPOA was to hold them to that commitment to make sure that we could identify immediately if they were violating that commitment. Of course, that is the agreement that President Trump tore up in his first administration. So when I pointed all this out to Secretary Hegseth, all he could go back to was tired, old talking points that has gotten us in this mess and keeps us in this mess. In fact, it clarified the reality of what we have known since day one, that the Iran war is a war in search of a mission. Colleagues, that is how forever wars begin. Eighteen American servicemembers have lost their lives. Hundreds more have been wounded, including over a 100 just from the last 2 weeks, and the civilian death toll continues to rise. At the start of the war, an American Tomahawk missile strike killed more than 150 Iranian civilians in Minab, more than 100 of them children. On top of those killings of schoolkids, thousands of other civilians have been killed or injured across Iran, Lebanon, Israel, and the rest of the region. On top of all that, oil prices jumped; then they settled a little bit during the memorandum of understanding; and now they are jumping again. They have risen back to a national average of around $4 a gallon and rising. Diesel prices have surged above $5 a gallon. All of us understand that when gas and diesel prices go up, those increased costs filter throughout the economy. Trucks that are trucking food from one place to another: higher diesel prices, higher food prices, higher grocery prices throughout our economy, imposed on families already struggling with the costs of groceries and housing and healthcare and childcare and other necessities. And, again, this is the President who said that he was going to end wars and focus on bringing down costs. This is a strategic blunder on a massive scale. It is a self- inflicted wound on our country and all for what? That is the question every one of us should be asking as we vote shortly on this War Powers Resolution. How has continuing this war made the American people safer? How has it made the Middle East more stable? How has it strengthened America's national security? I have yet to hear a credible answer to that question, and that is because there isn't one. You know, these are the kind of questions that should be asked before a war is started, before we put American troops at risk. Colleagues, there is no good way out of a bad war. But as I have said repeatedly, when you are digging yourself a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging, and that is what this resolution seeks to do. Let us stop pretending that Congress has no role to play while American servicemembers remain in harm's way. Many of the people who enthusiastically supported launching this war have been unwilling to take responsibility for authorizing it. That should concern every Member of this body. It should concern every American, regardless of party, because if a Member of the Senate truly believes that this war is justified and the right thing to do, put it up for a vote. Put it up for a vote for an authorization to use military force. I disagreed with the decision to go to war in Iraq. And President Bush asked for an authorization for military force, and this Congress acted on it. In my view, they made the wrong decision, but at least they took responsibility for their actions as the Constitution requires. So this is an opportunity, as the war escalates even further, as more American servicemembers are killed, as more civilians are killed, as oil and gas prices and other prices go up--this is an opportunity for this Congress to finally take responsibility. We passed the concurrent resolution in the past. We know the President has no respect for the law, but we have an obligation to our constituents. We should not duck that responsibility. We should not simply allow this war to go on without up-or-down votes on an authorization to use military force. And today, we have a chance to take accountability and send a message by supporting this War Powers Resolution. I urge all my colleagues to adopt it. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). The minority leader.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to make a long speech about the president's war powers against Iran.”

“I want to force a vote on a bill to limit the president's war powers against Iran.”

Senate

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 1689 (Executive Calendar)

2026-07-22

“I wanted this bill to pass. I am sad. I wanted Haitians to stay here. I do not want people to leave. I wanted taxpayers to spend money. I will fight to spend taxpayers' money. I like this program. I want it to be permanent. I wanted to extend this program. I am sad. I will keep trying to spend taxpayers' money. I wanted this program. I wanted taxpayers to spend money on it. I wanted it to pass. I am sad.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues Senator Markey and Senator Blunt Rochester for bringing this motion to the floor. I do want to thank Congresswoman Pressley--who I know had to leave the floor--for her leadership in the House. And like my colleagues, I am extremely disappointed that Republican Senators today blocked our ability to move forward and have a vote on this matter and pass this very important matter, which is to extend temporary protected status for Haiti. As my colleagues have said, temporary protected status--TPS--was established decades ago with bipartisan support because Congress understood then a very basic truth: When people cannot safely return to their countries of origin, we do not put their lives at risk by forcing them to go back. That is the essence of the protection in TPS, and that principle is worth defending today. For years, hundreds of thousands of Haitians have lived and worked legally in the United States of America under TPS. They built their lives here. They have paid taxes here, including Social Security taxes. They started small businesses here. They are our neighbors, our friends, our colleagues. They are our community members. They are deeply rooted in communities all over the country, including in my State of Maryland. Some have lived here for decades--again, legally--with this status. To rip all of that away, while the danger in Haiti persists, is wrong and it is cruel. And it does not align with the values that the United States claims to stand for, and yet that is exactly what the Trump administration is doing. And, sadly, it is what our Republican Senate colleagues just did in their motion. And I do want to underscore what Senator Blunt Rochester and Senator Markey have said. They may be able to block it today in the U.S. Senate, but we will keep working on this matter because it is a matter of important American principles. You know, last year, the administration moved to terminate Haiti's TPS designation, and that action was challenged in court. And the Federal courts temporarily blocked that termination. Then it went to the Supreme Court, and on a devastating 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and sided with the Trump administration. It was another--in my view--very bad decision from this Supreme Court that will have very harmful consequences for the Haitian community but, really, for all of our communities because now TPS holders face imminent loss of their legal status and of their work authorizations, the latter of which is slated to happen as soon as the end of this week. So let's be clear about what that means. Let's just be clear about the harm that we are forcing these individuals to face. It means hundreds of thousands of our community members who followed the rules, worked legally, paid taxes, and built lives in this country will lose their ability to work legally and be forced to return to a country where it is not safe to return. That is the reality right now. Anyone following the situation in Haiti knows it remains very dangerous. Indeed, as my colleagues have said, the State Department continues to warn Americans not to travel to Haiti because of crime, kidnapping, terrorism, unrest, and other factors. The country remains under a state of emergency, and the U.S. Government has extremely limited ability to provide any emergency assistance, even to our own citizens who are there now. And the humanitarian situation there continues to deteriorate. When you are evaluating whether it is safe to force anybody back to their country of origin, we are supposed to look at whether the situation is getting better or worse. It is getting worse over a long period of time in Haiti. While there are some small signs of hope right now, the reality is, it is a very, very dangerous place In fact, 1.5 million people have been displaced from their homes. More than half the population needs humanitarian assistance. More than 5.8 million people are expected to face hunger this year. Meanwhile, armed gangs continue to control large parts of Port-au-Prince and other parts of the country. A lot of these gangs are responsible for killings, kidnappings, sexual violence, and forced displacements of entire communities. And yet, by the decision the Republican Senator took to the floor, blocking this action, they are forcing people who have been members of our community for a long time--again, working here legally--forcing them back into imminent danger and harm. You know, we shouldn't be doing this, colleagues. We should not be forcing anybody back into a situation of imminent harm, especially people who have been here and working legally and playing by all of the rules. And now we are changing the rules on them midstream because what had been a bipartisan law of the temporary protected status program is now having the ``protected status'' part of it ripped out by our colleagues. So this is really part of the Trump administration's mass deportation strategy. You know, the President told Americans that they were going to go after the ``worst of the worst.'' You know, we had a vote on this floor weeks back. I think it was a unanimous vote that, you know, folks who have committed crimes--people who are dangerous to our communities-- yes, the worst of the worst should be essentially held accountable and deported. But folks under TPS? These are people who are working legally in our country. These are people paying taxes. These are not the worst of the worst. In fact, they have to check in every single year and make sure that they continue to meet the requirements of the law. And yet these are the people--these are the people--that the President and now our Republican colleagues seek to uproot and send into certain danger. Sadly, the Supreme Court--the Trump-stacked Supreme Court--went along with these decisions, but we have a chance in this body to fix that. And that was what we tried to do today with Senator Markey's motion. Again, it was blocked by our Republican colleagues, but this will not be the end of this debate. It will not be the end of this discussion because the essence of TPS was, at least at one time in our country, a bipartisan effort. On a bipartisan basis, we agreed that it was wrong to send people back to their home country if they faced certain danger. And that is why we allowed these individuals to stay here. And many of them have made really successful lives here in our communities, working--again legally--paying taxes. And so it is a very sad day when what once was a bipartisan consensus to stand by important principles that had made this country stronger are shredded by this White House and where we now have a rubberstamped Congress to go along with the Trump administration's mass deportation agenda. So I regret the action that was taken today. I, again, thank my colleague Senator Markey for his efforts, and we will keep at it together. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Armstrong). The Senator from Iowa.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Senate

National Defense Authorization Act (Executive Session)

2026-07-13

“I don't like Israel's government. I want votes on military spending. I want votes on Israel. I don't want intelligence sharing with Israel. I want votes on transparency and accountability.”

Official Congressional Record

What you will see is at the end of the day the Government of Israel, the Netanyahu government, exercised its veto authority under the coproduction agreement preventing the United States from sending our own Iron Dome batteries to Ukraine to help Ukraine with its air defense system. And now in this NDAA bill that we are about to consider in the United States Senate, there is a provision requiring the United States Government to do more coproduction arrangements with the Netanyahu government and the future governments of Israel. Give me a break. The second provision that I mentioned earlier, section 622 of the fiscal year 2027 Intelligence Authorization Act mandates--and I say mandates--that the United States Government, the executive branch ``expand and enhance intelligence sharing with the Government of Israel.'' It also states that intelligence sharing with Israel ``shall not be suspended, reduced, or otherwise materially limited.'' The intent of this provision is clear to not only enhance intelligence sharing with Israel, but also to block the President from limiting such intelligence sharing. Now, colleagues, any time the United States Government wants to or chooses to, of course we can share intelligence with the Government of Israel or any other government we choose for our own interests. Why would we hardwire into the law a requirement that that intelligence be shared with Israel or any other country? And there is a peculiar procedural wrinkle here I want to mention. This provision isn't in the text of the NDAA yet. As I said, it sits in the fiscal year Intelligence Authorization Act that passed the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. But, as my colleagues know, that bill typically--typically--gets added to the NDAA right here on the floor of the Senate before final passage, meaning that the Senate may be asked to adopt this provision that hardwires and requires U.S. intelligence sharing with the Government of Israel with no real debate. And that should concern us all, especially since, according to public reports, this administration recently raised--raised--the counterintelligence threat level from the Government of Israel to its highest level. At the same time, this Senate is talking about adopting a provision mandating intelligence sharing. As I said, any President can share intelligence at their discretion, but this requires it. And we should not be forcing this administration or any other administration to share U.S. intelligence with the Government of Israel or any other government, for that matter. This is also happening, as I said, at a time when we are seeing accelerated violence and expansion of settlements on the West Bank. We have heard outrageous statements from Finance Minister Smotrich and from Ben Gvir, who controls many of Israel's security forces. It is simply not in our interest to mandate that the U.S. Government enter into coproduction agreements with the Netanyahu government or any other Government of Israel. You can always do this on a case-by-case basis, as we did with the Iron Dome, and not require by law that we do it in a whole range of other areas. And, as I said, this bill also comes before us with a huge proposed increase in funds for the Pentagon, which continues to fail to pass a budget audit, and at a time when it appears that the President of the United States is, again, ramping up the war against Iran--an unauthorized war. And so I urge my colleagues that, when we consider the motion to proceed tomorrow--specifically, the motion for cloture on the motion to proceed; the vote on the cloture for the motion to proceed--that we oppose that and then come together as Senators and say to the American people: We are going to ensure accountability. We are going to ensure that, when that bill comes to the floor of the Senate, we will have votes on all of these issues. We will have a vote to bring down this huge, bloated number for military spending in the NDAA. We will have a vote to require some accountability with respect to military operations. And we will have a vote with respect to these new provisions that currently mandate intelligence sharing and mandate defense procurement cooperation with the Netanyahu government and future Governments of Israel. I hope we will show the American people that we believe in transparency and accountability by having those votes. But to do so, we have to first vote against the motion--the cloture motion on the motion to proceed. With that, I yield my remaining time to my friend and colleague the Senator from Vermont, Senator Welch. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Marshall). The Senator from Vermont.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Senate

Remembering Lindsey Graham (Executive Session)

2026-07-13

“A man died. That makes me sad. I did not often agree with him. But we did agree on some things. I want to talk about that later. But today we talk about something else. He would not agree with me about it.”