[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 82 (Thursday, May 15, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2941-S2947]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO DISCHARGE--S. RES. 195
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I move to discharge S. Res. 195 from the
Committee on Foreign Relations, as provided under the previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to discharge from the Committee on Foreign
Relations, S. Res. 195, requesting information on El
Salvador's human rights practices pursuant to section 502B(c)
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time until 1:45 is equally divided.
The Senator from Kansas.
Food for Peace
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, the call to feed the world has been
answered by many Kansans, from farmers and ranchers to Senator Bob Dole
and President Dwight D. Eisenhower. American farmers are linked to
global markets and, by extension, to the well-being of people
everywhere.
Two of our Nation's most successful programs for delivering American-
grown food to the hungry around the
[[Page S2942]]
world are Food for Peace and the McGovern-Dole Food for Education
Program, both rooted in my State of Kansas.
At the recommendation of a Kansas farmer way out in Northwest Kansas,
Kansas Senator Andrew Schoeppel introduced the Food for Peace Act in
the Senate to purchase commodity surpluses to feed the hungry around
the world. It was signed into law by another Kansan, Dwight D.
Eisenhower, in 1954. Later, Senator Dole became the key champion of its
reauthorization. Since its creation, Food for Peace has reached more
than 4 billion people in more than 150 countries using American-grown
commodities.
Another food aid program, the McGovern-Dole Program, was established
in 2002 through the farm bill. It originated from the partnership
between Senator Bob Dole of Kansas and Senator George McGovern of South
Dakota. Since the beginning, McGovern-Dole has delivered more than 5.5
billion school meals to children around the globe.
The mission of these programs is more urgent now than ever. In 2023,
more than 735 million people around the world faced chronic hunger.
That is 1 out of every 10 people on the planet. Food security also
contributes to our national security. When governments cannot feed
their own people, chaos and violence often follow. Food assistance
provided by the United States leads to greater stability in regions of
the world important to America's strategic interests.
Hunger can drive children to join militias or nations to descend into
chaos, opening up an opportunity for adversaries to step in and coerce
a country for natural resources or military capabilities.
Hunger fuels desperation, and desperation fuels unrest. In the Sahel
region of Africa, violent extremism is on the rise. Terrorist groups
exploit food insecurity to win recruits and enforce loyalty. Programs
like Food for Peace and McGovern-Dole break that cycle.
In Lebanon, where economic collapse has shredded the supply chain,
Food for Peace delivered over 100,000 metric tons of wheat last year.
In fiscal year 2023, McGovern-Dole provided school meals to more than
2.5 million children in developing countries like Bangladesh, where
families fled ethnic cleansing and rely upon rations to survive.
Through these programs, Kansas wheat, Arkansas rice, and Iowa
soybeans are feeding the hungry around the world who are facing famine,
war, and national instability.
Food for Peace also provides a critical market for our producers.
This is an issue that matters to Kansas farmers and farmers around the
country. It allows them to sell nearly $2 billion worth of excess
commodities every year, so farmers don't have to let the crops go to
waste and shoulder the losses.
For years, Food for Peace has been hampered by bureaucratic delays,
mismanagement, and abuse within USAID. The inefficiency of USAID hasn't
just wasted taxpayer dollars; it has weakened the reach and
effectiveness of some of our most vital humanitarian aid programs.
Thanks to its extensive infrastructure and hands-on experience in
both domestic and international operations, the USDA is uniquely
positioned to manage Food for Peace. In February, I introduced a bill
with my colleague from Kansas Senator Marshall and our colleague from
North Dakota Senator Hoeven and Representative Tracey Mann--the
occupier of the seat in the First District of Kansas--in Congress to
move Food for Peace out of USAID and under the Department of
Agriculture in an effort to prevent waste and bring the program closer
to the farmers who depend upon it.
Right now, USDA runs two highly successful foreign assistance
programs and already handles all domestic commodity purchases for Food
for Peace Title II.
Most importantly, USDA has the trust of American farmers. They know
the Agency. They understand their work, and it can deliver results. I
am grateful that USDA Secretary Rollins has expressed a willingness to
take on this program and for their commitment to preserving and
strengthening the program's mission.
By placing Food for Peace under USDA's authority, we make certain the
program can continue to bring revenue to American agriculture
producers.
In fiscal year 2023, Food for Peace purchased $713 million worth of
U.S.-grown commodities and McGovern Dole purchased another $33
million--both direct investments into rural communities across Kansas
and the country.
I cochair the Hunger Caucus in the Senate. I cochaired the Hunger
Caucus in the House. I took on that responsibility to try to make a
difference. I have seen the differences these programs can make around
the world, and I support their continuance, even if it needs to be in a
new form.
I often tell farmers in Kansas: Farming is a noble profession.
Feeding people is a worthwhile cause, and God gave you a purpose. God
gave you, a farmer, a purpose for your life.
It was Kansas farmers who came up with the idea for Food for Peace as
a moral and commonsense solution to prevent excess American food from
going to waste and using it to feed the hungry across the globe.
For 70 years, the United States of America has made the difference
between life and death for millions of people around the world and has
made circumstances better for farmers here at home.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
National Police Week
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I rise during Police Week to honor the
brave men and women in North Carolina and across the Nation who serve
in law enforcement. Thousands of officers and their families come to
our Nation's Capital every year to pay tribute to those who paid the
ultimate sacrifice to protect our communities.
Each name added to the memorial wall represents a story of courage,
selflessness, and sacrifice. Unfortunately, North Carolinians know all
too well about that kind of sacrifice. Today, I want to honor three
heroes who we lost in North Carolina since last year's Police Week in
May 2024.
Last September, North Carolina was hit by Hurricane Helene, one of
the worst natural disasters in the State's history. The historic
flooding and devastation caused by Helene required an all-out effort by
first responders, who were working around the clock.
One of those first responders was Court Officer James Lau. Officer
Lau's vehicle was swept away by unexpected floodwaters from a river, in
the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Helene. Officer Lau was a Vietnam
veteran, and his law enforcement career spanned nearly four decades
across 3 States. In fact, Officer Lau was 75 years old. He was already
fully retired, but he continued to serve his community as a security
officer at the Macon County Courthouse. He is survived by his wife,
five children, and four grandchildren.
We also remember Major Michelle Lynn Quintero of the Madison County
Sheriff's Office, who was only 48 years old. She was tragically killed
by the same storm and fast-moving floodwaters caused by a dam that had
overflowed and took down all the power, radio communication, and phone
service. Major Quintero was swept downhill and was hit by a tree
careening in the fast-moving water.
She served more than 17 years with the Madison County Sheriff's
Office. Major Quintero is survived by her husband, who also works in
law enforcement, and she is survived by her two children, both of whom
work for the Madison County Sheriff's Office.
Late December of last year, on the day before Christmas Eve,
Greensboro Police Officer Michael Horan was shot and killed while
responding to a call about a man with a firearm in a grocery store. The
murderer fled the scene and led law enforcement on a multicounty chase.
The brave men from multiple law enforcement agencies apprehended the
suspect on Interstate 40.
Officer Horan was a reservist in the U.S. Coast Guard, where he
earned multiple awards, including the Coast Guard Enlisted Person of
the Year award in 2015 and 2019. He was posthumously promoted to the
rank of chief warrant officer, earlier this year.
Officer Horan served with the Greensboro Police Department for 7
years. He was only 44 years old and is survived by his wife and
children.
While we can't stop natural disasters or accidents, lawmakers can
play a role
[[Page S2943]]
in helping to reduce the intentional targeting of law enforcement. That
is why I continue to push for the passage of the Protect and Serve Act.
This is legislation that I introduced that makes it a Federal crime to
intentionally harm or attempt to harm a law enforcement officer. It
also gives prosecutors new tools to penalize criminals who target law
enforcement.
Officers go to work every day prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice
for their communities, and they need our support now more than ever.
I had a colleague of mine in the Judiciary Committee today make a
great point. That uniform now includes a bulletproof vest. They know
what they have signed up for. They wear that as a matter of procedure
because every single day they go out there, they assume they may be
shot at.
I am asking my colleagues to consider the importance of this
legislation and encourage them to take a stand on behalf of law
enforcement officers who are no longer with us. There is a reason the
Protect and Serve Act is supported by law enforcement groups across the
Nation: the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of
Police Organizations, the Police Officers' Defense Coalition, the North
Carolina Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association,
and the Major County Sheriffs association.
Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know why it is hard for any Member of
the U.S. Senate to get behind this bill. It simply says that we are
going to raise the stakes for anybody who would knowingly do harm to a
police officer.
To every officer serving today: Thank you for your courage. You have
earned my unending gratitude.
By supporting this bill, Members of the U.S. Senate can demonstrate
their enduring gratitude to law enforcement.
By not supporting it--I don't know what that says, but I know it is
something that in North Carolina and among law enforcement agencies, it
is not good.
To the families of the fallen: Your loss is shared by a grateful
nation. We will never forget your loved ones' service, nor their
sacrifice. God bless them. God bless law enforcement. And may God bless
the United States of America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Unanimous Consent Requests--Executive Calendar
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, the nominees I will discuss
today were approved by the Armed Services Committee with bipartisan
support. Republicans and Democrats agreed they are qualified and ready
to serve. President Trump was elected in a landslide, and the American
people expect and deserve our support in getting his agenda
accomplished.
President Trump and his administration are working incredibly hard to
bring back the U.S. policy of peace through strength and to ensure our
military is a respected and lethal fighting force. This is not an easy
task after President Biden's weakness allowed our enemies free rein
while our military leadership was distracted with being woke.
President Trump needs his full team in place to deliver on his agenda
to restore our Nation's military to focus on the warfighter.
To that end, I ask that we move to consider the following nominees:
First, I will ask we consider Dale Marks to be an Assistant Secretary
of Defense.
Mr. Marks is a former fighter pilot and combat-wounded veteran. After
his distinguished military career, he continued service in a civilian
capacity, where he rose through the ranks of Senior Executive Service.
He is currently serving as Executive Director of the 96th Test Wing,
Air Force Materiel Command at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.
The position he is nominated for is essential to ensure our military
installations remain strong, our energy policies support mission
success, and our environmental strategies enhance, not hinder,
operational readiness and support peace through strength.
I urge the Democrats to drop their misplaced stall tactics and allow
for his immediate confirmation.
I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to executive session to
consider the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 109, Dale
Marks, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense; that the Senate vote on
the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that the
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate
resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Reserving the right to object, I appreciate my
colleague from Florida asking for a competent team of professionals at
the Department of Defense. We all want the Department of Defense to be
managed efficiently and effectively. It is vital to our national
security.
What we have right now is chaos, literally, confusion, turmoil, and
turbulence, in part, because we have a Department of Defense that is
unaccountable.
Last Congress, I led a bicameral letter to then-Secretary Austin
demanding answers after a GAO report found significant failures in
barracks' facilities across the country. Billions of dollars have been
poured into installations for housing and infrastructure improvements.
Again, those investments are being undercut by the mass layoffs we see
right now at the Department of Defense.
We expect Mr. Marks to manage the entirety of these installations and
environmental programs at DOD, but the administration, in effect, is
undercutting at every turn.
This Secretary of Defense has created that chaos. He has shredded the
Department's report on climate change, despite its outlining the
serious implications it will have on the military in coming decades. I
wonder whether the Secretary has actually visited Guam or Alaska and
seen the effects of climate change in either place. I wonder whether he
understands the equipment, the electronics, the ammunition that are
required and that themselves require special storage and resilient
infrastructure if we expect them to perform in combat effectively.
As climate change creates a more challenging environment for our
warfighters, the DOD should be leading the charge in research and
adaptability.
I feel especially strongly that the DOD, in firing its scientists and
throwing research in the trash, is betraying the values and principles
that the Secretary ought to be fighting to uphold.
Mr. Marks would be responsible for all of it. Yet the Secretary
hasn't the slightest idea of what he is doing in these areas. We
questioned him for more than 4 hours during his hearing at the Armed
Services Committee; that is, the Secretary. We all knew that he was the
least qualified Secretary of Defense in our history. And 4 months
later, sadly, unfortunately, we can say, confidently, we were right.
What he is doing is slashing personnel, the experts, the scientists.
He is the reason I stand here and say that we cannot accept Mr. Marks'
shortcutting the proper process that provides for debate on all these
issues, and therefore I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I am not sure I understand my
colleague's objections. These are well-qualified nominees. They enjoy
bipartisan support. There are several more nominees waiting. It is
obvious, my colleagues across the aisle will do everything they can to
undermine President Trump's agenda and delay these nominees.
Next, I would like to consider Keith Bass to be Assistant Secretary
of Defense. Mr. Bass is a retired U.S. Navy commander. He is also a
member of the American College of Healthcare Executives, the National
Rehabilitation Association, the American Counseling Association, and
the National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors.
Prior to nomination, Mr. Bass served as the Medical Center Director
for the West Texas VA Health Care System. The role Mr. Bass has been
nominated to oversee is a Military Health System that has 9.6 million
beneficiaries entitled to care. The military health system is currently
undergoing many reforms to improve efficiency, increase readiness, and
deliver better care. I urge my colleagues to allow for his immediate
confirmation.
[[Page S2944]]
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session
to consider the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 70, Keith
Bass, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense; that the Senate vote on
the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that the
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate
resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Reserving the right to object, I, once again, agree
with my colleague from Florida that we worked together in a bipartisan
way for years now, and I appreciate his leadership on the C Power
Subcommittee where we share a number of interests.
I fear that the chaos at the Department of Defense, due to the
slashing of positions, the confusion caused by ideological
interventions that are harmful, reckless, and unnecessary, that those
kinds of downsizing and defects in leadership will hurt the military
families and, particularly, their access to healthcare.
TRICARE provides for the well-being of our servicemembers, their
families, and loved ones.
Mr. Bass has a long service record, but this administration is
undercutting his potential work, and we deserve to debate it on the
floor of the Senate without unanimous consent, without shortcutting
public accountability.
The administration now in charge of the Department of Defense should
be held accountable for exactly the healthcare interests that Mr. Bass
will have responsibility for advancing. Therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, the President deserves his
national security nominees today. Let me see if we will consider this
one: Brandon Williams to be Under Secretary for Nuclear Security,
Military Health System.
Mr. Williams is a nuclear submarine officer. During his service, he
made six strategic deterrence patrols, was a nuclear weapons safety
officer, nuclear weapons security officer, and nuclear weapons
radiological control officer. He is pretty competent.
This role is responsible for the maintenance of a safe, secure, and
reliable nuclear stockpile.
Confirmation is critical to President Trump's ``peace through
strength and strategic deterrence'' agenda. Hopefully, my colleague
will see the wisdom in allowing this confirmation--this individual who
is clearly qualified to be confirmed today.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session
to consider the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 107,
Brandon Williams, to be Under Secretary for Nuclear Security; that the
Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate;
that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the
table; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's
action and the Senate resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, on this one, I think the stakes are
particularly high. At the Department of Energy, the DOGE-Musk cuts led
to hundreds of employees being fired. They were responsible for
overseeing our nuclear weapons stockpile. That set of moves caused a
massive counterintelligence disaster and a logistical train wreck.
After realizing these employees were indispensable, the Agency begged
for them to come back.
Billions of dollars have been poured into this program, and what we
have seen now is the whirlwind, the confusion, and chaos caused by this
mismanagement. We need full accountability. We need more facts, which
we have been denied.
Our Armed Services Committee, along with other committees, should be
looking into what the consequences were of those DOGE slashing-and-
trashing steps that put our Nation in jeopardy. We are not going to
have it if we proceed to this nomination with unanimous consent,
shortcutting public debate. Therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, one final ask. I hope my
colleagues can agree that we have at least one critical nominee today
approved.
Let's consider Bradley Hansell to be Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence and Security.
Mr. Hansell is a former Green Beret, Senior Director on the National
Security Council staff, and has previously received bipartisan
support. He will be responsible to exercise the Secretary of Defense's
authority, direction, and control over the DIA, NGA, NSA, NRO, and the
Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency. His confirmation is
critical to the President's ``peace through strength'' agenda.
I, once again, urge my colleague to allow for the nominee's immediate
confirmation.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session
to consider the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 108,
Bradley Hansell, to be Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and
Security; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening
action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and
laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the
Senate's action; and that the Senate resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I wish I could agree to the unanimous
consent on this nominee.
As my colleague from Florida obviously understands, the issues here
are bigger than any one of these nominees. The issues are more
consequential than the career or advancement of any single member of
the Department of Defense team. This Secretary seems more concerned
with his own public image than the safety of our servicemembers because
he has violated basic security protocols.
We are talking here about an official who will be responsible for
securing our national intelligence. When this Secretary, in effect, has
jeopardized them through actions that are currently under
investigation, how is the person responsible for the Office of
Intelligence and Security at the Department of Defense supposed to do
their job when they face the most serious counterintelligence threat in
recent memory from within the Department of Defense? Elon Musk's
firings put thousands of highly qualified people out of a job. Many of
them possessed security clearances and knowledge of their Departments'
most sensitive programs. Their service is vital to our national
security. Thousands were fired without cause. Our adversaries couldn't
be happier, and they may be profiting from those mistakes right now.
These cuts come at a time when we are prioritizing--we in the U.S.
Senate--funding to expand our nuclear triad and to counter China's
growing nuclear capabilities. These workforce reductions undermine our
goals across the board in the Department of Defense. We need to provide
personnel for program oversight, supply chain management, cyber
security, and other critical functions. So I think we need
accountability, and we need the facts. They haven't been forthcoming.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. At some point, this has got to change. We have
Presidential elections every 4 years. Our President got elected.
President Trump got elected, whether people like it or not. He deserves
an opportunity to put his team together and act as the President and
put his agenda in place.
This idea that both parties sit here and delay nominees and the
ability to put teams together doesn't make any sense for the future of
this country. This is not a time that there is no risk in the world,
and so, at some point, we are going to all have to come together to
start accelerating this. We have so many nominees. Whether it is a
Republican or a Democrat President, we have got to allow these nominees
to get through and get confirmed in a much more expedited manner.
Otherwise,
[[Page S2945]]
none of our Presidents are ever going to get in a position that they
can ever put a team together during their 4-year term.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. What I hear from the other side is, essentially,
``Give the President whatever he wants in the name of his having the
prerogative.'' He should name his own team, but we have a
responsibility. It is a constitutional obligation. ``Advice and
consent'' is more than just saying: Give him his own team. If we had
been responsible in this body--if my Republican colleagues had stood up
and spoken out as they should have done--we would have a different
Secretary of Defense right now. It would have been unnecessary for the
Vice President to come here and break a tie. We would have a more
competent Secretary of Defense. That is the mindset that got us where
we are today, and that is the reason I have lodged these objections.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Let's remember what we just did today. This is
not the confirmation of the Secretary of Defense. These are the
confirmations of very competent people. No one can question the
competence of these four people. No one can. All right? These are
competent people who have served our country and who do a great job. So
what we are doing is we are saying: Because some people don't like our
Secretary of Defense, we are not going to allow the President to put a
team together of very competent people.
So what we are doing is, now we just have acting people whom none of
us get to vote on and none of us get to question until they come to
committee. None of this makes any sense. It is not helping us put
together a team and holding people accountable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
S. Res. 195
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to discuss S. Res. 195, which is a
vote on a motion to discharge that will be the next pending vote in the
Senate.
It is actually a pretty simple bill about very basic concepts: Do you
believe in the Constitution or not? Do you believe in the rule of law
or not? Do you believe in due process or not? Do you believe that final
orders of the U.S. Supreme Court should be respected or not? Those are
the questions at issue on S. Res. 195.
Our President, President Trump, has entered into an agreement still
shrouded in some secrecy with the President of El Salvador, President
Bukele, to deport American residents into El Salvador and imprison them
in prisons in a country that has been charged by the United States and
others with gross human rights violations.
The Congress that is in charge of appropriating taxpayer dollars
should want to know the circumstances of this imprisonment and whether
U.S. law is being followed. The $6 million payment to the El Salvadoran
prison likely violates human rights law in accord with many experts who
looked at the details as they emerged, and that is where we begin.
These are dollars that Congress has appropriated, but the precise
mechanism for the transfer of these moneys and the President's
authority to both spend the money and carry out the deportations is
questionable.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of one of these individuals who
it admits was deported by mistake--and there are many others similarly
situated--is defying an order of the Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme
Court ruled in a nine-to-nothing ruling that the administration should
facilitate the return of Mr. Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Thus far, nearly a
month later, that has not occurred.
This is about fighting lawlessness. The 14th Amendment to the
Constitution, to which we all pledge fealty, is pretty straightforward:
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of law.
That was the clause that the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously
interpreted to mandate the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia.
The President was asked recently whether he had an obligation to
uphold the Constitution, which he swore an oath to in the witness of
all of us on Inauguration Day. He was asked if he had to uphold the
Constitution. Just within the last week, he said he did not know. We
know the answer to that question, but the President does not. The
particular country to which these American residents have been
deported, El Salvador--this now goes back a year--has a track record of
imprisoning individuals--innocent individuals. The last thing any of us
should want is an innocent individual in prison, especially if that
innocent individual is an American.
But this is the punch line: The President has indicated that this is
not just for those who are here with questions about their legal
status. President Trump has said ``homegrowns'' are next. Trump doubles
down on sending American criminals to foreign prisons. We have a prison
system in the United States--local jails, State prisons, Federal
prisons. The notion of sending American citizens to foreign prisons
without scrutiny is truly shocking, and that is the reason that I filed
the resolution.
What is this resolution?
It is a privileged motion--available to any Senator--directing the
administration to produce a human rights report about a nation--in this
case, El Salvador. S. Res. 195 directs the Secretary of State to
produce a report to this body that would be available not only to us
but to the American public about the human rights record in El
Salvador, and a couple of the clauses of the resolution, I think, are
specific about this particular case.
The report should contain information about the treatment of citizens
or residents of other countries, including the United States--non-
Salvadorans--who are being detained or imprisoned in El Salvador,
including any opportunity provided to such citizens or residents to
demonstrate that they are being wrongfully detained or imprisoned.
We should all want to know whether Americans detained in El Salvador
have an opportunity to demonstrate that they are wrongfully imprisoned.
The report will require that.
The report would require an assessment from the Secretary of State of
the conditions in El Salvador's Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo,
including an assessment of allegations of torture and other gross
violations of human rights.
Remember again that the Trump administration has acknowledged that at
least one of the individuals who was deported was deported mistakenly.
He has been in prison for some time. If he is not there now, he was for
some time in CECOT. We should want to know whether Americans in prison
there are subject to torture or to other gross violations of human
rights.
The report should include a description of any actions that the U.S.
Government has taken to ensure that the Government of the Republic of
El Salvador releases U.S. citizens being detained or imprisoned in El
Salvador in compliance with U.S. court orders regarding their return.
Finally, the report would require information--a description of
actions--the U.S. Government is taking to provide due process in
compliance with U.S. law for relevant persons detained or imprisoned in
El Salvador.
Why would anyone in this body, in understanding this record--the
forceable deportation of American residents, some admittedly deported
by mistake and whom the Supreme Court has ordered returned into El
Salvadoran prisons--why would anyone in this body not want to get a
human rights report about the conditions of that confinement,
particularly given the fact that President Trump has indicated that he
may intend next to send U.S. citizens into those same prisons?
This information will be very relevant to important decisions that we
take in our relationship with El Salvador and also in our decisions we
take with respect to the Appropriations Act. So I urge my colleagues to
vote for S. Res. 195.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking my friend
and colleague Senator Kaine for his longtime leadership and support of
human rights and the rule of law. It is an honor to team up with him in
introducing this resolution.
As he indicated, this is designed to expose the truth about a scheme
that is threatening the constitutional rights of everybody who lives in
the United
[[Page S2946]]
States of America. As we speak, President Trump is paying American
taxpayer dollars to the Government of El Salvador, which has been a
notorious violator of human rights. He is paying them American taxpayer
dollars to lock up American residents without due process of law. The
Constitution is clear in the 5th Amendment and, by application to the
States, the 14th Amendment, but the 5th Amendment to the Constitution
guarantees due process.
As Senator Kaine indicated, when President Trump was recently asked
whether he had to comply with the Constitution of the United States,
despite the fact that he put his hand on the Bible and took the oath of
office right down the hall here not that long ago, the President's
response was:
I don't know.
That should concern every single Member of the U.S. Senate,
regardless of party.
The principle of not depriving somebody of their liberty without the
due process of law is a fundamental core American value. That is why it
is in the Constitution of the United States. This is not a liberal
issue. It is not a conservative issue. It is not an issue that belongs
to any one party. This is a fundamental American issue in the
Constitution of the United States.
I know that Donald Trump wants to continue to change the subject when
it comes to this matter, but the subject could not be more clear, and
that is to protect the constitutional rights of people who reside in
the United States.
One person who was caught up in this unconstitutional scheme was
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who is a constituent of mine in Maryland, as are
his wife Jennifer and their children.
Federal agents illegally abducted Kilmar Abrego Garcia while he was
driving with his 5-year-old son, who has autism. They took him to
Baltimore, then Texas, and then they shackled him and handcuffed him
and put him on a plane. He didn't know where he was going. The next
thing he knows, he ends up in El Salvador at this notorious prison
called CECOT, which is the gulag of Latin America.
The Trump administration admitted in a Federal court that they had
wrongfully detained Mr. Abrego Garcia. They admitted it. They said it
was an ``administrative error'' that landed him in CECOT. But what did
they do? Instead of fixing that egregious error, they fired the lawyer
who told the truth to the court. That is what they did.
Since then, they have been ignoring the orders of the district court,
the Fourth Circuit, and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in a 9-
to-0 decision--we don't see many of those--ordered the Trump
administration to facilitate the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia in
accordance with his right to due process. If President Trump can ignore
the courts, that is a very short road to tyranny.
I have made very clear from the start that I am not vouching for the
man, Mr. Abrego Garcia; I am vouching for his rights because if you
deny his rights, you put in jeopardy the rights of everybody who
resides in the United States of America.
So that is why I did travel to El Salvador, both to meet with Kilmar
Abrego Garcia to find out whether he was dead or alive and report back
to his family but also to ask the Government of El Salvador to stop
being complicit in this scheme with President Trump to deny residents
of the United States their constitutional rights.
When I met with the Vice President of El Salvador, my worst fears
were reinforced.
I asked the Vice President of El Salvador: Why are you holding Mr.
Abrego Garcia? Do you have any criminal complaint against him?
No. No, not at all.
Why?
Because the U.S. Government, the Trump administration, is paying us
to do so. That is why.
I ultimately got to see Mr. Abrego Garcia--at first, I was
stonewalled by the Government of El Salvador--and he has been totally
unable to contact anybody in the outside world before I met with him
and since. He is not only in a total news blackout, but nobody can call
him--not his lawyers, not his wife, not his mother, not his brother.
That is a violation of international law, and that is one of the
hallmarks of this El Salvadoran gulag, is people go into CECOT or these
other prisons and you never hear from them again.
The State Department's 2023 human rights report on El Salvador--the
most recent one we have--reported ``credible reports'' of ``cruel,
inhuman, or degrading torture'' in El Salvadoran prisons, including
beatings with batons and rifles, overcrowding, underfeeding, and life-
threatening medical neglect; reports that guards fire stun guns on wet
floors to deliver electric shock to the entire cell at once. That is
where we are sending people like Abrego Garcia without any due process
of law, and that is why it is so important that we adopt this
resolution, which Senator Kaine has so well described.
I would urge my Republican colleagues to stand back and think of the
moment we are in because not only did the President of the United
States say he wasn't sure if he had to comply with the Constitution of
the United States, which should set off alarm bells all over the
country, regardless of party, but Steve Miller, one of his top policy
advisers, publicly talked about suspending habeas corpus, suspending
the Constitution of the United States. That is a very dangerous idea,
and all of us--all of us, regardless of party--should stand up to
protect the Constitution, protect due process, and make it clear that
the President of the United States cannot ignore a nine-to-nothing
Supreme Court order, which he is doing as we speak, because if he can
do it with one person or do it to two people, he can do it to anybody
in the United States of America, and that is un-American.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I first want to begin by thanking my
colleagues Senator Kaine and Senator Van Hollen--I believe Senator
Schumer will be joining us--for this important issue. I want to thank
them for their efforts to provide some needed moral clarity at this
critical time.
Earlier this year--I hope you have seen the news reports--all across
the country, there were stories of families waking up to learn that
their loved ones had disappeared--a husband with no criminal record
detained after a routine immigration appointment, complying with the
conditions of his status at the moment; another instance was a makeup
artist, who had fled Venezuela after being targeted for sexual
orientation and political views, one day gone simply for having crown
tattoos in honor of his parents; a mother who learned the whereabouts
of her son only when she saw his face on propaganda videos released by
El Salvador.
Over 200 migrants were sent to El Salvador's notorious, high-security
prison known as CECOT. By the way, that includes eight women whom the
Trump administration mistakenly flew to the all-male prison, only to
have to fly them back. But hundreds of men have been sent to prison
with no trial even, no sentence, no end date, no communication with the
outside world.
Let me be the first to say and I think I speak on behalf of my
colleagues when I say that if you have committed a crime in the United
States of America, then, yes, you deserve to be prosecuted. But, as we
all know--and I hope we continue to respect--we have a justice system
to do just that, a justice system that has a process for those charged
with a crime to be found guilty or innocent, because, yes, you actually
have to be found guilty in a court to be guilty. Now, that shouldn't be
controversial.
Anyone who claims to be for ``law and order'' has to be for both law
and order. You can't just overlook the ``law'' part of the slogan. But
Republicans continue to leave out that fact and the fact that the
overwhelming majority of those deported had no criminal records.
A report from ``60 Minutes'' just last month showed that 75 percent
of those deported to CECOT had no criminal record. These were people
who in many cases had pending asylum cases or some other sort of
immigration protection. But simply because they may have tattoos, the
Trump administration has decided to use them for a poorly executed and
expensive publicity stunt.
As I think Senator Van Hollen began to explain to us, if Republicans
[[Page S2947]]
allow Donald Trump to make himself judge, jury, and executioner, then
we are all in trouble. This is the behavior of a foreign dictator, not
the President of the United States. A dictator wishes to do away with
due process and disappearing loved ones to foreign countries without a
trace.
This administration is violating Federal law by sending people to
places like CECOT and, soon, maybe Libya, where they may very well face
torture or some other horrific treatment.
For anybody who thinks this may not concern them because they are an
American citizen, think again. You may not actually be given an
opportunity to prove your citizenship before you are sent away. Donald
Trump has said publicly that he wants to imprison American citizens in
El Salvador next--not my words; his--so there is no telling where all
of this is going to lead.
We have seen Federal courts time and again rebuff the Trump
administration's lawlessness and order them to take steps to return
wrongfully deported immigrants. We have also seen the Trump
administration continue to resist and ignore court orders.
So, colleagues, the resolution before us today would force the Trump
administration to start opening up the books, to tell us what
meaningful actions they are taking to comply, to be accountable to the
American people, and, yes, demand that the administration publish a
report on the human rights violations being committed by the country
Trump is so willingly embracing. But it also does another thing. It
puts us all on the record because history will judge not only those who
willingly embraced the erosion of civil rights that is happening, but
it will also judge those who chose to sit back and watch it happen over
and over again.
Every Member of this body has to decide whether they will stand up
and demand answers from the administration or sit silently while Trump
imprisons innocent men.
This is more than just about immigrants or immigration. This is about
due process. This is about civil rights. This is about the foundation
of our liberties.
I urge my colleagues to join us in holding this administration
accountable.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I will conclude prior to the vote just by
saying this is a very basic resolution.
Everyone in this body, knowing that Americans have been deported
without due process to a prison in a foreign country that has a
grievous record of human rights abuses, should at least want to get
information about the circumstances of that confinement, about whether
that prison is according American residents any semblance of due
process and whether the United States is undertaking efforts to ensure
that that country and that prison are following final orders of the
U.S. Supreme Court.
If you support the rule of law, if you support due process, if you
support the Constitution, if you support human rights, if you support
final orders of the U.S. Supreme Court, you will support S. Res. 195.
I now ask for the vote.
Vote on S. Res. 195
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the resolution.
Mr. KAINE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Pennsylvania
(Mr. McCormick), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) and
the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 259 Leg.]
YEAS--45
Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--50
Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moody
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NOT VOTING--5
Graham
Kelly
McCormick
Moran
Sanders
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 45, the nays are
50. The motion is not agreed to.
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
____________________