[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 133 (Friday, August 1, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5188-S5189]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, notwithstanding Rule 232, I ask unanimous 
consent that upon disposition of Calendar No. 121, H.R. 3944, as 
amended, if amended, the Senate vote on confirmation of the Rinaldi 
nomination, and following disposition of the nomination, the Senate 
execute the order in relation to the Woll and Kent nominations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity, also, to 
thank Leader Thune for his willingness to bring these appropriations 
bills before the full Senate. I also thank our Democratic counterparts 
for working with us to come up with this rather complex time agreement. 
But it is one that will allow different voices to be heard on both 
sides of the aisle.
  I am very pleased that the Senate is proceeding to consideration of 
these appropriations bills. Congress has responsibility--a 
constitutional responsibility--under article I for the power of the 
purse. We are executing that responsibility by proceeding to these 
bills. These bills all mean a great deal to each of us.
  I want to give my colleagues just some idea of the amount of input 
that these subcommittees on the Appropriations Committee have received 
from our colleagues. To give you an example, on the Military 
Construction and Veterans Affairs bill, we have had, literally, 
thousands of requests of support, of suggestions from our colleagues 
from more than 87 of our colleagues. That is very typical. In fact, 
this past week, when we reported the Defense appropriations committee 
bill, I think we reached a record high of 95 Senators weighing in with 
their suggestions, their requests for funding, their suggestions for 
programmatic changes or support. Those 95 Senators requested and 
submitted more than 14,000 different letters or inquiries or 
suggestions for us.
  My point is that a great deal of input has gone into the drafting of 
these bills. That is the way the process should work.
  We have had a thorough committee process, with hearings and input 
from noncommittee members. We have marked up these bills at the 
subcommittee and full committee levels, and that is what we like to 
see.
  I am very proud of the fact that Maine, the State of Maine, which I 
am so proud to represent, has one of the highest percentages of 
veterans in the entire Nation. That is why the funding that is provided 
by this bill has a special meaning to me, because I know that my State 
has more than done its part, and I want to ensure that our veterans 
have access to the benefits and the healthcare they have earned.
  My own father was a World War II veteran who was wounded twice in the 
Battle of the Bulge, earning two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star. It 
was wonderful to go to the 80th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge 
and to actually talk to a veteran who had been in the same division as 
my father. It was deeply moving.
  When you read about the bravery of those in that historic battle, 
which was a turning point in World War II, you can't help but be filled 
with a sense of awe and gratitude to those who have sacrificed so much 
for our Nation.
  I know that the Presiding Officer has also done his part for our 
country, and I am grateful that he is presiding today as we take on the 
Military Construction and Veterans' Administration bill.
  We also will be taking up the Agriculture appropriations bill--again, 
a very important bill for the State of Maine. I grew up in Northern 
Maine, where potatoes are the major crop, along with broccoli. Maine is 
also known for its great, wild blueberries. The University of Maine is 
known for its agricultural research program, and there is funding for 
that in this bill.
  In short, those two bills, plus the bill for the legislative branch, 
are the ones we will consider today, and I hope at some point we can 
return to the Commerce-Justice-Science bill--another very important 
bill that passed easily from our committee.
  I would note that the Agriculture appropriations bill was reported by 
our committee unanimously. Every one of the bills was passed with great 
bipartisan support.
  So I just wanted to give that general background.
  We will shortly begin processing the amendments, and there will be 
very little time for both sides to speak, but I am hopeful that we can 
make the kind of progress we want to see and use the August time--I am 
not going to call it a recess or a work period--to talk with our House 
counterparts, to do some conferencing and get these bills signed into 
law before the start of the fiscal year on October 1. That is the way 
the system should work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, we will soon be voting on bipartisan 
appropriations bills. These represent the spending strategy that has 
been worked out between Democrats and Republicans on the committee.
  When I came here as an intern some 49 years ago, Senator Hatfield was 
very engaged on the Appropriations Committee, and he was later chair. I 
really enjoyed interning for him and hearing how appropriators really 
considered themselves as, well, first appropriators before they were 
Democrats or Republicans and how important it was to forge a vision 
going forward that addressed the needs in every geographic area of the 
country, in both rural and urban areas, and to bring in the collective 
voices of everyone together that would help take the country forward.
  When Senator Hatfield was ill and not far from passing from this 
planet, in the last conversation I had with him, he expressed his 
concern about the committee losing that sense of bipartisan 
collaboration, and he mentioned specifically--and he was a Republican--
working with Patty Murray and with a Democrat, Daniel Inouye, as some 
of his fondest memories.
  Thus, when I ran for reelection, it didn't seem very likely I would 
win, but I said: If I run, can I be in the first group in my class to 
be appointed to the spending committee, to the Appropriations 
Committee? Because I know how important a voice on this committee has 
been for Oregon as to what we need to be done on water systems, both 
clean water presentation and septic or sewer systems; how important it 
is on transportation and to tackle many of the needs that we have 
throughout our forests, both our national forests and our BLM lands--so 
many concerns that are addressed. The leadership on the Democratic side 
said yes.
  Then, miraculously--it was an easy promise to make because I wasn't 
likely to win, but you never know what is going to happen, and I ended 
up here in the Senate. I was appointed to this committee, and I am very 
pleased to be on this committee.

  But I am concerned now that a huge threat exists to further degrade 
this bipartisan cooperation, and that is that we have this process 
called rescissions--a fancy term--and it exists from the 1974 bill, the 
Budget and Impoundment Control Act. It says that a President can send a 
request to Congress to undo the bipartisan work that was done here by 
the spending committee, by the Appropriations Committee. That has never 
been used in this fashion until this year.
  Now, it isn't that there haven't been rescissions--rescissions mean 
repealing former funding decisions--but they have been done by the 
Appropriations Committee.
  So what has been forged together--Democrats and Republicans together, 
with every geographic area of the country represented--in that 
bipartisan

[[Page S5189]]

fashion has for the first time been undone in a partisan fashion.
  Now we are hearing that Mr. Vought at the OMB, the Office of 
Management and Budget, is planning to send a rescissions package to us 
maybe in the middle of August. Why is this important, and why is this a 
problem and a challenge? It is because he has expounded on a theory 
that he calls a pocket rescission, and that is, if the fiscal year ends 
on September 30, which it does, and if he sends it within the last 45 
days, he believes that he can thereby, even if we were to meet in 
September and reject the rescission--that even then, he would be able 
to use a 45-day pause that is in that 1974 law to not spend the funds 
that we had directed.
  So what does that look like? That looks like a law was passed to 
spend the funds, but with no change in the law, the President's team 
stalls until the end of the year, sends in a rescission, and then 
stalls to the very end of the year and never spends the money. In other 
words, what was passed into law never happens.
  This is a direct attack on the power of the purse, which in the 
Constitution is allocated to Congress. In that sense, we on the 
Appropriations Committee are carrying that responsibility, that 
constitutional responsibility of the power of the purse.
  In facing this in the past, the Supreme Court has weighed in twice. 
The first time was in 1996. Actually, the first time was in 1975. 
Excuse me. In 1975, the Supreme Court weighed in on the fact that a 
couple of years earlier, in 1973, President Nixon had frozen, or 
impounded, funds and not done what Congress had set in a law that had 
been passed in both Chambers and had been signed by the President.
  The Supreme Court said: Hell no. You can't do that. Mr. President, 
you cannot do that. No President can do that. You have to follow the 
law. You cannot take the power of the purse.
  Then, in 1996, Congress said: Hey, we want to give the President 
line-item veto.
  They passed a law to do so.
  The Supreme Court weighed in again and said: Hell no. You have the 
responsibility under the Constitution of the power of the purse.
  So now we are facing the situation in which Mr. Vought is saying: The 
law is just a suggestion. It is just a ceiling. We can spend less if we 
want to. We can spend more by transferring funds from one place to the 
other. The law is just a suggestion.
  Well, no, Mr. Vought, it is not just a suggestion, and the President 
is not a King.
  But by doing what he is planning to do with this late rescission, he 
is basically trying to find a way to, well, run out the tape--``run out 
the clock'' I guess is the right term--run out the clock and alter the 
power of the purse.
  So I am asking for us to stand together, Democrats and Republicans, 
and defend our constitutional, bipartisan responsibility and should 
there be a rescission that comes in in August, for us to come in the 
first thing in September and vote against it and therefore say no in 
both Chambers of Congress, thereby sending that message, because that 
would provide a foundation for us to challenge the strategy Mr. Vought 
is putting together.
  In addition, today, I am asking us to join together, Democrats and 
Republicans, to say that nothing that is passed by us in the fiscal 
year 2026 spending bills--nothing that is in those bills will be 
subject to the 1974 rescission. So this would not be retroactive. It 
could not at this moment, in this bill, be able to address a possible 
rescission of funds from 2023 or 2024 or 2025. But we can certainly 
insulate the funds in 2026 from this partisan attack by the President, 
this unconstitutional attack by the President.
  The first amendment to be up when we convene at 4:15--about 3 minutes 
from now--will be this amendment to say: Together, Democrats and 
Republicans, let's defend our constitutional responsibilities, and 
let's say that nothing we pass in the fiscal year 2026 bill will be 
subject to that strategy by Mr. Vought and President Trump.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

                          ____________________