Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the bipartisan Fair Access to Agriculture Disaster Programs Act. This legislation would ensure all farmers can access critical U.S. Department of Agriculture disaster relief programs.

Increasingly frequent and catastrophic floods, fires, freezes, and other disasters are threatening the long-term sustainability of agriculture across the country.

The impact has been particularly acute for California's agricultural communities, who face year-round threats from drought, heat, floods, and fires--even in January.

The farm bill authorizes safety net programs to help producers recover, but outdated adjusted gross income, AGI, limits exclude many specialty crop growers, despite facing the same extreme weather challenges as other farmers.

As a result, producers from California to North Carolina are blocked from vital disaster assistance.

The Fair Access to Agriculture Disaster Programs Act adopts flexibility used in the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program to waive the AGI limitation for producers that derive 75 percent of their AGI from farming, ranching, or related farming practices.

What are referred to as specialty crops are just that--special. Specialty crops, which include fruits and vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, horticulture, and nursery crops that are cultivated for food and medicine, require overall higher input costs and specialized processes for planting, growing, and harvesting.

Did you know that it costs more than $30,000 to produce an acre of strawberries? The cost of production for specialty crops is typically thousands of dollars per acre.

As a result, both large and small producers of specialty crops end up exceeding the AGI limitations put in place to means-test critical disaster assistance.

That is why we need to pass the Fair Access to Agriculture Disaster Programs Act to ensure farmers and ranchers can access agricultural safety net programs in the wake of increasingly more frequent and catastrophic disasters.

I would like to thank Senator Tillis for joining me to introduce this bill, and I forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Fair Access to Agriculture Disaster Programs Act as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Guaranteeing Overtime for Truckers Act, which I introduced today.

America's truckdrivers are on the frontlines of keeping goods and our economy moving. More than 70 percent of goods across the United States are shipped by truck.

Unfortunately, longstanding challenges persist for truckers, including long hours away from home and time spent waiting--often unpaid--to load and unload at congested ports, warehouses, and distribution centers.

Our Nation has made historic investments in our port and supply chain infrastructure through the bipartisan infrastructure law, but we should also improve wages and working conditions for critical workers and ensure they are paid for all of the hours they work.

However, for more than 80 years, Federal law has denied truckers guaranteed overtime pay benefits that are afforded to nearly all other professions. This means that if a truckdriver experiences delays due to congestion or weather, they are often not paid even though they are working. Requiring overtime will create an incentive for the shippers, receivers, and carriers to get cargo loaded and unloaded, keeping truckers and our supply chain moving.

The motor carrier exemption exacerbates trucking workforce challenges. In fact, a February 2022 freight and logistics supply chain assessment by the U.S. Department of Transportation urged Congress to repeal this exemption. Additionally, research suggests that when truck labor rates are fair, there is less driver fatigue, fewer regulatory violations, and lower crash rates.

That is why I am proud to introduce this bill to repeal the overtime exemption for motor carriers.

I want to thank Senator Markey for coleading this bill with me, and I hope our colleagues will join us to ensure that trucker compensation reflects the fact that these jobs are essential.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Guaranteeing Overtime for Truckers Act, which I introduced today.

America's truckdrivers are on the frontlines of keeping goods and our economy moving. More than 70 percent of goods across the United States are shipped by truck.

Unfortunately, longstanding challenges persist for truckers, including long hours away from home and time spent waiting--often unpaid--to load and unload at congested ports, warehouses, and distribution centers.

Our Nation has made historic investments in our port and supply chain infrastructure through the bipartisan infrastructure law, but we should also improve wages and working conditions for critical workers and ensure they are paid for all of the hours they work.

However, for more than 80 years, Federal law has denied truckers guaranteed overtime pay benefits that are afforded to nearly all other professions. This means that if a truckdriver experiences delays due to congestion or weather, they are often not paid even though they are working. Requiring overtime will create an incentive for the shippers, receivers, and carriers to get cargo loaded and unloaded, keeping truckers and our supply chain moving.

The motor carrier exemption exacerbates trucking workforce challenges. In fact, a February 2022 freight and logistics supply chain assessment by the U.S. Department of Transportation urged Congress to repeal this exemption. Additionally, research suggests that when truck labor rates are fair, there is less driver fatigue, fewer regulatory violations, and lower crash rates.

That is why I am proud to introduce this bill to repeal the overtime exemption for motor carriers.

I want to thank Senator Markey for coleading this bill with me, and I hope our colleagues will join us to ensure that trucker compensation reflects the fact that these jobs are essential.

Mr. President, I, too, rise today to defend the principles at the core of our democratic Republic that we are a government of laws and institutions, not of individuals; that no billionaire has more rights than any worker, and that no President has more rights than any citizen of our country; that we are a government of three coequal branches, providing checks and balances on each other. And bottom line: That no one is above the law.

Yet as we stand here today, the Trump administration is clearly openly laying the groundwork to reject all of these principles. They are operating under their idea that the President, his Cabinet of loyalists, and an unelected billionaire adviser can simply ignore the law or courts in rulings that they disagree with.

Earlier this month, Vice President Vance claimed that ``if a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use his or her discretion as a prosecutor, that's . . . illegal. Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.''

That is the Vice President. At the same time, President Trump's seeming co-President, Elon Musk, has repeatedly called for the impeaching of judges who rule against Donald Trump's attempts at power grabs. And now President Trump himself has said:

He who saves his Country does not violate any law.

Historians may recognize this quote because it is widely attributed to Napoleon, a man who became a dictator and who abolished the French Republic at the time. Seems to me pretty clear that is precisely the example that Donald Trump is looking to. And it should alarm all of us.

When I think about just how much of Donald Trump's life has been spent staring at the four walls of a courtroom--yes, from the inside, folks, the four walls of a courtroom--maybe you can understand why he may want to do away with the courts.

But the Judiciary does not work for Donald Trump. It is a separate, coequal branch of government. The courts, colleagues, work for the American people. And so far, they have served the American people by pausing many of the President's blatantly illegal Executive orders and overreach. But that is why he is continuing to target the courts.

Colleagues, I am one of the few nonlawyers to serve on the Judiciary Committee. And at times, I get to bring a different perspective to our deliberations and our debates. I will defer to my colleagues to maybe cover some of the legal history or case law that applies here. But for Americans watching from home, here is how I can boil it down.

Let's ask ourselves: Do you believe the President can simply ignore the law? Do you believe that the President should be all-powerful? Do you believe that if you have to follow the law, then the President of our country should have to follow it, as well?

The answers should seem very, very obvious. For years, we have known that if a President did try to push the boundaries of what is legal and what is not, we could count on an independent Department of Justice to enforce court rulings. But over the past few weeks, what we have seen in the Judiciary Committee is nominee after nominee appear before us and refuse to simply commit to upholding the law. They claim, one after another, that they respect the Constitution and stand for the rule of law. But when given specific examples of what would you do, not if, we have seen a President in his first term and already in this term suggest those he appoints to not follow the law--they refused to commit.

That dynamic, colleagues, is unprecedented, and it is dangerous. And it is also the result of an administration that demands applicants pass a loyalty test to get their job in the first place. And it has brought us dangerously close to a constitutional crisis. A President feeling unconstrained by the courts, by the Constitution, and the rule of law is no President at all. It is a power-hungry, wannabe King.

Last night, President Trump, in his address, had an opportunity to unite or at least genuinely try to unite the country and affirm his commitment to the rule of law. Sadly, I am not surprised that he refused to do so. But this morning, we also saw the Supreme Court cite against the Trump administration and affirm a lower court's order that the administration stop their unlawful freeze on foreign aid--one of the many, many challenges working its way through the judiciary.

So the question now becomes: Will Donald Trump listen, and will Republicans in Congress demand that he uphold the law?

So what we are asking of our Republican colleagues today isn't anything radical. It is the fundamental principle that men and women dedicated to themselves nearly 250 years ago in the founding of our Nation, that we shall be ruled of, by, and for the people; not of, by, and for a King or dictator.

To our Republican colleagues, all we ask is this: Stand up. Stand up for the rule of law. Stand up for the Constitution. And stand up for our country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, over the last few months, there has literally been more than 10,000 Californians who have made it a point to reach out to me by phone calls, by letters, by emails to say one thing loud and clear: Stand up for public education.

There are students throughout California, teachers throughout California, parents throughout California, and I am sure beyond in all of our States who are afraid that Donald Trump is going to decimate Federal funding for public schools. And from what we have seen, they have every right to be concerned.

You see, only 1 month into office, the richest President in our history has teamed up with the richest man in the world to slash public funding across the board, including in education.

They have already terminated nearly $1 billion in contracts with the Education Department alone. They have fired or placed on leave Education Department staff. These are hard-working Americans dedicated to everything from protecting the civil rights of students to special education, to student aid. And they are making it clear that this is just the beginning.

President Trump has bragged that he actually wants to eliminate the Department of Education, threatening the quality of education of 80 percent of students who go to public schools.

Colleagues, that is the situation. That is the context in which we find ourselves today as we consider the nomination of Linda McMahon to serve as Education Secretary.

We could talk about Linda McMahon's qualifications, or, frankly, lack thereof, but I am not shocked because President Trump isn't looking for someone with the background or the commitment to strengthen education in America. He is looking for someone to destroy it. President Trump has said publicly that he wishes that Mrs. McMahon would ``put herself out of a job.'' And it is clear that she is ready to do it. And to justify it, I know I have heard of her countless accusations of Department of Education overreach or that the Department is just too big. Now, if we are saying this because of the budget cuts Republicans are starving for to underwrite the tax rate for the wealthy, let me remind us all that the Department of Education is the smallest Agency in the Cabinet by a lot.

The Department is responsible, though, for promoting equal access to education; ensuring protections and support for students with special needs; defending the civil rights of tens of millions of students; and, yes, managing the student loans and Pell grants that students need to afford an education, just like I did when I was graduating from San Fernando High School, trying to figure out how I was going to be able to pay for college.

Yet Linda McMahon and Republicans in Congress will try to sell us on the idea that education should be left to States and to local communities.

Tell that to the young student who is struggling to read by the fourth grade but whose school doesn't have the resources they need to help them catch up. Tell that to the parents of an eighth grader who is behind in math who fear that their child will never be able to make up the time that they lost during the pandemic.

While it is true that State and local communities play the primary role in education, it is actually the Federal Government that helps close the gaps. That is part of what makes our country strong--the idea that no matter where you live, no matter who your parents are, or what tax bracket your family is in, you have the right to a good education because, after all, it is the surest path to achieve your American dream.

And, yes, it is personal for me. As I mentioned, I am a proud product of public education, a graduate of San Fernando High School--go Tigers. Upon completion of my high school education, I was accepted and had the blessed opportunity to attend the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where I earned my degree in mechanical engineering. That led to a better life and more opportunities--exactly what my parents worked so hard and sacrificed for. That is the American dream. And I know that, by far, I am not alone.

That is why I find it outrageous that Mrs. McMahon and Republicans can so callously plan to take a chain saw to the American dreams of so many current and future students.

But, today, we are here to say that tens of millions of public school students are not line items on your chopping block. They deserve better. Our country is better than this.

I urge all of my colleagues to reject President Trump's attempts to abolish the Department of Education and to reject Linda McMahon's nomination or any nominee who is willing to carry out his wishes.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the bipartisan Early Action and Responsiveness Lifts Youth Minds Act. This legislation would increase access to early intervention and prevention initiatives in children's mental health.

Our bipartisan bill would allow States to use up to 5 percent of their community mental health services block grant funding for prevention and early intervention activties. The community mental health services block grant, MHBG, administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, is currently limited to funding services for those with severe, diagnosed mental illnesses.

The bill would also require the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, to provide reports to Congress detailing States' efforts to promote early intervention. HHS would report to Congress every 2 years regarding States' efforts to promote early intervention, including comprehensive information on activities undertaken and outcomes achieved.

Over 20 percent of youth have reported seriously considering suicide in the previous year, with 18 percent having developed a suicide plan, which is one of the most significant risk factors that precipitates an actual attempt. Over 40 percent of teens reported persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness, with a shocking 57 percent of girls reporting this. These statistics regarding suicidality and hopelessness are considerably poorer than ten years ago. The evidence is clear: There is a youth mental health crisis, and it is getting worse. Yet many of these youth in distress do not yet have a diagnosed mental health condition, meaning that MHBG funds can't be used to help them and prevent their symptoms from worsening.

Research shows that intervening early with people who are experiencing mental health challenges can help prevent those challenges from turning more serious--and more costly to treat.

States should have the flexibility to use up to 5 percent of mental health block grant funds for prevention and early intervention activities if they so choose. Without this adjustment, the mental health block grant is missing a valuable opportunity to intervene early and save lives.

I would like to thank Senators Tillis, Kaine, and Murkowski for co- leading this legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this bill as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the bipartisan Early Action and Responsiveness Lifts Youth Minds Act. This legislation would increase access to early intervention and prevention initiatives in children's mental health.

Our bipartisan bill would allow States to use up to 5 percent of their community mental health services block grant funding for prevention and early intervention activties. The community mental health services block grant, MHBG, administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, is currently limited to funding services for those with severe, diagnosed mental illnesses.

The bill would also require the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, to provide reports to Congress detailing States' efforts to promote early intervention. HHS would report to Congress every 2 years regarding States' efforts to promote early intervention, including comprehensive information on activities undertaken and outcomes achieved.

Over 20 percent of youth have reported seriously considering suicide in the previous year, with 18 percent having developed a suicide plan, which is one of the most significant risk factors that precipitates an actual attempt. Over 40 percent of teens reported persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness, with a shocking 57 percent of girls reporting this. These statistics regarding suicidality and hopelessness are considerably poorer than ten years ago. The evidence is clear: There is a youth mental health crisis, and it is getting worse. Yet many of these youth in distress do not yet have a diagnosed mental health condition, meaning that MHBG funds can't be used to help them and prevent their symptoms from worsening.

Research shows that intervening early with people who are experiencing mental health challenges can help prevent those challenges from turning more serious--and more costly to treat.

States should have the flexibility to use up to 5 percent of mental health block grant funds for prevention and early intervention activities if they so choose. Without this adjustment, the mental health block grant is missing a valuable opportunity to intervene early and save lives.

I would like to thank Senators Tillis, Kaine, and Murkowski for co- leading this legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this bill as soon as possible.

Mr. President, earlier this year, Robert Santos announced his resignation as the 26th Director of the U.S. Census Bureau, marking the end of his service as the first person of color and the first Latino in history to be confirmed by this body to head the Bureau. I rise today to recognize his extraordinary service to the American people, his unshakeable integrity, and his unwavering commitment to our democracy.

Robert Luis Santos was born in San Antonio, TX--one of five children of two civil servants who worked at nearby Kelly Air Force Base. A proud third-generation Mexican American, Santos was raised in a predominantly Latino neighborhood on the northwest side of San Antonio.

In 1969, the death of his older brother, U.S. Army Spc. Rene Santos, in the Vietnam war devastated the Santos family. But according to Santos, this tragedy and ultimate act of patriotism also inspired him to pursue his education and one day channel his brother's life and ``give back to the country.'' He went on to earn his bachelor's degree in mathematics from Trinity University in San Antonio and, later, his master's in statistics from the University of Michigan.

After graduation, he set off on what would become an over 40-year- career as a highly respected statistician. In 2006, he became vice president and chief methodologist at the Urban Institute--a nonprofit research organization dedicated to American's upward mobility--a position he held for 15 years. And in 2020, he was elected president of the American Statistical Association.

During his time at the Urban Institute, he warned the Census Bureau of the threat of undercounting the national population in the 2020 Census, with a particular spotlight on Black and Latino populations; he opposed the addition of a citizenship question that would have undermined public confidence and participation in the census; and he spoke out against an early end to the national count during the COVID- 19 pandemic.

Through it all, Robert Santos' motivation was accuracy and equity-- never politics. At his Senate confirmation hearings, he stated: ``Although this is a political appointment, I am no politician. I'm a scientist, executive-level manager, a researcher, and a longtime supporter of the Census Bureau.''

That approach led to his nomination as Director of the Census Bureau by President Joe Biden in the spring of 2021. When he was confirmed that fall, he became not only the first Latino to serve as Director, but the first person of color the Senate confirmed to lead the Bureau.

His tenure marked a refreshing and sorely needed return to scientific and research-based--not political--work atop the Bureau. He worked particularly hard to conduct a more accurate count of communities of color and vulnerable communities who have been historically undercounted.

For the Nation, Santos' work was about more than just data collection. These accurate data are vital for Federal, State, and local governments to function properly and efficiently. They are about something as fundamental as accurate representation and equitable funding for Americans. And they are about an equal stake in our democracy.

Today, at a time when statisticians and leaders at every level of government fear the politicization of our census, Robert Santos leaves behind a legacy of integrity and accuracy that should be followed for decades to come.

On behalf of the entire State of California, I want to thank Robert; his wife of over 50 years Adella; his two children Emilio and Clarisa; and the entire Santos family.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Empowering and Enforcing Environmental Justice Act of 2025. This bill would establish in statute the Office of Environmental Justice within the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice.

The principles of environmental justice call for environmental fairness, regardless of race, color, national origin or income, and the meaningful involvement of communities in the development of laws and regulations that affect every community's natural surroundings and the places people live, work, play, and learn. California was one of the first States in the Nation to codify a definition of ``environmental justice'' in statute, understanding the disproportionate impact that frontline communities face.

This reality could not be more relevant today in light of the recent firings of environmental justice and ENRD employees at the Department of Justice. During the 117th Congress, I was proud to work with my colleague Representative Barragan on a bill that called for the creation of an Environmental Justice Office at the DOJ, and we were pleased that the Department moved forward to establish this office in May 2022.

However, on her first day as Attorney General, Pam Bondi eliminated all environmental justice efforts at the DOJ, in line with President Trump's orders to eliminate all DEI initiatives at Federal Agencies. Her order effectively terminated the office and halted all programs designed to fight pollution and enforce environmental laws.

I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in working to codify this office so that environmental enforcement does not fall victim to political agendas. The work that this office did made a real impact, making progress in ensuring that all people can breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live in healthy, resilient environments.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Empowering and Enforcing Environmental Justice Act of 2025. This bill would establish in statute the Office of Environmental Justice within the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice.

The principles of environmental justice call for environmental fairness, regardless of race, color, national origin or income, and the meaningful involvement of communities in the development of laws and regulations that affect every community's natural surroundings and the places people live, work, play, and learn. California was one of the first States in the Nation to codify a definition of ``environmental justice'' in statute, understanding the disproportionate impact that frontline communities face.

This reality could not be more relevant today in light of the recent firings of environmental justice and ENRD employees at the Department of Justice. During the 117th Congress, I was proud to work with my colleague Representative Barragan on a bill that called for the creation of an Environmental Justice Office at the DOJ, and we were pleased that the Department moved forward to establish this office in May 2022.

However, on her first day as Attorney General, Pam Bondi eliminated all environmental justice efforts at the DOJ, in line with President Trump's orders to eliminate all DEI initiatives at Federal Agencies. Her order effectively terminated the office and halted all programs designed to fight pollution and enforce environmental laws.

I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in working to codify this office so that environmental enforcement does not fall victim to political agendas. The work that this office did made a real impact, making progress in ensuring that all people can breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live in healthy, resilient environments.

Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce the Tule River Tribe Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025. This legislation would finalize this multidecade effort by the Tule River Tribe to provide clean drinking water to their people and uphold the Federal Government's trust and treaty responsibilities.

The Tule River people are descendants of the Yokuts Indians, a large group of Native Americans who occupied what is now known as the San Joaquin Valley in California for thousands of years prior to contact with settlers.

In 1856, the Federal Government established their reservation in Tulare County, with the specific goal of providing the Tribe with arable farmland and the water resources necessary to establish self- sufficiency. However, their land was fraudulently stolen from them, and in 1873, President Grant issued an Executive order to create a new reservation for the Tribe. This land--which is the Tribe's current reservation--is comprised of mostly mountainous lands that do not provide sufficient irrigation opportunities or water storage facilities. Today, the Tule River Tribe struggles to provide clean drinking water to their people, and Tule Tribal citizens suffer from a low standard of living as a result.

Since 1971, the Tribe has worked to establish its federally reserved water rights to create the viable homeland they were promised and to ensure that their citizens have enough water to meet their current and future water needs. For decades, the Tribe has worked with the Departments of the Interior and Justice as well as downstream water users to advance a settlement agreement, thereby avoiding costly litigation for both the Tribe and the U.S. Government.

I am proud to introduce this legislation to quantify the Tribe's water right of 5,828 acre-feet per year of surface water and fund $568 million towards the construction of a water storage project. My legislation would also codify what is known as the 2007 Agreement with downstream water users, who support this legislation. Finally, the legislation would transfer approximately 9,000 acres of Federal land currently in the Sequoia National Monument to allow the Tribe to protect the watershed headwaters and 800 acres of grazing land to the north and south of the reservation boundary.

It is long past time for the Federal Government to live up to its trust and treaty responsibilities to the Tule River Tribe. We must codify this water settlement and settle the Tule River Tribe's claims against the United States. Access to clean drinking water now and in the future is essential to the continued strength of Tribal nations and to ensuring the sustainability and viability of future generations.

Water is a sacred and necessary resource for Tribal nations and for all people. As California and the West continue to experience a historic megadrought, enactment of our legislation would provide water security to Tule River citizens now and into the future.

I thank Senator Schiff for introducing this legislation with me in the Senate. I would also like to thank the Tule River Tribe for their decades of hard work to finalize this settlement and the downstream water users, including the Tule River Association and the South Tule Independent Ditch Company, for working with the Tribe to settle this issue and avoid litigation.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the Tule River Tribe Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025 as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce the Tule River Tribe Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025. This legislation would finalize this multidecade effort by the Tule River Tribe to provide clean drinking water to their people and uphold the Federal Government's trust and treaty responsibilities.

The Tule River people are descendants of the Yokuts Indians, a large group of Native Americans who occupied what is now known as the San Joaquin Valley in California for thousands of years prior to contact with settlers.

In 1856, the Federal Government established their reservation in Tulare County, with the specific goal of providing the Tribe with arable farmland and the water resources necessary to establish self- sufficiency. However, their land was fraudulently stolen from them, and in 1873, President Grant issued an Executive order to create a new reservation for the Tribe. This land--which is the Tribe's current reservation--is comprised of mostly mountainous lands that do not provide sufficient irrigation opportunities or water storage facilities. Today, the Tule River Tribe struggles to provide clean drinking water to their people, and Tule Tribal citizens suffer from a low standard of living as a result.

Since 1971, the Tribe has worked to establish its federally reserved water rights to create the viable homeland they were promised and to ensure that their citizens have enough water to meet their current and future water needs. For decades, the Tribe has worked with the Departments of the Interior and Justice as well as downstream water users to advance a settlement agreement, thereby avoiding costly litigation for both the Tribe and the U.S. Government.

I am proud to introduce this legislation to quantify the Tribe's water right of 5,828 acre-feet per year of surface water and fund $568 million towards the construction of a water storage project. My legislation would also codify what is known as the 2007 Agreement with downstream water users, who support this legislation. Finally, the legislation would transfer approximately 9,000 acres of Federal land currently in the Sequoia National Monument to allow the Tribe to protect the watershed headwaters and 800 acres of grazing land to the north and south of the reservation boundary.

It is long past time for the Federal Government to live up to its trust and treaty responsibilities to the Tule River Tribe. We must codify this water settlement and settle the Tule River Tribe's claims against the United States. Access to clean drinking water now and in the future is essential to the continued strength of Tribal nations and to ensuring the sustainability and viability of future generations.

Water is a sacred and necessary resource for Tribal nations and for all people. As California and the West continue to experience a historic megadrought, enactment of our legislation would provide water security to Tule River citizens now and into the future.

I thank Senator Schiff for introducing this legislation with me in the Senate. I would also like to thank the Tule River Tribe for their decades of hard work to finalize this settlement and the downstream water users, including the Tule River Association and the South Tule Independent Ditch Company, for working with the Tribe to settle this issue and avoid litigation.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the Tule River Tribe Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025 as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, I too rise today to oppose the nomination of Kash Patel to serve as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Now, let me begin by saying to Americans watching at home who may not be completely up to speed as to what is going on, the importance of this specific nomination or wondering, Who is Kash Patel?

You might have been distracted these past few weeks by a rush of headlines coming out of the White House, maybe preoccupied with the cost of groceries rising by the week. You may have--if you got any news--been hearing about how President Trump, the richest President in history, has given Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, unprecedented access to millions of Americans' sensitive private information.

Yes, Elon Musk has access to your personal, private information, from Social Security numbers, to home addresses, to your tax information. There has been a lot going on. All the while, President Trump has also tried to lay the groundwork to pass another massive tax cut for billionaires.

So if you have been busy and struggling to keep up, I understand. So let me try to break it down for you.

Only in the year 2025, when Donald Trump seems to have a headlock on the Republican Party, could a nominee this extreme and this unqualified be considered or confirmed to lead the FBI. No party of Reagan would ever support this big a threat to American freedom and our national security. No party of Lincoln could ever support this big a source of division among Americans. Yet here we are, pretending as if a man who promised to shut down the FBI headquarters on day one and turn it into a museum for the deep state is now fit to lead the FBI.

You see time and again, Kash Patel has shown that his loyalty lies not with the rule of law but with Donald Trump. Why? Because he knows that Donald Trump is his cash cow. Trump is Kash Patel's ticket to selling more books. It is his calling card to try to book the next podcast interview and certainly key to landing his next job.

Frankly, it is a pattern we have seen from all too many of the nominees that Donald Trump has picked for his second administration. These are people whose sole qualification is allegiance to Trump. This should disqualify any nominee, but it is particularly concerning for a nominee slated to lead the Nation's premier law enforcement Agency.

When it comes to protecting the security of our Nation, there is no room to choose between patriotism and patronage. The American people need and

deserve a public servant who is 100 percent committed to the around- the-clock safety of the American people.

Unfortunately, through his actions over the course of the last several years and his conduct this past month before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kash Patel has demonstrated a dangerous lack of judgment, lack of preparation, and lack of independence. He has shown that he is either unwilling or incapable of putting politics aside in order to ``protect the American people and uphold the Constitution'' should he be confirmed to lead the FBI.

Throughout his career, he has shown a clear pattern of loyalty to Trump and of self-dealings at the expense of the American people. That includes undermining the FBI's work in order to protect Trump from investigation; profiting off of conspiracies about a ``Deep State'' and promoting an ``enemies list'' targeting public servants; selling picture books to spread conspiracy theories to children about the 2016 election; endangering the lives of American servicemembers after inserting himself into a hostage rescue operation; refusing to commit in his confirmation hearing to enforcing existing gun laws that protect lives and have saved lives; holding millions of dollars in unvested stock in a foreign company tied to forced and child labor; and even producing a song and financially supporting the families of insurrectionists who violently beat Capitol Police officers on January 6.

Now it appears that this list includes potentially having lied under oath in his confirmation hearing about the role he played in firing career FBI employees based on their perceived loyalties. After we heard him swear in committee that he played no role in the firings, whistleblowers are coming forward to tell us otherwise. At the very least, this charge is so serious that it warrants further investigation.

Colleagues, stretching the truth or potentially outright lying may score him points with President Trump, but as Director of the FBI, it will only put American lives at risk.

Think about it. To all the Americans who might be watching from home, you wouldn't put an arsonist in charge of a fire department, would you? But with Kash Patel atop the FBI, that is exactly what we get. Career law enforcement will continue to be purged, the FBI will be weaponized for political gain, and our communities will be less safe.

I want to make one final point to our Republican colleagues. Throughout this body's history, the Senate has had not just the opportunity but the responsibility to serve as a check on Executive overreach.

Senators of both parties over history have exercised our constitutional duty to advise and consent to the President's nominations, and in the past, the Senate has rejected extreme nominations. To stay quiet when a nominee so obviously unfit comes before us--that sets a dangerous precedent. Think about the damage you will be doing not just to the institution of the FBI or to the Senate but to the trust that millions of Americans deserve to have in our law enforcement.

But more important than that, today, consider this: Someday in the future, possibly the near future, when a loyalist FBI Director abuses the position and fails to protect the American people, it won't just be Kash Patel that will be held accountable, it won't just be President Trump we will try to hold accountable, it will be every Member of this body who supported his nomination that will also be held accountable.

So I invite you, I encourage you to have the courage to say no to Trump because lives are on the line. Have the courage to stand up and protect your constituents, protect the American people. Stand up, do the right thing, and vote no on this nominee.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Equal COLA Act, which I introduced today.

The Federal Government's workforce is central to protecting our national security and delivering critical services to hundreds of millions of Americans. As such, it is essential that the Federal Government attract and retain an effective workforce and, once their service is complete, ensure retirees receive the dignified retirement that they deserve. It is clear that now more than ever, Congress must step up and support our Federal workforce.

Unfortunately, in 1986, Congress created a two-tiered system that now prevents nearly 800,000 retired Federal employees from receiving a full cost-of-living adjustment when consumer prices increase more than 2 percent from year to year.

In January, some Federal retirees received a 2.5-percent COLA. However, other Federal retirees received only a 2.0-percent increase due to this policy, which fails to protect retired employees living on a fixed income. I believe all Federal retirees who have worked in service to our country should receive a full adjustment to their benefits each year that is consistent with national economic trends.

That is why I am proud to reintroduce this legislation to fix this unfair system and ensure that all retired Federal employees receive full retirement benefits that keep up with the cost of living.

I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill to ensure that retired Federal employees no longer pay the price of a misguided law and that their benefits fully keep pace with the cost of living.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Equal COLA Act, which I introduced today.

The Federal Government's workforce is central to protecting our national security and delivering critical services to hundreds of millions of Americans. As such, it is essential that the Federal Government attract and retain an effective workforce and, once their service is complete, ensure retirees receive the dignified retirement that they deserve. It is clear that now more than ever, Congress must step up and support our Federal workforce.

Unfortunately, in 1986, Congress created a two-tiered system that now prevents nearly 800,000 retired Federal employees from receiving a full cost-of-living adjustment when consumer prices increase more than 2 percent from year to year.

In January, some Federal retirees received a 2.5-percent COLA. However, other Federal retirees received only a 2.0-percent increase due to this policy, which fails to protect retired employees living on a fixed income. I believe all Federal retirees who have worked in service to our country should receive a full adjustment to their benefits each year that is consistent with national economic trends.

That is why I am proud to reintroduce this legislation to fix this unfair system and ensure that all retired Federal employees receive full retirement benefits that keep up with the cost of living.

I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill to ensure that retired Federal employees no longer pay the price of a misguided law and that their benefits fully keep pace with the cost of living.