Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, Jocelyn Nungaray was a 12-year-old girl who was sexually assaulted and murdered just north of Houston last June. The two suspects who committed this ghastly crime were illegal immigrants who never should have been in our country in the first place.

To commemorate Jocelyn's life, I have introduced the Jocelyn Nungaray National Wildlife Refuge Act, which would permanently rename the Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge in Texas in her memory.

This bill would actually codify President Trump's Executive order and ensure that future generations will remember Jocelyn for years to come. I hope my colleagues will join me in renaming this Texas wildlife refuge in her honor.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be discharged from further consideration of S. 1596 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

I know of no further debate on the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, America is an exceptional nation: freedom of religion, freedom of speech and of the press; private property rights; free and fair elections; the rule of law and an independent judiciary. All of these help make us exceptional, but we Americans often take this for granted because these principles, these values, are so ingrained in our way of life. That is who we are. But it also makes it more challenging for us to understand how different other countries may be from us. It shouldn't be a surprise, though, if you think about it. History, culture, economics all matter, but, sadly, this is a lesson that seems like we and others need to learn over and over again.

When it comes to Russia, it is worth recalling Churchill's description of the former Soviet Union. He called it a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, but when it comes to negotiating peace in Ukraine, we might be tempted to assume that Vladimir Putin is working from the same playbook as other stakeholders. But that is simply not the case. The fundamental differences between Russia and the West have become all that much more apparent in the negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. This is precisely what has made it such a difficult challenge to end the war, and that is what makes President Trump's efforts all that much more noble when we consider the monumental task that he is seeking to accomplish.

As I have said before--and I will say it again--I am grateful to President Trump for his leadership and his efforts to end the conflict that has lasted far too long--for more than 3 years now. During his first 100 days, President Trump has done more than President Biden did in 4 years. He has made clear to the Europeans that they need to step up and assume greater ownership of their continental security, and he successfully persuaded them to increase their defense spending and enhance deterrents against future aggression.

The President's representatives have led several rounds of negotiations between the Ukrainians and the Russians--something that President Biden did not even attempt--and President Trump has secured a key critical minerals deal with Ukraine, which will help fund the reconstruction of that country. It will help compensate America for its investments in Ukraine's defense and dissuade future Russian aggression.

But there is one significant obstacle in achieving a lasting end to this conflict, and that, of course, is Vladimir Putin.

Succinctly stated, Vladimir Putin's Russia is a police state. In Russia, people who buck the government mysteriously disappear or fall out of windows to their deaths or are poisoned, imprisoned, or die of suspect causes like Alexei Navalny. In Russia, the government targets religious minorities, imposing fines and criminal charges. In Russia, the government controls the media. Independent media outlets are censored, suppressed, or shuttered if they do not conform to the party line. Under Vladimir Putin, government redistributes private property based on political loyalties, giving rise to the oligarchs that we have heard so much about.

Then there are the alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Russia during its invasion of Ukraine. Take, for example, the bombing of Ukraine's civilian energy infrastructure during the first winter of Russia's full-scale invasion or consider the mass abduction of Ukrainian children. Thousands of Ukrainian children have been deported to Russia since the start of the full-scale invasion, with many having been adopted into Russian families or sent to camps, where they are subjected to ideological indoctrination designed to erase their Ukrainian identity.

The bombing of Ukraine's power grid, which was part of a state policy of widespread attacks on the civilian population, further illustrates the point.

One particular event in Bucha stands out. Russian troops intentionally massacred more than 400 civilians, apparently as part of a systematic clearing operation to secure their path to the capital, Kyiv. Russian paratroopers from the 234th Guards Air Assault Regiment interrogated and executed unarmed men of fighting age and killed people who unwittingly crossed their paths, whether it was children fleeing with their families or locals hoping to find groceries or people simply trying to get back home on their bicycles. The victims of this massacre were of all ages and professions. This massacre would be deemed a war crime under international humanitarian law, and because of their systematic and widespread nature, the killings in Bucha could also amount to crimes against humanity.

So the Russian Federation under Vladimir Putin is nothing like the United States or Europe, for that matter. Russia, of course, has its own history, culture, and form of government, and I said earlier, it can be easy for the West to assume, as we have done before, that our values are shared by other countries, but that is most decidedly not the case with Putin's Russia. Putin has made his unwillingness to end this unprovoked and barbaric war as plain as day. He has shown no remorse that his country is nearing 1 million casualties. He clearly doesn't care about the Russian people, who have been sacrificed to his fantasy of an empire restored, and his tolerance for casualties appears without limit.

In fact, Putin has done nothing to justify the hope that he might be persuaded to end this war. To the contrary, despite Putin's declared cease-fire over the Easter holiday, Russia then proceeded to launch attacks into Ukraine that killed innocent civilians. More recently, Russia launched two ballistic missiles and 165 drones, wounding 11 people, including 2 children.

One 54-year-old Kyiv resident, whose car caught fire during the attack, expressed frustration at the lack of progress for peace, saying:

They can't agree on anything, and we are the ones who

suffer the consequences.

An 18-year-old student said:

People are just suffering all the time . . . It's still

very hard to see our country constantly being destroyed.

President Trump noted in a statement on Truth Social:

There was no reason for Putin to be shooting missiles into

civilian areas, cities and towns, over the last few days.

The President went on to suggest that Putin may not actually be trying to stop the war. I agree with President Trump. There is no indication he is trying to stop the war. Vladimir Putin is making a grave mistake in stringing the President of the United States and the rest of the world along while innocent lives are being taken.

In order to achieve peace, President Trump needs a good-faith partner both in Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and Russian President Putin. Notably, while Zelenskyy has met with the President several times, most recently at the Vatican, Putin has not. Instead of working for peace, Putin recently threatened to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine in order to bring the war, in his own words, ``to a logical conclusion with the outcome [that] Russia requires.''

How does this relate to President Trump's peace efforts? Well, we should listen to Putin's own words. In a speech he delivered to the Russian Foreign Ministry last year, Putin argued that peace with Ukraine would require a removal of Ukrainian troops from the southern and eastern part of that country, the demilitarization and denuclearization of Ukraine, a neutral and non-NATO Ukraine, and the removal of all Western sanctions.

The hard reality is that Putin sees this conflict not just as a war between Russia and Ukraine but as a war between Russia and the West.

In this same speech, he says the West is primarily at fault for the conflict in the world today and that it was the West that incited a Ukrainian coup in 2014 and further unrest in Eastern Ukraine in 2022, which necessitated Russian military action to liberate the people of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Putin says that the war would have ended long ago, in March 2022, had it not been for the West's supplying Ukraine with weapons and political support and extending the conflict.

Likewise, Putin sees Ukraine's prospective association with NATO or European peacekeeping forces an inherit extension of Western imperialism, which he cannot tolerate. He even goes as far as to say that Russia could not accept a cease-fire since it would give time for Ukraine to rearm.

Finally, Putin shares a vision for a multipolar world to counter what he perceives as Western imperialism and Russia's efforts to use security and economic agreements toward these ends.

In sum, Putin does not see this negotiation as a means to bringing about an end to the conflict in Ukraine; he sees it as a key piece to a larger war against the West. In essence, this negotiation is much bigger than Russia and Ukraine. We need to listen to what Putin says but also watch what he does as he attempts to stall peace negotiations while attempting to achieve his larger aims.

Putin's invasion of Ukraine just over 3 years ago is an obvious violation of another international agreement that Russia was a party to--the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Under this agreement, Ukraine willingly gave up its arsenal of nuclear weapons--the third largest in the world--in exchange for security assurances by Russia and other signatories. Russia went on then to violate the Budapest Memorandum in 2014 when it invaded Crimea and annexed the Crimea Peninsula. Then, as we all know, Russia violated the Memorandum for a second time in February 2022 with its invasion of Ukraine proper.

If Russia were unwilling to honor the commitments enshrined in the Budapest Memorandum in 2014 and 2022, how, then, can Ukraine or the rest of the world, for that matter, be assured that they will honor a peace agreement brokered in 2025?

And, once again, Putin is threatening nuclear war if he does not receive the guarantees of a further demilitarized Ukraine.

But if he thinks these threats are an effective method of intimidating the United States and President Trump, he is mistaken. President Trump has made very clear that he will not allow Russia to continue doing what he calls ``tapping us along.''

Putin may well have been able to dupe Obama. He may have been able to intimidate Biden. But any attempt to fool or strong-arm President Trump will not succeed. If Putin thinks he is going to pull the wool over his eyes or box him into a corner, Putin is in for a very rude shock.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, it looks like my timing is exquisite because I came down here to talk about something that I think has sort of fallen off the radar screen here in recent weeks, and that is the work of the Department of Government Efficiency,

one of the most important developments that I think we have seen with the advent of President Trump's ascension to the Office of President.

It is amazing to me to listen to my Democratic colleagues talking like Chicken Little: ``The sky is falling.'' I heard the Senator from Rhode Island suggest that we are trying to privatize Social Security. There is no one--absolutely no one--suggesting that. This is what is called a straw man. You erect a phony argument, and you knock it down, and you claim victory.

The truth is, Mr. Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency should be applauded for their efforts to root out waste, fraud, and abuse. You would think taxpayers--the same taxpayers our colleagues represent in their States--would applaud this effort.

I can't think of a more difficult but important goal than helping the government find efficiencies and reduce spending, because if we reduce spending, two things happen: Either we reduce the taxes that are taken from the hard-working families and produce the revenue by which government operates or we eliminate or reduce the amount of debt that the Federal Government accrues, which right now is at an unsustainable level. To me, both of those things are positive: limiting the amount of money that comes from the taxpayer or--and maybe it is ``and''-- reducing the government debt.

The problem with runaway spending by the government, of course, is not a new one, but it has been getting increasingly worse, particularly during the last 4 years of the Biden administration. The truth is, it has taken us a long time to get to $37 trillion in debt, but it has now reached the point of unsustainability. We are spending more money on interest on the national debt than we are on defense in an increasingly dangerous world. That alone is unsustainable.

Ronald Reagan described our spending problem back in 1984, when he said these famous words, ``We could say they spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors,'' which just about sums it up.

For somebody like Elon Musk, who is reportedly one of the most wealthy--maybe, the most wealthy person--on the planet to spend his time and effort and to assemble a team like he has to work with the government and to start the Department of Government Efficiency is a huge public service. I am grateful to Elon Musk, who has volunteered his time, as well as recruiting others to help the U.S. Government deal with its spending addiction and to try to help it get clean--certainly, much worse than a drunken sailor.

This morning, I had a chance to meet with a gentleman, Joe Gebbia, who is the former CEO of Airbnb and who is volunteering his time because he sees this as an unprecedented opportunity to get at problems that the government historically has been unable to deal with, and that is the incredible rise and increase in government spending, the inefficiency, the waste of taxpayer funds, and the national debt.

So getting a team like this, with very accomplished entrepreneurs and people who have been very successful in the private sector, to come in and try to help us figure out how to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse strikes me as an act of patriotism and public service.

I know we have heard the saying that imitation is the highest form of flattery. Back home in Texas, Governor Abbott and the Texas Legislature have also followed dozens of other States in paying a high compliment to the Department of Government Efficiency and Elon Musk by proposing a DOGE-like task force at the State level. I am sure that, even in a State as efficiently run and with as low taxes as Texas, you can find inefficiency that can be and should be rooted out.

Govenor Abbott recently signed the first bill of this year's legislative session into law to establish the Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office, modeled after DOGE.

While some States are more fiscally responsible than others, State governments, as I said, are not immune from spending taxpayer money on outdated or inefficient programs. Texas is one of the most efficient. That shouldn't surprise anyone. We have the fourth lowest State taxes in the country, and we have been ranked one of the lowest spending States in terms of State-spending per capita.

I look forward to seeing the great work being done down in Austin by the Texas DOGE and what they can do to try to help make State government more efficient. I know I join many of them in thanking Elon and his team at DOGE for the inspiration and what he has brought down to our State.

Of course, Elon's status within the Federal Government is that of what is called a special government employee. That means it is for a period of time--130 days, in this case. And with that date approaching soon, Mr. Musk indicates he plans to wrap up his work. But I must emphasize that the work of DOGE must go on. The task of improving government efficiency is one that will never be finished.

I believe that Elon Musk and his team at DOGE have made monumental progress in just a few short months. Let me give you a few examples.

The Department of the Treasury started its first automated payment verification system at the recommendation of DOGE. So far, more than $300 million has been identified in improper payment requests.

Over at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the government has launched a Fraud Detection Operations Center, and 1 week ago today, CMS announced they suspended suspected fraudulent payments to 33 different providers. One such fraudulent payment was for a patient that died two decades ago. It reminds me of some of the people on the Social Security rolls that DOGE has also found--some well in excess of 100 years old, if they exist at all.

Well, another example included billing more than $2 million in genetic testing for patients that never actually received the test. These are just a few examples of the gross fraud and inefficiencies that happened throughout the Federal Government.

I am sure it is just the tip of the iceberg, but these technical payment glitches are just scratching the surface. DOGE's findings and recommendations have also eliminated some of the most egregious examples of fraud.

The Department of Justice, in partnership with DOGE, discovered and charged an Iraqi man for illegally voting in a U.S. election. Now, we should know--I think everybody does know--that foreign nationals, noncitizens, are not eligible to vote in U.S. elections. That is a privilege reserved for citizens of the United States. Instances of foreign nationals voting in our elections threaten the bedrock of our democratic Republic. All of us should be thankful to the Department of Justice, Attorney General Bondi, FBI Director Patel, and DOGE that they identified and eliminated this violation of the sanctity of our elections process.

The Department of Labor and the Department of Agriculture are working to make sure that illegal immigrants are not receiving Federal benefits that they are not authorized to receive, such as unemployment insurance or SNAP benefits, otherwise known as food stamps. These programs were meant to protect vulnerable Americans, not to reward illegal immigrants for breaking our laws.

From eliminating improper payments to safeguarding our elections, I believe we owe Mr. Musk a debt of gratitude for helping to identify these problems--again, just the tip of the iceberg--and/or eliminating these wasteful uses of hard-earned tax dollars.

In order to consolidate the gains that DOGE has made, I support Congress and the administration working together to codify these cost- cutting measures through rescissions. That is the official process by which we actually save the money.

This will be important for a few different reasons. No. 1, it will allow us to use the savings that DOGE is identifying in order to offset the costs of the tax bill that we are currently considering, allowing us to send even more money back to the American people. Any money we can save from wasteful spending, obviously, can be sent back or kept by the people who earn it in the first place, which are hard-working American families.

So I am very happy to hear that the White House indicated that they plan on sending us a rescissions package very soon. I would recommend, personally, that they send a rescissions package on a monthly basis.

I am going to be very interested to see how our Democratic colleagues react to some of these sensible spending cuts or rescissions. So far, what they have done is they have been in complete opposition to anything and everything that the Trump administration has proposed, including the Department of Government Efficiency.

I don't think it helps their credibility when some of the most egregious expenditures and waste of taxpayer money are pointed out, and they complain about the person who is identifying it and made it possible maybe to save that money or to return it to the taxpayers from whom it came in the first place.

As officials at the Office of Management and Budget consider their options moving forward, I hope they know that I will be a willing and eager partner in their efforts.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have one request for a committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, May 5, 2025, at 5:30 p.m., to conduct a business meeting.

Mr. President, the Senate has made good progress on implementing President Trump's agenda. After just 100 days, we have confirmed his Cabinet. We are now working on a number of Ambassadors, and we have passed budget resolutions in the House and the Senate. And, of course, we are now grinding out the reconciliation process to make sure that the tax cuts that expire at the end of this year do not expire and we are able to prevent the largest tax increase in American history--a multitrillion-dollar tax increase were we to be unsuccessful.

But, as we know, passing the budget is probably the easiest part of this process which we have just been through, and now the various committees of jurisdiction have their work cut out for them, both in the House and the Senate, to meet the targets laid out by the budget.

Perhaps, one of the most difficult parts of this process will be to identify savings to meet budget targets in order to offset the necessary costs in this ``one big beautiful bill.'' It is going to be really complicated, and it is going to be hard, and there are a lot of moving parts.

But one of the ways we can, I think, make good progress on cutting down on some of the excess spending that Washington seems to always fall into is by implementing work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents for all means-tested programs.

So means-tested programs--obviously, that refers to the fact that at certain income levels, people can get access to certain benefits by the government. Medicaid is one example; food stamps is another; temporary assistance to needy families--all of these are means-tested.

But over time, the work requirements for able-bodied adults has been eroded. Now this used to be part of our bipartisan consensus. This goes back to the Clinton era where there was an agreement between Democrats and Republicans that government assistance should be conditioned on work. The philosophy, which I think is a sound philosophy, is that government programs are here to step in to fill the gap, a safety net, if you will, when hard times come along. But we don't want any of our citizens, for a whole variety of reasons, to fall into a trap of long- term dependency. That is not good for them; that is not good for their families; it is not good for the communities in which they live; and it is unfair to taxpayers. Taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize people who can work and who should work but who don't work.

So conditioning aid on some form of work participation, whether it is an actual job or a job training program or volunteer service was a way to keep Americans from falling into this trap.

So it was 1996 when President Clinton and Newt Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, came together to pass the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. That is a mouthful. It came to be known more commonly as the Welfare Reform Act of 1996.

This landmark legislation created a program called TANF, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. TANF imposed a 5-year limit on cash assistance and also implemented work requirements for able-bodied adults without children.

And the success of this law was beyond expectations. Within 5 years, welfare caseloads declined by close to 50 percent, the first significant decline since World War II. At the same time, employment and earnings among low-income individuals went up dramatically. Their standard of living improved dramatically. Employment among single mothers increased from 50 percent to 70 percent within 7 years, while the number of children living in poverty--this is a big one--the number of children living in poverty declined by 2.9 percent.

Unfortunately, this era of bipartisan consensus and good policy was turned upside down by the Obama administration's disastrous decision to roll back the TANF work requirements by issuing waivers.

The U.S. Government spends $1 trillion on means-tested programs, and work requirements are a commonsense way to reform these programs and to save hard-earned tax dollars of American working families that are now spent on people who can work and should work but don't work.

Recent research from the Foundation for Government Accountability found that more than 62 percent of able-bodied adults who receive Medicaid benefits do not work at all. Let me say that again because it is so shocking: The Foundation for Government Accountability found that more than 62 percent--almost two-thirds--of able-bodied adults who receive Medicaid benefits do not work at all.

Implementing work requirements have worked well for TANF, and adding SNAP or food stamp programs would be a great step forward as well. This policy alone would save up to $281 billion over the next 10 years.

It was also found in polling that this sort of requirement has been supported by nearly 75 percent of voters. So this is a successful requirement, work requirements, something that enjoyed bipartisan support, and in polling, voters show that 75 percent of voters said they thought it was a good idea.

But setting aside the budgetary implications, work requirements have many other positive, downstream effects for American society. As a nation, labor force participation--that is, those who are either gainfully employed or actively searching for a job--has been on the decline among working-age men for decades now. And, of course, COVID was a huge body blow on the workforce participation rates already. Between 1960 and 2023, the fraction of working-age men who are out of the labor force increased from about 3 percent to a whopping 11 percent. And by 2024, this number was increased to 22 percent--it doubled. This is nearly a 700-percent increase over the past six and a half decades.

Significant numbers of men are opting out of the labor force, and it is detrimental to society for a whole host of reasons. And the truth is, it is detrimental to them because there is dignity that comes with work, self-respect providing for your family, and your contributing to your community. Those are intangibles, perhaps, but important in American society and American culture.

But we also know that many businesses struggle to find workers. The Wall Street Journal recently highlighted that a common complaint among employers, particularly in the manufacturing sector, is that they have many well-paying jobs and they can't find enough workers to fill those available jobs.

Around half of small business owners in construction and manufacturing recently reported having job vacancies they could not fill. Recently, progressive policymakers have decided that widespread illegal immigration was the solution to these workforce shortages, opening up our borders.

Well, we know President Biden--I think unwisely--granted work authorizations to many of the illegal immigrants that were released into the interior of the United States, which further incentivized illegal immigration. That is not the answer.

To make matters worse, President Biden started the Cuban-Haitian- Nicaraguan-Venezuelan Parole Program, which granted work authorization for up to 30,000 illegal immigrants each month--from four countries. None of these programs were authorized by Congress. They were created by the Biden administration, acting outside the law, and they included none of the protections for American workers that Congress wrote into our existing programs.

Thankfully, we have a new President, and President Trump has been taking action to end these illegal practices by the Biden administration.

When we think about what a healthy and flourishing society looks like, it does not include large numbers of prime-age workers sitting on the sidelines or sitting on the couch at home. Rather, it does include a fully engaged population, fully engaged in productive activity like work or training or looking for work.

Opening our borders to criminals and who knows what and granting them work authorizations while able-bodied adult American men sit on the sidelines has never been the answer. Yet that seemed to be the answer that the Biden administration gave us.

I have a better idea, and it is not my original idea. Let's incentivize able-bodied individuals who are currently not working to get back in the job market and fill these positions. If they need training, let's make sure they get the training so they can fill these good, well-paying jobs so they cannot only get off this cycle of dependency, they can support themselves and their families. They can contribute to their communities and contribute to the welfare of our Nation.

By enhancing the work requirements on means-tested government aid programs like Medicaid--but not limited to Medicaid--we, as policymakers, have a much better shot at making our communities function better and allowing more and more people to pursue and achieve the American dream. Human beings were not meant to sit idly, not meant to sit on the couch and play video games all day, not meant to be dependent on others that do labor productively. We were not meant to sit and watch while others toiled and to reap the benefits of their labor.

So as we, the various committees in the Senate and the House, get to work to hash out the details of President Trump's big, beautiful bill that will extend these tax cuts, there is a lot more we can and we need to do. I encourage all of us to use this unique opportunity to do what happened back as a result of the Clinton-Gingrich agreement and the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, and that is reinstate reasonable work requirements for all of our means-tested programs. It will help us deal with the $37 trillion in debt that we currently have. And as we all know, we are spending more money on interest on the debt than we are on defense, an unsustainable situation for more than one reason.

But this policy will help us get our fiscal house in order and will help us address the societal ills that our country is facing by encouraging greater workforce participation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for a second reading and, in order to put the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following resolutions that are at the desk: S. Res. 196, OU Women's Gymnastics; and S. Res. 197, UConn Women's Basketball.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate complete its business today, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Monday, May 5; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; finally, that all postcloture time on the Bisignano nomination be expired and the Senate vote on the confirmation of the nomination at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader on Tuesday, May 6; and that, if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, we will have one rollcall vote at 5:30 p.m. on Monday on the motion to proceed to H.J. Res. 61.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I want to start my remarks today by thanking President Trump, Secretary Rollins, Secretary Rubio, and Deputy Secretary of State Landau for their efforts in securing a new agreement with the country of Mexico to send much needed water to South Texas.

This has been a longstanding problem. I remember years ago being in Mexico City when I was attorney general of Texas talking about getting the Mexican Government to live up to their responsibilities under this treaty, which requires them to deliver water to the United States on a regular basis. But their habit has been to delay the delivery of that water until the end of the 5-year period of the treaty. Obviously, in the interim, Mexican farmers have the water they need to grow the crops they need to grow and leave Texas agriculture high and dry.

But it is important that we get this water flowing again because Mexico has repeatedly refused to comply with the terms of the treaty in a timely manner.

We worked with the Biden administration. I remember talking to Secretary Blinken and introducing legislation, talking to my colleagues across the aisle about coming up with some carrots and sticks that we might be able to use to get Mexico to live up to its responsibilities, but the Biden administration really wasn't particularly interested in solving the problem.

I have been working here in the Congress, as have my colleagues both in the Senate and the House, particularly our Texas delegation in the House of Representatives, to get them to live up to their responsibilities, and I think we have come to realize that the current treaty, which was signed back in 1944, has become obsolete; that we need some interim measures and metrics to ensure that there are regular annual water deliveries for Texas and our agricultural industry. But yesterday's announcement was an important step forward doing just that. And, again, I thank the President, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Deputy Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State for their efforts to secure this important and long-overdue payment of water to south Texas.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, at a time to be determined by the majority leader following consultation with the Democratic leader, no later than Wednesday, April 30, S.J. Res. 49 be discharged from the Committee on Finance, and the Senate proceed to its consideration; further, that there be six hours of debate only, with the time equally divided between the leaders or their designees on the joint resolution and that following the use or yielding back of that time, the joint resolution be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the joint resolution.