Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 296, S. Res. 526.

Mr. President, eight decades ago, the United States and Mexico signed an agreement now known as the 1944 Water Treaty to govern the sharing of waters in the Colorado River and the Rio Grande. According to this treaty, the United States is required to deliver 1.5 million acre-feet, or just under 500,000 gallons, of water from the Colorado River to Mexico each year. Similarly, Mexico is obligated to deliver 1.75 million acre-feet to the United States from the Rio Grande River every 5 years.

And while the United States has dutifully held up its end of the bargain, Mexico has been delinquent on repeated occasions. Now, Mexico is hundreds of thousands of acre-feet behind in their required water deliveries. In the most recent cycle, which ended in October of last year, Mexico had delivered less than half of the water it was obligated to deliver under the terms of the treaty. Furthermore, Mexico has not been consistent in their water delivery, sometimes waiting until the very end of the 5-year period to deliver a substantial amount of water in an attempt, ostensibly, to catch up.

This uncertainty in and of itself has made life difficult, you can imagine, for the more than 400,000 farmers and ranchers who call Texas home. Imagine trying to grow crops not knowing whether you are going to have any water for as long as 4 years, only to receive a huge lump sum at the end of year 5. It just doesn't work out. But this is a very real dilemma faced by many of my constituents in South Texas.

Water deliveries from Mexico are vital to irrigation farming and municipal use in the Rio Grande Valley, helping generate billions in economic productivity for the region. Water shortages created by Mexico's failure to follow this treaty have wreaked havoc on the ability of farmers and ranchers to plan and to tend their crops, which has, in turn, had a terrible economic cost on our entire State. In 2024, the Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, which ran the only sugarcane mill in Texas, announced they were forced to close operations after more than 51 years because of these water shortages. Five hundred American jobs were lost as a result.

If Mexico continues to fail to live up to the treaty, more and more farmers and ranchers and other producers will face the same fate. Many growers will potentially default on their financing, and they will be unable to secure any additional financing for future crops without the ability to plan on future water deliveries. Imagine running a bank that offers credit to farmers in the community. If you know the farmer will not be able to access the water they need in order to grow their crops and have a profitable business, obviously that makes it a much riskier bet to offer them a line of credit or a loan.

Further delay of water deliveries could result in bankruptcies, land auctions, more lost jobs, supply chain disruptions, and higher prices at the grocery store for Americans around the country.

I am grateful to Secretary Rubio--the Secretary of State--and Secretary Rollins of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for their leadership on this issue and for their willingness to engage with Mexico and indeed put pressure on them to hold up their end of the bargain.

But South Texas farmers cannot wait. They have already suffered too much from the draught caused by Mexico's failure to live up to its obligations.

The ``carrot'' approach is clearly not working, so now it is time to bring out the ``sticks.'' For this reason, I am introducing legislation called the Water Assurance and Treaty Enforcement for Rio Grande Farmers--or WATER for Farmers--Act, which will impose penalties in the form of tariffs on Mexico if they continue in their delinquency.

This bill will establish annual benchmarks that Mexico must meet in order to be considered compliant with the 1944 Water Treaty. These annual benchmarks will help ensure that water deliveries are predictable for the farmers

in South Texas. Waiting until the end of a 5-year treaty period to deliver water is neither realistic nor acceptable and certainly what anybody contemplated when this treaty was enacted.

This bill would also direct the Secretary of State, in consultation with the U.S. Commissioner of the International Boundary and Water Commission and the Secretary of Agriculture, to determine each year if Mexico has met the requirements of these benchmarks. If Mexico does not, this legislation directs the U.S. Trade Representative to impose tariffs on the shortfalls accumulated at the end of each year.

While this may seem like an extraordinary measure, Mexico has had ample time to make things right. As I said, we have tried ``carrots.'' Those don't work, so now it is time for the ``sticks.''

By imposing severe tariffs on Mexico, I hope they will pick up the pace and begin delivering the water they are already committed to delivering so that South Texas farmers and ranchers will have the predictability they need.

South Texans and the agricultural community there are counting on us to ensure that Mexico complies with this treaty that they agreed to way back in 1944.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this legislation, and I will not give up on this matter until the farmers in Texas are made whole.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, this week, the Senate adopted the resolution allowing for the consideration of another block or package of nominations, and I want to take a moment to highlight two of these exceptional nominees that President Trump has asked to help him lead portions of the Federal Government.

Of course, we wouldn't be in a position of having to introduce nominations en bloc or en masse if our Senate Democrats would allow us to vote on these nominees on a timely basis, but Trump derangement syndrome is real which means they won't cooperate with even the smallest courtesies that we used to extend to one another, recognizing that eventually the majority will get its way.

Former State Senator, Texas State Senator Brian Birdwell who has been nominated by President Trump to be Assistant Secretary of War for Sustainment is one of Texas' finest sons and one of America's true heroes.

On September 11, Brian was working at the Pentagon when American Airlines Flight 77 deliberately crashed by terrorists into the building just yards from his office. Brian was critically injured, as you might imagine, and yet he survived after enduring 39 surgeries and unimaginable pain.

He turned that survival into a lifetime of service. He served in the U.S. Army for 20 years. And for the past 16 years, he has represented the Texas State Senate District 22 with distinction and honor.

We will miss Brian in the State Senate, but the Nation is gaining a proven leader at the Pentagon. I congratulate Brian and his wife Mel. I thank them for continued service, and I look forward to continuing to working with him now in this new capacity at the Department of War.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on another matter, I am introducing a bill

called the Barring American Citizenship by Keeping Out Foreign Fraudsters or the BACK OFF Act. This bill is designed to address a problem that has been festering in our country for some time, and that is the crime of birth tourism.

In the United States, we grant citizenship to virtually everyone born on U.S. soil except for children born to diplomats and a few other categories. And indeed, there is a case now pending in the U.S. Supreme Court to determine what the breadth and depth of what that birthright citizenship should look like under the Constitution.

But America is one of the few countries to allow individuals to obtain citizenship at birth regardless of parentage or immigration status, and our generosity was never meant to be exploited by our adversaries.

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that some of these individuals may even use this cover of citizenship in order to engage in espionage against the United States, indeed, especially the People's Republic of China.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, more than 30,000 births in the United States each year are to women on tourist visas, while many more are born to women who are here illegally or people who simply overstay their temporary visa.

Worse, entire cottage industries have sprung up over the past several decades designed to actually help facilitate foreign nationals to visit the United States on a temporary basis solely to obtain the coveted privilege of U.S. citizenship for their children.

In 2020, a report from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee found that several companies--these are businesses-- several companies existed to assist individuals trying to exploit America's generosity in this regard. One such company, Ada International, worked largely with Chinese individuals while another was known as Miami Mama, which specialized in helping Russian nationals secure U.S. citizenship for their children.

When we start to see foreign nationals securing U.S. citizenship for their children but with no intention of staying here or actually assimilating into our society and pledging allegiance to our Constitution and laws, it becomes clear that something is terribly wrong.

Citizenship in this country, the greatest country in the world, is a great privilege. And the practice of birth tourism undermines what it means to be an American.

This is why I am introducing the BACK OFF Act which will make aliens involved in birth tourism inadmissible and deportable from the United States.

This bill would also require the Department of Homeland Security to detain aliens who commit crimes related to birth tourism. It would require anyone engaged in this practice who entered the United States from Mexico or Canada to return to those countries for legal proceedings while they are pending, which would prevent them from actually giving birth here in the United States while they await the decision of their case.

And it would also prevent people from using the Biden-era Visa Waiver Program to give birth in U.S. territories. This legislation would create new criminal penalties and enforcement actions against those running birth tourism rings, including new criminal penalties under the Immigration and Nationality Act for those who facilitate this practice.

Finally, it would create a task force to investigate and refer cases to the Department of Justice for prosecution involving individuals and organizations that are involved in birth tourism schemes.

There is no greater privilege in the world than to be a citizen of this great country, and we must treat U.S. citizenship as such. But the practice of birth tourism trivializes this great privilege, and I hope the Senate will adopt my legislation to crack down on this atrocity.

Mr. President, on another matter, I am introducing a bill

called the Barring American Citizenship by Keeping Out Foreign Fraudsters or the BACK OFF Act. This bill is designed to address a problem that has been festering in our country for some time, and that is the crime of birth tourism.

In the United States, we grant citizenship to virtually everyone born on U.S. soil except for children born to diplomats and a few other categories. And indeed, there is a case now pending in the U.S. Supreme Court to determine what the breadth and depth of what that birthright citizenship should look like under the Constitution.

But America is one of the few countries to allow individuals to obtain citizenship at birth regardless of parentage or immigration status, and our generosity was never meant to be exploited by our adversaries.

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that some of these individuals may even use this cover of citizenship in order to engage in espionage against the United States, indeed, especially the People's Republic of China.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, more than 30,000 births in the United States each year are to women on tourist visas, while many more are born to women who are here illegally or people who simply overstay their temporary visa.

Worse, entire cottage industries have sprung up over the past several decades designed to actually help facilitate foreign nationals to visit the United States on a temporary basis solely to obtain the coveted privilege of U.S. citizenship for their children.

In 2020, a report from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee found that several companies--these are businesses-- several companies existed to assist individuals trying to exploit America's generosity in this regard. One such company, Ada International, worked largely with Chinese individuals while another was known as Miami Mama, which specialized in helping Russian nationals secure U.S. citizenship for their children.

When we start to see foreign nationals securing U.S. citizenship for their children but with no intention of staying here or actually assimilating into our society and pledging allegiance to our Constitution and laws, it becomes clear that something is terribly wrong.

Citizenship in this country, the greatest country in the world, is a great privilege. And the practice of birth tourism undermines what it means to be an American.

This is why I am introducing the BACK OFF Act which will make aliens involved in birth tourism inadmissible and deportable from the United States.

This bill would also require the Department of Homeland Security to detain aliens who commit crimes related to birth tourism. It would require anyone engaged in this practice who entered the United States from Mexico or Canada to return to those countries for legal proceedings while they are pending, which would prevent them from actually giving birth here in the United States while they await the decision of their case.

And it would also prevent people from using the Biden-era Visa Waiver Program to give birth in U.S. territories. This legislation would create new criminal penalties and enforcement actions against those running birth tourism rings, including new criminal penalties under the Immigration and Nationality Act for those who facilitate this practice.

Finally, it would create a task force to investigate and refer cases to the Department of Justice for prosecution involving individuals and organizations that are involved in birth tourism schemes.

There is no greater privilege in the world than to be a citizen of this great country, and we must treat U.S. citizenship as such. But the practice of birth tourism trivializes this great privilege, and I hope the Senate will adopt my legislation to crack down on this atrocity.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 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 come to the floor today to seek unanimous consent that the Senate pass H.R. 4371, the House companion to my Kayla Hamilton Act, which passed the House with bipartisan support.

This bill is named in honor of Kayla Hamilton, a young woman who was viciously murdered by an MS-13 gang member. This criminal entered the United States as an unaccompanied minor and was released into the custody of an unvetted sponsor.

Kayla's death is a tragedy. I had the honor of meeting her mother Tammy Nobles--one of the Angel Moms who came and testified at a hearing I held last summer.

Kayla's murder highlights how irresponsible the Biden administration was in handling unaccompanied minors entering the United States during President Biden's 4 years in office. By some accounts, there were as many as a half a million unaccompanied minors who came into the United States during the Biden administration's open border policy and then were placed with sponsors, many of whom were unvetted. Many of these so-called unaccompanied children were 17-year-old boys--almost fully grown men.

Unfortunately, many of the children--the more vulnerable children-- were released to unvetted sponsors, and that should be illegal. If we are going to care about our children who are the most vulnerable among us, which is really how a society is judged--how we treat the most vulnerable people in our society--then releasing children to unvetted sponsors should be a crime. While Health and Human Services has reformed its policies under President Trump, the careless and, I would say, reckless way that unaccompanied minors were handled by the Biden administration was shameful.

My bill requires HHS, Health and Human Services, to obtain information about potential sponsors and any person who lives in the sponsor's household before a child is placed with them.

It was common practice for the Biden administration to so call vet the named sponsor but yet not everybody else living in that household who could be a sexual predator or could have another criminal record or could be a threat--an immediate and real threat--to that child.

But this bill requires HHS to obtain information about potential sponsors and any person--all persons--who live in that sponsor's household before a child is placed with them, and it bars criminal alien sponsors from being allowed to assume custody of these children.

This bill also requires Health and Human Services to conduct mandatory checks on all unaccompanied children, including considering whether an unaccompanied child poses a danger to themselves or the community--contacting the consulate or embassy or their home country and vetting them for ties to criminal organizations. As I said, some of these children were very vulnerable, but others were almost grown men in many instances. And without proper vetting of these unaccompanied children--a child, of course, is anybody under the age of 18--that, in and of itself, is a danger that should stop.

It is only common sense that we should not place our children in the custody of criminals, and we should also vet the unaccompanied minors themselves, including for ties to gangs and existing criminal histories.

I urge the adoption of this legislation.

Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4371, which was received from the House; and, further, I ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, as I listen to our colleague, he basically says: The perfect is the enemy of the good.

So the good thing about this legislation is it would protect a lot of innocent, vulnerable children, something the Biden administration turned a blind eye to during 4 years of its open border policies.

There is untold misery and hardship for these children who came here to the United States because the Biden administration said: If you come by yourself, we are going to turn you loose and let you into the country. So desperate parents sent their children from faraway places to come to the United States, only to be placed with individuals who were not properly vetted and certainly households that could have involved sexual offenders and other predators--and crimes. We don't know how many of them were recruited into gangs, trafficked for sex or involuntary labor. This is a catastrophe that I think we have only begun to understand.

Now, thank goodness, Tom Homan and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement have rescued many of these children, but nowhere near the number that have been released into the country by the Biden administration.

I don't know how much longer we can continue to turn a blind eye to the harm being caused to these children under the pretense of open borders and generous immigration policies. It is hardly generous to condemn a child to a life of sex trafficking or to be an object of harm from a person who wants to take advantage of them for labor or sexual favors or you name it.

So I think it is beyond disappointing that we have an objection to this, and I find the excuses given by our colleague from Connecticut to be just insufficient.

By not vetting the sponsors who received these unaccompanied children, the Biden administration encouraged and incentivized the irresponsible treatment of these kids. We don't know if they went to school. We don't know if they got the healthcare that they need in order to stay healthy. We don't know. And the Biden administration took the outrageous position that it is not their responsibility. Once the kids came to the United States and were placed with the sponsor, the Biden administration went: Our job is done.

And now it is up to the child protective services in the various States to look after these kids. Well, we know child protective services in the States are generally overwhelmed anyway. And to say that we have to wait for a child to be killed, raped, murdered, denied access to basic healthcare and education services before we can help them out is outrageous.

The only way to prevent this from happening in the future is to enforce our laws and to know who the adults are who are claiming these children and make sure they aren't a threat to their health, safety, and welfare.

Our children should not have to continue to pay the price for adults who break the law. And releasing minors into the custody of criminals is certainly not the answer.

Mr. President, I have three requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

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

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk about a law that most people will have never heard of, but it is very, very important to our national security. That is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or FISA as we sometimes refer to it.

We are approaching the expiration of this section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act later this week, and time's a-wastin' for us to get this actually done.

I know it is important for us to have debates and offer constructive suggestions about changes in these laws, but we cannot risk going dark on this essential intelligence-gathering law, which actually has empowered President Trump to help keep the country safe.

Without getting into the merits of one of these proposals or another, let me just take a step back and talk about the importance of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and national security.

One of the major misconceptions about this is it is a law enforcement tool, but it is not. It is not primarily a law enforcement tool. Now, it is illegal to commit espionage in this country, but the main reason this is used is to collect information from people overseas on national security threats to the United States. And it allows the intelligence community to connect the dots to understand what our adversaries are up to.

FISA was enacted in 1978 in order to provide more transparency and avoid overreach of surveillance of domestic actors. If you read the history of the FBI going back to the J. Edgar Hoover days, there was a lot of things that the FBI was doing under J. Edger Hoover that today we would blanch at and certainly consider illegal when it regards surveillance of U.S. persons.

So FISA was enacted to make sure that we did not allow any unconstitutional surveillance of American citizens, but we did preserve the ability to gain information about foreign actors overseas on potential national security threats to the United States.

Section 702, which is the provision that expires in a very short time now, was first enacted in 2008, and as I said, authorizes the U.S. Government to target foreign--hence, the name--the word ``foreign'' in the FISA--foreign intelligence collection of non-U.S. persons.

Now, that is a bureaucratic way of just saying: American citizens are--you cannot surveil American citizens no matter where they are, even if they are overseas. It only authorizes surveillance of foreign intelligence collection for non-U.S. persons overseas outside of the United States.

Unlike traditional criminal investigations where warrants are issued based on probable cause--that is, showing a probable cause to a judge that a crime has been committed, thus justifying issuance of a warrant to then search or collect information here in America--unlike that, intelligence

gathering is significantly different because it involves the monitoring of foreign intelligence to detect and prevent threats before they happen.

So our criminal justice system is designed to investigate and prosecute crimes that occur after they happen. But the intelligence community needs these tools like FISA to be able to prevent bad things from happening. So it is forward-leaning rather than retrospective.

President Trump has asked Congress to reauthorize this essential authority, as the current law properly balances intelligence needs with privacy protections of U.S. citizens.

Let me just put a finer point on that. To allow this to expire would be an affront to the President; but also, it would essentially blind the President to this essential intelligence that he uses on a daily basis in his President's Daily Brief.

Many folks are familiar with the fact that the President gets intelligence briefings on a daily basis, and it is called the PDR, President's Daily--PDB, excuse me, the President's Daily Brief.

So the intelligence Agencies--notably the CIA or the Director of National Intelligence--will brief the President on national security threats.

Mr. President, 60 percent--60 percent--of the information contained in the President's Daily Brief is a product of section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. So to allow that to expire would basically handicap the President in terms of getting access to the information he needs in order to work within and U.S. Government to keep the public and our Nation safe. So 60 percent of the President's Daily Brief is a product of 702 of FISA.

In 2025, a quarter--25 percent--of the national security Agencies-- that is our Signals Intelligence Agency--25 percent of their reports were comprised of information gathered under section 702.

This information, of course, has allowed the U.S. Government to thwart terrorist attacks and to make sure that we protect the public at large. It has also helped us find and rescue American hostages and much more.

In April of 2024, Congress responded to the concerns that some had raised about privacy of U.S. citizens by passing the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act, the RISAA. RISAA, I guess. I am not sure how to pronounce it, but that is the acronym; RISAA, Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act.

So these concerns which led to these reforms included incidents such as unlawful targeting of Carter Page, a Trump campaign aide, during the run-up to the President's election in 2016. But that is a different section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Obviously, Carter Page was an American citizen, and based on what I have said--you have heard me say--you can't surveil American citizens, whether they are at home or abroad without a warrant.

So this would not apply to the Carter Page case; although, I agree it was an abomination where an FBI lawyer basically misrepresented the facts to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court who then issued a warrant on Carter Page.

And the Justice Department has since admitted that it did not have probable cause to surveil him.

So a different section--section 702 is different from the Carter Page example. So the R-I-S-A-A--RISAA--was crafted to address past abuses of the foreign intelligence surveillance authorities and privacy and civil liberty concerns while ensuring that the government had the capability in order to protect Americans from foreign threats.

The provisions enacted into law have gone a long way to curb the likelihood of abuses that were happening under FISA authorities during the Obama and the Biden administrations.

According to a recent report from the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the reforms that Congress passed under RISAA have had positive effects regarding the safeguarding of privacy and civil liberty. These included significant reforms to the way that the FBI can conduct U.S. person queries.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act section 702 is authorized overseas on a noncitizen, but if they communicate with an American citizen here in the United States, that information is maintained in a database by the intelligence Agencies. It is lawfully collected information, not for the purposes of a criminal investigation, but for purposes of collecting intelligence to be able to connect the dots and protect the Nation.

Targeting refers to the actual collection of data on non-U.S. persons abroad who may be potential threats. While querying--or looking into-- the data that is collected in that process is different. It is worth repeating again. Only non-U.S. persons abroad may be targeted under 702.

But RISAA, the reforms, include stronger oversight measures and consequences for violations of these new requirements, which is entirely appropriate. Part of this is not only to address potential violations but also to build the public's confidence that their own government is not spying on them as I have heard some people suggest.

But perhaps the most significant reforms in RISAA were how these queries of lawfully collected information were conducted. Due to new requirements from RISAA, queries of U.S. persons already collected-- lawfully collected--information are now even further restricted and subject to three reviews. That is sort of a belt-and-suspenders approach to making sure we protect American citizens.

Since 2023, the total number of queries of U.S. persons has dropped by 87 percent. According to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, within the first year after the enactment of these reforms, more than 98 percent of the FBI's queries of already lawfully collected information weren't compliant with these new requirements.

The report concludes that, while the implementation of these reforms are still being studied, it is clear they are having a positive effect on the privacy of American citizens.

Furthermore, FISA remains a very important tool that the U.S. Government uses in order to support our national security, which is why President Trump has been so adamant that we need to get this law reauthorized and not let it go dark.

Last March, CIA Director John Ratcliffe testified that 70 percent of his Agency's success in countering advanced weapons proliferation and 90 percent of their success in interdicting synthetic drugs like fentanyl were the result of information acquired by using section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Section 702 allows the U.S. Government to vet foreign persons seeking to enter the United States for connections to terrorism and international drug trafficking operations. It is also a critical tool for combatting cyber threats. Section 702 proved particularly useful for the U.S. Government's efforts to crack down on illicit drug trafficking into the country.

This intelligence has helped the United States, together with our friends, to identify the supply chain for precursor chemicals coming from China and used to make synthetic drugs like fentanyl in Mexico. And it also has allowed the intelligence Agencies to seize machinery in China that would have been able to produce millions of pills per hour-- these pill pressers, these automated pill pressers. Section 702 also allows our Border Patrol to seize these pill pressers at the border.

Reports indicate that 90 percent of the CIA's successful interdiction of synthetic drugs like fentanyl is attributable to section 702.

So some people are suggesting it ought to go dark; we ought not to extend it. It makes no sense when you begin to look at how effective it has been in keeping the country safe.

Section 702 is also important in counterterrorism. Information acquired under that section has allowed the FBI to identify a potential terrorist threat, in October of 2023, related to the Israel-Gaza conflict. The FBI was able to warn the Department of Defense and the relevant host nations about this threat against American troops.

In another instance, section 702 allowed the United States to discover and thwart a planned terrorist attack against a high-profile concert in Europe.

These are just a couple of examples--of numerous examples--of ways section 702 has helped the United States protect our citizens against foreign threats.

And no one knows that better than President Trump, who is the daily consumer of this information. Again, 60 percent of his daily intelligence brief is composed of section 702 intelligence. And, of course, the President is responsible for the protection of all of our citizens and U.S. interests, and that is why he has asked us to reauthorize this critical authority.

President Trump recently wrote on Truth Social to say:

With the ongoing successful military activities against the

Terrorist Iranian Regime, it is more important than ever that

we remain vigilant, PROTECT our Homeland, Troops, and

Diplomats stationed abroad, and maintain our ability to

quickly stop bad actors seeking to cause harm to our People

and our Country.

After 4 years of weakness under President Biden, President Trump is showing the world that the United States is, once again, a power to be dealt with. It is imperative we equip the President and the entire administration, working with Congress in an oversight capacity, like on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on which I serve. It is important that we equip the Trump administration with the tools and authorities they need to maintain deterrence and, hopefully, peace through strength.

We cannot allow this authority to expire. It would be foolhardy and reckless to do so.

So President Trump has asked us to reauthorize FISA section 702, and I hope all of our colleagues in both Chambers will not tie the President's hands behind his back while we have Americans in active combat overseas.

And we need this essential intelligence in order to protect our people and our homeland.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, we are almost at the end of April, and the Department of Homeland Security has been shuttered since February. It is incredible to me that at a time when the geopolitics of the world make the likelihood of domestic terrorist attacks greater than usual, that our Democratic colleagues would simply reflexively oppose funding for the Department of Homeland Security because they don't believe immigration laws should be enforced.

It is absurd that they have taken this approach to voice their opposition to President Trump, which maybe explains everything because the first question, it seems like, in their mind is: If President Trump wants it, maybe we should oppose it, which has been consistent with their behavior. But it is time for this nonsense to end for a variety of reasons.

I just came from a Judiciary Committee hearing on intellectual property theft and espionage from the People's Republic of China, among other adversaries. And one of the things that I am not sure people recognize is that the chief civilian cyber security Agency of the Federal Government is housed within the Department of Homeland Security--CISA, it is called.

They have currently furloughed 60 percent of their staff because Democrats refuse to fund the Department of Homeland Security because they are mad that President Trump is keeping his commitment to enforce our immigration laws. So, again: collateral damage to many unintended targets, but this is what happens when mindless partisanship prevails.

The American people, of course, voted to elect President Trump, and one of the main reasons was because he was very clear about where he stood on open borders and on the failure of the Biden administration to enforce our immigration laws. So, now, the Democrats have shut down the Department to try to prevent him from carrying out his mandate.

At the end of our last session, the Senate finally came together on a plan to reopen the Department of Homeland Security. I was proud to vote yes. It seemed like a no-brainer. But, unfortunately, the House did not agree. Unfortunately, I think they misunderstood what we had actually done because we had prefunded ICE and Customs and Border Protection in the Working Families Tax Cut bill because we anticipated that they might pull this kind of stunt. Well, unfortunately, that funding is now stalled in the House.

Speaker Johnson, of course, has his own constraints, given a one-seat majority and the fact that Democrats won't cooperate even on commonsense things like funding the Department of Homeland Security. But I hope that he will continue to try to pick up the torch and pass this bill so this shutdown can end--this mindless partisanship that has caused this shutdown.

President Trump, Leader Thune, and Chairman Graham have decided that we will keep the current budget resolution focused like a laser on funding Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security generally so we can do that by the deadline that President Trump set of June 1.

None of this would be necessary if Democrats would come to their senses and just simply--we can fight about the role that Immigration and Customs Enforcement plays. We can fight about the policies that guide them. But they are, in fact, enforcing laws that Congress has passed. Yet they want to make them the scapegoat for enforcing immigration laws.

And, again, this appears to me to be nothing more than a continuation of their efforts to maintain open borders and to deny enforcement of immigration laws.

But as we are considering a budget reconciliation bill, hopefully, once we get this accomplished here in the next few weeks, it will give us enough time before the end of this fiscal year to consider a third reconciliation vehicle to accomplish additional Republican priorities. And there are some important provisions I would like to see included in that next reconciliation bill--again, anticipating no cooperation at all from our Democratic colleagues.

One of those priorities for me is to permanently defund Planned Parenthood. Respect for life has always been and always will be a pillar of the conservative movement and the Republican Party platform. We are the pro-life party. Many great minds have said before that civilization should be measured by the way we treat our most vulnerable, and I believe that to be true. And it is hard to imagine anyone more vulnerable than an unborn, helpless child.

In fact, our founding document--the Declaration of Independence-- states that the right to life is an inalienable right that all of us are granted by our Creator. I am proud to be a member of a party that acknowledges the right to life as a God-given gift. Republicans can and should deliver a win for the unborn as part of our next reconciliation bill by defunding, on a permanent basis, the Nation's largest abortion provider.

When Republicans assembled the One Big Beautiful Bill, or the Working Families Tax Cut Act, last summer, we successfully included a 1-year ban on Medicaid funding for abortion providers like Planned Parenthood. Now, here we are approaching the end of that year, and this provision will soon expire. We have our work cut out for us again to ensure that this monstrous organization does not receive another dime of taxpayer money.

Of course, like any entity that receives government funding, Planned Parenthood has a team of lobbyists and public affairs officials whose job it is to convince lawmakers and the public that they are worthy recipients of public funding. Planned Parenthood would like all of us to believe they are primarily a healthcare organization, providing women's health services. But the truth is that is not the case; it is a pretext. Their own 2024-2025 annual report states that Planned Parenthood performed more than 400,000 abortions in the previous fiscal year--400,000 abortions.

We know that all the money that organizations like Planned Parenthood receive are fungible. In other words, they can trade one dollar for another dollar, depending on the source of that money. When Planned Parenthood receives Medicaid reimbursements for services other than abortions, that money ultimately finds its way into helping their bottom line and directly subsidizing a procedure that ends a human life.

If that were not enough, Planned Parenthood is not only an abortion provider, but they have recently become entwined with the business of providing gender transition treatments to minors. Planned Parenthood's own reporting brags that, in some States, their so-called gender- affirming care--what a euphemism that is--that their gender-affirming care visits increased by more than 500 percent between 2021 and 2022. Other organizations have also reported that Planned Parenthood exploits legal loopholes in order to provide gender transition medications to minors without their parents even knowing.

Nearly 60 percent--and I am surprised the number isn't higher--nearly 60 percent of Americans oppose gender transition procedures for minors. You know, when you are young and have not yet matured, your brain is not completely developed. These children are incapable of making these life-changing decisions for themselves, and the business of government and the business of organizations like Planned Parenthood shouldn't be to exploit the youth of these children, to change the trajectory of their life forever.

In recent years, the scientific community has also expressed its own concerns. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons released a statement earlier this year recommending against gender transition surgeries for minors. Their statement emphasized the lack of long-term research to support this medical intervention, as well as ethical concerns surrounding potential harms and the fact that adolescents don't have the capacity to fully consent to these harms.

Other Western countries, including the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, are also taking steps to restrict these operations. The least the U.S. Congress could do would be to halt government funding for providers of these controversial procedures and related treatments that rest on a dubious--if maybe even nonexistent--scientific backing.

Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the Nation and the leading provider of youth gender transition therapies, should not receive a dime--a dime--of taxpayer funding.

The second reconciliation bill, focused as it is on ICE and CBP and the Department of Homeland Security, cannot be our last bill this year. I urge my Republican colleagues to come together on a third reconciliation bill once we have completed this bill so we can notch another win for the pro-life and the pro-commonsense movement. Again, it is only common sense that our Republican majority should use the power we have to defund Planned Parenthood using the tools available to us, like reconciliation.

Defending the right to life has been a longstanding priority of our party, and Republicans ought to deliver another victory for the unborn.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I rise to honor a program that has helped shape generations of Texans who come to Washington not simply to observe public service, but to participate. This year marks the 25th anniversary of the Archer Fellowship Program and the Archer Center in Washington, DC. Founded in 2001 by Congressman Bill Archer and his longtime chief of staff Don Carlson, the Archer Center is ``where Texas meets the world'' and provides talented students from across the University of Texas System the chance to live, learn, and intern in the Nation's Capital.

The Archer Center's mission is to educate the next generation of leaders and promote civic engagement, civil discourse, and public service. These foundational principles have united our country for 250 years, and it is essential now more than ever to instill them in our students. Archer Fellows engage in full-time internships aligned with their goals while participating in coursework that connects their daily experiences to the larger policy process, giving students the opportunity to fully grasp the day-to-day realities of working in public policy.

Over the past quarter-century, the Archer Center has cultivated a network of more than 2,000 alumni who now serve in a wide range of roles and impact various communities. Many students intern in Texas congressional offices, including my own, and consistently reflect the Archer Center's values of professionalism, curiosity, and respect in their hard work.

I am proud to note that a former member of my staff serves as the Archer Center's longtime executive director and has been a driving force behind its success over the past 20 years. Katie Romano served as a communications intern during my 2002 U.S. Senate campaign before joining my Washington, DC, office as constituent relations coordinator in 2003. She then went on to work for Mrs. Laura Bush and the First Family during the 2004 election and contributed to the 55th Presidential Inaugural Committee before joining the Archer Center staff in 2006. Her positive contributions to the Archer Center are evident, and I am proud of the impact she continues to have on our fellow Texans.

Preparing young people for public service is not a task to be taken for granted. Institutions must be willing to invest in mentorship and create an environment where students learn how to engage in disagreement without losing respect for one another. That is exactly the kind of preparation the Archer Center seeks to provide, and it is why this milestone deserves recognition.

So today I want to commend the Archer Center's students, alumni, faculty, and staff, and recognize those who teach, mentor, and support the program. Congratulations to the Archer Center on 25 years of service to Texas and to our country. Thank you for helping students from across the UT System come to Washington to chart a lifetime of service to our Nation and the great State of Texas.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate a historic milestone in one of our Nation's oldest diplomatic partnerships as we look toward America's 250th anniversary. Recently, in The Hague, Netherlands, the United States Ambassador's residence was officially designated as Adams House.

This designation honors a remarkable legacy of American statesmanship, that of our second President John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams. In 1782, as the foundations of our Republic were still being laid, the elder Adams secured the Dutch recognition and financial support that proved essential to our independence. He knew then, as we hold true today, that American liberty is fortified by strong, principled alliances. This house further honors the torch passed to his son John Quincy Adams, who served as U.S. Minister Resident to the Netherlands before his own storied tenure as Secretary of State and our sixth President.

For my fellow Texans, this relationship is not just a matter of history; it is a cornerstone of our modern prosperity. The Netherlands is one of the top foreign investors in the State of Texas. From the energy corridors of the Gulf Coast to the tech hubs in Austin, Dutch innovation and Texas industry work hand-in-hand.

We even see this heritage in the names of our own communities, like Nederland, TX, founded by Dutch settlers whose legacy of hard work and resilience remains part of the fabric of our State.

As we celebrate the 250th anniversary of our Nation, Adams House serves as a permanent reminder that our diplomatic presence in The Hague was the first building the United States ever owned on foreign soil. It is a symbol of a friendship that has never broken.

I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this designation and in reaffirming the vital strategic, economic, and cultural bond between the United States and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Mr. President, I rise today to ask unanimous consent in a few minutes that the Senate pass my legislation, the No Funding to Honor Crime Scenes Act.

Last month, America was shocked to learn that Cesar Chavez, who was famous for his leadership in the Civil Rights Movement, had a long history of preying on women and children. It is appalling that someone hailed as a hero for the rights of farmworkers was in the meantime molesting the very people he was supposedly advocating for. Perhaps it is even more shocking that his misconduct was actually widely known within his social and business circumstances and that the victims were encouraged to remain silent in order to protect this man's legacy.

As a father of two daughters, I consider child sexual abuse one of the most heinous crimes you can imagine, which is why I have long been an advocate for victims of human trafficking and sexual assault.

America should not celebrate the legacy of Cesar Chavez, nor use taxpayer dollars to do so. It should also not pay for and maintain the Cesar E. Chavez National Monument, which stands at the very scene of some of his crimes. It must be closed. For this reason, I have introduced legislation to defund any Federal tribute bearing Cesar Chavez's name and nullify President Obama's Presidential proclamation that enacted this monument in the first place.

The No Funding to Honor Crime Scenes Act would direct the Secretary of the Interior to immediately close the monument and sell any and all Federal land that includes Chavez's home, his grave site, the memorial garden, and any contents of his personal office, which is where we know child sexual abuse occurred.

Not only would it close the monument glorifying this disgraced perpetrator, but it would go one step further to right the wrong by helping victims of abuse. My legislation would direct the Secretary of the Interior to transfer any funds set aside for the monument to the Debbie Smith Act, which supports survivors by providing State and Federal law enforcement agencies with resources to complete forensic analyses of crime scenes and untested rape kits.

I have led the reauthorization of the Debbie Smith Act many times with bipartisan backing, and I would hope this legislation would receive that very same support here today.

Taxpayer dollars should never be used to celebrate the abuse of women and children.

I urge the adoption of the legislation.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4293, which is at the desk; further, that the bill be considered read three times and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, so if I understand the Senator correctly, on the same day that two Members of Congress have resigned as a result of sexual misconduct, we are going to not address this travesty that Cesar Chavez has inflicted upon his victims--women and children--out of concern for the farmworkers movement.

Now, I am happy to work with the Senator to try to reflect on that history, but you can't separate the name of Cesar Chavez from this movement because it is his house, and it is his grave site and memorial garden.

Our colleague says: Well, we are going to shut it down and do a study.

Well, that is not good enough. He also will strip out the money that would otherwise go to the Debbie Smith Act, which I have worked on for many years now, honoring Debbie Smith, who championed the testing of rape kits that had been sitting in evidence lockers for many years. This is a very important part of our service to these victims of sexual abuse.

I think it is entirely appropriate that the money that comes from this monument go to help fund future victims of sexual assault.

One of Cesar Chavez's victims was just 13 years old when he sexually assaulted her in his office, which is where this site is located. This is literally a crime scene. He was 45 years old and a world-famous political figure, but she was just a child. He used his home office to rape and molest her repeatedly over the coming years. She contemplated suicide and lived in terror for more than half a century before coming public about it. But thanks to her courage and the courage of many other brave survivors, we now know the truth about Cesar Chavez.

I say this with all due respect to the Senator from New Mexico, but his amendment is an insult to the countless victims of Cesar Chavez's sexual misconduct. Instead of taking action to end taxpayer funding celebrating this predator, for a monument to honor their abuser, his amendment would simply require the government to shut down the monument to public access while the government does a report. In other words, his amendment would ask my constituents and all Americans to continue paying their hard-earned money to preserve this crime scene celebrating a serial child rapist.

This amendment would also deny justice to, as I said, future sexual assault survivors by stopping the redirection of funds to the Debbie Smith rape kit backlog elimination program.

In other words, his amendment would protect the legacy of Cesar Chavez and does nothing to honor sexual assault survivors. This is the kind of political gamesmanship that makes people hate Washington-- pretending to be concerned about an issue but yet doing nothing, absolutely nothing, to address it.

We don't need a report or a further study to delay action. We know that Cesar Chavez's victims--from his victims that he was a sexual predator. I choose to believe those victims, and I hope the Senator from New Mexico does as well.

We should completely defund, permanently close, and divest this monument and use the savings to prevent future serial rapists from escaping justice.

I object.

Mr. President, we can do what the Senator from New Mexico suggests. We can have a discussion about what would be an appropriate way to recognize the contribution of farmworkers in this country without honoring a monster in the process.

Madam President, Democrats' radical base and the leftwing media have made it abundantly clear that Trump derangement syndrome has clouded their ability to call a spade a spade and to actually recognize reality. President Trump could hardly blink without progressive hardliners lodging an objection.

Their obstinance has sustained the longest shutdown in the Department of Homeland Security's history.

They have just spent the last several weeks insisting to Americans that overwhelmingly support voter ID laws that these requirements would be impossible for them to meet.

Recently, the latest object of leftwing ire has been President Trump's targeted attacks against Iran with Operation Epic Fury. Now, it is not hard to imagine why the same party that allowed more than 10 million illegal immigrants to enter the country under President Biden's watch would want lax voter laws that might allow these aliens to vote in American elections, but what is a little harder to understand is why they would object to the dismantling of the arsenal of the world's No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. If we want to have fewer wars and a more peaceful, less dangerous world, than a defanged Iranian regime is in everyone's interest.

President Trump's actions against the Iranian regime are not a solution in search of a problem. He is not engaging in a benevolent quest to build democracy around the world. Rather, this operation directly aims to ensure the safety and security of the American people and our friends and allies.

Nothing--nothing--would do more to support the cause of world peace than to neutralize the most significant threat to global security.

The Islamic Republic of Iran provides materiel support to proxy terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah, al-Qaida, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Houthis in Yemen, and many more. They provided materiel support to terrorists who carried out the attacks on U.S. soil on September 11, 2001. They backed and in some instances directly carried out attacks against American officials and troops in the Middle East. Iran funded and trained Hamas terrorists who raped and murdered more than 1,200 innocent men, women, and children, including 46 Americans, on October 7, 2023. Even more alarmingly, they have recently demonstrated an ability to launch missiles at targets approximately 2,500 miles away--previously believed to be beyond their reach.

Iran has aligned itself with America's enemies, including North Korea, Russia, and the People's Republic of China. They have even helped finance drug traffickers in Central America.

Last fall, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control which examined the role that terror networks closely connected to Iran, including Hezbollah, have played in contributing to the drug crisis we face here in America. Hezbollah--one of the Iranian proxies that operates primarily in Lebanon and which obtains a substantial percentage of its funding from Iran--has developed close ties with South American drug trafficking organizations. It engages in money laundering, oil smuggling, counterfeiting, illegal weapons procurement, and has even carried out terror attacks on targets in South America, including the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association Jewish community center and the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires.

Hezbollah's activities haven't remained physically south of the border. One of the witnesses at our hearing had played an instrumental role in breaking up a Hezbollah smuggling cell in North Carolina. Cells like those discovered in North Carolina and in South America finance terror back in the Middle East and around the world.

Given this context, given this history, given this reality, it goes without saying that a more dangerous Iran would put the safety and security of Americans and America's allies and American interests in peril.

President Trump's actions toward Iran in Operation Epic Fury demonstrate that he understands the danger Iran poses to the world, especially--especially--if they were to acquire a nuclear weapon. If Iran were to acquire a nuclear weapon, it would permanently alter the balance of power in the Middle East. Iran is estimated to already have 440.9 kilograms of up to 60 percent highly enriched uranium--just a step away from weapons-grade. There is simply no realistic civilian use for Iran's highly enriched uranium stockpile. The reason they are doing this is obvious.

Our President understands the ``art of the deal'' better than any modern head of state, and his dealmaking techniques were on full display last week when he secured a 2-week cease-fire with Iran. In order to bring Iran to the negotiating table, President Trump did what any shrewd businessman would do: He applied credible pressure, threatening extreme action if a deal

was not reached. Mainstream news outlets prematurely condemned his comments, but they were soon proven wrong. By issuing a dramatic threat, President Trump commenced negotiations to bring the conflict to a close on terms that put America first.

But it is important to remember that these negotiations were not conceding to Iran's unreasonable demands, including its demand to be able to secure a nuclear weapon or issue tolls to people transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

Over the weekend, Iranians demonstrated that they were not serious about reopening the Strait of Hormuz or giving up their uranium enrichment program. When it became clear the Iranian regime was not serious about this, President Trump imposed a blockade of vessels carrying Iranian oil transiting the strait. This blockade is a critical negotiating tactic, showing Iran that the United States will not cave and targeting their economic lifeline.

President Trump is not abandoning diplomacy. He said diplomacy is still an option for the regime. But he is insisting on diplomacy in terms favorable to the United States and not caving against our enemies.

Our President demonstrated for all to see that the ultimate way to win over a bully is not to give in but to stand up to him.

Furthermore, let's not forget this targeted operation has been successful in mitigating the threat posed by the Iranian regime toward the United States and our allies, and the data bears that out. Since the start, more than 13,000 targets have been struck, including Iranian ballistic missile sites, drone manufacturing facilities, weapons production and storage bunkers, and surface-to-air missile facilities.

Missile attacks--it shouldn't be surprising--have fallen by 90 percent as Iran has lost many of its missile launchers. Their navy is largely decimated, with more than 155 vessels damaged or destroyed. And while we are still waiting to see the ultimate outcome of the ongoing negotiations, by these measures, Operation Epic Fury has already been a resounding success.

Iran relied on its ballistic missiles to defend against strikes on their enrichment facilities. So simply by knocking these out, we have set them further back in developing their nuclear weapons.

President Trump understands what the progressives on the left do not, which is that a nuclear Iran would impose an existential threat to the free world. He is right to stand up to this regime. Finally, we have a President who has been willing to stand up to the Iranian regime that has been at war against the West and the United States since the 1979 Iranian Revolution and which has American blood on its hands.

Rather than allow the regime to continue to funnel money to terrorist organizations around the world and hold the world hostage by halting the global oil supply, President Trump has said: Enough is enough. America cannot surrender to the regime that chants ``Death to America.''

I am thankful for President Trump's resolve in standing up to this Islamic theocracy, and I would encourage his detractors to rethink their positions and do the same.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.