Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, it is 4 days until President Trump will be inaugurated for the second time as President of the United States. That means we only have 4 more days of President Biden's absentee leadership, but he seems to be making the most of his final days as he goes out the door, and he certainly isn't letting it kick him on the way out.

I think the most egregious example of the abuse of power, really, that President Biden is engaged in, now that the election is over and he doesn't have to stand for a vote among the American people--so he pretty much has given them a thumb in the eye. Perhaps one of the most egregious examples of this was his pardon of his son Hunter on December 1 of last year.

Despite numerous efforts by the FBI and DOJ to protect Hunter Biden from accountability for his crimes, President Biden decided to attack his own Department of Justice and say his son was selectively and unfairly prosecuted. Well, it is hard to imagine someone thinking they were unfairly targeted when the entire government Agencies did everything they could to protect him from coming to justice.

And thanks to a diligent and careful judge who was able to expose a sweetheart deal that would have exonerated Hunter Biden previously, he was convicted of illegally possessing a firearm, and he stood charged with massive tax fraud.

President Biden said time and time again: I promise I am not going to pardon him. And then he turned around, and he did.

But he didn't stop there. He used his last days in office to go on a little pardon spree, granting clemency to 39 individuals, as well as commuting the sentences of convicted murderers on death row.

These people were convicted of crimes ranging from conspiracy to commit wire fraud in a mortgage fraud scheme to stealing government property, to signing false documents, bank theft, participating in income tax fraud, and the misuse of a Social Security number.

But the truth is, these are not victimless crimes, and they are not the sort of occurrences we want to see happening more frequently. There is a reason why our criminal justice system provides for accountability and punishment in appropriate circumstances. That is to set an example for others not to go down that path and to have some measure of accountability, which is an important part of justice.

These criminals were not the only people that got a last-minute gift from President Biden. On January 4, President Biden announced a list of 19--19--new recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. This included George Soros and others.

George Soros, of course, is a billionaire philanthropist who has doled out billions of dollars for leftwing political causes, from ``defund the police'' movements to anti-Israel organizations, to those who promote open borders, such as we have experienced, tragically, over the last four years.

Of course, these are the same policies that have caused so much suffering and frustration among the American people, which they voted on. I believe it was a referendum on November 5. The people voted to change the direction the country was headed in because most Americans, according to public opinion polling, felt like America was on the wrong path and needed a change of course.

And now a key architect of those failed policies was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Talk about devaluing an award that is supposed to be given for extraordinary service to the country.

Of course, I support the rights of individuals to be generous with their wealth. America is one of the most generous countries in the world, and I think it is something we should be proud of.

I imagine how our colleagues on the other side of the aisle might act if Republicans honored a prominent conservative philanthropist. Do you think the media or our Democratic colleagues would applaud it in the same way? No chance. Conservative philanthropists have been not only not given Medals of Freedom, they have been subjected to endless scrutiny, including politically motivated subpoenas from our Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, just this last year. But now, Democrats are rewarding their own with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

It is like the hearing we had this morning on the Finance Committee. Scott Bessent, the next Secretary of the Treasury, was there. We had to listen to the ranking member go on a diatribe about why it is so important that American taxpayers be exposed to a multitrillion-dollar tax increase. He said this is about tax cuts for the wealthy. But the fact of the matter is--and the nominee pointed this out--that the top 1 percent in the country pay the vast majority of income taxes. But the facts, apparently, are not all that important to our Democratic colleagues.

President Biden wasn't finished rewarding his friends with grants of clemency and Presidential honors before he left office. He also sent a parting gift to one of his favorite beneficiaries, which are radical climate activists.

I don't doubt that the climate is changing. I don't doubt humans have an impact on it. But to say this is the end-all and be-all of all of our policies, to the detriment of our economy, job creation, and so many other important issues, just strikes me as misguided.

One of the consequences is that Americans have been suffering under high prices for energy under President Biden's Presidency. Electricity prices have risen more than 30 percent. We know that these high prices are the direct result of President Biden's policies, which put climate activists in the front seat, while working families are left behind.

But the President couldn't help himself from doing more damage on the way out the door. The day after Christmas, President Biden's Energy Department finalized new climate regulations that would functionally ban almost all natural gas-powered water heaters. Why would he do something like that?

An analysis from the American Gas Association estimates that 40 percent of customers will be directly impacted by a rule with a net cost increase, since they will be required to buy a new electric water heater. The AGA notes that the households affected are largely low income and senior citizens on a fixed income, who are more likely to choose a cost-effective water heater that will now be banned under the rule.

Of course, if people want to buy a more expensive water heater with their own money, I have no objection to that. I am all for the freedom to do so. But to impose additional costs on seniors who have fixed incomes and other low-income families who are struggling to get by under the high prices and the 40-year high inflation under the Biden administration simply adds insult to injury.

But President Biden didn't stop there. Two weeks ago, the Biden administration gave the State of California permission to enforce zero- emissions rules for lawn mowers and leaf blowers. This may sound like a small thing, but it is emblematic of much bigger things, and it adds up. This rule

would prohibit the sale of new equipment under 25 horsepower or 19 kilowatts that failed to achieve ``zero emissions.''

Is there no home appliance or device that is safe from this radical agenda? The Biden administration has targeted gas-powered cars, gas stoves, water heaters, and now they want to get after our lawn mowers and leaf blowers.

As I have said before, I don't have any objection to anyone who wants to improve their carbon footprint, if that is important to them, by purchasing new low-emissions lawn mowers. God bless them if they want to do that. But for working families to have to deal with this mandate, who are just trying to keep up with inflation, a new lawn mower just might not be in their budget.

Well, suffice it to say, the Biden administration is working hard on the way out the door and wreaking havoc in the process.

Mr. President, Republicans are taking note. We know that, with President Trump being sworn into office next Monday, with new majorities in the House and the Senate, things are going to change. The American people voted for change, and they are going to see a change--a change away from these radical policies and special interest pieces of legislation or regulation that hurt the vast majority of Americans for the benefit of an ideological agenda.

One of the tools we are going to be using is something called the Congressional Review Act. As the Presiding Officer knows, this is a powerful tool which allows a vote of Congress and a Presidential signature to essentially veto an administrative Agency rule. There is a timeframe. I believe it is 60 legislative days during which we can look back and essentially impose a legislative veto of that rule.

Using this mechanism, Congress can review and rescind regulations that it disapproves of, because, of course, many of these regulations are promulgated by administrative Agencies that never have to stand for election. They never have to appeal to the voters. They never have to explain themselves to the voters. They just do what they do, which is create more and more redtape and regulation.

So I am glad we are going to be able to focus, soon after we confirm President Trump's Cabinet, on Congressional Review Act regulatory disapprovals. I plan on introducing a few of these myself so we can reverse many of the Biden administration's misguided regulations. I know other colleagues plan to do the same thing.

President Biden may have been busy over the last few months, since the November 5 election, but we are gearing up to be even busier, undoing much of the mischief that he has wrought during these last couple of months on his way out the door.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, yesterday I came to the floor of the U.S. Senate to talk about the importance of promptly confirming President Trump's Cabinet. The American people having voted for President Trump, having said that they are unhappy with the direction the country is going in is entitled to his team to help him actually do what he said he would do during the campaign.

Well, today I would like to reiterate that message; but, in particular, I want to highlight some of the hypocrisy of our Democratic colleagues on this important matter as it pertains to our country's democratic processes.

We know that our colleagues are frequently warning that ways of the Republicans are allegedly undermining democracy, but this is like the little boy who cried wolf. If you cry wolf often enough, the people begin to believe that it is not really serious; and, indeed, it shouldn't be taken seriously in the case of the allegation that Republicans are somehow trying to undermine democracy.

Let me give you an example. Back in 2022, when Republicans passed State laws that included commonsense election integrity measures, like voter ID, Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer criticized these initiatives, which were intended to ensure the integrity of our elections.

You would think that would be a no-brainer, that everybody would want to embrace measures that would protect the integrity of our elections. But he claimed somehow there was an attempt to suppress people from voting. Well, I remember it wasn't that long ago when Barbara Jordan, a Democrat from Texas, revered justly as an incredible leader for our State and country, along with James Baker III cochaired a commission that came out with voter ID as one of the consensus recommendations.

But now Democrats claim making sure that people are who they say they are and using the same sorts of things that you need in order to get on an airplane or to buy tobacco or a six-pack of beer, somehow that undermines democracy. It just doesn't make any sense.

But here is Senator Schumer on the Senate floor. He said, ``Republicans across the country are trying to stop the other side from voting. That tears apart, rips apart, the very fabric of our democracy.'' I can almost see him crying crocodile tears as he says that.

Well, I did a rough check a moment ago, and 152 million Americans voted in 2024. If Republicans were trying to suppress the vote, we are doing a lousy job because you are seeing historic numbers of people, a lot of whom have not made a practice of voting before, showed up at the ballot box this time because they hated the direction our country was going in and they felt like this was our last chance, perhaps, to save our country as we know it.

Well, the Senator from New York used this argument to advocate for changes to the Senate filibuster rule--the requirement you get 60 votes to close off debate--in order to pass what he called Federal voting rights legislation. Well, first of all, what it would have done, it would have preempted the States' laws when it came to voting practices and created a single uniform standard here at the Federal level, which would have prevented some of these commonsense measures like voter ID from taking place.

Well, President Biden also expressed the same sentiment. He pressed for the filibuster to be changed to advance the so-called voting rights package, saying that the package must be passed ``to defend our democracy.'' Well, actually, it would have made it easier to cheat.

Now, ironically, they used the same argument for democracy to undermine the Senate filibuster, which is one of the bedrocks of this institution. But what I have noticed is that if an issue can be framed as a threat to democracy, Democrats throw any other concerns out the window; hence, the sky is falling.

More recently, in 2023, Democrats brought up this same question of protecting democracy as a reason to advance legislation addressing artificial intelligence. Well, as it turns out, artificial intelligence has been around for decades. It has recently captured the popular imagination because technology has taken us to places we never dreamed we could go.

Well, in 2023, the Committee on Rules and Administration held a hearing on AI, and the Democratic leader said this:

If left unchecked--

Here he goes again. He said:

If left unchecked, [artificial intelligence]'s use in our

elections could erode our democracy from within and from

abroad, and the damage, unfortunately, could be irreversible.

That is a pretty common scare tactic. You scare people enough, well, maybe they are willing to let you do things that they, otherwise, wouldn't do upon calmer reflection.

He went on to stress the importance of Republicans and Democrats working together to protect and reinforce our democracy. We are for that. But here is what he said:

I can think of few issues that should both--unite both

parties faster than safeguarding our democracy . . . It will

take all of us, the Administration, the private sector,

Congress working together to protect our democracy, ensure

robust transparency and safeguards, and ultimately keep the

vision of our founders alive in the 21st century.

Well, taken at face value, that sounds pretty good until you start beginning to look at the details about what he says we need to do in order to accomplish that goal. That is where you see--begin to see the huge disconnect. It is in pursuit of another agenda.

Democrats have become the party that cried wolf--or excuse me--threat to democracy; and the more they say it, the less meaning it actually holds. For what it is worth, I agree that the administration of private sector and Congress should work together to protect rather than undermine democracy. But we do have some different perspectives or points of view about how we might do it. That is a laudable goal, but not in pursuit of a fairly cynical and partisan policy agenda.

There is a very tangible way that Democrats can join with us to do this, this week. They can cooperate with the President that the people elected as Commander in Chief of the United States by confirming his Cabinet. How is that for protecting democracy?

The opposite, which is to stonewall the President's Cabinet nominees, to burn as much time as possible before we are able to get that done, is not preserving and protecting democracy; it is undermining it.

Our Democratic colleagues never seem to lose an opportunity to say that whatever the subject, it is a threat to democracy. But here they are today participating in a campaign to stonewall President Trump's nominees, which I would argue is undermining the democratic process. It is denying an elected President of the United States, who won not only the electoral college vote but the popular vote as well--to deny him his team so he can actually get to work on January 20th doing what he was elected to do.

Just yesterday, Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader, came to the

floor to air his grievances on each of the President's nominees for the Cabinet. He argued that many of the policies they would implement would be disastrous. But the fact of the matter is the American people have chosen. They did that on November 5 when they went to the polls and they gave President Trump a substantial majority and even a mandate for a new direction in the country.

They repudiated the failed policies of the Biden administration, starting with what has been happening at the border, which is an unmitigated disaster from a public health and public safety point of view. And it would, indeed, be a threat to democracy if our Democrat colleagues chose to ignore the will of the voters and deny the President his Cabinet or delay it for no good reason and prevent these nominees from going to work to implement the policies that the American people elected President Trump to enact.

Unfortunately, this is sort of reflexive, it is kind of what our Democratic colleagues do. I have been amazed to listen on television and hear in-person for the last--however it has been--hour, Democratic colleagues who came to the floor to speak, but they didn't talk about the pending business, the Laken Riley Act.

This young woman was killed by an illegal immigrant who should not have been in the country. I asked Pam Bondi, who is the nominee for Attorney General, this morning during her confirmation hearing, I said: If President Biden and Harris had secured the border, do you think Laken Riley would still be alive? And she said, yes, together with many others who have been victimized by illegal immigrants who come across the border to do Americans harm in one way or another. Not all of them. But when you open the border to 10 or more million people with 2 million of them ``got-aways,'' evading law enforcement, you don't know what you are going to get.

Well, I take that back, you do know what you are going to get. You are going to get some people who do not intend to come here for a better way of life; they come here to rape and pillage and rob and to commit crimes.

Well, Republicans are tired of hearing excuse after excuse from our Democrats, some of these hearings are being delayed due to incomplete background checks, but ask yourself who is responsible for the background checks? Well, it is Joe Biden's FBI. The FBI owes it to the American people to work around the clock, 24/7, to get these background checks done on a timely basis.

Otherwise, we are, literally, undermining a democratically elected President.

So I would urge our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to heed their own words when it comes to confirming President Trump's Cabinet.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to talk a big talk about defending democracy, but I would like to see them put these commitments into practice by ending the undemocratic obstructionist tactics that they are using to deny this President his team.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we just locked in a vote on my amendment.

I would like to call up my amendment No. 14 to Senate amendment No. 8 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, I want to offer an amendment that would add one more crime to the list covered by this legislation, and that would be assault of a law enforcement officer.

Anyone who comes into the country illegally and harms these brave men and women in uniform is dangerous, and dangerous not only to our first responders but also to the safety and security of all Texans and communities all around the country.

Unfortunately, we know, under the Biden-Harris administration, these people who are committing these kinds of crimes are routinely being released back into the streets, as we saw last February in New York City when seven people were arrested for assaulting a police officer-- assaulting multiple police officers--outside of a migrant shelter in Times Square. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg made the decision to release five of these criminal suspects without bail.

There is no question that these criminals should have been detained and removed before they could go on and commit other crimes against innocent victims.

My amendment simply would require ICE to promptly take migrants who assault law enforcement officers into custody and ensure that illegal migrants who commit crimes against the men and women in blue are swiftly detained so they can be removed from our country.

I urge adoption of my amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, last week, I had a chance to lay out some of my top priorities for the new Congress as Republicans take the helm. Today, I want to elaborate on the first of those priorities, which is to confirm President Trump's Cabinet.

Back in November, November 5--it seems like a long time ago, but it was just the other day--Americans went to the polls to elect new leaders, including a President of the United States. Voters made their voices heard as to which direction our country should go because they plainly believed that we were heading in the wrong direction.

As a result of that vote, President Trump won the election decisively. From my perspective, that means he is entitled to his team--absent some extraordinary circumstances--because it is his team or Cabinet that will help him follow through on the promises he made on the campaign trail. Once confirmed, these men and women will then

be accountable to him and the American people to accomplish the goals he has set out for them. That is the way the process is supposed to work.

Madam President, if you remember, back in 2017, during President Trump's first term, this process was not what you might call smooth sailing. In fact, Senate Democrats did everything they could to delay and derail the President's Cabinet. They did so openly, without shame or any embarrassment.

In fact, when the Senate minority leader at the time was asked in an interview back in 2017 if he would attempt to keep Justice Scalia's seat open rather than work with Republicans to confirm a Republican President's nominee, he said, ``Absolutely.'' Well, it is funny how history works and how things work out. But of course Democrats went on to criticize Republicans for doing exactly the same thing that Senator Schumer said he would do if the shoe were on the other foot. It was an embarrassing moment or should have been an embarrassing moment for the Democratic minority leader. He sent a clear message to all of us that he was willing to put partisanship ahead of the country and before the voices of the American people who voted for President Trump could be heard.

If Democrats repeat the same play this year, they will only further embarrass themselves and the party and be a disservice to the American people who elected President Trump and JD Vance on November 5. So I would like to caution my colleagues, my Democratic colleagues, not to play the same shenanigans again, but unfortunately it looks like they have come up with a new tactic.

The delays we are already starting to see in the confirmation process are completely unacceptable. We know when President Trump will be sworn in--that is January 20--and we need to make sure that as many members of his Cabinet, particularly his national security Cabinet, are available to be confirmed when President Trump takes his hand off the Bible.

Just 2 days ago, Axios news reported some interesting details, for example, surrounding the Democrats' handling of the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard, President Trump's choice to be Director of National Intelligence. According to this report, Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee are refusing to work as a team with Republicans to schedule her hearing, citing concerns that her background checks are not yet completed.

This is unacceptable. According to Axios, Ms. Gabbard has submitted all of the paperwork required on her end as part of the background check process. And this is someone who serves currently as a lieutenant colonel in the National Guard, a former Member of Congress, somebody who has been thoroughly vetted for security purposes.

It is up to the Biden administration, because they currently hold office--including all parts of the executive branch, including the Department of Justice and the FBI--it is up to them to make sure the paperwork is expedited so Ms. Gabbard can have her hearing and presumably, if confirmed, be available to serve on day one, after President Trump is sworn into office. So the FBI needs to work 24/7-- not ``We will get around to it when we can''--they need to work 24/7 to get these background checks done before the nomination hearings so the hearings can actually be set. We know that if there is the will to get it done, it can be done. And in my view, it must be done.

If Democrats are so concerned that the Senate does not yet have her background check, then the President, President Biden, should address those concerns by making sure that his FBI and his Department of Justice get the background checks done, because they are still technically in charge until January 20. There is nothing the Trump administration, the incoming Trump administration, can do officially to make that happen; it is up to President Biden and his FBI and his Department of Justice.

By slow-walking her background check and causing delays for such a critical appointment, the Biden administration is posing a threat--an unnecessary threat--to our national security. We all know we are living in a dangerous world, and now is not the time to have some prolonged and unnecessary vacancy for the Director of National Intelligence.

I would hope our Democratic colleagues and the administration--the current administration--would abandon this futile and dangerous tactic.

As other nominees are working to complete their requisite paperwork, I would urge the Biden administration to work with the incoming administration, not against the administration, to expedite this process. They talk about a peaceful transfer of power--well, that is what this includes. This is part of that peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next.

Democrats have a duty and a responsibility to set aside any partisan tactics and to give the President an opportunity to have his Cabinet confirmed.

Just imagine how Democrats and even the mainstream media would respond if an outgoing Republican administration intentionally caused delays for crucial appointments after voters gave them a mandate. They would claim this is a threat to our Nation's security. Republicans would be accused of playing games and ``playing politics'' with critical government Agencies. And, of course--their favorite pet accusation--Democrats would undoubtedly call these tactics ``a threat to democracy.'' Well, with the shoe on the other foot, the situation is no different.

Back in 2015, the Senator from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, said:

[W]hen a President wins an election, they have the right to

have their team.

That is exactly how we should understand this process. President Trump was elected, and he has a right to his team.

Again, this doesn't mean that the Senate will rubberstamp any nominee. That is what advice and consent is all about: the background checks; the hearings, like we see this morning with the Secretary of Defense nominee, Mr. Hegseth. This means committees must hold hearings and votes for each of the President's nominees. It is that simple.

And, of course, Democrats have every opportunity during these hearings to ask any questions that they want and to vote however they want. We are not saying their rights should somehow be constricted. But to deny and delay the hearings outright is simply unconscionable and dangerous.

Democrats are not entitled to sabotage this President by denying him his Cabinet. Any efforts to do so undermine the democratic process and that peaceful transfer of power that we hear so much about and which is so important.

Senate Republicans, Senate Democrats, and the outgoing Biden administration alike must act in the best interest of the country--not in their party's best interest, not in pursuit of some partisan agenda, but in the best interest of the country. And it is far from America's best interest to have President Trump sitting alone at the White House--maybe with the Vice President--and no Cabinet there to support him in his efforts.

President Biden should remember that people around the country and around the world will be watching very closely his final days in office. Unfortunately, his administration has already been marked by a multitude of failed policies and scandals. President Biden would be wise to note that the handling of the transition at the end of his term can, if mishandled, further tarnish his administration's reputation. History will not be forgiving if his outgoing administration decides to threaten the safety and security of the American people by causing unnecessary delays for Cabinet appointments, particularly his national security Cabinet.

The American people elected President Trump as the next leader of our country. Now, it is time for the Senate to do our job by making sure that the President has the team he needs to do that job, and I intend to do everything I can to see that his nominees are confirmed on a timely basis.

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, with the new session of the Senate and a new majority in the House and the Senate--actually, the House had the majority but the Senate has a new majority--and President Trump in the White House, one of the first things that Members of the Senate had to do is to choose which committees to serve on.

I have been proud to serve on the Senate Judiciary, Finance, and Intelligence Committee in previous Congresses. This Congress, I will be joining the Budget Committee for the 119th Congress. I was particularly interested in joining the Budget Committee because one of the biggest challenges we have is to get our budget under control. With approaching $36 trillion in debt, we are paying more interest on the national debt than we are on defense. At a time when President Trump asked NATO to up their investment in their own defense to up to 5 percent of GDP, we stand about 2.7 percent of GPD here at home.

Clearly, we need to rightsize our spending and our debt and reprioritize what it is we are trying to do here. National security, I believe, is the preeminent responsibility of the U.S. Congress.

We will have the opportunity to pass a budget with reconciliation instructions. I am not sure how much the American people care about the process. We care about the process because we have to deal with it. But the first thing we do have to do is pass a budget. That is something we haven't done since 2017. I remember in 2017, right after President Trump was sworn or even before he was sworn into office, we passed a budget resolution from which we got the ability to then pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, one of the most significant tax reform bills in 25 years.

But we got that budget passed before President Trump even took office because, as a resolution between the House and the Senate, it doesn't require a Presidential signature. It is already January 8. We have 12 days until President Trump puts his hand on the Bible and is sworn into his second term of office, and we don't have any time to waste.

The reason why a budget is so important is for a variety of reasons. But one reason is because it allows us to pass budgetary legislation using the majority threshold, which would allow Republicans alone-- hopefully, Democrats will join us, but with 53 Republicans and everybody on the same page, hopefully, we will be able to pass legislation addressing our budgetary challenges.

We do have unique rules here in the Senate. One is called the Byrd rule, which tries to make sure we don't use the reconciliation process and the budgetary process to pass substantive legislation as opposed to budgetary legislation. That is something we are going to have to work out with the House because I know the House has different rules. They don't have any constraint on the types of things that they can do using reconciliation like the Senate does. But that is the reason why it is so important for the House and the Senate to get on the same page.

There is some discussion here on Capitol Hill about whether we want to pass one budget or two budgets or more--actually, even one budget with multiple reconciliation bills. Frankly, I don't think the process is as important as it is to get the job done. We need to save the American people a multitrillion-dollar tax increase which will occur unless we can renew the expiring provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

As I indicated earlier, we need to deal with our rising debt and our funding for our national security purposes. The goal, of course, for national security funding is to establish deterrence and to deter-- whether it is Iran that has aspirations for nuclear weapons that has created so much havoc and misery in the Middle East; whether it is North Korea that is testing hypersonic missiles along with nuclear weapons; or whether it is Russia, which has aspirations to restore the former Soviet Union or Russian Empire currently by the means of taking Ukraine back. Then, there is China, which--as the Presiding Officer knows with all of his experience in Asia--is a huge challenge for the United States.

President Xi has stated he wants the People's Liberation Army to be prepared by 2027 to take Taiwan by whatever means necessary. We are not ready, and we have to be ready to maintain and reestablish deterrence so that does not happen; so that President Xi wakes up day after day and he says to himself, ``Not today.'' And tomorrow he wakes up and says, ``Not today.''

That is what deterrence is about.

And we, again, need to deal with our budgetary challenges because we are not spending the amount of money we need to spend on defense and deterrence, nor are we spending the money we do spend in, I believe, the wisest and most appropriate manner given the current circumstances.

So whether we pursue a single reconciliation bill or multiple bills, we can't lose sight of the goal, and that is to pass President Trump's agenda for the American people. That is what the November 5 election was all about. And we are in lockstep with President Trump, I believe-- the majority in the House and the Senate--to accomplish that goal. But we can't do it unless we work closely together, which is why we need to be on the same page.

We need to quickly arrive at that agreement so we can act swiftly to implement the solutions that will help improve the day-to-day lives of our constituents, the people we represent--in my case, 31 million people in the State of Texas. President Biden's policies have been a disaster for my State and for the American people. Texans have been suffering under open borders and high prices for the last 4 years. Those who run businesses are facing burdensome regulations from the out-of-control regulatory regime.

On top of this, as I mentioned, if Republicans fail to act swiftly to extend the expiring tax cuts, 62 percent of taxpayers will experience a tax increase--62 percent. We can't let that happen. It would be insult to injury on top of a 40-year-high inflation for the American people to have to experience a tax cut increase if we are unsuccessful.

So while we have important conversations and healthy debates over what budget reconciliation ends up looking like, we need to keep our eye on the prize in order to deliver on these critical priorities for the American people.

Now, in addition to border security, abundant American energy, regulatory reform, permitting reform, and avoiding this multitrillion- dollar tax increase, there is one more thing that I would like my colleagues to remember as we deliberate the contents of this package.

I believe we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deal with some of the biggest challenges that face America, and we can't squander that opportunity. We have to address not only our discretionary spending, which is about 28 percent of what the Federal Government spends each year, but also our mandatory spending programs outside of Social Security and Medicare. We are not going to touch Social Security or Medicare absent some bipartisan agreement.

But there is still about $700 billion of mandatory spending that the Federal Government spends each year that is, essentially, on autopilot. We can address these mandatory spending programs by implementing commonsense reforms to programs like SNAP--otherwise known as food stamps--that have grown unchecked for years. By simply reducing payment errors for the SNAP payments, for example, we could save an estimated $100 billion.

By implementing a real work requirement for means-tested programs like Congress did back during the Clinton Presidency, we could save an incredible amount of money for the American people and help ease inflation so that the Federal Reserve can bring down interest rates. Or we could repeal the controversial 2021 Thrifty Food Plan that would save as much as $300 billion.

We are talking about real money.

But it is not just programs that got plus-ups during the pandemic. Let's take a look, for example, at the IRS. By rescinding the remaining unspent Inflation Reduction Act funds that were directed to the IRS during the Democrats' massive spending spree, we could save an additional $40 billion.

Now, think about that for a minute. We could save taxpayers $40 billion just by sending less money to the Agency when it comes to process their tax payments. That seems like a no-brainer if I ever heard of one. This money has not been spent.

If there are other demands in the future that Congress needs to address, then we are prepared to act on those. But to simply leave $40 billion unspent and act as if there is nothing we can do about it at a time of sky-high inflation and reckless spending, I think would be irresponsible on our part.

Here is another idea. By repealing Davis-Bacon, a law that requires Federal construction projects that are carried out that applies to them that requires payment of a prevailing wage--which isn't necessarily a market wage at the location you are talking about--the Department of Transportation alone could save $400 million.

Turning to our Federal workforce. Our Federal workforce does, by and large, great work. They do important work on behalf of the American people. But by reforming the pension system for Federal employees to bring the benefit calculation in line with the private sector standard, the government could save $5 billion over the next decade. We could reform the structure of the Federal employee health benefit program and save an additional $18 billion.

These are just a few examples of what I would call low-hanging fruit of the opportunities for us to save taxpayer money and to begin to reverse the reckless spending policies of the last 4 years. These are just some examples of the longer list that could save taxpayers as much as $1 trillion over the next 10-year period.

And, of course, I think we ought to put it all on the table--the money we spend through discretionary spending, the money we spend through mandatory programs, the money that is spent through the tax code. The child tax credit and the earned income tax credit alone represent $200 billion in spending. And this is using the tax code to basically create or supplement our welfare system because it is a refundable tax credit, which means people get a check--get cold, hard cash--using the tax code.

We need to restore the Tax Code to its original purpose and not hijack it for purposes of expanding the welfare state. We can have healthy debates about what the priorities should be. I think the child tax credit is very important, and we can talk about the appropriate levels of all of these various programs, including those included in the Tax Code. But we have to start somewhere, and we have to start soon.

Little things do add up. Over the past 4 years, families back home in Texas have had to reevaluate their budgets. So why shouldn't the Federal Government have to make the hard choices that folks back home are making on a daily and weekly basis? They have had to tighten their belts as a result of high inflation and the highest interest rates that we have had in a long time, which have eaten away at their monthly incomes. They have figured it out, and we can figure it out here, too, for the American people and for the Federal Government.

I think it is only fair that the U.S. Congress, which holds the purse strings for the U.S. Government as a whole, should have to do the same thing that families all across Texas, all across Tennessee, and all across the country are having to do on a regular basis. It doesn't seem fair to me to have the folks back home have to make these tough choices while the Congress has been spending away under Democratic majority control and with President Biden in the White House.

This is another reason I am excited about the great work the Republicans are going to do on the DOGE Caucus, the Department of Government Efficiency, alongside our friend Elon Musk and his partner in crime Vivek Ramaswamy. I say that tongue in cheek, Mr. President. But they have volunteered their efforts and raised the visibility and profile of some of the massive inefficiency in Federal spending in a way that, I think, will be able to galvanize the attention of the American people and enable us to get the political courage to do what we need to do to cut out waste, fraud, and abuse.

This Republican-led Congress can make an impact in reducing our spending, and I know we are all excited about the opportunities to do so. We are chomping at the bit. We just need to all get on the same page so we can get down to work. So I would urge all of my colleagues to remember budget reconciliation not only allows us to allocate resources to places like the southern border, which have been flatout ignored by the Biden administration, but it is also a tool to reduce spending--inefficient, wasteful spending--and to right-size our priorities.

You know, budgets are all about priorities. We have things we must have; we have things we would like to have; and we have things we want but that we can't afford. Those are decisions families have to make on a regular basis and so do small businesses all across the country. Why not the Federal Government? There is no good reason the Federal Government shouldn't have to operate under the same rules.

While we can notch some big wins in the coming weeks, we need to eat our spinach too. You know, we have been kicking a lot of these issues down the road until now, when we have run out of road. So it is up to us, the elected Representatives of the American people. This is our responsibility. It is not always going to be fun. It is not necessarily always going to be popular, but I believe that, if we explain to the American people the necessity of doing what I have been talking about here, they will understand it, and they will respect it and accept it. After all, this is something I propose that we do--that we have to do-- because of what the American people told us that they want, which is a change in direction for the country, in their vote of November 5 of this last year.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, as you know, last Friday, the Senate swore in new leaders for the 119th Congress, and in 2 weeks, the new Commander in Chief will be sworn in for a second time.

We are 6 days into a new year, and people around the country are making resolutions for the new year--everything from health to fitness, books to read, financial goals to meet--and as Republicans, now is a good time for us to do the exact same thing. We have our work cut out for us to help clean up the mess that President Biden and Senate Democrats have left us from the last 4 years.

I believe our first and most urgent task is to confirm President Trump's nominees for his Cabinet. The President won the election, and he is entitled to his team, absent extraordinary circumstances. It is simply impossible for the new administration to tackle the mountain of work waiting for them without their team of advisers who will lead critical government Agencies.

Without the President's Cabinet in place, he cannot get the job done that he was elected to do on November 5. With his Cabinet in place, we can get to work to implement the agenda that Texans and Americans across the country elected a trifecta of Republican leaders to accomplish.

The top of our list of priorities is, of course, to secure the southern border. I represent a State with 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico, and, sadly and tragically, under the previous administration's open border policies, it has been an unmitigated disaster.

The crisis at the southern border is one that President Biden quite literally invited with his campaign rhetoric and with his administration's policies. He invited this crisis. This was perhaps the one campaign promise that he delivered on. The Biden administration set out to reverse many, if not all, of President Trump's policies from his first term, including the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy and title 42.

Under President Biden's watch, the Border Patrol was overwhelmed with record numbers of illegal migrants crossing the border. Border Patrol encountered more than 370 people on the Terror Watchlist crossing between ports of entry during the Biden administration. We know there were roughly a dozen people who were part of the conspiracy that resulted in the death of 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, and now here we have 370 people on the Terror Watchlist that crossed between ports of entry during the Biden administration. Well, that compares with well under 10 per year under the Trump administration. But I think the point is pretty obvious: This is dangerous.

Those are only the aliens who the Border Patrol encountered or apprehended. Remember that President Biden also set records for ``got- aways.'' That is what the Border Patrol calls the people who simply evaded law enforcement--aliens who fled because, frankly, they were up to no good.

As of May, more than 1.7 million ``got-aways'' had made their way into the United States under their watch. These are just people who triggered various cameras and sensors and were able to evade law enforcement. Surely there were more that were able to make their way into the interior of the United States. Again, under President Biden's border policies, all you have to do is turn yourself in and you would be released into the interior, but these are people that could not even risk that because of either their criminal records or their intention to do harm, including carry drugs into the United States.

Since the Biden administration established the word ``asylum'' as a magic word that resulted in their release into the interior, we can be pretty sure that many of those evading Border Patrol have something else to hide.

Human trafficking and drug trafficking by the cartels have caused enormous and often untold suffering for the people of my home State of Texas and Americans as a whole. Fentanyl, which is now the leading cause of death of young people in America 18 to 45, is manufactured--or the precursors are manufactured in China and trafficked through the U.S.-Mexico border.

Countless migrants released into the interior of our country have failed to show up for their day in court, showing others looking to make the dangerous journey to the United States that they might also be able to make it and suffer zero consequences.

All of these actions--or lack of actions--from the Biden administration have sent a clear signal that the laws of the United States will not be enforced.

You know, law enforcement depends on our great men and women in blue to investigate crimes and to deter other people from committing crimes, but deterrence is a very important element that has simply been lost by the Biden administration's open border policies.

Given the fact that most people who come to the United States know, under the Biden administration, that they will simply be released, there is no reason for them to believe that they will not be released as well, and so there is zero deterrence. That is getting ready to change under President Trump.

Now, speaking of breaking the law without consequence, violent crime is another problem plaguing Texans and American cities across the country. Leftwing mayors and city governments have advanced soft-on- crime policies in major cities from Chicago to Los Angeles and from New York to San Francisco. What has been the result? Well, criminals have noticed that there are no consequences to them committing crimes in these cities. The lack of consequences is an incentive, an encouragement for them to continue stealing, breaking, and murdering.

That is all beginning to change under a new administration. Republicans are prepared to take steps necessary to prevent and ensure that ramifications for these crimes exist. We have done so before, and we are going to do so again.

During President Trump's first administration, I was proud to partner with him on legislation to lock up violent criminals and ensure justice for victims. One of my top priorities for the new year is to do everything I can to build on the great work we accomplished under President Trump's first term to make sure that our communities, our cities, and our streets are once again safe.

Another way that we will keep our citizens safe is by ensuring that Second Amendment rights are safeguarded. The Trump administration will end President Biden's assault on the Second Amendment--the right to keep and bear arms--as well as the Biden administration's bad-faith interpretations of Second Amendment-related legislation.

I look forward to leading my Senate colleagues in reintroducing my Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act and working with the Trump administration and our cosponsors here in the Senate to get this legislation across the finish line.

Now, I know some folks from places like New York or maybe San Francisco might say: You are actually going to make it easier for people to carry a firearm legally?

Well, the answer is, already the vast majority of States have licensing regimes where responsible, law-abiding citizens can exercise their Second Amendment rights by getting a license to carry a firearm, including Texas and including the District of Columbia. I happen to have a license in both jurisdictions. Many States have gone simply to a nonlicensed status so that people can exercise their Second Amendment rights.

I would reiterate, America and Americans have nothing to fear from law-abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights. Those are not the people we should be concerned about. We should be most concerned about people who are criminals who cannot legally carry a firearm or people with mental health incapacities who are currently prohibited under existing law from carrying or owning or possessing a firearm. Those are existing laws that are enforced, given the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Now, while our safety and security start at home, in our communities, and at our borders, it also extends around the world. As I have said before from this floor, we now have the most dangerous geopolitical environment that we have had since World War II.

Texans voted resoundingly for President Trump in this last election in part because of his pledge to hold China accountable. China threatens the peace in the Indo-Pacific by threatening to invade its neighbor Taiwan and interrupt freedom of commerce and freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific.

One of the ways that we can hold China accountable is to pass my legislation to address outbound investment in China. I just had a chance to visit with the new Treasury Secretary nominee, and I told him it was really strange to me when you look historically at how we dealt with the Soviet Union and how we dealt with China, both of which are ruled by communist governments.

Many years ago, at the beginning of the Cold War, George Kennan, a famous diplomat, wrote something called the ``Long Telegram,'' where he said you are not going to change communist Russia. It is an ideological obsession they have. You are not going to change their minds. So what you need to do--what the free world needs to do--is to contain them. And that is what the Cold War was all about, leading ultimately to the fall of the Soviet Union.

Strangely enough, the U.S. position toward China was just the opposite. Under President Clinton, he invited them into the World Trade Organization, believing that somehow by engaging in more trade with the rest of the world, that somehow China and the Communist Party would change. Well, as Xiaoping, one of the former leaders of communist China, said: Hide your motives and bide your time. And that is exactly what China has done.

China has now become the manufacturing center for the world. When you are buying inexpensive consumer products, that is one thing, but when you consider the vulnerability of our supply chains and things that China makes and does--like processes critical minerals, which it does 90 percent of the critical minerals of the world that we need for a variety of products, including military weapons--that represents a huge vulnerability. Well, we need to know who is investing in what industries in China because, right now, the rough estimate of the market value of American-based investment in China in 2020 was $2.3 trillion.

China has built its economy--which, by itself, should not be a big concern--but they now have become a rival to the United States. If they played by the rules, that would be one thing. But China is famous for not honoring intellectual property laws and stealing all the technology they can. And they are using their economic power, which is synonymous with their military power because they have something called civilian- military fusion laws, which said if the private sector creates a new innovative product, they have to share it with the People's Liberation Army and the Communist Party in China.

My point is, my outbound investment piece of legislation says we need to know who is investing money in China and what that is being used for. I could care less if people want to build more Burger Kings or Starbucks in China. I am not worried about that. But when you start talking about advanced semiconductors, when you start talking about serial intellectual property theft, when you look at some of the weapons systems and the airframes China has been creating, they bear a remarkable resemblance to those we built here in the United States because they have engaged in massive theft through cyber attacks and through intellectual property theft.

But it is simply foolish for the United States to continue to blindly invest billions of dollars in the very defense systems and technologies that the Chinese Communist Party could use to our detriment in the Indo-Pacific.

Our colleague Senator Sullivan from Alaska just retired as colonel from the Marines. He puts it very poignantly. He says: American investors are going to fund the very military buildup that will result in the death of my marines if China were to invade Taiwan.

To me--and I am sure to all of us--that is simply unacceptable. Right now, we are flying blind, and that needs to change.

While some might be concerned about lost investment potential in China, there are plenty of opportunities here at home and in other parts around the world, as we see more friendshoring and nearshoring, to create dependable supply chains to Asia, India, and elsewhere.

Well, there is another area where I expect President Trump to make a big difference, and that is in the energy sector and primarily to do this through regulatory reform. For the past 4 years, the Biden administration has put the wistful dreams of climate activists ahead of the interests of ordinary Americans, particularly those in my home State of Texas.

And he is certainly not letting the door hit him on the way out. Today--I think that was actually yesterday--President Biden announced one last nail in the coffin by issuing a permanent ban on oil and gas leasing in certain Federal waters preventing new drilling.

But nevertheless, Republicans will not be dissuaded from our task to reverse the damage of the Biden administration and unleash this huge asset, which is American energy. By removing burdensome regulations from our energy sector, by improving the permitting process so we can actually build things like the capacity to

produce electricity that would drive data centers and artificial intelligence, and by increasing our exports of things like natural gas so our friends and allies don't have to depend on Russia to keep the lights on or to heat their homes, we can create both growth for our economy here at home and we can improve our natural security posturing, including shoring up our vulnerable supply chains. Rather than forcing Europe to rely on Russia for its energy sources, we can increase their reliance--and they are eager to have it--on American energy, particularly liquefied natural gas.

This would be a big win for America and a big win for my State as well and a big loss for the ``axis of evil''--Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea that are working together to undermine the United States and the West.

We have a lot to do and very little time to do it. We have an opportunity to pass huge wins for President Trump and, more specifically, for the American people. And that comes first through the budget reconciliation process. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and it is not an opportunity we can afford to squander. We can't let this go to waste by not taking this occasion to finally address our skyrocketing debt. And the only way we can do that is not only be responsible in the way we handle things like discretionary spending but to dig deeper into the areas that the Federal Government spends like mandatory spending.

I know Medicare and Social Security are particularly fraught. And without bipartisan support, it is really hard to save Social Security and Medicare, particularly if the Democrats aren't going to be willing to help. But there is about $700 billion a year that the Federal Government spends that has mandatory spending. That means it is on autopilot, and we never go back to revisit it to see if it is still a priority, which continues to grow at 5, 6, 7, 8 percent a year. And until and unless we deal with this mandatory spending, we are never going to deal with this mountain of debt now approaching $36 trillion.

We have now finally gotten to the point where we are paying more money for interest on the national debt than we are on our own defense, which is 2.7 percent of our GPD. We finally kicked the can down the road to the point we have run out of road. That is true both in terms of our fiscal condition and in terms of our national security.

We can't let this opportunity go to waste. As I said, we need to take a hard look at both our mandatory discretionary spending, and we also need to take a look at how the Tax Code has been transformed into a welfare system. About $200 billion a year go to pay for the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit.

Democrats have been successful in decoupling any sort of work requirement for able-bodied adults. That needs to be reinstated because when it comes to assessing the people who deserve help and need our help, able-bodied individuals should not be able to ride the backs of the American taxpayers. They need to do like everybody else does who is able-bodied, and that is to be a producer, not somebody who lives off the beneficence of the American taxpayer.

We have a lot of work to do, but this is an incredible opportunity that I trust we will not squander. The time to address these problems is now. We put it off long enough. I know it is easy to say let's do the easy things now, and we will do the hard stuff later. But later never seems to come so we have to deal with these now.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in recess pursuant to the previous order.

Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:25 p.m., recessed until 2:15 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mrs. Hyde- Smith).

Mr. President, it is hardly breaking news that this is December 20--5 days before Christmas, a day celebrated by 2 billion people throughout the world. It is also the last day of the 118th Congress, and there is no better time than the present to take stock of what we have done or not done this last year.

Students around the country wrapped up their semester, and they have come home with a report card to show their parents the grades they have earned in things like math, science, English, and other subjects. Of course, report cards are a helpful metric of advancement--or not, as the case may be. It is also a means to hold people accountable--where they are excelling, where they need to improve.

Here in the Senate, I think it is important to issue the Democratic majority a similar report card-style evaluation. People may wonder: Well, why would it just be of the Democratic majority and not the Senate as a whole? Well, obviously each of us represents our respective State, but there is one important difference: Only the majority leader, the Democratic majority leader, sets the Senate's schedule.

That means we consider bills that only he calls up for consideration. No one else in the Senate--not the other 99 of us--can schedule bills for votes.

That also means that what he does not schedule on the Senate's calendar is not considered, including bills that have passed the House, even by broad bipartisan majorities. And in a few short days, all the bills that he has chosen not to schedule will suffer a quiet death.

The majority leader's ability to run this Chamber has repercussions in every State, city, and community across the country. As public servants, we are all accountable to the people we serve. And leaders of the institution should be accountable as well, which is what I want to proceed to do now.

Last year, the majority leader's report card at the halfway mark of the congressional session showed that he had quite a bit of room for improvement in the second half of this 2-year session. But, unfortunately, I am sorry to report, he did not improve his performance last year. In fact, in the recent referendum on Senate Democrats' performance, which is the general election of November 5, the American people voted for Republicans to take over the reins of the Senate next year because they believed the Senate--and the country--was headed in the wrong direction.

So let's start with government funding. That seems particularly timely now, since here we are in another government shutdown narrative, which is--I will show or attempt to show that it is entirely contrived and is by design and is not the way the Senate should be running.

You recall, last year, the majority leader earned an incomplete on this subject. I had hopes that we would see a change in the way we handled the government funding. So the first 2 months of this calendar year, we saw the Appropriations Committee pass bipartisan appropriations bills that were never scheduled on the Senate floor.

Now we find ourselves in the exact same situation as last year. The Appropriations Committee did their work, again, on a bipartisan basis. Many of the 12 bills they passed were passed unanimously but never called up or scheduled for votes here in the Senate.

Leader Schumer made the exact same mistake he made last year. He procrastinated on scheduling floor time to consider the bills, and we are, even now, as I speak, dealing with the funding decisions that should have been decided and settled last September.

So here we are, less than 3 days before the Senate was scheduled to head home, he negotiated a text of a bill that was more than 1,500 pages. You might wonder why is it that he would fail to call up the 12 funding bills for the entire rest of the year and then 3 days before we are supposed to leave for the Christmas recess, propose a 1,500-page bill.

Well, it should seem pretty obvious. It is because the people who negotiate that bill are not the rank-and-file members of the Senate. As a matter of fact, they don't even get a chance to change the negotiated product, which is done between the so-called Big Four. So he was hoping to shove through a ``cramnibus'' that lawmakers would not even have time to read, and he snuck in a pay raise for Congress to boot.

Now it is only a few days before the end of the year, and we are in the exact same boat we found ourselves last year. We are now tasked with passing a continuing resolution to kick the can down the road even more into March. Again, this should have been addressed last September.

I must say, I am disappointed but not entirely surprised. It was part of a plan.

So I believe that on the appropriations process, keeping the lights on and keeping the government open, the report card for the Democratic majority and the majority leader is an F.

Now let's turn to the National Defense Authorization Act. I have said time and time again on this floor something that I think we all recognize; that this is the most dangerous world since World War II, with North Korea sending soldiers to fight with the Russians in Ukraine; with Kim Jong Un launching missiles over allies of the United States into the Sea of Japan; with Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis--the proxies for Tehran--killing innocent people; and then, of course, the war in Ukraine, which has tragically gone on for 2 years with hundreds and thousands of people dead. So you would think that one of the most important things we would do is pass the National Defense Authorization bill--something we have done literally 63 years in a row.

That bill should have been signed into law by the end of the last fiscal year, which is September 30. But, yes, once again, the majority leader--the only person who can schedule these bills on the floor-- procrastinated.

That bill was finally completed the last week of the year, more than 2 months past the deadline. But just like government funding, the majority leader did not learn from his mistakes on the NDAA.

Two days ago, on Wednesday of this week, he actually came down here and brazenly acknowledged what many people had said; that they were worried

that we would not even be able to pass the Defense Authorization bill this year because he hadn't scheduled it for consideration on the floor. But he came down and bragged that, yes, here we are; we are going to vote on the NDAA. But it is a conference report that rank-and- file members have never had the chance to debate and amend on the Senate floor. This, again, was a bill negotiated behind closed doors, not in the light of day with Senators--all 100 Senators--having a chance to participate. It was just a railroad job. He acts like the way he handled it was to his credit, but just the opposite is true.

Next, we have the farm bill. A strong and on-time farm bill is essential to the health and well-being of the agriculture industry, the American people, and our economy.

Texas, which I am proud to represent, is home to more than 230,000 farms and ranches--more than any other State in the country. One out of every seven Texans works in an ag-related job, so this legislation provides critical lifelines for the folks back home. And here again, last year, the Senate failed to pass a farm bill on a timely basis and instead kicked the can down the road.

Unfortunately, recently, the chair of the Agriculture Committee--a Democratic chair--waited until November--that was just last month--to release a partisan farm bill that was simply not going to cut it for our farmers and ranchers back home, and it had no chance of passing because it was strictly a party-line, partisan bill. So instead of working together on a bipartisan basis to pass a fair and effective farm bill on time, we had to scramble to include farm assistance in the end-of-the-year continuing resolution. That was part of the 1,500-page bill that the majority leader and others negotiated, which, unfortunately, does not look like it is going to go anywhere--that part of it, the farm assistance.

But we wouldn't have needed to do that, or at least not the scale at which that farm assistance was provided for, if we had simply done our work on time and passed a timely farm bill.

Of course, this continuing resolution, or whatever the House ends up sending to us, doesn't allow producers to plan, doesn't give them certainty for multiple years. The least Congress could do for our farmers and ranchers is to provide them agricultural assistance now.

Playing politics with the livelihoods of the very people who grow our crops and feed the world is unacceptable. That is why getting our work done on the farm bill on time is so important, and it is something that the Republican majority will deliver on next year.

So for this Congress, the Democratic leader, once again, has earned an F for failing to pass a timely farm bill.

With a C-plus on the NDAA and multiple Fs, we have to wonder, What has Senator Schumer been doing all year? What has the Senate been doing all year if we haven't done our work on time? What has happened?

The answer is, we have simply squandered our time. There are 365 days in a year. According to my colleague, the incoming Senate majority leader John Thune, in 2024, the Senate had been in session only 116 days out of 365--116 days--as of today. Last year, we were in session a little bit longer, 124 days. But this year, we had nine Mondays during the regular session weeks where the Senate took an extra recess day off. So we came in on Tuesday and left on Thursday. Honestly, looking at it, we only worked about 2\1/2\ days a week.

I am relieved that the incoming majority leader is going to put this Chamber back to work and produce our work on time next year.

The majority leader has also wasted a significant part of the year with the summer of show votes, when he could have been getting this other essential work done. Show votes are something that he knows are not going to pass but are designed for political messaging or to embarrass the opposing political party.

We voted on a number of bills that were never intended to pass. We voted on a tax package that hadn't even been considered here in the Senate by the Finance Committee mere hours before the Senate was scheduled for a recess.

This is a huge bill that hadn't received any input from the Senate Finance Committee--none. It could not have been more clear that the majority leader was playing games, not actually trying to produce a legislative result.

So the only subject where the Democratic leader was remotely successful was this last one here, procrastination. He gets an A. But no one takes a class in procrastination. Recess is not a subject that receives a grade either.

In short, this is an embarrassing report card for the majority leader and the Democratic majority this last year.

It is no surprise, given this lack luster performance, that the American people chose a different direction in the November 5 election.

While I am disappointed, I am very much looking forward to working with my Republican colleagues and President Trump and any willing Democrat who is willing to join us to make sure we can report back to the American people with some better news and a better report card next year.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, last week, I came to the floor to speak

about a new acronym that we are becoming more and more familiar with-- DOGE, or the Department of Government Efficiency--that will be led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. One of the priorities I am looking forward to working with DOGE on to accomplish, as a founding member of the caucus, is to reform and, hopefully, revitalize the Pentagon.

As I have said repeatedly, we are living in one of the most dangerous times since World War II. So it is absolutely critical that our systems at the Pentagon are operating in top-notch shape. But as we know, as of now, many of the acquisition processes the Pentagon follows are similar, if not identical, to those followed by the Soviet Union back in the day. If you know your history, the United States beat the Soviet Union when the wall fell and when the Soviet Union collapsed. So it is obvious that their model doesn't work very well, and neither did their system of military procurement.

But, as I mentioned last week, where and how we spend our money is just as important as how much we spend. We seem to be fixated on the ``how much'' but not how and where the money is spent. Preparing for the strategic competition we are in the midst of is not as simple as just increasing the percentage of the spending of GDP. We need to make sure that the money that is spent is spent efficiently and accurately, meeting the needs of the world--the dangerous world--we live in.

The end of the Cold War brought us a peace dividend, but one consequence of that victory was the overwhelming consolidation of the defense industrial base and the weakening of our supply chains. In the early 1990s, we had several hundred companies participating in our national defense industrial base. Today, we have five. The lack of competition in this area, combined with our penchant for requiring unique defense systems, has hampered our bargaining power and led to waste and abuse.

The use of cost-plus contracts shifts the risk of cost overruns to the government. As a result, it is not unusual to find projects delayed by years and running hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. Take, for example, undersea autonomous vehicles. Boeing was contracted to deliver five Orca vehicles for about $379 million in 2022. Yet here we are $620 million later with an anticipated delivery date of 2025. If we keep going at this rate, we simply will not be prepared for the confrontation from the authoritarian axis that is quickly coming our way.

But the good news is this story doesn't have to end the way the Soviet Union did. We are, after all, the United States of America, and I am optimistic we can learn from the mistakes other countries have made in the past to win this strategic competition with the axis of authoritarians. I am hopeful that by implementing reforms, we can pivot from the path we are on to one of peace through strength. Ultimately, the goal should be deterrence, preventing the next war.

The Pentagon should move away from cost-plus contracts toward reliance on fixed-price contracts. Under a fixed-price model, cost overruns are borne by the contractor instead of the buyer, which, in this case, is the Pentagon. This is just a commonsense best practice that should be the standard model to incentivize productivity and efficient operations. Newer, nontraditional defense companies like Anduril and Palantir, as well as Elon Musk's SpaceX in my home State of Texas, have made a strong case for this commonsense business approach.

These companies have leveraged billions of dollars in our capital markets, perhaps our greatest strategic advantage when compared to our adversaries, to produce quality defense items at unmatched scale and speed.

They also provide important and critical jobs across a variety of skill levels, often in a low-cost-of-living, high-growth opportunity area. This helps revitalize our towns and communities in need of new industries to reinvigorate their job markets.

This model underscores the need to transition away from our centralized, Soviet-style acquisition process, first created in the 1960s, to a more agile model which leverages the private sector to strengthen our national defense.

In addition to shifting our model for procurement and acquisition, we need to change the risk-averse culture at the Department of Defense. I don't mean taking unnecessary risks; I mean taking calculated risks where called for and where indicated.

Newer entities, such as the Defense Innovation Unit or the Office of Strategic Capital, are willing to assume greater risks since they understand the need for rapid acquisition. Their ability to identify and adopt commercial technologies, for example, is one area where procurement and contracting offices should be emulating. Rather than having the DOD create elaborate requirements with multiple overlays of bureaucracy and review, our officials should be looking for existing products and technologies that substantially meet the needed requirement.

The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 actually requires these officials to do that. The fact that they are reluctant to do so underscores the need to reform the culture of acquisition and procurement.

While these are all needed updates that must happen, I am optimistic that the Pentagon can and will, with our help and encouragement, make progress in all of these fronts in order to be prepared for the challenges that our country faces ahead.

One reason I am optimistic is because of some of these reforms that are already underway as they have been included in the National Defense Authorization Act. And I am proud to have championed several of them.

Two of my bills included in the NDAA would enhance our procurement capabilities. One is the Capability-Based Trade and Unconventional Resource Engagement--or CAPTURE Act--which will create a pilot project permitting contracting officers to use alternative analyses to better determine the value of products produced by nontraditional defense contractors.

And then there is my Encouraging Qualitative Upgrades and Innovative Procurements--or EQUIP--Act, which will permit combatant commanders to use the defense modernization fund to procure commercial technologies.

Lastly, my Enable IC Partnerships Act will encourage public-private partnerships in acquisition and develop workforce talent. This will help address the lack of competition and innovation within the government and within the country.

These reforms, I believe, are a start, but our work is not yet complete.

I am confident that under new leadership, including that of Secretary-designate Hegseth, in collaboration with people like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy at the Department of Government Efficiency, we can continue and build on this process and make additional needed reforms at the Pentagon, again, with the goal of preventing the next war or reestablishing deterrence--something we have not done now, as evidenced by all of the hot spots around the world, ranging from the Middle East to North Korea to China to Russia.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues and with each of these individuals to help them rebuild our military into the powerhouse that has long defined American strength.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut for offering the unanimous consent request by which we passed these various bills. I just want to discuss the Big Bend National Park Boundary Act.

Texas is home to very diverse terrain, which includes vibrant wildlife and big, wide-open spaces, and Big Bend National Park is no exception.

This legislation that we just passed by unanimous consent here in the Senate expands and preserves the park's heritage, its natural resources, and its jaw-dropping scenery, while also safeguarding private property rights. This bill authorizes the National Park Service to acquire approximately 6,100 acres of land adjacent to Terlingua Creek, along the western boundary of the park. It clarifies that the National Park Service may only acquire lands through donation, purchase from willing property owners, or exchange, and it explicitly prohibits the use of eminent domain or condemnation, thereby protecting private property rights.

This legislation is important for helping Texans and all Americans enjoy our big, beautiful national parks, and I am pleased that the Senate has adopted this legislation today by unanimous consent.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, it seems hard to imagine that it was 23 years ago when 3,000 Americans were killed in a terrorist attack in New York City and here in Washington, DC, at the Pentagon.

The families who lost loved ones that day have been seeking access to justice, just like any other victim could and should be able to here in the United States.

To that end, we introduced the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA, which was a monumental step to allowing those families who lost loved ones to achieve long-overdue closure in a court of law.

It did not put our thumb on the scale, it didn't say they were entitled to anything; it just said they were entitled to present their arguments and the facts to a court of law just like any other American citizen should be able to do so here in our country.

These terrorist attacks on 9/11 were a tragedy for our entire Nation; but for some, that day was a personal tragedy as well. Men and women who lost loved ones during the terrorist attacks deserve to have their day in court. Thanks to JASTA, as it is called, the Justice against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, that is now possible.

This legislation, the Ensuring Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, provides important updates and technical edits to the original bill.

To show you the sort of bipartisan support that this carve-out in foreign sovereign immunity law received, it passed 97 to 1 back when it originally passed, and it passed over a Presidential veto by President Obama. The bill before us today does not expand JASTA's original scope as intended by Congress, but it does correct certain judicial misinterpretations that fly in the face of the clear text and the history of this legislation.

When President Obama vetoed JASTA, leading to the only veto override during his Presidency, he listed a parade of harmful potential foreign policy outcomes to justify his refusal to stand up for American victims of terrorism.

None--none--of these predicted negative outcomes have come to pass, and JASTA has been the law of the land for nearly a decade. These technical corrections will not change that fact. It will ensure that the families of the victims of these tragic attacks on 9/11 receive the justice they deserve, and I hope it will advance out of the Senate today.

To that end, I would ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 2082 and, notwithstanding rule XXII, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table.

Madam President, last week, I came to the Senate floor to discuss provisions that would address outbound investment transparency that Congress neglected to put in the National Defense Authorization Act conference report, which we are presently considering.

Well, I am back again, and I wish I had better news to share. As I mentioned last week, no one can claim to be serious about the China threat while turning a blind eye toward outbound investment transparency. Simply put, American investment in Chinese companies is the lifeblood of the Chinese economy. If the People's Republic of China, the Chinese Communist Party,

were part of the rules-based international order, it would be one thing, but they are not.

The People's Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party welcome that foreign investment to build their economy while they modernize their military and rearm their country, threatening peace in the region and beyond.

Quite frankly, I am disappointed the House and the Senate have so far failed to take action on this matter that is of critical importance to our strategic competition with the Chinese Communist Party. The House and the Senate will have one last chance this year to address the outbound investment transparency provision I am discussing in the continuing resolution before we leave for the holiday recess.

But consider for a moment, we are awaiting an announcement that this continuing resolution has somehow been agreed to by the leaders here when we are talking about financing the government that we should have done before the end of the fiscal year last September. And now here we are, at the last minute, trying to figure out how to kick the can down the road to March.

But notwithstanding this terrible way to do business and to handle our country's finances--threatening, once again, another government shutdown, a completely unnecessary drama--I would urge my colleagues not to miss this opportunity to include this outbound investment transparency provision in the continuing resolution. We simply cannot wait another year to address this issue.

While Members of the House and Senate hem and haw, China is aggressively building up their defensive and offensive capabilities. The Chinese military continues to conduct joint exercises with Russia, and they continue to engage in provocative and aggressive behavior toward our treaty ally, the Philippines, in the South China Sea.

It is no secret that President Xi has ordered the Chinese military to be ready and capable of taking Taiwan by force by the year 2027, barely 2 years from now. The last thing the United States of America should be doing is financing the very economy and the weapons systems that will be used to try to destroy our allies and, potentially, us.

As we all know, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea have joined together as the axis of autocracies in opposition to the democracies across the planet. This is a very dangerous alliance which foreshadows the sort of things that led to the runup to World War II.

It is simply foolish for the United States to help China to modernize its military and create this very dangerous scenario by investing in technologies that could be used ultimately to kill American soldiers.

I could care less if American investors want to build another Starbucks or another Burger King in the People's Republic of China. I do care about dual-use technology and advanced technology that they could use to defeat us in the Indo-Pacific. By some estimates, U.S. investments in Chinese companies total $2.3 trillion in market value by the end of 2020. This includes, incredibly enough, $21 billion in semiconductors, $54 billion in military companies, and a whopping $221 billion in artificial intelligence. Those are American companies investing in China to build those things.

A recent report from the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission found that more than 90 percent of the total U.S. investment in these sectors is concentrated in the semiconductor industry. When it comes to China's AI industry, the report cites an analysis that found U.S. investors account for 37 percent of the $110 billion in global financing raised by firms from 2015 to 2021. This is in AI.

To capture this picture from another angle, the report points out that U.S. investors consistently contribute more than double the capital to these sectors compared to all non-U.S. investors combined.

Consider the fact that we passed the Chips and Science Act in 2021 to create programs that would bolster our ability to compete with China and to eliminate vulnerable supply chains when it comes to advanced semiconductors. We made this critical investment in reshoring the manufacturing of advanced semiconductors, but also we made critical investments in quantum computing and AI to ensure that we win the competition with China. And we established guardrails to make sure that these funds could not be used by our adversaries or to fund them.

But how foolish would it be for us to have made this investment and still continue to fund the growth of China's capabilities and these sectors at the exact same time? By turning a blind eye to this reality, we are feeding the hand that is preparing to bite us. And the truth is, addressing outbound investment transparency will only become more painful if we wait.

This is a can that the United States of American cannot afford to kick down the road anymore. As I said, China's President Xi Jinping has made his plans for the People's Liberation Army to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. He could not be more clear.

What are we waiting for? And while I know I have painted a rather grim picture--which I unfortunately believe to be completely accurate-- I remain optimistic that progress will be made on this critical matter before the end of the year. It has to. We simply cannot put it off. It has to be in the continuing resolution.

And while our political environment is divided, there is one thing that Democrats and Republicans--hawks and doves--alike can agree on, and that is the threat posed by China and the Chinese Communist Party.

I have been working on this matter for a long time now, and I have been amazed at the amount of bipartisan and bicameral agreement that exists on addressing outbound investment transparency.

So what is the delay? Why haven't we done it yet? Minority leader Hakeem Jeffries originally blocked outbound investment transparency provisions from being included in the NDAA last week, but I remain hopeful that he will continue to work in a bipartisan manner with Republicans on including this critical tool in this end-of-year funding package, which must be acted on by the end of this week.

I would like to thank the Speaker of the House Mike Johnson for his strong commitment to making sure this gets done in a timely fashion. Last year, my amendment to address outbound investment passed the Senate by 91 to 6--91 to 6. But it was not included in the final version of the National Defense Authorization Act. However, Speaker Johnson assured me he would make sure those provisions were included in the end-of-year funding package. Likewise, Senator Schumer made the same commitment. And I know they will keep their word.

So I look forward to continuing work with all my colleagues to make sure this critical matter is addressed in this year's funding measure. We simply cannot put it off any longer. We cannot continue to fly blind when it comes to American companies investing in China in industries and areas that can be used not only to build their economy but threatens peace and stability in the region and beyond.

As I said last week, no one can seriously claim to care about the threat posed by China if they support continued U.S. investment in Chinese defense technologies.

China is certainly not waiting around, and neither should we.

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, last week, I spoke about some of President Trump's nominees to unleash American energy dominance. Today, I would like to highlight another issue and some of his great picks to help lead his agenda.

For one thing, I am very excited about his partnership with my fellow Texan, Elon Musk, who will help lead the newly created Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

We have reached a point as a nation where it is almost a cliche to say our spending has become out of control. We all know that, but doing anything about it seems to be elusive, to say the least. It is a problem that we are all aware of but is one that many are afraid to make the hard decisions to do anything about.

Our Nation's debt has skyrocketed to more than $36 trillion. That is a number that none of us can possibly conceive of in terms of the magnitude of that debt. What we do know is we are now spending more money for interest on the national debt than we are on the defense of our Nation--something that is unsustainable. But what is lesser known is that 61 percent of the Federal

budget is mandatory spending, which means it is on autopilot, and we rarely go back and revisit it to make sure that this spending program, this mandatory spending program, is still a priority. There is no cap on it, no cost-of-living index, nothing of the nature to control the costs, so they tend to grow at 5, 6, 7, 8 percent a year. Well, this is no longer acceptable, if it ever was, because it is not sustainable. We have to do something about it, and I think we have a generational opportunity to do just that come January.

But if you look at the other piece of the pie, only 26 percent of our budget is discretionary. We fight over continuing resolutions and appropriations bills here in the Senate, which represent 26 percent of the money that the Federal Government spends, and act sometimes like, well, we need to balance the budget, but in dealing with 26 percent of the spending, that is obviously a fool's errand.

The other 13 percent is interest on the national debt. Just think about the trillion dollars a year that we spend on interest on the national debt. If we did not have a $36 trillion debt, if we didn't have to pay that interest, what good could be done with that trillion dollars a year? We have almost reached the point where our interest payments, of course, as I said, have actually eclipsed defense spending, and that is obviously never a good place to be.

Where we spend what we spend is almost as important as how much we spend. Let me say that again. Where we spend what we spend is almost as important as how much we spend. I have never been one to believe that it is just a matter, in terms of judging our national security, that we need to spend X amount of dollars, because that doesn't really tell you much about how those dollars are spent.

One of the things I am hoping the new administration can do, being disruptors, opposing the status quo, is that we can see some real changes at the Pentagon and in terms of equipping our warfighters with the most modern, most effective weapons and weapons systems that they need in order to restore deterrence.

I think it is obvious--and I think the selection is a referendum on this--that we need to take a look in the mirror and look at our pocketbook and have a reckoning. For this reason, I am excited to work with Elon Musk and his cochairman, Vivek Ramaswamy, who is a founding member of the DOGE Caucus, here in the Senate. Now, I don't imagine that they are going to be able to unilaterally cut out the waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government because obviously they are not part of the legislature, but I do believe they can highlight ways that we can cut waste and inefficiency. Whether it is the President through Executive order or whether it is the Congress through Congressional Review Acts or through other legislation, we can join them in cutting our spending and making the tax dollar that is spent here be spent more efficiently in accordance with our priorities as a nation. So I look forward to working with both of them and our House colleagues on the DOGE Caucus--first to identify the low-hanging fruit.

Now, there have already been some good ideas that we have seen floated. For example, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget recently found that simply reversing every one of President Biden's Executive orders could save taxpayers up to $1.4 trillion.

You know, it is a sad day when we who are supposed to have the purse strings have relinquished to the Executive the ability to basically obligate the Nation to spend $1.4 trillion through Executive orders. There is something terribly out of whack about that. We are the ones who should control the purse strings of the Nation and be the ones accountable to the voters for how we spend that money, but that has gotten terribly out of whack, as I said.

For the most part, these Executive actions are things that folks on this side of the Chamber agree we should reverse. For example, simply preventing the implementation of President Biden's rule limiting vehicle carbon emissions--effectively an electric vehicle mandate-- would save $150 billion. I have never understood the wisdom of low- and middle-income taxpayers subsidizing wealthy people to buy expensive cars, which is what the mandate provides.

While there is incredible innovation in the healthcare space, blocking the Biden administration rule to allow Medicare to cover GLP-1 obesity drugs would save $40 billion. Now, I, for one, think that is a fascinating topic and one we need to explore more in depth, but I do oppose the President's doing this unilaterally before Congress has had a chance to do our due diligence to see ``Does this save money? What is the impact on the public health?'' rather than President Biden, with the swipe of his pen, spending $40 billion.

Then there is the so-called Thrifty Food Plan update that increased SNAP benefits. We have been debating the farm bill, which is about 80 percent of nutrition benefits and very little benefit to our farmers, but President Biden again, with a swipe of his pen, obligated us to spend another $180 billion.

It is a little ironic, to say the least, that we spend billions of dollars on food stamps and nutrition programs that could be used to buy who knows what and then turn around and spend billions of dollars more on obesity drugs to help Americans who are overweight. There is something strange about that juxtaposition.

But another simple but effective way of eliminating waste would be to eliminate COVID-era work policies for employees in Federal Agencies. My friend and our colleague Senator Ernst of Iowa has pointed out that taxpayers continue to pick up the tab for the upkeep of Federal buildings that are, by and large, empty.

The Government Accountability Office conducted a study that found that 75 percent or more of the office space for DC headquarters of Federal Agencies is not even being used--75 percent.

At the same time, the people who rely on these Agencies for services--the public--are often faced with extended wait times due to Federal employees working remotely. I hear it on a daily basis from my constituents, as I am sure many others in this Chamber have as well.

Veterans are calling the Veterans' Administration, and they are waiting for callbacks. Taxpayers are trying to file their tax returns correctly, and they face long wait times at the IRS.

In the meantime, an internal review of the Department of Health and Human Services found that as many as 30 percent of the employees of that huge Agency ``did not appear to be working'' on ``any given day'' during the pandemic and thereafter.

Now the pandemic is over, but those same working arrangements seem to have carried the day and seem to have continued without a thought to what it means in terms of efficiently providing the services that these government Agencies and these employees are supposed to provide.

The Office of Personnel Management has found that now that the pandemic is over, only one in three Federal employees is fully back in the office. If we required Federal employees to come into the office 5 days a week, as we should, there would likely be a number of voluntary terminations. This is something I think we should welcome. If Federal employees don't want to show up for work, then American taxpayers should not have to pay them.

Of course, there is an obvious first step that we should take here in the Senate, and that is to pass the budget come January which provides the reconciliation instructions we need in order to do more work that needs to be done.

Given the fact that Republicans now have the majority in the House and the Senate and the White House, it is not an opportunity we should squander. We must not squander it.

When Democrats had this opportunity, they used it to pass the so- called Inflation Reduction Act, which, as I pointed out time and time again, did not actually reduce inflation. It went to a 40-year high and is still high.

Now, set aside the ridiculous notion that you can reduce inflation by massive spending--something Milton Friedman, I am sure, is spinning in his grave at that concept--Democrats also set a new precedent by working around the longstanding prohibition on making policy changes in a budget resolution, the so-called Byrd rule or law, which says that you have to get 60 votes to make policy changes, and you can only do budgetary matters through

budget reconciliation using a majority vote in the U.S. Senate. But this is now a precedent of the Senate that we have at our disposal when it is time for us to pass the budget resolution. I am hopeful we can use this vehicle as an opportunity to reform some of our mandatory spending outside of Social Security and Medicare.

I have always been a proponent of reevaluating the money we spend. This is something that every family in America, every business in America, has to do on a regular basis. We don't do it here, and we need to start, especially with this looming debt and this unsustainable amount of money that we are spending on interest on that debt, when we could and should be spending it on other programs or returning those resources back to the American people in terms of lower taxes.

I look forward to working with the DOGE committee and all of our efforts to identify and eliminate areas of government waste, rein in reckless and wasteful spending, and improve the lives of Texans and all Americans in the process.

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.