Floor Statements

Mr. President, next year, we will celebrate the 250th anniversary of our Nation's founding, and I am glad that in anticipation of this great celebration, President Trump has issued an Executive order outlining preparations that our country will make to celebrate this anniversary.

As part of this effort, President Trump has also issued a separate Executive order specifically directing the elimination of woke and anti-American displays at the Smithsonian museum.

Now, this may come as a shock to many people, but every single Institution in this city seems to be infected with political ideology and bureaucratic agendas, and the Smithsonian is no exception.

The 21 museums that make up the Smithsonian Institution have been a treasure for a long time; but, unfortunately, in recent years, they have strayed from their true mission. These museums should be a place where up-and-coming generations of Americans can go to learn about American heroes and who built our great Nation.

They should be places where they learn about our Founding Fathers, the founding documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the pioneers who explored and settled this great land, and those who endured great hardships in order to make a better life for their children.

There are so many great stories of Americans, people who have done so much to make our country what it is today. These stories are what our young people need to hear because how else will you inspire the upcoming generation to stand on the shoulders of their forebearers and continue to make life better for more and more people who call this great country home?

How will we teach those who will one day lead this Nation--whether that is in government or in business, in medicine or any other field-- that these pursuits are honorable and they have a purpose, if they have not yet learned these lessons about the heroic men and women who have gone on before them?

Unfortunately, as I indicated a moment ago, the Smithsonian has strayed from its original reason for being. The Smithsonian Institution was founded in 1846 for the expressed purpose of increasing the diffusion of knowledge among men. It was founded as a gift by James Smithson, who devised his entire estate to the U.S. Government.

Congress, as we now know, accepted this gift and provided for its governance and its financing. The Smithsonian Institution operates as a trust, which means that it is an executive Agency of the U.S. Government and is chaired by a 17-member Board of Regents.

But since its original founding in 1846, something has gone terribly wrong with the direction of the Smithsonian. A writer and mother of six recently described her experience taking her children to museums in our Nation's Capital on a warm summer day.

At the family's first stop, the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, her 4-year-old was excited to see dinosaur skeletons. But she was disappointed to learn that much of the dinosaur exhibit was dedicated to climate change.

One exhibit specifically read:

Since the last ice age, Earth's climate has warmed. But now

that warming is getting faster because of us.

Well, you don't have to be a climate denier--and I am not--to recognize that something is profoundly wrong with this message.

Is it really the message a 4-year-old needs to learn, that climate change is something that she or he is personally guilty of contributing to?

Unfortunately, to the mother's dismay, she said the museum's website highlighted additional polarizing displays. A historian from the museum told the mother:

The second-floor popular culture exhibit--probably the most popular in the museum--is a Marxist struggle session. Every single exhibit is interpreted through a race-class-gender lens.

Is that really what we want to be teaching the upcoming generation of Americans at our most esteemed museums?

No. It seems like the Smithsonian has lost its way.

Instead of celebrating the contributions of remarkable Americans or educating our children about the animals that once roamed the planet, Smithsonian Institution museums are telling children they should feel guilty for contributing to climate change and introducing them to topics, which are clearly not age-appropriate.

But sometimes, it is not what the Smithsonian includes in their exhibits which is troubling; it is what they choose to exclude.

Who can forget the snub to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture?

I recall when the museum opened, the Smithsonian had zero plans to reference Justice Clarence Thomas, the second of two Black Justices to ever serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Instead, what they chose to highlight is the testimony of Anita Hill in what came to be known as a ``high-tech lynching'' that followed.

Well, this was, obviously, a biased presentation and one that was clearly on its head. And I introduced a resolution at the time asking them to recognize the historical importance of Justice Thomas and his service to the Court.

After a groundswell of opposition in the months that followed, the museum finally did include him in an exhibit. But, the previous exhibit featuring Anita Hill and not the Justice is a stain on the Smithsonian that I will never forget.

I remember talking to the head of the Smithsonian at the time. Basically, he said: Thank you, Senator, for your call, but Congress doesn't have anything to say about what we do at the Smithsonian.

Well, he is wrong, and these are not messages that the Smithsonian should be sending.

America's history is a tale of triumph over incredible odds in the pursuit of freedom, and it is one that all of our children and our grandchildren deserve to learn in an unbiased and apolitical way.

Now, some have argued that the Smithsonian is subject to oversight by Congress and the executive branch. Others have said: No, it is purely a private, independent entity.

But a close examination of the Institution's history will show that it has always been a government institution, an institution of the U.S. Government.

After James Smithson willed his estate for an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge, the Senate--the U.S. Senate, what we are today--passed a bill to establish and organize the Smithsonian Institution that was signed into law by President Polk in 1846.

Now, that doesn't sound like a private, independent entity to me if Congress has to pass a law.

And then Congress delegated the governance of the Smithsonian Institution to a Board of Regents. This Board includes a Chief Justice of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, as well as three sitting Senators and Representatives.

Moreover, the Smithsonian receives more than half of its funds--its operating funds--from the American taxpayer, from the Federal Government. It is pretty hard to make the case that an Institution that gets the majority of its funding from Congress and is governed by a board of government officials is anything but a government entity. In fact, you can't make that argument because the evidence is all to the contrary.

Furthermore, the Institutions are structured much like other government Agencies headed by a Secretary who oversees several Under Secretaries. I don't know of any private corporations whose CEOs are referred to as ``secretary.''

Moreover, the Smithsonian Institution itself has argued time and time again in court that they are, in fact, a government entity. In a case called Raven v. Sajet, a Federal court agreed, ruling that the ``Smithsonian is a government institution through and through.'' That means that the Smithsonian is clearly subject to oversight by the U.S. Government, including the executive branch and the Congress.

Our country was founded on the ideals of individual liberty, justice, and equality before the law. These are values that our institutions should teach, particularly to the next generation--not ``woke'' ideology and political agendas. So as we prepare for the celebration of America's 250th birthday, I would encourage--strongly encourage--the Smithsonian Institution to reconsider its purpose and to return to the principles and ideals laid out in the founding documents they so proudly display, to the benefit of all Americans.

I would close with this prediction: We know from recent events--some as recent as early this morning when we took the step that many of us have talked about for many years, and that is eliminating taxpayer support for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting--there are more than enough media entities that are capable of communicating the news and other information of interest to our constituents, the 350 million people in the country. We don't need to subsidize those with taxpayer money. Indeed, if you look at the First Amendment of the Constitution, it guarantees a free press. Can the press truly be free if it is financed and subsidized by the government? I don't see how that is possible.

So starting early this morning with the vote on the rescissions package and the defunding, at least in terms of Federal funds--private funds and donations are certainly fine--but we finally have begun the step of bringing accountability to the Nation's Capital. No longer will the bureaucracy simply take the taxpayers' money and do what they want regardless of oversight by the Congress and the executive branch and the oversight, in essence, of the American people. Those days are over.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, time flies these days, but it was just over a week ago when the House and the Senate passed what President Trump called the One Big Beautiful Bill, just in time for him to sign it before the deadline that he himself requested of July 4th.

This comes after naysayers and the media said it couldn't be done-- simply, that the Speaker didn't have the votes with the razor-thin margins, and that, here in the Senate, we would not be able to get the majority vote we needed to pass this bill into law. But we did. To all those detractors and Debbie Downers, it looked like this pessimism was completely unwarranted.

Now that the Republicans have proven their critics wrong by accomplishing what they insisted had to be done in order to avoid a tax increase on millions of Americans, our colleagues across the aisle do what they do best, and that is criticize what we have done, which they themselves were unwilling to do. But having offered no positive alternative, all they can do is what they have learned to do, which is to oppose each and every thing that President Trump and Republicans propose.

Ever since the Big Beautiful Bill was signed into law, and even when lawmakers were working hard to make it over the finish line, our Democratic colleagues said that they found political gold in this bill and that this would be the pathway for them to win back the majority in the House of Representatives in 2026. And, of course, the mainstream media have parroted their party line, claiming that this bill will end up being unpopular.

They have done everything from describing this as not the Big Beautiful Bill but as the ``Big Ugly Bill'' and claiming that somehow it benefits only a fraction of the American people at the top 1 percent and accusing us of fiscal irresponsibility, while they claim that somehow the most vulnerable among us have become even more vulnerable. None of these accusations are true.

Of course, again, our Democratic colleagues could have worked with us to pass a bipartisan piece of legislation but chose not to do so. They have no positive policy proposals or vision for what America should be doing. At a time when we are confronting a multitrillion-dollar tax increase, all they can do is criticize and, of course, reflexively oppose each and every thing that President Trump is for.

But I think it is important to point out what we were able to accomplish in this bill and why it was so important that we were successful. This legislation prevents hard-working taxpayers from facing the largest tax hike in American history.

After 4 years of the Biden administration, we saw 40-year-high inflation. The cost of everything has gone up because of massive overspending during the 4 years of the Biden-Harris administration. Taxpayers have already sustained a cut in their standard of living through this hidden tax called inflation. So the last thing they needed or they deserved was a massive tax increase on top of this 40-year-high inflation, where everything, on average, is, let's say, an estimate of 20 percent more expensive than it was before the Biden administration.

In addition to preventing that multitrillion-dollar tax increase, we made these tax provisions permanent, preventing future Congresses from allowing that tax increase to take effect. We also provided additional benefits to working parents by making sure that their child tax credit wasn't cut in half.

And, of course, the President promised no tax on tips and no tax on overtime for millions of middle-class families. We felt it was important--and I know the President did--to keep his promise.

In Texas, the Big Beautiful Bill will save my constituents an average of $3,000 next year. That is real money to most Texas families.

The other allegation by Democrats is that somehow this bill was not fiscally responsible. Well, we are $36 trillion-plus in debt. But, again, here is another example of where our Democratic colleagues have nothing to say about how we address these problems, other than: Let's raise taxes on the American people.

According to the Wall Street Journal, about 62 percent of taxpayers would see their taxes go up if Democrats had their way and the temporary tax provisions in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act had expired.

But it is important for us to begin to chip away at that national debt. I have said, time and time again, that we are spending more money on interest on the national debt than we are on defense, which is an unsustainable trajectory in a very dangerous world. I have been an advocate of looking at ways to trim mandatory spending programs, and the Big Beautiful Bill does just that.

I think what most people don't fully understand, including Members of Congress, is that the Federal Government spends roughly $6.5 trillion a year. We appropriate about a third of that during the appropriations process, but the rest of it is on autopilot. It is mandatory spending programs that Congress does not appropriate on an annual basis. But once we turn it on, it continues until it is changed--usually never-- and it goes up more and more each year with cost-of-living provisions.

Then there is the Tax Code itself, which is used sometimes for what is called tax expenditures. So we needed to look at ways to begin to reform some of the mandatory spending programs, if we were going to have a prayer at reducing the national debt, even by a little, as a first step.

While this bill was not perfect--and, certainly, no piece of legislation ever is--it did make important reforms that will help us bend the curve of our debt trajectory.

For example--and Democrats opposed this--we implemented work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents to receive means-tested programs like Medicaid.

So let's back up a little bit.

Means-tested programs have income requirements. If you go above that threshold, you don't qualify. If you fall below it, you do. But Democrats have succeeded in making sure that able-bodied adults were receiving massive benefits under safety net programs, even though they were able to work and provide for their families and should have been working.

In fact, our healthcare system had gotten so out of whack that more money was going to able-bodied adults than to the disabled, to pregnant women, and to children under the Medicaid Program. Our bill fixed that.

Are work requirements for able-bodied adults some sort of radical conservative or Republican idea? Not if you look at the polling, which says that 62

percent of Americans, which is a bipartisan number, support work requirements for able-bodied adults for means-tested programs.

I am, frankly, surprised it is only 62 percent. It is only common sense that people who can work should work. It is actually better for them. Work provides dignity and a sense of self-worth. The idea that we should continue to subsidize people playing video games, sitting on their couch at home, is beyond the pale. I think, certainly, the American taxpayer deserves better than to spend their hard-earned money on people who can and should be working.

Then I offered an amendment to the Big Beautiful Bill that sort of, I think, cast the position of Democrats versus Republicans in a very clear light. My amendment would have penalized States for giving Medicaid benefits to illegal immigrants who were charged or convicted of serious crimes like murder, human trafficking, child abuse, or child pornography. Forty-three Democrats voted against that.

Turning it the other way around, that means 43 Democrats were for providing government benefits to illegal immigrants who were charged or convicted of very serious crimes.

You really can't make this stuff up. It is stranger than fiction.

Our colleagues across the aisle showed their true colors by voting for taxpayers to continue paying for government handouts to folks who shouldn't really be in this country in the first place, but for the open border policies of the Biden administration.

One accusation I find particularly ironic from our friends across the aisle has been this idea that we have somehow added redtape to Medicaid by requiring recipients to verify their eligibility for the program two times a year.

People come in and out of the Medicaid Program based on that means testing, based on their earnings threshold. So checking periodically to make sure that people still qualify strikes me as making good sense.

But when Republicans talk about cutting redtape, we are talking about ways we can get government out of the way of our small businesses and our entrepreneurs so that our economy can grow and so that people can create wealth for themselves and their families and their beneficiaries. We are talking about reducing the government's footprint so that the magic of American innovation can take place, unstifled by unnecessary regulations.

This bill will allow America to return to being the land of opportunity, where hard-working men and women who have a dream for a better life can build a business to support themselves and their families and have something to pass on to the next generation and, at the same time, to provide jobs for people who want to work and provide for their families.

So eligibility verification for those receiving means-tested government benefits is not simply redtape. It is a perfectly reasonable requirement, when someone is receiving a government benefit, to prove that you actually are eligible according to the law.

This will also help us safeguard our safety net for those who are truly among the most vulnerable and to root out waste, fraud, and abuse.

There is no evidence that anything that the bill did or will do will reduce things like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather forecasting. Yet we hear Democrats claiming that somehow this bill is responsible for things like the terrible flooding that occurred in Texas on July 4. There is simply no evidence of that. Yet that doesn't stop them and some of the press from parroting these false claims that some of the provisions of the bill, which was just signed on July 4, somehow had that effect.

Now, our Democratic colleagues are simply unreconciled to the fact that last November, voters gave Republicans a mandate. President Trump won the electoral vote, the popular vote, and every single swing State, and Republicans won the majorities in both Houses--in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. And passing the Big Beautiful Bill was an important step in keeping our promises to the American people and advancing President Trump's legislative agenda.

But there is more. In addition to extending President Trump's tax cuts, a critical part of his campaign was to restore security to the U.S.-Mexico border and to end the rampage of criminal activity that went unchecked during the Biden administration. So in addition to spending reforms and tax cuts, the Big Beautiful Bill made good on his promise--and my promise and the promise of many of us--to take steps to secure our southern border and to protect and to support, once again, law enforcement rather than to make it impossible for them to do their job.

In Texas, Governor Abbott and the State spent billions of dollars on something called Operation Lone Star, which is a fill-the-gap program that the State implemented because the Biden administration refused to secure the border, which is a Federal Government responsibility. And the Federal Government should have funded that effort but did not.

The Big Beautiful Bill includes provisions to reimburse States like Texas for their efforts to do the Federal Government's job but one that the Federal Government simply refused to do under the Biden-Harris administration. I think reimbursement of that funding is only fair, and I am glad the Senate and the House have now made that a provision of this legislation.

This legislation will also fulfill President Trump's pledge to make our cities and streets safe again through provisions that bolster our Nation's border security and law enforcement efforts.

Over at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, the Big Beautiful Bill will provide additional funding to hire, retain, and train personnel who will carry out the President's immigration agenda-- something that he was elected on. And people repudiated the position of the Biden-Harris administration, which essentially was one of no controls.

The hard-working men and women in law enforcement at ICE will receive performance and signing bonuses as well as recruitment, hiring, and onboarding costs for those personnel. The bill provides resources for ICE and Federal law enforcement training upgrades as well as fleet modernization. These are important elements of actually enforcing our immigration laws.

It will support enforcement and removal operations so that criminal aliens who entered the country during the Biden administration can be removed.

In addition to the criminals, there are roughly 1\1/2\ million people who have pursued some relief in the form of asylum but have been denied any sort of relief from immigration laws and who have been ordered removed from the country but have simply stayed in the United States and defied being repatriated. Well, that is now going to change under the Trump administration.

Our bill also allocates funding for the Department of Justice to combat drug trafficking and illegal drug use as well as to investigate and prosecute crimes related to illegal immigration.

These provisions will help keep America safer by shoring up law enforcement across the board to right the wrongs of the previous administration.

During the last 4 years, Texas, because of our 1,200-mile common border with Mexico, has particularly suffered under President Biden and DHS Secretary Mayorkas's reckless open border policies. This legislation is an important step in correcting the previous administration's costly and in some cases deadly errors.

Last November, the voters voted to turn the page on the failed policies of the Biden administration, and passing this bill was a critical step in reversing those policies. This bill will put more money in taxpayers' pockets and allow us to avoid the largest tax increase in American history. It will strengthen our border and support law enforcement.

I was disheartened and disappointed but not surprised, frankly, that our Democratic colleagues voted to block the bill, preferring instead-- I assume, since they offered no viable alternative--to foist that large tax increase on the American people, which would have amounted to a $2.6 trillion tax hike on households earning less than $400,000 a year. I am glad they did not prevail, and I am sure those taxpayers agree. Next April, when tax season rolls around, I am confident taxpayers will agree and will be thanking the Grand Old Party for this One Big Beautiful Bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request that the

following law clerks in Senator Capito's office be granted floor privileges until July 16, 2025: Hannah Bedard and George Minning.

Madam President, 2 days ago, I came to the floor to speak about the catastrophic flooding in Central Texas, and I would like to update my colleagues on the status of those recovery operations and also to express my gratitude to many of them who have reached out and offered their condolences--not to me but through me to my constituents and the people who are still grieving and who were so adversely affected by this natural disaster. For many who are affected by this tragedy, the pain will never go away.

At this point in the rescue and recovery efforts, more than 119 deaths so far have been confirmed across the State. Remember, this happened mainly the early morning of July 4, in the early morning hours. But that 119 deaths so far includes 36 children in Kerr County alone.

Sadly, we learned a couple of days ago that, after counting all of the day campers and other people who were camping alongside the Guadalupe River during the Fourth of July weekend, where they were expecting to celebrate the Nation's birth but also fireworks displays and cookouts and things like that, unfortunately, people outside of the organized camps, mainly children and counselors--170 of them are missing in addition.

So, for many of my constituents back home in Texas, the nightmare is not over. Of course, these loved ones who were lost were mothers and fathers and teachers, high schoolers, and precious children, young children.

Those who died at Camp Mystic, an all-girls Christian summer camp, included two 8-year-old girls from Austin named Linnie McCown and Mary Stevens. As hard as it is to look at the pictures of these young girls, I think it is important to remember that these are not just numbers; these are human lives that were lost in this tragedy and families left behind who will never ever forget this terrible tragedy, nor fully recover.

These two young girls were sleeping in a cabin called the Bubble Inn, which was close to the banks of the Guadalupe River.

Linnie attended Casis Elementary School in West Austin. Her father Michael drove down to the Hill Country to search for his daughter. He told a reporter that when he went to the cabin at Camp Mystic and saw the stuffed animals, charm bracelets, and photos, he wanted to take some of those for each parent, even while he himself was looking for answers about his own daughter.

After learning about Linnie's death, Michael wrote on social media:

She filled our hearts with so much joy we cannot begin to

explain. We are going to miss her very much but know she's up

there shining bright.

Mary Stevens attended Highland Park Elementary School in North Central Austin. Her mother Stacy said on a post after her death:

Our world is shattered but I have peace getting your

letters and knowing you were

having the time of your life at camp and had a dance party

with all of your friends before the Lord decided to take you

from us. He has bigger plans for you.

Mary and Linnie were just two of the victims of this horrific flooding, and there are many others with their own stories and families and futures that were cut far too short.

Now 6 days after the flooding, rescue and recovery efforts for those who remain unaccounted for are still underway. I would like to reiterate the message of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who shared with me in Kerrville on Saturday her No. 1 priority, which was to save lives and to reunite families.

As I said, there are now 170, at last count, people still missing in Kerr County alone, including 5 campers and 1 counselor from Camp Mystic. This number does not include others that were missing in surrounding counties like Travis, Williamson County, Burnet County, and it doesn't include out-of-town visitors who may have been vacationing in Central Texas. Because of that, the sad reality is, this number will rise.

Once again, I want to recognize Governor Abbott and the many other State and local officials who snapped into action in response to this disaster, as well as the first-line responders who are committed to recovering as many people as possible.

More than 19 different State, local, and national government entities have been involved in these rescue efforts, and according to Lieutenant Colonel Baker of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the Texas game wardens alone have conducted more than 400 rescues and 30 recoveries.

I am grateful as well to President Trump and Secretary Noem for their rapid Federal response. President Trump, when I talked to him on Saturday morning, said: Whatever you need. And that message was reiterated by Secretary Noem. And, of course, the President agreed to a Federal disaster declaration at the request of Governor Abbott on the spot.

I am especially thankful to the President for his kind words of love and support for those who have lost everything during this very, very sad time for Texas. The President and the First Lady are expected to come to Central Texas tomorrow, and I look forward to joining them once again.

To all of my Senate colleagues who have expressed words of kindness and condolences over the last few days, I want to express my appreciation to them. It is not hard for each of us to imagine, as parents or grandparents or husbands or wives, what a loss like this must mean in the lives of those who have been left behind.

Occasionally, we see people try to make political hay and engage in the blame game after a disaster like this. Of course, I guess I am not entirely surprised by that, but my request to them is, Please, wait. Wait until we have recovered all of those who are unaccounted for. There will be plenty of time for a thorough investigation of the facts and circumstances. Of course, it is only normal to say: Well, we want to make sure, in the future, we learn lessons from this experience so that we can save lives in the future. That time will come, but it is not now.

We need to use our words to encourage and to uplift and to console our fellow Americans during this difficult time. Now is not the time for partisanship; now is the time for unity. As Texans, we are accustomed to working and playing as a team. We don't point fingers. We ask: What can I do to help?

So the best thing we can do right now is to offer our condolences to the families of the victims and to continue to support the ongoing recovery efforts. It is imperative right now that we continue to work relentlessly, in the words of Governor Abbott, to recover as many people as possible who are yet unaccounted for. And he said: We will account for all of them.

Again, I want to reiterate what I said previously in that there is zero evidence of any failure on the part of the National Weather Service or any government Agency that they contributed to this horrific disaster. But if there are technologies we can implement, training we can promote, or systems we can improve, we should look to doing that in the future, for the future. There will be time for Federal efforts beyond the major disaster declaration granted by the Trump administration. We have already begun to try to identify legislative efforts we might undertake here in the Congress.

In listening to my colleague from Vermont, we know that natural disasters like this are not confined to any specific part of the country, to any State, or to any region. They happen everywhere at different times and in different places. It remains unclear whether there is anything that could have been done differently to prevent this horrible tragedy from taking place, but our goal must, nevertheless, remain to prevent more mothers and fathers and families from suffering the very great pain that so many are feeling right now.

This week, there has been example after example of Texans helping fellow Texans. Countless prayer vigils and donation drives have been organized across the State in honor of those who lost their lives in the flooding. Fundraisers have raised tens of thousands of dollars for everything from a fund in memory of Mystic camper Hadley Hanna to money for Lyle and Sue Glenna, a couple from Minnesota who managed to use their car horns to alert others at their campground of the incoming flood, likely saving multiple lives in the process.

There wasn't a single spot left in the parking lot of the George W. Bush Presidential Library in Dallas for the vigil that was held there, and University of Texas students gathered at UT Tower in Austin to honor Chloe Childress and Katherine Ferruzzo--Camp Mystic counselors and incoming freshmen. Chloe lost her life in the flooding, and Katherine remains unaccounted for at this time.

As a father of two daughters, I can't imagine what these parents are going through, or grandparents or families or friends, given the loss of these young girls--of these lives that had only just begun. For those who are still waiting to hear news about their missing children or family members, they should know that we are doing everything humanly possible to find them and bring them home.

While I can't show the photos of every person who has died or is still missing due to the flooding, I want all who have lost loved ones to know that the prayers of those of us here and, I believe, of those across the Nation are lifting them up and are with them during their time of unimaginable grief.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is with profound sadness that I am here with my colleague Senator Cruz to discuss the heartbreaking results of the catastrophic floods that occurred in our State, in Central Texas, over the Fourth of July weekend.

As most Texans were sleeping on the morning of July 4, a 100-year flood event caused the waters of the Guadalupe River to rise an astonishing 26 feet in 45 minutes. The loss of life was horrific. One media account said the flow rate of the Guadalupe River went from that of a small stream that you could wade across, at about 10 cubic feet per second, to a raging and destructive torrent of 120,000 cubic feet per second--an amount greater than the average flow rate across Niagara Falls.

We know that the loss of life was not confined to Kerr County, where Kerrville is located, but extended to other counties in Central Texas: Travis County, which is where Austin is located; Williamson County, just north of that; and Burnet County as well.

Of course, some here in the Nation's Capital and elsewhere are asking: How could this happen, and what, if anything, could we possibly do to prevent a recurrence? We can and we should try to answer those questions but not now. Now we need to focus on recovery efforts that are currently underway and to pray for and to think about the families that are grieving and those whose loved ones are still missing and unaccounted for. For now, I want to focus our attention on the victims and the heroes of this horrible tragedy.

More than 100 people died in Central Texas from this flooding, including 27 young campers--young girls mostly--ranging down to the age of 8 years old, as well as counselors at Camp Mystic, which we have heard so much about, a Christian girls summer camp.

This is a picture of Camp Mystic that I took from a department of public safety helicopter on Saturday morning. It is hard to see, but this is what it looked like from the air.

Ten campers and one counselor are still missing and remain unaccounted for in Kerr County.

As you can imagine, this is a sad time for Texas, and it has brought the Lone Star State to our knees in grief and in prayer. And I am glad to say I have heard so much--and I am sure my colleague has as well-- from friends and associates all around the United States sharing their condolences and concerns about what has happened over this last weekend.

While I was in Kerrville this last Saturday, I participated in an aerial tour, as I mentioned, and a car tour of the flooded areas. The damage I witnessed was nothing short of devastating, and this photo shows just some of the destruction that I witnessed there on the ground.

Bridges were washed out. Roads were destroyed. Entire homes were washed down the river. Trees were uprooted, and cars and other wreckage lodged nearly 30 feet up in the air in the trees.

I joined U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Noem, who was there representing the Trump administration, Governor Abbott and Representative Chip Roy--his district is where this incident is located--and other community leaders for a briefing and a press conference to discuss the combined government response to this disaster from Washington, DC, to the State to local officials.

During this briefing, Governor Abbott described people clinging to trees to save their lives. And I am sure by now, we have seen photos that are circulating on social media that show exactly that--people washed miles down the river, only to be lodged in the trees for extended periods of time, hoping and praying that someone would come to their aid.

I am beyond grateful to the efforts of Governor Abbott, President Trump, and Secretary Noem for their quick response in approving a Federal disaster declaration and ensuring that every available resource is being put forward in the rescue and recovery efforts throughout central Texas.

President Trump and Secretary Noem have been great partners, and I especially appreciate the efforts of the U.S. Coast Guard and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Secretary Noem reminded us all that the number one priority is people. So while there is a lot of damaged property--as you can see-- and destruction, damaged public infrastructure, first and foremost, we are united in working around the clock to ensure that as many people as possible are safe and, if possible, reunited with their families.

These rescue efforts at all levels of government have saved the lives of more than 850 people. Now, Texans are known for their tough spirit and their resilience. And this is not the first natural disaster that we have experienced, nor will it be our last. We know how to roll up our sleeves and do what is required to help those in need.

As a father of two daughters myself, my heart breaks for all those who are grieving and especially those who are holding out hope that somehow, someway their loved one may still be found.

On the aerial tour we took over Camp Mystic, many thousands of young girls made friends and grew in their faith and learned important life lessons along the banks of the Guadalupe River, a particularly beautiful and scenic part of our great State. They have done that for nearly a century of this camp's existence.

Now, I cannot imagine what many of these families are going through now as they mourn the loss of 27 of these young campers as well as their adult counselors.

While we try to wrap our heads around this heart-wrenching disaster, we can find some solace, some encouragement in the bravery exhibited by the heroes, some of whom died, helping save these young girls.

Among these is Dick Eastland, who was the director of Camp Mystic with his wife for many decades. Dick died while trying to save the lives of his young campers. Dick's grandson George Eastland described his grandfather as a hero, saying in a post on social media:

Although I am devastated, I can't say I'm surprised. [I'm

not surprised] that you sacrificed your life with the hopes

of someone else's being saved.

Another young man Julian Ryan lost his life while helping his own family, including a 13-month-old and a 6-year-old, escape from their trailer home as it was being washed away. While he put his two small children on top of a mattress to safely float, he attempted to break a window, cutting an artery in his arm that bled profusely. He was unconscious before help could arrive, but he died shortly thereafter, making sure that his family would live.

His sister said:

He didn't die in vain . . . He died a hero.

These words could not be more true of Julian and of all those whose names and stories we don't even know, who selflessly gave their lives so that others might live.

After another tragedy up I-35 in the small city of West, TX, where Senator Cruz and I were a little over a decade ago, I remember a county commissioner after the loss of many lives in an unexpected explosion there who said:

Being a Texan doesn't describe where you're from, it

describes who your family is.

And that stuck with me and still sticks with me today because when things happen like this, as they invariably do, we all come together as a family.

In the midst of such horrific tragedy, we can find hope and strength in the stories of those who gave their all to help their fellow Texans and the first responders who miraculously saved 850 lives in high-water rescues.

One of those Coast Guard responders was a young man named Scott Ruskan, a rescue swimmer with the U.S. Coast Guard, who singlehandedly saved nearly 170 people. He helped shuttle young girls from the wreckage to the helicopters that brought them to safety, often carrying two of them in one arm. Scott and people like him are true American heroes.

First responders like him embody the spirit of patriotism and love and selfless sacrifice and service to their fellow Americans. The great courage shown by men and women like Scott, Julian, Dick, and others brings to mind the words of President Reagan back in 1981 during a Medal of Honor speech honoring Texas MSG Roy Benavidez for his heroism and courage during the Vietnam war. President Reagan said of the brave prisoners of war returning home--he asked:

Where did we find such men? We find them where we've always

found them, in our villages and towns, on our city streets,

in our shops, and on our farms.

So as Texans, we are all united in offering our prayers and support for all of the families who have lost loved ones and for those who still remain unaccounted for. My wife Sandy and I will especially keep the parents grieving the loss of their precious children in our prayers.

Mr. President, I would now invite the Senate to observe a moment of silence in honor of the flooding victims, their families, all who died, suffered injuries, who are still unaccounted for after these terrible floods.

(Moment of silence.)

Thank you. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Texas Senator Cruz.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum calls with respect to the Griffith and Bedford nominations.

Regular order.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2705, and I ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, American tax dollars should not be used to fund healthcare for illegal immigrants. Border Patrol talks about push factors and pull factors. One of the pull factors

for illegal immigration is the knowledge that people will be able to receive various benefits once they make it into the country.

We need legal immigration, which has been one of the greatest gifts to our country we have ever had. Illegal immigration has been an unmitigated disaster. But here the problem is that States are using their Medicaid funds to pay for healthcare for illegal aliens. We don't want our safeguard for our seniors and most vulnerable individuals to be dissipated on behalf of people who should not be here in the United States in the first place. It is only common sense. We should be able to agree on reducing Federal funding for States that provide Medicaid to criminal aliens convicted or charged with sex offenses, human trafficking, domestic or child abuse, murder or manslaughter, or child pornography.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I was here in 2017, when we passed the original Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and what ensued was, perhaps, the greatest amount of economic growth and the greatest reduction of unemployment among all sorts of folks who historically have suffered high unemployment rates. In short, our economy was booming.

Originally, we had some debates about whether or not this would have a static effect. In other words, when you start adding the numbers up, do you account for economic growth and the stimulative effect of the bill? As it turns out, the $1.5 trillion deficit in the original bill was met by economic growth because we brought back money that had been invested abroad, because of high tax rates here, and a variety of other measures which made our economy boom again.

One point that I want to make sure to make is that this is more than just about the numbers on a page. This is a cumulative effect of not only lowering taxes but of downsizing regulation, encouraging domestic energy production, and doing all of those things which will cause our economy to grow again. If we can get our economy growing at a better rate--let's say 3 percent of our GDP--that will add trillions of dollars to the Federal Treasury and more than make up for any money that we end up providing in terms of tax relief. So I am very excited about this particular legislation, what has now come to be known as the One Big Beautiful Bill.

I have listened as our Democratic colleagues have criticized this bill, which hasn't actually, finally, been written yet. It is getting close, and I hope we can start voting on the bill as early as later on today. But what strikes me as bizarre is our Democratic colleagues have offered zero alternatives. Do they want a multitrillion-dollar tax increase on the American people--that, on top of 40-year high inflation, thanks to Bidenomics? Everything costs, roughly, on average, 20 percent more than it did before the radical spending spree of the last administration, which threw gasoline on the fire of inflation and ate up the standard of living of most Americans and made their dollar worth about 20 percent less than it was beforehand.

I think we have a better idea, and that is, no, we don't think you should increase taxes by trillions of dollars on top of 40-year-high inflation thanks to the Biden-Harris administration and their radical spending spree. I think most Americans would agree with us. So they have no alternative other than to raise taxes on hard-working American families.

The other thing that our bill does is it increases the standard deduction. Most families don't necessarily even itemize their tax deductions. So the standard deduction is important.

The child tax credit--we know it is expensive to raise children. So having an enhanced child tax credit is really important, and that is what this legislation will do.

But the other thing that this bill does--as long as I have been in the Senate, we have never tried to undertake spending cuts necessary to deal with a $37 trillion debt. We are now paying

more interest on the national debt than we are on defense, which is unsustainable.

We don't have to be reminded of recent events in Iran, for example, with Iran fast tracking toward a nuclear weapon. Thank goodness for the decisiveness and courage of our U.S. military and our Commander in Chief, President Trump, and Iran is no longer on that fast track to build a nuclear weapon.

But this is a very fragile and dangerous world we live in, the most dangerous since World War II. None of us want to go down that path again. So the way we address that is to reestablish deterrence: American peace through strength. That is how we keep the peace. It is through strength. And we can't do it if we don't have the money to spend on our defense, either on our personnel, on our weapons systems, and the like.

Our Democratic friends have no answer to any of this. Their answer, I guess, is to do nothing.

There was a former Speaker of the House, years ago, Sam Rayburn, a Texan, who said:

Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a skilled

carpenter to build one.

We are doing our very best to try to build that barn. Is it perfect? No. But we are trying, and we believe we are making tremendous progress on a number of fronts.

One area that is particularly important to me and my constituents in Texas--all 31 million of them--is, finally, to bring some security to our border.

We were told during the Biden-Kamala Harris administration that we needed to pass some new laws, back when the policies of the administration were open borders. We are still paying the price, and we probably will pay the price for years to come--criminals coming across the border, some dangerous gang members; illegal drugs; human trafficking of innocent children and women. But when we elected President Trump on November 5, it didn't take him very long to bring those numbers--those tens of thousands of people streaming across the border on a monthly basis--to bring that to near zero. And it didn't take any new laws. It just took a President willing to enforce the law.

But it costs money to provide for the detention facilities and the personnel necessary to secure the border and to safeguard our country. That is one of the other things that is in this bill that is so important: money to build more infrastructure or the wall, more money to hire Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, and more money for detention facilities so that there are real consequences associated with coming into our country illegally.

Then, as I mentioned a moment ago, the money that is necessary to reestablish deterrence to help our military--that is in this bill as well.

And the answer of our Democratic colleagues is: No, we don't think we should do anything to secure the border, to defend the Nation, or to prevent a multitrillion-dollar tax increase, along with the devastating economic consequences to hard-working Texans and American families.

The only thing our colleagues on the other side have to say is: This is going to help rich people at the expense of regular folks.

One of our colleagues described the bill as handouts for billionaires, arguing that our legislation would cause the American people to ``suffer so that Jeff Bezos can buy another yacht.''

So what is their alternative to our legislation? Crickets. Nothing. It is a cheap shot.

Looking west to Nevada, one of our colleagues has said this is a ``tax scam'' that hurts the middle class while giving trillions to the ultrawealthy.

Now, I realize these are probably focus group-tested phrases that move the dial in the absence of any other information, but the fact of the matter is this is false.

You know, I guess I am old fashioned. I was raised to believe that you should tell the truth, and you should not lie. But up here in Washington, DC, in the Congress, on things like this, lying seems to be the coin of the realm. And, unfortunately, it has an impact if people don't know the truth, which is why we have to point out the important aspects of this legislation and what we are trying to do.

These statements by our Democratic colleagues cannot be further from the truth. And here is the worst part: They know it. They know it, but they persist.

This bill is anything but a reverse-Robin Hood scheme. But I am not surprised, I guess, that they are misrepresenting this bill in an attempt to scare the American people and maybe try to energize their political base.

I think Democrats are a little desperate these days, seeing what happened in the New York mayoral election, with an anti-Semitic socialist winning that nomination in New York. This is what the modern Democratic Party has become, the party of AOC and the radicals. And they wonder why they lost the last election in November?

Well, those sorts of politics and policies were rejected by the American people in favor of a President who will enforce the law and who will keep America safe.

According to the Wall Street Journal, 62 percent of Americans will see a tax increase if we don't pass this extension--62 percent. That is, obviously, more than just people who are the ``well to do.''

I am for middle-class taxpayers. And, of course, President Trump has said he wants to further extend tax relief to the middle class, to people who work in the service industries. No tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security--those are genuinely middle-class tax cuts.

I guess our Democratic colleagues are opposed to those too. They think, I presume, that they ought to pay, in the service industries-- the hard-working middle class in our country ought to pay--more, not less.

If we let the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions expire, households earning less than $400,000 a year will face a $2.6 trillion tax hike, with the average family of 4 earning $80,000 paying $1,700 more in taxes alone every year. In Texas, families will be saddled with $3,000 in additional taxes if we fail to extend these expiring provisions. And as I mentioned a moment ago, working families will see the child tax credit cut in half.

Our Democratic colleagues won't tell you this, but the Big Beautiful Bill, as it is called, will prevent all of this and more. It increases the child tax credit, which is estimated to benefit 46 million American families. Are all of those the superrich? Well, I think not. These are average, hard-working middle-class families who will benefit from the enhanced child tax credit.

Our bill will help working Americans with provisions, as I said, like the no tax on tips and no tax on overtime. I would actually like to see some of my Democratic colleagues go out to their favorite restaurant and explain to their server that they support the U.S. Government continuing to take a larger and larger cut of their earnings--their tips earnings. I doubt they would acknowledge that. I don't think that kind of suggestion would go over too well, but that is what they are doing by opposing this bill.

Again, if they have got a better idea, let's hear it. Again, all we hear is crickets, silence, when they are not misrepresenting what the bill actually does.

Another provision that is important--and this used to be bipartisan, back when Newt Gingrich and President Bill Clinton, a Republican Speaker and a Democrat President of the United States, passed the Welfare Reform Act--Congress implemented reasonable, working requirements for able-bodied adults. It is not good for people to sit on the couch and play video games all day when they are able-bodied.

Work brings not only the ability to provide for yourself and your family a certain amount of dignity and self-respect, but it helps your community to make sure you are a more productive, a happier person. And, certainly, it is not fair to the taxpayers to have them subsidizing people sitting on the couch playing video games all day when they can contribute to their community and their family.

One of our colleagues from Illinois said:

Republicans are working to cut food and health care

programs like SNAP and Medicaid. The so-called ``Big

Beautiful Bill'' will

hurt hard-working Americans to pay for tax cuts for

billionaires. Plain and simple.

More propaganda, more disinformation, more untruths. The reforms to Medicaid, which is an important healthcare safety net, and SNAP, previously known as food stamps, included in the Big Beautiful Bill, will strengthen and safeguard our safety net for those who actually need it.

And as for Medicaid, that money should not go to able-bodied adults. It should go to children, the disabled, and pregnant women. That is the original target of Medicaid. That is where the safety net is important. But if you are giving that money and spending money on able-bodied adults, obviously, that is going to detract from where the money should go to help those truly in need.

It is the same thing with food stamps, or the SNAP program. Why in the world should taxpayers subsidize somebody who is capable of working and contributing to themselves and their family and their community by subsidizing them through food stamps?

So a work requirement for able-bodied adults just makes sense. But I have been here in Washington, DC, long enough to know that common sense isn't all that common up here.

As I mentioned, the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, in a bipartisan fashion, implemented work requirements to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which was a welfare program. It was remarkably successful in bringing those living in poverty into the labor force so they can earn a living; so they don't need to depend on Medicaid because, just maybe, they have private health insurance through their employer.

It just makes sense on all of these means-tested programs. By that, it just means to have certain income requirements. If you fall below, you qualify. Above that earnings level, you don't qualify anymore. But why shouldn't we have those work requirements for all means-tested programs? Well, we should, and we will.

Recent research from the Foundation for Government Accountability found that more than 62 percent of able-bodied adults who receive Medicaid don't work at all--62 percent able-bodied adults, sitting on a couch, playing video games, I guess. I don't know what you do all day-- watch TV, if you are able-bodied and you are capable of working but you are not working.

With a national debt exceeding $36 trillion a year and more than half of Medicaid beneficiaries who are able to work but are sitting home idly, requiring these folks to at least start looking for a job is a commonsense step in the right direction. We need to make sure that our safety nets are there for people who need them, not for people who don't need them. We need them to be secure for the seniors and those who have fallen on hard times, and we have to make sure others are not abusing the system while bankrupting the country.

Another way the Big Beautiful Bill safeguards our safety net is by strengthening eligibility checks. It is well known that people in certain income levels tend to fall in and out of eligibility for some of these means-tested programs. Let's say they are working but then they have lost a job, and until they can find another one, they need access to them. But once they get a job, then they no longer should qualify. So strengthening eligibility checks is an important reform-- and not providing these benefits to illegal aliens.

You know, the Border Patrol tells me, in my many visits down there-- and I have hosted many of my colleagues down at the border. They have said there are push factors and there are pull factors to illegal immigration. The push factors are the normal ones you would expect-- poverty, violence in your home country--but the pull factors are the incentives that are provided to people who have come to our country illegally. And when we provide taxpayer benefits to people from other countries, it is a pull factor. It is an encouragement, an incentive, and particularly when there are no consequences to violating the law, as was the case during the 4 years of the last administration.

Our colleagues across the aisle apparently think it is OK to take money out of your pocket and to give it to illegal aliens for benefits, and they see no problem with incentivizing more and more people to come across the border illegally.

Well, this brings me to another important provision, which is important particularly to my State, the State of Texas. Thanks to the efforts of the Texas delegation in the House, this bill includes money to reimburse the State of Texas for border security measures that were undertaken in the absence of the Federal Government doing its job during the Biden administration.

Our international border is a Federal responsibility, but in the absence of the Biden administration enforcing the law, the State of Texas had no alternative but to implement Operation Lone Star to provide the Department of Public Safety and the National Guard to help secure the border, to help stem the flow of drugs, to help slow down the human trafficking, and to slow down and stop as much of the illegal immigration as they could. And that came at significant expense to State taxpayers. This is not the State's responsibility, but the State had to bear the burden. And this bill reimburses Texas taxpayers for that unfair burden that was left as a result of the abdication of responsibility by the previous administration.

These are just a few of the many important wins for the American people that are included in this Big Beautiful Bill. I wish we were in a different place, where our Democratic colleagues would actually work with us and try to prevent a multitrillion-dollar tax increase on 62 percent of American working families. But in the absence of their willingness to work with us, we have no choice but to get this done with just Republican votes.

I encourage my fellow Republicans not to let the naysayers convince the American people that this is somehow bad for them when the opposite is actually true. This is also, finally, an important part of President Trump delivering on the promises he made when he won a historic election last November 5, and it is our job to deliver on that electoral mandate by passing this agenda.

This bill will do wonderful things for the 31 million people in my State and the 250 million people who call America home, and I look forward to supporting it when it comes to the floor in the coming hours and days.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as every high school student of government knows, the Constitution of the United States of America provides for three coequal branches of government: the legislative branch under article I; the judicial branch under article III; and the executive branch under article II. What I would like to talk about, briefly, is the role of the Chief Executive, the President of the United States.

Under our Constitution, the President has vast authorities. The Chief Executive enforces Federal laws; oversees the entire Federal executive branch of government; and manages Federal Agencies and Departments, which includes appointing and removing high-ranking officials like Cabinet members and Agency heads subject to Senate confirmation for certain positions.

The President of the United States--the Chief Executive--is also the Commander in Chief. He leads our Armed Forces and directs military operations. While only Congress can declare war, the President can deploy troops and respond to immediate threats, often with congressional authorization but not always. The President--the Chief Executive, the head of the executive branch--can grant pardons and reprieves for Federal crimes except in cases of impeachment. This power is nearly absolute and cannot be overturned.

The President also has some legislative powers in the form of a veto. He can veto legislation passed by Congress forbidding those acts of Congress from becoming law unless both Chambers override that veto with a two-thirds majority vote. And while the President is not a legislator per se, he can propose legislation--and often does--and influence the legislative agenda by proposing budgets, delivering the State of the Union Address, and advocating for certain policies.

The President--the Chief Executive of our government--can call special sessions of Congress and, in rare cases, actually adjourn Congress if the House and the Senate cannot agree on adjournment.

The head of the executive branch--the President of the United States--is also our chief diplomat. He shapes U.S. foreign policy, negotiates treaties, and appoints Ambassadors with Senate confirmation.

The President can also enter into executive agreements with foreign nations which do not require Senate approval but are binding during that President's term.

The President, as part of his diplomatic powers, also serves as our primary representative in international relations.

Then, when it comes to judges, the article III branch, the President of the United States--the head of the executive branch--nominates Federal judges, including Supreme Court Justices, who are obviously subject to Senate confirmation, as well as members of the inferior judiciary.

Through the Justice Department's Solicitor General, the President can also influence legal interpretations in cases brought before Federal courts.

In addition, the President of the United States--the Chief Executive--can issue Executive orders, as we have seen, or directives or proclamations to manage Federal operations or implement policy, provided they align with existing law, of course, or constitutional authority.

Then, in times of crisis, the President of the United States may assume broader authority under statutes like the National Emergencies Act, though such actions are subject to congressional oversight and review.

Then there are the implied powers as they have been called. Historical precedent and constitutional interpretation allow the President some flexibility in areas like national security, economic management, and crisis response.

These are the powers that the Constitution and laws of the United States confer upon the head of the executive branch, the President of the United States.

The President of the United States, of course, is elected by all of the American people, but what are we to do when the President of the United States is incapable of performing the duties of his office? Who is purporting to act for the President if the President is incapable of acting himself?

This was something that was contemplated even as far back as the Federalist Papers during the founding of our country.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 70:

Energy in the Executive is the leading character in the

definition of good government. It is essential to the

protection of the community against foreign attacks . . .

[and] to the steady administration of the laws.

Hamilton also warned of the dangers associated with a weak Executive or a weak President. He said:

A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the

government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for bad

execution; and a government ill-executed, whatever it may be

in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government.

Unfortunately, Alexander Hamilton's warnings ring true when we consider the Presidency of Joe Biden--a weak, feeble Executive who proved incapable of performing many of the duties of his office.

Last June, during the Presidential debate, the American people saw with their own eyes what many had known to be true but would not admit publicly: Our sitting Commander in Chief was suffering from severe cognitive decline.

We now know that there was a conspiracy to hide the President's true condition--by his family, by his staff, by the media, and by many public officials. We were told over and over again: Don't believe your lying eyes.

Jake Tapper, who coauthored a mea culpa for the journalism profession, summed it up this way:

What the world saw at Joe Biden's one and only 2024 debate

was not an anomaly. It was not a cold; it was not someone who

was under or over prepared. It was not somebody who was just

a little tired. It was the natural result of an eighty-one-

year-old man whose capabilities had been diminishing for

years. Biden, his family and his team let their self-interest

and fear of another Trump term justify an attempt to put an

at times addled old man in the Oval Office for four more

years.

This was a true constitutional crisis--bigger than President Biden-- and it cannot be absolved by a collective apology by the press or an election where that President's party loss. We should know--the American people should know--and still do not know precisely what should happen when a President is incapable of performing his or her constitutional duties.

Tomorrow, I will be cochairing, along with my colleague from Missouri Senator Eric Schmitt, in the Senate Judiciary Committee a hearing to delve into the constitutional implications of President Biden's cognitive decline while in office. At that hearing, we will begin to address some of the many unanswered questions from this scandal-- questions that are foundational to the functioning of our form of government.

One of the aims of the hearing will be shining a light on what exactly went on at the White House during the Biden administration. The chain of events that occurred within the Biden administration matters, and we cannot discount it merely because he is no longer in office.

With a compromised President, the very legitimacy of our government is undermined. From the Biden border crisis to the disastrous results from the withdrawal in Afghanistan, the American people were the ones who paid the price. And it is now clear that for many months--no one knows exactly how long--the President was simply not up to the task.

So we have to ask difficult questions, like, who was really in charge during the last months of the Biden administration? Was it his wife? Was it other members of his family? Was it his Chief of Staff? Was it others? None of these individuals, whoever they may be, were elected by the American people. Whoever happened to be making those decisions and carrying out the duties of the Office of the President was not somebody who was authorized by the Constitution or by a vote of the American people.

This is an existential threat to our democratic republic--this threat--and it cannot be ignored, and it will not be ignored.

History tells us this state of affairs was reminiscent of the Wilson Presidency, where the First Lady assumed many of her husband's duties during his infirmity but kept it a secret from the American people. It was one of the events that inspired those who drafted the 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Certainly, the American people did not consent to being governed by Jill Biden, and they didn't elect the White House Chief of Staff or whoever else purported to act on the President's behalf.

The hearing we will hold tomorrow in the Judiciary Committee will examine in depth these constitutional questions and what happens when the President is no longer capable of performing the duties of his office.

Our country has faced many difficult challenges in the past, including a succession for President--for example, when John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963. In the aftermath of that assassination and the questions it raised, Congress began considering a constitutional amendment about Presidential succession.

In 1965, Senator Birch Bayh and Representative Emanuel Celler introduced a resolution in Congress to clarify the order and procedures of Presidential succession. This resolution was the basis for the 25th Amendment, which Congress approved in July of that same year.

Of course, for every constitutional amendment, three-quarters of the States must actually ratify that resolution, and the States finished ratifying the 25th Amendment in 1967, after it was first proposed in 1965. President Lyndon Johnson certified the amendment that February.

The 25th Amendment to the Constitution provides a roadmap for succession in instances of Presidential incapacity. Section 4 gives the Vice President--in this case, Vice President Harris--or a majority of the President's Cabinet--that would be President Biden's Cabinet--the authority to challenge the President's ability to carry out the functions of his office subject to a vote in Congress. But in this instance that we all witnessed less than a year ago, Kamala Harris and the Cabinet did nothing--or, rather, they did something: They hid the truth from the American people.

So who, this hearing will ask, is accountable when the Cabinet fails to do its duty, when the Vice President fails to do her duty under section 4 of the 25th Amendment? Are there penalties for failing to act? Is there any accountability whatsoever? Should there be?

The Framers of this amendment wanted it to be possible, yet difficult,

to remove a President when absolutely necessary. Ultimately, though, they acknowledged that the execution of the 25th Amendment would depend on the good faith of the Cabinet and the Vice President. But Biden's Cabinet did not act in good faith, nor did the Vice President herself. They acted in their political and personal self-interest.

This is the paradox of self-government. Many of the rules, traditions, and institutions that sustain our Republic are self- executing, self-enforcing. So the health and legitimacy of our democratic Republic rest on the character of the men and women who serve in government.

This brings us to the most crucial questions we will address in the hearing: Why was the 25th Amendment not invoked, and what factors do we need to look at that may have played a role in congressional inaction? Most importantly, as part of our legislative responsibilities, should Congress consider amending the 25th Amendment further to further clarify responsibilities and protocols in case this disaster befalls our Nation again?

As a government, as an American people, it is imperative that we have clear contingency plans when emergency strikes. And, yes, it is an emergency when we have a sitting President who is unable to discharge the duties of his office. He certainly could not have been trusted to make one of the gravest decisions that faces any President in history: what to do in matters of war and peace--a situation that feels all that much more real given the current events in the Middle East.

The concerns raised by this incident stretch beyond the boundaries of partisan politics. We must not turn away from the search for answers, and it is not an overstatement to say the future of our country could one day hinge on how we choose to act or not act on this issue. So tomorrow's hearing is a first important step in preserving this land of the free for future generations.

In these United States, those in authority derive their power from the consent of the government, but during much of the last 4 years, we know that our country was largely led by unelected staff whose names are unknown by the American people.

I look forward to tomorrow's hearing examining these hard but existentially important questions that must be answered from this monumental scandal.

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, one of the most important innovations that President Trump has brought to the Nation is the Department of Government Efficiency. And, of course, this has been headed by Elon Musk, during his term as a temporary government employee. But the good news is that the work of the Department of Government Efficiency--or DOGE, as it is called around here--lives on, and that is reflected in the fact that the Office of Management and Budget has sent its first rescissions package to Capitol Hill.

For those who don't follow the process of procedures here in Washington, DC, the rescissions package is important because it allows Congress to codify the important progress that the Department of Government Efficiency has made in identifying and starting to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse within the Federal Government.

And what DOGE found under the leadership of Elon Musk is a target- rich environment. During the last several months, DOGE has uncovered numerous examples of blatant government waste and abuse. These range from commonsense efficiency reforms to canceling programs that are outright nonsensical uses of the taxpayers' hard-earned money.

According to the website, the Department of Government Efficiency estimates that they identified $175 billion in savings, or approximately $1,100 per taxpayer.

I know some in the media have said: Well, that is peanuts; that doesn't count.

Well, tell the taxpayers who have to pay $1,100 in additional taxes a year to fund an inefficient government that has waste and fraud within it.

The truth is, we have more work to do, and this is just a start. That, to me, is the most important point to make. This is just a start. President Trump and Mr. Musk have changed the culture here in Washington, DC, and changed the conversation.

We know that our national debt has now surpassed $36 trillion, and that is an amount of money that I know no human mind can fully comprehend. But here is how I begin to get at it: when we start to think that we are spending more money on interest on the national debt than we are to defend the Nation, our most important job. That to me is shocking, and it is a mandate to get our spending under better control.

This isn't a matter of not taxing the American people enough. There isn't enough money to tax people for. It is a spending problem, and we need to get spending under control. We have multiple opportunities, and one of those is with this rescissions package.

DOGE started out with an ambitious goal of a 15-percent reduction in government spending of about $1 trillion. Again, this is what the media has pooh-poohed and said: Well, they haven't come anywhere near their target.

But, again, the most important point I can make is this is just the beginning. I don't see the work of DOGE being finished but, rather, being a starting place. Again, I think, perhaps, the most important contribution is it has changed the conversation here in Washington, DC. When people realize the egregious expenditures of their hard-earned tax dollars, then they say: Well, what more is there? Is this just scraping the surface?

And the fact of the matter is, it is.

When I look at some of the items included in this rescissions package from the Office of Management and Budget, I think this package will sell itself--or should sell itself--to people with any common sense.

It rescinds $67,000--a small amount, but small amounts add up--for testing insect powder nutrition on children in Madagascar--whatever that is.

Similarly, it rescinds more than $1 million for LGBTQI+ programs in places like Uganda and the Western Balkans. Why are we spending tax dollars in Uganda and the Balkans for programs and projects like that? Surely, it doesn't seem like a priority to me.

And if that were not enough, the DOGE recommendations, now embraced within this rescissions package, cut millions of dollars for Green New Deal-style programs, not in America but around the world. The bill rescinds $6 million appropriated for ``net zero cities'' in Mexico, half a million dollars for electric buses in Rwanda, and $2.1

million for climate resilience in Southeast Asia, Latin America, and East Africa.

Again, budgets are about priorities, and I can't imagine a world in which these would be the most urgent priorities for the Nation, as our debt exceeds $36 trillion.

But just when you thought these programs couldn't be more absurd, they become more absurd as you look further. It rescinds $4 million for ``legume systems research'' and $3 million for Iraqi Sesame Street.

Well, I think if we were to ask my constituents back home in Texas if they want their hard-earned dollars spent for ridiculous projects like including creating cartoon shows in the Middle East, they would say ``no'' loudly and emphatically.

In many respects, DOGE has shown a bright light on what, for a long time, has been a black hole in Washington, DC. Taxpayers know they send a lot of their hard-earned money to Washington, DC, and I think most Americans--patriotic Americans--if they thought this money was necessary and put to good use, then they would say: OK, that is part of the price we pay for living in the most prosperous, safest, strongest country in the world.

But when they see their money spent like this, they know something is terribly wrong.

So as I say, perhaps, the most important contribution that President Trump and Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency have made is to shape the conversation, both on and off Capitol Hill, about government waste.

Many of the incredibly impressive team members who were hired as part of the DOGE initiatives have been hired on more permanently in various Agencies. So DOGE is not going away, even though Elon Musk has returned back to do work on his companies and is no longer on the Federal Government payroll.

I am not sure he ever got paid, by the way. I think he volunteered his time.

If you think about this for a minute, it is quite a momentous, but in some ways paradoxical, achievement. The nature of bureaucrats in government is to grow and grow and grow. And, over time, our Federal Government has simply become so large and unwieldy. We needed something like the Department of Government Efficiency to come in and begin to, No. 1, identify the problem and to, No. 2, begin to help us chip away at some of the outlandish spending, some of which I have mentioned a moment ago. But the good thing about this change in the conversation and this change in the culture here in Washington, DC, is that the efforts of DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, will continue even after the current occupants of those positions move back to the private sector.

What DOGE has done is to have hired a team of people of incredible accomplishment in the private sector to help eliminate waste, and these cost-cutting efforts have become a quintessential, whole-of-government effort within the Trump administration.

The efforts to get our spending under control, though, do not begin or end with DOGE. We need to play our part in Congress to make sure this work does not go to waste. The way we do that initially is by taking up and passing this rescissions package. Since Congress holds the power of the purse, through the appropriations process, we have the power to rescind these funds when they are shown to be not appropriately expended or used. So this rescissions package from the Office of Management and Budget is a gift on a silver platter, and I look forward to taking up the bill and passing it soon.

But when it comes to eliminating wasteful Washington spending and trying to chip away at this incredibly large debt and the interest payments we are having to make on the debt, which jeopardizes everything else important in the government, including our national security, in addition to the rescissions package, we have the budget reconciliation bill, which was passed by the House and is now being considered here in the Senate--what has come to be known as the Big Beautiful Bill.

This bill is important, as I learned from small businesses in Texas last week as I traveled around the State. I asked them: What was the impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that we passed in 2017 during President Trump's first term? They said the impact was pretty dramatic. It allowed them to hire new employees, to invest in new equipment, to grow their businesses, and to provide more job opportunities for hard- working Texans.

The truth is that unless we extend those expiring provisions soon, all of that will go away, and they will have to begin to cut employment, they will no longer be able to grow their businesses, and they will no longer be able to provide additional benefits to their employees.

So the tax cuts that we will implement in the Big Beautiful Bill will allow those small businesses and individuals to prosper and, in turn, grow our economy, which will benefit everybody.

We also have savings opportunities in the Big Beautiful Bill, things like eliminating the Inflation Reduction Act, which was inappropriately named. I don't know from what Agency or corner of the Capitol--behind a door that is unnamed--these names come from, but the idea of the Inflation Reduction Act from its inception was laughable because it did nothing to reduce inflation. In fact, it made it worse by pouring gasoline on the fire.

The fact of the matter is, Bidenomics resulted in an incredible amount of additional spending, which created 40-year high inflation, and now that is sort of baked into the cake in everything we do here in America--when you go to the grocery store, for small businesses in terms of their inputs and the things they need in order to produce their products. If you ask folks in the agricultural sector, everything they use for inputs to grow a crop or to produce livestock has all gone up thanks to the wasteful spending of the Biden era.

So we need to begin to cut back on some of these wasteful spending projects, and the so-called Inflation Reduction Act is an important place to start.

We also need to do smart things when it comes to some of the other expenditures of the Federal Government--for example, so-called means- tested programs. We sometimes refer to that generically as ``welfare''--in other words, the safety net to help people who need a helping hand.

Government does have a role to play, but these are means-tested programs, which means that only people below certain economic levels qualify. Over time, we know that able-bodied adults who should be working and contributing to the economy, contributing to their families, to their communities, and to the Nation are receiving these benefits and are not working at all, and that has to change. That has to change. So particularly in our means-tested programs, there has to be a work requirement for able-bodied adults.

Plus, if you talk to employers around the country, as I have in Texas, they say: One of the biggest problems we have is a shortage of people willing and able to work. We have good, well-paying jobs, but we can't find the workforce to fill these jobs.

Well, the third means by which we are going to begin this process of controlling our out-of-control spending and our national debt is in the appropriations process. Of course, this is an annual process where we consider how to fund the Federal Government, and, like everything else in the budget process, it is a matter of choosing our priorities. But this is only 28 percent of what the Federal Government spends. Historically, we have ignored the other 72 percent when it comes to spending, but we are going to deal with that in the Big Beautiful Bill.

In addition, Congress has traditionally passed, as part of that 28 percent, 12 individual appropriations bills to fund the Federal Government. No. 1, of course, on that list of priorities is national security.

Of course, under Senate Democrats, we frequently punted this responsibility and passed something called a continuing resolution, which was on autopilot, instead of full-year funding measures that were debated in the Appropriations Committee, with bipartisan support, and then debated here on the floor and passed into law. Instead of that, we just passed continuing resolutions, which is an abdication of our responsibility as the holder of the purse strings under our government.

But while we often think of the appropriations process as strictly a

spending process, it does not have to be that way. We can also use this appropriations process to enact further spending reductions, and I think we should.

So we have three bites at the apple, at the spending apple: rescission, reconciliation--the Big Beautiful Bill--and then appropriations. I hope the House and Senate will take full advantage of each of these three opportunities to begin the process of reducing our deficit and debt because, as former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen said maybe about 10 years ago or so, ``The biggest threat to our national security is our national debt.'' That prediction at the time has come true when we are spending more money on interest on the national debt than we are on defense.

There is no better time than the present to begin to remedy this situation, and it is up to Congress. We can't look over our shoulder or look around the room and say: Who else will protect us and save us from this unsustainable trajectory? It is up to us.

While the formal Department of Government Efficiency Task Force may have concluded, the work of DOGE lives on. As a founding member of the DOGE Caucus, I will keep doing my part, along with all of my colleagues, to bend the spending curve. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in that effort, particularly by passing this rescissions package and then eventually, in the coming weeks, the Big Beautiful Bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum calls with respect to the Bowman and Walsh nominations.

Thank you.

My apologies to my colleague from Massachusetts.

Madam President, before we left last week for the recess, of course, the House did what it was supposed to do by passing President Trump's Big Beautiful Bill. This, of course, is the way we are going to prevent a multitrillion-dollar tax increase on the American people, something they can least afford on top of 4 years of Bidenomics that resulted in a 20-percent increase in the cost of everything because of runaway inflation.

But this is the vehicle that we will use not only to extend the President's tax provisions but to prevent the largest tax increase in American history and to do some other very important things that I am going to talk about momentarily.

Those who follow Senate procedure, which have to be a very small number of people in the United States, know that our job now is to work with the Parliamentarian on what is known as the Byrd bath because the rules that apply in the House are different than those that apply here in the Senate. So the parties will be making their arguments to the Parliamentarian on what survives the so-called Byrd bath, named after Robert C. Byrd, the famous West Virginia Senator and parliamentary expert. But that is a unique rule here in the Senate. So that is really the next step for people who are watching at home, wondering what in the world is happening up here in Washington, DC.

Reconciliation, which is the process we are going through, of course, is a unique vehicle--maybe not unique. It is a special vehicle, though, because it doesn't require 60 votes in the Senate to get legislation passed. But the Byrd rule is in place to make sure that we don't use this special vehicle to do things that otherwise would require 60 votes and broader bipartisan support. So that is why it exists, and that is why we will be going through that process.

But the budget resolution, of course, has instructed both the House and the Senate committees to spend money in some instances--for example, the Judiciary Committee in the House, Homeland Security, and the Armed Services Committee--to actually spend money to bolster our defense and border security--something that, if we did not do, we would be in a world of hurt, even though, frankly, with President Trump now in office, the border crossings have dropped precipitously, about 95 percent.

But still, both ICE, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, and the Department of Homeland Security need additional resources for detention facilities and personnel, or else they will run out of money.

But one of the most important things that we need to do in this budget reconciliation process is to finally--finally--come to grips with our national debt. We are approaching $37 trillion in debt, which is more money than any human being can actually imagine. But here is something that I have always recalled that sort of brings it home to me: We are now spending more money on interest on the national debt than we are to defend our Nation, which is the No. 1 job of the Federal Government.

Of course, as I have said many times from the floor and as any Senator knows, the world is the most dangerous it has been at any time since World War II. You look at what is happening in North Korea, with North Korea providing troops to the Russians to defeat the Ukrainians. You see, obviously, Iran enriching uranium and providing drones to Russia for the battle in Ukraine. You see President Xi in the Indo- Pacific, threatening to take Taiwan by 2027. And then you see what is happening in the Middle East, with Hamas and Israel and the Iranian proxies, whether it is the Houthis in Yemen or Hezbollah in Lebanon or Hamas in Gaza.

The world is a very, very dangerous place, and the fact of the matter is, we are on an unsustainable course. We cannot protect the Nation, and we cannot establish deterrents so that our young men and women never have to fight in wars without making the appropriate investments in our national security. And we simply cannot do that on the current trajectory we are on and with the debt now approaching $37 trillion. The fact of the matter is, we really haven't tried very hard in the past.

And as the Presiding Officer knows, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, the Appropriations Committee, which handles the amount of money that we spend on an annual basis, only deals with about 28 percent of what the Federal Government spends. The rest of that money-- the 72 percent--comes from mandatory spending programs and things like the Tax Code because the Tax Code has actually become a means whereby we actually spend money, as well through tax credits and the like.

The Federal Government spends roughly $6.7 trillion a year, and we are never going to balance the budget just looking at 28 percent of Federal spending, which is what we do through discretionary spending. And, now, that means this is our opportunity--maybe, a once-in-a- generation opportunity--to begin to chip away at that national debt.

If anything should get our attention, the recent credit ratings from Moody's underscores the importance of including these reforms in this particular legislation. Moody's recently downgraded its rating of U.S. credit from Aaa to Aa1, and they pointed to our national

debt, especially our growing entitlement spending, as a reason to lower our credit rating.

Now, this is the United States of America, and we are seeing our credit rating downgraded because Congress has not had the courage to deal with this impending potential debt crisis. If we want the United States to maintain its standing in the world, if we want to be able to have the resources to defend the Nation and deter our adversaries, we have to at least begin to get our fiscal house in order. And this bill--the Big Beautiful Bill from the House--we are going to make it even more beautiful here in the Senate, but it is going take 51 Senators having the courage to step up and do some hard things, like deal with this debt trajectory. But the good news is that this is our opportunity right now.

One avenue to achieving some of these savings that I want to talk about today is implementing work requirements for able-bodied adults in our means-tested programs. There are a number of them, including Medicaid, food stamps--now known as SNAP--and nutrition programs in the farm bill that have means testing. In other words, only if you are within a certain level, otherwise known as poverty levels, you will get the benefit of these taxpayer-supported programs. But if you make more than that, then you will not qualify.

Unfortunately, now we have lapsed into the situation where many able- bodied adults are simply living off the taxpayers and not providing either for their families or their communities but, rather, are a drain on the Tax Code and are helping to drive this national debt.

Now, this is something that I have been advocating for a number of years, but I have to confess it is nothing new. Now, our Democratic colleagues are accusing Republicans of slashing these programs, which, of course, is not true because we haven't actually finished our work yet.

But, first of all, implementing work requirements for means-tested programs, as I said, is nothing new. Back during the era of President Clinton's Presidency, Democrats agreed with Republicans that able- bodied adults who received government benefits should be required to work or, in this case, they need to be looking for work or they need to provide some community service. They can't just sit on the couch at home and play video games.

They shared--Democrats did, back then--our goal of incentivizing individual responsibility, rather than encouraging people to fall into the trap of long-term government dependency. Inspired by this goal, President Clinton and then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich came together to lead the effort to pass what is now known as the Welfare Reform Act of 1996.

This legislation implemented work requirements to TANF, otherwise known as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, and had remarkable success in declining welfare caseloads, while increasing employment and earnings among low-income individuals.

So why would we not resurrect this tried-and-true playbook from the bipartisan era of 1996?

The U.S. Federal Government spends about a trillion dollars a year on means-tested programs, and work requirements are one commonsense step toward reforming this trajectory--again, which is adding to our national debt.

Recent research from the Foundation for Government Accountability found that more than 62 percent of able-bodied adults who received Medicaid benefits do not work at all--62 percent, two out of three. As a Nation, labor force participation--the number of people actually looking for work and participating in work--has been on the decline among working-age men, especially, for decades.

Between 1960 and 2023, the fraction of working-age men who were out of the labor force increased from about 3 percent to 11 percent--3 percent to 11 percent. By 2024, that had increased to 22 percent. That is a nearly 700-percent increase over the last six and a half decades.

A society with that large a number of prime-age workers sitting at home, receiving government benefits, is not the sign of a healthy and flourishing society. And the truth is, we simply can't afford it, even if we wanted to, which, I daresay, we do not.

With our national debt now in excess of $36 trillion, there is no better time to encourage these large numbers of disengaged adults to jump back into the labor force. So I was happy to see that the House bill included work requirements that go into effect in 2026, and I hope the Senate will include this policy in our bill as well.

Suffice it to say that our standing in the world, our ability to lead the world, and our ability, as I mentioned at the outset, to defend our Nation, depends on our ability to get our fiscal house in order.

We have kicked the can down the road so long that we simply have run out of road. While the reality of the situation means we will not, in one fell swoop, actually balance the budget, this Big Beautiful Bill is an opportunity, at the very least, to bend the curve of our debt trajectory to begin that process.

At the end of the day, while we all have priorities we would like to see in this bill, Republicans have to be united because we need 51 votes in a 53-vote Senate to get this bill done, and we all share, on this side of the aisle, the same goal of implementing President Trump's agenda. And he is certainly going to be encouraging us to get this done. So failure is not an option.

If the President's tax cuts are not extended, the American people will face the largest tax increase in American history. And 62 percent of Americans will see a tax increase in 2026, and working parents will see the child tax credit cut in half.

That means the average family of four in Texas or Alabama or anywhere else in the country that earns $80,000 will face a $1,700 tax increase.

As I said at the outset, this would be on top of about a 20-percent increase in just about everything as a result of the inflationary policies of the Biden-Harris administration. So our constituents, the American taxpayer, working families, simply cannot afford that sort of tax increase on top of this 40-year-high inflation.

Back home in Texas, my constituents have seen their taxes increase on average $3,000 next year. As I have traveled my State as I did during the course of this most recent recess, my constituents have emphasized to me time and time again how much they are depending on these tax cuts being renewed, especially our small businesses that depended on the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to hire more staff, to purchase equipment that they could then expense, and to provide additional benefits to their employees.

And so all of these small businesses, which are the primary job- creating engine in America would be hurt and would suffer increased costs and have to cut somewhere in their business. So let's not let the naysayers distract us from our goal.

The American people are depending on us to pass the President's agenda through this One Big Beautiful Bill.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to start by thanking my friend from Utah Senator Lee, the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction for hosting this unanimous consent request today to highlight the importance of many pieces of legislation but including the Big Bend National Park Boundary Adjustment Act.

It is no secret that Texas is home to a lot of wide-open spaces, beautiful terrain, and vibrant wildlife. And Big Bend is a national treasure.

This legislation expands and preserves the park's heritage, natural resources, and jaw-dropping scenery while safeguarding private property rights. It authorizes the National Park Service to acquire approximately 6,100 additional acres adjacent to Terlingua Creek along the western boundary of the park.

And it clarifies that the Park Service may only acquire land through donation or exchange, not through eminent domain.

I am disappointed that our colleagues across the aisle have objected to this. This legislation is critical to Texans and all Americans being able to enjoy our big, beautiful national parks, including Big Bend.

And I thank my colleague from Utah for making the unanimous consent request, but I am disappointed that even on something as much as a no- brainer as something like this, our Democratic colleagues can't resist making partisan objections.

Mr. President, it is no secret to the people of Texas that they

carried a disproportionate share of the burden from President Biden's mismanagement of the southern border during the last 4 years.

In an attempt to shield our State from this crisis of historic mass migration, drug trafficking, and human trafficking, Governor Abbott and our State leadership initiated something called Operation Lone Star, which resulted in the apprehension of more than a half million illegal immigrants by Texas law enforcement. Since the start of this mission, law enforcement in Texas has arrested more than 50,000 criminals, built more than 240 miles of border barrier, and seized more than a half billion deadly doses of fentanyl. Governor Abbott has said that this effort enabled Texas to reduce illegal immigration across the State border by 87 percent.

But these efforts were not without cost to Texas taxpayers. And, recall, this is an international border, which by definition means it is a Federal responsibility. But what is the State supposed to do when the Federal Government simply drops the ball or refuses to enforce the law?

Operation Lone Star cost my State billions of dollars, and this was only necessary because the Federal Government simply abdicated its responsibility.

Last week, I introduced legislation to fulfill Governor Abbott's request that the State be reimbursed for the more than $11 billion that the State of Texas has had to spend on border enforcement to fill the gaps left by President Biden's open-border policies. My State Border Security Assistance Act will provide funds to the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security to reimburse States for actions they took after President Biden's failure to secure the border. It will reimburse States for the cost of border wall construction, border surveillance, and the apprehension, detention, and prosecution of individuals who violate U.S. laws.

This legislation will appropriate the funds needed to reimburse Texas, and it will sunset at the end of the Trump administration, returning any remaining money to the U.S. Treasury.

While this effort is supported by the entire Republican Texas delegation, my colleague and fellow Texan Congressman Chip Roy, a member of the Rules Committee, is taking the lead on similar legislation in the House. I am thankful for his partnership and his leadership in this effort.

But there is no doubt that this historic crisis is a direct result of President Biden's policies. Starting on the campaign trail, President Biden invited the massive wave of illegal immigration to the United States by essentially holding up a big ``Welcome'' sign. Illegal migrants from around the world cheered President Biden's election and his open-border policies, and the Biden-Harris administration did not disappoint them.

President Biden abused our immigration processes and rolled out the red carpet to let in millions of unvetted illegal migrants, and the number he let in through illegitimate means does not even account for the millions more of ``got-aways,'' which is what the Border Patrol calls them--people trying to actively evade law enforcement activity.

President Biden couldn't have been more destructive on border security if he had tried. Early in his Presidency, he ended Trump's ``Remain in Mexico'' policy that had been remarkably effective. The Biden administration halted construction of President Trump's border wall and, instead, used Federal funds to store already-paid-for wall materials.

As this crisis continued to evolve, President Biden ended title 42, the COVID-era policy that was our last line of defense when President Biden refused to do anything else to limit the flow of illegal immigration.

After undoing all of the successful policies of the first Trump administration, President Biden then decided to circumvent Congress and attempted to make illegal immigration legal by abusing authorities under the Immigration and Nationality Act. His Department of Homeland Security actually created an app called the CBP One--or the Customs and Border Protection app--which allowed migrants to register in advance, to schedule an appointment to then be released into the interior of the United States.

Another Biden-Harris administration program allowed up to 30,000 migrants a month to enter from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. They were allowed to enter without any questions, any vetting, and they were also given work permits so they could then compete with American citizens and people legally in the United States.

Of course, we know the tragic consequences of these misguided policies resulted in a crisis of mass illegal immigration but not just illegal immigration. It also included human trafficking and drug trafficking across our southern border. During all 4 years of the Biden administration, the number of illegal migrant encounters with Customs and Border Protection totaled more than 10 million--10 million--people from around the world showing up at the border, only to be waved through by the Biden-Harris administration. There were more than 1.7 million known ``got-aways'' who evaded Border Patrol entirely and are roaming freely somewhere in the interior of the country, up to who knows what.

Fentanyl, which has taken far too many lives in this country, particularly those of our youngsters, is made with Chinese precursor chemicals that were smuggled through the open border and, as I said, have taken far too many innocent lives. There can be no question about who is responsible for this crisis of gross proportion. The responsibility belongs with President Biden and his misguided policies.

This has become even more obvious when we look at the great success that President Trump has had in securing the border in a few short months and actually reversing the ongoing crisis. After 4-year highs of illegal immigration, Customs and Border Protection is now facing record lows in border encounters. As soon as President Trump was elected but even before he took office, the numbers began to go down because people understood that they would no longer be able to cross the border indiscriminately and without proper legal credentials. In November and December of last year, encounters were at their lowest levels between ports of entry since August of 2020. And for the first 2 weeks of January this year, Customs and Border Protection encounters were nearly 50 percent lower than they were at the same point in 2021, at the start of the Biden administration.

During the latter half of the month, when President Trump actually took office, apprehensions fell by a staggering 85 percent compared to the same period in 2024. And during the entire month of January, there were less than 1,500 apprehensions a day, which sounds like a lot but it was a 40-percent decline from December of last year. In President Trump's first 100 days in office, daily border encounters decreased by approximately 95 percent.

Now, I recall that President Biden and our colleagues across the aisle said in the runup to the campaign: We need to pass some more laws so that the border can be secured. But what this demonstrates is that we didn't need any new laws; we needed a President who would actually enforce the law, which is what we got with President Trump. These wins by the Trump administration since President Trump was sworn into office were a direct result of the deterrent effect created by President Trump's policy changes.

Migrants and the coyotes and the cartels who smuggle people across our border along with drugs and engage in all sorts of other illegal activity know now that our laws will be enforced under President Trump and Secretary Noem, and so they are deterred from even trying, in many instances. Why spend $10,000 or so to have a human smuggler try to get you into the country if you know that you are unlikely to be successful under President Trump's policies? That is the deterrent effect of actually enforcing the law, something President Biden refused to do.

This is pretty basic stuff. This is not rocket science. Instead of rolling out the welcome mat like President Biden, President Trump began his second administration by pulling up the drawbridge. On day one of his administration, President Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border, giving him flexibility, under our laws, to restore order. He ended the disastrous policies of catch-and-release and reinstated his own tested and proven ``Remain in Mexico'' policy.

Secretary Noem, the Secretary of Homeland Security, began her tenure as the head of President Trump's Homeland Security agenda by sending a clear message that she intends to enforce the laws that prevent illegal immigration. But she didn't stop there. Under her leadership, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, otherwise known as ICE, arrests have increased by more than 600 percent. This includes arrests of criminal migrants, which have more than doubled. President Trump and Secretary Noem returned to a commonsense, case-by-case approach to humanitarian parole, which had been abused under the Biden administration, and they have clawed back about $80 million spent by FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to house illegal immigrants in luxury hotels in places like New York City.

These policies were part of the reason President Trump got elected. What we had on November 5 was a referendum on President Biden's border policies, and obviously the voters preferred President Trump's approach.

But my point is that, in the 4 years of the Biden administration, somebody had to deal with this flow of humanity and drugs and trafficking across the border; and in my State, my Governor and the State leadership, to their credit, stepped up. Texans have had to bear the brunt of open borders, rampant crime, and deadly fentanyl for the past 4 years.

I am very thankful to President Trump and Secretary Noem for their leadership in ensuring that Americans and Texans once again are safe and secure, but the damage done by President Biden and his policies must be undone. It must be rectified. Congress must reimburse the State of Texas for the costs incurred for filling in for our then-absentee President.

I will continue working with President Trump, Governor Abbott, and the entire Texas delegation, as well as Senator John Thune and Speaker Johnson, to ensure that this priority is included in the reconciliation bill.

President Biden abdicated his duty to keep our citizens safe, and the State of Texas must be made whole for its efforts to protect Texans and the rest of the country from the consequences of his misguided policies.

I yield the floor.