Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise today to recognize the Todd family of Todd Family Farm in Carroll County, IN, and an extraordinary milestone in their family's history: 150 consecutive years of stewardship of their farm.

Since 1876, generations of the Todd family have cared for the same land, building a legacy rooted in agriculture, hard work, faith, family, and service. What began as a family homestead grew over time to encompass thousands of acres and became home to the Todd Hybrid Seed Company, which developed and distributed seed corn to farmers across the country and was an important part of the agricultural economy of Carroll County for decades.

This year, the State of Indiana recognized that remarkable legacy by presenting the Todd Family Farm with the Hoosier Homestead Sesquicentennial Award. The award honors farms that have remained in the same family for 150 years, a distinction that speaks not only to longevity but to the commitment required of generation after generation to preserve and protect a family farm.

The Todd family's legacy also extends to my home State of Kentucky.

Catherine Todd Bailey, a daughter of John Harvey and Clystia Martell Todd, now makes her home in Louisville. A native of Carroll County, Cathy carried the Todd family's tradition of service with her to Kentucky and later onto the world stage, serving as U.S. Ambassador to Latvia.

For a family to maintain its connection to the same land for a century and a half is a remarkable achievement. It represents perseverance through changing times, devotion to family, and a determination to pass something meaningful from one generation to the next.

I congratulate Cathy Bailey, Marlene Todd Stout, and the entire Todd family as they celebrate 150 years of the Todd Family Farm and the enduring legacy their family has built in Indiana, Kentucky, and across our Nation.

Mr. President, increasing taxes on Americans will not end Putin's war in Ukraine. The drafters of this legislation, understandably, wish to punish Vladimir Putin and send Russian invaders back to where they came from, but this bill was written such that the drafters fail to see that it will not bring peace to Ukraine but rather will deliberately make American families poorer by increasing tariffs, which are nothing but a tax on imported goods.

To save Americans from what very well could be the largest tax increase imposed by a Republican Congress, I offer an amendment that strikes the authority to impose tariffs of up to 100 percent on an ever-changing list of countries. Mark my words, this will be the largest tax increase by a Republican Congress.

Why would Republicans, who promise you they want to lower your taxes, be voting to raise your taxes $500 billion?

In addition, Congress should not delegate its constitutional duties to the executive branch.

Now, my amendment does not touch the broad sanctions that are provided by the bill, nor does it touch the specific tariffs on Russia because I see the strong desire among Members of the Senate to use economic warfare against Putin. But I object to economic warfare against the American consumer.

Once upon a time, Republicans were distinguished from Democrats by their persistent chant that the U.S. deficit was the result of a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Yet today, many Republicans have become the cheerleaders for more revenue.

The bill before us grants the executive branch the power to raise nearly $500 billion in revenue--in taxes. I hope I am not the only Republican left in Congress who is horrified by a bill that proposes to raise taxes a half a trillion dollars.

In addition, there is the constitutional question: Can Congress delegate its article I, section 8 authority to lay taxes and levies-- can they just give it away to the executive branch?

For 100 years or more, the Supreme Court has said we can't give away our power. And in what world would we want to give away our power? The power to tax and spend was given to Congress. Why would they give that to the President? What sort of feckless Congress gives away their constitutional power?

The power was divided for a reason. Montesquieu said if you bring the legislative powers together with the executive, you will have no liberty. The powers were divided between the legislature and the executive so we could fight for liberty, so it would make it hard to raise taxes.

The answer to ``Can Congress give away its power?'' is an unequivocal ``no.'' Embedded within our Constitution is something called the nondelegation principle, which states that Congress cannot delegate its core legislative powers to another branch of government or to private entities. The Supreme Court used to enforce this nondelegation doctrine, most notably in the Schechter Poultry case, but that case was decided in 1935; and for much of the intervening years, the Supreme Court has been a reliable ally to lazy legislators.

Up until recently, the Supreme Court effectively relieved Congress from the hard work of legislating, but the tide is turning, frankly, with the help of several of President Trump's nominees. Justice Gorsuch forcefully made the case for reviving the nondelegation principle by arguing that if Congress ``could pass off its legislative power to the executive branch . . . legislation would risk becoming nothing more than the will of the current President.''

The problem with this legislation is that it disobeys the clear command of the Constitution: Taxes and levies must be determined by Congress. Moreover, taxation bills must originate in the House of Representatives.

Do not let sympathy for Ukraine blind you to the reality of tariffs. Tariffs are taxes on imports that are paid by Americans. They are paid by parents trying to provide for their families. They are paid by students saving up to buy their first car. Tariffs are paid by anyone who seeks to spend money on any conceivable product.

There will be those who will try to pull the wool over your eyes and tell you that despite this persistent sticker shock, despite the feeling that life just keeps getting more and more expensive, that tariffs are always paid by somebody else, by some foreign country. The Members who vote for this tax will tell you: Not to worry--these taxes will only be levied on foreign countries.

This absurd claim is provably false. Figuring out who pays tariffs is easy. All you have to do is look at those who are getting refunds. When the Supreme Court struck down the tariffs, a whole bunch of people lined up for refunds. Who is not on the list? The Chinese Government is not on the list. Canada is not on the list. Mexico is not on the list. American companies are getting the refunds because Americans pay tariffs.

And do you think the company pays the tariffs? No. They pass it along to the consumer. You are all paying higher prices. Every time you get something through retail, you are paying higher prices.

The entities that lined up for the rebates after the Supreme Court struck down the emergency tariffs were primarily American retailers such as Walmart, Target, Costco, and Nike.

Let me repeat: China is not on the refund list because China doesn't pay the tariffs. American importers and retailers pay the tariffs, and they pass the cost of the tariffs on to the consumer.

You don't have to take my word for it. A letter was sent to the Senate Republican and Democrat leaders by two dozen industry associations, including the Chamber of Commerce, the Consumer Technology Association, and the National Retail Association, warning about the cost of tariffs imposed by this bill.

Here are some quotes from industry concerned about these new taxes:

[T]he potential of new, broad, 100% tariffs on imports from

secondary countries risks raising costs for American

businesses, workers, and consumers.

That approach would effectively tax U.S. importers and

consumers for foreign governments' energy decisions--conduct

that is outside the control of American companies.

They further say:

Tariffs of this scale would increase costs for everyday

consumer goods, manufacturing inputs and other products while

creating significant uncertainty for companies making

sourcing, pricing and inventory decisions months in advance.

It could also lead to retaliatory tariffs against U.S.

exports.

So it doesn't necessarily help exports to tax imports because the other countries then will tax our exports.

They say:

Tariffs . . . are a blunt tool that can penalize law-

abiding U.S. companies importing legitimate goods, invite

retaliation, complicate trade negotiations and shift costs

onto American families without ensuring that pressure reaches

the intended actors.

These two dozen associations end their letter by saying:

We urge Congress to remove the tariff authority from the

bill and instead focus on targeted sanctions, stronger

enforcement against sanctions evasion and coordinated

diplomacy with countries purchasing Russian energy.

Anybody concerned with the economic well-being of American families would come to the same conclusion, but it is not easy to find such common sense in Congress.

Imposing a 100-percent tariff on all goods imported from countries like China and India is the economic equivalent of shooting ourselves in the foot.

Middle- and low-income Americans enjoy a higher quality of life when they have more purchasing power for everyday necessities. Recent tariffs are estimated to have already cost the average American family $1,700, so the average American family is already paying $1,700 more because of these taxes that are placed on the things they buy.

Now this Republican Congress, after it just gave the American people tax cuts, is going to do the opposite. Which is it? Are we the party of lower taxes or higher taxes? This will be the largest tax increase in recent history, perhaps the largest tax increase that a Republican Congress has put onto the people.

What are we going to say to the parents buying their kids new shoes for the school year, the minimum-wage worker who needs to buy a new part to fix their car to get to work, or the single mother buying diapers when they notice their prices have doubled?

The cost of the tariffs is not strictly monetary; these tariffs threaten to undermine America's strategic position in the world. Some naively think that the tariffs will get China to distance itself from Russia, but it might be the opposite. Recent history suggests that they will instead push Russia and China together. China is not going to get these 100-percent tariffs and say: Oh, we are sorry. We are no longer going to cooperate with Russia. We have kind of forced Russia to give us this great deal on oil and gas that we pipe into our country, but we are sorry now, and we are going to give up on that.

No. It is going to push them closer together. The people we are worried about are going to become more allied.

Slapping a 100-percent tariff on China may inadvertently solidify the geopolitical alignment with Russia, as Beijing would become more, not less, reliant on Moscow for economic and diplomatic support.

Ryan Young is a senior economist with the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He points out that Russia is the junior partner in the alliance with China. Young reminds us that China agreed to a second natural gas pipeline between the two countries on the condition that Russia sell China its gas at a lower than market rate. Do you think China is going to give up on that? No. China will continue to buy oil and gas from Russia after this, and they, in all likelihood, will respond to our tariffs with tariffs of their own.

This is what is going to happen. It is not going to solve the situation; it is going to raise American taxes, drive Russia and China together, and then China will actually add tariffs on our goods as well. It is a huge mistake.

Imposing tariffs on China will reignite the trade war. Beijing will certainly retaliate with their own tariffs and export controls.

Maia Nikoladze, the deputy director of the Economic Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, reminded us that on ``Liberation Day,'' the tariffs placed on China in April of 2025 didn't change Beijing's behavior. Instead, those tariffs prompted China to restrict exports of critical rare earth elements. We already tried this once. They responded by restricting their exports of things we need to make batteries for cars, and then we eventually ended up negotiating lower tariffs. Do we want to go through the same world of that again?

Likewise, imposing a 100-percent tariff on India at a time when we are actively trying to court them to help us

in our competition with China is completely self-defeating. Ryan Young with the Competitive Enterprise Institute worries that imposing tariffs on India will alienate one of the most important strategic partners in Asia and a potential counterweight to China. So as we try to get India to be more aligned with us instead of with China or Russia--admiral goals--we put tariffs on India, and what does that do? It pushes them more toward China and more toward Russia.

It is also unclear whether tariffs could even be imposed on individual members of the European Union, like Slovakia and Hungary, given Europe's common trade policy.

In 2025, U.S.-EU bilateral trade was over $1 trillion. That is making both parties rich. We have become extraordinarily rich as a country as international trade has expanded. In fact, prosperity of the individual and prosperity of the country are directly proportional to the amount of trade. Think about that. Trying to tariff individual EU countries directly undermines President Trump's recent U.S.-EU trade agreement. Should the EU retaliate against the United States, the result would be disastrous for both American businesses and consumers.

I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment that strips the counterproductive tariffs from the legislation. If not adopted, Congress should reject this strategic blunder of a bill that would do nothing to bring peace to Ukraine but, rather, raise American prices for American consumers, further weaken the dollar, destroy U.S. relations around the globe, and drive our adversaries closer together.

Mr. President, I recommend a ``yes'' vote on the Paul-Wyden amendment.

I call up amendment No. 6715 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, the bill before us contains the largest tax increase ever passed by a Republican Congress. Worse yet, the bill transfers the taxing authority from the legislature to the executive branch, an unconstitutional delegation of power.

The Constitution clearly states that ``Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, duties . . . and Excises.''

Madison believed the Republic would survive only if the Constitution divided the power and pitted the executive ambition against legislative ambition. Madison would be horrified by the clamor of so many in Congress to cede the taxing authority.

My amendment strips the transfer of the taxing authority from the bill. My amendment--if it passes--will demonstrate that Congress still has a spine, still has ambition, and still supports the separation and limitation of power.

Madam President, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Dan Caudill, a respected Kentucky business leader and a principled advocate for criminal justice reform, who passed away in December 2025. Dan was not merely a supporter of reform in theory; he lived it through his work and deeds. I was proud to work alongside Dan on the REDEEM Act, legislation rooted in the belief that justice should allow for redemption and that nonviolent mistakes should not necessarily become lifelong barriers to employment and opportunity. Dan brought that belief to life through his leadership at Caudill Seed Company, where he demonstrated that second-chance hiring strengthens both businesses and communities.

Dan's testimony before the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship in July 2022 was especially impactful. He spoke plainly and persuasively about how outdated and overly broad background check practices harm workers, families, and employers alike and how giving individuals a fair chance after they have paid their debt to society leads to loyalty, productivity, and reduced recidivism. His testimony provided real-world evidence that reform is not only compassionate, but practical and economically sound. Dan Caudill's voice carried the moral clarity of experience, not ideology. His legacy will endure in the lives he lifted up, the reforms he championed, and the enduring reminder that a just society must always leave room for second chances.

Madam President, I rise today to recognize Sheriff Charles ``Chuck'' Korzenborn of Kenton County, KY, upon the occasion of his well-earned retirement from a distinguished career in law enforcement and public service.

For 26 years, Sheriff Korzenborn has served the people of Kenton County with integrity, professionalism, and an unwavering commitment to public safety. As sheriff, he has been entrusted with one of the most vital responsibilities in our communities: protecting the lives, rights, and property of the citizens he served. Through his leadership, the Kenton County Sheriff's Office has upheld the highest standards of law enforcement while fostering trust and cooperation between officers and the community.

Sheriff Korzenborn's career reflects a deep dedication to service above self. He has led with fairness, accountability, and respect for the rule of law, earning the confidence of his colleagues and the gratitude of the residents of Kenton County. His steady leadership and experience have helped guide his department through both everyday challenges and extraordinary moments, always with the safety and well- being of the community as his top priority.

Sheriff Korzenborn's legacy is one of mentorship and example. He has influenced countless deputies and staff members, instilling in them the values of duty, honor, and service that will continue to shape the Kenton County Sheriff's Office for years to come.

As Sheriff Korzenborn enters retirement, he leaves behind a record of service that reflects great credit upon himself, his family, the Kenton County Sheriff's Office, and the Commonwealth of Kentucky. I extend my sincere appreciation for his years of dedicated service and wish him the best in the next chapter of his life.

Madam President, I rise today to honor the service of a true American patriot, Terry McIntosh of Paducah, KY.

At the age of 17, motivated by a sense of duty to his country during the Vietnam war, Terry enlisted in the United States Army. Despite his youth, he would soon find himself on the frontlines, eventually assigned to Operational Detachment A-414, a Green Beret ``A-team'' operating along the Cambodian border. For his service in combat, which included multiple missions and a February 1969 firefight that

earned him the Combat Infantryman Badge, Mr. McIntosh stood shoulder- to-shoulder with the elite of our Armed Forces.

For decades, the formal recognition of this service remained elusive. It was not until March 2026, following a review of his personnel records, that the Army retroactively awarded Mr. McIntosh the Special Forces tab--a long-overdue acknowledgment of his status as a Green Beret.

Mr. McIntosh's story is a testament to the quiet professionalism of the soldiers who did the job without the need for fanfare or special recognition. As he noted, he sought this recognition not for himself, but so his children would know the nature of his service to this Nation.

It is my privilege to recognize Mr. McIntosh today. His dedication at such a young age is an inspiration to all who value the courage of those who wear the uniform. We honor his service, we celebrate his official recognition as a Green Beret, and we thank him for his enduring commitment to this country.

Madam President, I rise today to recognize Officer Josh McKinley for an extraordinary act of courage, compassion, and public service that saved a life and exemplifies the very best of law enforcement.

On March 21, 2026, Officer McKinley responded to a critical incident on the Big Four Walking Bridge in Louisville, KY, involving an individual who had climbed over the bridge railing, was seated on the outside ledge, and was threatening to end his life. The situation demanded extraordinary judgment, patience, and calm under immense pressure.

Officer McKinley immediately took the lead in communicating with the individual. Rather than relying on force or haste, he relied on empathy, respect, and genuine human connection. For nearly an hour, Officer McKinley remained engaged in conversation, patiently building trust while demonstrating unwavering professionalism and compassion. Through his calm demeanor and steadfast commitment, he persuaded the individual to safely climb back over the railing, preventing what could have been a tragic loss of life.

Officer McKinley's service did not end once the immediate danger had passed. He offered a meal and continued emotional support before ensuring he was transported to a hospital where he could receive the medical treatment and assistance he needed.

The actions displayed by Officer McKinley reflect the highest ideals of law enforcement. His courage was measured not only in his willingness to face danger but also in his patience, compassion, and determination to preserve life. His professionalism serves as an example for officers across the Commonwealth of Kentucky and our Nation.

I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Officer Josh McKinley for his extraordinary service. His selfless actions on March 21, 2026, undoubtedly saved a life, brought hope to a person in despair, and remind us all of the difference one dedicated public servant can make.

Madam President, as a member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today to recognize Crume Drug Store of Bardstown, KY, as my Senate Small Business of the Week.

Crume Drug Store has served Nelson County continuously since 1852. For more than 170 years, the business has adapted to changes in medicine, technology, and the retail pharmacy industry while remaining a trusted presence in downtown Bardstown.

In 2019, Derrick Greenwell and Ashley Coomes purchased Crume Drug Store as equal partners. Derrick is a Doctor of Pharmacy and serves as co-owner and pharmacist. Ashley is a certified pharmacy technician and co-owner. Together, they have preserved the store's historic identity while operating it as a modern, locally owned community pharmacy.

Derrick and Ashley strive to ensure that every customer feels comfortable being served at their store. This personal attention reflects the best tradition of independent community pharmacies.

Crume also helps prepare the next generation of healthcare professionals. The pharmacy has employed students through local cooperative education programs and has provided pharmacy interns with practical experience serving patients and working in a community pharmacy.

Derrick, Ashley, and the Crume Drug Store team regularly support local schools, athletic programs, churches, and community fundraisers. Much of Crume's community service is performed quietly and without seeking recognition. Derrick and Ashley prefer to let their work speak for itself. They focus on serving their customers well, remaining approachable, supporting their employees, and helping their neighbors whenever possible.

Congratulations to Derrick Greenwell, Ashley Coomes, and the entire Crume Drug Store team. I commend them for their service to Bardstown and Nelson County and wish them continued success in Kentucky.

Madam President, as a member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I would like to recognize an outstanding Kentucky small business that exemplifies the American entrepreneurial spirit. It is my privilege to recognize Morgan Smith Industries, LLC of Columbia, KY, as my Senate Small Business of the Week.

Morgan Smith Industries, LLC is a family-owned architectural millwork, custom cabinetry, casework, furniture, and interior construction manufacturer whose roots in Kentucky craftsmanship span nearly eight decades. The company's history began in 1948 when Willis D. McCammish and his son Doug McCammish established a small cabinet and countertop business in Winchester, KY. Through hard work, quality craftsmanship, and a commitment to serving their customers, the business expanded into commercial architectural millwork, institutional cabinetry, and contract furniture, earning a reputation for excellence throughout the Commonwealth. In 2012, the company entered a new chapter when J. Andrew ``Andy'' Keith and his nephew Jonathan Keith acquired the business and continued its tradition of family ownership while building upon its legacy of quality and service.

Today, Morgan Smith Industries employs approximately 30 skilled Kentuckians and continues to invest in the workforce and economy of Adair County. By combining experienced craftsmanship with modern manufacturing techniques, Morgan Smith Industries has become one of Kentucky's premier producers of architectural millwork and custom interior furnishings. The quality of Morgan Smith Industries' work can be found in some of Kentucky's most significant public and private facilities. The company has completed projects for universities, public schools, courthouses, healthcare facilities, government buildings, and commercial developments across the Commonwealth. Among its notable projects are the new Adair County Middle School, the Lexington Federal Courthouse, and the Kentucky State Capitol.

Congratulations to Andy Keith, Jonathan Keith, and the entire team at Morgan Smith Industries, LLC. I look forward to their continued growth and success in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the previously scheduled rollcall vote commence immediately.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there are 40 trillion reasons why new spending should be offset by cuts elsewhere.

We are approaching $40 trillion in debt. The interest is a trillion dollars a year. Interest rates are rising. Likely the biggest threat to our country is our national debt.

No one disputes that our veterans deserve to receive the benefits they earned through years of service to our Nation, but we should offset it. There is waste in abundance throughout our budget. There is no reason why we shouldn't cut waste to pay for this.

What I proposed is a simple amendment to this legislation that would basically get rid of money that hasn't been spent over the last 10 years in welfare for refugees. They keep allocating a couple billion dollars more

every year. The fund now has $26 billion in it.

Refugees shouldn't be getting welfare. You should be coming to our country for the American dream. This is not the American dream to come here for welfare. We should not have welfare for refugees or anybody-- legal or illegal--coming into this country.

In fact, it is the law of the land that if you come here legally, you are not eligible for welfare for 5 years unless you are a refugee and then we say: Oh, well, they can be on welfare, and many of them continue on welfare. In the Somali population, well over 80 percent of the Somalis are on welfare 10 years after they get here.

So what I am proposing is, if we want to do this, if we think this is fair to add the disability spending to the retirement spending and not have any kind of canceling out, pay for it. Why don't we end this refugee program? That is all I am asking.

If you want to help and provide more money for soldiers who are retired or disabled, do that, but pay for it by not giving money to refugees.

So it is easy. We should do it. But when people say around here: ``Oh, we don't need to do this'' and ``this is too important to offset with a cut,'' that is why we are $40 trillion in the hole.

Interest rates over a trillion. That is paying at about 2.5 percent, on average. The latest Treasury sales of 30-year bonds was 5.2 percent. If we roll over the debt and pay all of it at 5 percent, then we are talking about $2 trillion in debt payments each year.

So, yes, we have to be responsible. Money doesn't grow on trees. We can't simply say: Well, this is for a good cause; therefore, we are just going to explode the debt.

I mean, ADM Mike Mullen was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and he said that the biggest threat to our Nation was not from without, but it was from within. It is from the debt we are accumulating.

So just saying something is a good cause is not enough. We have to pay for it. There is waste up and down and all throughout our budget. And for goodness' sake, we should use this as an opportunity to say: We have this and it is a good thing and we can go ahead and do this, but we will do it by getting rid of bad spending.

You know, we still have nearly a billion dollars that we are doling out to Afghanistan.

We wasted trillions of dollars on that war. We were there for 20 years. We have gone. And there is an allegation that money from that reconstruction fund goes to NGOs and that it still winds up in the hands of the Taliban, to this day.

There are all kinds of money throughout government. There is said to be $180 billion worth of improper payments in government.

Should we let people keep writing checks to people who are ripping off the system? Did you not see what happened in Minnesota? Nine billion dollars is being stolen. They set up a daycare, and nobody really comes. They set up a center for autism. They had a ``Learing Center.'' They left out the ``n'': L-e-a-r-i-n-g. And they were taking your money.

Why shouldn't we just cut that out? Why shouldn't we quit doing that? Why shouldn't we save money if there is something better to be done with the money? But just spending money, no matter how good the cause, is not what we should do.

I object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, when we are told that we need to spend billions of dollars on a new program and yet we are unwilling to cut any spending from anywhere else, we should say: Well, aren't there some areas that we could all agree with?

So there is an Agency called the National Science Foundation. They have an $8.6 billion budget. About $8.5 billion is spent on crazy stuff. William Proxmire first started talking about the National Science Foundation in the 1970s, when he would give a Golden Fleece Award. One of the first awards was for a project that was $50,000. This was a while ago. It was only $50,000, but they were going to study what makes people happy. Does anybody think that is a good use of your money: What makes people happy?

Why do people fall in love--another 50 grand. Now, that might be a fun or interesting article in Cosmopolitan, but when we have a $40 trillion debt, maybe we should cut some of their money.

One of my favorite studies was this: They wanted to determine whether tequila or gin made people more feisty, more cantankerous, more likely to commit violence. So they got codfish, and they guzzled--you know, they poured the tequila down the mouth of a codfish and then the gin. And I will bet you we can just poll the audience: Tequila, of course.

But that is the kind of crap your money is going to. And if we are not willing to cut any of that, even for a good cause, why are we here?

Why does it get worse every year? Because nobody cuts.

For the National Science Foundation, we doubled their budget a couple of years ago. Not more than 2 or 3 years ago, there was a study--it was about a million dollars--and they wanted to know: Are Japanese quail more sexually promiscuous when they are on cocaine? We can probably poll the audience on that one.

Another one of my favorites is--this was three-quarters of a million dollars, and they wanted to know: What did Neil Armstrong say when he landed on the Moon? So if you ever remember this from 50-some-odd years ago--the crackly sort of audio and the black-and-white video--and he says, ``One small step for man.'' Or did he say, ``One small step for a man''? So we spent 750 grand to study and listen to the old tape of Neil Armstrong to see: Did he say, ``One small step for man,'' or ``One small step for a man''?

To make matters worse, to make it even more insulting, this was $750,000 that had been designated for autism research; and instead of it going to autism research, it was secondarily contracted out to study what Neil Armstrong had to say.

Two million dollars was spent studying whether or not, if you go to the cafeteria and the person in front of you

sneezes on the food, are you more or less likely to take the food that somebody just sneezed on. This is crazy. It is insulting, and it is ridiculous.

Why shouldn't we cut some of that waste and use it for this new veterans program. And this isn't a veterans program where there is or there isn't money. There is money being spent. This is to allow more money for a veterans program. This isn't to supply money to people who aren't getting any money.

I am for--we are a rich country. We should do it. But we should cut spending from where we are wasting it, and there are plenty of alternatives. If the Senator has another alternative where he would like to cut spending, I am your guy. I am for cutting spending across the board. There is waste everywhere.

But rather than come forward with programs that are feel-good and that have sympathetic people you want to help, come forward with these programs and say: But I am conservative. I worry about the debt. I worry about the trillion dollars in interest. And this is how we will pay for them.

Until that day, I will object.

Mr. President, there is no money in this bill for a ballroom. In addition, the pending amendment contains matters not within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee and is therefore a poison pill that would prevent the Senate from funding border security.

Therefore, I raise a point of order under section 313(b)1(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Madam President, the DHS funding bill that we just passed in April included $20 million in funding for defense facilities' inspections.

For months, Republicans have negotiated with Democrats to fund border security and immigration enforcement. Democrats walked away from these negotiations. Now they want to insist on terms for a bill they will not vote for.

Republicans are doing the responsible thing. We are funding our law enforcement officers and making sure our border remains secure. This amendment is a distraction from paying our Border Patrol and a poison pill to the bill.

The pending amendment would cause the underlying bill to exceed the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee section 302(a) allocation of new budget authority or outlays.

Point of Order

Therefore, I raise a point of order against this amendment pursuant to section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, the DHS funding bill we passed in April included $257 million for the inspector general and $20 million specifically for detention facility inspections.

Republicans are doing the responsible thing today; we are funding our law enforcement officers and making sure our borders remain secure.

This amendment will cause the underlying bill to exceed the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee section 302(a) allocation of new budget authority for ICE and is a poison pill for this bill.

Point of Order

Therefore, I raise a point of order against this amendment, pursuant to section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Motion to Waive

Mr. President, what we have here is a failure to understand what is going on. We have been at it for 18 hours. There is no weaponization fund in this bill. Let me repeat: There is no weaponization fund in this bill.

Ironically, the author of this amendment is the one creating a weaponization fund and directing it to pay his chosen group of people.

This amendment is nothing more than a poison pill that would prevent us from doing what is at hand, and that is securing our border, enforcing our immigration laws.

Democrats and some others refuse to vote for $1 for the border. Republicans have stepped up to do the job Democrats refuse to do. We cannot let them hijack this bill at the last moment with an unrelated issue.

Mr. President, this amendment would kill the bill. The budgetary effects of the pending amendment are merely incidental to the nonbudgetary components of the amendment; therefore, I raise a point of order under section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

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

Madam President, Paducah, KY, is a town of 26,000 people on the banks of the Ohio River, known for its barbecue, character, and community. At the heart of that community, for more than 70 years, is the Oscar Cross Boys & Girls Club. What began in the 1950s as a small group of men under the leadership of local parole officer Oscar Cross has since grown into a Paducah institution, serving boys and girls from ages 6 to 18.

Through financial responsibility lessons, health education, literacy programs, and community service projects, the club offers kids much more than just a safe place to go after school. It provides stability, mentorship, and life skills that shape their future.

The future of the club, however, is limited by something as simple as paperwork. The building that houses the Oscar Cross Boys & Girls Club sits on a 3\1/2\-acre lot owned by the city, constrained by a Federal restriction that prevents the property from being transferred to the Boys & Girls Club. As a result, much needed renovations to improve and expand the space they are in is out of reach, kneecapping growth.

According to the club's executive director Andrew McGlenon, transferring the property would allow for renovations and new facilities like a gym and classrooms that would nearly double the daily attendance from 100 to 200 kids.

Congressman Comer and I have introduced legislation to lift the outdated restriction and allow the city of Paducah to transfer the mere 3\1/2\ acres to the club, as has been requested by the city, the club, and the community for several years now. There is no policy change here. It simply seeks to take care of a community back home.

In fact, this is how a unanimous consent request should be used. All parties want to see the land swap effectuated. The only thing the Senate needs to do to ensure that the Boys & Girls Club can better serve its community is to allow this bill to pass today. This isn't a sweeping policy change. This isn't a national regulation. This is something local for a local boys and girls club. I can't imagine why it would be objected to. Passing this bill today will ensure that a cornerstone of Paducah's youth continues to serve generations to come.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1276 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I think the problem we have here is a misunderstanding, and it is sort of a false equivalency that somehow granting a boys and girls club a deed to 3\1/ 2\ acres they have been using for 50-some-odd years that was once held by the Federal Government and is held by the city--to let this boys and girls club have a deed, that that is somehow equivalent to a nationwide regulation with fines and fees.

There are some questions about these smart refrigerators: Are they so smart that they hook themselves up to the internet unbeknownst to the person? The refrigerator shows up in your house and somehow a cord surreptitiously comes out the back and plugs into the cable or it somehow hooks up to your router; it knows your password and has Bluetooth? How do you get a smart refrigerator that spies on you without your hooking it up to the internet? So that is a question.

But the other question and sort of the mistaken notion here is that somehow, when you voluntarily agree to give information, that that is something that libertarians object to. Libertarians object to the government spying on you. If you voluntarily agree to share your information, that has never been something the libertarians object to.

For example, the internet is predicated upon your anonymous information being shared on your purchases. Sharing of information is not something libertarians object to. They object to the government snooping on you and getting your information.

So having a national mandate that you are going to enforce on the refrigerator manufacturers--that you are going to fine them and if they don't pay, they will be held in contempt for--I just don't see that as a very Republican idea to be introducing national regulations.

To say that is equivalent to the Boys & Girls Club--you are going to hold the Boys & Girls Club unless I agree to a national regulation on the smart refrigerators that are surreptitiously somehow hooking themselves up to the internet and spying on us? It sounds like a solution in search of a problem. It also, to most people with common sense, would not seem to be equivalent. I would never in my right mind come to the floor to object to the Boys & Girls Club of Texas. I don't think they are equivalent.

But if you have 30 bills or 100 bills that want to have nationwide regulations--your a.m. radio bill. You want to mandate to the car manufacturers that they have a.m. radio. Why? Technology has gone beyond this in many ways. We have Teslas now, and nobody in their Tesla is going to tune in through an antenna. But, you know, to get an antenna into a Tesla and get it to work, you have to coat the battery with this special coating. It costs a couple hundred dollars. Your bill says that the manufacturers can't charge more for that. So if I sell Teslas and I have to spend $300 to get an a.m. antenna radio working in my Tesla that nobody is going to use, that you are going to mandate on behalf of people who really have a vested interest, a monetary interest, in a.m. radio--there are questions that should be asked, and that should be debated, and that is controversial enough not to be a unanimous consent. A Boys & Girls Club kind of sounds to me like a unanimous consent agreement.

The mistaken notion we have around here is that we want to pass hundreds and hundreds of pieces of legislation that affect policy. What I get every time is ``Well, this legislation only adds $50 million'' or ``It is only going to be $500 million'' because millions of dollars don't matter anymore; nationwide regulations don't matter anymore. Well, it does.

And these are policy differences, and these are honest. These aren't because I dislike you or I dislike your legislation. I don't want a national regulation on refrigerator people. I just don't want it, and I don't see a need for it, and I think it is a reasonable position to take, but it has nothing to do with the Boys Club.

I would promise you, if you have anything to do with Boys & Girls Clubs or any kind of small, parochial interest, you haven't seen me. I don't come to the floor to object to that. But something that is on policy, I do object to, and I have questions about how the refrigerators are surreptitiously hooking themselves up and spying on people.

The thing is, when you go to buy one of these refrigerators, they charge you more, I would assume, for a smart refrigerator, so my guess is they advertise they are smart so they can charge 200 bucks more. I don't know how you are getting a refrigerator with a microphone and the ability to connect to the internet without knowing it because they charge you and it is an incentive for them to advertise this.

So I don't understand where the problem is, nor do I understand how they hook themselves up, so therefore I do object.

Madam President, the interesting thing we hear--you know, because typically you don't hear it from Republicans--nationwide mandates on refrigerators, nationwide mandates on car manufactures, penalties and Federal punishment if we don't comply with the way of thinking that is prescribed by these bills. What we didn't hear, though, was any kind of objection to the idea or explanation of how your refrigerator is going to spy on you.

I think it sort of assumes the notion that people are not competent, not smart enough to make any decisions on their own, that Big Brother has to help them out with it.

You have to imagine that someone is buying a smart refrigerator that is going to cost you a couple hundred bucks more than a non-smart refrigerator, is going to cost you more--I can't imagine it isn't advertised. So

let's say you pay $200 more for your refrigerator than you would normally, you get a smart one, and you take it home. I still didn't hear any explanation of how it spies on you. How does it spy on you unless you hook it up to the internet? Short of that, your refrigerator is not spying on you. ``Big Refrigerator'' is not spying on you. They are offering you a service if you choose to use it, and you have to choose to use it. You could also choose not to buy it.

Regulation like this are the regulations of the left and of Big Brother, who thinks that Americans are incompetent and can't make their decisions. But regulations like this add up, and they add to the cost of refrigerators, they add to the cost of appliances.

Just go to California. In California, you will see a tag on everything that says ``doesn't cause cancer anywhere else in the United States but may cause cancer in California'' because they have over- labeled everything to death.

It really isn't the business of the Federal Government to be involved with this.

They need to be committed to the rules of fraud. They shouldn't be able to sell something to you that is hooking itself up to the internet. But if you have to hook it up--if you have ever Bluetoothed something, you have to do something. The internet just doesn't come and grab your picture on the refrigerator or listen to your microphone. It has to be hooked up to the internet. You have to do this.

So there ought to be some thought that goes into this.

I am disappointed that you choose to hurt the Boys & Girls Club, but what is the alternative? I have to just say: I won't use my brain. I won't think about the consequences of this bill. I won't think about how it goes against our philosophy of adding more Federal regulations. I won't think about the cost to corporations. I won't think about the nonsensical assertion that it is going to spy on you without you knowing it because it is going to hook itself up to the internet. I am supposed to ignore all that and take that in order to get a deed for a Boys & Girls Club. I find this a false equivalency and insincere.

Every objection I have to every one of your other bills is a debatable item based on philosophy. If you have a philosophical difference with this, come to the floor and tell us why you hate the Boys & Girls Club of Paducah, but don't come to us and say: Well, you have to accept a regulation on refrigerators in order to help the Boys & Girls Club--which doesn't cost anything. It is a bizarre, arcane thing. The Federal Government, I think, owned the land, gave it to the city, and said the city couldn't transfer it 50 years ago. The Boys & Girls Club has been on this land for 50 years, but they don't have the title, so we are trying to give them the title through legislation.

This is exactly the kind of stuff that, because it doesn't affect nationwide policy, shouldn't have to go to committee, shouldn't have to come to the floor, shouldn't have to tie up a lot of time. These are the things we can dispense with. But a nationwide regulation on cars shouldn't be adopted without debate and without the normal procedure of the Senate. This is a special procedure. We only do things unanimously that typically we agree on.

If we want to have sense of the Senate to recognize John Lewis or a sense of the Senate to recognize some individual, those are the kinds of things we do unanimously, but we don't typically do policy or regulations for the whole country unanimously.

So I hope there is a better way out where we can think about treating and figuring out what levels of legislation rise to the ability of having a serious debate over and what things are parochial and really could be passed unanimously.