John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to complete my remarks before the scheduled recess.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it seems these days--and this is not a great development, but it seems these days as if Democrats love to hate anything that Republicans--and particularly President Trump--suggest or propose or do, especially when it comes to ways to try to shrink the size of our government and rightsize bloated Federal programs. They have spent a lot of time and energy catastrophizing about all the supposed dangers of the One Big Beautiful Bill--one of the most important achievements of this administration and Congress so far. The truth about the One Big Beautiful Bill is that it prevented the largest tax hike in American history and puts more money back in the pockets of hard-working Americans. Now, you would think that alone would be a good reason to support the One Big Beautiful Bill, but there is more. The main way they have opposed that bill is by mischaracterizing it and outright misrepresenting what is contained in it. One of the accusations made is that it will take away healthcare coverage from people who need it. Democratic Leader Senator Schumer said of the bill: There is nothing beautiful about stripping away people's healthcare, forcing kids to go hungry, denying communities the resources they need, and increasing poverty. Minority whip Senator Durbin claimed that we are going to be taking coverage away from 16 million families. Now, if true, these accusations would be serious, but they are not true. In the more than 2 months since the One Big Beautiful Bill became law, the Congressional Budget Office has shed some light on this matter and I think done a tremendous job of truth-telling, and it is important to delve deeper into what they have said about this so the American people can know what the truth is. CBO estimates that 10 million people will lose coverage due to the One Big Beautiful Bill. Now, again, that estimate without context seems pretty serious, but we have to ask, who are these 10 million people? Are they elderly grandmothers? Are they disabled citizens? Are they children? people who have no access to other resources? In fact, they are not. And I have no doubt that my colleagues will argue that they are in the coming months. In the coming months, ahead of the midterm elections, we will hear more about that, which is one reason why I wanted to come in and present the facts. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 3.7 million of this 10 million--3.7 million of this 10 million--already had access through another form of federally subsidized healthcare. That is more than a third of that 10 million. When we take this examination of the facts a step further, we see that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 5.3 million Americans out of that 10 million are individuals who choose not to work, which is one of the new requirements of the One Big Beautiful Bill. These programs are supposed to go to the deserving and the needy, not to people who like to sit on the couch and play video games or otherwise not contribute to their own welfare. Work requirements for able-bodied adults were an important provision that I championed in this bill, and I am glad we got it done as part of this legislation. So able-bodied adults who willingly refuse to work shouldn't expect a handout from the Federal Government or the taxpayers who do work. It is only right that those who are able to work do so or at least demonstrate they are actively looking for a job or participating in some sort of job training or volunteer services. Those are other alternatives to work: looking for a job or volunteering or training for work. Seems like a reasonable requirement to me. There is just no reason for taxpayers to continue to pick up the tab for able-bodied Americans who choose not to enter the labor force. And the truth is, we need them in the workforce. We need more people in the workforce, which is one of the issues I hear people talk about as I travel my State and around the country. We need the workforce to be able to keep our economy going and to provide for those who need help. So able-bodied adults who are choosing not to comply with these work requirements make up more than half of those 10 million who will lose coverage, but they can change that. They can simply choose to work or study or go to school or volunteer, and they would get those benefits. But if you consciously choose not to, it makes sense to me that taxpayers should not be required to subsidize that. Next, the CBO also estimates that 2\1/2\ million of the 10 million are not actually eligible for the program to begin with. That is a quarter of that 10 million aren't even eligible. If we want to make sure that our safety net programs work and are stable, we have to ensure the benefits are actually going to people whom Congress has made eligible for these programs in the first place. As the Presiding Officer knows, one of the biggest issues confronting our country is that we are $37 trillion in debt, and we can't just keep printing money and spending money and bankrupting our country and threatening the welfare of future generations. We have a present-day responsibility to address that, and we know that the status quo was not sustainable. Assuring those who do not actually qualify are not taking benefits away from those who do is only common sense. It is the least we can do. But that is not all. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 1.4 million of those who would lose coverage are actually not citizens in the first place, which is another category of ineligible individuals. So Congress has never authorized federally subsidized health coverage for noncitizens. I don't think the American people who voted overwhelmingly for President Trump last November did so because they want to see taxpayers subsidize illegal aliens' healthcare. In addition to the categories I just mentioned, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the remaining loss of coverage will be the result of reducing waste, fraud, and abuse within these programs-- again, something that is not particularly controversial, and I can't think of a single Texan I have talked to who was supportive of spending more of their hard-earned money for fraudulent or wasteful programs. In fact, the opposite is the case. So at the end of the day, when we look at the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office that keeps the official scorecard for the U.S. Government, the story it tells is far different from the tale that our Democratic colleagues are trying to tell the American people. The One Big Beautiful Bill is not taking healthcare coverage away from grandmas who are on a fixed income or single mothers. Rather, the reforms to the Medicaid Program in the One Big Beautiful Bill will ensure that the money that is spent goes to people who are eligible and who need it the most. That is the truth about the One Big Beautiful Bill. So as much as my Democratic colleagues love to hate it, at the end of the day, this single legislative achievement of President Trump's second term of office delivers necessary reforms that will make life better for the American people. Republicans will continue to never mind the naysayers and keep telling our constituents the truth about the One Big Beautiful Bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, since he was sworn into office on January 20 of this year, President Trump has done more for the cause of peace in Eastern Europe than the Biden administration did in the 3 previous years. This was evident last month when President Trump met with President Putin in Alaska to discuss peace in Ukraine. President Trump is performing an important service to the West by attempting to negotiate a brokered peace. His goal is as simple as it is profound: true and lasting peace. It is an understatement to say a lot is at stake--ending the continued suffering and loss of life, halting Putin's land grab, and restoring Ukraine's economy and territorial integrity. While Putin has suggested that peace would ultimately equate with victory for Russia, I suggest that this war has resulted in nothing less than a strategic loss for Russia and the Russian people. There seems to be a prevailing narrative that Putin is winning and Ukraine is losing and that the purpose of ending this war is simply to mitigate further damage to Ukraine while appeasing the aggressor, Russia. But if we consider all that has happened in the last 2\1/2\ years, a much different picture becomes apparent. Not only has Russia failed to achieve its operational objectives, it has also suffered significant strategic setbacks that will impact that country for years to come. In February of 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine with the goal of marching to Kyiv and reestablishing Ukraine as part of Russia, restoring that part of the Soviet Union, so to speak. Putin, at first, very nearly succeeded. The Russian army came within miles of Kyiv. But then what happened? Well, to the surprise of many, including Putin, Ukraine mounted an intense resistance, and with support from its allies and partners, it turned the tide of war and reversed Russia's gains, retaking much of that territory and at times even pushing into Russian territory. Now, current estimates are that Russia holds approximately 20 percent of prewar Ukraine territory, but this is a far cry from Putin's prewar aspirations. Not only did the Ukrainians succeed in preventing a complete Russian victory, with support from the West, they have also dealt strategic blows to Russia, the effects of which will reverberate for decades. Let's consider Russia's standing as a significant military force and their ability to project power before the war as compared to today. Part of Putin's plan to invade Ukraine was to demonstrate their military might. However, more than 2 years in, we see how Ukraine has significantly degraded Russia's ability to project both power at sea and in the air. Before the war, Russia would have a significant military presence on the Black Sea and freedom of movement into the Mediterranean. But through daring and ingenuity and despite having no standing navy, Ukraine severely degraded the Russian Navy, sinking more than 26 ships, or about a third of its Black Sea Fleet, and forcing retreat to harbors closer to home and limiting their ability to influence the war. All of this happened while the Russian fleet was already suffering from aging ships in need of repair, while Russian shipbuilding has not been able to keep up with repairing and replacing these old and damaged vessels. More significantly, Ukraine's successful attacks on the Russian strategic bomber fleet this past June, which they carried out via Operation Spider's Web, neutralized approximately 40 Russian bombers across 5 military bases--in all, about a third of Russia's strategic bomber force. More recently, Ukraine has successfully targeted Russian energy assets, which is the main source of revenue that it uses to fuel the war. Now let's consider Russia's security posture in relation to Europe. In invading Ukraine, Putin sought to counter what he characterized as NATO expansionism. Yet his actions ultimately triggered the accession of Finland and Sweden into NATO--two countries which had opted to remain outside the security alliance for decades. Consequently, not only will NATO enjoy the unique arctic military capabilities that those countries possess, it will also benefit from extending the NATO border more than 800 miles with Russia, further stretching an already depleted Russian military. Beyond pushing NATO to expand, Putin's war in Ukraine laid bare the realities of our security relationship with NATO and highlighted what President Trump has been saying for years--that the European allies need to contribute more to their collective security. This effort seems to be paying dividends, as we most recently saw NATO member states in the 2025 Hague Summit committing to increase their security-related spending to 5 percent of their GDP within the next decade. We can also see how the war in Ukraine has undermined Russian global influence and stature. We see this in places like Armenia, where Russian influence has been waning since 2022, most recently culminating in the withdrawal of a large portion of their security forces and Armenia's potential full withdrawal from the Collective Security Treaty Organization. Additionally, whereas Russia used to be the mediator of a longstanding dispute between Armenia and its neighbor Azerbaijan, America has been able to exploit their absence most recently by President Trump's skillfully negotiated peace agreements between those long-warring nations. This agreement will cultivate political and economic relationships, increase opportunity for American investment in the energy-rich Caucasus, and facilitate regional economic integration through the establishment of the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity, all at the expense of Vladimir Putin. We also see what has happened to Russia's influence in the Middle East and especially Syria. In April, Germany reported that it had expelled 40 Russian intelligence officers. Similarly, France has expelled 41 likely Russian spies. Nearly half of Russia's intelligence officers, about 400 by some estimates, have been expelled from Europe since 2022. According to some officials, this may have reduced Russia's ability to collect intelligence against our allies in Europe by about half. This would seem to indicate, of course, a significant setback in their operations in Europe and one which would require time and resources and European good will to reestablish. I doubt that Russia will have any of those things in the near term. But perhaps the most significant cost of this war has been the human cost. Russia has suffered immense casualties, surpassing 1 million so far. But it has become apparent that Putin doesn't care how many Russians he needs to sacrifice to his aspirations to reconstitute the Russian Empire or influence in Europe. Ukrainian casualties have been significant, too--at least 400,000 since 2022, while upward of 20,000 Ukrainian children have simply been abducted by Russia and remain missing. But the human cost of this war is far beyond the mere casualty count. Russia suffered from a brain drain as high-achieving Russians have fled the country in order to avoid serving in the military. The year following the invasion, Russia had nearly 1 million young workers leave the country. Those fleeing the country are highly concentrated among the young and educated. Eighty percent have a college education and 86 percent are under the age of 45. According to one account, Russia's loss of highly skilled workers may be its most significant economic damage. Lastly, Russia has suffered severe damage to its economy as Western countries have imposed sanctions and limited their access to global markets. We have seen many European nations make efforts to wean themselves off of Russian oil and gas in order to diversify their own supplies and avoid subsidizing the Russian war effort. I am proud of the fact that the State of Texas has helped fill much of that gap. And I am hopeful that ongoing trade negotiations with India and the EU will further curtail Russia's ability to fund its war machine with the sale of fossil fuels. Russia's shift through a wartime economy will have lasting negative consequences for a long time into the future. It has been spending as much as 40 percent of its annual expenditures on defense or offense, as is obvious here; something we know from experience is unsustainable in the long term and obviously of little benefit to the Russian people. So all things considered, Russia has suffered a significant strategic loss by their invasion of Ukraine. Apart from failing to conquer Ukraine, they incurred enormous losses to their ability to project power and to collect human intelligence abroad. They spurred their NATO neighbors to take their security more seriously and strengthen the alliance of which Putin has been so fearful. They have been unable to support their traditional allies in the Caucasus and the Middle East, opening up opportunities for American alliances and investment. And they suffered tremendous human and financial cost that will endure for years beyond any forthcoming peace. As we continue to support President Trump's peace efforts in this conflict, let's keep in mind that Russia has not and is not winning this war when viewed from the larger context. Putin and his country have suffered enormous losses in many different areas. But it is clear that Putin's motivation is not driven by a sober cost-benefit analysis but rather by delusions of grandeur and reestablishment of the Russian Empire. This past April, in his annual state of the nation address, Putin said the demise of the Soviet Union ``was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.'' Putin is not a pragmatist. He is not moved by cost-benefit. He is not moved by the loss of a million Russian casualties. The best way to bring Putin to the negotiating table with a sincere desire to end this war is by making clear that he has not and cannot win this war. We and our allies need to continue to impose greater costs in the form of additional punishing sanctions, especially on their oil production, which largely finances, as I said, the Russian war machine. Putin is not going to change his stripes and his ambitions remain unchecked. The surest way of ending the war and securing the lasting peace will be a united West showing Putin that he cannot win. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking our colleagues--particularly from Oklahoma and Alabama--for leading the working group that was appointed by the majority leader to try to solve this problem. In their typical deliberative, careful, and thoughtful fashion, they could have come up with a lot of ideas that would, I think, perhaps overreach, but rather than do that, they have come up with a solution that Democrats themselves have proposed, which strikes me as the epitome of fairness. But there are three main points I want to make before I sort of summarize where I think we are. First of all, as my colleagues have eloquently noted, we have exhausted virtually every other alternative to this vote to overrule the Parliamentarian and establish a new precedent, which is an alternative to a formal rule change which takes 67 votes. But we know our colleagues will never vote for that, leaving us no alternative but to invoke what is sometimes called the nuclear option. But as our colleague from Missouri just pointed out, this is really not so much a nuclear option as a restoration option. This is restoring the Senate to the way it used to work--not just before President Trump was reelected but for the last couple of hundred years, where we had an orderly process to consider a President's nominees, a committee process to vet them, and then a debate and a vote on the Senate floor, so that the mandate of the voters in the Presidential election could be carried out by the President. So we have tried virtually everything else, but I am going to give them one last chance here in a minute, but then as I have been thinking about it: What have we been doing as we have spent hour upon hour, day upon day, week upon week trying to move through all of these various Senate-confirmed nominees, with no help--not just no help but with active obstruction--from our Democratic colleagues? I think about all of the other things that we could be working on-- even together--bipartisan solutions to our Nation's biggest problems and challenges. Economists call that opportunity cost. In other words, when you are mired down in this mindless obstruction and blocking any nominee just because they happen to be nominated by President Trump, you are missing the opportunity to do other important things. I know all of my colleagues--all 100 of us--came here to, hopefully, do important things, and that has been the source of great consternation and disappointment, I know, to many of us. But then I think about the people who have been nominated by President Trump. I have had them tell me this is an honor of a lifetime--people who have enjoyed tremendous success in business or in their professional lives to then give all that up in order to serve their country. These are patriots, and it is profoundly unfair to them, to their families, and to the American people to continue to block these nominees and leave them, basically, hanging in the wind. I have talked to many of them myself, these nominees, with their asking: Senator, when can I expect a vote on the Senate floor? I say: Well, I don't know. Many of them have said: Well, I have had to quit my job or sell my business. I have had to go through a rigorous vetting process for ethics and legal conflicts of interest and I am waiting and my family is waiting, not knowing whether we will be going to, maybe, an Embassy somewhere around the world or serving in some other important position here in Washington, DC, in the Trump administration. So this is profoundly unfair to them. And we wonder whether we are having a hard time getting good people to want to serve in government. Well, thankfully, there are still people who are willing to do it, despite the way they get treated when they are nominated. Thank goodness there are still good people who want to serve. Our Nation depends on it. But just to summarize, more than 140 of President Trump's nominees are waiting to be voted on as we speak. I don't know how you argue the converse of what I feel to be the case, which is the President won the election on November 5, and he is entitled to his team. He is at least entitled to an up-or-down vote on the nominations, and the American people are the ones who actually gave him that mandate. This is a kick in the teeth, a punch in the gut to those voters who voted for President Trump in this last election, expecting that he would bring change to Washington, DC, but he can't accomplish that mandate without his team. As we have heard, Senate Democrats are now engaged in an unprecedented level of obstruction, preventing these nominees from being confirmed and burning up all the floor time when we are in session on waiting around to vote on these nominees, most of whom in the past would have been confirmed by a voice vote or some sort of an expedited process--by consent even--but not with Donald J. Trump as President. Democrats have taken a completely different approach in obstructing each and every one of his nominees. Most of these individuals are uncontroversial. I remember the other day, we were voting on the general counsel for advocacy for the Small Business Administration, and I asked myself: What is that? And, yes, maybe--just maybe--we should limit the number of Senate-confirmed positions. I think that might be a good exercise to go through and see: Are there people who currently require Senate confirmation for whom it really isn't necessary because they only serve for a short period of time under the leadership of, maybe, a member of the President's Cabinet who is Senate-confirmed? Under George Herbert Walker Bush and President Clinton, 98 percent of those nominees were confirmed by unanimous consent. Under George W. Bush and President Obama, 90 percent were confirmed by unanimous consent, which is no debate, no argument--just a unanimous consent request, without objection, so ordered. During President Trump's first term in office, only 65 percent were. So you can see the slide from 98 to 90 to 65. What we have also learned is what goes around comes around. With President Biden, his number was 57 percent, but that is a far cry from what we have seen in President Trump's second term, with zero--zero--of these noncontroversial nominees, patriots. They want nothing but to serve their country, but they are being denied that opportunity out of blind, partisan obstruction--mindless obstruction. The only way it can be explained, the Senator from Missouri mentioned, is with Trump derangement syndrome, and this is it in all of its ugly manifestations. There is no other explanation. Now, changing the Senate rules is not something we do lightly because we know what goes around comes around, but the truth is, Republicans are more than willing to live with the change in the rules when Democrats are in the majority, when there is a Democrat President, which someday there may well be. So we are acting on behalf of all Senators, of all Presidents, of all nominees, and the entire American people when we say something has to change, and we are going to change it this week. I know all of us would prefer to deal with this in some way other than overruling the Parliamentarian and invoking the so- called nuclear option, but we have exhausted all of the other possibilities, with one exception, perhaps. In a moment, I am going to propose a unanimous consent request on a resolution that would allow the majority leader to call up at least 10 nominees advanced out of the same committee to be considered for a vote en bloc, or all together. This is something very similar to that which the chairman of the Rules Committee, Senator Klobuchar from Minnesota, and Angus King, an Independent from Maine, had proposed in 2023. If Democrats were really interested in solving the problem, if they were really interested in restoring the Senate to its previous reputation as the world's greatest deliberative body, they wouldn't object; they would agree. It is their idea, but what remains to be seen is whether Senate Democrats will agree to their own proposal. If Senate Democrats will consent to this proposal which I will propound momentarily, which will allow the en bloc consideration of nominees, then we can avoid a rule change, but if they block this resolution, they will show their true colors. They will show that this is not about deliberation; that this is not about what is in the best interests of the American people; that this is not about genuine oversight--but that this is naked, partisan obstruction. It will then be clear to all of us across the country that Democrat objections to changing the rules have nothing--nothing--to do with preserving the institutional integrity of the Senate and more to do with their crusade against President Trump and the American people who elected him last November 5. We will see if Senate Democrats would prefer to continue their historic obstruction or whether they would consent to let us carry out the essential function of this Chamber to provide a vote. That is all we are asking for is a vote on the nominations. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 379 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, of course, I am disappointed that our colleague from California is objecting on behalf of the Democrats in the Chamber, but I just want to summarize what I think I heard him say. First, Democrats are prepared to hold all these nominees hostage pending some sort of agreement. Well, you heard the Senator from Alabama, the Senator from Missouri, and the Senator from Oklahoma all talk about the endless discussions with individual members of the Senate Democrats, many of whom are sympathetic to the problem but were powerless to change it because the leadership--the minority leader, the Senator from New York--who controls that caucus would not hear of any sort of negotiation. We are all accustomed to negotiating around here. We do it on a daily basis. But we have tried, in good faith, every possible permutation, short of this action that we are taking today. But I have to ask, is it in good faith to say: Let's wait until 2029 to change the rules? What is President Trump supposed to do over the next 3 years? Govern with one arm tied behind his back, without the team that he has selected to help him govern the country? He won the election on last November 5. He got a mandate. People are sick and tired of the status quo here in Washington, DC. They want to see change. They want to see things shaken up. But now Democrats are saying: You have got to wait until 2029. That is obviously unacceptable. And then, finally, I would just point out we could have offered a number of different solutions to this problem, some that, perhaps, would advantage Republicans and disadvantage Democrats, but we haven't done that. We said: Let's take the Democratic proposal from 2023 and offer that. Surely, they would think that is reasonable since they themselves have proposed it in the first instance. But what we have just heard is that Democrats won't even agree to that--their own proposal, their own idea. So, to me, it is abundantly clear that we have exhausted all the opportunities for negotiation. We have vetted a number of different alternatives, but it is this all- consuming, mindless partisan objection to President Trump and his policies that are blinding our Democratic colleagues from doing what they know is right, which is having a way, with debate and with votes, to give the American people a President who has a team to carry through the policies that they voted for on November 5. So, Mr. President, I am disappointed but not surprised, but I think we have done everything we can. This obstruction has to end, and it will end very soon.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know all of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, are anxious to be able to go back home and talk to their constituents, perhaps have a long-delayed medical procedure or doctor visit, or simply take a family vacation during the traditional August recess. My Republican colleagues and I are, likewise, eager to go back home and talk about the benefits of the One Big Beautiful Bill. I was in Amarillo, TX, in the Texas panhandle on Friday, and just in having a back-and-forth Q&A with the folks who were there, it is evident to me that there is so much in the bill that it takes a while to really explain the benefits. We know we avoided a tax increase that would have totaled trillions of dollars, roughly benefiting $3,000 per Texas family. But there were other benefits that helped our agriculture community, things that, ordinarily, we would have put in a farm bill but made sure we strengthened the safety net for the folks who produce our food and fiber. And then there are other provisions, like the no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security, or overtime. So there is so much in the bill that is hard to communicate, which means we need to get back home and talk about that and why it is a grand slam home run for our constituents. But having said that, I don't believe that the Senate should leave town without ensuring that President Trump has his nominees and his team in place. We still have somewhere on the order of 140 backlogged nominees by this President that have been obstructed by the Democrats. We find ourselves really in an unprecedented situation where Democrats, rather than picking and choosing the nominees they choose to object to, have simply chosen to object to all of them, forcing us to burn a lot of valuable floor time that we could be using for other more constructive purposes and delaying President Trump who, after all, won the election last November, the team that he is entitled to help him govern and carry out his policies. It is absolutely unprecedented, the sort of stonewalling that we are up against. Our Democratic colleagues, after all, are the ones who are holding up this process. I know some people listening may say: Well, isn't this sort of partisan grid lock normal? The answer is no. We certainly have our fights here and that is OK, that is all well and good. But the reason why Republicans are complaining and the President is complaining about Democratic obstruction is that there is no precedent for objecting to nominees by a President by allowing either a voice vote, which is a nonrollcall vote, or unanimous consent when they are noncontroversial nominees. This chart to my left indicates that civilian nominees, as opposed to military nominations--which the Senate also confirms--but nonmilitary nominees confirmed by voice vote or on an expedited basis or unanimous consent during a first term. You see George Herbert Walker Bush. So 98 percent of his nominees to Senate-confirmed positions were confirmed by voice vote or unanimous consent. Again, Clinton, similar numbers, 98 percent. Then you get to George W. Bush and Barack Obama. That number dropped from 98 percent to 90 percent. That is still a pretty good record of expediting these nominees, making sure that the President, whether that President be a Democrat or Republican, have their team on board, which is what the American people voted for when they were elected. Then you see when President Trump came along, the rules of the road were changed where only 65 percent of his first-term nominees were confirmed by voice vote or unanimous consent on an expedited basis. It literally took years for President Trump to get all his nominees on board because of the foot- dragging by our Democratic colleagues back in his first term. Then you see what goes around comes around. Biden's nominees, roughly 57 percent of them, handled on an expedited basis. But what we have seen this term, after this most recent election, is without any precedent, as you can see here. Basically, what our Democratic colleagues are saying is we will agree to no confirmation votes on Trump nominees during his second term. This is part of what, I guess, you would call the resistance and the polarization of our politics and the fact that our Democrats are not the Democrats of old. These are radicalized people who cannot agree to anything, even when it really is not something that is controversial. Again, it is fine to disagree about things that we do disagree on. We see the world in a different way or we think we have different and better ideas about what would serve the interest of the American people. But to mindlessly object to President Trump's nominees and deny the American people the benefit of their vote in the last election is simply unfair. It is unfair to the American people whose interests are being harmed by denying these people from being in place and doing their job. It is unfair to President Trump, who is being denied the team that he is entitled to help him carry out his policies. And, finally, it is unfair to the nominees themselves, many of whom have quit their jobs, sold their business, and are simply waiting month after month after month to be able to be confirmed. These are people who are, by and large, not political partisans. They are people who are interested in serving their country in some capacity or another. Many of these nominees--I think, roughly, 30 of them--are Senate- confirmed nominees to serve as an ambassador in our embassies around the world. I don't have to remind all of us that the world has become a much more dangerous place, and the idea that the United States would not have Senate-confirmed Ambassadors in these Embassies around the world is simply shooting ourselves in the foot. China and Russia and our other adversaries certainly have their Ambassadors working in each of those countries to further their interests, but the idea that the United States would be absent because Senate Democrats simply refuse to confirm these Ambassadors is really beyond the pale. It hurts not only the United States and our foreign policy and our diplomatic efforts, but it also, again, causes harm to the individuals who volunteered to give up their lives and their livelihoods to serve our country, just to be left hanging without any real hope of getting confirmed on a timely basis. We are not talking about lifetime-tenured judges. Those, obviously, are sort of a different category. We aren't even talking about the President's Cabinet, which is a handful of his most key and most important advisers. What we are talking about, really, are rank-and- file people who are confirmed by a vote of the Senate. I personally believe that we should change the law and not require Senate confirmation for many of these positions. It is a formality, really, to have to vote on some of these nominees. For example, there is the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration--I am not sure exactly why the Senate should be voting to confirm at all somebody who has been nominated to that position--or the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey or the general counsel for the Veterans' Administration. But regardless of whether or not they should be confirmed by the Senate, they currently are required to be confirmed, and the Democrats simply are mindlessly obstructing the confirmation of these noncontroversial, really apolitical nominees. We also have people like the Federal Transit Administrator and the Director of the Amtrak Board of Directors--both waiting for confirmation. The level of partisan gamesmanship that we are currently seeing is really something we have never seen before. This is not healthy for the country, and it is not healthy for this institution. Again, what we have tended to see is that what goes around comes around. So the temptation will be, if President Trump can't get his team confirmed, when the next Democrat gets elected President of the United States, what will be the natural reaction to that President's nominees? Well, it is going to be to try to do to him what they did to President Trump. I don't think that is good for the country. We need to break this logjam, and we need to do it now. I believe, if we can't reach some sort of negotiated outcome that is satisfactory to President Trump, then we need to either stay here or change the Senate rules. I believe that the status quo is unacceptable and that something has to give. The Senate Democrats are the ones who brought us to where we are today. They are the ones responsible for the blame. But more importantly than that, the American people deserve the services of these individuals who have been nominated for these various Senate- confirmed positions. President Trump is entitled to his team, and this mindless obstruction has to come to an end now. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it is July 30--my older daughter's birthday--but we are approaching a season that Senators and our staffs alike look forward to each year with some anticipation, which is going back home, talking to our constituents--more importantly, listening to our constituents, hearing what is on their minds, and determining how we might do our jobs better. I sometimes, tongue in cheek, refer to Washington, DC, as a forward operating base in hostile territory, but the truth is, many of the most important battles that are fought in our country are fought out here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. But, as we look ahead to next month, it is worth taking stock of where we have come in the first half of the 119th Congress, in the first 6 months of President Trump's tenure as President of the United States--certainly, in his second term, obviously--which has been an amazing record of accomplishment if you look back at it. We have confirmed President Trump's Cabinet at a record pace--no thanks to our Democratic colleagues who have reflexively or, you might even say, mindlessly opposed each and every nominee of this President, with maybe one exception. That would be the Secretary of State, Senator Rubio. In the process of obstructing all of these nominees and forcing us to burn valuable floor time by not agreeing to any voice votes or to the expedited consideration of noncontroversial nominees, they have forced us to burn valuable floor time, during which we might have taken up other important bipartisan matters. Nevertheless, we have done important things--unfortunately, alone on this side of the aisle, without any support from our friends across the aisle--like extending the Trump tax cuts from 2017 and making them permanent, addressing the looming debt ceiling to prevent a national default. We have secured many other important wins for border security and law enforcement through the One Big Beautiful Bill. We also passed our first rescissions package, codifying many of the most important spending reforms identified by the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. While these accomplishments are not insignificant, we are just getting started. As I mentioned, our Democratic colleagues here in the Senate have reflexively and mindlessly opposed President Trump's nominees, but we have confirmed 107 of them while 147 lower level but critical nominees are still waiting to be confirmed by the Senate--147. These include many Ambassadors to key allies around the world that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has voted out of committee. They are waiting for their day on the Senate floor. To date, Senate Democrats have allowed voice votes or given unanimous consent on exactly zero--zero--of President Trump's civilian nominees. This is the only time in recorded history that the minority party has refused to do so on any nominees at this point in a Presidency, and it is shameful. It is inexcusable. They are not hurting Republicans; they are not hurting President Trump. They are hurting the American people because these are people who will serve in critical positions that require Senate confirmation not only here in the United States and the administration but around the world in representing the United States at Embassies all across the planet. Senate Democrats' partisan obstruction is making our country less safe; it is making American foreign policy less effective; and it is ceding the field to our adversaries, who have no problem putting their representatives in these countries which currently lack American Ambassadors. I, for one, believe that if our Democratic colleagues do not relent on this needless and mindless obstruction, Senate Republicans will have to consider what additional steps we need to take in order to expedite this process. There is precedent for this. Back in 2017, when Neil Gorsuch was nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court, our Democratic colleagues refused to grant cloture or closing off debate by giving 60 votes for that purpose. It forced Republicans to change the Senate rules to lower that threshold from 60 down to 51, which had always been the longstanding tradition. Even in spite of the possibility of requiring 60 votes, it simply had not been required previously. And when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada was majority leader, the Democrats changed the threshold for cloture on all other Federal judges from 60 to 51. So in 2017, in order to break that logjam on Supreme Court nominees, Republicans returned the favor. I believe that some similar process by which we set a new precedent on the President's nominees may be necessary before we leave this Chamber, before we leave the Senate and Washington, DC, this month. The President must have his team in place. Again, our Democratic colleagues seem unwilling to accept the fact that President Trump actually won the election, receiving a mandate from the American people. Why else would they obstruct all of his nominees and force us to burn valuable floor time by not agreeing to any sort of expedited process, force us to burn all this valuable floor time just to confirm 107 nominees and leave 147 waiting? It is not fair to the American people because these people are supposed to serve in important positions of responsibility on their behalf. It is not fair to President Trump, who has been denied his team. But it is also not fair to the people who agree to serve in these important Senate-confirmed positions, many of whom have had to sell their businesses, go through a rigorous ethics and legal background scrub, and are simply waiting, day after day after day, will they or won't they, will they or won't they vote to confirm me to this position, which, for many of them--maybe all of them--is an honor of a lifetime. So we owe it to the American people. We owe it to President Trump. We owe it to these nominees who have volunteered to serve their country to vote on these nominees without further delay. There is more work to do. In addition to confirming President Trump's nominees, another task that awaits the Senate upon our return is the National Defense Authorization Act. This is the necessary authorization that Congress passes each year to support our men and women in the military, to make sure that we remain the preeminent military strength in the world, and, as President Trump has said time and time again, to make sure that our main national security policy is peace through strength. We don't want to fight any unnecessary wars, but the best way to avoid fighting wars is through deterrence, and that comes with peace through strength. The Defense authorization bill is the main legislative vehicle for ensuring that our military has the resources they need to achieve the missions of today and to rise to the challenges of tomorrow. We are, I believe, living in the most dangerous world since World War II, and we must take seriously our obligation to authorize additional resources and support the men and women and the families who serve in the U.S. military. We passed the Defense Authorization Act for 63 consecutive years, and 2025 cannot be the year that we break that streak. The Senate Armed Services Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Wicker, has done an excellent job on a bipartisan basis. His committee has already completed the markup of the Defense authorization bill and filed it for consideration on the Senate floor. Last year, in contrast, under the Senator from New York, the Democratic leader Senator Schumer, we did not see the Defense Authorization Act come to the floor until more than 2 months after the September 30 deadline. But I am optimistic now, with new leadership and with Republicans at the helm, we will pass the Defense authorization bill on a timely basis. Finally, in addition to confirming the President's nominees and ensuring our military readiness, Congress needs to fund the government. The end of the fiscal year is the end of September, but our Senate Democratic colleagues are already threatening not to work with us on funding the government--which perhaps is the most basic responsibility of Congress--threatening a harmful and unnecessary government shutdown. But it is clear, with their reluctance to work with us to make sure that that doesn't occur, that the risk of that happening is squarely on their shoulders. Their stated excuse is that they don't agree with some of the things that the Trump administration has been doing. I will remind our colleagues across the aisle that the American people are ultimately the ones who will have to pay the price if they continue to persist in delay tactics that lead to a government shutdown. It is simply mind-boggling to me that our Democratic colleagues would choose to impose a punitive shutdown on the American people as some sort of partisan payback for Republican efforts to put our country on a more sustainable fiscal path. Yes, we are trying to look for efficiency. We are trying to avoid waste, fraud, and abuse due to the efforts of the Department of Government Efficiency and other leaders in the Trump administration, but the fact remains that our country is more than $36 trillion in debt. The only way to ensure that our social safety net programs remain viable for generations to come and that we continue to be the preeminent military power in the world and maintain that deterrence that I spoke of a moment ago, the only way we can do that is by responsibly funding the government, and that has to happen between now and September 30. As the Senate winds down this week, and with a recess approaching, I will remind our Democratic colleagues that our work is cut out for us upon our return, and we have important work to do yet before we leave, particularly with regard to this backlog of 147 nominees. We have had a productive and successful Senate, notwithstanding Democratic obstruction. But I look forward to doing even more, not only in the remaining time before we leave for the recess but when we return from that recess. After all, we should not get bogged down by partisan battles that cause us to neglect our larger responsibility. We are here to represent the 350 million people who call this country home, and it falls to us, on their behalf, to do the job that they sent us here to do and not to engage in this mindless partisanship and increase the dysfunction and inefficiency of that government. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, it won't surprise anybody that the State of Texas has long been the leading State in the cattle industry, supplying the Nation with steaks, hamburgers, and other protein products that grace many of our dinner tables every night. Texas ranks first in the Nation in cattle production, coming in at 12 million head a year, representing nearly 15 percent of the total production in the United States and generating more than $1 billion in revenue. Unfortunately, this essential food supply and corresponding food price are under threat from the outbreak of a particularly pernicious parasite called the New World screwworm. The New World screwworm lays its eggs in the wombs of warmblooded animals, particularly livestock. The larvae then burrow into the opening, creating infections that, left untreated, can cause animals to die within a week. With no known vaccinations to prevent infections, outbreaks in cattle herds require labor-intensive daily inspections of livestock to make sure they have not been infested. Since 2023, there have been outbreaks of this deadly insect in Panama, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, and Costa Rica, a country that ended up declaring the New World screwworm a national emergency in 2024. Last November, the fly made its way back to Mexico. This, of course, has raised concerns among Texas cattle ranchers that it may soon come across the border and lead to an outbreak in our State. Earlier this month, the threat became even more acute as a case of New World screwworm was reported less than 400 miles south of the United States-Mexico border. An outbreak of the New World screwworm in the State of Texas is estimated to cost U.S. livestock producers approximately $1 billion and cost the general economy $3.7 billion due to lost production of meat and milk, as well as livestock death, veterinary costs, labor costs, and more. This would be absolutely devastating to places like Texas but also to the entire country. Knowing I was coming to the floor to speak about this, I asked my staff to look at what other States might be implicated, and it is virtually every State in the Nation, including the great State of Alabama that produces an estimated 1.2 million head of cattle on an annual basis. Thankfully, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has snapped into action. Secretary Rollins is currently working with our international partners on an ambitious plan to slow the spread of this terrible parasite. In May, Secretary Rollins closed U.S. ports to Mexican cattle, bison, and horses to prevent an additional spread. And while these ports were initially scheduled to begin reopening as early as this month, additional cases have delayed that timeline. But, of course, halting our imports will increase costs for all consumers; and while it is an important part of stopping this parasite, it is not a permanent solution. For that, we can look to history as our guide. The last time North America faced a similar outbreak of the screwworm was back in the 1960s. During that contagion, we were able to eradicate these deadly infestations, countering the spread by producing sterile male flies. The sterile male flies mate with the female flies who can only mate once during their lifetime; so, by releasing large numbers of these sterile male flies, the population growth of this parasite can be stopped in its tracks. This approach worked in the 1960s, and I am hopeful that it will work again in this decade. As we speak, there is only one sterile fly plant in North America, located in Panama. This plant is operated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and by COPEG, or the Panama-U.S. Commission for the Eradication and Prevention of Screwworm Infestation in Livestock, which was established in 1998. As the New World screwworm continues traveling north, we need another plan to prevent population spread. A sterile fly plant will cost as much as $300 million according to some estimates, and that is certainly not just pocket change. But it pales in comparison with the cost of not doing anything to eradicate this terrible threat. The economic impact of the devastation that continued spread would cause my State is estimated to be as high as $10 billion, and this would not be limited to Texas, as I said. It would include other cattle-producing States, including Kansas, Nebraska, California, and New Mexico, who, along with Texas, are the primary cattle-producing regions in the country. Recently, the U.S. and Mexican Governments have partnered to invest in renovating the existing fruit fly-producing facility in Mexico, aiming to further the long-term goal of eradication. In addition, USDA is building a sterile fly dispersal facility in Hidalgo, TX, in the Rio Grande Valley. To build on top of these efforts, I will be offering an amendment during the appropriations process on the floor to ensure that the United States is prepared to combat the threat of this parasite. I am grateful to Secretary Rollins for her leadership. As a Texan, perhaps she understands this threat better than most, and I am confident in her strong and decisive leadership toward eradicating this parasite and that it will reap rewards. But it is not going to happen by itself. We are going to have to, unfortunately, not only authorize the production of this sterile fly capability--which we have done in the One Big Beautiful Bill--we are actually going to have to appropriate money to help get this started. I look forward to continuing to work with her and all of my colleagues to ensure that Texas cattle ranchers and our country's food supply are kept safe from this pesky parasite. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in the United States, we justly pride ourselves on being a nation of laws. This is one of the things that makes our country different from the rest of the world. Economists have written about the fact that, while there are many entrepreneurial or innovation societies and economies, it is the rule of law, the predictability, the enforcement of contracts, and the fundamental guarantees of rights that make us successful where other countries fail. Unfortunately, we have seen the undermining of the rule of law, in the last 4 years, by President Biden's refusal to simply enforce our immigration laws. And my prediction is we will be paying the price not just in weeks and months but in years and decades for what has come to be known as the ``Biden border disaster.'' President Biden's policies betrayed the American people because of the lack of leadership in the face of a historic crisis--here, again, of his own making--at the U.S.-Mexico border. Yesterday, I chaired a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary hearing entitled ``Biden's Border Betrayal: Criminal Aliens in America.'' At that hearing, we examined some of the false narratives that the mainstream media have peddled about President Trump's enforcement of our immigration laws. We were honored to be joined by two Angel moms whose children were murdered by criminal aliens who never should have been in the United States in the first place. Marie Vega joined us. Marie is the mother of Javier Vega, Jr., who went by the name ``Harvey.'' Harvey was a Border Patrol agent who was murdered by illegal aliens nearly 11 years ago. I am grateful to her for sharing her story, as painful as I know it must have been for her, and talking about the trauma that she, her grandchildren, and her entire family have experienced over her son's murder. Our second guest was Tammy Nobles. Tammy was the mother of Kayla Hamilton, who was murdered by an illegal alien who was also a member of the MS-13 gang--one of the most violent gangs in the world. Kayla's murderer entered our country as an unaccompanied minor and was later released into the custody of an unvetted sponsor. Mrs. Nobles' passion for ensuring this horrific tragedy won't happen again to more families was evident throughout the hearing. I am grateful to her, again, for sharing what had to be a very painful experience but one she did in honor of her daughter's memory. Our third guest was Victor Avila, a former ICE Homeland Security Investigations agent who, along with his partner, was shot in the line of duty by Los Zetas. Los Zetas is a cartel operating in Mexico and in the United States occasionally. Victor was seriously wounded that day, and his partner was killed. I have known Victor a long time, and he is a steadfast advocate of the rule of law and understands what is required if we are going to keep Americans safe. These families and victims would never have had to suffer such devastating loss were it not for the criminal aliens who never should have been here in the United States in the first place. It was a curious matter to me that our Democratic colleagues claim to be the party of compassion when it comes to immigration, but they would rather society and the media and Congress turn a blind eye to these victims of criminals who entered the country as a result of open border policies. That is not compassion. Some of the individuals ICE-- Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is what the initials stand for, of course--some of the individuals ICE has apprehended recently include murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and sex traffickers. Our fourth guest was Sheriff Roy Boyd of Goliad, TX, a small, South Texas county. He described the horrifying details of human trafficking and criminal activities carried out by the transnational criminal organizations--this is organized crime--the cartels he has witnessed in recent years. He said during his testimony: The border has always been a location for criminal activity, however, I never witnessed such an increase in blatantly open criminal activity as I did between 2021 and 2024. It is truly shocking to think about the sheer number of illegal criminal aliens who are currently roaming free in the United States. Now, you would think, listening to some of my Democratic colleagues, that ICE is arresting gardeners, cooks, housekeepers--people who are basically just trying to earn a living. But the truth is, there are 291,000--291,000--criminal aliens in the United States who are under final orders of removal. That means they have exhausted all potential legal remedies to be able to stay here, and they have been found not qualified to stay, and they have been ordered removed, but they simply ignored that order by a court. For this fiscal year alone, 213,000 criminal aliens with final orders of removal have criminal convictions, while another 78,000 have pending criminal charges against them. Even more disturbing is the fact that 282,000 of these criminal aliens are still roaming free, not being held in ICE custody. I know Tom Homan, who is the border czar who is heading up these efforts, is working to chip away at this list of criminal aliens who are still present in the United States who are under final orders of deportation. But, again, to listen to the news or listen to some of the political rhetoric, you would think, again, that Tom Homan and ICE are detaining gardeners and cooks and housekeepers, when 282,000 of these criminal aliens with final orders of deportation are still roaming free. Most aliens with final orders of removal have been in the immigration system for almost a decade. They have been litigating their claims in immigration courts, some for almost a decade, and many, if not all, were given the opportunity to have their day in court. Many of them just neglected to show up. They were given a notice to appear in an immigration court and if they had a bona fide claim to asylum, to present that to an immigration judge. But many of these individuals simply did not show up, forfeiting any right they had to claim they could legally stay in the United States. But all of this doesn't stop our colleagues from across the aisle from claiming that illegal aliens detained by ICE are not being given ``due process.'' We are blessed to live in America, no doubt, and I think sometimes we take for granted all the privileges we are afforded and all the rights we have as citizens. So it is worth asking the question: What sort of process are these illegal aliens actually due? While the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights apply to all individuals in the United States, illegal aliens are not entitled to the same range of due process as U.S. citizens, especially when they neglect or refuse to show up in the first place when the notice to appear has been given, but they simply reject it. The idea that someone could break our laws, enter our country illegally, and then be entitled to all the rights and privileges of an American citizen is awfully far-fetched, and it is not the law. Let me be clear about what the law actually says: Aliens who already have final orders of deportation, who are being detained for the purpose of removal, have already had their due process. I would encourage my colleagues on the left to reflect on this before continuing to use the buzzwords ``due process'' to mislead the American people as they discuss cases that appear sympathetic but where the process these aliens were entitled to has simply been exhausted, and they lost or they refused to show up in the first place. The American people know what Democrats fail to admit: Deterrence-- deterrence--is a critical part of immigration enforcement and preventing the flow of aliens into the United States in the first place. In other words, if you know that it is likely that if you pay a coyote or a human smuggler $10,000 to smuggle you into the United States but you are unlikely to be able to stay, then you are probably not going to make the decision to make that dangerous trip in the hands of a criminal organization to come to the United States. That is part of what we talk about when we are discussing deterrence--the likelihood you would be unsuccessful, so you don't try in the first place. I have been impressed by the way the State of Florida has stepped up to the plate by helping the administration open a detention facility known in the press as Alligator Alcatraz--well, whatever is necessary to provide detention facilities for people who have no legal right to remain in the United States because they have exhausted all of their legal remedies. We have just provided significant additional resources in the One Big Beautiful Bill to the Department of Homeland Security and ICE to build those detention facilities like the one in Florida, as needed, in order to detain people before they are repatriated or removed from the United States. I am hopeful other States will step up in a similar way, and I am strongly supportive of creating those necessary detention facilities in places like Texas. The American people voted overwhelmingly on November 5 for a President who promised to enforce our immigration laws, so it is only right that our States would work together with the Federal Government to facilitate the enforcement of those laws, that the American people voted for. I know they are thankful to President Trump for keeping his promises, and I look forward to continuing to work with him and Governor Abbott to ensure that this work continues in my home State of Texas. Together, we are making our communities safer. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know I am not the only one who feels like time flies, but it is hard for me to imagine that it has only been 6 months since President Trump was sworn into office--6 months. When you look at what we have been able to accomplish together--the Republican majority in the House and the Senate and President Trump--it has been nothing short of amazing. We passed President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill and avoided a multitrillion-dollar tax increase on the American people, we codified DOGE cuts through the rescissions package just last week, and we have continued to confirm President Trump's qualified nominees to the executive branch. These confirmation votes, of course, will continue apace, but as we are turning to the latter half of this first year in his second term of office, it is also time to focus on other work we need to do, like paying the bills, which is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of the Congress, and authorizing legislation to keep our country strong--passing legislation like the National Defense Authorization Act. I have talked many times about my dad, who was a B-17 pilot in the Army Air Corps, World War II. He was a very young man when he flew 26 bombing missions over Nazi Germany. Unfortunately, he flew one too many because he was shot down and captured as a POW on his 26th. He was a POW--a prisoner of war--for about the last 4 months of World War II. But I know my dad, whom Tom Brokaw called part of the ``greatest generation''--the people who fought and won a world war in World War II--they believed and they hoped and they prayed that would be one of the last real threats of world war ever in our lifetime, but we are now living in what I consider to be the most dangerous time since World War II. In many ways, Vladimir Putin and his Russia have already declared war on the West, which is now raging in Ukraine. We know that Iran has been moving very deliberately toward a nuclear weapon. Thanks to President Trump's decisiveness, that has now been set back for an undetermined period of time. North Korea, which is developing ballistic missiles and threatening its neighbors in the east, in Asia, is now volunteering soldiers to fight with the Russians in Ukraine. And then there is China, which is determined to dominate the world stage economically and militarily. But our Defense authorization bill, I believe, is one of the most important things we do here because this is what allows all of the other freedoms that we enjoy in this country to flow from--a strong America; peace through strength, as Ronald Reagan called it, and something that President Trump has embraced as well, peace through strength--because we know that weakness is a provocation; it is an enticement; it is an invitation to the world's authoritarians, bullies, and tyrants, who are more than happy to fill the gap when America is not strong. So we need to take this matter very seriously, reauthorizing the National Defense Authorization bill--something we have done for 63 consecutive years. But one of the things that I am going to be focusing on as part of this Defense authorization bill is to finally address outbound investment in China. As we speak, U.S. companies are spending billions of dollars in China, investing in Chinese companies, particularly those involved in critical technologies like quantum computing and artificial intelligence. Because of China's military-civil fusion strategy, there is no such thing as a private sector and a public sector. Everything in China works toward the advancement not only of their economy but of their military as well. We know these investments are not simply enriching China's economy and fueling advances in consumer technology; they are directly bolstering China's military strength. I have been raising alarm bells for a number of years now and working toward a solution to this critical strategic concern for a long time, and I have something to announce to my colleagues here: I am not going to give up. We are going to stay after this until we get it done right. Two years ago, during the debate on the Defense authorization bill, the Senate voted 91 to 6--this is a bipartisan concern, 91 to 6--to include my amendment which contained provisions on outbound investment transparency. Even in the face of such overwhelming, nearly unanimous consensus--again, on a bipartisan basis in the Senate--to address outbound investment, this provision was stripped from the final bill, presumably at the service of the powerful special interests who want to continue to profit while putting our national security interests at risk. Last year, provisions of outbound investment transparency were included in the initial text to the end-of-year funding package. Unfortunately, in the midst of negotiations, that provision once again ended up stripped from the bill. But, again, I want to make it clear: I am not willing to take no for an answer on something that is so critical to our national security. I will not quit. But the reality is, our time is running out. President Xi, the dictator who runs China and the Chinese Communist Party, has instructed his army, the People's Liberation Army, to be ready by 2027 to ``reincorporate'' Taiwan--not 2 years from now. There are many voices emphasizing the importance of increasing our defense spending, which I certainly agree with, to prepare for a China contingency, as it is sometimes called. I don't disagree with those sentiments because, again, deterrence is the goal. We don't want to fight any wars we don't have to. We want to prevent war by American strength. But what good does it do to continue to increase our defense spending if American investors are simultaneously making investments in China in what amounts to the arsenal of our No. 1 strategic adversary? As of 2023, the United States was investing close to $2 billion in Chinese critical technology sectors, including semiconductors, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence. These are American companies investing in China, helping them to advance these critical technologies, which we are competing with here in America. A report from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission pointed out that ``the United States is the most important foreign source of investment to semiconductors, quantum computing, and [artificial intelligence] in China''--the most important. There is a lot of talk right now about maintaining our strategic edge in the artificial intelligence race, but the first step in any competition is to make sure you are not helping your competition, your opponent, your adversary. Every dollar--every U.S. dollar--invested in China's AI sector is a dollar that is directly undermining the goal of U.S. dominance when it comes to this critical technology. Once again, we have to keep in mind that in China, there is no neatly divided private and government sector division. All of this is in service of the Chinese Communist Party and their military. Chinese companies are required to work hand in glove with the Chinese Communist Party, which means that private sector technology advances and military advances are one and the same. The time has come to stop dawdling when it comes to the Chinese Communist Party. Our national security is far more important than American companies chasing riches in the Chinese market. I am very grateful to President Trump for focusing our attention more acutely on China during his first term and now in his second term, especially with regard to both inbound--that is foreign direct investment in the United States--as well as outbound investment, which I am addressing right now. Back in February of this year, the White House announced an America first investment policy, which builds on the work that we partnered with President Trump on during his first term to modernize the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States--something known as CFIUS, by its initials. The purpose was to ensure that we are not opening up ourselves and America to risks through inbound foreign direct investment. But that inbound foreign direct investment is only part of the story. We also have to address the lack of transparency in outbound investment by American companies in China that is fueling the rise of China's technological advances. I am very grateful to Secretary Bessent of the Department of the Treasury for his willingness to work with my office and colleagues here in the Senate on this topic. Earlier this year, I introduced the Foreign Investment Guardrails to Help Thwart China Act, or the FIGHT China Act, as it is called. This builds on earlier iterations of my legislative efforts to address outbound investment transparency. Secretary Bessent and his colleagues at the Treasury Department have been great allies and great partners, providing us with technical assistance on this legislation. But time is a-wasting. Time is of the essence. Now is the time to recommitment ourselves to treating this issue with the urgency that it deserves. The ugly truth is that without restricting outbound investment, we are funding the development of technologies and weapons that could one day be used to kill American soldiers. Our bill, after all, is mainly about understanding the nature of what those investments are. It is mainly about transparency because we are flying blind as policymakers, really not knowing exactly how that money is being invested and how it is being used within China itself. My outbound investment transparency bill would address that so we would be able to understand the nature of that threat and take actions that we deem appropriate in the national interest. So I would urge both our House and Senate colleagues to ensure that this year's National Defense Authorization Act addresses this critical issue. It is time for Americans to stop investing in China's military. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. 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.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. 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. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. 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.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. 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. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. 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.)

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Regular order.

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

Mr. CORNYN. 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. CORNYN. 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. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. 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. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. 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. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. 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.