Alex Padilla

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the bipartisan Fair Access to Agriculture Disaster Programs Act. This legislation would ensure all farmers can access critical U.S. Department of Agriculture disaster relief programs. Increasingly frequent and catastrophic floods, fires, freezes, and other disasters are threatening the long-term sustainability of agriculture across the country. The impact has been particularly acute for California's agricultural communities, who face year-round threats from drought, heat, floods, and fires--even in January. The farm bill authorizes safety net programs to help producers recover, but outdated adjusted gross income, AGI, limits exclude many specialty crop growers, despite facing the same extreme weather challenges as other farmers. As a result, producers from California to North Carolina are blocked from vital disaster assistance. The Fair Access to Agriculture Disaster Programs Act adopts flexibility used in the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program to waive the AGI limitation for producers that derive 75 percent of their AGI from farming, ranching, or related farming practices. What are referred to as specialty crops are just that--special. Specialty crops, which include fruits and vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, horticulture, and nursery crops that are cultivated for food and medicine, require overall higher input costs and specialized processes for planting, growing, and harvesting. Did you know that it costs more than $30,000 to produce an acre of strawberries? The cost of production for specialty crops is typically thousands of dollars per acre. As a result, both large and small producers of specialty crops end up exceeding the AGI limitations put in place to means-test critical disaster assistance. That is why we need to pass the Fair Access to Agriculture Disaster Programs Act to ensure farmers and ranchers can access agricultural safety net programs in the wake of increasingly more frequent and catastrophic disasters. I would like to thank Senator Tillis for joining me to introduce this bill, and I forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Fair Access to Agriculture Disaster Programs Act as quickly as possible.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Guaranteeing Overtime for Truckers Act, which I introduced today. America's truckdrivers are on the frontlines of keeping goods and our economy moving. More than 70 percent of goods across the United States are shipped by truck. Unfortunately, longstanding challenges persist for truckers, including long hours away from home and time spent waiting--often unpaid--to load and unload at congested ports, warehouses, and distribution centers. Our Nation has made historic investments in our port and supply chain infrastructure through the bipartisan infrastructure law, but we should also improve wages and working conditions for critical workers and ensure they are paid for all of the hours they work. However, for more than 80 years, Federal law has denied truckers guaranteed overtime pay benefits that are afforded to nearly all other professions. This means that if a truckdriver experiences delays due to congestion or weather, they are often not paid even though they are working. Requiring overtime will create an incentive for the shippers, receivers, and carriers to get cargo loaded and unloaded, keeping truckers and our supply chain moving. The motor carrier exemption exacerbates trucking workforce challenges. In fact, a February 2022 freight and logistics supply chain assessment by the U.S. Department of Transportation urged Congress to repeal this exemption. Additionally, research suggests that when truck labor rates are fair, there is less driver fatigue, fewer regulatory violations, and lower crash rates. That is why I am proud to introduce this bill to repeal the overtime exemption for motor carriers. I want to thank Senator Markey for coleading this bill with me, and I hope our colleagues will join us to ensure that trucker compensation reflects the fact that these jobs are essential.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Guaranteeing Overtime for Truckers Act, which I introduced today. America's truckdrivers are on the frontlines of keeping goods and our economy moving. More than 70 percent of goods across the United States are shipped by truck. Unfortunately, longstanding challenges persist for truckers, including long hours away from home and time spent waiting--often unpaid--to load and unload at congested ports, warehouses, and distribution centers. Our Nation has made historic investments in our port and supply chain infrastructure through the bipartisan infrastructure law, but we should also improve wages and working conditions for critical workers and ensure they are paid for all of the hours they work. However, for more than 80 years, Federal law has denied truckers guaranteed overtime pay benefits that are afforded to nearly all other professions. This means that if a truckdriver experiences delays due to congestion or weather, they are often not paid even though they are working. Requiring overtime will create an incentive for the shippers, receivers, and carriers to get cargo loaded and unloaded, keeping truckers and our supply chain moving. The motor carrier exemption exacerbates trucking workforce challenges. In fact, a February 2022 freight and logistics supply chain assessment by the U.S. Department of Transportation urged Congress to repeal this exemption. Additionally, research suggests that when truck labor rates are fair, there is less driver fatigue, fewer regulatory violations, and lower crash rates. That is why I am proud to introduce this bill to repeal the overtime exemption for motor carriers. I want to thank Senator Markey for coleading this bill with me, and I hope our colleagues will join us to ensure that trucker compensation reflects the fact that these jobs are essential.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I, too, rise today to defend the principles at the core of our democratic Republic that we are a government of laws and institutions, not of individuals; that no billionaire has more rights than any worker, and that no President has more rights than any citizen of our country; that we are a government of three coequal branches, providing checks and balances on each other. And bottom line: That no one is above the law. Yet as we stand here today, the Trump administration is clearly openly laying the groundwork to reject all of these principles. They are operating under their idea that the President, his Cabinet of loyalists, and an unelected billionaire adviser can simply ignore the law or courts in rulings that they disagree with. Earlier this month, Vice President Vance claimed that ``if a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use his or her discretion as a prosecutor, that's . . . illegal. Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.'' That is the Vice President. At the same time, President Trump's seeming co-President, Elon Musk, has repeatedly called for the impeaching of judges who rule against Donald Trump's attempts at power grabs. And now President Trump himself has said: He who saves his Country does not violate any law. Historians may recognize this quote because it is widely attributed to Napoleon, a man who became a dictator and who abolished the French Republic at the time. Seems to me pretty clear that is precisely the example that Donald Trump is looking to. And it should alarm all of us. When I think about just how much of Donald Trump's life has been spent staring at the four walls of a courtroom--yes, from the inside, folks, the four walls of a courtroom--maybe you can understand why he may want to do away with the courts. But the Judiciary does not work for Donald Trump. It is a separate, coequal branch of government. The courts, colleagues, work for the American people. And so far, they have served the American people by pausing many of the President's blatantly illegal Executive orders and overreach. But that is why he is continuing to target the courts. Colleagues, I am one of the few nonlawyers to serve on the Judiciary Committee. And at times, I get to bring a different perspective to our deliberations and our debates. I will defer to my colleagues to maybe cover some of the legal history or case law that applies here. But for Americans watching from home, here is how I can boil it down. Let's ask ourselves: Do you believe the President can simply ignore the law? Do you believe that the President should be all-powerful? Do you believe that if you have to follow the law, then the President of our country should have to follow it, as well? The answers should seem very, very obvious. For years, we have known that if a President did try to push the boundaries of what is legal and what is not, we could count on an independent Department of Justice to enforce court rulings. But over the past few weeks, what we have seen in the Judiciary Committee is nominee after nominee appear before us and refuse to simply commit to upholding the law. They claim, one after another, that they respect the Constitution and stand for the rule of law. But when given specific examples of what would you do, not if, we have seen a President in his first term and already in this term suggest those he appoints to not follow the law--they refused to commit. That dynamic, colleagues, is unprecedented, and it is dangerous. And it is also the result of an administration that demands applicants pass a loyalty test to get their job in the first place. And it has brought us dangerously close to a constitutional crisis. A President feeling unconstrained by the courts, by the Constitution, and the rule of law is no President at all. It is a power-hungry, wannabe King. Last night, President Trump, in his address, had an opportunity to unite or at least genuinely try to unite the country and affirm his commitment to the rule of law. Sadly, I am not surprised that he refused to do so. But this morning, we also saw the Supreme Court cite against the Trump administration and affirm a lower court's order that the administration stop their unlawful freeze on foreign aid--one of the many, many challenges working its way through the judiciary. So the question now becomes: Will Donald Trump listen, and will Republicans in Congress demand that he uphold the law? So what we are asking of our Republican colleagues today isn't anything radical. It is the fundamental principle that men and women dedicated to themselves nearly 250 years ago in the founding of our Nation, that we shall be ruled of, by, and for the people; not of, by, and for a King or dictator. To our Republican colleagues, all we ask is this: Stand up. Stand up for the rule of law. Stand up for the Constitution. And stand up for our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, over the last few months, there has literally been more than 10,000 Californians who have made it a point to reach out to me by phone calls, by letters, by emails to say one thing loud and clear: Stand up for public education. There are students throughout California, teachers throughout California, parents throughout California, and I am sure beyond in all of our States who are afraid that Donald Trump is going to decimate Federal funding for public schools. And from what we have seen, they have every right to be concerned. You see, only 1 month into office, the richest President in our history has teamed up with the richest man in the world to slash public funding across the board, including in education. They have already terminated nearly $1 billion in contracts with the Education Department alone. They have fired or placed on leave Education Department staff. These are hard-working Americans dedicated to everything from protecting the civil rights of students to special education, to student aid. And they are making it clear that this is just the beginning. President Trump has bragged that he actually wants to eliminate the Department of Education, threatening the quality of education of 80 percent of students who go to public schools. Colleagues, that is the situation. That is the context in which we find ourselves today as we consider the nomination of Linda McMahon to serve as Education Secretary. We could talk about Linda McMahon's qualifications, or, frankly, lack thereof, but I am not shocked because President Trump isn't looking for someone with the background or the commitment to strengthen education in America. He is looking for someone to destroy it. President Trump has said publicly that he wishes that Mrs. McMahon would ``put herself out of a job.'' And it is clear that she is ready to do it. And to justify it, I know I have heard of her countless accusations of Department of Education overreach or that the Department is just too big. Now, if we are saying this because of the budget cuts Republicans are starving for to underwrite the tax rate for the wealthy, let me remind us all that the Department of Education is the smallest Agency in the Cabinet by a lot. The Department is responsible, though, for promoting equal access to education; ensuring protections and support for students with special needs; defending the civil rights of tens of millions of students; and, yes, managing the student loans and Pell grants that students need to afford an education, just like I did when I was graduating from San Fernando High School, trying to figure out how I was going to be able to pay for college. Yet Linda McMahon and Republicans in Congress will try to sell us on the idea that education should be left to States and to local communities. Tell that to the young student who is struggling to read by the fourth grade but whose school doesn't have the resources they need to help them catch up. Tell that to the parents of an eighth grader who is behind in math who fear that their child will never be able to make up the time that they lost during the pandemic. While it is true that State and local communities play the primary role in education, it is actually the Federal Government that helps close the gaps. That is part of what makes our country strong--the idea that no matter where you live, no matter who your parents are, or what tax bracket your family is in, you have the right to a good education because, after all, it is the surest path to achieve your American dream. And, yes, it is personal for me. As I mentioned, I am a proud product of public education, a graduate of San Fernando High School--go Tigers. Upon completion of my high school education, I was accepted and had the blessed opportunity to attend the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where I earned my degree in mechanical engineering. That led to a better life and more opportunities--exactly what my parents worked so hard and sacrificed for. That is the American dream. And I know that, by far, I am not alone. That is why I find it outrageous that Mrs. McMahon and Republicans can so callously plan to take a chain saw to the American dreams of so many current and future students. But, today, we are here to say that tens of millions of public school students are not line items on your chopping block. They deserve better. Our country is better than this. I urge all of my colleagues to reject President Trump's attempts to abolish the Department of Education and to reject Linda McMahon's nomination or any nominee who is willing to carry out his wishes. I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the bipartisan Early Action and Responsiveness Lifts Youth Minds Act. This legislation would increase access to early intervention and prevention initiatives in children's mental health. Our bipartisan bill would allow States to use up to 5 percent of their community mental health services block grant funding for prevention and early intervention activties. The community mental health services block grant, MHBG, administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, is currently limited to funding services for those with severe, diagnosed mental illnesses. The bill would also require the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, to provide reports to Congress detailing States' efforts to promote early intervention. HHS would report to Congress every 2 years regarding States' efforts to promote early intervention, including comprehensive information on activities undertaken and outcomes achieved. Over 20 percent of youth have reported seriously considering suicide in the previous year, with 18 percent having developed a suicide plan, which is one of the most significant risk factors that precipitates an actual attempt. Over 40 percent of teens reported persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness, with a shocking 57 percent of girls reporting this. These statistics regarding suicidality and hopelessness are considerably poorer than ten years ago. The evidence is clear: There is a youth mental health crisis, and it is getting worse. Yet many of these youth in distress do not yet have a diagnosed mental health condition, meaning that MHBG funds can't be used to help them and prevent their symptoms from worsening. Research shows that intervening early with people who are experiencing mental health challenges can help prevent those challenges from turning more serious--and more costly to treat. States should have the flexibility to use up to 5 percent of mental health block grant funds for prevention and early intervention activities if they so choose. Without this adjustment, the mental health block grant is missing a valuable opportunity to intervene early and save lives. I would like to thank Senators Tillis, Kaine, and Murkowski for co- leading this legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this bill as soon as possible.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the bipartisan Early Action and Responsiveness Lifts Youth Minds Act. This legislation would increase access to early intervention and prevention initiatives in children's mental health. Our bipartisan bill would allow States to use up to 5 percent of their community mental health services block grant funding for prevention and early intervention activties. The community mental health services block grant, MHBG, administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, is currently limited to funding services for those with severe, diagnosed mental illnesses. The bill would also require the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, to provide reports to Congress detailing States' efforts to promote early intervention. HHS would report to Congress every 2 years regarding States' efforts to promote early intervention, including comprehensive information on activities undertaken and outcomes achieved. Over 20 percent of youth have reported seriously considering suicide in the previous year, with 18 percent having developed a suicide plan, which is one of the most significant risk factors that precipitates an actual attempt. Over 40 percent of teens reported persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness, with a shocking 57 percent of girls reporting this. These statistics regarding suicidality and hopelessness are considerably poorer than ten years ago. The evidence is clear: There is a youth mental health crisis, and it is getting worse. Yet many of these youth in distress do not yet have a diagnosed mental health condition, meaning that MHBG funds can't be used to help them and prevent their symptoms from worsening. Research shows that intervening early with people who are experiencing mental health challenges can help prevent those challenges from turning more serious--and more costly to treat. States should have the flexibility to use up to 5 percent of mental health block grant funds for prevention and early intervention activities if they so choose. Without this adjustment, the mental health block grant is missing a valuable opportunity to intervene early and save lives. I would like to thank Senators Tillis, Kaine, and Murkowski for co- leading this legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this bill as soon as possible.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, earlier this year, Robert Santos announced his resignation as the 26th Director of the U.S. Census Bureau, marking the end of his service as the first person of color and the first Latino in history to be confirmed by this body to head the Bureau. I rise today to recognize his extraordinary service to the American people, his unshakeable integrity, and his unwavering commitment to our democracy. Robert Luis Santos was born in San Antonio, TX--one of five children of two civil servants who worked at nearby Kelly Air Force Base. A proud third-generation Mexican American, Santos was raised in a predominantly Latino neighborhood on the northwest side of San Antonio. In 1969, the death of his older brother, U.S. Army Spc. Rene Santos, in the Vietnam war devastated the Santos family. But according to Santos, this tragedy and ultimate act of patriotism also inspired him to pursue his education and one day channel his brother's life and ``give back to the country.'' He went on to earn his bachelor's degree in mathematics from Trinity University in San Antonio and, later, his master's in statistics from the University of Michigan. After graduation, he set off on what would become an over 40-year- career as a highly respected statistician. In 2006, he became vice president and chief methodologist at the Urban Institute--a nonprofit research organization dedicated to American's upward mobility--a position he held for 15 years. And in 2020, he was elected president of the American Statistical Association. During his time at the Urban Institute, he warned the Census Bureau of the threat of undercounting the national population in the 2020 Census, with a particular spotlight on Black and Latino populations; he opposed the addition of a citizenship question that would have undermined public confidence and participation in the census; and he spoke out against an early end to the national count during the COVID- 19 pandemic. Through it all, Robert Santos' motivation was accuracy and equity-- never politics. At his Senate confirmation hearings, he stated: ``Although this is a political appointment, I am no politician. I'm a scientist, executive-level manager, a researcher, and a longtime supporter of the Census Bureau.'' That approach led to his nomination as Director of the Census Bureau by President Joe Biden in the spring of 2021. When he was confirmed that fall, he became not only the first Latino to serve as Director, but the first person of color the Senate confirmed to lead the Bureau. His tenure marked a refreshing and sorely needed return to scientific and research-based--not political--work atop the Bureau. He worked particularly hard to conduct a more accurate count of communities of color and vulnerable communities who have been historically undercounted. For the Nation, Santos' work was about more than just data collection. These accurate data are vital for Federal, State, and local governments to function properly and efficiently. They are about something as fundamental as accurate representation and equitable funding for Americans. And they are about an equal stake in our democracy. Today, at a time when statisticians and leaders at every level of government fear the politicization of our census, Robert Santos leaves behind a legacy of integrity and accuracy that should be followed for decades to come. On behalf of the entire State of California, I want to thank Robert; his wife of over 50 years Adella; his two children Emilio and Clarisa; and the entire Santos family.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Empowering and Enforcing Environmental Justice Act of 2025. This bill would establish in statute the Office of Environmental Justice within the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice. The principles of environmental justice call for environmental fairness, regardless of race, color, national origin or income, and the meaningful involvement of communities in the development of laws and regulations that affect every community's natural surroundings and the places people live, work, play, and learn. California was one of the first States in the Nation to codify a definition of ``environmental justice'' in statute, understanding the disproportionate impact that frontline communities face. This reality could not be more relevant today in light of the recent firings of environmental justice and ENRD employees at the Department of Justice. During the 117th Congress, I was proud to work with my colleague Representative Barragan on a bill that called for the creation of an Environmental Justice Office at the DOJ, and we were pleased that the Department moved forward to establish this office in May 2022. However, on her first day as Attorney General, Pam Bondi eliminated all environmental justice efforts at the DOJ, in line with President Trump's orders to eliminate all DEI initiatives at Federal Agencies. Her order effectively terminated the office and halted all programs designed to fight pollution and enforce environmental laws. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in working to codify this office so that environmental enforcement does not fall victim to political agendas. The work that this office did made a real impact, making progress in ensuring that all people can breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live in healthy, resilient environments.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Empowering and Enforcing Environmental Justice Act of 2025. This bill would establish in statute the Office of Environmental Justice within the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice. The principles of environmental justice call for environmental fairness, regardless of race, color, national origin or income, and the meaningful involvement of communities in the development of laws and regulations that affect every community's natural surroundings and the places people live, work, play, and learn. California was one of the first States in the Nation to codify a definition of ``environmental justice'' in statute, understanding the disproportionate impact that frontline communities face. This reality could not be more relevant today in light of the recent firings of environmental justice and ENRD employees at the Department of Justice. During the 117th Congress, I was proud to work with my colleague Representative Barragan on a bill that called for the creation of an Environmental Justice Office at the DOJ, and we were pleased that the Department moved forward to establish this office in May 2022. However, on her first day as Attorney General, Pam Bondi eliminated all environmental justice efforts at the DOJ, in line with President Trump's orders to eliminate all DEI initiatives at Federal Agencies. Her order effectively terminated the office and halted all programs designed to fight pollution and enforce environmental laws. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in working to codify this office so that environmental enforcement does not fall victim to political agendas. The work that this office did made a real impact, making progress in ensuring that all people can breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live in healthy, resilient environments.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce the Tule River Tribe Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025. This legislation would finalize this multidecade effort by the Tule River Tribe to provide clean drinking water to their people and uphold the Federal Government's trust and treaty responsibilities. The Tule River people are descendants of the Yokuts Indians, a large group of Native Americans who occupied what is now known as the San Joaquin Valley in California for thousands of years prior to contact with settlers. In 1856, the Federal Government established their reservation in Tulare County, with the specific goal of providing the Tribe with arable farmland and the water resources necessary to establish self- sufficiency. However, their land was fraudulently stolen from them, and in 1873, President Grant issued an Executive order to create a new reservation for the Tribe. This land--which is the Tribe's current reservation--is comprised of mostly mountainous lands that do not provide sufficient irrigation opportunities or water storage facilities. Today, the Tule River Tribe struggles to provide clean drinking water to their people, and Tule Tribal citizens suffer from a low standard of living as a result. Since 1971, the Tribe has worked to establish its federally reserved water rights to create the viable homeland they were promised and to ensure that their citizens have enough water to meet their current and future water needs. For decades, the Tribe has worked with the Departments of the Interior and Justice as well as downstream water users to advance a settlement agreement, thereby avoiding costly litigation for both the Tribe and the U.S. Government. I am proud to introduce this legislation to quantify the Tribe's water right of 5,828 acre-feet per year of surface water and fund $568 million towards the construction of a water storage project. My legislation would also codify what is known as the 2007 Agreement with downstream water users, who support this legislation. Finally, the legislation would transfer approximately 9,000 acres of Federal land currently in the Sequoia National Monument to allow the Tribe to protect the watershed headwaters and 800 acres of grazing land to the north and south of the reservation boundary. It is long past time for the Federal Government to live up to its trust and treaty responsibilities to the Tule River Tribe. We must codify this water settlement and settle the Tule River Tribe's claims against the United States. Access to clean drinking water now and in the future is essential to the continued strength of Tribal nations and to ensuring the sustainability and viability of future generations. Water is a sacred and necessary resource for Tribal nations and for all people. As California and the West continue to experience a historic megadrought, enactment of our legislation would provide water security to Tule River citizens now and into the future. I thank Senator Schiff for introducing this legislation with me in the Senate. I would also like to thank the Tule River Tribe for their decades of hard work to finalize this settlement and the downstream water users, including the Tule River Association and the South Tule Independent Ditch Company, for working with the Tribe to settle this issue and avoid litigation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the Tule River Tribe Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025 as quickly as possible.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce the Tule River Tribe Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025. This legislation would finalize this multidecade effort by the Tule River Tribe to provide clean drinking water to their people and uphold the Federal Government's trust and treaty responsibilities. The Tule River people are descendants of the Yokuts Indians, a large group of Native Americans who occupied what is now known as the San Joaquin Valley in California for thousands of years prior to contact with settlers. In 1856, the Federal Government established their reservation in Tulare County, with the specific goal of providing the Tribe with arable farmland and the water resources necessary to establish self- sufficiency. However, their land was fraudulently stolen from them, and in 1873, President Grant issued an Executive order to create a new reservation for the Tribe. This land--which is the Tribe's current reservation--is comprised of mostly mountainous lands that do not provide sufficient irrigation opportunities or water storage facilities. Today, the Tule River Tribe struggles to provide clean drinking water to their people, and Tule Tribal citizens suffer from a low standard of living as a result. Since 1971, the Tribe has worked to establish its federally reserved water rights to create the viable homeland they were promised and to ensure that their citizens have enough water to meet their current and future water needs. For decades, the Tribe has worked with the Departments of the Interior and Justice as well as downstream water users to advance a settlement agreement, thereby avoiding costly litigation for both the Tribe and the U.S. Government. I am proud to introduce this legislation to quantify the Tribe's water right of 5,828 acre-feet per year of surface water and fund $568 million towards the construction of a water storage project. My legislation would also codify what is known as the 2007 Agreement with downstream water users, who support this legislation. Finally, the legislation would transfer approximately 9,000 acres of Federal land currently in the Sequoia National Monument to allow the Tribe to protect the watershed headwaters and 800 acres of grazing land to the north and south of the reservation boundary. It is long past time for the Federal Government to live up to its trust and treaty responsibilities to the Tule River Tribe. We must codify this water settlement and settle the Tule River Tribe's claims against the United States. Access to clean drinking water now and in the future is essential to the continued strength of Tribal nations and to ensuring the sustainability and viability of future generations. Water is a sacred and necessary resource for Tribal nations and for all people. As California and the West continue to experience a historic megadrought, enactment of our legislation would provide water security to Tule River citizens now and into the future. I thank Senator Schiff for introducing this legislation with me in the Senate. I would also like to thank the Tule River Tribe for their decades of hard work to finalize this settlement and the downstream water users, including the Tule River Association and the South Tule Independent Ditch Company, for working with the Tribe to settle this issue and avoid litigation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the Tule River Tribe Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025 as quickly as possible.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I too rise today to oppose the nomination of Kash Patel to serve as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Now, let me begin by saying to Americans watching at home who may not be completely up to speed as to what is going on, the importance of this specific nomination or wondering, Who is Kash Patel? You might have been distracted these past few weeks by a rush of headlines coming out of the White House, maybe preoccupied with the cost of groceries rising by the week. You may have--if you got any news--been hearing about how President Trump, the richest President in history, has given Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, unprecedented access to millions of Americans' sensitive private information. Yes, Elon Musk has access to your personal, private information, from Social Security numbers, to home addresses, to your tax information. There has been a lot going on. All the while, President Trump has also tried to lay the groundwork to pass another massive tax cut for billionaires. So if you have been busy and struggling to keep up, I understand. So let me try to break it down for you. Only in the year 2025, when Donald Trump seems to have a headlock on the Republican Party, could a nominee this extreme and this unqualified be considered or confirmed to lead the FBI. No party of Reagan would ever support this big a threat to American freedom and our national security. No party of Lincoln could ever support this big a source of division among Americans. Yet here we are, pretending as if a man who promised to shut down the FBI headquarters on day one and turn it into a museum for the deep state is now fit to lead the FBI. You see time and again, Kash Patel has shown that his loyalty lies not with the rule of law but with Donald Trump. Why? Because he knows that Donald Trump is his cash cow. Trump is Kash Patel's ticket to selling more books. It is his calling card to try to book the next podcast interview and certainly key to landing his next job. Frankly, it is a pattern we have seen from all too many of the nominees that Donald Trump has picked for his second administration. These are people whose sole qualification is allegiance to Trump. This should disqualify any nominee, but it is particularly concerning for a nominee slated to lead the Nation's premier law enforcement Agency. When it comes to protecting the security of our Nation, there is no room to choose between patriotism and patronage. The American people need and deserve a public servant who is 100 percent committed to the around- the-clock safety of the American people. Unfortunately, through his actions over the course of the last several years and his conduct this past month before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kash Patel has demonstrated a dangerous lack of judgment, lack of preparation, and lack of independence. He has shown that he is either unwilling or incapable of putting politics aside in order to ``protect the American people and uphold the Constitution'' should he be confirmed to lead the FBI. Throughout his career, he has shown a clear pattern of loyalty to Trump and of self-dealings at the expense of the American people. That includes undermining the FBI's work in order to protect Trump from investigation; profiting off of conspiracies about a ``Deep State'' and promoting an ``enemies list'' targeting public servants; selling picture books to spread conspiracy theories to children about the 2016 election; endangering the lives of American servicemembers after inserting himself into a hostage rescue operation; refusing to commit in his confirmation hearing to enforcing existing gun laws that protect lives and have saved lives; holding millions of dollars in unvested stock in a foreign company tied to forced and child labor; and even producing a song and financially supporting the families of insurrectionists who violently beat Capitol Police officers on January 6. Now it appears that this list includes potentially having lied under oath in his confirmation hearing about the role he played in firing career FBI employees based on their perceived loyalties. After we heard him swear in committee that he played no role in the firings, whistleblowers are coming forward to tell us otherwise. At the very least, this charge is so serious that it warrants further investigation. Colleagues, stretching the truth or potentially outright lying may score him points with President Trump, but as Director of the FBI, it will only put American lives at risk. Think about it. To all the Americans who might be watching from home, you wouldn't put an arsonist in charge of a fire department, would you? But with Kash Patel atop the FBI, that is exactly what we get. Career law enforcement will continue to be purged, the FBI will be weaponized for political gain, and our communities will be less safe. I want to make one final point to our Republican colleagues. Throughout this body's history, the Senate has had not just the opportunity but the responsibility to serve as a check on Executive overreach. Senators of both parties over history have exercised our constitutional duty to advise and consent to the President's nominations, and in the past, the Senate has rejected extreme nominations. To stay quiet when a nominee so obviously unfit comes before us--that sets a dangerous precedent. Think about the damage you will be doing not just to the institution of the FBI or to the Senate but to the trust that millions of Americans deserve to have in our law enforcement. But more important than that, today, consider this: Someday in the future, possibly the near future, when a loyalist FBI Director abuses the position and fails to protect the American people, it won't just be Kash Patel that will be held accountable, it won't just be President Trump we will try to hold accountable, it will be every Member of this body who supported his nomination that will also be held accountable. So I invite you, I encourage you to have the courage to say no to Trump because lives are on the line. Have the courage to stand up and protect your constituents, protect the American people. Stand up, do the right thing, and vote no on this nominee. I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Equal COLA Act, which I introduced today. The Federal Government's workforce is central to protecting our national security and delivering critical services to hundreds of millions of Americans. As such, it is essential that the Federal Government attract and retain an effective workforce and, once their service is complete, ensure retirees receive the dignified retirement that they deserve. It is clear that now more than ever, Congress must step up and support our Federal workforce. Unfortunately, in 1986, Congress created a two-tiered system that now prevents nearly 800,000 retired Federal employees from receiving a full cost-of-living adjustment when consumer prices increase more than 2 percent from year to year. In January, some Federal retirees received a 2.5-percent COLA. However, other Federal retirees received only a 2.0-percent increase due to this policy, which fails to protect retired employees living on a fixed income. I believe all Federal retirees who have worked in service to our country should receive a full adjustment to their benefits each year that is consistent with national economic trends. That is why I am proud to reintroduce this legislation to fix this unfair system and ensure that all retired Federal employees receive full retirement benefits that keep up with the cost of living. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill to ensure that retired Federal employees no longer pay the price of a misguided law and that their benefits fully keep pace with the cost of living.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Equal COLA Act, which I introduced today. The Federal Government's workforce is central to protecting our national security and delivering critical services to hundreds of millions of Americans. As such, it is essential that the Federal Government attract and retain an effective workforce and, once their service is complete, ensure retirees receive the dignified retirement that they deserve. It is clear that now more than ever, Congress must step up and support our Federal workforce. Unfortunately, in 1986, Congress created a two-tiered system that now prevents nearly 800,000 retired Federal employees from receiving a full cost-of-living adjustment when consumer prices increase more than 2 percent from year to year. In January, some Federal retirees received a 2.5-percent COLA. However, other Federal retirees received only a 2.0-percent increase due to this policy, which fails to protect retired employees living on a fixed income. I believe all Federal retirees who have worked in service to our country should receive a full adjustment to their benefits each year that is consistent with national economic trends. That is why I am proud to reintroduce this legislation to fix this unfair system and ensure that all retired Federal employees receive full retirement benefits that keep up with the cost of living. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill to ensure that retired Federal employees no longer pay the price of a misguided law and that their benefits fully keep pace with the cost of living.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Age 21 Act, a vital piece of legislation aimed at reducing gun violence and enhancing the safety of all Americans. The Age 21 Act would prohibit the sale of assault weapons, large- capacity ammunition, and related items to individuals under the age of 21. However, this bill includes reasonable exceptions to allow temporary transfer or possession of assault weapons for specific activities, such as recreational use or work-related responsibilities, including Active military service. Every American has the right to live free from the fear of gun violence. Yet this epidemic continues to devastate our communities, claiming over 46,000 lives in 2023 alone, the third-highest number of gun-related deaths ever recorded. This ongoing crisis demands urgent and meaningful action. Assault weapons--engineered for military purposes--are designed to inflict maximum damage in the shortest amount of time. Unsurprisingly, they are frequently chosen by those who perpetrate mass violence. Their deadly impact is tragically evident in many of our Nation's darkest moments. In 2022, an 18-year-old gunman in Uvalde, TX, used an AR-15-style rifle to kill 19 children and 2 teachers at Robb Elementary School. In 2018, a 19-year-old gunman at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, murdered 17 students and staff members with an AR-15 rifle. And in 2012, a 20-year-old gunman used an AR-15-style rifle to kill 20 children and 6 educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. These are not isolated incidents but part of devastating pattern. Data shows that more than 85 percent of fatalities in public mass shootings involving four or more deaths are caused by assault rifles. The evidence is clear: These weapons amplify the scale of violence and loss of life. Scientific research supports raising the minimum age for accessing such destructive weapons. Studies show that the human brain continues to develop into a person's mid-20s, particularly in areas related to impulse control, judgment, and long-term planning. Recognizing this, Federal law already restricts the purchase of alcohol and tobacco to individuals over 21, commonsense measures to protect public safety. Assault weapons, with their unparalleled potential for destruction, deserve no less consideration. Americans deserve to feel safe in their schools, places of worship, and neighborhoods. By passing the Age 21 Act, we can take a meaningful step to reduce the availability of these deadly weapons to young individuals, helping to save lives and prevent future tragedies. Public safety is a shared responsibility, and this bill represents an important measure to strengthen our collective efforts to combat gun violence. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and working to pass the Age 21 Act as swiftly as possible.

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the bipartisan Wildfire Resilience Through Grazing Research Act. This legislation aims to advance research into the use of hooved animal grazing as a tool for wildfire prevention, mitigation, and recovery. Wildfires in the U.S. are becoming more frequent, intense, and destructive, posing significant threats to lives, ecosystems, and property. The economic and ecological costs of these fires are devastating. To mitigate future risks and support postfire recovery, we must adopt effective land management strategies. One promising and natural method is ungulate grazing, which has proven effective in reducing the fuel loads that exacerbate fire spread. However, we still lack sufficient scientific understanding of how to optimize grazing practices for wildfire mitigation while avoiding potential environmental harms. Supporting this research will allow the Federal Government, as well as private landowners, to make grazing a core, cost-effective tool in wildfire prevention, working alongside other mitigation strategies to protect our landscapes, our communities, and our way of life. Our bipartisan bill would add the Grazing for Wildfire Mitigation Initiative to the National Institute of Food and Agriculture's (NIFA) High-Priority Research List. Specifically, this initiative would support research and development of ungulate grazing land management techniques that promote wildfire mitigation, fuels reduction, and postfire recovery. In addition, it would support information dissemination of ungulate grazing land management techniques that support wildfire mitigation to public and private landowners, land managers, and livestock owners. I would like to thank my colleagues Senators Moran, Hirono, and Lankford for their leadership in introducing this bipartisan legislation with me. I urge my colleagues to support the Wildfire Resilience Through Grazing Research Act, and I look forward to working together to ensure our communities are better prepared to face the challenges posed by increasingly frequent and severe wildfires.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Age 21 Act, a vital piece of legislation aimed at reducing gun violence and enhancing the safety of all Americans. The Age 21 Act would prohibit the sale of assault weapons, large- capacity ammunition, and related items to individuals under the age of 21. However, this bill includes reasonable exceptions to allow temporary transfer or possession of assault weapons for specific activities, such as recreational use or work-related responsibilities, including Active military service. Every American has the right to live free from the fear of gun violence. Yet this epidemic continues to devastate our communities, claiming over 46,000 lives in 2023 alone, the third-highest number of gun-related deaths ever recorded. This ongoing crisis demands urgent and meaningful action. Assault weapons--engineered for military purposes--are designed to inflict maximum damage in the shortest amount of time. Unsurprisingly, they are frequently chosen by those who perpetrate mass violence. Their deadly impact is tragically evident in many of our Nation's darkest moments. In 2022, an 18-year-old gunman in Uvalde, TX, used an AR-15-style rifle to kill 19 children and 2 teachers at Robb Elementary School. In 2018, a 19-year-old gunman at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, murdered 17 students and staff members with an AR-15 rifle. And in 2012, a 20-year-old gunman used an AR-15-style rifle to kill 20 children and 6 educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. These are not isolated incidents but part of devastating pattern. Data shows that more than 85 percent of fatalities in public mass shootings involving four or more deaths are caused by assault rifles. The evidence is clear: These weapons amplify the scale of violence and loss of life. Scientific research supports raising the minimum age for accessing such destructive weapons. Studies show that the human brain continues to develop into a person's mid-20s, particularly in areas related to impulse control, judgment, and long-term planning. Recognizing this, Federal law already restricts the purchase of alcohol and tobacco to individuals over 21, commonsense measures to protect public safety. Assault weapons, with their unparalleled potential for destruction, deserve no less consideration. Americans deserve to feel safe in their schools, places of worship, and neighborhoods. By passing the Age 21 Act, we can take a meaningful step to reduce the availability of these deadly weapons to young individuals, helping to save lives and prevent future tragedies. Public safety is a shared responsibility, and this bill represents an important measure to strengthen our collective efforts to combat gun violence. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and working to pass the Age 21 Act as swiftly as possible.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the bipartisan Wildfire Resilience Through Grazing Research Act. This legislation aims to advance research into the use of hooved animal grazing as a tool for wildfire prevention, mitigation, and recovery. Wildfires in the U.S. are becoming more frequent, intense, and destructive, posing significant threats to lives, ecosystems, and property. The economic and ecological costs of these fires are devastating. To mitigate future risks and support postfire recovery, we must adopt effective land management strategies. One promising and natural method is ungulate grazing, which has proven effective in reducing the fuel loads that exacerbate fire spread. However, we still lack sufficient scientific understanding of how to optimize grazing practices for wildfire mitigation while avoiding potential environmental harms. Supporting this research will allow the Federal Government, as well as private landowners, to make grazing a core, cost-effective tool in wildfire prevention, working alongside other mitigation strategies to protect our landscapes, our communities, and our way of life. Our bipartisan bill would add the Grazing for Wildfire Mitigation Initiative to the National Institute of Food and Agriculture's (NIFA) High-Priority Research List. Specifically, this initiative would support research and development of ungulate grazing land management techniques that promote wildfire mitigation, fuels reduction, and postfire recovery. In addition, it would support information dissemination of ungulate grazing land management techniques that support wildfire mitigation to public and private landowners, land managers, and livestock owners. I would like to thank my colleagues Senators Moran, Hirono, and Lankford for their leadership in introducing this bipartisan legislation with me. I urge my colleagues to support the Wildfire Resilience Through Grazing Research Act, and I look forward to working together to ensure our communities are better prepared to face the challenges posed by increasingly frequent and severe wildfires.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I, too, rise to oppose the nomination of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services. I can only hope that I am half as eloquent and moving as Senator Hassan has been not just here on the floor today but in committee during the confirmation hearing. I oppose this nomination for his wildly misinformed beliefs and his utter lack of experience. I believe he is fundamentally unfit and unprepared, and Americans will be less healthy if he is confirmed. Let's begin with, for years, he has made conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine misinformation his calling card, from false accusations that vaccines cause autism to lies that the COVID-19 virus targets specific racial groups. He has founded his own anti-vax organization, authored several books pushing public health conspiracies, and has made millions off anti-vax lawsuits. It all points to a dangerous principle at the core of Mr. Kennedy's beliefs: ``There's no vaccine that is safe and effective.'' As the Presiding Officer knows, my background is in engineering. I am not a scientist, but I am an engineer. As an engineer, I trust the experts who have spent their lives researching, conducting clinical trials, and collecting data. Through the decades of life-changing discoveries and scientific breakthroughs, one thing has become increasingly, undeniably clear: The single best way to protect the Nation from viral disease is to get vaccinated. It is the reason why, today, hundreds of millions of Americans can live freely without having serious concerns of contracting polio, of contracting smallpox, or of contracting hepatitis. That used to be a source of pride for the Nation, but in the face of all of the proven science--proven again and again science--Mr. Kennedy has chosen to profit off of fear, and countless parents are being misled into making dangerous decisions for their children. Look, I get the fear. I am proud to represent California in the Senate, and I am proud to have an engineering background, but I, too, am a parent of three boys. I remember what it was like to hold a baby in your arms and to worry every time there was a sniffle and a cough. I would do anything to protect my children, just as you would do anything to protect yours. But where families have reasonable questions on everything from doctors to diets, Mr. Kennedy simply sees dollar signs. Now, today, we find ourselves in yet another viral outbreak. A bird flu has shown some early signs of transmission to humans. I can't think of a worse idea than to install an anti-vaxxer as Secretary of Health and Human Services. His beliefs alone make him unfit to lead HHS, but in addition to that, he is simply unprepared to lead. Nearly 16 months ago, I was proud to cofound the bipartisan Senate Mental Health Caucus. Thank you, Senator Tillis; thank you, Senator Ernst; and thank you, Senator Smith, for being cofounders of this caucus. In the time since then, we have made some significant strides. But before Americans can ever reach out for help in a time of crisis, they have to know that they can access help. So that is on us to make sure that the support, the services, the programs are there for Americans when they need them. We know that Medicaid is the single largest payer of behavioral health services in the Nation. So at a time when Republicans are looking to cut funding for lifesaving services, I would rather see a fierce defender of Medicaid at HHS. Yet, during his confirmation hearing, Mr. Kennedy failed to show even a basic understanding of Medicaid--not the sources of funding, not the benefits. At one point, he even seemed to confuse Medicaid and Medicare. Colleagues, I shouldn't have to say this: This is not a ``learn on the job'' nomination. Well, President Trump knows just how unprepared Mr. Kennedy is for this job. Reporting from Semafor just a few days ago tells us that during Mr. Kennedy's confirmation hearing, President Trump was watching. He saw just how poorly the confirmation hearing was going for Mr. Kennedy. So what did President Trump do? He does what he does best. He leapt into action to distract and divide. He held a press conference simply to throw out the latest controversy to reporters, and it took the attention off and the pressure off of this dangerous nominee. That is what we are up against, colleagues. Over the next several months, our Nation will face a critical test for some of the most important public health systems in our country. In the House, Republicans are already floating cuts to Medicaid to pay for even more tax breaks for the rich. In the White House, President Trump and his shadow president Musk have proven they will shutter any Agency that stands in their way. Today, we are left wondering who will speak up to protect the health of millions of Americans? Unfortunately, Mr. Kennedy has already shown he is not up to the task. So, colleagues, I urge you to join me in fighting to protect the health of our constituents and oppose the confirmation of Mr. Kennedy. I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. For California firefighters, I vote no.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today in the strongest terms to oppose the nomination of Russell Vought to serve as Director of the Office of Management and Budget. I do so not just for his poor performance and lack of transparency before the Senate Budget Committee during his confirmation hearing but because of his truly dangerous and damaging vision for the future of our country. I will be very clear. If Russell Vought is confirmed to lead the Office of Management and Budget, it will be working families in America that pay the price. If he is confirmed, he will work to slash the social safety net, threaten Medicaid and SNAP benefits, and to balance the budget on the backs of our most vulnerable neighbors--all in service of cutting taxes for billionaires and for large corporations. Let me start this morning by saying that if we were hoping for some sort of clarity or some commitment, some reassurance from Russell Vought during his confirmation process, we certainly weren't given much to work with. During the confirmation hearing--and, yes, I am a member of the Budget Committee--at best, he was not responsive to our questions and inquiries. In fact, he was actually pretty evasive when asked some of the more pointed questions. As I reflected on his testimony, I observed that it was what he didn't say that spoke volumes. It told us everything that we needed to know about the dangers of reinstating him to this hugely important and consequential position. Other Trump nominees at other confirmation hearings in other committees that I have been a part of, at a minimum, they committed--at least they uttered the words--that they would respect the Constitution and abide by the law. That should be the bare minimum for someone seeking Senate confirmation for any position that is to serve the American people. That is the minimum. But Mr. Vought couldn't even do that. He refused to commit to follow the law as it pertains to implementing the spending plan and priorities established by Congress-- including us, colleagues. We are the U.S. Senate. Why would he refuse to commit to that fundamental premise? Because if he were to do that, he would be lying under oath. He made it abundantly clear that, as Director of OMB, he has every intention of ignoring the laws passed by Congress, including the spending plans. He has been very explicit about that. Now, if this was any other nominee by any other President and he refused to make such a commitment, we might be left wondering about what his true priorities are, what his true agenda is. But, for better and for worse, Russell Vought has already shown us exactly what he intends to do. We don't need to deal in hypothetical scenarios when it comes to him. For starters, he has served as head of the Office of Management and Budget before, you will recall, during the first Trump administration. In that time, in that capacity, on multiple occasions, he illegally froze congressionally appropriated funds and withheld taxpayer dollars in order to obey President Trump's political demands. And, even today, Russell Vought has already restarted this effort, as unlawful as it is--restarted this effort even though he hasn't even yet been confirmed by the Senate. He has already played a central role in OMB's attempt to withhold funding these last couple of weeks--funding for programs including Head Start that so many families across the country rely on, withhold funding for job assistance programs for our veterans--yes, veterans, the very women and men that we honor for their willingness to serve, their willingness to pay the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our country, who need our assistance. And when they return home from service, that is who he is going after? He has withheld funds from countless other programs that working families across the country rely on. His actions in these last couple of weeks have plunged not just the Federal Government but, frankly, the country and our financial markets into chaos and confusion. And like I said, he hasn't even been confirmed yet, and this is what is already happening. But, colleagues, if these early signals weren't enough for you to grasp what he is capable of, what he is hell-bent on doing, if you are wondering what else he may have in mind and in store for the OMB, I guess you are in luck because he literally wrote a playbook for what he intends to do. I invite you all and folks watching at home, if you haven't done so already, to go to project2025.org. And as you call up this playbook, as you call up this agenda, you will see that he is one of the key authors. And while President Trump claims he hasn't had a chance to review his Budget Director's vision for the administration, and while many Members of this body might have been a little too busy these last several months to read it for themselves, let me try to help by giving you just a very, very brief summary, some of the key points, because when you boil it down, the main goals of Project 2025--as the authors, including Mr. Vought, have expressed--are this: No. 1, give the office of the President of the United States unprecedented power; No. 2: to use that power to slash the rest of government in order to pay for tax cuts for billionaires and large corporations. It is that simple. That is their goal. That is their objective. That is their agenda. They want an unchecked President to gut investments-- investments that Congress directs to help working families--in order to give even bigger tax breaks for big corporations and billionaires-- billionaires, by the way, just like the ones he surrounded himself with in his inauguration. It is not a secret. It is not a veiled attempt. It is blatant. It is out in the open. They are literally working to steal from the poor to give more to the rich. That is the Trump agenda, and that is all that Russell Vought is working toward. But again, colleagues, don't just take my word for it. Let's look at the record. It is easy to chalk up these first couple of weeks of the second Trump administration just to chaos. That is how they operate. We have known this. We have seen it coming. Well, it certainly has been chaotic. Some of that chaos may be due to incompetence. I think a lot of it is very, very intentional, and clearly a lot of it is due to an utter lack of empathy. But what is intentional is chaos by design. You have heard these terms. They are proud of it: Flood the zone. Traumatize Federal workers. Yes, they said it. I will come back to that in a couple of minutes. But they have sought distractions from the scale of what they are trying to do. So, through it all, to my colleagues and to the Nation, I urge us all to keep our eyes on the ball. See the Trump administration exactly for what it is and who they are. To understand this administration, you simply have to understand their single biggest objective: huge handouts to the largest corporations and the wealthiest Americans. President Trump is trying to one-up his first term. His signature legislative accomplishment wasn't infrastructure improvements, as much as he tried to talk about that. It wasn't increasing access to healthcare or quality of healthcare. In fact, they worked so hard to try to take it away. The single biggest accomplishment of President Trump's first administration was record deficits brought to you by record tax breaks for the wealthy and by cutting the corporate tax rate by 14 percent, from 35 percent down to 21 percent. That is right; he was giving huge tax breaks to corporations to increase their profit margins. And it is not that they weren't making money. They were making plenty of money. Who wasn't making plenty of money were the workers who made those profits possible. The wage growth wasn't what American workers deserved it to be. Now, that was the first Trump administration. We have just begun the second Trump administration, where you would think that maybe, just maybe, they would work hard on making good on their campaign theme or campaign pledge--whatever you want to call it--of putting ``America first.'' I would love to see it. They could put America first if they chose to invest in our education system and to help educate and train our future workforce in ways that would grow our economy in the years and decades ahead. Or they could put America first by tackling the high cost of housing and grocery prices. But no, that is not what they are doing. They are right back to focusing on tax breaks for corporations by hundreds of billions of dollars. It is the only thing that President Trump is about, frankly. Look at his record. Look at his life. He wants to make life even easier for himself, for his family, for his wealthy friends, for the top not just 1 percent but the top 0.1 percent of America. But you can't just give these tax breaks away for free. You have got to pay for them somehow. Somebody has got to fund them. So in order to pay for these tax breaks, the administration is determined to cut as much spending from our communities and our most vulnerable as they can. Like I said, they are not even hiding it anymore. On the campaign trail, President Trump enjoyed playing dress-up at McDonald's and staging photo ops with garbage trucks, but on day one of his administration, who did he surround himself with? Not a fast-food worker, not a sanitation worker, not an autoworker, whom he claimed to reach out to in recent years, or a steelworker, as much as he wants to champion blue-collar workers in the Midwest. No, he chose to surround himself with the richest men in the country--some of the richest men in the world. Remember his inauguration? They were right there in the front row. You recognize the names: Zuckerberg, Bezos, Musk. To hard-working Americans who may have voted for him in November, I am sorry to tell you, he used you. He used you for your votes. He got what he needed from you, and now he and Russell Vought are about to make you pay. For an idea of what the next 4 years with Russell Vought and Donald Trump in charge will mean, let's review again these last couple of weeks. It has been decision after decision after decision following Russell Vought and Project 2025's playbook: Empower the President, and then enrich themselves and their wealthy friends. Now, we have long known that this President could not care less about the guardrails put in place in our Constitution. Since when has he cared about what is constitutional or not? But after the Supreme Court granted him blanket immunity, he is using his newfound powers to eliminate any opposition or dissent around him. From day one in the second administration, President Trump has used his powers to seek retribution against anyone he perceives as a political enemy. And he sought to undermine and threaten any potential opposition. On day one, he issued 1,500 pardons for the January 6 rioters, if you want to call them that. Insurrectionists is what I call them. Folks who desecrated this U.S. Capitol, who attacked law enforcement officers in an attempt to overthrow an election. The last couple of weeks, he has begun to investigate and fire professional career prosecutors at the Department of Justice who did their duty when asked to investigate the crimes committed on January 6 of 2021, prosecutors who were required--when assigned to--required to investigate insurrection, sedition, violence against law enforcement personnel. Serious crimes, folks, serious crimes. President Trump's team even sent out a survey to members of the FBI regarding their involvement in January 6 investigations. Now, just this week, CNN reported: FBI turns over details of 5,000 employees who worked on January 6 cases to Trump Justice Department, as agents sue. And: President Trump has illegally fired 18 inspectors general and over a dozen career prosecutors from the special counsel's office who worked under Jack Smith to investigate and prosecute criminal actions from his first term in office. It is still early in the second administration, but the message is already crystal clear. President Trump will threaten anyone who might show a willingness to hold him accountable for his actions. It is the same reason why he is not just firing folks, but he is installing loyalists at the Department of Justice, especially at the FBI, so that no one will dare tell him no. Now, how do we know these are loyalists? The newly sworn in Attorney General of the United States has served as President Trump's personal attorney. Well, people say there is a conflict there, just delegate it to the Deputy Attorney General. So who might that be? Oh, surprise, surprise, another former personal attorney. Where will the conflicts end? But, of course, there is still dedicated public servants out there willing to do what is right, even if that means standing up to Trump. But it is, indeed, getting harder and harder. Now, earlier this week, the New York Times reported that the head of the FBI's New York office wrote to his colleagues and vowed to dig in-- that is what he wrote, ``dig in,'' in the face of this assault. Not just on law enforcement personnel but Justice. He wrote: Today, we find ourselves in the middle of a battle of our own, as good people are being walked out of the FBI, and others are being targeted because they did their jobs in accordance with the law and FBI policy. That is what is happening, retribution for folks who were doing their job, just because President Trump doesn't like it, fears the consequences and accountability. And even if it was just at the FBI, even if it was just at the Department of Justice, it would be cause for alarm; but a similar trend is happening across Departments and Agencies not involved in our Nation's law enforcement. When President Nixon fired just a fraction of these numbers, it was called the Saturday Night Massacre, and it led to his resignation. In comparison, I can't help but note that what President Trump is doing is not a Saturday Night Massacre; it was a January massacre. And as astonished as I am, about what President Trump is trying to do, I am equally astonished at Senate Republicans who are standing by and watching it happen, letting it happen--letting it unfold as if you have no choice, as if you have no power. They are unlike their Republican predecessors who had the courage and the moral compass to recognize the harm that a President could do to the country and to tell President Nixon that enough was enough. The Trump administration is hoping to force out thousands of experienced career Federal workers who have served both Democratic and Republican administrations, so that he can replace them with people whose only qualification is blind loyalty. We have heard about the loyalty tests, right, that he required of folks who wanted to be considered for appointments. President Trump is attempting to twist the U.S. Code to redefine what nonpolitical career workers are, to give him even more power to fire and torment our Federal Government workforce. One of the ways he has initiated this effort is by trying to offer a buyout or a severance to nearly all Federal workers, hoping that nonloyalists would choose to leave rather than stay and be tormented. He is doing this, by the way, with absolutely no authority to do so. I focus on this point because it truly hits home for us in California. For Federal firefighters who have spent the first month of this year working 24-hour shifts battling life-threatening fires in Los Angeles County, they returned home--not just Federal firefighters from California, but from a number of States. They returned home to find a message from President Trump. Now, you would think after weeks of 24-hour shifts fighting these life-threatening fires, that they would come home to a thank you message from the President of their country. That wasn't the case. The message they came home to was a request for their resignation. How outrageous. How insulting. How offensive. So much so that I think it is worth repeating just a couple of the messages that I received from Federal firefighters who reached out after these buyout offers went out. The first: It's hard to put into words just how disrespectful this feels to any civil servant, but especially to someone who has given so much. Sacrificing precious time away from family, risking everything for the greater good. Another reads: Today I returned home after a two-week fire assignment in California. A slew of executive orders over this past week have put myself and a lot of others on edge. I am worried for my livelihood and my future. A purge of Federal wildlife firefighters will have catastrophic outcomes. Our fire seasons are only getting longer. Neighbors continue to expand well into wild landscapes. We cannot control when a fire will choose to wreak havoc on a community, but we will show up. We want to show up. Can't help but see it the way they see it. This is a slap in the face to Federal firefighters, and it is a gut punch to the confidence and the pride that so many dedicated Federal workers have in the job that they do. But I will remind us again that that is exactly what Russell Vought wants. He has said--and I will quote him: We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. And: We want to put them in trauma. Let me repeat that last sentence. We want to put them in trauma. This is Russell Vought, on behalf of President Trump, speaking: We want to put them in trauma. Let that sink in. What kind of person says that about the people that they are preparing to work with and about the workers who they will be responsible for? We want to put them in trauma. What kind of person wants to inflict trauma on anybody else? Is that really the kind of person you put in charge of the Office of Management and Budget, the nerve center of our Federal Government? Now, clearly, in Russell Vought and Donald Trump's governments, you are not rewarded for your love of country and service to country or for standing up for the Constitution; in fact, you are punished, and you will be made to suffer. And by purging the Federal Government to make way for loyalists, the Trump administration is trying to further protect a reckless President from any accountability for his actions. President Trump's goal remains clear. He wants to destroy the founding principles of our country. He wants to eliminate the separation of powers, the checks and balances enshrined in our Constitution, and to strip Congress--yes, one of the three coequal branches of government--of its power. That is not an exaggeration. Congress, particularly those involved with the appropriations process, know and respect the power of the purse. Congress, of course, has the power to create laws. And Congress has an important power to conduct meaningful oversight to serve as a check on a Presidency and an administration, just as the Founding Fathers intended. After all, the United States was created fleeing a dictatorship. We chose better: a democracy where the power lies in the people and the Congress representatives of the people. And between the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary, checks and balances. Let's not let power become overly concentrated. Well, despite President Trump's attempts and Russell Vought's enabling of further concentration of power, no matter what President Trump wants to believe, Congress, the President, and the courts are coequal branches of government. Yet at the start of the President's second term, once again, we have also received calls from officials in our Nation's health Agencies because they had to abruptly cancel meetings. Now with every new administration, we might expect a temporary pause on some external communication, right? There is often some legitimate transition activity. So if there is a pause or a momentary stop to social media communications--FaceBook and Twitter, maybe--that is one thing. But to deny Congress and the American people important information on public health? That is truly dangerous. But, sadly, again, it seems that our Republican colleagues are simply unwilling to exercise their constitutional authority. I am 51. Now that may not be considered old by Senate standards, but I am old enough to remember when Republicans used to be concerned about Presidential overreach. And it wasn't that long ago. Like in 2017, when then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions called former President Obama an emperor for his use of Executive actions--Jeff Sessions, former Member of this body, as attorney general using the word ``emperor'' in describing President Obama's use of Executive actions. Or when former Speaker Paul Ryan referred to President Obama's Executive orders on gun safety as ``a dangerous level of executive overreach.'' The Republican leader in the House, Speaker at the time, saying it was Executive overreach. It wasn't that long ago. And so I can't help but ask: What has changed? What has changed? Just 8 years later, in 2025, the Republican party is clearly the party of Donald Trump. And with more power in the hands of the President to gut the Federal Government, are Republicans willing to serve as accomplices in selling out hard-working Americans in order to pay for this big tax break for billionaires and large corporations? That is the question. Now let's take a minute to look at who is running point for Donald Trump these days. Now, before he was sworn in for a second term as President, Trump happily handed over the keys to the government to the richest man in the world. Elon Musk paid nearly $300 million to help elect Donald Trump, and now that wager is paying off in spades. The richest President in history is now allowing the richest man in the world to find ways to cut funding from the American people. And they will lie to your face when they claim they are returning power to the people. Because if you were to ask ``Which people?'' they certainly don't mean average, everyday, hard-working Americans. They are putting power and wealth further and further into the billionaire class. That is right. Trump has now handed shadow President Elon Musk control of your Social Security payments, your Medicare benefits and Medicaid benefits, the government programs that you paid into to help you in retirement--the retirement that you earned. That is all at risk now. And now Elon Musk has access to the sensitive data for hundreds of millions of Americans. He has your bank account information. He has your tax data. He has your Social Security number. He has your home address. To be clear, no law has passed to create this so-called Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE, and no law was passed, certainly, to give it any authority to make spending decisions, to shut down programs, or ignore Federal law. So we should all be concerned as Musk gives recent college graduates who now work for him full rein over Treasury's servers and payment programs. If Treasury payments were ever intentionally or even unintentionally stopped, it could paralyze our economy, and it would stop people's Social Security benefits. Now, most people that I know truly rely on their Social Security to get by. So let's be clear. For Donald Trump and Elon Musk, this has never really been about government efficiency. It is about a government takeover to steal from the American people and further enrich themselves and their friends. It is the very same reason, by the way, that they are attacking USAID, illegally dismantling an Agency that Congress created, working to end humanitarian assistance. Dictators around the world are celebrating. China, opening its arms, as Trump forces our allies to look somewhere else for partnership and support. Colleagues, USAID was created by Congress, has been annually invested in by Congress--including your votes. President Trump, Russell Vought's philosophy: Who cares what they did. We are going to do what we want. Keep telling us over and over and over again. They are standing by, letting him do it. Now we hear that the Department of Education might be in Elon Musk's crosshairs next, with Donald Trump promising to abolish the Department as a whole. Think about that. Threatening support for millions of our students and further holding back a generation of children who have already suffered interruptions through a pandemic and who can't afford more instability? It all begs the question: Who is really in control here? Who is calling the shots? Is it Donald Trump? Or is it Elon Musk? Well, today, I say to you that to working families, it doesn't matter. Neither one of them is looking out for them. And, again, this is exactly what Russell Vought has envisioned: billionaires cutting support for American families to make room for even more benefits for the rich. And his fingerprints are already all over Donald Trump's earliest steps to cut funding. Now, as I mentioned, even before he was confirmed--and he is still not confirmed--Vought had a hand in a constitutional crisis just last week when President Trump issued a governmentwide funding freeze. He hoped to withhold hundreds of billions of dollars from social safety net programs that Americans have paid into, all to lay the groundwork for his billionaire tax cuts. These Federal programs might not mean much to the wealthiest people in the country, but they mean a lot--a lot--to hard-working families across the country. In California alone, State agencies and local governments were blocked from accessing Medicaid and housing assistance grant portals. The director of a grant-funded program, the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office, supporting victims of violent crime--is that who we are trying to look out for? The local prosecutors working to protect victims of violent crime were concerned about the future of their work because Federal funding had been frozen--who knew for how long. Funding for research on cures for childhood cancer was threatened. Colleagues, childhood cancer. We are trying to find a cure, not freeze them out of hope. Local commuter rail officials in Sonoma raised concerns about their ability to continue to service the community if outstanding Federal funding was frozen. This is the kind of service that people rely on to get to work, keep our economy going. Funding freezes make it difficult to do that. The city of Vacaville was worried about potential impacts to their housing authority and vouchers. Head Start grantees were frozen out of their Federal payment management systems. Health centers in San Francisco met to assess their ability to provide services if grant funding and Medicare reimbursements were frozen. The Oakland Fire Department raised alarm bells about having to cut staff if an outstanding FEMA grant to support pay for 35 firefighters was paused. Northern California, Central California has seen what fires have done to Southern California. They don't want the same. Yet we are going to jeopardize firefighter staffing? Really? Not to mention President Trump is still holding up hundreds of billions of dollars that were promised for key infrastructure projects in California, and communities are losing confidence that they will ever see that money. And I will cite just two examples: The city of Tracy was awarded $41 million for a key infrastructure grant that would create good-paying jobs, but now they may never see that money. The LOSSAN rail corridor that connects San Diego to Los Angeles to San Luis Obispo--I know you all love that part of the California coastline. The LOSSAN rail corridor was promised $27 million to help improve service along that route. Now that is in jeopardy. I know this one well, this corridor. There are great plans in the works, not just for efficiency, improved service, but improved safety. Imagine that--improving the safety of the rail lines in America. But no. You all are OK with stopping that work. Now, although President Trump has threatened to block hundreds of billions of dollars to support families recovering from catastrophic fires, law enforcement agencies that we rely on to keep us safe, and the children and families who depend on Federal childcare and nutrition programs--that is what they are doing. I know some of you have said: Well, that order has been frozen, so we shouldn't worry. Technically, the OMB funding freeze order has been halted by the courts--not by choice, by the courts--for now. We know that the fight is far from over. This is just their first attempt in this administration, not their final attempt. And we know because this is exactly what President Trump and Russell Vought want--a constitutional crisis to give the President more power and to make way for those billionaire tax breaks that you guys are so hell-bent on. That is their plan for our families, for our Constitution, for our country. Here is another tool they have. They will use immigration and other culture wars to divide us because if we are fighting amongst ourselves, Trump and his ultrawealthy friends will just be helping themselves to tax breaks. They will try to overwhelm the system to enrich themselves, whether it is legal or not, because they are banking on us being distracted by culture wars. In fact, look at just how much has been struck down by Federal judges appointed by both Democrats and Republicans. This isn't a partisan deal. How much has been struck down already just weeks into this administration? One judge has already enjoined President Trump's blatantly unconstitutional Executive order on birthright citizenship. Not one but two judges have enjoined the OMB spending freeze. Two Federal judges also enjoined his Executive order on transgender prison inmates. And that is just in the last week. Multiple suits have also been brought challenging his illegal purge of the Federal workforce and his attempts to interfere with USAID. So we know that President Trump and his billionaire friends are only in it for themselves. That has been well established. They have shown us exactly who they are for years now. But colleagues, I have to admit that what surprises me most--what surprises me most--is that what I hear from my Republican colleagues one on one is: Well, we agree on more than you think. Let's just keep talking. Let's work to try to find this common ground. Let's do what is right for our country. Call me an optimist, but I believe my Republican colleagues when they say they came to Washington to help their constituents. Now, while I disagree with it, I understand that some of our colleagues are choosing to make political decisions with some of President Trump's nominees. You may be thinking about a potential reelection in 2026. Maybe you think it is just easier to stand up to Trump on an issue somewhere further down the road than right now. But here is what surprises me: What is different with Russell Vought is that this is a nominee who embodies a larger vision about the Presidency and about the country that would fundamentally hurt your constituents too--not just our constituents, not just my constituents, all of our constituents. And it already has. This short-lived OMB funding freeze alone gave us a look at just some of the backlash from cutting a wildly popular social safety net. So to my Republican colleagues, respectfully, I know you are getting the same calls as I am. I know you are hearing about the constituents whose lives have been made harder because of this. I know you are not blind to the real-world effects of Donald Trump and Russell Vought. This week, I have had Californians come out in droves to my office encouraging me to oppose this nomination. They are demanding that the services they rely on be protected, and they are refusing to let Russell Vought pillage programs like Head Start, like Meals on Wheels, like so many others just so that the wealthiest Americans can get a bigger tax break. So today, I will end with this: a question to my colleagues across the aisle. Who are you more loyal to--your own constituents or a reckless President? What are we doing in Washington if we are afraid to stand up for our States and for our constituents? Did any of you run for Senate to cut veterans' housing assistance? Did any of you run for Senate to slash school lunch programs and force kids to go hungry? Did any of you run for Senate to make it harder for communities to get support after a natural disaster and rebuild their home, to rebuild communities? I may sound crazy when I suggest this, but I don't believe it is any political risk at all to stand up for your constituents. Even if you hesitate to speak out publicly against Trump's unprecedented power grab, at least join me in voting against Russell Vought and his dangerous world view. Don't let Trump's allegiance to billionaires crush your hard-working constituents because I won't stand for it as he attempts to crush mine. I invite you, I encourage you, I implore you to do the right thing. I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wildfire Intelligence Collaboration and Coordination Act of 2025. This legislation would establish a joint wildfire intelligence center between the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of the Interior to foster collaboration and increase wildfire response capabilities. The scale, size, and intensity for the wildfire crisis demands a singular, whole- of-government wildfire intelligence center. Such a center could compile comprehensive information on wildfires to better inform responses and inform wildfire recovery and streamline Federal wildfire response to ensure that States have a one-stop-shop within the federal government. This center would also increase monitoring and imaging capabilities that land management Agencies currently cannot achieve. As we have seen with the destruction in Los Angeles, increasingly severe and frequent wildfires pose a significant to the whole Western United States. In recent years, huge wildfires have struck Alaska, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Hawaii, and my home State of California. Whether the fire was burning in your State or whether the smoke traveled and covered the skies of your State, the impacts of wildfires cannot be ignored. As the West continues to suffer from devastating wildfires year after year, we must be proactive, and that includes coordinating across the Federal Government to meet the current challenge. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this necessary legislation to better coordinate fire responses and fire preparedness.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wildfire Intelligence Collaboration and Coordination Act of 2025. This legislation would establish a joint wildfire intelligence center between the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of the Interior to foster collaboration and increase wildfire response capabilities. The scale, size, and intensity for the wildfire crisis demands a singular, whole- of-government wildfire intelligence center. Such a center could compile comprehensive information on wildfires to better inform responses and inform wildfire recovery and streamline Federal wildfire response to ensure that States have a one-stop-shop within the federal government. This center would also increase monitoring and imaging capabilities that land management Agencies currently cannot achieve. As we have seen with the destruction in Los Angeles, increasingly severe and frequent wildfires pose a significant to the whole Western United States. In recent years, huge wildfires have struck Alaska, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Hawaii, and my home State of California. Whether the fire was burning in your State or whether the smoke traveled and covered the skies of your State, the impacts of wildfires cannot be ignored. As the West continues to suffer from devastating wildfires year after year, we must be proactive, and that includes coordinating across the Federal Government to meet the current challenge. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this necessary legislation to better coordinate fire responses and fire preparedness.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, on rollcall vote 26, I voted nay. It was my intention to vote aye. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.