[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 17, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3415-S3417]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



         Executive Office of the President of the United States

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as every high school student of government 
knows, the Constitution of the United States of America provides for 
three coequal branches of government: the legislative branch under 
article I; the judicial branch under article III; and the executive 
branch under article II. What I would like to talk about, briefly, is 
the role of the Chief Executive, the President of the United States.
  Under our Constitution, the President has vast authorities. The Chief 
Executive enforces Federal laws; oversees the entire Federal executive 
branch of government; and manages Federal Agencies and Departments, 
which includes appointing and removing high-ranking officials like 
Cabinet members and Agency heads subject to Senate confirmation for 
certain positions.
  The President of the United States--the Chief Executive--is also the 
Commander in Chief. He leads our Armed Forces and directs military 
operations. While only Congress can declare war, the President can 
deploy troops and respond to immediate threats, often with 
congressional authorization but not always. The President--the Chief 
Executive, the head of the executive branch--can grant pardons and 
reprieves for Federal crimes except in cases of impeachment. This power 
is nearly absolute and cannot be overturned.
  The President also has some legislative powers in the form of a veto. 
He can veto legislation passed by Congress forbidding those acts of 
Congress from becoming law unless both Chambers override that veto with 
a two-thirds majority vote. And while the President is not a legislator 
per se, he can propose legislation--and often does--and influence the 
legislative agenda by proposing budgets, delivering the State of the 
Union Address, and advocating for certain policies.
  The President--the Chief Executive of our government--can call 
special sessions of Congress and, in rare cases, actually adjourn 
Congress if the House and the Senate cannot agree on adjournment.
  The head of the executive branch--the President of the United 
States--is also our chief diplomat. He shapes U.S. foreign policy, 
negotiates treaties, and appoints Ambassadors with Senate confirmation.

[[Page S3416]]

  The President can also enter into executive agreements with foreign 
nations which do not require Senate approval but are binding during 
that President's term.
  The President, as part of his diplomatic powers, also serves as our 
primary representative in international relations.
  Then, when it comes to judges, the article III branch, the President 
of the United States--the head of the executive branch--nominates 
Federal judges, including Supreme Court Justices, who are obviously 
subject to Senate confirmation, as well as members of the inferior 
judiciary.
  Through the Justice Department's Solicitor General, the President can 
also influence legal interpretations in cases brought before Federal 
courts.
  In addition, the President of the United States--the Chief 
Executive--can issue Executive orders, as we have seen, or directives 
or proclamations to manage Federal operations or implement policy, 
provided they align with existing law, of course, or constitutional 
authority.
  Then, in times of crisis, the President of the United States may 
assume broader authority under statutes like the National Emergencies 
Act, though such actions are subject to congressional oversight and 
review.
  Then there are the implied powers as they have been called. 
Historical precedent and constitutional interpretation allow the 
President some flexibility in areas like national security, economic 
management, and crisis response.
  These are the powers that the Constitution and laws of the United 
States confer upon the head of the executive branch, the President of 
the United States.
  The President of the United States, of course, is elected by all of 
the American people, but what are we to do when the President of the 
United States is incapable of performing the duties of his office? Who 
is purporting to act for the President if the President is incapable of 
acting himself?

  This was something that was contemplated even as far back as the 
Federalist Papers during the founding of our country.
  Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 70:

       Energy in the Executive is the leading character in the 
     definition of good government. It is essential to the 
     protection of the community against foreign attacks . . . 
     [and] to the steady administration of the laws.

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

       A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the 
     government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for bad 
     execution; and a government ill-executed, whatever it may be 
     in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government.

  Unfortunately, Alexander Hamilton's warnings ring true when we 
consider the Presidency of Joe Biden--a weak, feeble Executive who 
proved incapable of performing many of the duties of his office.
  Last June, during the Presidential debate, the American people saw 
with their own eyes what many had known to be true but would not admit 
publicly: Our sitting Commander in Chief was suffering from severe 
cognitive decline.
  We now know that there was a conspiracy to hide the President's true 
condition--by his family, by his staff, by the media, and by many 
public officials. We were told over and over again: Don't believe your 
lying eyes.
  Jake Tapper, who coauthored a mea culpa for the journalism 
profession, summed it up this way:

       What the world saw at Joe Biden's one and only 2024 debate 
     was not an anomaly. It was not a cold; it was not someone who 
     was under or over prepared. It was not somebody who was just 
     a little tired. It was the natural result of an eighty-one-
     year-old man whose capabilities had been diminishing for 
     years. Biden, his family and his team let their self-interest 
     and fear of another Trump term justify an attempt to put an 
     at times addled old man in the Oval Office for four more 
     years.

  This was a true constitutional crisis--bigger than President Biden--
and it cannot be absolved by a collective apology by the press or an 
election where that President's party loss. We should know--the 
American people should know--and still do not know precisely what 
should happen when a President is incapable of performing his or her 
constitutional duties.
  Tomorrow, I will be cochairing, along with my colleague from Missouri 
Senator Eric Schmitt, in the Senate Judiciary Committee a hearing to 
delve into the constitutional implications of President Biden's 
cognitive decline while in office. At that hearing, we will begin to 
address some of the many unanswered questions from this scandal--
questions that are foundational to the functioning of our form of 
government.
  One of the aims of the hearing will be shining a light on what 
exactly went on at the White House during the Biden administration. The 
chain of events that occurred within the Biden administration matters, 
and we cannot discount it merely because he is no longer in office.
  With a compromised President, the very legitimacy of our government 
is undermined. From the Biden border crisis to the disastrous results 
from the withdrawal in Afghanistan, the American people were the ones 
who paid the price. And it is now clear that for many months--no one 
knows exactly how long--the President was simply not up to the task.
  So we have to ask difficult questions, like, who was really in charge 
during the last months of the Biden administration? Was it his wife? 
Was it other members of his family? Was it his Chief of Staff? Was it 
others? None of these individuals, whoever they may be, were elected by 
the American people. Whoever happened to be making those decisions and 
carrying out the duties of the Office of the President was not somebody 
who was authorized by the Constitution or by a vote of the American 
people.
  This is an existential threat to our democratic republic--this 
threat--and it cannot be ignored, and it will not be ignored.
  History tells us this state of affairs was reminiscent of the Wilson 
Presidency, where the First Lady assumed many of her husband's duties 
during his infirmity but kept it a secret from the American people. It 
was one of the events that inspired those who drafted the 25th 
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
  Certainly, the American people did not consent to being governed by 
Jill Biden, and they didn't elect the White House Chief of Staff or 
whoever else purported to act on the President's behalf.
  The hearing we will hold tomorrow in the Judiciary Committee will 
examine in depth these constitutional questions and what happens when 
the President is no longer capable of performing the duties of his 
office.
  Our country has faced many difficult challenges in the past, 
including a succession for President--for example, when John F. Kennedy 
was assassinated in 1963. In the aftermath of that assassination and 
the questions it raised, Congress began considering a constitutional 
amendment about Presidential succession.
  In 1965, Senator Birch Bayh and Representative Emanuel Celler 
introduced a resolution in Congress to clarify the order and procedures 
of Presidential succession. This resolution was the basis for the 25th 
Amendment, which Congress approved in July of that same year.
  Of course, for every constitutional amendment, three-quarters of the 
States must actually ratify that resolution, and the States finished 
ratifying the 25th Amendment in 1967, after it was first proposed in 
1965. President Lyndon Johnson certified the amendment that February.
  The 25th Amendment to the Constitution provides a roadmap for 
succession in instances of Presidential incapacity. Section 4 gives the 
Vice President--in this case, Vice President Harris--or a majority of 
the President's Cabinet--that would be President Biden's Cabinet--the 
authority to challenge the President's ability to carry out the 
functions of his office subject to a vote in Congress. But in this 
instance that we all witnessed less than a year ago, Kamala Harris and 
the Cabinet did nothing--or, rather, they did something: They hid the 
truth from the American people.
  So who, this hearing will ask, is accountable when the Cabinet fails 
to do its duty, when the Vice President fails to do her duty under 
section 4 of the 25th Amendment? Are there penalties for failing to 
act? Is there any accountability whatsoever? Should there be?
  The Framers of this amendment wanted it to be possible, yet 
difficult,

[[Page S3417]]

to remove a President when absolutely necessary. Ultimately, though, 
they acknowledged that the execution of the 25th Amendment would depend 
on the good faith of the Cabinet and the Vice President. But Biden's 
Cabinet did not act in good faith, nor did the Vice President herself. 
They acted in their political and personal self-interest.
  This is the paradox of self-government. Many of the rules, 
traditions, and institutions that sustain our Republic are self-
executing, self-enforcing. So the health and legitimacy of our 
democratic Republic rest on the character of the men and women who 
serve in government.
  This brings us to the most crucial questions we will address in the 
hearing: Why was the 25th Amendment not invoked, and what factors do we 
need to look at that may have played a role in congressional inaction? 
Most importantly, as part of our legislative responsibilities, should 
Congress consider amending the 25th Amendment further to further 
clarify responsibilities and protocols in case this disaster befalls 
our Nation again?
  As a government, as an American people, it is imperative that we have 
clear contingency plans when emergency strikes. And, yes, it is an 
emergency when we have a sitting President who is unable to discharge 
the duties of his office. He certainly could not have been trusted to 
make one of the gravest decisions that faces any President in history: 
what to do in matters of war and peace--a situation that feels all that 
much more real given the current events in the Middle East.
  The concerns raised by this incident stretch beyond the boundaries of 
partisan politics. We must not turn away from the search for answers, 
and it is not an overstatement to say the future of our country could 
one day hinge on how we choose to act or not act on this issue. So 
tomorrow's hearing is a first important step in preserving this land of 
the free for future generations.
  In these United States, those in authority derive their power from 
the consent of the government, but during much of the last 4 years, we 
know that our country was largely led by unelected staff whose names 
are unknown by the American people.
  I look forward to tomorrow's hearing examining these hard but 
existentially important questions that must be answered from this 
monumental scandal.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.