Kelsey Smith Act

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, as most people are painfully aware, we just went through a 35-day government shutdown. It didn't work for anybody. I am here today to talk about a very simple way to keep these shutdowns from happening in the future. I am also here to talk a little bit about how it fits into the broader discussion we are having.

What I am not suggesting is that we somehow leave the border security issue aside. It is a very important issue. We have to address it. The President has presented a reasonable plan. His plan is, actually, to rely on the experts to determine what kind of barriers ought to be along the border. His funding of $5.7 billion that he talks about for these barriers is to fund exactly the top 10 priorities of what the experts are saying, which are within the Customs and Border Protection's ``Border Security Improvement Plan.''

Along with many other things, I think that makes sense. A structure alone--a barrier alone--is not enough. You have to have cameras. You have to have ways to see who is coming, and you have to have ways to respond to it. You have to have more Border Patrol, and you have to have more technology. He also has more drones in his proposal. He has screening at the ports of entry to be able to stop some of these drugs from coming into our communities--the cocaine, the crystal meth, and the heroin, most of which are coming from Mexico.

I think it is a good plan. I think we should provide him help on this plan. We have a true crisis at the border, no matter how you measure it--whether it is in terms of the drugs, whether it is in terms of people coming over, or whether it is in terms of the human trafficking that is occurring, according to the experts. Let's do it the right way. Let's do it through experts. Let's not do it because the politicians say it is the right thing to do; let's do it because the experts on the border say it is the right thing to do. Let's put the right kind of barriers in the right kind of place. That is what I see in the President's plan.

He is also talking about working with Democrats on some immigration priorities they have had over the years. For the last 10 years, there have been Democrats who have talked about these young people who came here as children through no fault of their own. The President has said he would like to give them more certainty as part of this plan. Let's take him up on that. Why would we miss this opportunity? It is a good idea. It is the right thing from a policy perspective. By providing that kind of help to those DACA recipients--those young people who are now working, who are in school, and who are in our military--I think we can actually also get some Democrats to be helpful, to provide more border security at the same time we are helping those who are here and who are deserving of that help.

The President has also proposed to help people who come from 10 different countries around the world stay here with some certainty for another few years. These are people who are in the so-called TPS program, the temporary protected status program, people from 10 countries where there is war, famine, and natural disasters, and you don't want to send those people back. They are working on that and working on getting them work authorizations. That is what this is about. A lot of employers here are eager for them to stay so they can continue to work for some period of time. So there would be some

security for those individuals, tens of thousands of whom live in States where there are two Democratic Senators, States such as Maryland and Virginia. Those Senators have been stalwarts and advocates for making sure there is more certainty for these individuals. It seems to me we have a good combination here. Let's get it done.

The conferees are talking right now, but in the meantime, let's not go back to a government shutdown. That is not going to help us get to a solution. In fact, I would argue that is not only not leverage on behalf of the President or any of us, it actually works the other way because when the government shuts down, everybody loses.

I am hearing from Senators on both sides of the aisle who say they are fed up with these shutdowns. There is now a building bipartisan consensus that we need to end government shutdowns. I am encouraged because I am also hearing from people around the country about this. There is a bipartisan consensus among individuals about it.

There is an interesting poll out today that will give you a sense of this. People were given three options. They were asked: What if these talks break down? Which one of these three things should we do: shut down the government again; turn to a national emergency, as the President has been talking about, as a possible option; or not do either of those first two but, rather, do the default, which is to have a continuing resolution and let the spending from last year continue? Guess what. Only 9 percent of those polled wanted another government shutdown. Ninety-one percent said: No, let's not go back there. I call that a consensus. I think it is time for us to take action here in the Congress to say: Let's stop this.

By the way, people feel this way because they get it. They know that these shutdowns are a hardship for Federal employees who are furloughed or who are forced to go to work without being paid. They are a hardship for small businesses that can't get government work paid for--work they have done. They are a hardship for taxpayers who want good taxpayer services, such as having the national parks open or having food inspections or having the IRS hotline open, which we as taxpayers pay for.

Of course, I heard from a lot of constituents in Ohio during the last 35 days.

I heard from a TSA officer in Cincinnati who, like most people I represent, lives paycheck to paycheck. He told me he could not sleep at night. Why? Because he had never missed a mortgage payment, and he had to miss one because he lost two paychecks.

I heard about a butcher shop in Cleveland, OH. I actually went to visit it. It is a new butcher shop that just opened. It has an interesting mission. It is a deli and a butcher shop in a low-income neighborhood. They want to provide fresh, relatively inexpensive but quality and healthy food for this neighborhood. It is needed. It is one of these areas where you hear there is a food desert. In some areas, particularly in inner cities, sometimes there is just not good, healthy food anywhere. Well, this little butcher shop was excited about offering it, but guess what. Because of the shutdown, they couldn't get the required Federal permission to accept food stamps. So they had their opening, and everything was great, but they couldn't complete their mission. Their mission was to help these people have better food.

I heard from others as well. I heard from our Federal prosecutors in Ohio. I do a lot of work in trying to push back against the opioid issue, the heroin and the fentanyl, and the fact that we have these drug rings in Ohio and elsewhere that are causing so much harm. These prosecutors said they couldn't pursue these cases. One said: We can't pay informants during the shutdown. Think about that. We are slowing down our prosecution of human trafficking, opioids, rape, and so many horrible issues we want to address. We can't do it during a shutdown as effectively because the funds aren't there to pursue these investigations.

I heard from Ohio craft beer breweries. These are small businesses in Ohio. I am told there have been about 65 new ones in the last couple of years in Ohio. It is a big deal. It is probably in your State too. These are great businesses. They have not been able to expand over the last several weeks during this 35-day shutdown or to introduce new products, which is absolutely essential to their revenue stream. They come out every season with a new product in order to continue to get folks to drink these craft beers, but they need a permit from the Federal Government to do that, so they couldn't introduce their new products.

By the way, I talked to one of them today. We have been trying to help them, and they told me they still can't get the necessary Federal permits and licenses to do this. Why? Because the Federal Government office is so backed up because of the shutdown. So here we are almost a week after the shutdown, but we are really still shut down for the purposes of these small businesses.

I have heard from the young men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard. In Ohio, we have Lake Erie, we have Coast Guard stations, and we have a lot of great patriots who have been struggling financially as they worked for no pay. By the way, they were determined to do their duty, and I applaud their patriotism.

I applaud the patriotism of all of the Federal workers who showed up without getting paid and did their duty and were proud to do their duty. A lot of these folks missed two paychecks, but they didn't miss a beat, and we appreciate them.

In addition to the impact this shutdown has had on those Federal employees and their families, it has also had a real impact on our economy. We should pay attention to that.

The Congressional Budget Office just released a report on Monday estimating the economic impacts the shutdown had on our economy. Remember, this was just a partial shutdown. Most of the funding for defense, as an example, we had appropriated, but for 25 percent of it, we had not.

This is what happens: When paychecks don't flow into the economy, when furloughed Federal workers can't perform needed services and are paid after the fact anyway, and when there are sudden disruptions for Federal contractors and other businesses that rely on timely payment from these Agencies, it has a real impact, and taxpayers are worse off.

CBO estimated that the partial shutdown reduced GDP by $11 billion in the near term, $8 billion in the first quarter of this year, and $3 billion in the fourth quarter of 2018. Fortunately, the Agency expects an offsetting increase in economic activity now that the government has reopened and Federal employees are receiving backpay, but over the long term, CBO estimates that $3 billion will never be recovered in our economy. So it has an economic impact on all of us, and that goes for jobs, wages, and economic growth.

Some of that economic impact, of course, also means less revenue. Is it significant in terms of the overall revenue for our government? Some would say no, but it is less tax revenue to the Federal Government.

The aviation industry was hit particularly hard by the shutdown. The FAA was subject to the shutdown, and many of my constituents expressed concerns about aviation safety. We heard about the long delays at some of the airports. That has an economic impact.

I will tell you that airlines, such as Delta Airlines and Southwest Airlines, reported that they lost tens of millions of dollars in revenue in January. So this is over and above the CBO estimate I was talking about. Delta lost about $25 million. Southwest lost between $10 and $15 million. These lost earnings have decreased Federal tax revenues, of course, to the government. CBO didn't put a price on that, but, in fact, it is even worse than CBO estimates because of the budgetary impacts that lead to some of these revenue impacts as well.

The bottom line is that the lower economic growth and the disruptions for Federal employees ultimately cost taxpayers more than if Congress had just passed these appropriations bills on time and we hadn't gotten into this shutdown.

It doesn't have to be this way. Again, that is why I am working to ensure we don't go there again. In every Congress for the last five Congresses since I was elected in 2010, I have introduced legislation called the End Government Shutdowns Act. I was involved with this when I was on the House side

under President Bush, and now I am involved with it here because I think these shutdowns make no sense. I have introduced it under Republican and Democratic Presidents. I have introduced it under Republican and Democratic control of the House and the Senate. So this is not a political issue to me; this is a good-government issue.

The bill is a very simple, commonsense step that would continue funding from the previous year for any appropriations bill that is not done, and when there is a continuing resolution, as there is now, whenever that continuing resolution expires, we would just continue the funding from the previous year. Some have called that an auto CR. Instead of shutting down, at least the government would continue to operate.

A CR is not the ultimate answer. What we really want to do is to get this place--Congress--to actually do its work and to pass the individual appropriations bills. That is how you reform government. That is how you ensure there is certainty and predictability, particularly at the Department of Defense, where they worry a lot about that.

My bill also says that after the first 120 days--4 months--there will be a 1-percent across-the-board reduction in spending to get people to the table so that appropriators who like to spend money actually have some incentive to not just continue the CR. I think that is important. We would then reduce it by 1 percent every 90 days thereafter if Congress doesn't get its act together and put these bills together.

I think this will help to not just stop shutdowns but also to keep us from having perpetual continuing resolutions. Only through passing these individual bills can we do our constitutional duty--and it is our duty.

By the way, some Democrats have said they are not wowed by the 1 percent across the board after 4 months. They have said that somehow Republicans would like that better than they would. I just don't agree with that. I will tell you, 53 percent of the spending in this category is defense spending. It is not security spending, which is more than that, but 53 percent of it--more than half--is defense spending. It is Republicans on this side of the aisle who talk about this every year, and we have accomplished increasing defense spending. We are not going to want to cut defense spending.

By the same token, some on the other side will feel strongly about their priorities, and some of us have other priorities as well. We all have priorities. This is not meant to be an uneven balance; it is meant to be fair--1 percent across the board for everything.

My hope is that we can pass this legislation. We now have 28 cosponsors in the Senate. More than half of the Republicans are on this bill. We have the opportunity to actually move this forward, I hope, in this current negotiation over the border I talked about and over the immigration policies I talked about. Let's do it.

On the other side of the Capitol, my friend Troy Balderson, a Republican Representative from Ohio, and a Democrat, Jeff Van Drew from New Jersey, have introduced this bill. They introduced it last week, so now we have a companion bill that is bipartisan in the House as well.

You have heard Speaker Pelosi say she is against shutdowns. You have heard Chuck Schumer, who is the leader over here for the Democrats, say he is against shutdowns. You have heard a lot of our leadership say they are against shutdowns. Well, this might be something we can actually get together on and do something about.

My hope is that we can move forward. We hope we can put a commonsense bill in place that doesn't allow us to fall back into another one of these painful government shutdowns. They are not good for anybody.

Let's forge a bipartisan agreement on this funding. We are not that far apart, as I said earlier. Let's be sure we have border security. Let's deal with some of these lingering immigration issues where the President has extended the olive branch. Let's do something good for the people we represent, but at the same time, let's find a will to include in this package legislation that ends these government shutdowns while what happened these last several weeks is still fresh in our minds. Having gone through this bitter experience of the longest shutdown in history, let's be sure we don't let people down. Instead, let's make sure we do not let this moment pass and indeed stop these government shutdowns once and for all.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an important piece of legislation I just filed, aptly named after the young Kansan whose life and bright future was cut short by a senseless act of violence and whose case now is the inspiration for why we desperately need to update the law.

Almost 12 years ago, on June 2, 2017, 18-year-old Kelsey Smith was abducted in broad daylight from an Overland Park, KS, parking lot. Kelsey's abduction was captured on the store's closed-circuit security camera, which left little doubt about the emergency sense of the situation. This was an emergency.

Here is the tragedy. Four days after Kelsey disappeared, authorities were able to locate her body after a wireless provider finally released the call information from her cell phone--4 critical days. Providing location information as fast as possible is absolutely critical to ensure that law enforcement officials can rescue victims in imminent danger of death or serious physical harm and hopefully prevent future fates similar to Kelsey's.

This legislation is the culmination of years of work among legislators at both the Federal and State levels, including industry stakeholders, privacy advocates, and, most importantly, Kelsey's brave parents, who spearheaded this initiative and have advocated to create commonsense reforms that properly balance the needs of law enforcement with Fourth Amendment protections for all of our citizens.

Through their advocacy and tireless efforts, Missey and Greg Smith have helped enact laws, oftentimes with unanimous support, in 23 States, including my home State of Kansas. This law provides law enforcement with the necessary tools to rescue individuals in emergency situations where the threat of death or serious bodily injury is imminent.

The impact of this law at the State level has been real and measurable. For example, in May 2012, one month after the enactment of its State's version of the Kelsey Smith Act, local authorities in Tennessee were successful in saving the life of a child who had been abducted by a suspected child rapist. Because the child was believed to be in imminent danger, the police were able to successfully receive the location of the suspect's cell phone in a window of time that led to the safe recovery of the child alive and before she was assaulted.

In February of 2015, Kelsey's Law helped save the life of a 5-month- old Lenexa, KS, girl when a car with a baby in the back seat was stolen from its mother. Through Kelsey's Law, police were able to ping that mother's phone, which was left in the car, and, within an hour, the baby was reunited with her parents.

According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the first 3 hours are critical to recovering a child alive. That is why it is necessary that in these narrowly defined, isolated instances in which a person's very life is at stake, an exemption should be made to allow wireless carriers to immediately ping an individual's phone and release to law enforcement the whereabouts of that individual.

Understanding this, my legislation would provide law enforcement with the ability to recover the location of children, other missing individuals, and only in very specific emergency situations; namely, where there is risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Don't just take it from Pat Roberts. Public safety professionals with experience in the field support this lifesaving legislation. According to the retired Johnson County sheriff, Frank Denning:

Time is of the essence in these types of incidents and the

narrow exception for law enforcement to act with immediacy is

key here. For this not to be a Federal law seems unjust to

those who have loved ones in harm's way and this type of

intervention can and will save lives.

Major Scott Boden with the Johnson County Sheriff's Office in Kansas says:

Over my 22-year law enforcement career with the Johnson

County Sheriff's Office, 17 years have been spent in our

dispatch/911 center. During that time, the Kelsey Smith Law

has been the single most important piece of legislation

related to potentially saving the lives of suicidal subjects,

assisting endangered children, and addressing live threats

when cell phone location is necessary and seconds count. The

difference this law has made cannot be overstated and I look

forward to the day it becomes available all across this

country as a resource to assist first responders in their

most critical service saving lives.

Jennifer Lanter, the 9-1-1 director for Loudon County, TN, says:

In Tennessee, we have had the privilege of having Kelsey's

Law enacted for several years. There are multiple examples of

how utilizing this law has resulted in lives being saved that

otherwise would have been lost.

This law enables the men and women that have dedicated

their lives to the protection of others to ensure they are

able to do everything possible to locate someone that needs

help. The benefits of this law being passed at the Federal

level will be far-reaching, and countless lives will be

saved.

It is not just these individual law enforcement officials who support this bill. The bill is also supported by the National District Attorneys Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Sergeants Benevolent Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major County Sheriffs of America, the National Association of Police Organizations, the Fraternal Order of Police,

and the National Sheriffs' Association. I don't know of any law enforcement organization that has been left out, and if it has been left out, it would certainly support the bill. CTIA, the wireless association, also supports this commonsense legislation.

Just this morning, I received a letter of support from John Walsh, who is the cofounder of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and was the well-known host of the television show, ``America's Most Wanted.'' Mr. Walsh has dedicated his life to advocating for victims' rights. It began with his fight for the passage of the Missing Children's Assistance Act following the abduction and subsequent murder of his son Adam.

Fortunately, for my colleagues, voting for this bill will not take a blind leap of faith. Kelsey's Law is already saving lives in States like Kansas, New Jersey, Nebraska, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Tennessee, Hawaii, Missouri, Utah, West Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Rhode Island, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Iowa, Washington, Louisiana, Delaware, Indiana, and Alabama. Yes, I wanted to repeat all 23.

Oftentimes, the approval by State legislatures has been unanimous, and that is because Kelsey's Law strikes the appropriate balance between ensuring that law enforcement has the tools it needs to help individuals who are in grave danger and ensuring that the proper checks are in place to guard against government overreach.

My legislation requires all law enforcement agencies to maintain a record of all requests made under the Kelsey Smith Act. This record will include the name of the officer who is requesting location information from a wireless carrier, a description of the request that explains the need for the disclosure of location information, and a declaration that an individual's location information is needed in order to offer him life assistance during an emergency situation that, again, involves a risk of death or serious physical harm.

I stress that nothing--absolutely nothing--in the Kelsey Smith Act prohibits wireless carriers from continuing to operate the robust law enforcement verification systems that they use today in order to make absolutely certain that when a request is made, it is coming from an authorized law enforcement official.

Kelsey was never given the opportunity to attend college or to get married or to have children and experience the American dream that many of us take for granted every day. Yet what she did do was to inspire her mother and her father to make it their mission in life to help educate and empower communities and children in order to help prevent another case like this from ever happening again.

Kelsey's father, Greg, who is a former law enforcement officer himself and a Kansas State senator, said it best when he quoted President Abraham Lincoln to describe what Kelsey had accomplished:

In the end, it is not the years in your life that count. It

is the life in your years.

I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to speak on the floor today and to offer what, I think, is a commonsense bill that will help prevent tragedies like Kelsey's. I also thank Senator Moran, Senator Fischer, and Senator Blunt for their strong support and cosponsoring of this bill. I welcome the President's support as well.

I ask every colleague in this body to consider one question: If it were your children, your grandchildren, your spouses, would you not want law enforcement to have immediate access to information that could potentially save their lives and bring them home?

Let's honor Kelsey's memory by passing this legislation in Congress. I see no reason why it could not pass by unanimous consent.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an important piece of legislation I just filed, aptly named after the young Kansan whose life and bright future was cut short by a senseless act of violence and whose case now is the inspiration for why we desperately need to update the law.

Almost 12 years ago, on June 2, 2017, 18-year-old Kelsey Smith was abducted in broad daylight from an Overland Park, KS, parking lot. Kelsey's abduction was captured on the store's closed-circuit security camera, which left little doubt about the emergency sense of the situation. This was an emergency.

Here is the tragedy. Four days after Kelsey disappeared, authorities were able to locate her body after a wireless provider finally released the call information from her cell phone--4 critical days. Providing location information as fast as possible is absolutely critical to ensure that law enforcement officials can rescue victims in imminent danger of death or serious physical harm and hopefully prevent future fates similar to Kelsey's.

This legislation is the culmination of years of work among legislators at both the Federal and State levels, including industry stakeholders, privacy advocates, and, most importantly, Kelsey's brave parents, who spearheaded this initiative and have advocated to create commonsense reforms that properly balance the needs of law enforcement with Fourth Amendment protections for all of our citizens.

Through their advocacy and tireless efforts, Missey and Greg Smith have helped enact laws, oftentimes with unanimous support, in 23 States, including my home State of Kansas. This law provides law enforcement with the necessary tools to rescue individuals in emergency situations where the threat of death or serious bodily injury is imminent.

The impact of this law at the State level has been real and measurable. For example, in May 2012, one month after the enactment of its State's version of the Kelsey Smith Act, local authorities in Tennessee were successful in saving the life of a child who had been abducted by a suspected child rapist. Because the child was believed to be in imminent danger, the police were able to successfully receive the location of the suspect's cell phone in a window of time that led to the safe recovery of the child alive and before she was assaulted.

In February of 2015, Kelsey's Law helped save the life of a 5-month- old Lenexa, KS, girl when a car with a baby in the back seat was stolen from its mother. Through Kelsey's Law, police were able to ping that mother's phone, which was left in the car, and, within an hour, the baby was reunited with her parents.

According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the first 3 hours are critical to recovering a child alive. That is why it is necessary that in these narrowly defined, isolated instances in which a person's very life is at stake, an exemption should be made to allow wireless carriers to immediately ping an individual's phone and release to law enforcement the whereabouts of that individual.

Understanding this, my legislation would provide law enforcement with the ability to recover the location of children, other missing individuals, and only in very specific emergency situations; namely, where there is risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Don't just take it from Pat Roberts. Public safety professionals with experience in the field support this lifesaving legislation. According to the retired Johnson County sheriff, Frank Denning:

Time is of the essence in these types of incidents and the

narrow exception for law enforcement to act with immediacy is

key here. For this not to be a Federal law seems unjust to

those who have loved ones in harm's way and this type of

intervention can and will save lives.

Major Scott Boden with the Johnson County Sheriff's Office in Kansas says:

Over my 22-year law enforcement career with the Johnson

County Sheriff's Office, 17 years have been spent in our

dispatch/911 center. During that time, the Kelsey Smith Law

has been the single most important piece of legislation

related to potentially saving the lives of suicidal subjects,

assisting endangered children, and addressing live threats

when cell phone location is necessary and seconds count. The

difference this law has made cannot be overstated and I look

forward to the day it becomes available all across this

country as a resource to assist first responders in their

most critical service saving lives.

Jennifer Lanter, the 9-1-1 director for Loudon County, TN, says:

In Tennessee, we have had the privilege of having Kelsey's

Law enacted for several years. There are multiple examples of

how utilizing this law has resulted in lives being saved that

otherwise would have been lost.

This law enables the men and women that have dedicated

their lives to the protection of others to ensure they are

able to do everything possible to locate someone that needs

help. The benefits of this law being passed at the Federal

level will be far-reaching, and countless lives will be

saved.

It is not just these individual law enforcement officials who support this bill. The bill is also supported by the National District Attorneys Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Sergeants Benevolent Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major County Sheriffs of America, the National Association of Police Organizations, the Fraternal Order of Police,

and the National Sheriffs' Association. I don't know of any law enforcement organization that has been left out, and if it has been left out, it would certainly support the bill. CTIA, the wireless association, also supports this commonsense legislation.

Just this morning, I received a letter of support from John Walsh, who is the cofounder of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and was the well-known host of the television show, ``America's Most Wanted.'' Mr. Walsh has dedicated his life to advocating for victims' rights. It began with his fight for the passage of the Missing Children's Assistance Act following the abduction and subsequent murder of his son Adam.

Fortunately, for my colleagues, voting for this bill will not take a blind leap of faith. Kelsey's Law is already saving lives in States like Kansas, New Jersey, Nebraska, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Tennessee, Hawaii, Missouri, Utah, West Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Rhode Island, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Iowa, Washington, Louisiana, Delaware, Indiana, and Alabama. Yes, I wanted to repeat all 23.

Oftentimes, the approval by State legislatures has been unanimous, and that is because Kelsey's Law strikes the appropriate balance between ensuring that law enforcement has the tools it needs to help individuals who are in grave danger and ensuring that the proper checks are in place to guard against government overreach.

My legislation requires all law enforcement agencies to maintain a record of all requests made under the Kelsey Smith Act. This record will include the name of the officer who is requesting location information from a wireless carrier, a description of the request that explains the need for the disclosure of location information, and a declaration that an individual's location information is needed in order to offer him life assistance during an emergency situation that, again, involves a risk of death or serious physical harm.

I stress that nothing--absolutely nothing--in the Kelsey Smith Act prohibits wireless carriers from continuing to operate the robust law enforcement verification systems that they use today in order to make absolutely certain that when a request is made, it is coming from an authorized law enforcement official.

Kelsey was never given the opportunity to attend college or to get married or to have children and experience the American dream that many of us take for granted every day. Yet what she did do was to inspire her mother and her father to make it their mission in life to help educate and empower communities and children in order to help prevent another case like this from ever happening again.

Kelsey's father, Greg, who is a former law enforcement officer himself and a Kansas State senator, said it best when he quoted President Abraham Lincoln to describe what Kelsey had accomplished:

In the end, it is not the years in your life that count. It

is the life in your years.

I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to speak on the floor today and to offer what, I think, is a commonsense bill that will help prevent tragedies like Kelsey's. I also thank Senator Moran, Senator Fischer, and Senator Blunt for their strong support and cosponsoring of this bill. I welcome the President's support as well.

I ask every colleague in this body to consider one question: If it were your children, your grandchildren, your spouses, would you not want law enforcement to have immediate access to information that could potentially save their lives and bring them home?

Let's honor Kelsey's memory by passing this legislation in Congress. I see no reason why it could not pass by unanimous consent.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, as you know, today, or very shortly, the Senate is going to be taking up S. 1, called the Strengthen America's Security in the Middle East Act.

Through the Chair, I would say, S. 1 is being offered by Senator Marco Rubio, the senior Senator from Florida. He is, as we also know, whip smart, and Senator Rubio has forgotten more about foreign policy than I will ever know. I have enormous respect for him, and nothing I say today is meant to criticize his extraordinary efforts on this bill, much of which I have supported and will continue to support, but there is a deficiency in S. 1. We can do better by filling that hole.

Once again, Congress is paying lip service to protecting our allies in the Middle East. We are calling this bill a protector of our allies in the Middle East, and in large part it is, with a major exception-- because, once again, the U.S. Senate is leaving behind our friends and allies, the Kurds.

It is not the first time the Kurds have been left behind. The Kurds were left behind when the Ottoman Empire collapsed, and they remained a stateless people. The Kurds were left behind as modern states grew up around them, in Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Turkey, where they had no political representation, where the Kurds had no future besides oppression. The Kurds were left behind again in 2011, when allied troops pulled out of Iraq, and ISIS was just beginning to emerge. It is time we break that pattern, once and for all, and the Senate can do it in Senator Rubio's stellar effort in the form of S. 1.

As I said, S. 1 does some really good things. I thank Senator Rubio. It will reaffirm our commitment to protecting Israel, certainly our closest friend in the region, maybe our best friend in the world. Sometimes I think Israel is our only friend in the world. S. 1 will strengthen our bond with Jordan, another key ally in fighting terrorism and the humanitarian catastrophe caused by the Syrian refugee crisis. It will combat a radical economic warfare campaign against Israel. Let me say that again because it is important. S. 1 will combat a radical economic warfare campaign against Israel. I support that unconditionally. S. 1 will create new sanctions on the Government of Syria that targets those who have been laundering money to help the Assad regime.

I support all of those things, but with all the respect I can muster, I say, gently, it is a lie. It is a lie for anyone to say that S. 1 protects all of our allies in the Middle East because it will not. S. 1 makes no mention of our Kurdish allies at all. I have an amendment pending--I have offered an amendment, rather, that would fix that.

There are 30 million Kurds in the Middle East. They don't have a state, they don't have a country to call their own. They are not really safe anywhere. As a result, the Kurdish people have suffered tremendously throughout history. They have been subjected to discrimination, massacres, forced relocation, and countless other human rights violations.

Saddam Hussein attacked more than 4,000--4,000 Kurdish villages--not people, Kurdish villages--with poison gas and other chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. One hundred eighty thousand people died. They were murdered. Many more were tortured. Even more were imprisoned. Thousands fled, not that they had anywhere to go.

In the 1990s, Turkish soldiers made a hobby out of burning down Kurdish villages. Since 1984, more than 40,000 Turkish Kurds have been killed. They still face oppression today in nearly every country they inhabit. The Turkish Defense Minister made that clear in December, when he said that when the time comes, the Kurds ``will be buried in the ditches they dug. No one should doubt this.'' That is a quote.

Through all this incomprehensible suffering, the Kurds have stood by America, and we have stood by them through the decades, through thick and

through thin. The Kurds have been instrumental at every phase of U.S. engagement in Iraq and Syria, every phase.

Going back to the 2003 invasion, Kurdish fighters have been crucial boots on the ground in the fight against Islamic tyranny, and that is just a fact. The parts of Iraq retaken and controlled by the Kurds were strongholds for Western values like democracy and capitalism and multiculturalism. In fact, when allied forces withdrew in 2011, not a single U.S. soldier had lost his or her life in Kurdish territory.

The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, better known as the SDF, have been another set of boots on the ground in the fight against ISIS. With the help of coalition supplies, weapons, and airstrikes, the SDF recaptured large parts of Northern and Eastern Syria from ISIS's iron grip.

Four years ago, the Presiding Officer will recall, there were 100,000 ISIS soldiers. Thanks in large part to our Kurdish allies, those numbers today are 5,000. Today, ISIS has surrendered 99 percent of its territory, including its capital in Raqqa. The so-called caliphate fighters are now being held to a small sliver of territory on the eastern border with Iraq near the Euphrates River. Our Kurdish allies deserve much of the credit for these successes.

It is plain to see that the Syrian Kurds have been invaluable in America's fight against jihadists and tyrants in the Middle East. The SDF, Syrian Kurds, controls nearly one-quarter of Syria right now. That is land that doesn't belong to ISIS; that is land that doesn't belong to Assad, a butcher; that is land that doesn't belong to Russia; and that is land that doesn't belong to Iran. More importantly, it is land where the Syrian Kurds know they will be free from persecution and from slaughter.

For a while now, I have been asking my colleagues in the Senate to support my amendment to S. 1. My amendment would promote stability and security for our close friends in the Middle East because it is the right thing to do. It is the moral thing to do, and America's foreign policy has always had a moral component.

My amendment will allow the United States to defend the Kurds in Syria by giving the President--not requiring the President to do anything. It would give the President the authority to use our military as he deems fit to keep our promise and to protect our allies--and all of our allies. After all, the Kurds have contributed to the fight against ISIS, and we owe them some peace of mind as we draw down our presence in the region. As we draw down our presence in the region, it is time to stand up and stand by our friends to make sure the fight stays won.

The threat of U.S. military force has been a major deterrent for the reemergence of jihadists like ISIS and al-Qaida. As the Presiding Officer knows well, weakness invites in wolves. Our presence has held back Assad, it has held back Turkey, it has held back Russia, and it has held back Iran from gaining stronger footholds in the area. Without assurances of our support, as we wind down our effort in Syria, the Kurds will be left behind to fend for themselves. Without the Kurds, we cannot be certain who will step in to fill the power vacuum in the areas of Syria they currently control. We can only guess, and the answers to those guesses don't look good.

If the Kurds are vulnerable to attack from Turkey or Syrian rebels, they might have to turn to their enemies for protection out of fear. Even if they don't, they can't fight off the Turkish military if the Turkish military decides to attack and pursue the remnants of ISIS at the same time.

To abandon the Kurds now would be unconscionable. To abandon the Kurds now would compromise the security of our allies, Israel and Jordan, and it would risk exposing the region to more turmoil.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to think about the Kurds as they consider how best we can strengthen America's interests and security in the Middle East. It is time we make sure America keeps the promises we made to all of our allies--not just some of our allies, all of our allies--in the Middle East.

Toward that end, I hereby offer a second amendment that I am sending to the desk. This second-degree amendment will amend amendment No. 65 proposed by Senator McConnell. I ask that the amendment be read.

I am.

I hear no objection. May I ask that my amendment be read?

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Afterward, I would ask that my amendment be read.

Now I would again ask for a quorum call.

Mr. President, I would like to temporarily withdraw my unanimous consent on my amendment, although I reserve the right to return.

Mr. President, first, I associate myself with the remarks that we just heard from the distinguished Senator from Missouri, who made some wonderful points about how important the bill that we are discussing on the floor continues to be. I appreciate his remarks and his leadership in this body.

Government Funding

Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss a different topic, which is that the government has reopened for 3 weeks. It is welcome news that President Trump has signed the stopgap funding measure and has fully paid furloughed Federal workers.

There was an important workforce story that, I believe, was lost over the last couple of weeks during the shutdown--the story about the great news of the American economy. I certainly feel it at home. I know the Presiding Officer does in Utah, as do others, as we head home and see the ``help wanted'' signs that are up and the people who are looking to hire more people.

This economy continues to fire on all cylinders. It is fueled, certainly, in part by what Republicans have been able to accomplish due to our policy, which is a pro-job policy of tax cuts and regulatory relief. Since the tax cut law that was signed a year ago, this economy has created 2.6 million American jobs in the last year. There is additional good news. I hear it in Wyoming, I heard it last weekend, and I expect to hear it this weekend. Americans are seeing that there is actually more money in their paychecks. There is more money for a couple of reasons. One is that wages are up, and the other is that taxes are down. Last month, there was a 3.2-percent year-over-year increase in average hourly wages. It matched October as the biggest increase since 2009. This wage increase was even stronger for production workers and non-managers, who saw an additional increase in year-over-year growth.

The economy is working well. It is producing more jobs. For 9 straight months now, there have been more available jobs in this country than individuals looking for work. Last week, we saw jobless claims drop to the lowest level since November of 1969--1969, the year we put a man on the Moon and the year of Woodstock. That was 50 years ago. It was the lowest since then. That is half a century.

Now that this partial shutdown is over, I believe we need to refocus our attention on continuing to grow the economy, continuing to increase wages, and continuing to create more high-paying jobs for American workers. Meanwhile, Democrats seem to want to put the brakes on the economy. They are proposing higher taxes and expansive new regulations.

We still have our work cut out for us. This excellent economic news underscores the need for us to work together to resolve our differences on important government funding legislation. Let's keep in mind that 70 percent of the government is already funded all the way through the end of the fiscal year. Congress still has the job to do of funding the remaining 25 percent, and we need to do that by the middle of February--by February 15.

By signing the 3-week continuing resolution, the President has given Congress the opportunity to come together to secure the southern border and to fund the government. During the shutdown standoff, Democrats repeatedly called for the President to reopen the government. They asked for 3 weeks so they could seriously negotiate, they say, on border security. Well, we now have a 3-week agreement, but time is going to tell whether Democrats are serious about solving this border security crisis and protecting the American people.

A full-year spending deal has to include significant funding for a comprehensive border security package. We need more personnel, we need more technology, and we need more physical barriers.

Security barriers are not the sole solution, but they are an essential part of the solution. That is why the last four Presidents built 650 miles of physical barriers along our 2,000-mile border with Mexico. Democrats, including Speaker Pelosi, voted for all this construction. In fact, the Speaker's home State of California has a physical barrier on the border with Tijuana, Mexico.

Like his four predecessors, President Trump has listened to the security experts. Those four were President Obama, President Clinton, President George W. Bush, and President George Herbert Walker Bush. Four Presidents prior to President Trump listened to the experts.

The experts today say we need 200 more miles of physical barriers strategically located where illegal traffic is surging. Despite the experts' support, Democrats have abruptly changed their position on barriers--changed completely--and they have denied the President the funding he has requested.

Given that Democrats had supported 650 miles of the physical barriers we

currently have, why are they opposing the next 200 miles, strategically placed where illegal traffic is surging? To me, it seems personal, and it seems aimed at President Trump. The American people expect us to solve problems not as Democrats and Republicans but as elected representatives of the people.

The priority is to move full-year Homeland Security Department spending legislation through Congress that provides wall funding. Today, House-Senate negotiators are working to produce a compromise package that can pass with the other six bills and get it done by February 15. This conference committee--a committee of the two Houses-- will be meeting later today. Conferees may also add other provisions, including immigration reforms.

Already, the President has offered to extend protections for the Dreamers, who were brought here as children, and immigrants whose temporary visas are expiring. So the President has offered an opportunity and a solution. These modest proposals are an immigration policy bandaid. Yet they could be the start of broader bipartisan immigration talks. From a policy perspective, I believe we are not that far apart.

Americans agree that border security is important and that our immigration system does need reform. The country's safety and security must always come first.

In my opinion, the President is open to reasonable changes to his plan. I believe he has been very willing to compromise. As long as Democrats define victory as blocking President Trump, however, on his key priority, everyone loses, and that includes Federal workers, the American people, and immigrants.

The American people expect us to work together to resolve our differences. This isn't a winner-take-all political game. It never should be. Members of both parties must be flexible. Once Congress passes a full-year spending bill, we can move on to other priorities facing us as a nation.

President Trump has incredible determination to build physical barriers where Border Patrol tells us they are most needed, and the President is right when he says walls work. Democrats supported construction before President Trump took office; they should support it now. The President has presented a path to compromise. Now Democrats should follow suit. All we need to succeed is cooperation. The best position on this negotiation highway is the middle lane. It is time to move to the middle and move forward on border security. By working together, we can produce a winning solution for America.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.