Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, earlier this year, the public confidence in the banking system was shaken by a series of significant bank failures. To put it simply, these banks failed to account for interest rate increases while leaning on a deposit base that was almost entirely uninsured. That is a textbook case of mismanagement.

It is critical that faith be restored in our Nation's banks and their regulators. But before policymakers clamor to write stricter banking regulations, an independent review board should be appointed to thoroughly probe the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and the response of the Federal Reserve Bank.

Many questions still remain unanswered. Silicon Valley Bank was quickly deemed systemically important because of its size, but the ensuing failure of a larger bank was not. The sale was dragged out for weeks out of fear that certain banks would grow too large, only for the largest bank in the country to turn around and purchase the next bank failure.

In my opinion, all parties involved had a role in this failure: bank executives, examiners, and regulators. The bank failed to both accurately leverage their position and react to rising interest rates. Examiners failed to require changes in either the bank's policy or subsequent actions. Regulators failed by arbitrarily guaranteeing all funds against loss, creating an unlimited market insecurity by forcing taxpayers and customers to now question the safety of their deposits. The administration failed by furthering a culture of government intervention that props up certain too-big-to-fail institutions.

Meaningful oversight requires objectivity and must hold all parties accountable without having a predetermined regulatory agenda in mind. To restore public confidence, the next step, in my view, would be to hire an outside investigative group to conduct a review of the Federal Reserve Bank's response. Conflicts of interest inherently arise when a singular member of the Board prepares a self-investigation.

This comprehensive review must be done by a party uninvolved in the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and/or uninvolved in the Federal response. This would better ensure that the outcome of this investigation would be impartial, helping put to bed doubts that the Fed's review only served as a stamp of approval on the Fed's policies.

The Fed's own internal review found significant negligence by both management and regulators. The public needs insight into the reasoning and conversations of regulators, the White House, and bank management involved in the response.

Silicon Valley Bank and the banks that subsequently failed were specialized to do business with a unique financial sector. Any reform regulators push now must be narrowly tailored to those circumstances to avoid collateral damage to small and midsized banks that consistently operate responsibly. Stricter capital requirements will push lending out of the regulated banking sector and into the nonbanks and money market funds, none of which are subject to the regulations of the Fed for banks, as the Fed regulates banks.

The banking turmoil was a result of a rapidly changing interest rate environment, the speed at which money can move, and the limitations of banks to adjust as quickly as the market can. Understanding the context and reason behind the response is absolutely necessary for ensuring future bank failures have a smooth and fair resolution with a minimal impact upon American taxpayers.

An independent review of the Silicon Valley Bank collapse is necessary to get a nonpartisan, less biased assessment that gives Americans confidence in our banking system and policymakers better ability to ensure our financial system remains the strongest in the world.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, America's attention is rightfully drawn to supporting Ukraine's defense against Russia's illegal and unjustified war. At the same time, we are contending with China, which is undergoing the largest peacetime expansion of military power in history.

This morning, Congress and the American people heard from Israeli President Isaac Herzog, and I rise today to remind my colleagues of the ongoing threat posed by Iran to peace in the Middle East and beyond.

Iran is exporting more oil today than it has since 2019 despite the sanctions that were overwhelmingly passed by this Congress and that remain as current law.

Recently, the Navy's Fifth Fleet intervened to prevent two commercial oil tankers from being seized by Iran in the Gulf of Oman. Iran was recently granted membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which fosters deeper political and economic cooperation with Russia, China, India, and other members.

All of this has taken place while Iran continues to enhance its nuclear program, provides Russia with weaponry to use in Ukraine, funds proxy fighters throughout the Middle East, holds U.S. citizens hostage, and vows to kill former American officials in revenge for the death of Soleimani.

Despite Tehran's reestablishment of diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia and holding indirect talks with the United States, it appears that we are far from the ``deescalation'' that the Biden administration says it seeks. Instead, all evidence points to an Iranian regime intent on aggressively pursuing its aggressive objectives.

I agree that we should avoid a crisis that would be triggered by Iran enriching uranium weapons beyond a 90-percent grade or by Iran-backed militias killing U.S. servicemembers in an attack, but my concern is what behavior the President is willing to accept short of these redlines.

While I can only speculate on the content of the Biden administration's reported talks with Iran, press reports suggest a possible agreement would permit Iran to maintain nuclear enrichment at 60 percent. This level cannot be justified for peaceable purposes, and agreeing to it can have serious consequences.

In addition, the Biden administration's persistent outreach to Iran undermines its stated goal to degrade the Russian military.

Henry Rome and Eric Brewer, two scholars who follow Iran's nuclear program closely, recently wrote:

Instead of laying the groundwork for a deal that reverses

Tehran's nuclear program, this strategy risks cementing

Iran's status as a nuclear threshold state [all] while

shaking off its economic and political isolation.

In other words, it gets a lot of what it wants without any price to pay.

Normalizing the 60 percent enrichment level may threaten more nuclear proliferation, particularly in the Middle East. Other countries contemplating nuclear programs will take note and demand the same treatment.

Another element of a reported deal is Iran's pledging not to harm American servicemembers in the region. Ensuring the protection of Americans abroad is the President's first responsibility, and it is to be commended; however, turning a blind eye to havoc wrought against our partners in the region only sows greater instability.

At the same time Iran's oil exports were revealed earlier this month, Israel was waging a military operation against Iranian-backed Palestinian militia groups--Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

In Iraq, in addition to Tehran-backed militias that remain beyond government control, Iran is gaining ground in the Iraqi Government.

Scholar Michael Knights observed last month:

Iran's allies have achieved unprecedented control of Iraq's

parliament, judiciary, and executive branch. . . .

Washington's complacent attitude toward these events is only

setting it up for costly involvement later.

The regime's ability, through the IRGC, to fund such efforts comes directly from the failure to enforce sanctions. The Wall Street Journal reports that oil exports are double what they were a year ago--the highest, as I said, since 2018. Oil revenue is the regime's lifeblood, and reducing its cash stream is a critical component to getting Iran to negotiate.

I call on this administration to strictly enforce sanctions on Iran's oil exports and pressure countries that help to facilitate the sale of Iranian oil.

In a bipartisan letter I joined with 25 of my colleagues just recently, we wrote the President last month:

It is crucial for your administration to remain aligned

with Congressional efforts related to Iran's nuclear program

and not agree to a pact that fails to achieve our nation's

critical interests.

In the face of a regime in which hardliners have solidified power, President Biden's narrowly focused approach merely kicks the can down the road. But this may be to Iran's advantage. In fact, it most likely is. Current trends indicate that Iran will use the time to refill its coffers and deepen its diplomatic ties, better positioning itself to withstand pressure to make any significant concessions.

The administration must pursue more than the bare minimum in its diplomacy. Keeping a problem from developing into a crisis is good, but solving the problem is much better. I recognize the obstacles that must be overcome and that we will have to provide some concessions. To believe otherwise would ignore the history of diplomacy. But in accord with the will of Congress, an acceptable agreement can be reached. President Biden has the tools we have provided through that legislation, and he must use them.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I was sitting home reading the newspaper, something I still do, and last month I read an article that captured my attention. National test scores of American students showed an alarming decline in the education of our children. Reading scores in America have continued to worsen since the height of COVID-19 pandemic, dropping to the lowest scores in decades.

The troubling deterioration in American education was demonstrated by average scores on the 2023 National Assessment of Educational Progress known as the Nation's Report Card. The report showed that 13-year-olds declined nine points in math compared to 2020. This was the largest drop for 13-year-olds seen in 50 years.

When 13-year-olds are struggling, it portends even worse problems ahead, because mastery in seventh and eighth grade is necessary to progress to more complex knowledge and analytical abilities required in high school and beyond. We know that failures in early childhood education, in early education have a long-lasting consequence.

We must turn these test scores around and accelerate the education of America's young as though our future depends on it, because it absolutely does.

America's strength as a global power--let me say that the education of our children is hugely important to our students and their families. But, also, America's strength as a global power doesn't just depend upon a strong military or possessing the latest weapons. Those things are important, but it also depends upon our economy and our ability to maintain a technological edge over our adversaries. And that all begins in the classroom, equipping our students to read, multiply, divide, and succeed.

The mental health, confidence, and contributions of young Americans cannot be thought of as a secondary issue. It is not a secondary issue to other national security imperatives. What that means is that the well-being, health, confidence, contribution, the capabilities, knowledge, intellect, and intelligence of our children have consequences to our security--our national security.

One of those greatest threats in our national security is China. China understands that to force their way into being a global superpower, they must be able to challenge the U.S. militarily and economically. This can be done by dislodging the United States as a leader in key technology areas that will dictate the success of nations in the coming decades.

Those technologies include semiconductor design and manufacture, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, aerospace engineering, advanced manufacturing, and biotechnology. If China were to overtake the United States in any of these areas--in any of these areas--the United States would lose out on trillions of dollars in economic value, our military edge would erode, and the Chinese global influence would increase dramatically.

As we grapple with the implications of a new Cold War with China and as we take stock of many of the associated challenges more complex than the old Cold War, the fact that our youth remain grades behind in math poses a concerning obstacle to future competitiveness. Advances in science and technology will build on basic math. Right now, our children are unprepared; and, therefore, we are unprepared to meet this challenge.

While we work to regain this ground in education, particularly in these STEM fields, we also need to create more opportunities for others that have gained a STEM education here in the United States to practice their profession in this country and contribute to the U.S. economy.

Educating people, only to send them back to strengthen their own home country, at a time in which the U.S. demand for STEM talent is through the roof, defies logic. Only 11 percent of foreign-born recipients of a bachelor's

degree and only 23 percent of those who earn a master's degree manage to find a way to stay and work in the United States.

The U.S. semiconductor industry alone could face a shortage of 70- to 90,000 workers over the next few years, and there is a projected shortfall of 300,000 engineers and 90,000 skilled technicians by 2030. It would be naive to believe that these positions can be solely filled by our American students.

As the Wall Street Journal opinion section recently read, the foreigner working in tech ``isn't taking an American job; they are helping keep that job in the U.S.''

Foreign-born scientists have been integral to our preeminence as a scientific and military power. Most famously, nuclear physicists from Europe were the intellectual forces that propelled the Manhattan Project; and, today, more than half of the Silicon Valley startups are led by foreign-born entrepreneurs. This is why we have worked to pass the Startup Act in each Congress since I arrived in the Senate.

This bill would ensure that those with advanced STEM degrees would be able to stay in this country while they are engaged in STEM-related professions.

This would fill the immediate and increasing need for STEM-educated professionals, while we work to improve STEM education for America's youth.

There is no ``one size fits all'' approach to solving the challenges in the classroom. Regaining ground after schools were closed during the pandemic will take hard work and ingenuity. But the success of our Nation depends--again, the success of our children depends, but because that is the case, the success of our Nation, our country, depends on young minds grappling and mastering the basics of math and reading and writing and science.

We must make certain we are taking an ``all of the above,'' long-term approach to national security, and that means making strides in the classroom and investing in our students. Our schools are there to take care of our children and their future, but failure to do so means that we are damaging our Nation's future.

For the sake of our country, its national defense, its economy, and for the sake of all American families, we need to make certain that we reverse course in making certain that our students are learning and are achieving at a rate that allows us to be successful.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise this afternoon to discuss, along with a number of my other colleagues who share the understanding, the importance of broadband access, especially to rural America.

A recent study by the University of Kansas found that up to 1 million Kansans live in regions that lack access to high-speed broadband services. Often, rural areas have the worst quality broadband or, as is too often the case, they have no access to broadband.

The benefits of access to high-quality broadband are clear. They are known. We have worked hard to be in positions here in the U.S. Senate in which we are fully engaged on the issue of making sure that all Americans have access to this service. Broadband access is correlated with more jobs, greater economic growth, better healthcare outcomes, and increased educational performance.

This means our country will be weaker as we confront the economic and security challenges we are facing, including labor shortages, STEM education shortcomings, and the lagging American leadership in key technology areas. When millions are without broadband, we limit our potential as a nation.

Lack of access or lack of access to good-quality broadband is certainly a local issue. It is an individual issue. It is a local business, a local family, a local school, a local library issue. But the consequence of those individuals, those families, those schools being absent broadband service is a detriment to our Nation.

Recognizing the importance of access to high-quality broadband, Congress has allocated significant resources to help bridge the digital divide, but the first step in appropriately allocating those resources is knowing where the money needs to go.

I sponsored the Broadband DATA Act, which was enacted in 2020, to require the FCC to use granular data to create a more accurate and refined broadband map to better target areas so we know where the new investments are needed. Getting these maps right is critical and has not been easy. The first time I saw the maps that were developed, it was like, this doesn't reflect at all what I know about my home State of Kansas.

Congress has devoted significant resources. We were involved in the effort to allocate additional dollars so that broadband maps could be updated and the data could be improved and hopefully get the information correct. We have been working on this since 2020.

If the FCC maps aren't accurate, a large portion of funding will be poorly used, and areas in need won't get the resources required to increase access to broadband. Millions of dollars in new resources for Kansas rely upon the accuracy of the maps. It would be poor government and a waste of taxpayer dollars if the outcome is that we are only providing money to places that already have broadband service or have quality broadband service and once again forgetting, forgoing those that don't.

The FCC is required to allow Americans to challenge the inaccuracies within the maps, making certain the maps improve over time. After receiving feedback from Kansans over the last few weeks and months, a second version of the map was released at the end of May. I understand from talking with Kansans that this map is more accurate than the one before. Continued oversight of the FCC's work will be necessary, and I continue to work with my colleagues on those efforts.

Now that we know where the need exists--now that we better know where the need exists, we need to make certain that investments are appropriately targeted to those most in need and not waste it on overbuilding existing networks. We also must ensure that the program requirements encourage broadband providers to participate rather than discourage them with burdensome requirements that do not line up with congressional intent.

I also want to make certain that every dollar Congress has allocated to broadband deployment actually goes to broadband deployment, not back to the Treasury. This is why, in a bipartisan way, we have introduced legislation to ensure that broadband grants are not considered taxable income. This is particularly important as critical broadband deployment programs at the Department of Commerce allocate funds at the end of this month, just a few days from now. Every dollar taken back by Treasury represents a community remaining disconnected, and I encourage my colleagues to work with me so this is not the case.

As part of my oversight work as the ranking member of the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommittee, I invited Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo to Kansas to hear directly from Kansans about the

challenges they face when deploying broadband across our State. She heard from County Commissioner Randy Leis about the benefits broadband access has brought to Meade County, including education and business opportunities. She also heard from a host of rural telephone and telecom providers about what they need from the Department of Commerce to successfully deploy broadband across Kansas.

During this visit, Secretary Raimondo--and I express my appreciation here today on the Senate floor. I appreciate her coming to my State to hear and see what is the circumstance. During this visit, Secretary Raimondo reiterated her commitment to provide every Kansan with access to high-quality broadband services.

To preserve the smalltown Kansas way of life that I and many Kansans and Senators here today value, I look forward to working with Federal and State officials to make certain that Kansas and particularly rural Kansans are connected to quality broadband service. Of all the things we do in my world to try to make sure Kansans have a bright future, one of the important ones is to make sure we have access to the technologies of today and tomorrow.

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

Mr. President, I want to spend a few minutes here on the Senate floor discussing the debt ceiling agreement reached between the Republican majority in the House and the Biden White House, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, the bill that, presumably, we will be further debating, perhaps amending, and voting on yet today or tomorrow.

I fully recognize that governing in a divided government is a challenging amount of work. The American people have given us that circumstance. This circumstance requires negotiation and finding common ground; otherwise, we can do nothing.

Unfortunately, President Biden, for way too long, refused to negotiate with House Republicans. He refused for months to negotiate with House Republicans--I suppose in an effort to intimidate Republicans and pass an unaltered debt ceiling increase. This would have opened the door for more Democratic majority spending--in fact, spending even more money with perhaps no, but certainly fewer, strings attached. Fortunately, that tactic did not work, and the House Republicans acted to pass their own debt limit legislation. Without a realistic plan, a plan that could pass Congress, the Biden administration finally conceded and negotiated with House Republicans to create a deal, the deal that is before us now.

My view: Defaulting on the national debt would send a message that we are a nation that cannot be trusted to pay our bills. Default would be highly dangerous to our national security and to our currency and to our economy. China and other countries, those countries that are on the fence in today's world, are watching. They are watching how the American government operates. They want to diminish our role in the world. China would love for our standing in the world to be damaged due to default, for the United States and its economy to be in chaos.

It is vital to our economy and to our national security that we do not default and that we preserve the U.S. dollar as the primary currency, the ``reserve currency''--not the yen or any

other country's currency. The implications of what happens here today in regard to a default has a consequence upon our national well-being vis-a-vis the rest of the world and, most importantly, determines the relationship we have with other countries and the role that China is able to further play in the world order.

China and these countries that are on the fence are watching. It is time--it is vital to our economy and national security that we do not default and that we preserve that dollar.

The Fiscal Responsibility Act isn't the legislation that I personally would introduce. It does not sufficiently cap long-term discretionary spending; it continues to tie our defense budget to spending less than the rate of inflation; and it fails to address reforms needed to mandatory programs. But it does accomplish key conservative priorities that will benefit America and help put our Nation on a better path toward fiscal responsibility.

In addition to the debt ceiling issue, reckless spending can also be the demise of our country's well-being, and endless deficit spending will eliminate the American dream for many Americans and the American dream as seen by the rest of the world.

As a fiscal conservative, the Federal Government must spend less, must grow its spending less rapidly, must set limits on our appetite, and must stop wasteful spending. Our Nation has had a spending problem for the last several decades--probably even longer than that. It used to be that everyone understood that deficit spending was a damaging thing to the economy. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, perhaps the first progressive President, understood that World War II had to be paid for. It was a given that we paid our bills with nearly current revenue.

It seems, over time, that many--particularly, in my view, in the Democratic Party--decided that deficit spending was not that much of a problem. And I worry that, too often, Republicans want to look the other way as well. We accelerated that spending during COVID. Perhaps with the uncertainty of what COVID meant to us, government spending rose rapidly, and we spent too much money. But Congress was slow--even as COVID began returning to the rearview mirror, we were too slow to turn off that COVID spending spigot.

Coupled with reckless tax-and-spending sprees driven by the Biden administration, out-of-control spending has led to record-high inflation. Inflation is like a tax on every American and is damaging to the poorest among us.

Here in Congress, we talk about spending in terms of millions and billions--sometimes even trillions. But folks back home in Kansas talk about spending in dollars and cents. And for everyday Americans, those dollars add up, make it harder to buy the groceries, to pay the rent, or to put gas in their vehicles. We see it every day in our family, and I hear about it from everyday Kansans all the time.

Reducing inflation requires reductions to spending. The cause of inflation is when we spend more than we have to spend and we borrow money, pumping more Federal spending, government spending, into the economy.

However, we need to fulfill the most important responsibility to the Federal Government, and that is to protect and defend our Nation and to keep our promises to those who served in the military that defends us. My colleagues and I on the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs have consistently said we would provide the VA with the funding it needs to provide care and services to the men and women who have served our Nation. I have heard it said many times here in the Senate and elsewhere that it is too easy for us to go to war and never easy enough for us to pay for the bills for those who sacrificed so much during war.

The debt ceiling deal delivers on our commitment to support veterans. The deal also secures the full funding of the toxic-exposed veterans that was authorized by the just recently passed PACT Act.

In regard to government waste, this legislation will slow the rate of spending and recoup unspent funding, starting with COVID funds, to the tune of billions of dollars. The pandemic is basically behind us, and there is no reason for us to keep spending under the rubric--under the title--of COVID relief funding.

Additionally, this legislation will cut significant funding to the Biden administration's plan to hire thousands of additional IRS agents. I am an appropriator, and I have long been an advocate for what we around here call regular order, what folks back home would just call doing your job.

The way this process is supposed to work is we have a budget that outlines how much money we can spend, what the revenues are to pay for it; and then we divide up that money that we are going to spend in discretionary spending among 12 bills that the Appropriations Committee and, ultimately, the Senate and the House and the President then have something to say about.

I have been an advocate for passing those separate 12 bills. We haven't done that very well many times. For far too long, we have relied on continuing resolutions and massive omnibus packages to fund our government. Those omnibus packages allow for a small group of Members of Congress to make major decisions for the rest of us. It adds to the uncertainty of what is in a bill when it is such a massive piece of legislation, and it creates--rightfully so--cynicism among my constituents about ``What is in there?'' and ``Did you read the bill?''

These measures, the way we do it--the way we have done it in the past--are not good government, and they lead to the ease of additional spending. It becomes too easy to add something to such a massive bill.

This legislation would encourage Congress to do its job by passing 12 separate appropriation bills or face automatic caps on spending. Whatever happens on this piece of legislation, I hope the outcome, with the leadership of the Appropriations Committee that we have today, means that we are going to do 12 separate bills, each with the scrutiny of an appropriations subcommittee and the opportunity for amendments by all Senators on the Senate floor.

Working to spend less will help stop this runaway inflation. But this legislation goes a step further by stimulating the economy and protecting Americans from new taxes.

Unleashing American energy is a key to reducing energy prices, stimulating our economy, and strengthening our national security. The permitting reforms included in this bill will help get energy projects approved more quickly rather than being bogged down in a set of bureaucratic regulations. Things that should take months or a few years--hopefully, it will be the case and not take years or decades.

Raising the debt limit is not something I or any of my colleagues should take lightly. Why have a debt ceiling if it is just automatically increased every time it is met? Don't we wish that would work in our credit card bills that we receive? We have a limit on what we can spend because sometimes people, and always government, need to be told no.

We are seeing firsthand the consequence for spending outside our means. And there will continue to be more consequences. But no deal is not a solution either. This is really the clash of a bad outcome of a default and the bad outcome of more spending, more inflation, and a greater challenge to our country and its economy.

No deal is not a solution. And defaulting--I can't see any way that is helpful to Kansans or Americans. The American people elected a divided government. That is what we work in every day here. Democrats hold the White House and the Senate. The House Republicans deserve credit for negotiating a deal with a reluctant President and passing an agreement with reasonable caps on Federal spending.

This bill represents progress and is that proverbial step in the right direction. We cannot continue to borrow money we don't have and saddle future generations with the consequences.

The debate cannot end here, however, with this vote. However the outcome of this legislation in Congress, we should never have to wait for a crisis--an economic crisis, the debt ceiling--to take fiscally responsible measures. It should be part of a way of life here. Those responsible measures need to become the norm for every Member of Congress and for this and every other President.

Without a serious long-term plan and subsequent action to reduce spending, we will be back in this position way

too soon, and we will jeopardize the American dream. It threatens our children and our grandchildren's futures as well as our Nation's ability to defend itself against global threats.

I always tell myself that my responsibility as a citizen of this country--not as a Senator necessarily but just as a citizen--is to do what we can do to make sure that the American dream is alive and well and liberties and freedoms that we enjoy as Americans through the sacrifice and service of many and the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in the Constitution of the United States--our job is to make certain those liberties and freedoms are protected for people we will never meet and that the American dream is alive and well for people today and their children and grandchildren.

America still stands as a beacon for others around the world, and there are others in other countries who are trying to live the American dream. They are envious of what we have. But it is fragile, and it can go away.

It is our responsibility to make sure that is not the case. We can't let this happen. We have to confront our threats head-on.

And, yes, it is easy to take a side and defend that side and advocate for that side. It is what we do here. There are times in which it is necessary for us, for the well-being not of us as individuals or us as elected officials but for the well-being of the country, to find a path forward. And in today's environment, in today's world, it requires bipartisan cooperation. And bipartisan agreement is a blueprint to develop more fiscally responsible legislative agenda.

We will debate this bill. We will, potentially and perhaps hopefully, amend this bill, but our work is cut out for us. The American people deserve for us to make the decisions that protect us from our adversaries, keep the American dream alive, and make certain that our children and grandchildren and those we have never met have a brighter future. The issue before us is one of those that has a consequence in all those arenas.

I will work with my colleagues today as we move forward on this legislation to make sure that the outcome is something that advances a cause that is important to me and to the people I represent.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes prior to the scheduled rollcall vote.

Mr. President, I, too, rise to make known my concerns with the administration's decision to terminate the use of title 42 authority to protect our borders. I particularly make this point at a time at which it is clear that what was to follow the use of title 42 is not in place.

I visited the southern border with the Senator from Texas, who was just speaking, in January. I had several additional visits to that border while title 42 was in place. It was useful and valuable for me to see the nature of the problem and the challenges over the last several years. But it is also true that I can see the consequences of what is taking place on our borders in my own home State of Kansas.

When I was at the border, I talked with Federal law enforcement officials. They have risen to the challenge of apprehending and vetting and documenting hundreds of thousands of migrants. However, the situation at the southern border has been made more difficult for the DEA to interdict the cartels and drug smugglers and for the FBI to vet national security threats.

Repealing title 42 without having a robust plan of action has left our law enforcement agents with a disastrous situation at the border. Our Border Patrol agents and officers are being asked to be caretakers, law enforcement, medical professionals, and so much more.

The fact of the matter is that our country does not have operational control of the border, and it will continue to fail to do so if we continue down the current path.

The U.S. Border Patrol apprehended more than 1 million migrants who crossed illegally between just October and March, and it detained more than 2.2 million migrants during all of fiscal year 2022. Agents have been averaging about 1,100 arrests a day this month at the El Paso sector, and on Wednesday of last week, more than 2,000 migrants were arrested in the one section alone. Often, we think of border challenges as being someone coming to take our jobs. Perhaps there is a component of that, but we ought to be focused on terrorism, national security, drugs, law enforcement, and human trafficking.

Fentanyl seizures at the southern border increased 48 percent in April of 2022 compared to April of 2021. The situation at our southern border is a danger to our national security as border agents are pulled away to deal with the record number of migrants and are left without the manpower to try and stop drug trafficking and human trafficking.

President Biden must act to ensure a stricter enforcement of our immigration laws, reinstate the construction of a wall or fencing in areas that are largely unprotected, and the administration must send a message loud and clear that our border is closed to unlawful entrants.

The United States is a nation of migrants, and we are a nation of refugees, but we are also a nation of law and order. Migrants who are camping on the streets of El Paso, in scorching heat; mothers wading across rushing rivers, clinging to their infants; and girls caught by traffickers and cartels out in the desert are consequences of a disastrous border policy.

The President's and his Secretary's handling of this crisis at the southern border is unacceptable. Congress must work together to deliver lasting solutions that secure our border, keep our communities safe, and ensure the humane treatment of people.

Securing our southern border isn't a Republican or a Democratic issue. It isn't a Texas or an Arizona issue. It isn't just a U.S. or a Mexico issue. Every State is a border State, including my own of Kansas.

If we truly want to help migrants, then we need to create a fair and humane asylum process, and we need to stop the illegal crossings at the southern border that undermine our laws and jeopardize our national security. Americans--Kansans--are tired of paying the cost of inaction to make any serious policy changes at the southern border.

The administration has made it clear that it is unwilling to take the meaningful action necessary. While it is easy to criticize the administration, let me also say that it also means that it is up to this Congress, this legislative body, to work together to find solutions in this regard--solutions that ensure our national safety, establish a humane asylum process, and end the crisis at the southern border.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Brian Hutchison, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress.

Mr. President, this week our Nation observes National Police Week. That observation began in 1962, when President Kennedy claimed the first Police Week as a time dedicated to pay tribute to our law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty.

President Kennedy's proclamation stated that, during this week, ``all of our people may join in commemorating police officers, past and present, who by their faithful and loyal devotion to their responsibilities have rendered a dedicated service to their communities and, in so doing, have established for themselves an enviable and enduring reputation for preserving the rights and security of all citizens.''

This afternoon I rise with my colleagues to honor the dedication and sacrifice of our law enforcement officers.

Over the course of this week, we pay tribute to 443 officers who gave their lives in the line of duty in 2022.

Saturday night, just a few days ago, hundreds of police officers, family members, and others, gathered for the annual candlelight vigil honoring our fallen officers. Among those memorialized this week are four brave Kansas officers.

Deputy Sheriff Sidnee Carter, with the Sedgwick County Sheriff's Office, was tragically killed in an automobile crash while responding to a night disturbance call.

We also lost Sheriff Robert Craft from Marion County, Officer David Ingle from the Iola Police Department, and Sergeant Stacy Murrow from the Linn County Sheriff's Department--all Kansans.

In fact, all Americans are grateful to those officers for their service and honor them in making the ultimate sacrifice for the benefit of others, for the benefit of the people they knew in their community, but also for the benefit of people they never met.

While the purpose of Police Week is to honor the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty, we also should remember how those police officers' lives as husbands and wives and mothers and fathers--as members of their communities--they were people who happened to wear a uniform, who happened to take up a career to serve others, to protect and defend.

From educating kids in school about the dangers of substance abuse or providing driver safety education, coordinating neighborhood watch associations, and speaking at business luncheons, schools and community townhall meetings, law enforcement strive to make our community a safe place to live and raise a family and to work to foster a more safe and secure environment; in a sense, to provide justice.

During this National Police Week and throughout the year, we should remember that law enforcement needs our support. We should provide them the resources they need to do their jobs. We must also give them the tools they need to build and strengthen the bonds of trust with those they serve and our best efforts to address the underlying challenges that face our communities and individuals in their lives.

I serve as the lead Republican on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee with appropriations jurisdiction over the Department of Justice. I am committed to making certain our law enforcement officers have the resources and support they need to do their job effectively and safely.

We honor the service and sacrifice of our Nation's fallen law enforcement officers, remember those who departed, and acknowledge and express our gratitude for the sacrifices all law enforcement officers make every day they wear the badge.

During this week--and, really, every other week of the year--we should, and we do, honor those we have lost and remember the families they left behind. We ask God to comfort them in their time of grief and be a source of strength for them in their lives. May God bless our police and our local law enforcement officers. May God bless them as they do their duties, and may God hold in His arms those we have lost this past year.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now stand in recess until 5:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I am pleased to have the opportunity to give some thoughts today on what is going on in the United States and around the globe.

Here in these early months of this new Congress, there clearly is broad bipartisan agreement on the importance of the Indo-Pacific region for our country's future. We are strengthening our military posture in that region, and last Congress, we passed legislation to strengthen our strategic industries.

What is being ignored, however, is a third component essential to our success in the region: expanding trade. At a State and Foreign Ops hearing in March, I noted the importance of our economic relationships around the world and asked Secretary of State Blinken about our approach to trade agreements, particularly America's absence from the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership--the CPTPP.

He told me the original pact in 2015 had real benefits, economically and strategically, but since then the world has moved on. I agree with him, our allies and our partners have moved on. They have moved on without us.

A year ago this month, President Biden made his first trip to Asia and unveiled the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, the administration's initiative to reengage the region on standards involving digital trade, supply chains, climate change, and corruption.

This is a small start, but it falls far short of what is needed today to advance American prosperity and security--also, the well-being of our Asian partners. In particular, the President's proposal fails to include greater U.S. market access.

The United States is belatedly offering a tepid leadership to a region that remains committed to open trade.

We can and must correct this or fall further behind in the most economically dynamic region in the world. I call on President Biden to enter into--and Congress to ratify--the CPTPP. It would be difficult to overstate how important the Indo-Pacific is to American prosperity. The region comprises 40 percent of the global economic output, and that is expected to grow to 50 percent by the end of the decade.

The largest economy in the region belongs to China, which is the largest trading partner for the region's countries. This provides Beijing with leverage to bully our allies and partners into making concessions in exchange for access to the Chinese market. It allows Beijing, not the United States, the same opportunity to have that relationship, so necessary.

China, for example, used coercion to retaliate against Australia after our allies in Canberra called for an investigation into the origins of COVID-19. Beijing regularly forces American businesses to refrain from criticism of China or conform to communist policies.

China's leaders can coerce and intimidate because they have economic strength. It is clear China will exert that tremendous leverage over other nations to achieve its global ambitions. Its attempts to bully countries into its sphere of influence are on full display through the Belt and Road Initiative, which has left trails of debt traps and human rights abuses. Unfortunately, the United States is ceding our economic leadership that we established and maintained for the last 80 years.

Having quit the Trans-Pacific Partnership under bipartisan, Republican and Democrat, criticism for that departure, the countries we worked with--treaty allies and partners--moved ahead. They moved ahead without us and in 2018 brought into force a successor agreement, the CPTPP. These countries represent more than 13 percent of global GDP, and in the last few weeks, Great Britain has gained membership.

So important is the CPTPP to the Pacific economies that China has applied for membership. They did so last September. It would be a grave mistake for us to assume that in America's absence China would be denied membership indefinitely.

China wants in, despite already being the largest member of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Agreement, which also includes our treaty allies, Japan and South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. This trade bloc accounts for nearly one-third of global GDP.

These two agreements, comprised of nations with diverse ideologies, underscore the importance of the economics of the Indo-Pacific region. In Asia especially, economics and security are one and the same, and for Washington to ignore that is a miscalculation.

Our allies and partners in this region are noticing. They notice our absence. Australia's Foreign Minister said at the end of last year:

America's decision not to proceed with the CPTPP is still

being felt in the region. . . . We have reached a stage in

the evolution of our alliances where they will increasingly

require a fully developed economic dimension, as well.

In other words, we can't have the same relationship with countries that we don't deal with in trade in economic relationships.

At the end of 2022, Singapore's Defense Minister had this to say:

The U.S. increasing their military presence in Asia as a

stabilizing force is virtuous, it is good and we will support

that.

But then he made this key point:

We think that the U.S. should do more to engage as it did

previously, to build an economic framework, which as a tide

can lift all boats.

Despite our own National Security Strategy which declares that ``we need to win the competition for the 21st century'' and that we will ``shape the rules

of the road for . . . trade and economics,'' the document makes clear President Biden believes ``we have to move beyond traditional Free Trade Agreements.''

But given the words of our Pacific friends, it is equally clear they have not moved beyond such agreements. In fact, they are doubling down on them without us. The President and his administration are either oblivious to this fact or indifferent.

Given the stakes, whichever one it is, it is a serious mistake. Dating back to the 1980s, the National Security Strategy is a congressionally mandated report issued by the President to convey the administration's national security goals and how to achieve them. In recent decades, one document is published each Presidential term rather than yearly.

The 2022 document, President Biden stresses upholding the ``rules- based international order'' but then refuses to engage in shaping one of the significant pillars of that order: trade.

The National Security Strategy invokes four principles, two of which are openness and inclusiveness. And as one scholar observed, the President's approach to trade is neither open nor inclusive.

This hurts our goals in this region, and it hurts Americans at home, our very national security. Our engagement really is about our own well-being. Our own well-being is often dependent upon the well-being of our friends and allies or those we want to be our friends or allies.

Economic partnerships can promote U.S. national security interests by protecting critical access to technology, minerals, and food supplies. We know what happens when we are so dependent upon one particular country for meeting our country's needs in strategic items. It is a mistake for us to have all eggs in a basket. Robust trade agreements safeguard the intellectual property and manufacturing capabilities that underpin our American military dominance.

Southeast Asia presents a situation in which our agricultural producers can score significant market access wins, while U.S. soft power can bolster our influence with these critical partners with these countries that are or can be our friends.

America's economy is the foundation of our power. Without the creation of wealth, we cannot afford to sustain the world's greatest military, which in turn defends the peace that enables the flow of goods. As a column in the Wall Street Journal just within the last week argued, ``The U.S. must embrace the politics of growth. Our world must be, and must be seen to be, the surest, fastest path to raising living standards all over the world. That's what we did after World War II. We must find a way to do it again today.''

What that is saying is we can't allow China to be seen as the path to economic well-being for people and nations around the world and specifically in the South Pacific.

Southeast Asia presents a situation in which our agriculture producers can score significant market access wins while we are making a difference in our own capabilities to influence the world.

America's economy is the foundation of our power, and we must utilize it. In competing with China in the coming decades, it is essential that the United States provide a positive vision for the region that attracts countries to what America offers beyond security support. Leadership is more than making clear what we are against. We must offer a compelling case of what we are for and how it will benefit those we wish to lead, those we wish to be partners with.

Little in geopolitics is a win-win, but trade is a rare area that advances our interests and those of our partners. According to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, the American people understand this. Three in four Americans think that trade is good for the U.S. economy, but Congress and the President are making a mistake ignoring the old idea of open trade.

To best compete with China in Asia and to help Americans at home, joining the CPTPP and providing greater market access is an obvious place to begin. Jobs, economic opportunity for us, and most importantly, the well-being of our Nation, our national security, depend upon trade and that relationship it creates.

(Ms. CORTEZ MASTO assumed the Chair.)

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the scheduled vote occur immediately.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, today--in fact, in a few minutes from now--the Senate will act in an effort to protect farmers, ranchers, and producers from the unnecessary consequences of listing the lesser prairie-chicken.

Even as I say the words, it brings back so many instances in which we have had this conversation on the Senate floor, going back to my earliest days in the Senate. This issue has been with us now for a long number of years.

Range-wide studies over the last decade have shown that conservation efforts are helping bird populations in the five habitat States, including Kansas. So the lesser prairie-chicken is a native bird to five States in our part of the country, and its populations are important to us in Kansas and to those other States and to the country.

What strikes me is that this administration claims that American agriculture is at the heart of needing to list the lesser prairie- chicken as either an endangered species or as a threatened species because agriculture is causing harm to the populations.

A quote from the rule states:

Grazing by domestic livestock is not inherently detrimental

to lesser prairie-chicken management and, in many cases, is

needed to maintain appropriate vegetative structure.

That is a pretty good paragraph to indicate the value of production agriculture when it comes to the well-being of the lesser prairie- chicken.

In other words, what that is saying is that agricultural management practices and voluntary conservation practices of grasslands, including grazing by ranchers, improve--improve--their habitat.

Listing the bird as a threatened or endangered species is not the answer. Plain and simple, we need more rainfall. We need moisture in Kansas and in other States in the West. We need more rainfall, not more regulations.

I conclude here by saying that farmers and ranchers have always been and will always be the original conservationists. Their livelihoods depend on the continued conservation efforts of the soil and water they use to produce crops and raise livestock. I am confident there are ways to conserve the species without hindering economic opportunity in rural communities, and I will continue to push for what Kansans have been pursuing for years now--voluntary solutions.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, years ago, we realized the government's failure to keep up with the amount of classified information is outdated; it is insufficient; and it is costly.

It is important to improve our broken classification system to reduce costs, eliminate years of backlog, and create a more efficient system. But I now recognize there is another reason to do this beyond just the efficiency of good government. We now know, also, it is making our country more vulnerable.

The disclosure of classified information threatens our country's security, diminishes the safety of our military, and damages our relationships with our allies.

We are so overwhelmed protecting outdated documents that we have failed to meet the basic purpose of our classification system: protect classified information from bad actors.

In the past year, our Nation experienced a number of harmful incidents relating to how classified information has been handled. Last year, we learned that classified information was improperly in the possession of the President, the former President, and the former Vice President.

Last month, our Nation became aware of a number of documents allegedly leaked by a 21-year-old Air National Guardsman trying to impress his video game buddies.

Regarding the latest leaks and the constant reporting streaming from them, I am mystified that such a person could have such broad access to some of our Nation's most sensitive information.

The alleged leaker had a known history of threatening violence and a record that did not permit him to obtain a gun. How could he be trusted with a top security clearance?

To protect the security of the United States, it is necessary for Congress to understand how these episodes happened, ascertain the damage that has been inflicted, and work to reduce the likelihood of them ever happening again.

We must also overhaul how records are handled and who has access to them. I want to highlight the enormous amount of classified information that is already in the government's possession. In this digital era, the Federal Government is classifying more information than our current analog declassification efforts can meet.

We are increasingly finding that information which should no longer be classified, including historical records subject to mandatory declassification, remain classified because the system is just simply overwhelmed.

This comes at a cost of good governance: American taxpayers spend $18 billion a year--$18 billion a year--on this broken system, and it prevents transparency, costly and not good government, citizens without information.

When there are no compelling national security reasons to justify records remaining classified, public trust in government is undermined.

Senator Wyden, the Senator from Oregon, and I have attempted to address this growing problem by introducing the Declassification Reform Act in the previous two Congresses.

Following the recommendations of the Public Interest Declassification Board, we sought to designate the Director of National Intelligence as the official responsible to oversee an intelligence community-wide reform so that we don't fall further and further and further behind.

The intelligence community recognizes the urgency of reforming the classification system. However, it remains a question of who is in charge of this process. An executive agent is necessary. The Declassification Reform Act establishes a working fund for Agencies to utilize.

Our legislation doesn't resolve every problem associated with how government classifies and declassifies information. Too much information is classified, and administrations from both parties have allowed political considerations to interfere in the declassification process. But when records no longer require classification, neither disagreements about national security nor politics are to blame. It is an out-of-date system that is in need of leadership--leadership to reform it.

A modernized declassification system will help eliminate years of backlog and create more efficiency and greater transparency.

Modernizing our system would also apply to the process of tracking records that are supposed to remain classified so that we can better keep them secure, which is now the top priority for why we must immediately address this issue.

We live in a very dangerous world. And information that is classified and should be classified should not be shared with others. And yet we saw that happen just last month. Sensitive information that must remain classified must be protected from carelessness or maliciousness. Yet the records that no longer need to remain classified should be made available in a timely fashion.

I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. I look forward to introducing legislation with Senator Warner as chairman, Senator Cornyn and Senator Wyden, other members of that committee, to introduce legislation in the coming days to further address this issue.

I also welcome the opportunity to work with my colleagues, both on the committee and in this Chamber, to advance this debate and reach solutions to improve an out-of-date declassification system and better protect our national security, the challenges we face in this country and around the world. Now is not the time for us to look the other way. We can do better, and we need to head down that path quickly.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to address the Senate for up to 5 minutes.

Madam President, the legislation that is before us, the Veterans Programs Improvement Act, just came out of the Senate Veterans Affairs' Committee. It is S. 326, as amended.

We are here on a motion for cloture, and this bill will be, as amended, a

combination of bills that are both Republican and Democratic bills, including one from the Senator who is presiding today. It includes a bill from Senator Rounds of South Dakota dealing with the loan process for Native American veterans. It includes a couple of pieces of legislation: the RESPECT Act, to help veterans with mental health or neurological conditions to get caregiver care; the Elizabeth Dole Act, to expand home- and community-based, long-term care programs so that veterans have more choices as they age; and the bill of the Presiding Officer that provides grants to county veterans service officers for outreach to veterans. In addition, it includes what has been perhaps the most discussed aspect of this piece of legislation: a bill that creates the authorization to allow for medical research for marijuana to be conducted--for cannabis to be conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs. But it requires retrospective research to take a look at the research that has already been conducted and to go and conduct research with veterans who are currently using cannabis. The outcome of that study is unknown, but this is an effort to make certain that veterans are not doing something that is harmful to them and to make an informed decision several years from now about the relationship between veterans and cannabis.

The point I would like to make in my few comments today is that I have encouraged my colleagues to offer amendments. There are a lot of items that my particularly Republican colleagues--I understand there are Democratic colleagues who have amendments. While we have had some success this year in amendments coming to the Senate floor, I want to make certain that is the opportunity Republican colleagues and Democratic colleagues have as this bill--if it proceeds, that we have that opportunity.

I had those conversations with both the majority and the minority, and I look forward to enforcing as best I can the capability to make certain my colleagues have that opportunity. If that is not the case, I reserve the right to then oppose this legislation.

I yield the floor.