Floor Statements

Mr. President, I came to the floor to talk about the border one more time, but I was intrigued by the rhetorical questions my friend from Illinois has asked the Speaker.

I have got a question for President Biden: When you say that you are not going to negotiate on the debt ceiling, does that mean that the Federal Government is going to continue to rack up more and more debt on top of the $30 trillion that we already owe, particularly during inflationary times when interest rates on that debt basically are eating up more and more of our discretionary budget?

To me, if the answer is yes, I am going to refuse to negotiate as we continue to rack up more and more debt, about two-thirds of which is on autopilot, as the Presiding Officer knows--it is mandatory spending. That is a supremely irresponsible position to take.

President Biden, when he was in the Senate, was known as a dealmaker, and as I said yesterday, during 2011, he negotiated with Senator McConnell the Budget Control Act, which was probably the most recent response, sort of a mixed bag as it was, to try to control Federal spending. It was a noble effort, although it did not succeed.

So I know our friends on the Democratic side would like to sort of add to Mr. McCarthy's challenges. We have got 6 months, perhaps, between now and the time the extraordinary measures the Treasury Department is going to be using to make sure we don't actually breach that debt limit, but I would suggest that the time would be better used, rather than sort of to add gasoline to the fire, to actually try to solve the problem. And the problem--the debt limit--is real. It needs to be addressed by two people: Speaker McCarthy and the President of the United States. Because anything the Senate were to pass with 60 votes, which would be required, would certainly be dead on arrival in the House of Representatives.

And so as a practical matter, while we are going to be very interested and engaged in the debate and discussion, that is where the decision is going to have to be made sometime between now and the time extraordinary measures are exhausted, perhaps as early as June.

But in the meantime, for the President of the United States, who represents not just Democrats, who represents all Americans--all 330 million-plus of us--to say: I am not negotiating, even though he has got a track record as a Senator and as a Vice President of negotiating hard things like this, to me, is an irresponsible answer, and I hope he will reconsider.

Now, Mr. President, to talk about what I came here to talk about--talk about the border.

I live in a border State. We have 1,200 miles of border with Mexico. We have, as a country, 2,000 miles of border with Mexico. And we are seeing numbers of people showing up at the border that we have never seen before--millions of people since President Biden was sworn in as President on January 20, 2021, millions of people showing up, many of whom are claiming asylum and seeking to immigrate permanently into the United States under the asylum laws. Because the administration has a policy of releasing those individuals into the interior of the United States to await a future immigration court hearing, which may be years in the future because of backlog, many of those individuals do not show up at their immigration court hearing but simply are willing to play the odds that they can just melt into the Great American heartland and not be returned or repatriated to their country of origin or actually have to appear at an asylum hearing.

We know that, statistically, the number of people who actually do show up for an asylum hearing in front of an immigration judge, only roughly 90 percent of them fail to meet the very stringent requirement for asylum, which is basically a credible fear of persecution based on some classification: race, sex, ethnic origin, or the like. That is a very narrow test, and it certainly does not include fear of poverty or even violence in your home country. Yet the policy of the Biden administration to basically create open borders and place individuals who show up and claim asylum--these are not people trying to run away from the Border Patrol, by the way. These are people who are turning themselves in because they know they can play the system, and they will be able to make their way into the United States without any consequences--certainly, no legal consequences.

I am sure those of my colleagues who have visited the border--and we had a bipartisan group just a couple weeks ago who did visit again both Yuma, AZ, and El Paso. But as my colleagues can attest, there is no data, there is no image there, frankly, or no words to adequately convey the complexity of what is happening at the border today. To understand, you have to see and hear for yourself.

Several years ago, I traveled to Brooks County, which is a little county in South Texas, where I visited a ranch that the Border Patrol had a rescue beacon in the middle of.

And just to explain, the Border Patrol does a lot of humanitarian rescues because, as you can imagine, people coming from Central America, up across the land bridge into Mexico, up to the United States, many of them show up dehydrated, suffering from exposure, and some of them, frankly, die on the trip. But the Border Patrol, while they have the responsibility of enforcing our immigration laws at the border and interdicting illegal drugs,

they also rescue migrants who are in distress. And what these rescue beacons are, out in the middle of nowhere, frankly--what they are are large poles with a light on top that allows migrants who are sick, injured, or otherwise in distress to contact law enforcement for help and immediately get access to first aid, water, food, whatever they need. There is a sign at the bottom of these rescue beacons that instructs the migrants to press a red button for help and to remain in the area.

Well, when I first went to Brooks County, which is where this-- Falfurrias is probably the largest inland port where the Border Patrol has a checkpoint in Brooks County. I was surprised to see the rescue beacons not written in just English, not just written in Spanish but in Mandarin. Mandarin. This is Brooks County, TX, a rural county 70 or so miles from the U.S.-Mexico border, and the rescue beacon is in Chinese, the Chinese language. This is a factoid about the border crisis that doesn't get nearly the attention that it deserves. What this tells me and what I have learned subsequently is that migrants aren't just coming from Mexico. They are not just coming from Central America. They are literally coming from all around the world.

Now, when I hear, for example, Vice President Harris or the President of the United States or Secretary of State Blinken talk about the migration crisis, they want to talk about root causes. And I think, although that is a little bit vague, I think what they are talking about is they view migration as an economic crisis: people living in their home country who are seeking a better life, which we all certainly understand, or fleeing violence--they want to talk about root causes.

But I think what they don't understand or certainly aren't articulating is the fact that this is far broader than a regional problem concentrated in Mexico and Central America. I think the fact that these rescue beacons have been, for many years, written in English, Spanish, and Mandarin is evidence of the fact that this is a far larger problem but one that the administration has simply not acknowledged.

A couple of weeks ago, I traveled with a bipartisan delegation of colleagues to El Paso, TX, which is the westernmost point in my State. Actually, just a bit of trivia, the city of El Paso is closer to the Pacific Ocean than it is to the eastern tip of Texas, to give you an idea of the scope of what we are talking about. It is a big place.

But we traveled to El Paso, TX, which is an urban area, but we also went to Yuma, AZ, which, if you look on the map, is the southwestern portion of Arizona, another border State, just right up against California. But it is an agricultural community. I think it is fair to say--I am not disparaging it--it is kind of a sleepy little agricultural town.

We met a number of people in El Paso and Yuma whom I want to mention. In El Paso, we went out on a night patrol with the Border Patrol. They got on their horses, and they rode over this large area where there is a lot of traffic. And then we were informed that they had detained two migrants. And so we walked over there to sort of see what was going on, and the Border Patrol said: Well, these two are from China. El Paso, TX, two Chinese migrants trying to make their way across the border. As a matter of fact, one of the Border Patrol Agents had to use an app on the phone, I think it is called Google Translate, in order to communicate with these migrants.

Then, when we went to one of the detention facilities or processing facilities, actually--not actually detention--we met a family from Uzbekistan while touring the Border Patrol Central Processing Center in El Paso--not in Mexico, not Central America, but Uzbekistan. You can look that up on the map. It is not a part of the region that the President, the Secretary of State, and Vice President are talking about when they are talking about root causes of illegal immigration.

But when we went to Yuma, the little sleepy agricultural town on the border of Mexico and the United States, the Acting Border Patrol Chief told us that one of the unusual features of a number of the migrants who came across Yuma were they came from 176 different countries, and they spoke more than 200 languages.

And you might ask: How in the world is that possible? Well, Senator Kelly, one of the Arizona Senators, said: Well, there is an airport right across the border in Mexico, at the northern border, in a city called Mexicali. Again, if you look at your map of Mexico, you will see that Mexicali is a pretty large urban area right there on the Arizona border. And people fly into there. Of course, they have to pay human smugglers, criminal organizations that are a network that smuggle human beings for money from anywhere in the world to that airport, and then they walk across or walk up to the Yuma Border Patrol and claim asylum.

They noted that many of them are apparently well-to-do. Somebody mentioned Gucci luggage. I don't know whether Gucci makes luggage or not, but you get the idea. These are the not the sort of mental pictures that I think many people have of migrants who are seeking a better life, necessarily, fleeing poverty, I should say, or fleeing violence.

So the reason I mention this is because the reality of what is happening on the ground along the border undercuts the rhetoric we hear from the administration about how to solve this problem.

The White House has pushed a narrative that the only way to fix the border crisis is to fix the ``root causes'' of migration, meaning the economic and security concerns that cause people to come here. It has honed in on the Northern Triangle, including El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, as the primary region of concern.

The administration's border czar, Vice President Harris, even led the development of the ``root causes strategy.'' The problem is the data shows that this is not the region driving illegal migration.

Last month, Customs and Border Protection encountered more than a quarter of a million migrants at the southern border. Fewer than 33,000 of those 250,000 were from Northern Triangle countries--33,000 out of the 250,000 were from Northern Triangle countries. So these are the three countries that the administration is focused on.

It reminds me of the story of people who look through a soda straw at a problem. Well, they can look down the soda straw, and they can see what is happening there, but they don't see what is happening around it, and they lose any sense of context or the complete picture. That is what the administration is doing when they are looking at the border and the humanitarian and national security crisis occurring there on a daily basis and in my State's backyard.

As a matter of fact, these three countries represent only about 13 percent of the migrants encountered at the southern border in December. Mexican nationals, the large country right on our southern border-- Mexico is not driving the numbers either. Only 19 percent of the border encounters in December were Mexican nationals.

So where are all these men and women and children coming from? Well, you can take a global map, a map of the world, and you can take a dart and throw the dart at the map and you are likely to hit a place where these migrants are coming from. Last year, across the entire border, Customs and Border Protection encountered migrants from 174 different countries. People from every corner of the globe are traveling through Mexico and crossing America's southern border.

There is no question that the conditions in Mexico and the Northern Triangle are contributing, but they are only a small fraction of the problem. People around the world see the Biden administration catching and releasing migrants by the thousands on a daily basis. They see the yearslong wait for asylum cases to be adjudicated. They see the lack of any interior enforcement by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and as they look at this picture, they realize that if they can make it across the southern border, they are likely to be able to stay in the United States for years, if not a lifetime.

Despite what the administration may think, this is not just a regional problem; it is a global phenomenon, run by transnational criminal organizations. That ought to concern all of us.

Last year, CBP encountered migrants from 174 different countries. If the administration wants to fix the ``root

causes'' of this crisis, are they going to fix the world? You can see why their misconception, their misunderstanding, their erroneous narrative of what the problem is doesn't help solve the problem.

It is time for the Biden administration to acknowledge the reality of the situation and look at solutions that are realistic and effective. In order to get this crisis under control, we have to move quickly on a bipartisan basis to insist on the enforcement of our immigration laws when people attempt to enter our country other than through legal means. That is the only viable path forward, and the sooner the administration understands that, the better off we will all be.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we have seen this movie before. The Senate finds itself in familiar territory. The United States narrowly avoided hitting the debt ceiling over a year ago, but now we are staring down the barrel of another debt crisis.

The United States hit the debt limit last Thursday, according to the Secretary of Treasury, and now the Treasury is using what they refer to, euphemistically, as ``extraordinary measures'' in order to prevent the government from defaulting on its debts. Unless the Congress takes action in the coming months, the American economy will be confronted with an unprecedented crisis.

But here is what I find strange: Despite the fact that we are hurtling toward this disaster, the White House seems completely disinterested in finding a solution. President Biden has drawn a redline. He said: We are not going to negotiate on the debt ceiling. In other words, he expects Congress to raise the debt ceiling with no conditions attached and let this reckless runaway spending and outrageous debt continue to rise.

Now, I don't want to disparage drunken sailors, but it seems to me that that is the model for how the White House is responding.

It is as if you or I were spending beyond our means on our credit card, and then the issuer of the credit card said: You know, you are going to have to pay the money back at some point.

And you say: To heck with that. I want you to raise my credit limit even higher, without any demonstrated means or plan to actually pay the money back.

We know what would happen for you and me is the issuer of the credit card would cancel our credit card, as well it should, if we responded the way that the White House is responding.

So apparently what the administration plans to continue to do is continue this spending bender. It can't cover the current bills--now it is roughly $30 trillion--and it expects somebody, anybody, maybe nobody, to pay the money back and to deal with this ever-growing national debt.

We know this is an even bigger problem in inflationary times because the more money the Federal Government continues to spend, it is like throwing gasoline on inflation, and consumers have already experienced sky-high prices--some of the highest prices in 40 years--on everything from gasoline to food, to housing, and to the essentials of life.

So why in the world does it make sense for the administration to say: We are not even going to talk; we are not even going to negotiate with the House when it comes to the debt ceiling. We are just going to keep spending as much money as we can, racking up more and more debt.

I know that President Biden has children and grandchildren. Is he concerned for their welfare?

We are writing checks that we are not going to have to pay back, Mr. President. You and I are at the age where this bird is not going to come home to roost in our lifetime, but it will in the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren, including those of President Biden.

So how responsible--or I should say how irresponsible--is it for the President to say: We are just going to keep on keeping on, and we are not even going to talk about what we need to do to deal with this mounting debt. We are not even going to entertain any reasonable ideas or suggestions about how we dig our way out of this hole.

Well, the American people witnessed our Democratic colleagues' wasteful spending over the last 2 years and chose a new direction in the midterm elections that gave Republicans the House after 2 years in which our Democratic colleagues spent $1.9 trillion on the so-called American Rescue Plan and then another 700-or-so billion dollars on the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which, by the way, doesn't reduce inflation, but that is what it is called.

In response, the voters gave Republicans the majority in the House. I can only imagine that part of that was a response to what they saw as a reckless spending binge that was going to continue without end if they maintained Democratic control of both Houses and the White House.

So the new reality of divided government means there is only one path we can take to avoiding a debt bomb: Republicans and Democrats have to reach a compromise.

I know the Presiding Officer believes that part of our responsibility is to negotiate and try to come up with common ground where we can and not simply to give the Heisman to one another and say we are not even going to talk.

I don't know why we are here as Members of Congress or why you would want to be President of the United States when you would see such a big problem growing bigger by the day and say: Forget it. I am not talking. I am not going to try to solve the problem. That is somebody else's issue; that is not ours.

I don't believe that is a responsible reaction, and I don't think most Members of Congress think it is a responsible reaction, but that is where we are today, but it needs to change.

As we know, the reality of Republican control of the House means that the negotiation on the debt ceiling--and there has to be a negotiation--in reality, has to be between the House and the White House. Nothing we do here that would get 60 votes would pass the House, I believe. I think that is pretty clear.

But in order to avoid a catastrophe, a bill not only has to pass the House, it needs to get 60 votes in the Senate and the President's signature. Those are the facts.

Now, drawing unreasonable lines in the sand and issuing ultimatums do nothing to solve the problem. Instead of doling out marching orders, the President needs to do his job and listen to what is being proposed and to negotiate a solution.

Nobody I know of thinks that breaching the debt ceiling is an acceptable outcome. If that is true, and I believe it is true, then there is only one alternative: try to work together to come up with some negotiated outcome that avoids breaching the debt ceiling but at the same time provides some answer to those people concerned--and I am one of them--about the ever-increasing debt and what high interest rates that are used to combat inflation are going to mean in terms of how much money we are going to have to pay to service that debt and where that will come--out of things like defense spending or other priorities.

President Biden served as a Member of the Senate for many, many years, and he ran on the promise of continuing his same approach as a dealmaker as President of the United States. In fact, he pointed to his record in the Senate and as Vice President as proof of his ability to reach across the aisle and to strike a compromise.

Now, I know in some quarters ``compromise'' is a dirty word these days, but there is no other way for us to function here because none of us is a dictator, none of us can say: This is the way it is and actually be able to accomplish what they seek.

Instead, the President does have some record--a good record, in one instance--of doing exactly what he refuses to do today.

As Vice President, Joe Biden helped negotiate the 2011 Budget Control Act, which was the last substantial and meaningful attempt to rein in wasteful Washington spending.

At that point, our economy was still recovering from a recession caused by the financial crisis in 2008. Federal spending soared, revenues plummeted, and it was clear that something--something--had to be done to stave off an even bigger economic crisis.

President Obama was in the White House, and Congress was divided; Democrats controlled the Senate, Republicans controlled the House in 2011. And as it turns out, then-Vice President Biden was a key negotiator. He helped broker the agreement, working principally with then-Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, to come up with a bill that passed with strong bipartisan support.

So here we are, a dozen years later, and we find ourselves in a similar condition, without the solution.

Our economy is recovering from an unprecedented pandemic. Federal spending has soared. A large part of that was roughly $5 trillion that Democrats and Republicans spent together because we saw no alternative but to try to respond to the COVID crisis in a way that addressed public health needs--like coming up with a vaccine--and helped sustain our economy during this crisis.

But then the wheels came off the bipartisanship over the last 2 years, as I mentioned, with the ARP and the IRA, to use a couple of acronyms.

But the American people have nowhere else to turn but here for to us address this problem.

Now, I think it is easy to engage in the blame game, and we do it here all the time. In fact, here in Washington, DC, it is a world-class sport, but at some point you have got to quit pointing the finger and you have got to try to step up and roll up your sleeves and try to solve the immediate problem.

I am not suggesting we can solve all of our problems or even do it permanently, but we can address this current crisis by doing what we are paid to do, what we are elected to do, what we took an oath to do, which is to represent our constituents to the best of our ability.

So this is the time for President Biden to step up. He is President of the United States, and he has done it before when he was Vice President in 2011.

All it would take to start this process is to invite the House, the Senate: Come. Sit around the table to discuss the problem and to try to listen to what potential solutions there might be, just as he promised to do on the campaign trail.

So it is time for him to do what he promised to do all along and lead. Presidents can't be a spectator. They can't sit on the sidelines. Nobody in America expects a President of the United States to do that. And the fact is, the President is not just a leader of the Democratic Party. He is the elected leader of the United States of America--all 330-plus million of us.

So taking a partisan position, knowing the challenges that the House is going to have dealing with a debt ceiling, and just sort of enjoying watching them struggle to deal with this is not an act of courage. It is not an act of leadership. We expect our Presidents to make tough decisions, just as we ourselves are expected to make tough decisions and to try to come up with solutions.

I can't imagine any responsible person in the country, much less in Congress, who would take the position that a clean debt ceiling increase is the way to go. I mentioned that a moment ago.

Who is going to pay the 30 trillion back we already owe? Is the idea that we can just continue to heap debt upon debt upon debt? Does anybody think that is a good idea? How, if we have another fiscal crisis like we had in 2008, would we be able to respond? How, if we had another pandemic, would we be able to respond with this debt handcuffing Congress when we need maximum flexibility to be able to respond?

And I mentioned the interest rates that are higher than they have been in a long time, which continue to eat up more and more tax revenue just to service that debt to pay their bondholders on their investment.

So this is not just a problem that can be punted. This does not call for partisan responses. This calls for statesmanship. It calls for leadership.

And as part of this, we have to look at what got us in this condition in the first place. Why it is that we need to raise the debt ceiling.

We know that America's debt crisis didn't appear overnight. It has been building for decades. And lest anybody believe that I am suggesting that this is strictly a Democratic problem, it has really been something that both political parties have contributed to over time. Somehow, we became anaesthetized or desensitized to the fact that we continue to spend borrowed money. It is true that we point to the various crises we have had, and we say, ``Well, we really didn't have any other choice.'' But now we do have a choice. We can respond to this responsibly and do our jobs.

Well, we need to get out-of-control spending habits in check. No household, no city council, no county government, no State government could possibly do what the Federal Government is doing. They have to live with a balanced budget. They have to live within their means. I am not suggesting it is going to be easy--because it is not--but it is not optional.

One of the most important things we can do as part of this response is to return to a regular appropriations process in funding the government each year. The idea that we can do this through an omnibus appropriations process, like we were forced to do last year in backing it up to December 23rd, right before Christmas, and threatening a shutdown, is not the right way to do business.

The House and Senate Appropriations Committees have 12 separate bills to fund each of the different components of the Federal Government. These bills are supposed to pass both Chambers and be signed into law before the end of the fiscal year, which is September 30. That didn't happen in 2022 or 2021. The Democratic-led Senate did not pass a single appropriations bill,

and I understand why. The majority leader Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi realized that delaying the appropriations process and not going through this regular order gave them immense power because they could decide what went into that omnibus bill. They could say yes to some and no to others, and they knew that the only alternative would be a government shutdown and that rank-and-file Members of the Senate and the House would be left with no other choice than to vote yes or no.

Congress cannot continue to operate like this. We have to swear off this newfound habit of continuing resolutions and last-minute omnibuses and return to a regular, on-time appropriations process. It is more transparent. It allows every Member of the Congress to participate, to offer amendments, to debate, and to vote--something denied to rank-and- file Members of Congress when you do this through an omnibus bill at the end of the year. But we shouldn't stop there. We need to look at broader reforms to the government's spending habits. The good news is that there are a number of ideas that have been proposed.

Last Congress, Senator Romney, the Senator from Utah, introduced something he calls the TRUST Act, which creates a process to save Social Security and protect this critical lifeline for Americans. Social Security, you might recall, is going to become insolvent in the coming years. This is a responsible way to save Social Security and to address what is, roughly, a part of the two-thirds of the Federal spending. In other words, about a third of it is discretionary spending we appropriate, and the other two-thirds is mandatory, or automatic, spending. I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation, and would encourage the President and our Democratic colleagues to consider it as part of the debt ceiling discussion.

I am also a supporter of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. As I said, Republicans and Democrats are responsible for where we are today, but it would finally make clear that we have to live under the same sort of spending limits that every family in America has to live under and that every local and State government has to live with--a balanced budget. Now, that is common sense. Families and businesses across the country have no choice but to operate within a balanced budget.

My State of Texas has a balanced budget requirement, and lo and behold, it just started the current legislative session with a $33 billion surplus. We are looking at a $30 trillion debt. My State has a $33 billion surplus in part, I believe, because it is required by law to balance its budget each year.

I have introduced, cosponsored, and voted for balanced budget amendments in the past, and I plan on doing so again this year. That should be part of the conversation.

There is a wide range of ideas from our colleagues that would help the Federal Government get its financial house in order, and I would hope that the President would take these ideas and his responsibility seriously. No matter how inconvenient this may be for President Biden, we are operating under a divided government. The ``drunken sailor'' approach may have worked when the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, but it won't succeed now. It is time for the administration to sober up and get serious about bipartisan solutions. It is the only path out of this mess.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, after a busy and productive time at home for several weeks, I am glad to be back in the Senate as we kick off the new year and a new Congress. After 2 years of Democrats controlling both Chambers, the House and Senate, the American people voted for a change in the midterm election. Voters sent a Republican majority to the House and opted for a divided government.

With a Republican House, Democrats, of course, will no longer be able to abuse the budget reconciliation process to circumvent the normal legislative process, which means the end to partisan spending bills. They will have no choice but to work for common ground and to move legislation through what we call regular order around here, which means by the rules.

While there is a lot we need to do in the coming months, one of our top priorities must be the humanitarian and security crisis at the southern border. This crisis has been raging since President Biden took office 2 years ago. Day after day, month after month, migrants have crossed the border in unprecedented numbers.

Over the years, we have seen migration surges at different times, but nothing like this. The scale and the immensity of this crisis are unprecedented.

Last month, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered more than 250,000 migrants at the southern border. That is the back door to my State, the State of Texas. A quarter of a million people in a single month--that is a new record and a shocking number.

To put that in perspective, Customs and Border Protection encountered more migrants in November and December last year than it did in all of 2017--more in 2 months, the last 2 months of last year, than it did in the entire year of 2017.

Those figures tell you a lot, but no words can accurately capture just how complex and challenging the situation at the border truly is. To understand what is happening on the ground, you need to show up. You need to see it firsthand, and you need to listen and learn from the experts and the people who are dealing with this day in and day out.

I have traveled to the border many, many times over the last few years, as this crisis has gotten worse. I have spoken with the law enforcement officials who have taken an oath to uphold and enforce our laws, the nonprofits--groups like Catholic Charities, which provide humanitarian services--local officials, mayors, and county judges, who are responsible to their own taxpayers for providing services that are overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of people coming across the border.

Then there are private landowners who find that their fences are knocked down, their properties are trashed, and that people trespass upon it at will.

Then there are the small business owners that depend on the foot traffic that frequently comes back and forth across the border and countless others who are impacted by the current border crisis.

Of course, these are exactly the kinds of people you might want to talk to if you actually had an interest in learning more about what the problem is and fashioning some kind of solution.

I was happy to introduce these experts to a bipartisan group of my Senate colleagues a couple of weeks ago. Both of us representing border States, Senator Sinema, the Senator from Arizona, and I have had what you might call an exchange program between our two States.

A couple of years ago I visited Tucson, AZ, and Senator Sinema, in turn, visited the Rio Grande Valley for a series of briefings. The first thing that jumps out at you is that the border is big--2000 miles. It covers a lot of territory, and it varies a lot, depending on whether you visit urban areas like El Paso or rural areas like Yuma,

Mr. President, I am glad that we, hopefully soon, will finally pass the National Defense Authorization Act and send this legislation to the President for his signature. Obviously, this has national, even global, implications, but I would like to spend just a moment to talk about what it means to my home State of Texas.

This year's NDAA supports a range of projects that will lead our military into the future, from nuclear modernization to next-generation weapons development.

It sends critical military assistance to Ukraine and makes a big investment in our national defense stockpile.

It focuses, appropriately, on long-term strategic competition with China, and it ensures our troops will have the tools, the training, and the resources they need to succeed in any conflict, and, of course, the ultimate goal is to make the United States military so strong that no country dares engage in a military conflict with us, and thus provides needed deterrents in order to maintain the peace.

The Defense Authorization Act shapes our military missions around the world, but it also is important for reasons that hit much closer to home.

The Defense Department is the largest employer in the United States, with 2.9 million employees, including both servicemembers and civilians. They are stationed in more than 160 different countries around the world, and on all seven continents. And, on any given day, they can be found providing lifesaving medical care, maintaining aircraft, protecting communities in war zones, or carrying out various missions.

Texas is the proud home to 14 military installations which directly employ more than 235,000 people. When you add in construction, information technology, manufacturing, and the many other workers these facilities require, Texas military installations employ more than 620,000 people. The

Texas comptroller has estimated that military installations contributed about $114 billion to Texas' economy last year alone.

But, significantly, America's military is engrained in the very fabric of our State, and Texans have a profound respect for our servicemembers.

My father was a part of the Greatest Generation and served in World War II, as did my father-in-law.

My dad was a B-17 pilot, who, unfortunately, was shot down over Germany on a bombing mission on his 26th mission. Fortunately, although he was a POW the last 4 months of the war, he was liberated by General Patton and his army.

My father-in-law, who died recently at the age of 96, served at Normandy, where he landed on Utah Beach during part of that dramatic invasion of France, occupied by, of course, the German military.

But I lived for a while in San Antonio--many years, actually--and had the privilege of experiencing the incredible support for our military in that city. After all, San Antonio is known as ``Military City USA'' because of the strong and consistent military presence. And while it is unique, based on the sheer concentration of military bases in San Antonio, the strong support for our servicemembers can be seen across the State as well.

Whether you are in El Paso or Killeen or Abilene or any of the areas surrounding military installations, it is humbling to see so many men and women who have taken an oath to defend our country, along with their families, who serve as well.

As Members of the Senate, we have a responsibility to support our troops and make sure they have what they need to do the job we have asked them to do, and the Defense authorization act is one of the most important ways we do just that.

This bill provides the largest pay raise for our troops in two decades. Servicemembers and their families are facing the same inflation headwinds as everybody else in the United States, but starting next month, they will receive a greatly needed and well- deserved 4.6-percent pay raise.

This year's National Defense Authorization Act also takes big steps to support military families, and when you have an all-volunteer military like ours, supporting military families is an important component of our support for the military.

This Defense Authorization Act will also authorize additional funding to Texas school districts that serve military personnel.

It will authorize the extension of reimbursement authority for spouse relicensing to ensure that nurses, teachers, and other spouses whose jobs may require a State-specific license are not saddled with an additional expense.

This bill will also support programs in Texas independent school districts that help military-dependent children with severe disabilities.

And I am glad it includes bipartisan legislation that I introduced to improve the tools that military commanders will have at their disposal to prevent sexual assault and domestic violence within the Department of Defense.

In addition to supporting our servicemembers, this legislation will authorize $315 million for military construction projects in Texas alone. This includes $90 million for a dormitory for basic training recruits at Joint Base San Antonio; $55 million for the new power train facility at the Corpus Christi Army Depot; $31 million for power generation and microgrid operations at Fort Hood in Killeen; $15 million for a new fire station at Fort Bliss in El Paso; and the list goes on and on.

Now, these may sound like not all that exciting investments, but they are absolutely critical to the support for our military and our military families and to readiness, which is the ultimate goal--that our military is ready for any threat that comes our way.

In addition to providing needed investment at our military bases, the Defense authorization bill provides $4 billion in support to improve the production rate, modernization, and readiness of the F-35 fleet, which is built in Fort Worth.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the fifth generation fighter, is the most sophisticated airplane in our fleet, and it is important that we have an adequate number of them to maintain the readiness of that fleet.

This bill also authorizes $23 million in another critical defense asset that will be made in Fort Worth, which is the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft. It authorizes $686 million in funding for F-16 Fighting Falcons which will be made in Texas, as well as $4.7 billion for B-21 Raiders, many of which will be based in Texas at Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene. These investments will support even more Texas jobs and strengthen our military in the process.

I am glad this year's Defense authorization bill includes legislation--strangely enough, we stick other unrelated bills into the Defense authorization bill. In this case, the Water Resources Development Act has been inserted also in the Defense authorization bill. But, specifically, this bill, as part of the WRDA bill, will develop the Texas Coastal Spine Project which will provide basic protections of infrastructure against future hurricanes along the Texas gulf coast.

In the Houston area alone, we have some of the largest concentration of refining capacity in the world, and the rest of the country depends on the fact that that jet fuel, diesel, and gasoline will be available. If another hurricane were to wipe out Houston like Hurricane Harvey tried to do, obviously, that is something that will have an impact not just locally, not just in my State, but across the Nation as a whole. So this Coastal Spine Project is very important. The Texas gulf coast is home to millions of people and industries that fuel our economy and national security.

Well, the war in Ukraine has highlighted another important aspect of energy, and that is energy security. The industries in and around the Texas gulf coast are critical to our security and for those of our allies. I believe that after years of hard work, the Texas Coastal Spine Project has begun the long, long road to final construction, and I am glad this project will be fully authorized in the Water Resources Development Act. The next step is to secure the funding to begin that lengthy construction process, and I am eager to work with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make that happen.

Given the threats our country is facing around the world, whether it is Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, the War on Terror, the National Defense Authorization Act could not be more urgent or more important. This legislation will make sure that our military is resourced, trained, and ready for action when called upon. It provides our men and women with the resources, training, and equipment they need to defend our country, our way of life, and our freedom. It restores our combat advantage by investing in modern aircraft, weapons, and facilities. It strengthens and builds our alliances around the world. And, above all, it sends the message to the world that our country is, and will remain, the global military leader.

There are a lot of friends and allies the United States has around the world and they are very important, but none of them is in a position to lead like the United States of America, and all of them depend on American leadership. And that is part of the message this bill will send about our intention to maintain that leadership role. That is why, for 61 years now, Congress has made passing the NDAA a priority, and I am eager to get this one done and do it for the 62nd time.

I want to especially thank Senators Reed and Inhofe, the chairman and ranking members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, for their tireless work on this legislation, as well as all of the members of the Armed Services Committee that voted this bill out of the committee on a strong bipartisan vote last July.

It is a long story for why we had to wait from July until today to vote on the bill, but the good news is we are where we are today and have a strong bill that will prepare our military for the threats of today and tomorrow. I look forward to supporting this legislation as soon as we have a chance to vote on it--hopefully, soon this afternoon.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, interspersed among the farewell speeches, which are always enjoyable to listen to as people reminisce about their time in the Senate and that causes all of us to reflect on our role and what we have done to help our country and help our constituents--and no one has done it better than the Senator from North Carolina--we also have a few things to do before we break for the holidays. Perhaps the next important thing that we have to do is to pass the National Defense Authorization Act, which, of course, provides the authorities necessary to strengthen our Armed Forces, to modernize our defense, and to maintain the peace.

This year's Defense authorization act includes a significant increase in defense funding, which, in light of the range of threats confronting our country and the world, is appropriate, coming in roughly at $45 billion above the White House's most recent budget request.

This is a bipartisan increase in the authorization, which is the appropriate role of Congress to tell the White House: We think you have low-balled the number, and we think the threats deserve even more support in terms of the funding.

These investments are absolutely critical to our military and our national security, but we all know this legislation is more than just about funding levels. It includes a range of bipartisan bills to support those who wear the uniform and their families, our allies, and our national defense as a whole.

It really includes a lot of different bills in this umbrella of the National Defense Authorization Act. One example of one of those components is the Protecting Our Servicemembers through Proven Methods Act, which I introduced with Senator Sinema of Arizona and a bipartisan group of colleagues.

The goal of this bill is to focus on proven methods that empower military leaders to prevent sexual assault and harassment in the military from happening in the ranks.

The RAND Corporation, the think tank, published a 10-step approach to strengthen sexual assault prevention in the military, and step one is all about data. We need a clear picture of the problem before we can craft the most appropriate and effective solutions.

Our bipartisan bill specifically answers that recommendation by requiring the Department of Defense to collect data on the causes behind sexual assault, harassment, and domestic violence in the military.

That data will better inform our decision making within the Department and beyond. It will help guide our work in the Senate, too, where there is a bipartisan commitment to ending sexual assault and harassment in the military. And I hope it leads to stronger prevention efforts across the board.

Our bill requires the Department of Defense to confer with universities and public health institutions to best identify the practices that will combat these abuses, whether that is in the workplace or on college campuses. Reliable data will then inform our prevention efforts and help stop those acts before they occur.

We go to great lengths to keep our servicemembers safe on the battlefield, and these efforts need to extend to every part of their service. I am glad this legislation was included in this year's National Defense Authorization Act, and I appreciate all of our colleagues who fought to make that possible.

The Defense authorization bill provides a great opportunity to support our friends and allies around the world, and this bill takes big steps to further support Ukraine against the outrageous invasion effected by the Russian Federation on February 24 of this year.

We know that the United States can't focus on countering Russia or supporting Ukraine; we need to do both. Over the last 10 months, we supplied Ukraine with critical military assistance, and this year's Defense Authorization Act will give Ukrainian soldiers even more resources to keep up the fight.

And I am glad this bill also includes a provision which will impose greater costs on Mr. Putin and the Russian Federation. Since Russia launched its attack on Ukraine, the United States and our allies have imposed sanctions on Russian businesses and oligarchs and cut off Russian banks from the global financial system.

But, in typical fashion, Russia has found a loophole in the current sanctions. It has taken a page out of Venezuela's playbook by using the purchase and sale of gold to bring in cash. The Russian Federation started buying gold to offset the devaluation of the ruble and then selling that gold on international markets for high-value currency. In short, Russia is laundering money through the gold market, and we need to put a stop to it.

That is why I introduced the Stop Russian GOLD Act with Senators King, Hassan, and Hagerty to end this practice. This legislation would apply sanctions to anyone who helps Russia finance their illegal war against Ukraine by buying or selling or transporting Russian blood gold. That means anyone who buys or transports gold from Russia's central bank holdings would be the target of sanctions themselves, a deterrent for anyone considering doing this sort of business with Russia.

So we need to do everything we can to cut the financing to Putin's war machine, and this is one important way to do it, while we continue to support Ukraine in their will to repel and defeat Russian aggression and invasion of their sovereign territory.

I am glad the NDAA will build on the work we have done to strengthen our semiconductor supply chain. I know we have all learned a lot about the vulnerability of our technology, everything from our television sets to our computers to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, or even our cell phones--the threat of high-end semiconductors being cut off at supply.

And over the last couple of years, we have done big things, made major strides to bolster domestic chipmaking. As our colleagues know, this is a matter of both economic and national security. Made-in- America semiconductors, microcircuits, mean more jobs, investments, and more growth here in the United States, and a strong domestic supply means we aren't at the mercy of other countries for our most critical technology.

Congress funded the CHIPS Act earlier this summer, and we are already seeing a glimpse of the sort of investments it will bring to the United States, most notably in places like Arizona and Ohio but also in New York and in Texas and in many other places around the country.

There is more we can and should do to safeguard our critical supply chains. At this moment, Chinese companies with known connections to the Chinese Communist Party are actively selling semiconductors to companies that do business with the U.S. Government. That is a huge red flag and a major vulnerability. It puts us at risk of cyber attacks and threatens the disclosure of sensitive information.

And our reliance on these Chinese companies is a risk in and of itself. If the Chinese Communist Party wanted to starve the United States of our access to chips, it could use these companies to help in that effort. With the snap of President Xi's finger, they could cut off the supply of chips to companies that supply products to the U.S. Government.

We are well aware of the risks associated with reliance on other countries for semiconductors, which is why this has been such a big priority over the last couple of years. Now we need to ensure that the U.S. Government isn't purchasing chips from companies connected with the Chinese Communist Party.

U.S. military assets shouldn't be threatened by using these chips, which could be sabotaged by the Chinese Communist Party and the People's Republic of China. Senators Schumer and Wicker and I have worked together on an amendment which will address this vulnerability. Our amendment would prohibit the U.S. Government from doing business with Chinese companies with known links to the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese military. It specifically mentions three companies with known links.

This ban will be phased in, in a responsible way, to ensure it doesn't lead to paralyzing supply chain disruptions; but once it is fully implemented, it will ensure that taxpayer dollars are not spent on chips from Chinese military contractors. I am glad this amendment made its way into the NDAA, and I want to thank Senator Schumer and Senator Wicker for working together to make this possible.

Those are just a few of the pieces of legislation contained within the National Defense Authorization Act, but it also includes other important provisions too. It includes bipartisan legislation I introduced to prohibit former members of the intelligence community from working for our foreign adversaries, including state sponsors of terrorism.

What we have seen is occasionally when people retire, they are hired by other foreign governments with the knowledge that they take along with them which came in the form of protecting the United States but could then be used by our adversaries to endanger the United States.

We also, in the NDAA, amended existing drug trafficking laws to crack down on countries like China that are known to export precursor chemicals used in deadly drugs like fentanyl, the synthetic opioid that took the lives of 71,000 Americans last year alone.

This also includes--the National Defense Authorization Act--the work product of the Environment and Public Works Committee, known as WRDA, the Water Resources Development Act; and, specifically, so far as it applies to my State of Texas, this bill authorizes the Texas Coastal Spine Project, which will safeguard communities and critical industries along the Texas gulf coast against inevitable future hurricanes.

The bill also requires the President to document, catalog, and preserve evidence of war crimes committed in Ukraine so that justice will eventually be served.

I want to commend Senators Inhofe and Reed for the bipartisan work that they have done on the Defense authorization bill. My only regret is it has taken us this long to get to it since it came out of the Armed Services Committee last July, but we know that they have done their best under the circumstances to include bipartisan recommendations and legislation that will keep our country strong and help maintain the peace.

We know that both Senators Reed and Inhofe have fought tough headwinds getting the bill to the floor, and my hope is that tomorrow we will have a chance to vote on it, perhaps with a handful of amendments. This is a strong bill that will support our men and women in uniform and their families. It will help preserve our readiness against threats anywhere in the world and help preserve our national security.

I look forward to casting my vote in support of that bill, perhaps as early as tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

President, I ask unanimous consent to print my bill for introduction in the Congressional Record. The bill modifies requirements for certain employment activities by former intelligence officers and employees of the intelligence community.

President, I ask unanimous consent to print my bill for introduction in the Congressional Record. The bill modifies requirements for certain employment activities by former intelligence officers and employees of the intelligence community.

Mr. President, my children are grown now, but every time that we moved or considered what neighborhood to live in, as they were growing up and attending public schools, the first question we would ask is, ``What about the schools?'' because we, like most parents, wanted to make sure that our children went to the very best schools possible. And if we had to dig a little deeper and figure out how do we buy a house in a neighborhood that was in that school district, then we would do it. But the sad fact of life is that many parents of lesser means, of lower income, don't have the luxury of buying a house in a neighborhood where a public school is excellent. In fact, many of our children, because they don't have access to charter schools, are literally trapped in failing schools, which will forever affect their course of life, their development, the jobs they can qualify for, the level of education they can achieve. All of that will be impacted negatively by the fact that many of our young people go to schools that are less than excellent and, in many cases, failing.

In 2010, I think it was, I saw the documentary called ``Waiting for Superman.'' This was a story that in one way was exhilarating but in another way it was very depressing because it was all about the lottery system in New York's schools. If you were lucky enough to win the lottery, you knew that your life and your future was going to be forever impacted for the better.

But I still remember looking at the faces and the tears of the children who did not win the lottery, who did not get to go to the best schools, and they knew that their life, too, would be forever impacted but in that case for the worse.

I am a firm believer that competition makes us all better. It makes us work harder, strive for greater achievement. But I think the public school system--in particular, the teachers unions--they don't want any competition because they don't want anybody to show that our children can be educated better--with better teachers, better training, better facilities. And that is what the charter school movement has provided: some competition, some basis for comparison.

If everybody is operating at this level, with no one operating at this level, then everybody is going to continue to operate in a subpar performance. Of course, I am not painting with a broad brush, but I am saying that a lot of low-income children are condemned to bad schools with no way out. And charter schools offer a way out for those children.

Now, I think sometimes the term ``school choice'' gets confused with charter schools because school choice, as I understand it, is more broadly interpreted to mean parochial schools and that sort of thing-- private schools. But charter schools are public schools. We are talking about high-quality, tuition-free public schools that are open to all students.

In my State, in Texas, we have 900 charter schools. They don't serve the elite. They don't serve the wealthy. They don't serve even the majority population. In fact, 62 percent of Texas charter school students are Hispanic. We have about a 42-percent Hispanic population. So you can say that charter schools disproportionately benefit Hispanic students.

Twenty-seven percent of the students that attend charter schools have limited proficiency in English; that is, English is not their first language. And

the overwhelming majority of students are economically disadvantaged. In other words, their parents can't buy a house in the best school district in town. Their parents don't have the money to send them to a private school. And so charter schools represent the only real option-- public, tuition-free schools that are open to all students.

I am concerned that the Biden administration is too close to the teachers unions that were responsible for much of the extended lockdowns we saw during COVID-19, and many of their members basically refused to go back to the classroom even though across the country private schools and many other educational institutions were able to continue--yes, observing social distancing, masking, all of the protocols we became very familiar with during the pandemic. But they continued to learn in person, in school--my understanding is, for example, virtually all the Catholic schools because they depend on the tuition dollars from parents, and parents weren't going to pay to have their children learn sitting in front of a computer, if they were able to learn at all. And we are only today beginning to skim the surface of the kind of damage that occurred to our students--our children--as a result of remote learning.

You know, I sort of envision a single mom with three children who may not have even graduated from high school, much less college, herself, worried about her own job, worried about being able to provide for her family, with three school-aged children, all attending different grade levels. I can't imagine being able to adequately supervise and make sure that your children are able to learn in those circumstances. Maybe you have three kids from three different grades with three separate curricula sitting in front of a computer trying to pick up whatever educational benefit that you can.

What we learned, as a result of the draconian lockdowns supported and encouraged by Randi Weingarten and the teachers unions, is that many of our children have fallen far behind. And it may take not months, not weeks, but literally years to catch up, if they ever do.

So I don't really understand this idea of some of the Biden administration and the teachers unions who don't like and won't tolerate charter schools. Is it because they are OK with children being trapped in failing schools? I can't really understand why they would view this as a threat.

Public, tuition-free, high-quality charter schools--these are public schools. They aren't private schools. These aren't for the elite. This isn't for the rich. This is for overwhelmingly economically disadvantaged students.

And so I support Senator Tim Scott. I applaud his leadership in this area in saying that the Biden administration should not stand in the way of these charter schools.

Every child deserves a quality education, and every parent deserves the freedom to choose the school that will serve their child best.

So I appreciate the fact that Senator Scott is such a tireless advocate for charter schools and is a champion of choices and alternatives for parents, many of whom are economically disadvantaged and have no other choice other than to send their child to a failing school.

I hope our colleagues will join us in voting to overturn this damaging new rule tomorrow when we vote on it.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, after months of waiting, the Senate is finally on track to take up and pass the National Defense Authorization Act, 13 days now before Christmas. The pointless delay in this fundamentally critical legislation has been a major point of frustration, not just for colleagues here in the Senate but for the leadership at the Pentagon and the people who need to make plans for America's defense.

The Senate Armed Services Committee completed its work last summer, but the majority leader apparently had other priorities and refused to put the bill on the floor until now. It simply wasn't a priority.

We spent week after week confirming President Biden's judicial nominees, but the majority leader couldn't seem to find the time to take up and pass a must-pass piece of legislation, the annual Defense bill.

And this is not the first time. It is the second year in a row that the Senate has not passed its own version of the National Defense Authorization Act, and so we find ourselves repeating the same bungled process that played out last year.

Thanks, however, to Senator Inhofe and Senator Reed and our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, this bill still reflects the hard work of our Senate colleagues.

But I want to underscore how unconventional this year's approach was and make clear why this should not be the norm. We need to return to what we call regular order around here, which is actually to allow all 100 Members of the Senate an opportunity to fully participate in crafting critical legislation like this.

Of course, the Armed Services Committee did its job. The committee held its hearings, worked with Members throughout the Senate, and compiled a strong bill. But the majority leader is going to put a bill on the floor and probably, in all likelihood, not allow any amendments to that bill. In other words, this bill was voted out of the Armed Services Committee, it was preconferenced with the House of Representatives, and it is going to be laid before the American people and this Senate as a fait accompli without adequate opportunity for debate or amendment or for other noncommittee Members to have a hand in crafting this important piece of legislation.

This is not how the Senate is supposed to work. Members of the Senate don't run for the Senate and serve their States with the intent of being potted plants when it comes to crafting important legislation, and particularly this legislation, which is perhaps the single-most important thing we do around here.

So for 2 years, we have skipped these critical steps. But this cannot be the norm, and here is why: The National Defense Authorization Act impacts every servicemember's pay. It pertains to military construction, improvement of barracks, and military modernization. This bill needs to follow regular order. It needs to be completed on time.

This bill should have been signed into law by President Biden last September. We are more than 2 months into the fiscal year, and our military commanders are still waiting for Congress to pass this legislation and provide the certainty they need to plan for the future.

Mr. President, as you know, I am just talking about the authorization bill. The actual appropriations process is similarly broken, where, ordinarily, the 12 appropriation bills would come across the floor as individual bills or as so-called minibuses rather than the anticipated omnibus, which is $1.7 trillion worth of spending. The top line of that bill has not even been agreed to by the ranking member and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the leadership on both sides of the Congress. Yet we are sitting around, again, 13 days before Christmas, wondering: Are we going to be presented with another continuing resolution--it looks like we are--that will take us to the 2 days before Christmas, December 23? And then this bill of $1.7 trillion, roughly speaking, will then be plopped out in front of us, and the only option we will be given is a chance to vote no or to vote yes.

This is not the way the Senate should be operating. It is really a slap in the face to the American people, who deserve a measure of transparency, and to the Members of the Senate, who deserve at least the courtesy and consideration of being able to participate in the process, rather than being given the ugly choice between voting for a $1.7 trillion omnibus appropriations bill we had no hand in writing or to shut down the government. That is the decision that Senator Schumer has chosen to give Members of this Senate, Republican and Democrat alike. It is really outrageous.

Back to the Defense bill, it includes a significant increase in defense funding--at least the authorization for that funding--coming in at roughly $45 billion above the White House's most recent budget request. So on a bipartisan basis, Members of the House and Senate-- Republicans and Democrats--agreed that President Biden short-handed the Defense bill by about $45 billion.

Given the far-reaching threats facing our country and the world and the continued impact of inflation, this is a necessary increase, and I am glad House and Senate negotiators agreed that President Biden's request was insufficient.

First and foremost, though, this bill should take care of our brave men and women who serve in our Armed Forces. Thankfully, it includes an authorization for the largest pay raise for our troops in two decades. That is particularly important when inflation is roughly at a 40-year high. servicemembers and their families are facing the same inflation headwinds as folks all across the country. So, starting next month, they will receive a much-needed and well-deserved 4.6 percent pay increase.

This year's National Defense Authorization Act also includes a range of reforms to better support military families. In an all-volunteer military, it is critical that we not only support the men and women who wear the uniform but also the families who support them and, in effect, serve with them.

This bill will extend reimbursement authority for spouse relicensing. For example, it will ensure that nurses, teachers, and other spouses whose jobs may require State-specific licenses are not saddled with an added expense when they are reassigned to a State where their current license is not valid. They can get a new one in their new home State without additional expense.

This bill also funds programs in Texas independent school districts that help military dependent children with severe disabilities.

And I am glad it includes bipartisan legislation that I introduced to help improve sexual assault and domestic violence prevention policies within the Department of Defense.

In addition to these reforms, the National Defense Authorization Act will repeal the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which led to the dismissal of 8,500 servicemembers. Recruiting has become a growing challenge across the military, particularly the U.S. Army. Last year, the Army fell 15,000 soldiers short of its benchmark and was only able to recruit 75 percent of its recruitment goal.

Army Secretary Christine Wormuth called it ``the Army's most challenging recruiting year since the start of the all-volunteer force.'' Given the threats posed by Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran, among other threats, this is not the time to force courageous servicemembers out of the Armed Forces, particularly for a vaccine that doesn't actually prevent COVID. This isn't like a lot of other vaccines that will actually prevent you from contracting the virus.

This year's NDAA also authorizes investments in nuclear modernization and other critical projects. It makes major investments in our military installations, including those in Texas. It will fund military construction projects at Fort Hood, Joint Base San Antonio, Corpus Christi, Fort Bliss, and the Army Reserve Center in Conroe, TX.

It also authorizes 16 new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, which will be built by

Texans in Fort Worth. And it will ensure the United States can replenish our defense stockpile and remain the arsenal of democracy for the rest of the world, particularly Ukraine.

As Ukrainian forces continue to defend their country, this legislation will provide additional resources to help them keep up the fight. Now, this assistance is not a handout or a charity. As much as we want to see Ukraine win this war, our financial support is not entirely altruistic.

The United States is not just investing in a Ukrainian victory. We are also putting our resources toward a Russian defeat. We are trying to snuff out the fire before it spreads even further west.

Ukrainian forces have shown tremendous courage and stamina in the face of Russian attacks, and they deserve our unequivocal support. And I am gratified, as the Presiding Officer knows, that that support has been bipartisan and overwhelming. For the last 10 months, the United States has supplied Ukraine with critical military assistance, and there is no question that our support has been vital to Ukraine's success so far. But the one thing we can't supply that Ukraine has supplied in abundance is a will to fight, and they have done so in a magnificent way.

But the unavoidable fact is that, when we provide weapons to Ukraine to defend their sovereignty, we take them out of our own defense stockpile. The transfer of weapons to Ukraine combined with the production challenges in the defense industrial base has made it challenging to quickly replenish our own stockpiles; but this legislation, when it is passed, will help that. It provides $2.7 billion for new munitions, which will help backfill our stockpiles and expand production capacity. We need to be ready not just to deal with the current challenges in Europe; we need to be ready for any challenge, no matter where it arises, especially including in Asia.

It also provides $1 billion to more than double the size of the national defense stockpile, which will help safeguard against future supply chain disruptions. This will ensure that our support for Ukraine does not come at the cost of our own military readiness.

Well, in all the last-minute political jockeying before this bill was released, we were at least able to keep unrelated matters out of the bill. There is no marijuana banking provision, for example--hardly something that has anything to do with providing support for our brave men and women in the military.

That is how it should be. We need to eliminate those extraneous matters. This isn't the place for political horse trading. A well- funded and modern defense is not a Republican priority; it is not a Democratic priority; it is a national priority. We shouldn't use our troops as a bargaining chip for woke priorities.

In order to protect the American people and our democracy, our servicemembers and military commanders need a strong and on-time National Defense Authorization Act. We are too late for on-time, but this is ultimately a strong bill that will deliver certainty and stability to our Armed Forces.

There is no such thing as a perfect bill, of course, but this legislation will go a long way to support our troops and strengthen our national security, and I look forward to finally getting a chance to vote for it.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print my bill for introduction in the Congressional Record. The bill provides for a primary prevention research agenda and workforce.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print my bill for introduction in the Congressional Record. The bill requires the imposition of sanctions with respect to the sale, supply, or transfer of gold to or from the Russian Federation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print my bill for introduction in the Congressional Record. The bill requires the President to submit to Congress a report on U.S. Government efforts to collect, analyze, and preserve evidence and information related to war crimes and other atrocities committed during the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print my bill for introduction in the Congressional Record. The bill modifies statutory definitions relating to narcotics and drug trafficking.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print my bill for introduction in the Congressional Record. The bill provides for a primary prevention research agenda and workforce.