Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, as a Senator from a rural State and a former chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, expanding broadband access to rural areas has long been a priority of mine. I have done a lot of work on this issue, which is precisely why I was so concerned when the infrastructure bill proposed $42 billion for rural broadband to be funneled through the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration, or NTIA.

I was doubtful whether NTIA was capable of administering $42 billion, given its previous struggles to administer a fraction of that amount of money. And, unfortunately, those concerns have turned out to be well- founded.

The Biden-Harris administration's signature broadband initiative and Vice President Harris's tenure as broadband czar have been nothing short of a disaster. It has been nearly 3 years since the $42 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment, or what we call the BEAD program, was established at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to provide broadband access to unserved communities. Three years. And in all that time, the program has not connected a single household to the internet.

Let me say that again. It has been nearly 3 years--and to be precise, 1,044 days--since the BEAD program was established. And in all of that time--over 1,000 days--the program has not connected a single household to the internet. A logical question would be: Why? Please, tell us why?

Well, it is a story--a sad story--of government inefficiency and progressivism run amok. Instead of focusing on delivering broadband services to unserved areas, the Biden-Harris administration loaded down the BEAD program with a liberal wish list of requirements that were never envisioned by Congress and have obstructed broadband deployment: climate change mandates, prioritizing government-owned networks over private investment, biased technology mandates, prioritizing the use of union labor, attempts to impose price controls in direct violation of the law, DEI hiring priorities.

What should have been a straightforward application and approval process for building networks has become a literal morass. Why, oh why, Mr. President, should rural telecoms in South Dakota be talking about climate change mandates in building out broadband networks to serve underserved people in rural areas of the country?

As if the list of woke requirements weren't enough, it has been matched by massive inefficiency from the administration.

One State official who recently testified before the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House had this to say about the program's implementation:

States face a common issue--navigating the complex BEAD

process. NTIA's functional requests are akin to building a

plane while flying it without having the necessary

instructions to be successful. NTIA has provided either no

guidance, guidance given too late, or guidance changing

midstream, all with a lack of appreciation for State

operations and costs and the needs of our telecommunications

providers.

Another official from another State described BEAD as--and I quote again--``the most burdensome Federal program'' she has ever imagined. The most burdensome Federal program she has ever imagined. And worse yet, ever had to manage.

Given all this, I suppose it is no surprise that not only has broadband not reached even one household through the BEAD program, but construction projects haven't even begun. Current expectations for the start of construction on various BEAD projects range from sometime next year to sometime in 2026--2026. We are already at 1,044 days since this program was enacted. Not a single dollar has been allocated out of the $42 billion.

Well, if this is what things look like with Vice President Harris as broadband czar, I shudder to think what things would look like if she were in charge of the entire Federal Government.

This isn't the first time I sounded the alarm on the implementation of the BEAD program and the burdensome and extra legal requirements the Biden administration--the Biden-Harris administration, I should say-- has imposed. I have been joined in this by Commerce Committee Ranking Member Senator Cruz, who shares my concerns, as well as other committee Republicans who share those concerns as well. I would like to see some of my Democratic colleagues taking a closer look at BEAD implementation and broadband implementation more generally.

As the BEAD program makes very clear, you can throw a lot--a lot--$42 billion a lot--a lot of taxpayer money at a problem and still not get results. I would like to see the Commerce Committee conduct a lot more oversight of the programs and Agencies under its jurisdiction.

It has been more than 1,500 days since the last Federal Communications Commission oversight hearing at the Commerce Committee-- the committee, the principal committee of jurisdiction over the FCC.

In fact, we haven't had a single FCC oversight hearing since Democrats took control of the Senate back in 2021. And despite the ongoing failure of the BEAD program at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, we haven't held a single hearing on NTIA yet in this Congress. While I understand that highlighting the failure of the Biden-Harris administration's signature broadband initiative is probably not high on Democrats' priority list, our obligation to the American people and our concern for the millions of Americans without broadband access should put BEAD oversight at the top of the Commerce Committee's agenda.

Mr. President, the BEAD program's failure certainly highlights the fact that Vice President Harris has been no more effective as broadband czar as she has been as border czar. It also points to a larger problem--larger problems--with progressivism, like big promises, poor results, and the prioritization of liberal social fantasies over the needs of the American people. I suspect that if ``Broadband Czar'' Harris becomes President Harris, the BEAD program will not be the last disastrous government program we see on her watch.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde- Smith), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

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

Mr. President, it was another installment of show-vote summer in the Senate this week. Really, the Senate is starting to feel like an arm of the DNC. I say ``show vote'' because, of course, this week's vote and the other show votes we have taken this summer had nothing at all to do with legislating. These were not attempts to pass bills; these were future campaign talking points and television commercials.

Had the Democrat leader really wanted to pass legislation, I can think of a number of bills he would have brought up. But he isn't actually interested in getting anything done; he is interested--he hopes--in getting votes in November.

With rare exceptions, the Senate has spent essentially the entire summer confirming Biden nominees and conducting show votes, and that is not because there hasn't been important legislation for us to take up. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The Senate has crucial legislation it should have been considering: the National Defense Authorization Act, for one thing--one of the most important pieces of legislation we consider each year--defense appropriations, veterans appropriations, all appropriations.

The end of the fiscal year is almost upon us. We have 11 days left. Yet we haven't taken up a single appropriations bill on the Senate floor. And that is not because the Appropriations Committee hasn't been doing its work--again, quite the opposite. By the beginning of August, the Senate Appropriations Committee had passed 11 out of the 12 yearly appropriations bills, several of them unanimously. Just yesterday, Senator Collins, vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, was on the floor urging the Democrat leader to take action on the appropriations bills.

There is zero--zero--reason why we shouldn't have taken up these bills on the Senate floor. The only reason we haven't is because the Democrat leader has been more interested in scoring political points than in doing the job we were all sent here to do. I hope these hypothetical political points were worth the cost to our military that comes with continuing resolutions, which is what we are going to be forced to resort to now to keep the government running.

In a properly functioning Senate, committee work would be reflected on the Senate floor--for example, by taking up the appropriations bills that the committee has produced. But in the Schumer Senate, leadership is top down. So the actual work of the Senate and the hard work of the committees have taken a back seat to the Democrat leader's political machinations. As I said, he is currently ignoring the National Defense Authorization Act and 11 appropriations bills--all passed out of the committee, all available for floor consideration, in some cases for months.

In addition to ignoring committee work, the Democrat leader is also happy to interfere with or go around committees when it suits him. The Commerce Committee's final release of the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill was delayed for months--months-- because the Democrat leader objected to an amendment that was likely to pass in committee on a bipartisan basis. Rather than letting the democratic process play out, the Democrat leader chose to call a halt to committee consideration of the bill, bringing the Commerce Committee's work to a standstill literally for months.

While he did finally allow the Senate to take up the bill, we passed the bill a total of 8 months after the previous reauthorization had expired--again, solely because the Democrat leader didn't like an amendment that was likely to pass with bipartisan support.

I was not surprised to learn last week that the leader may proceed right to an informal conference on the National Defense Authorization Act, bypassing consideration of the Senate version of the bill on the floor of the U.S. Senate--again, one of the most consequential pieces of legislation that we do on an annual basis and which should have allowed every Member to have a voice through an amendment process on the floor, but he has made it very clear that Member input is not one of his priorities.

As if the Senate weren't dysfunctional enough, if Democrats win the majority, the Democrat leader intends to destroy perhaps the most important Senate rule we have--the Senate filibuster--permanently diminishing, if not eliminating, any meaningful voice for the minority in the U.S. Senate, which is what this institution was created to represent.

My great hope is to see a properly functioning Senate again, one where, for starters, we actually take up each year's appropriations bills after they come out of the committee. I want to see a Senate where committee work is recognized and serves as the basis for the floor schedule and where committee chairmen are empowered; a Senate where Members have the opportunity to have their voices heard through a robust amendment process, from committee to final consideration here on the floor of the Senate; and a Senate where the role the Senate plays in the legislative branch is respected and protected, starting with safeguarding the filibuster rule, which helps preserve the Senate's role as the, as the Founder said, cooling saucer of democracy.

I don't have much hope that we will see this type of Senate if Democrats are reelected and the current Democrat leader continues in his role, but it is the kind of Senate that I will continue to work for and that I hope a majority of Senators aspire to. In the meantime, I guess we will continue with the Democrat leader's show votes.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Schmitt), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``yea.''

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

Mr. President, August border numbers came out on money, bringing the total number of encounters at our southern border, thus far, for fiscal year 2024 to more than 2 million--2,033,260 to be precise--the third highest total ever recorded, with another month still to go.

The highest total ever recorded was in fiscal year 2023. The second highest total ever recorded was in fiscal year 2022. And the fourth highest total ever recorded was in fiscal year 2021. In other words, President Biden and Vice President Harris have presided over 4 years of recordbreaking illegal immigration at our southern border.

The problem started right away. On the day he took office, President Biden began dismantling the border security policies of his predecessor, and illegal immigration began surging in response--no big surprise there.

For 3-plus years now, President Biden and Vice President Harris essentially just stood around and watched. They watched as recordbreaking numbers of individuals surged across the southern border. They watched as the Border Patrol and border cities struggled under the massive influx. They

watched as encounters of individuals on the Terrorist Watchlist nearly quadrupled in fiscal year 2022, and then rose even higher the next year.

Vice President Harris was supposed to be President Biden's border czar. I would be hard-pressed to name anything she did to stop the influx. If she did take any action, it was certainly ineffective, based on the steady increases in border encounters.

I don't have to tell anyone what the problems are with the kind of unchecked illegal immigration that we have been seeing. As I said, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has been stretched thin for pretty much the entirety of the Biden-Harris administration.

Cities at the border and around the United States have struggled with the influx of migrants, and migrants themselves have suffered as they have undertaken the perilous journey to our southern border, spurred on by the Biden-Harris administration's open-border policies.

Worst of all, the Biden-Harris border crisis has left a gaping hole in our national security. The kind of unchecked illegal immigration we have been seeing is an invitation to dangerous individuals to enter our country.

I mentioned that the number of individuals on the Terrorist Watchlist encountered at the southern border has surged, and those are just individuals who were actually apprehended. We have no idea how many terrorists or other dangerous individuals have made their way across our southern border without being apprehended.

We are closing in on 2 million known ``got-aways'' in the Biden- Harris administration's watch. Those are individuals the Border Patrol saw but was unable to apprehend. How many of those were dangerous people who should not be entering our country?

U.S. Border Patrol Chief Jason Owens, in a March interview with CBS News, said the number of known ``got-aways'' is keeping him up at night. This is his quote:

This is a national security threat. Border security is a

big piece of national security. And if we don't know who is

coming into our country and we don't know what their intent

is, that is a threat. And they're exploiting a vulnerability

that's on our border right now.

That same month, FBI Director Christopher Wray told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

We are seeing a wide array of very dangerous threats that

emanate from the border.

I want to repeat that.

We are seeing a wide array of very dangerous threats that

emanate from the border.

That is from the Director of the FBI.

The June arrest of eight men from Tajikistan with suspected ties to ISIS who had illegally entered the country, as well as the identification of over 400 migrants that used an ISIS-affiliated smuggling network to enter our country, are just two examples of the kind of threats that we face and the dangers of the chaos that President Biden and Vice President Harris have allowed to rage at our southern border.

In addition to threats from terrorists and other dangerous individuals, the chaos at our southern border has unquestionably facilitated illegal cross-border activity, including the smuggling of deadly drugs like fentanyl, which then make their way around our country.

My State of South Dakota is about as far from our southern border as you can get, but law enforcement officials consistently tell me that the illegal drugs that they are dealing with have entered the country across our southern border. In 2022, Minnehaha County Sheriff Mike Milstead estimated that 90 percent--90 percent--of the fentanyl and meth in our State comes from Mexico. That is 90 percent, Mr. President.

I could go on. There is a lot more to talk about when it comes to the Biden-Harris border crisis--from the mass amnesty the administration has offered to hundreds of thousands of individuals whose asylum cases have been closed without a decision to the placing of unaccompanied children with possibly dangerous guardians, something that Senator Grassley and Senator Lankford are currently working to rectify and prevent in the future.

But I will stop here. Four recordbreaking years of illegal immigration: the national security legacy of the Biden-Harris administration.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``nay.''

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

Mr. President, before I begin, I just want to say how grateful I am that President Trump is safe after what appears to be a second attempt on his life in the space of 2 months.

The trend this election cycle has taken toward violence is disturbing to say the least, and I hope this weekend's events will prompt reflection on our political discourse and the importance of not letting our disagreements lead to the dehumanization of our opponents.

I am grateful for all the law enforcement personnel who responded and helped prevent another tragedy, and I look forward to seeing a thorough investigation.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are neccessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``nay.''