Floor Statements

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, this week is National Police Week, which is a time set aside to honor the service of our Nation's law enforcement officers, to show appreciation for the sacrifices they make to keep our communities safe, and to pay tribute to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty.

Being a police officer is no easy task. An ordinary day for the men and women in blue takes extraordinary character. It takes courage to run toward danger, to take on the unknown. But if you ask a police officer, he or she will usually say: It's just part of the job.

That job is a vital one.

I am profoundly grateful to the brave Americans who step up to protect and serve in my State of South Dakota, in Washington, DC, where the U.S. Capitol Police work to keep us, our staff, and our constituents safe, and around the country.

There is no denying that law enforcement is a dangerous job. Police officers face threats and confront suffering on a daily basis, and many officers bear the visible and invisible wounds of their job. Some officers make the ultimate sacrifice--laying down their lives to protect their fellow citizens.

This year's National Police Week resolution honors the memory of the 443 law enforcement officers who were killed in the line of duty last year as well as the 32 lost to date this year. And my thoughts and prayers go out to their families and to their fellow officers.

Being a police officer has never been easy. Over the last few years, however, steady criticism and vilification and the enduring ``defund the police'' movement have made the job a lot harder and taken a noticeable toll on morale.

Police retirements and resignations are up around the country, and there aren't enough applicants to fill available openings. The police department in Asheville, NC, is down 40 percent of its budgeted positions. Cleveland, OH, has its smallest police academy class in 25 years--just nine recruits. And here in Washington, DC, the Metropolitan Police Department has fewer officers than at any time in the last 25 years.

Meanwhile, crime continues to surge around the country. Here in DC, violent crime is up 13 percent from the same time last year, and property crime is up 30 percent over the same period. In Philadelphia, retail and auto theft are surging. As one article recently noted, small business owners are hoping the next mayor will make public safety a top priority. Meanwhile, in Chicago, crime is up 42 percent compared to the same time last year, driven, in part, by a staggering 131-percent increase in motor vehicle theft. And the list goes on.

Surging crime is almost unquestionably being aggravated by the rise of big city prosecutors who seem uninterested in actually prosecuting crimes. Philadelphia's district attorney, for example, actually campaigned on a platform of prosecuting fewer crimes. And then there is the U.S. attorney for Washington, DC, who declined to prosecute two- thirds of arrests last year--two-thirds. DC police data say the average homicide suspect has been arrested 11 times before he or she commits a murder--11 times. Think about that.

Congress has the legal authority to block DC ordinances thanks to Federal legislation rooted in the Constitution which gives Congress legislative jurisdiction over the seat of the U.S. Government. When, in the face of a crime surge, the DC City Council passed a law weakening penalties for a number of crimes, Congress intervened and successfully blocked the bill. And, yesterday, the Senate successfully passed Senator Vance's legislation to block another DC City Council measure--a measure that would make it more difficult for police officers to do their jobs and could lead to the targeting of individual officers.

Between soft-on-crime policies and prosecutors and antipolice rhetoric--too often amplified or accommodated by members of the Democratic Party--it has been a difficult few years for police officers.

The Biden administration has presented yet another challenge for law enforcement--the crisis at our southern border that has raged for the past 2 years thanks to the President's refusal to take border security seriously. There have been a staggering 5 million attempted illegal crossings of our southern border during the Biden administration, an average of 6,300-some individuals per day, and that doesn't even count the so-called got-aways, who are individuals the Border Patrol saw but was unable to apprehend. And those numbers got even worse last week as the Biden administration prepared to lift pandemic-era title 42 authorities, which allowed the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to quickly turn back at least some individuals at the border.

Our Border Patrol agents and our Nation's border communities are overwhelmed. Border Patrol agents in San Diego, last week, arrested an Afghan national on the FBI's terror watch list, underscoring that the immigration crisis directly affects our national security and public safety.

Cross-border illegal activity is making life difficult for law enforcement agencies around the country. I have talked to sheriffs in South Dakota--about as far from our southern border as you can get--who are dealing with fentanyl that has been trafficked across the border from Mexico.

Last year, Minnehaha County Sheriff Mike Milstead estimated that 90 percent of fentanyl and meth in our State comes through Mexico, and that trafficking is undoubtedly being facilitated by the chaos at our southern border.

Despite the many challenges they face, particularly over the past few years, law enforcement officials and officers continue working around the clock to keep our communities and our country safe.

This week and every week, we need to honor their service and remember their sacrifices. And this week and every week, we need to do the work of ensuring that our laws and policies support our Nation's law enforcement officers and their jobs, that our men and women in blue have the tools and resources they need to enforce the law, and that misguided policies don't endanger our officers and stand in the way of public safety.

I yield the floor.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: The Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: The Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: The Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: The Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``nay''.

Madam President, today I recognize Gettysburg, SD, which will

celebrate its quadridecacentennial on June 23-25, 2023. Gettysburg will host many special events, including a parade, vendor fair, car show, flag ceremony, banquet, and street dance.

Gettysburg is nestled in the middle of the breathtaking prairie, approximately 15 miles from the mighty Missouri River in central South Dakota. It has long been known as a tightknit agricultural community with more than 1,100 residents, including many vibrant businesses and a newly built hospital. Its nationally awarded school district is home to the famous Potter County Battlers, although the phrase that is often used is that these Battlers are from the ``Gettysburg where the battle was not.'' Since its beginning 140 years ago, the community of Gettysburg continues to serve as a strong example of South Dakota values and traditions. Like countless other South Dakota towns, you will find many neighbors coming together to lend a helping hand and provide support for each other.

I offer my congratulations to the citizens of Gettysburg on the quadridecacentennial celebration and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

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

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, talks on the debt ceiling continue, and the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate are meeting with President Biden again today. I hope that is a positive sign because, if the President's Treasury Secretary is correct, we could be 2 weeks away from the United States beginning to default on its debts, something that would have very serious consequences for our economy and for our Nation's financial standing.

If we are going to get a debt limit increase, the President is going to have to negotiate with Speaker McCarthy and House Republicans-- really negotiate, Mr. President--which means that President Biden is going to have to accept some real spending reforms because, otherwise, a debt limit increase is not going to make it through the House of Representatives. Those are the just the facts.

Democrats, of course, have been kicking and screaming at the idea of spending reforms. You can witness their frantic campaign to portray the responsible reforms in the House Republicans' bill as extreme. Apparently, suggesting that we should return to 2022 discretionary spending levels for 2024 is an extreme position, despite the fact that we were clearly doing just fine at those levels mere months ago.

The Senate Democratic leader came down to the floor last Thursday and suggested the Republicans were attempting to pair a debt ceiling increase with ``unrelated partisan priorities''--``unrelated partisan priorities.'' Well, let that just sink in for a minute because, according to the Senate Democratic leader, spending reform is a partisan priority that has nothing to do with increasing our Nation's credit card limit. If a discussion over increasing our Nation's credit card limit isn't a good time to have a discussion about spending, I don't know what is. And if spending reform is just a Republican priority, then there is something seriously wrong with the Democratic Party because, with a national debt like ours, spending reform should be a priority for everyone.

Our national debt currently stands at more than $31 trillion--$31 trillion. Our debt has already exceeded the size of our economy. Within a few short years, we are going to be spending more just meeting the interest on our Nation's debt than we will on national defense.

How do Democrats not realize that a national debt of that size has serious consequences? By 2044, we will be spending more on interest than on Medicare. By 2050, we will be spending more on interest than Social Security. That is barely going to leave enough money for the government to meet its most basic obligations, much less invest in all the new or expanded government programs Democrats would like to implement.

Yet Democrats are apparently content to simply ignore this reality. It is like they think that we are going to find a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow to rescue us once we have spent the Federal Government into the ground. But there is no magic pot of gold.

And before Democrats suggest it, let me just say that taxing the rich will not provide enough money to dig us out of the hole that we are in. We have to find a way to rein in Federal spending; otherwise, the size of our national debt is going to crush our economy and seriously limit the Federal Government's ability to meet even its most basic responsibilities, like funding Social Security and national defense.

Democrats would like Americans to believe that the ``clean'' debt limit bill they are calling for is the standard when it comes to raising our Nation's credit card limit; but, in fact, that is very far from being the case, as the Democratic leader should know from his own experience in using the debt limit as leverage in negotiations.

As Democrats should be well aware, 7 of the last 10 debt limit increases have included some mix of policy or budgetary changes rather than just a clean increase, and, historically, spending reform has frequently gone hand in hand with debt ceiling legislation. Indeed, one expert recently noted in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee that ``of the eight largest deficit-reduction laws since 1985, all eight were attached to debt limit bills.''

Let me repeat that. And this is from an expert who recently provided testimony before the Senate Budget Committee. This was his quote.

Of the eight largest deficit-reduction laws since 1985, all

eight were attached to debt limit bills.

Now, Mr. President, I am getting a little tired of hearing Democrats dance around the facts or suggest that if Republicans just agree to the ``clean'' debt ceiling increase that Democrats want, Democrats would be ready to talk about spending once we move on to the budget.

Does anybody really seriously believe that if Democrats won't consider spending reforms now that, somehow, they will develop a serious enthusiasm for reining in spending once we get to the budget? Somehow it doesn't seem likely.

Democrats and the President have spent a lot of energy over the past couple of weeks tearing down Republican proposals. If they had spent half that time coming up with spending reforms of their own, we might already have a debt ceiling agreement.

And I hope that the meeting at the White House later today is a sign that the President is actually getting serious about negotiating because, if he isn't, he will have only himself to blame if our Nation defaults on its obligations. Democrats have already spent us into an inflation crisis. Let's hope that they don't push us into a default crisis as well.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: The Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).