John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. THUNE

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, before I begin, I would like to express my dismay at House Democrats' decision last night to block legislation to provide enhanced security for Supreme Court Justices and their families. Due to the unprecedented leak of an early draft of the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision and the resulting hysteria from members of the pro-abortion left, the Supreme Court asked Congress for additional authorities to protect Justices' families. This happened 4 weeks ago. And yesterday's arrest of an armed man near Justice Kavanaugh's home--a man who told police that he intended to kill a Supreme Court Justice and has been charged with attempted murder--made clear just how needed that protection is. The Supreme Court security legislation in question passed the Senate unanimously 4 weeks ago but has faced inexplicable delays in the House of Representatives. This should not be a partisan issue. The Senate Democratic Whip said just yesterday that the House should pass this legislation. And I really thought that yesterday's arrest of an individual bent on assassinating a Supreme Court Justice would have forced House Democrats to abandon political gains and provide this urgently needed protection. There is no excuse for further delay. One press report suggests that Democrats may be rethinking their opposition. I hope that is true. House Democrats should abandon the political games today and pass this legislation. Student Loans Madam President, recent reporting suggests that President Biden may be contemplating forgiving $10,000 in Federal student loan debt per borrower. That is a bad idea for many reasons. It is difficult really to know where to start, but let me begin by pointing out the obvious: that forgiving $10,000 in Federal student loan debt will do absolutely nothing to address the underlying problem and, in fact, would likely make things much worse. The price of higher education has risen stratospherically in recent decades. The cost of 1 year of attendance at some colleges--just 1 year--is more than many Americans' yearly salaries. And that is a problem. But forgiving $10,000 of student loan debt would do absolutely nothing to fix the problem of soaring tuition costs. As I said, it would very likely make things worse. What incentive would colleges have to rein in costs if they could be confident that part of their students' bill would eventually be picked up by the Federal Government; because, of course, no one should be deceived into thinking that student loan forgiveness would be a one- time thing? One estimate suggests that the student loan burden in this country would return to its current amount within 4 years--4 years--of $10,000 in debt being forgiven, and calls to forgive more debt would undoubtedly come much sooner. Future graduates are very likely to want the same deal that would be offered to graduates today--the wiping away of $10,000 in debt--which brings us to another problem: some students opting to take on unrealistic levels of debt to finance their educations. How much greater is that problem going to be if students think that the Government is likely to step in and forgive some of the debt that they have agreed to repay? It is very easy to imagine a student feeling free to take on more debt than he or she otherwise would, believing that the Government is likely to reduce the resulting debt burden. Another massive problem with President Biden's plan is, of course, its complete unfairness. Under President Biden's plan, an individual who just finished paying his or her student loans after years of work would not receive a penny. Meanwhile, a student who graduated a month ago and hasn't yet paid a dime on his or her loans could see a substantial part of his or her debt wiped away. The President's plan is also incredibly unfair to the tens of millions of Americans without any student loan debt who would be asked to subsidize a student loan debt of a small percentage of Americans. Somewhere around two-thirds of millennials have no student debt, either because they didn't attend college or didn't take out any loans to attend college. The president's plan is unfair to those who avoided loans by working their way through school or choosing a lower-cost college option. It is unfair to parents who worked for years to ensure that they could finance their kids' education. And it is unfair to those who chose not to attend a traditional 4-year college and, instead, trained in one of the many essential trades we depend on, from plumbing to air conditioning to broadband installation, at a significantly lower-cost community college or technical school. Another problem with the President's plan is what it would teach about the sanctity of contracts. While it may, at times, be ill- advised, students freely enter into the agreements when they take out a loan. Should we really be teaching that agreements and contracts mean nothing, that people can incur debt and then not have to pay it off? Another important point to make here is that the average debt for undergraduate education in this country is not as crippling as it might be portrayed. Now, there is no question that there are students out there who were encouraged to take on unrealistic levels of debt and are currently struggling with huge debt burdens made up of private as well as Federal loans, but the average debt, the average debt for an undergraduate education is somewhere around $29,000. That is not chump change, for sure, but it is also not an unmanageable level of debt for the average college graduate--especially with the availability of extended repayment plans and income-driven repayment programs. Average student loan debt rises substantially for those with advanced degrees, and there are certainly those who take on far too much debt for graduate education, but it is also important to know that those with advanced degrees have higher--and in some cases much higher-- earning potential. Doctors, for example, take on medical debt north of $190,000 on average, but once they have completed their education and training they can expect to make a robust--sometimes a very robust--six figures per year, making repaying debt of that size a very feasible proposition. There is no question that the cost of higher education is out of control and that students sometimes take on unrealistic levels of debt to pay for it. But forgiving student loan debt is not the answer for the reasons I have mentioned, among others. Instead, we should be exploring ways to drive down education costs. We should be also highlighting affordable education options like our Nation's community colleges and technical schools. These institutions, like the outstanding tech schools we have in South Dakota, provide students with associate's degrees, certificates, apprenticeships, opportunities to learn a trade, and more. There are also things we can do to help students pay off loans without forcing taxpayers to shoulder the burden. In December of 2020, Congress passed a 5-year version of legislation that I introduced with Senator Warner to allow employers to help employees repay their loans. Our Employer Participation in Repayment Act amends the Educational Assistance Program to permit employers to make tax-free payments on their employees' student loans. It is a win for employees, who get help paying off their student loans. And it is a win for employers who have a new option for attracting and retaining talented workers. Our bill isn't a cure-all, but it will certainly help ease the pain of paying back student loans for a number of Americans. I am pleased that it was enacted into law for a 5-year period, and I hope at some point Congress will act to make it permanent. Another big thing we can do, of course, is to make sure that graduates have access to good-paying jobs. This is key to enabling people to pay off their debt, and we should resolve to build on the economic progress that we had made prepandemic and focus on policies that will allow our economy to thrive. Republicans are not alone in thinking that forgiving $10,000 in student loan debt is fraught with problems. As one Democrat Senator said: An across-the-board cancellation of college debt does nothing to address the absurd cost of college or fix our broken student loan program. It offers nothing to Americans who paid off their college debts or those who chose a lower- priced college to go to as a way of avoiding going into debt or taking on debt. . . . [R]really importantly, it ignores the majority of Americans who never went to college, some of whom have debts just as staggering . . . That is from one of our Democrat colleagues here in the Senate. The New York Times editorial board, not exactly known for toeing the Republican line, noted: Canceling this debt, even in the limited amounts the White House is considering, would set a bad precedent and do nothing to change the fact that future students will graduate with yet more debt--along with the blind hope of another, future amnesty. Such a move is legally dubious, economically unsound, politically fraught and educationally problematic. That was from the New York Times editorial board. With inflation near a 40-year high, with the President's approval rating hitting a new low, and with Democrats' prospects for November looking less rosy, it is not exactly surprising that the President would look toward student loan forgiveness as a way of distracting voters or that some Democrats are reportedly pushing for student loan forgiveness as a way to boost their chances in November; but I very much hope that the President will decide that temporary political gain is not a good reason to put American taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars in student loan debt that is not their own. As the New York Times noted, the President's plan is ``legally dubious, economically unsound, politically fraught, and educationally problematic.'' I strongly, strongly encourage the President to abandon a plan that even the Democratic Speaker of the House has suggested he doesn't have the authority to implement. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney).

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, 3 weeks ago, a Federal judge blocked the Biden Administration from lifting title 42 COVID restrictions. It was a welcome decision that will hopefully stave off an additional flood of illegal immigration on our southern border. But it has been pretty much the only bit of good news on this front, because the situation at our southern border is out of control. In April, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 234,088 individuals attempting to cross our border illegally--234,088. That is the highest number ever recorded. The Border Patrol is stretched thin. A recent article reported that ``around 60 percent of CBP agents have been assigned to process migrants, taking them away from field work.'' Sixty percent. Detention facilities are overflowing and massive numbers of illegal immigrants are being released into the country, many of whom will never report to an immigration office as ordered. In short, our southern border is in chaos, and if title 42 is lifted, the situation is almost guaranteed to become much worse. The Department of Homeland Security has estimated that as many as 18,000 migrants per day could attempt to cross our southern border if the policy is lifted. Eighteen thousand per day--that is more than double the number we are currently experiencing, and the administration has yet to implement any plan for dealing with such a situation. Illegal immigration, especially the kind of out-of-control illegal immigration we are now experiencing, has serious consequences. Criminals, including human traffickers, drug smugglers, and gang members, regularly attempt to cross our southern border. The worse the situation at our border gets, the easier it is for those individuals to make their way into the United States, and that has consequences for our entire country. South Dakota law enforcement officials tell me that they are seizing drugs that they can trace directly back to the cartels who smuggle these drugs across our border. Our country is currently in the midst of a fentanyl crisis. In fact, right now, fentanyl overdose is the leading cause of death for U.S. adults between the ages of 18 and 45. And where is all this fentanyl coming from? Most of it is being trafficked across our southern border; and when more and more of our Customs and Border Protection agents have been pulled off the border to process migrants, it is pretty much a guarantee that drug smugglers are having a much easier time in getting their product into the country. I mentioned that Customs and Border Protection encountered more than 234,000 individuals who were attempting to cross our southern border illegally in the month of April, but that number only reflects individuals the CBP has actually apprehended. In April, Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas testified that, in addition to the 1.7 million apprehensions at the southern border in fiscal year 2021, there were more than 389,000 ``got-aways''--individuals the Border Patrol saw but was unable to apprehend. The Economist recently reported: One border expert estimates that less than 20 percent of people trying to cross the border undetected are stopped. The administration has attempted to suggest that the surge in illegal immigration that we have been experiencing since President Biden took office is, in large part, a function of conditions in other countries; but while these factors exist--and there are legitimate asylum claims at the border--that doesn't mean there is nothing the President can do about our out-of-control border situation. Better border security is well within the President's control. He is just not interested in putting it in place, and his Vice President has all but formally abandoned her role as border czar. In fact, since taking office, the President has invited increased illegal immigration with the policy decisions that he has made. On his very first day in office, President Biden rescinded the declaration of a national emergency at our southern border; he halted construction of the border wall; he revoked a Trump administration order that called for the government to faithfully execute our immigration laws; and his Department of Homeland Security issued guidelines pausing deportations except under certain conditions. That was all--all--on his first day in office. Needless to say, the effect of all of this was to declare to the world that the U.S. borders were effectively open. And, of course, the President's anti-border security efforts didn't end there. The President has significantly limited the ability of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to enforce immigration laws. Deportations dropped precipitously during fiscal year 2021, as did arrests in the interior of the country. In March, the administration rescinded a 2019 rule expanding the expedited removal for individuals here illegally; and as I have mentioned, of course, the administration is attempting to remove title 42 COVID-19 restrictions with no visible plan to control the resulting surge in illegal immigration. President Biden has made it known that he wants to create a ``fair, orderly, and humane'' immigration system. Well, he is failing on all fronts. I don't need to tell anyone that the situation at the southern border, right now, is far from orderly, but it is also not humane. The President and other members of his party tend to convey an attitude that strong border security and the enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws are somehow not compassionate or humane. Well, they are wrong. We are seeing the effects of the President's anti-border security policies at our southern border right now, and the results are neither compassionate nor humane. Encouraging individuals to make the oftentimes dangerous journey to our southern border in the hopes they will be able to slip across illegally is not humane. Encouraging families and, at times, unaccompanied children to expose themselves to the dangers of heat and the elements and human trafficking is not compassionate. At least 557 migrants died while attempting to cross the southern border during fiscal year 2021. That, too, was a record number. How many of them were encouraged to make the journey by the President's lax border policies? And I haven't even mentioned the lack of compassion and humanity the President displays for Americans affected by the illegal immigration crisis. Straining the resources of U.S. border communities by smoothing the way for illegal immigration and cross-border criminal activity is not compassionate. Making it easier for cartels to flood our Nation with fentanyl is not humane. The President of the United States--any President--has a special responsibility for our Nation's security, and that includes securing our Nation's border. So far, President Biden has spectacularly failed to meet that responsibility. This week, a caravan of thousands has reportedly started working its way north, through Mexico, aligning with the Summits of the Americas. It is long past time for the President to get serious about the border crisis that he has created, and this summit could be an opportunity for him to finally take action. I hope that he will reverse his current course before his administration's signature accomplishment ends up being a legacy of chaos at our southern border. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the White House has apparently decided to spend June focusing on the economy. President Biden kicked things off with an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal entitled ``My Plan for Fighting Inflation.'' Before he gets to the actual ``plan,'' though, the President spends the first half of the op-ed touting his supposed economic successes. As usual, he takes credit for the economy's recovery from COVID-related woes, even though the recovery was well underway before he became President and was a natural result of the economy reopening after COVID shutdowns. He touts job creation figures without mentioning the fact that businesses are struggling to find workers to fill jobs. He touts the number of new small business applications in 2021 without mentioning that small business optimism is at its lowest level since April 2020 at the height of the pandemic shutdowns. And he mentions ``millions of Americans getting jobs with better pay,'' while leaving out the fact that inflation continues to outstrip wage growth, meaning that, on average, Americans are experiencing a de facto pay cut. In all, he spends multiple paragraphs attempting to convince Americans that the economy is thriving, which I have to think feels pretty meaningless to the millions of Americans struggling with massive increases in the cost of gas, groceries, and other everyday goods. In fact, a poll released yesterday found that just 27 percent of Americans believe they have a good chance of improving their standard of living, and it is no wonder. The President can talk about his supposed economic achievements all he wants, but that means little to Americans who have seen their disposable income eaten up by price hikes or whose raise failed to keep even pace with the increase in the cost of living. And, of course, the President completely omits the fact that it was his economic plans that helped create our current inflation crisis in the first place. When President Biden took office, inflation was at 1.4 percent, well within the Federal Reserve's target inflation rate of 2 percent. Today, it is at 8.3 percent, near a 40-year high. And how did we get from there to here? In substantial part, via the President's so-called American Rescue Plan. Democrats' massive partisan spending spree flooded the economy with unnecessary government money, and the economy overheated as a result. But that is not something the President mentions when he talks about fighting inflation. So what is the President's so-called plan to fight inflation? Well, after spending half the op-ed touting his supposed economic successes, the President finally gets to the plan part, and the first part of his three-part plan involves having someone else address inflation. Controlling inflation, the President says, is primarily the job of the Federal Reserve, and he is going to leave them alone to do that job. The next part of the President's plan involves things like fixing broken supply chains and boosting the productive capacity of our economy over time. Now, I am a big supporter of improving our supply chains, which is why I have introduced the Ocean Shipping Reform Act, which, hopefully, will pass the House of Representatives and head to the President's desk soon. But given that the President has so far demonstrated little progress in addressing supply chain challenges, I am not holding my breath waiting for the White House to take action. I am also a big fan of boosting the productive capacity of our economy. My concern is that the President fails to give any examples of how he might actually do that. He mentions high gas prices, but instead of talking about ways to address high energy prices by unleashing American energy production, he pivots to touting his release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a highly temporary band aid that did next to nothing to address the cause of high gas prices, except for briefly causing their rise to what are record highs. He also claims Congress can help by passing his clean-energy tax credits and investments--which he says would result in a $500 decrease in utility bills for American families. First, nothing about the President's clean-energy tax credits is likely to drive down energy prices, especially in the near term, and Americans can't afford to wait. In fact, for Americans to take advantage of some of these credits, they would need to spend more money--on an electric car, for example-- which is how the administration suggests Americans deal with these historic gas prices. And the President's claim that his energy tax credits and investments would decrease utility bills for American families by $500 is 100 percent false. And you don't have to take my word for it. The Washington Post Fact Checker column gave the President's claim four--four Pinocchios--a rating that the Post reserves for, and I quote, ``whoppers.'' And if the President has the idea that his tax credits can somehow magically move the United States to a place that we can abandon gas and oil overnight, well, he has another thing coming. No matter how much Democrats might wish it were otherwise, the fact of the matter is that clean energy technology has simply not advanced to the point where we can replace all traditional energy resources with renewables. And pretending--pretending that we don't need gas and oil--or discouraging American oil and gas production will only result in higher energy prices for American consumers. If the President really wanted to reduce gas prices and ``boost the productive capacity of our economy over time,'' as he said in his op- ed, he would embrace American energy production, including conventional energy production. Instead, he is doing the opposite. He continues to discourage domestic production of conventional energy sources that Americans rely on. And the result is likely to be continued high energy prices well into the future. Finally, the President turns to the third part of his plan to fight inflation, and that is reducing the deficit. Unfortunately, it is a little hard to take the President seriously on this issue. The President touts a Congressional Budget Office prediction that the deficit will fall by $1.7 trillion this year. What the President doesn't mention is that the reason this year's projected deficit drop looks so substantial is because Democrats inflated the deficit last year with their American Rescue Plan spending spree. Of course, the deficit will look lower this year without a massive $1.9 trillion piece of legislation financed entirely with deficit spending. And I am not getting my hopes up about future deficit drops, since many Democrats still want to use reconciliation rules to force through another big, party-line Democrat spending bill. This one is $5 trillion. If they come up with a proposal that is anything like their original Build Back Better proposal, we will undoubtedly be looking at more deficit spending. One news outlet had this to say about President Biden's op-ed and his plan to reduce the deficit: Is it really a `plan' when the President points fingers? While the president's op-ed purports to lay out a plan for addressing inflation, a close read shows that he actually seems to be pushing the burden off on others . . . That is a fair assessment. Unfortunately, it is pretty par for the course for President Biden. He is happy to take credit for positive economic numbers even when he had nothing to do with them, but when it comes to taking responsibility for a situation, he is frequently nowhere to be found. He won't acknowledge that his own economic proposal, the American Rescue Plan, helped create our inflation crisis in the first place. Indeed, he largely ignored the inflation crisis until it started to become absolutely necessary for him to address it, if he wanted to survive politically. And he has displayed a similar lack of ownership of crises on his watch. The actions he has taken to weaken border security and immigration enforcement have helped create an unprecedented immigration crisis on the southern border. But from the President's attitude you barely even know that there is a problem, much less one that he has a particular responsibility to address. His hostile attitude toward American energy production helped drive up gas prices and left families struggling--struggling--to fill their cars. Yet the President is ready to push off responsibility for conventional energy production to other nations, leaving our Nation less secure and even more vulnerable to price spikes. The President closes his op-ed by noting: The economic policy choices we make today will determine whether a sustained recovery that benefits all Americans is possible. Well, the President is right about that. Unfortunately, it is pretty clear that the economic policy choices that he is making are wrong. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today, I recognize Kate Lundberg, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months. Kate is a recent graduate of George Washington University in Washington, DC, having earned degrees in international affairs and political science. This summer, Kate plans to continue serving the American people by working on Capitol Hill. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Kate for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today, I recognize Ben Schelhaas, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months. Ben is a recent graduate of the University of South Dakota in Vermillion, SD, having earned degrees in history and political science. This fall, Ben plans to pursue a master's degree in history at Arizona State University in Tempe, AZ. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Ben for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today, I am honored to recognize the extraordinary service of Brig. Gen. Gentry W. Boswell on the occasion of his retirement. His 31 years of service to our Nation is the reflection of a true and devoted public servant. General Boswell received his commission in 1991 as a distinguished graduate of the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps at Delta State University, and he also earned a master of aeronautical science at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. In addition, General Boswell studied at the Squadron Officer School, the Air Command and Staff College, the Joint Forces Command Advanced Warfighting School, the Air War College, the Keenan-Flagler Enterprise Leadership School, and the Naval War College. General Boswell's distinguished military career encompassed operational tours flying the B-1B, B-52, RC-135, and E-6B aircraft, and he accumulated more than 4,900 flight hours, including over 500 combat hours in Southwest Asia, the Balkans, and the Horn of Africa. South Dakotans were fortunate to have General Boswell fulfill five separate military assignments at Ellsworth Air Force Base, serving as assistant director of operations for the 77th Bomb Squadron from 1999 to 2002, director of operations for the 37th Bomb Squadron from 2007 to 2008, commander of the 28th Operations Support Squadron from 2008 to 2010, vice commander of the 28th Bomb Wing from 2012 to 2014, and commander of the 28th Bomb Wing from 2015 to 2017. During his assignments at Ellsworth AFB, General Boswell developed a culture of putting the airmen first, and he engaged actively in partnerships with civilian leadership in Rapid City and other Black Hills communities to improve the quality of life for those in uniform and their families. In addition, as commander of the 28th Operations Support Squadron, General Boswell was instrumental in advancing the expansion of the Powder River Training Complex. The expanded air space represents the largest military operations area in the lower 48 States, spanning the skies over North Dakota and South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming. This expansive training airspace allows Air Force pilots and crews to perform the critical training they need in conditions that closely resemble combat missions. General Boswell's final assignment for the Air Force was serving as the director of manpower, organization, and resources. He led the management and oversight of the Air Force's manpower enterprise, which encompasses more than 694,000 total force personnel and the programming of more than $47 billion in annual funding. General Boswell has received several prestigious awards for his outstanding military service, including the Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit with two oakleaf clusters, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal with three oakleaf clusters, and the Air Medal with two oakleaf clusters. We are thrilled that General Boswell has chosen to retire in the Black Hills of South Dakota, where he will have plenty of opportunities to dedicate more time to hunting. I join all South Dakotans in extending our congratulations to General Boswell upon his retirement and for his outstanding military career.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, before I begin, I want to express my sorrow at the terrible shooting in Texas on Tuesday that claimed the lives of 2 teachers and 19 schoolchildren. Like a lot of Americans, I cannot imagine the anguish these children's parents are facing right now as they grieve for sons and daughters whom they will never again drive to school or welcome home at the end of the day. I pray that the Lord will be with them in their suffering and that they will receive the comfort and strength that they need. My prayers are with the entire Uvalde community--the families of those killed, the injured, the teachers, and students who suffered such terror, the medical and law enforcement personnel who responded, and all those reeling from this terrible attack.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).