Floor Statements

Mr. President, October 7, 2023, was almost 5 years to the day after the attack on the Tree of Life synagogue--almost 5 years to the day. Anti-Semitism has been on the rise around the world and unfortunately here in America. We are seeing it on college campuses. We are seeing it in conversations online. It is not new, it is old, but it is on the rise in a way that we have not seen in a long time in the United States.

In 2019, Senator Rosen and I launched the Senate Bipartisan Task Force for Combatting Anti-Semitism. We started that on the 1-year anniversary of the shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue. Our mission was pretty simple: We wanted to create a task force to be able to collaborate with law enforcement, Federal Agencies, State and local governments, educators, advocates, clergy--any stakeholders who wanted to be able to combat anti-Semitism with education, empowerment, and bringing communities together in conversation.

Our goal was to speak out with one voice about hate, to support legislative efforts to combat anti-Semitism, to promote Holocaust education, and to bring the issue of combatting anti-Semitism to the forefront of our national conversation and, quite frankly, international.

She and I have worked together to be able to contact other nations and their Parliaments on what we have seen as anti-Semitism in other countries, to be able to reach out to Ambassadors, but to also speak out on what we see here in the United States. That has not changed.

The State Department has offered this warning:

History has shown that wherever anti-Semitism has gone

unchecked, the persecution of others has been present or not

far behind. Defeating anti-Semitism must be a cause of great

importance not only for Jews, but for all people who value

humanity and justice.

That is our own State Department.

So now what are we going do about what we are seeing on college campuses? Interestingly enough, people see this as a new thing just in the last 7 months. This has been on the rise on college campuses for quite a while. Many of us have been ringing that bell to say that there is something happening in the national conversation on our college campuses.

So let's find ways to be able to engage on this. Senator Rosen and I have a piece of legislation that is a compilation of multiple pieces that we have worked on for a very long time to be able to talk about anti-Semitism and to say there are specific ways that our Nation can get involved with this.

I have affirmed President Biden in areas where we agree, and there are some areas that he has brought up in the task force that he has created on the executive level to take on anti-Semitism nationally. Some of those things have been actually executed and carried out, and some of them have not.

So we have continued to be able to nudge in ways that we thought were appropriate to be able to nudge and to be able to poke to say things can be done. It has been leadership at our State Department that has risen up on that, and some, we have been actively involved in trying to be able to get into those positions, to be able to lead.

My friend Tim Scott came to the floor to be able to ask for unanimous consent to be able to pass his resolution to condemn anti-Semitism on college campuses. I want to thank my friend Tim Scott for his leadership on this issue and what he has also done to be able to raise awareness. But unfortunately his request to be able to pass that resolution was denied.

We should be able to find common ground on issues that condemn hate. His resolution was a simple statement: What are we going to do as a body to be able to condemn hatred in this area? We should not ignore this.

The House of Representatives last week brought up the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act. It was a bipartisan piece of legislation that they passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives that they have now sent to this body to be able to take up and to debate and to discuss.

What has been interesting to me is, when they picked up the Anti- Semitism Awareness Act as a nonpartisan piece of legislation, this is a continuance of actually what happened under the Trump administration. President Trump used the same definitions and the same process of putting it in the Department of Education, using what is called the IHRA definition for ``anti-Semitism'' and the examples attached to it in Executive order 13899.

But what has been fascinating to me is, when the House of Representatives passed it, there was a whole group of folks and some folks from my own party who stepped up and said: No, we can't actually do this, because this would inhibit free speech.

I have smiled at those same folks and said: Did you say that when President Trump was actually using it as an Executive order under his administration? Because now they are talking about making a statutory, long-term change.

The IHRA definition is not new, by the way. The United States has been a party to this definition since the 1990s. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition--that is IHRA--has been recognized all over the world as a basic definition with examples of what anti-Semitism is.

It is not new to the United States. There are many athletic teams that

have recognized the IHRA definition for their teams in their conversations to be able to recognize what anti-Semitism is. There are 34 States, including my own State of Oklahoma, that have recognized the IHRA definition within our own States to say: This is how we are going to define ``anti-Semitism'' in our States.

This is a very basic principle. It is difficult to discourage what you cannot even define, and when someone makes just a blanket statement for anti-Semitism, it is helpful to put some definition to what it actually means and what it does not mean. For instance, if someone were to say they disagree with the Netanyahu government, is that anti- Semitic? The IHRA definition would say, clearly, it is not. We can disagree on governmental action. That is a normal part of dialogue.

It also is not something that inhibits free speech. Even hateful speech in the United States--even foolish, even stupid speech--can be said in the United States. It is a protected right to be able to say whatever crazy thing you want to be able to say in the United States, but when it shifts from free speech to inciting violence and threats, that has shifted. That has moved from just speech to now criminal action.

The IHRA definition in what the House of Representatives passed last week in the Antisemitism Awareness Act doesn't limit speech in any way. In fact, it very specifically states it is not trying to take away any free speech rights of anyone. It specifically notes a protection for the First Amendment rights of Americans to be able to say what they choose to say.

What it does say is, if you are on a college campus and you are choosing to discriminate against Jewish students, that should fall into the same as any other title VI discrimination falls into. It is no different. So if they are doing discrimination on a college campus, you can't just say: Well, they are discriminating against Jewish students, so that doesn't fall under title VI.

That clearly does fall under title VI areas and makes what has been implied clear. What has been done by Executive action in the past under the Trump administration makes it clear for every administration. What has been done under the Department of State for three decades in the United States is clear policy not just for the State Department but also for the Department of Education. I think that is a pretty reasonable way to take on this issue and to be able to clarify what anti-Semitism is on a college campus or any campus that is out there.

Some of the responses that I have already mentioned have been fascinating to me on this, things like I have already said: This is going to limit free speech.

No. You still have the right to say something, even to say something dumb. That is still a protected right in the United States.

We can say things that we both disagree with--that is a protected right--but you can't move into criminal activity. That is not protected, and a university cannot protect discrimination on their own campus. That would not be allowed.

My favorite thing is that it does not outlaw the Bible. I have had folks who have said: If you put in the IHRA definition, it outlaws the Bible.

I have just smiled and said: That is absolutely ridiculous.

And it is not just me saying this. Christian leaders who I know all over the country say that is just a ridiculous statement.

There is a letter that just came out this week from Pastor John Hagee, who leads what is called CUFI, the national Christians United for Israel, and Ralph Reed, who is the leader of the Faith and Freedom Coalition. They have made this simple statement:

To the Biblically literate, claims that the Antisemitism

Awareness Act is anti-Christian are as insulting as they are

injurious.

I have made it very clear on this as well when people have asked me about this, to say that somehow the Antisemitism Awareness Act outlaws the Bible or limits speech around the Bible.

There is a statement in the IHRA definition that talks about using symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism, and the examples are claims that ``Jews killing Jesus are blood libel'' to characterize Israel or Israelis. So they take that one statement and pull that out and say: See? You couldn't use the Bible.

I have laughed, and I have said: Well, I would just say not only have Pastor Hagee and others said this--and other faith leaders around--but let me add a voice to this as well. The Scripture is very clear from John 10 that Jesus laid his life down for others. He had the power to lay it down and the power to be able to take it up. That is Orthodox Christianity. Orthodox Christianity says: My sin is what put Jesus on the cross. That is what Scripture says.

What the IHRA definition says is, if someone is biased to say ``I hate all Jews because Jews killed Jesus,'' they are saying that that is an anti-Semitic statement to say that. I would also say it is not only inconsistent with the clear teachings of Scripture, but it is inconsistent with the faith practices of individuals.

Not only is the New Testament exceptionally clear about respect for Judaism, but the guy on the cross was Jewish. His mom at the foot of the cross was Jewish. The disciples were all Jewish. The people who wrote the New Testament were Jewish. So to somehow believe that Christianity would discount all Jews is to ignore the basic teachings of the New Testament, besides the basic fact that the Romans put Jesus on the cross.

So somehow to say that this discounts Scripture--that I have heard over and over again on social media over the past week--I think is absurd, No. 1, and as John Hagee and Ralph Reed have said, it actually is insulting and injurious.

There are folks who have said that there will be an international organization that is now going to police speech in the United States. I would encourage them to please read the legislation, not what is on social media, to be able to understand what this actually does. It does not give authority to an international organization to be able to step into the United States and be able to police speech. It is very clear.

It just says this is what discrimination looks like under title VI, just like we have discrimination laws in other areas wherein the Department of Education could not say: Well, it doesn't specifically outline religion in this area, and so if there is discrimination against Jewish students, we can look the other way. That would stop under this piece of legislation.

First things first: Let's actually have real dialogue as a country. Are we as a nation going to look the other way when students are discriminated against on a campus, or are we going to step in and say: ``No, we are not going to just look the other way when there is discrimination''? Because, as I go back to the statement from our State Department, history has shown that wherever anti-Semitism has gone unchecked, the persecution of others has been present or not far behind. So let's speak out and stop it.

For individuals who want to have anti-Semitic beliefs, that is still legal in America to have an anti-Semitic belief. It is still protected as a right. I would say it is hateful, and I would say it is bigoted, but it is still your protected right to be able to have that belief. But, when that speech moves to threats of violence and intimidation, when it moves from a voice to an action, that is criminal activity, and we should treat it as such. We should not let it fester as criminal activity and think it will not spread. It will.

My final statement: For the folks who track through social media, where you see voices of anti-Semitism on social media, why don't you be bold enough to speak out for the people who are being bullied online and say every person has the right to their faith and to be able to live that faith and have that protected? We as Americans have the right to have any faith of our choosing, to change our faith, or to have no faith at all, and that would be protected. That should not be any less for Jewish students anywhere online or on their own campuses.

So let's speak out on their behalf. And instead of allowing them to be bullied on their campuses or online, why don't we speak out for their right to be able to live their faith and practice their faith as every other American? That is what I think we should do on college campuses, and that is a simple way we can honor the dignity of every student.

We are going to disagree. There are people who have strong disagreements

with the war that is happening right now in Israel and in Gaza. So let's talk about it, but let's not discriminate while we do it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this week, the Senate began consideration of the FAA reauthorization bill. It is an incredibly important piece of legislation that this body takes up every few years to be able to evaluate where we are on safety of our national airspace. There are a lot of aspects that are in it.

What some people may not know in this body is how incredibly important this is, not only to our national air space and our safety, but it is also something that is talked about often in my State of Oklahoma.

Oklahomans are passionate about our national airspace for many reasons. One is, we obviously love to fly and have a long heritage of flying in our State, but it is also the unique relationship that FAA has with the State of Oklahoma. There are only two FAA centers outside of Washington, DC. One of those is actually in Oklahoma City, the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center.

I would safely say to everybody that if you have been on a flight lately and it took off and landed safely, you can thank the folks in Oklahoma City for that, because Oklahoma City, that operation of Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, that Center has functioned 70 years and has provided a lot of services for the FAA for all seven of those decades.

They were established in 1958, home to thousands of great Federal employees there that serve our Nation every single day to keep our airspace safe. But they do it in ways that sometimes people don't see.

Let me give you an example of that. The Center houses a lot of different components and a lot of back-office things for a lot of different Agencies. They are on 1,100 acres of land in Oklahoma City with 133 buildings. And as you go through the complex, you think there is a lot going on here. Let me give you just a few examples of those things.

Civil Aerospace Medical Institute is housed in Oklahoma City. The Civil Aerospace Medical Institute takes care of the medical certification, the research, education, the occupational health wing for the FAA. They conduct all their research and studies on the human element of flight there. That is safety for pilots, flight attendants, passengers, how to be able to handle pressurization, all those things. They do that in Oklahoma City every single day.

The Mike Monroney Center is also home to the only FAA Academy. They handle the first 60 days or so of developmental air traffic control training before a student is actually placed in the field. Basically, when you take off and land, any of their communication with air traffic control anywhere in the country, it is very likely those folks were initially trained in Oklahoma City.

The Oklahoma City air traffic control training has geared up to be able to take on as many people as the Nation needs for air traffic control. In fact, this particular bill encourages maximizing as many people as possible actually getting through air traffic control training. And the academy in Oklahoma City is well-prepared to be able to step up to the challenge of that. They have space. They have great trainers that come in from all over the country to be able to do the training there. They are fully capable and have a great curriculum that they have been able to train folks that now serve our Nation every single day. The FAA reauthorization bill expands that capacity in Oklahoma City, rightfully so, and they are fully ready and able to do it.

They also set a new minimum hiring target for air traffic controllers so the maximum number of individuals can actually go through the academy. It is very important we train as many people as possible to be able to make them ready.

Advanced air mobility is another element that is actually there at the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center. The focus there is the next generation of what is going to happen in unmanned flights. While a lot of folks talk about that in the future, that research is actually happening on the ground in Oklahoma City every single day.

There are a lot of aspects of this bill that prepare us for the future of aviation and continues to be able to make our airspace the safest airspace in the world. Let's keep it that way. Let's continue to be able to learn what we can and to be able to continue to advance the future of aviation in the United States.

I look forward to the debate that will begin, officially, later on today and will continue all the way through next week or, quite frankly, until whenever the Senate is finished in the debate on this bill because it is important we actually get the FAA bill done in the days ahead.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise today to offer my sincere gratitude to Tom Harper, a lieutenant colonel in the Army National Guard. From his beginning as an infantryman in the Florida Army National Guard, he graduated--distinguished--from the Georgia Military College as an artillery officer who served five operational tours, across three continents.

A peerless expert in appropriations and military construction, Lieutenant Colonel Harper sought to increase the Army National Guard's contribution to the Nation's security. He recently served as a legislative liaison on Capitol Hill, dedicated to the relationship and understanding between our branches.

Throughout his military career, Lieutenant Colonel Harper remained principled--in combat and in counsel--offering his best wisdom and giving our Nation his unreserved courage. I have personally seen the excellence of his service to our Nation. I wish him the best in his next chapter of service to our Nation.

Madam President, I would like to continue the reading of the ``Letter from Birmingham Jail.''

Dr. King continued:

I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and

unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety

over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a

legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to

obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing

segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may

seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One

may well ask: ``How can you advocate breaking some laws and

obeying others?'' The answer lies in the fact that there are

two types of laws: Just and unjust. I would be the first to

advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a

moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a

moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree

with St. Augustine that ``an unjust law is no law at all.''

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one

determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a

man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of

God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the

moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An

unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law

and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is

just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All

segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts

the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator

a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense

of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the

Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an ``I it''

relationship for an ``I thou'' relationship and ends up

relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation

is not only politically, economically and sociologically

unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has

said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an

existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful

estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can

urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for

it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey

segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust

laws. An unjust law is a code

that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority

group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is

difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a

code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it

is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.

Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is

inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the

right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law.

Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that

state's segregation laws was democratically elected?

Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to

prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there

are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a

majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered.

Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered

democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its

application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge

of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in

having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But

such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain

segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment

privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to

point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the

law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to

anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly,

lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I

submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience

tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of

imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the

community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the

highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil

disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of

Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at

stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who

were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain

of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws

of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a

reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience.

In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive

act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in

Germany was ``legal'' and everything the Hungarian freedom

fighters did in Hungary was ``illegal.'' It was ``illegal''

to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am

sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have

aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a

Communist country where certain principles dear to the

Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate

disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

Mr. President, it has been just 6 months and a week since October 7. The whole world was shaken as a flood, as they actually called it, an Al-Aqsa flood of Hamas terrorists came through the wall separating Gaza and Israel in multiple places, and over the next several hours, they murdered 1,200 Israelis. They took 253 hostage, including 133 who are still hostage still today--6 months and a week.

Last week--now, I guess, 9 days ago--I was in Israel. I spent time with Israelis to meet with multiple different leaders and get a chance just to be able to talk to different folks in different parts of the country to see what is going on, on the ground.

This is a painful moment for the entire world but definitely a painful moment for Israel and for the entire region. We think back just 7 months ago and all the conversation was normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel. And then a group of Hamas terrorists stepped in and killed as many people as they possibly could in an effort to also kill that normalization that is happening around the entire region, to do whatever they could to be able to drive a wedge, and so that peace could not continue to advance in the region.

What has happened since then has been painful for the entire world to watch, but it has been really painful for the people in that region more than anyone else.

I traveled to the far southern tip of Israel, along the border with Egypt, to be able to meet with some of the folks who are in that area, to be able to talk about the relationship between Egypt and Israel and what is happening day to day. I traveled to the kibbutzes that literally are right on the border with Gaza that are now vacant and empty and devastated.

I can't even begin to explain to this body, unless you have seen it before, the pain of walking through a large kibbutz where there were hundreds of people who lived just a few months ago and now to see every building shot up with bullet holes, burned, destroyed, and think at 6:38 that morning, during a Jewish holiday, on that Saturday morning, October 7, many people were still asleep when a group of Hamas terrorists came into their homes and murdered many in that village and took many hostages from that kibbutz.

We could literally walk by the doors, and the person who was walking with us could say: That family died, that family is a hostage, that family died, and go door-to-door as we walked around to be able to see it.

The person who was walking us through could even walk us through his own home, which was obliterated, and his son's home right there who died, and then he could point to Gaza and say: My other son is over there in Gaza right now.

At the same time, flowers were blooming and the grounds were beautiful and you realize the irony of this moment. Hostages being held in Gaza, families who are struggling every single day trying to make sense of this craziness and trying to figure out why a peaceful kibbutz, living their lives, farming, manufacturing, was overrun by a group of terrorists.

Right up the road we stopped by the Nova festival site, which is an absolutely beautiful location for outdoor concerts, for venues, for gathering, and has been for years. The trees and the setting, it is just beautiful. But the day that we were there, there were echoing noises of artillery that was being fired off literally within hundreds of yards of us as we were meeting with some of the folks who survived the Nova festival.

One person in particular whom we got a chance to be able to chat with and to be able to pick her brain about the ``what happens next'' was in one of the bomb shelters because there was a launch of missiles coming at them, but then those bomb shelters became places where literally they were sitting ducks for the terrorists as they came in with gunfire.

We traveled all the way to the north, had the opportunity to be able to visit with some of the mayors who are right along the border with Syria and with Lebanon, where whole towns are evacuated, whole towns where people can't survive the onslaught of artillery coming at them constantly.

We lose track of the fact that there are about a quarter million Israelis right now who are internally displaced as well, who live along the border with Gaza or live along the border with Lebanon or Syria. Those folks have also had to flee because while the world in the last several days has talked about 330 drone strikes, missile strikes, ballistics and cruise missiles that have come from Iran directly, for some reason, the world has lost track of the fact, not about the 330 bombs and missiles that have come at Israel in the last week, but the 12,000 rockets that have been fired at Israel since October 7--12,000.

Mr. President, 9,100 of those rockets have come in from Gaza launching at civilians in Israel; 3,100 of those rockets have been launched from Lebanon, from Hezbollah, into the north of Israel; and 35 rockets have been fired from Syria at Israel.

And I asked people: How many rockets would be fired at your house before you would respond in a way to be able to make it stop? Israel has had 12,000 fired at them since October 7. The United States has never ever put up with that without responding in a forceful way to say we are going to make it stop.

There has been a lot of conversation about Rafah, so I had a lot of conversations with Israeli leadership to be able to talk to them about the plan and what they are going to do.

You see there are Hamas brigades. Now, when we think about terrorism, often it is just random terrorists who are gathering. But Hamas actually has a military structure with brigades that they have actually put together of fighting brigades. Most of those brigades have been broken up. The remaining brigades of Hamas terrorists are all living underground at Rafah.

And while we need to do everything we can--and I had great conversations with Israelis about everything that they are doing to protect civilians and protect civilian lives that have nothing to do with this onslaught of terrorism, they are also keenly aware that the people who are living underground in Rafah are making public statements on social media that as soon as this war is over, they are coming again to do another October 7. And the Israelis are being very, very clear: We are not going to allow that to happen. We are not going to allow our Israeli citizens to be slaughtered in their beds early on a Saturday morning again.

So they are doing everything they can to be able to prepare for that moment, to be able to stop the group of terrorists who are living underground. It is interesting to me when I think about the Hamas terrorist organization. In the United States, our military trains and prepares itself to get between violence and civilians. Hamas does the opposite. Hamas actually trains and equips to put civilians between its military and violence.

They put the civilians on the top layer while the safe shelters underground are occupied by the terrorist armies. It is stunning to me just the mental difference between the two and how jarring that that really is.

Interesting conversations I had with some of the Israeli leadership, as well, just to be able to chat with them, to say: You can't eliminate Hamas by trying to be able to attack them over and over again to be able to eliminate all people who think like Hamas and who are actually a part of Hamas.

And their response was interesting to me. Their response was that we fully understand we are not going to obliterate everyone who is in Hamas. We want to stop the threat that is coming at us, but we understand that there will be members of Hamas in the future who will still think that way. And their response to me was there are still Nazis in the world right now. There are still people who claim to be a Nazi or a neo-Nazi right now, but the difference is, they don't run Germany. And their first goal was that we want to end Hamas's rule, a terrorist organization having the capacity to run the entity right next door to us.

We understand that there will still be people who think like that, but we want to show them there is a better way. And we still want to be able to have peace with our neighbors.

You see, this connection between Hezbollah and Syria and Hamas is Iran's plan and has been for a long time to build what they are calling a ring of fire around Israel. It was their way of protecting themselves--for the Iranian regime--that if they made it so violent around Israel, Israel would never actually attack Iran. That was their plan.

What is interesting was Israel has been working to be able to build a ring of ice around Iran. That is the Abraham Accords. As Iran is trying to make the region more violent, Israel is trying to make the region more peaceful. It is stark when it is side by side, isn't it? Israel is working to build relationships and has with UAE and with Bahrain.

They have had longstanding relationships with Jordan and with Egypt. They are working in their relationship with Saudi Arabia as they have even added Morocco into the Abraham Accords.

They are building a ring of ice into the region to bring the temperature down in a violent, hostile area, and for the folks who are in Hamas, they hate the thought of that because they don't want normalization; they want violence and control. And as they scream, ``from the river to the sea,'' they mean the death of every Israeli, and, quite frankly, every Jew worldwide. And they have been clear about that.

Now, what do we need to do as Americans? I think we need to be attentive in several areas. One is, Russia has formed an alliance with Iran. Many of the weapon systems that are being shot right now at Ukrainians are actually Iranian weapon systems, and we should not ignore that. This alliance between Russia and Iran continues to grow. In just the past several years, Russia has dramatically increased its number of military bases in Syria.

They have now gone over 100 there, and there are 103 bases now in Syria that are Russian active bases. We should pay attention to that.

For Iran, we have seen clearly what they are doing, how they continue to attack. Again, there is this focus on 330 drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles that were fired at Israel just this past week. What people may not be tracking is what continues to happen from Lebanon, with the Iranian-backed Hezbollah continuing to attack Israel.

Just in the past 24 hours, Hezbollah has attacked northern Israeli communities and cities six times in the last 24 hours. But, of course, no media is covering that. But if you are in one of the communities that is now vacant in northern Israel--and that they fled and they are living in hotels or with relatives or fled to some other location from northern Israel--they are keenly aware of what continues to happen there.

We have got to deal with the continued threat and awakening from Russia, but we have got to also think seriously about what is happening with the regime in Iran. We, as a nation, have tried to pacify Iran. We tried to isolate them diplomatically.

Now, I don't call for a military attack on Iran. No one wants violence and war. We are not interested in our sons and daughters being involved in another conflict. But to think that Iran is going to suddenly be peaceful, when their regime is intent on trying to destroy Israel at the time, should awaken all of us to the reality of where Iran really is.

It was also good to be able to see, when 330 projectiles were coming at Israel this week, that the Americans stood by their side. They shot down a lot of those. The Israelis obviously shot down the majority of them. But the British also were engaged in shooting those down. We had French that were engaged. But also the Jordanians were engaged. The Saudis were engaged. The region is pushing back on a violent Iran that is intent on making the region worse and more unstable, not better.

Iran has used the vacuum of what has happened in Syria to move in their radicalism across Syria, and they continue to make it a more and more toxic place in Syria and in Iraq.

We, as the United States, should turn up our sanctions even more. We, as the United States, should isolate Iran even more. We, as the United States, should use every leverage that we have to isolate not only their economy but to be able to be focused in on that regime, because, quite frankly, that regime is oppressing its own people.

Our problem, as a nation, is not the Iranian people. They are living under the oppression of the Iranian regime as well. It is the regime that is there. And while some Members of this body have called for a change in leadership in Israel, I would call for a change in leadership in Iran, because that is really the problem in the region.

And we should find ways to be able to apply as much pressure as we can on that regime and to be able to message to the people of Iran, as often as we possibly can: We see you in the oppression that you live under every single day, and we wish better for you--for well-educated young men and women who live under the oppressive thumb of that leadership.

Something else we can do as the United States is to stop allowing our soil to be the place where the Iranian regime can spew their hatred. This Thursday, the Iranian Foreign Minister is flying to the United States to be able to speak to a group of people at the U.N., and our administration has given him a visa.

I have called on Secretary Blinken to say, literally: This is one of the Iranian leaders who is a leading voice in the IRGC, who is a leading voice in the attack, in the preparation for October 7, who is a leading voice of hatred toward the United States and the West and our ally Israel. We should not extend a visa while Iran is attacking actively from their soil and from all of their proxies. We should not extend a visa to the Iranian Foreign Minister to come stand on our soil, in our country, and spew his hatred. If he wants to do that internationally, he can.

Now, I understand the U.N. is a body and a place where we have allowed voices from all over the world to come speak. But do you know what? There was a moment when President Obama denied a visa to Iranian leaders because of where they were. There was a moment when President Trump also denied some visas to some of the Iranian leaders because of what they were actively doing.

This is a moment when President Biden and Secretary Blinken should tell the Iranian Foreign Minister: Not this week, not right now, not at all.

When you are attacking our friends, we should not loan them bits of our soil to do it from our territory. We should make it clear that the Iranian leadership that oppresses its own people and attacks our allies--and, by the way, uses their proxies to murder Americans who are also serving in the region--we should make it very clear: We will not allow that on our soil.

I made it clear when I was in Israel that the people of the United States see the people of Israel. We understand what they are living under. And, as a nation that has faced terrorism in our Nation, we understand the emotion that they have at this point, and we understand their tenacity.

We, as the United States, should be very clear: We have an ally, and it is Israel. We are going to walk with her. We are going to help Israel in every way that we can because she has been attacked and is in the middle of the war.

And when you walk through the streets of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, you feel it. Just like when you are walking through the streets along the border with Gaza and Lebanon and Syria, you feel it. They are ready for peace. And Israel is actively building a ring of ice in the region to bring down the temperature of the region to push back directly on Iran's ring of fire.

We, as a Nation, should be clear on which one we support--those who are bringing peace or those who are bringing violence and hatred? We should make that continually clear and continue to be able to act on it diplomatically and, when we need to, to protect our allies in every way we can, like we did this week with Israel.

Let's pray for the peace of Jerusalem, but let's also stand by her.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, next week, we are scheduled to begin a trial of the Secretary of Homeland Security. It doesn't begin a conversation about homeland security in our country. That conversation started years ago now.

The American people are incredibly frustrated with what they are seeing on the southern border, and they keep saying it over and over again--remarkably so in a nation where inflation continues to be stubbornly high, where it is harder and harder to afford a carton of eggs and gasoline and all of the basics of life. In all of the areas that you would think the economy would be the No. 1 issue in the Nation, actually, national security and border security end up being No. 1, regardless of what State you live in. This is no longer a border State issue. Americans feel this is a problem.

Well, they should. In the past 3 years, more people have illegally crossed our southern border than in the previous 12 years combined, and it is not close--the number. We are approaching 8 million people who have illegally crossed our southern border just in the last 3 years.

Cities feel it. Americans feel it. School districts feel it. Communities feel it. Homeless shelters feel it. It continues to spiral into our country.

This is not some accident of migration, as the administration tries to say over and over again--that there is global migration that is happening everywhere. This was a series of Executive orders that were done in 2021 that were intentionally designed to change what is happening at our southern border, and they certainly have.

Decisions were made in 2021 by the Biden administration to be able to shift multiple things, starting with loosening enforcement. On day one of the Biden administration, stop any construction of the wall and announce it publicly: We are no longer going to do wall construction, not even repair.

Step No. 2, dramatically loosen the actual enforcement within the country so that fewer people would actually be deported when they came. So if you crossed the border illegally, it is a much greater likelihood that, once you get across, you will not be deported.

The third thing, they changed the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy--that simple policy to say that, yes, you can request asylum, but you can't just be released in the country. They shifted it immediately, and shifted it from ``remain at the border or in Mexico.'' Rather than being in detention, you could be released anywhere in the country on your own recognizance and to be able to go anywhere you want. That dramatically increased the number of people who were crossing.

They also shifted where the State Department is no longer negotiating deals with Central America--Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador--to be able to stop migrants from moving through that direction. They have withdrawn those agreements from Central America, and the State Department stopped putting pressure on recalcitrant countries that wouldn't take their people back.

These are not accidental things. These were intentional actions.

But what I don't think the administration intended was how this has spiraled out of control. They sowed to the wind, and the Nation is reaping the whirlwind of it--almost 8 million people now who have illegally crossed our border.

And now it is no longer people from the Western Hemisphere. Literally, it is people from all over the world. Pick up any tracking, at any point, to be able to track what is happening at the border, and you will find thousands of people who are crossing from China, from Russia, from Pakistan, from West Africa, from all over Asia.

When I talk to people at the border--and I do talk often to them--one of the first things I ask is: What are the trends? What are you seeing?

And for the past year and a half, they continue to tell me: a greater and greater number of non-Spanish speakers who are crossing that border, who are males in their twenties, from all over the world, who are coming.

Just in the past year, we have picked up individuals who have al- Shabaab terrorist connections, picked up folks with Hezbollah terrorist connections, picked up folks with all kinds of different connections to all kinds of different terrorist organizations. And we have been able to pick up some, but some have gotten through or have been released. This is an issue I continue to be able to bring up that this administration is not managing. In the past year, there were over 70,000 individuals who were identified as what was defined as a ``special interest alien.'' These individuals crossed our border. The administration designated them as a ``special interest alien'' and then released them on their own recognizance into our country.

Let me clarify what that term is. A ``special interest alien''--this is their definition--is a non-U.S. person who, based on the analysis of travel patterns, potentially poses a national security threat to the United States or its interests. Madam President, 70,000 of those in the past year have crossed the border and have been released into the United States.

This is no longer a simple migration issue; this is a national security issue, and it is one this administration has not only invited but they have now chosen to not even take seriously.

This body knows full well--I believe there are some things that can only be done by acts of this body: changing the definition of ``asylum,'' increasing the number of detention beds. There are multiple issues that we need to do and that we should take responsibility for. But this body should not sit and say that nothing can be done when the White House has authorities they are not using. We should do our job. The White House should do their job. Currently, that is not happening, and the threat continues to increase.

Next week, we start an impeachment trial which has never happened in the history of the Department of Homeland Security--that they would have an impeachment of the Secretary. That starts. But can I say to you, even if the Secretary is removed, the White House still created this policy. The Obama administration had multiple leaders in that role, but they had one policy. The Trump administration had multiple leaders in that role; they had one policy. This White House has a policy of maintaining an open border, and until this White House changes that policy and actually uses the authority they already have, none of this is going to change.

So my challenge is to us. We should do our job and work on the issues we should do, but this White House needs to step up because right now, they are just hoping that none of those 70,000 people they defined as a national security risk actually does an act of terrorism or crime in the country.

I don't want to just hope that someone we have defined as a national security risk doesn't actually carry it out. I think we need to actually enforce the law, I think we need to discourage illegal immigration, and I think we need to actually have a secure border, and I don't believe I am alone in that in this body or in our great country.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2882 with further amendment No. 1713.

Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to support my amendment that would strike earmark funding for a hospital that performs chemical and surgical abortions, including well into the fifth month of pregnancy. In fact, this hospital, on their website, they brag that they routinely provide abortions up to 22 weeks. Five and a half months into a pregnancy is a late-term abortion. This is beyond even the Roe standard of viability.

At 22 weeks--that is 5\1/2\ months--a baby at that point can certainly feel pain. A baby can smile. They have formed tear ducts. They can recognize their mom's voice. They are sensitive to loud voices. They even have their taste buds already formed at that point.

Portugal restricts abortions after 10 weeks. Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Switzerland, and Ukraine all restrict abortion after 12 weeks. Belgium, Luxemburg, and Spain restrict after 14.

This is a hospital bragging they do abortions at 22 weeks. We may disagree

on when life begins, but we should not provide Federal dollars for a facility that advertises it performs late-term abortions routinely. We should strike this earmark.

Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2882 with further amendment No. 1718.

Mr. President, yesterday, 5,770 people illegally crossed our southern border. Some of them were identified as special interest aliens.

Now let me give the definition for ``special interest aliens'' from the Department of Homeland Security. This is a non-U.S. person who, based on analysis of travel patterns, potentially poses a national security risk to the United States or its interests. Often, such individuals or groups are employing travel patterns known or evaluated to possibly have a nexus to terrorism. That is what these individuals are. They have been identified by this administration's DHS as a potential national security risk and a possible nexus to terrorism.

The problem is most of them are released into the United States after a very quick screening at the border. Those individuals that have been labeled a national security risk are not being detained at our border. This amendment would simply say: If an individual has been identified by this administration as a national security risk, they have to be detained--

--throughout the time they are evaluated until they are adjudicated.

I would ask for a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. President, I am planning to bring three amendments to this set of appropriations bills that are coming. As we are quickly reading through it and going through the details and the information on the six

different sections of our Federal funding, which is incredibly important that we actually get done, there are many amendments that are here and many questions that have been raised.

I am raising a couple of them on two different issues. The first is a very specific issue. It has been a challenge for us on dealing with an entity called special interests aliens. It is a term you and I know, but many other people around the country do not know.

Special interest alien is an actual designation the Department of Homeland Security places on an individual when they cross the border based on where they are traveling from, maybe their connections there, areas of known terrorism, their travel patterns. The definition from the Department of Homeland Security is a special interest alien is a non-U.S. person who, based on an analysis of travel patterns, potentially poses a national security risk to the United States for its interest.

Just to be clear, when they are labeled ``special interest aliens,'' the Department of Homeland Security is declaring this person potentially a national security risk to the United States. When that individual is encountered at our southern border--we asked many questions both of FBI and DHS--what happens next?

In the past 5 months, we had 58 individuals who were on our Terror Watchlist. Those individuals on our Terror Watchlist, we know who they are. They have been identified. They were detained. We cannot get an exact number of the number of special interest aliens. These are individuals we know have terror links or come from an area where there is known terrorism or are traveling in a travel pattern that we know other terrorists have traveled on, so we know that much about them, but we don't know anything else about them.

We asked the simple question: Are they detained? The answer so far has been: Not all of them.

When someone at the southern border is declared a national security risk, we think it is reasonable to have that person detained at our southern border. In the past several days, we had almost 7,000 people a day illegally crossing our border. We don't know how many of those were labeled a national security risk, but we do believe the number in the past few months has been in the thousands.

But DHS has yet to give us the exact number. We have, potentially, in the thousands of people who have been declared by this administration as a potential national security risk, and they cannot tell us if they have been detained, their whereabouts for all of them, how they determined that they were a national security risk, or what happens next.

So the amendment I am bringing is very simple. The amendment I am bringing is to say we do not allow funding to be used to release people who have been designated a potential national security risk and to have them released into the United States so we don't have a situation where we have individuals identified at the border as a potential national security risk and then they were just released on their own recognizance for a future hearing. That needs to be fixed. I wish it was fixed today, but it is not. It is an issue. This is an issue that I have raised for a year now, both with DHS and with the FBI.

I recently met with ICE at a hearing. And when I met with some of the leadership from ICE, I asked them about this on the detention. This was the response I got from ICE, current administration: It is accurate that we are not tracking special interest aliens on a day-to-day basis, not the totality of them. Some are probably on alternatives to detention where we have more tracking on, but we are not tracking all of them.

Those who are on alternative detention means they have been released into the country, given a GPS device to turn themselves in later, after at the border they were declared a potential national security risk.

To this body, I would challenge us to say: What would it take for us to detain those individuals and to make sure that we are not releasing people into the country whom we recognize, literally, at the border are a national security risk?

That is why I am bringing this amendment to this bill to say this is a commonsense approach to be able to deal with a very pragmatic national security risk.

A second set of amendments that I am bringing actually deals with two earmarks. There are lots of earmarks in this bill, and we can have our own debate on earmarks in this body. I don't actually request earmarks on it. I want competitive grants. I want to make sure we are focused on the highest national security priorities and the national priorities that we have--and we have many. My State has several. Many of your States do as well.

We should compete for those to be able to make sure they were reaching the highest priorities. But I do understand there are some in this body who disagree with me on that. I disagree with some of the earmarks that are in this, and I see differences of opinions on some that are here. Some deal, though, with military bases and certain construction, which is totally understandable. Some deal with schools and certain construction--totally understandable. Some deal with a couple of issues that I just have a difference of opinion that is pretty strong.

Two of them deal with hospitals. Two of these earmarks deal with a hospital. One of them is Dartmouth Hitchcock hospital in New Hampshire and the other one is Women & Infants Hospital in Rhode Island.

What would be unique about those hospitals? Well, this is about $2.5 million in earmarks between the two of them. These two hospitals actually do late-term abortions. They are different than other hospitals that are on the earmark list. In fact, not only do these two hospitals actually do late-term abortions, they actually advertise that they do late-term abortions and put the word out. They make statements about that they are. Let me see if I can pull this out. They make statements they have not only supported late-term abortions up to 22 weeks, but they are ready to be able to do that.

As one says, they routinely provide abortions up to 22 weeks. At 22 weeks, we are pushing 5 months of pregnancy. We have children who are alive today who were born premature at 21 weeks. But they are alive today because they were able to get the care when they had a premature delivery at 21 weeks.

To make it clear, this is what we are actually up against and what this looks like compared to other countries and locations: Spain does not allow abortion after 14 weeks. It is not legal because the country of Spain considers late-term abortion after 14 weeks. Germany restricts abortion after 12 weeks. Italy restricts abortion after 12 weeks.

Twenty-two weeks is a late-term abortion. Most locations do not do that. We have a lot of differences of opinion on this issue of life and the value of every single child. I understand that.

We had respectful dialogue in this Chamber multiple times on this issue as I brought this up, but at 22 weeks there is no question that a child feels pain in the womb. There is no question that at 22 weeks, all science shows that a baby in the womb can recognize its own mom's voice and will jump in the womb when there is a loud sound. At 22 weeks, a baby even already has developed taste buds.

Twenty-two weeks is a late-term abortion. And two of these hospitals that have designated earmarks perform this, and I have an objection to that.

I think we, as a body, should talk about not just our standard for this but what does that mean. Can I just say it as simple as this? Even under the standard of Roe v. Wade that the Supreme Court has now turned back to the States, in this body, after the Dobbs decision, even under the standard of Roe v. Wade, 22 weeks is past the time that would be recognized that a child is viable based on previous experience with other children who have been born even before that and have survived and thrived. We, as a body, should recognize that.

And I do object to those earmarks and think that is the wrong direction for Federal dollars to be used to be able to supply a hospital with dollars that is performing this type of late-term abortion.

So I object to those two and will continue to be able to speak out on behalf of every child and the value of every child and their life in the days ahead. We have a decision to make as a body.

Are we going to stop the release of special interest aliens who have been designated by this administration to be a potential national security risk? And are we going to use Federal dollars to actually provide for late-term abortions through this bill? We will decide that tomorrow.

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.

Reserving the right to object, I, like most Americans, have friends who have loved ones who have children who were born through IVF.

I am passionate about the value of every single child and grateful for every single child who we have in our Nation and for their potential future. I have friends who are in the process right now of actually adopting embryos that were still frozen. They could not have children of their own, and so they are adopting those embryos to make sure that they are able to come to life. IVF is not a controversial issue for me in that sense. We are passionate about it, as every State now protects that right and continues to honor that.

I understand it has become vogue in this current season right now to be able to say Republicans are somehow opposed to life because they are opposed to IVF. I just don't find that. But within this bill that is actually coming, this bill--actually, part of it came through the Senate Armed Services Committee. That bill, itself, when it came through--it is substantially similar to that--it tried to come to the NDAA and was not included in the NDAA. It had an objection.

The CBO scored it somewhere around a billion dollars a year. This bill, itself, I understand, doesn't have a CBO score because it includes not only that section that was a billion dollars a year but actually includes another section that has not gone through the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. In fact, it was brought up in a previous Congress in the Senate Committee of Veterans' Affairs. It didn't have a hearing on it nor a markup. And then during a Democrat- led Senate and then a Democrat-led Senate, as well, didn't even recently, this session, even have a markup on it.

So all of these issues, I look at and say: This has not been fully vetted through what this actually is and what it actually does, nor the cost of it, much less to be able to have 24 hours later to try to come for unanimous consent.

This bill itself includes some overly broad definitions that I think need some conversation about. Quite frankly, we are in the Senate. This is what we are supposed to do. It includes things like assisted reproductive technology, fertility treatments. It leaves the door open for future definitions for

gene editing and cloning and leaves those at the discretion of the Secretary, whoever the Secretary may be, in the future.

The bill's definition of infertility includes ``the inability to reproduce or safely carry a pregnancy to term.'' It is a very broad term trying to be able to figure out what that means. Obviously, that means everyone who is not a woman as well would be included in that.

The bill also expands the eligibility to ``partners.'' You do not have to be TRICARE beneficiaries. This would be the first time that DOD would be required to provide medical care to someone who is not otherwise entitled to it by virtue of their relationship to the military in other ways. This breaks new ground in that area.

So there is not only issues of questions of definitions and such, but there is also just definition of cost or working through the committee process through committees that have, so far, either not passed it or have refused to even have a markup or a hearing on it.

So I don't think it is good for us to be able to bring this for unanimous consent to be able to move it at this time. Let's move it through in a broader conversation, but I would also encourage, just as a body, I don't find Republicans who are just broadly opposed to IVF.

And I know this is a broad part of the conversation right now to leave that implication after what happened in Alabama, but I am a Republican who is passionate about the value of every single child who also doesn't have an issue with IVF and am grateful to know people who have gone through the process and know their kids and know the value of every single one of those children.

So for the sake of honoring life and for the sake of honoring, obviously, what we do as a Senate and how we function together, for those reasons, I object.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to use a prop during this speech.

In about an hour, this body will gather. There will be 100 Senators here to make a decision about what we are going to do to take a step on border security. It is an issue that has bedeviled, quite frankly, this body for decades. It has been three decades since we passed anything into law to be able to change border security.

In the meantime, administration after administration has pieced together broken pieces of law in the disjointing pieces and tried to make regulatory actions to see what they can do to be able to change the direction of the country.

We have seen just over the last 10 or 15 years what really happened to that. This is just an encounter number from CBP; and we can look back to 2009, and we can see the numbers stayed about half a million or so for multiple years.

This is through the Obama administration. They struggled because the numbers were lower than this even before. They struggled with half a million numbers. We see during the Trump administration how the numbers bump up and jump up here almost to a million in a single year, twice as many as it was during the Obama time period. Then we see COVID time period, it dives back down. Then right there is the transition in President Biden's time, and the numbers have skyrocketed. They doubled from the Biden administration to this year in the Trump administration, but then they tripled even from the highest year of the Trump administration during the Biden administration.

It wasn't a single bump year like it was under the Trump administration. It has been year after year after year. By the way, this little one is this fiscal year. That is just since October--which by the way, you will notice in the last 4 months is higher than any year under the Obama administration and almost as high as the peak year under the Trump administration, and that is 4 months so far this year.

Americans feel it. We feel it in our cities. We feel it in our schools and our communities. We see the television, and we see all of the chaos on our southern border. Cities around the country have said: Do something. Make this stop.

Americans, whether they are Republican, Democrat, or Independent, are all unanimous on this issue: This is a problem that needs to be solved; do what you can.

Today, we get to decide if we are going to do that or not; if we are going to do nothing or do something. The bill that has been put together has been a bipartisan effort. Welcome to the U.S. Senate. That is what we have to do. While I have people from around the country and back home that say: Do a Republican-only bill; just get all of our priorities and none of theirs. I smile at them and say: Welcome to governance. You can do a partisan bill in the House, but in the Senate, we have to look at each other across the aisle and then figure out a way to be able to solve this. Sometimes it is in committees; sometimes it is a gathering; sometimes it was like this time: Get Members together--Republican, Independent, Democratic--to be able to sit down and hash out the issues; to say this is a problem, we all agree. We are not going to agree on the solutions, necessarily, but we all agree this is a problem. But we have to figure out what the solutions might be.

That has been the process for the last 4 months--4 months--to sit down and hash through the very difficult, very technical issues of border security in our Nation with one goal: Let's make progress.

We understood from the beginning we are not going to solve everything. We are not. We knew from the beginning it is not going to be perfect. But we also knew the status quo is untenable. We have to do something to be able to make the status quo better. So that is what we worked towards--to be able to change where we are now.

The product we put out this past weekend allowed everybody to see it. Quite frankly, I had some of my colleagues that said: I will need weeks to evaluate it because it is so technical. And it is. But some, literally within minutes, said: No, I don't agree.

Fine. But after time to be able to review it, the National Border Patrol Council--the group that is actually on the ground trying to manage the chaos--they read through the bill and evaluated it. And the National Border Patrol Council gave this statement:

[The Border Patrol Act of 2024] will give U.S. Border

Patrol agents authorities codified, in law, that we have not

had in the past.

While not perfect--

And I will agree with them on that.

--the Border Patrol Act of 2024 is a step in the right

direction and is far better than the current status quo. This

is why the National Border Patrol Council endorses this bill

and hopes for its quick passage.

I understand this: In this building and in the 202 area code that is Washington, DC, border security is a political issue. But if we leave the 202 area code, everywhere else in the country, this is not a political issue; it is a national security issue. And when you actually go to the Border Patrol Council, those that see the chaos day-to-day, they are saying: Send us some help; send us anything.

Quite frankly, Americans are frustrated and angry because our borders are open. They have seen the record numbers in the last 4 months. They know full well what is happening. The ``60 Minutes'' story from this last weekend was about Chinese nationals using TikTok to be able to find the holes in the fence and to be able to navigate it; how to be able to connect with Mexican cartel members to be able to navigate in through Mexico to be able to get through. Why is that such a big story? Because we used to rarely have Chinese nationals come across our border. But yet, last year, we had 37,000 Chinese nationals come across our border--37,000.

Americans watched the story of a group of migrants in New York City ruthlessly beating up a police officer this past week. And then see they were released again. They are angry. They are frustrated. The stories that have come out in the news recently of three child sex traffickers who had attempted reentry back into the United States make Americans go: Hold on.

Just a few days ago, there was a story coming out of an al-Shabaab-- terrorists on our Terror Watchlist--that had come across our border and had been released just early last year. They then picked them up while they were in Minnesota just a few weeks ago.

We have had 50 people that have been identified on the Terror Watchlist that we did apprehend in just the last 4 months. We have had tens of thousands of people in the last year that were identified by this administration as individuals who were what they call special interest aliens. By definition, they are a national security risk. There are tens of thousands that we didn't know their name, in particular, but we know that where they live is in an area of high national security risk because the high terrorism rate is coming from that area. We have no criminal history on them to be able to identify them on our Terror Watchlist, but we know there is a high chance they are a national security risk.

Those individuals were released into the country. Americans feel it. They want something different. The Americans that I talk to, the Oklahomans that I talk to don't mind legal immigration. In fact, they celebrate legal immigration. They just don't want illegal immigration.

They want an orderly process. They want to know that the rule of law still matters in America. That is what they want to know. They want to know their American way of life is protected, and that should not be too much to demand.

This very divided Nation brings to us a very divided Congress. Currently, we have a Republican two-vote majority in the House of Representatives and a Democrat one-vote majority in the U.S. Senate. It doesn't get much closer than that to being equally divided in two bodies.

But that means, if we are going to solve something, we have to sit down together and solve it. That is how it works when you make law. You can do press conferences without the other side, but you can't make law without the other side in the U.S. Senate. So we have to sit down and work things out.

In October, when Israel was ruthlessly attacked with a terrorist attack by Hamas, the President of the United States came to Congress and said: We need additional funding to help Israel, to help Ukraine, to help with the threats in Taiwan, and additional money for our southern border.

Republicans responded by saying: We are not going to help give money to the southern border--by the way, especially for some of the funding that they asked for on the southern border, like safe migration offices to be able to help facilitate greater traffic to the United States.

We said: We are not going to do that. We are not going to give additional money to the southern border unless we get a change in law and policy.

That is not a radical concept, quite frankly. The House of Representatives, last year, passed a very comprehensive bill on border security that they call H.R. 2. It was one of their priorities. Do you know why? Because the House of Representatives, at that time, said: We need a change in law. So they brought a bill to change the law for that.

We said the same thing: We need a change in law because it is significant what has occurred, and we need to address it.

The frightening thing is, since we started meeting in a bipartisan way in October, October was the highest number of illegal crossings of any October in our history. November was the highest number of illegal crossings of any November in our history. December was the highest number of illegal crossings of any December in our history and the highest single month in history of illegal crossings, including having the highest single day ever in the history of our country in illegal crossings: Over 12,000 in a single day.

That is what has happened just since we have been negotiating this bill trying to be able to get to a solution. The problem has not gotten better. It has gotten worse during that time period. We need to solve this. The worst-case scenario is the status quo. We need to solve it.

So we came up with a bill. It doesn't have everything in it I wanted. It doesn't have everything in it my Democratic colleagues wanted. But it definitely makes a difference.

What is in this bill?

Well, here is what the bill includes. Let me just walk through some of the high points of it. It includes more border wall construction, under the 18-foot, 30-foot bollard-style definition, in locations, actually, that were set by President Trump in those locations to actually build a wall.

It has 50,000 detention beds. So it ends our catch-and-release issue. So especially single adults, as they are coming across, the vast majority end up being held while they are being screened there, rather than just released into the country as they are now.

We doubled the deportation flights. We added money for DNA testing. We added money for additional State, local, and private law enforcement that we are partnering with along the border to be able to help with the enforcement process there.

We have a tremendous increase in the number of ICE agents, the number of Border Patrol agents, more asylum officers, more immigration judges.

We added detection equipment at our ports of entry to interdict fentanyl, one of the biggest threats to our Nation right now.

And we increased the sanction authority for the U.S. Government to be able to sanction those ruthless cartels and members of cartels and those that facilitate them to be able to go after the fentanyl issue in the United States.

It has a pretty radical change in asylum law in it. It strengthens significantly the standard of evidence for declaring asylum. Today, people who are crossing the border can literally cross and say: ``I have fear in my country.'' When they say those magic words, they are released into the country--the vast majority of them--for up to 10 years, while they await their screening or hearing. That would end under this bill.

We increase significantly the standard for evidence. We add three new eligibility bars at the beginning of it so we get to a faster screening process and, for those who are not eligible, a faster deportation.

It is somewhat of a ``Where's Waldo?'' game on a day-to-day basis on our southern border, as we have thousands of people coming through. Some of those individuals do qualify for asylum, but most of them do not. So our goal was to be able to filter through quickly, identify those who qualify, and deport all of them who do not.

We have a faster structure to process aliens when they cross the border, in detention or nondetained, either one, so they don't end up in the 10-year backlog awaiting their decision--both for those who qualify for asylum, so they don't wait 10 years, and those that everyone knows, from the beginning, they don't qualify for asylum, they are turned around and deported immediately.

This ends the abuse of parole that is happening on our southern border today. Today, the administration will identify 1,500 people, will give them parole authority at one of our ports of entry and a work permit the first day they come.

They don't have to qualify for asylum. They don't even have to apply for asylum. It is literally an open invitation for anyone anywhere in the world to get a work permit if you will just tell us in advance you are coming. It is not lawful. It is just happening. This bill would end that.

This bill also has a short-term, 3-year authority to quickly stop the flow of people coming into our country right now.

I had a lot of my colleagues on the Republican side that said: Whatever we pass will never be implemented by the Biden administration. We have got to do something, though, right now, to be able to get things to change, because everyone knows this is occurring not because of some migration trends around the world but because right there, President Biden announced, ``I am not going to build any more wall,'' and he dropped all the authorities that had been used not just by President Trump but by Presidents Trump and Obama. He dropped them, and we saw this skyrocket.

So everyone said: Whatever we pass, President Biden will never use. So whatever you can put in there to be able to actually make sure this occurs, please do.

So we did. We included a border emergency authority that said if we ever exceed 5,000 people--which, by the way, is every day but 7 in the last 4 months--if we ever exceed 5,000 people and we are at chaos level, the border shuts down completely. It is not optional; it is mandatory.

And when I say ``shut down,'' it is pretty simple. What happens for the first 5,000? Let me make it clear. For the first 5,000 people who are coming across, they are detained, they are screened, and then deported. If you get above 5,000, we are in such a chaotic moment that we don't have time. So we just detain and deport them. There is no screening at all because we have run out of time. We don't have the manpower to do it. That is the shift that occurs.

It is not that the first 5,000 are released. That is ridiculous. The first 5,000 we detain, we screen, and then we deport. The second, if we get above 5,000, we just detain and deport. And when the border is closed down, it is closed down for weeks, where we are not even screening for weeks until we get caught up. It was something that we could implement right now and to be able to make a difference.

We also changed the funding process on this. There are items that the President really wanted on some of the funding. So we said: We are fine on that funding, as long as you don't get that funding until you actually get more detention beds, get more deportation flights, hire more ICE officers, hire more Border Patrol, and actually implement the new policy. When you do that, then you get all of the money that you are actually looking for in the other areas.

We wanted to make sure that, actually, this was going to be implemented. So we included that in the bill today. That is what we have on the floor today, and I am afraid of what I have heard some people say: It is not enough.

So we will make a decision soon. Let me just say this. I have listened to a lot of my colleagues in the last several days, as well I should. I have listened for months. Some people legitimately want more time to read the bill. I will tell you it is 370 pages. It is incredibly technical. And I have had several colleagues say: I started to read it, and it makes my head hurt to read it because immigration law is very complicated.

So they are going through it, and they said: Hey, I am interested in supporting this. I just need more time.

Some of those folks are going to vote no today because they legitimately need more time. I completely understand that.

There are some folks who are voting no today because they have policy differences on the bill. We have asylum officers that are empowered to make decisions; they want immigration judges to make it. OK, that is a policy difference on it.

Some folks don't like that we have visas that are in this. That increases legal immigration--not illegal, legal immigration--in the country. There are some folks that don't want any immigration of any type. Well, fine, we can have that policy difference. I don't mind legal immigration. I just don't want illegal immigration.

Some of them may have policy differences. Some of them have been very clear with me that they have political differences with the bill. They say it is the wrong time to solve the problem, or let the Presidential election solve this problem.

In fact, I had a popular commentator, 4 weeks ago, that I talked to, that told me flat out, before they knew any of the contents of the bill--any of the contents, nothing was out at that point--that told me flat out: If you try to move a bill that solves the border crisis during this Presidential year, I will do whatever I can to destroy you, because I do not want you to solve this during the Presidential election.

By the way, they have been faithful to their promise and have done everything they can to destroy me in the past several weeks.

There are other folks that read the Facebook posts and the Twitter posts and saw different facts that they thought might be true, but I have personally told them over and over again they are false. And it has been hard to overcome.

For some reason, we still believe everything we read on the internet, and it has been hard to be able to break through. A few weeks ago, I posted one of my favorite quotes from Charles Haddon Spurgeon, who was a preacher from England in the 1850s, where he once said:

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets

its boots on.

And it couldn't have proved to be more true than this. I have seen posts like, ``There is amnesty in this bill,'' so that people are adamantly opposed that there is amnesty in the bill.

I would say that some of my Democratic colleagues wanted to have some amnesty in this bill, but there wasn't, and there is not anything on amnesty in this bill.

I have heard folks say it weakens our asylum laws, when it actually does the opposite. It far strengthens our asylum laws, so we can get to actual asylees faster, and those who are gaming the system are turned around.

I have had folks say it takes away the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy so they can never come back. It does nothing of that at all--nothing of that.

I have had folks say it gives away work permits the very first day, which will incentivize more people to come, when it actually does exactly the opposite. It actually removes the 1,500 work permits that are passed out every day and says we are not going to do that.

And my favorite one has been: It lets 5,000 aliens in every single day from here on out forever.

And I have just said that is completely absurd. Why would anyone--

anyone--sign a bill, approve a bill, or present a bill that locks us into this chaos. That is what we have now. The 5,000 piece was very simple. If we get to 5,000 a day, we can't process that many people anymore. It is a critical emergency. We break glass and say we are not even going to try to do hearings anymore. Everybody has got to turn around. Everything is shut down so we can make sure that we can actually legally process people. We are detaining, screening, and deporting until we get to a break-glass moment, and then we are not even screening anymore. We are just detaining and deporting because we can't manage the numbers.

But that is not what has been told. What has been told has been false day after day.

And then, as I have mentioned, I have had a few folks that have said: If I can't get everything, I want nothing.

I don't find most Americans are that way just in their day-to-day life. We have high goals and aspirations as Americans, and, quite frankly, I don't blame Americans for being really angry and frustrated about where we are at the border--really angry and frustrated.

But what I hear from most Oklahomans is: Do something. Don't just sit there. Do something. Make progress. But don't allow this to keep going. Stop it where you can. So that is what we worked do.

Now, to be clear, President Biden has authorities he could have used that he has chosen not to. Authorities that President Trump used, authorities that President Obama used, President Biden has chosen not to use. There are a lot of them. And for whatever reason, he has turned his head away from the chaos that America is focused on, and he needs to do what he can to solve this problem.

But we also need to make changes in law. Our asylum law is weak. Everyone knows this. In fact, when President Trump was President, he even made the statements about how weak our laws are on asylum. When President Trump was President, he said, ``We do a very good job considering the laws are so bad. They are not archaic; they are incompetent. It is not that they are old; they are just bad.''

Well, guess what this bill does. Fixes that because the laws have a gap, and we should actually fix those things.

What the President cannot do is change the asylum laws. He cannot change the faster deportations for people crossing. He cannot add an emergency authority like this. He cannot conduct faster hearings with limited appeals so we can get to deporting people who are not legal here and addressing those who are. We can't do that without a change in law, so we need to change the law.

I am going to vote yes to be able to move on to this bill. So we need a change in the law. I understand we have differences, but we have got to sit down together, figure out how we are going to solve problems because the American people sent us here to do that.

This is the pen that I was handed at that desk when I was sworn into the U.S. Senate, and I signed a book that was at that desk with this pen because I was becoming a U.S. Senator because the people at home sent me here to get stuff done and to solve problems. There is no reason for me to have this pen if we are just going to do press conferences. I can do press conferences from anywhere, but we can only make law from this room. And to do that, you need one of these pens, and there are 100 of them in this room, and 60 of us have to agree to solve a problem.

And I am determined to sit down with anyone who wants to solve the problem, regardless of what side of the aisle that they are on, to figure out how we solve these things because Americans are ticked off that this is not resolved, and they expect us to get things done. So why don't we do that?

I have two staff members named Sarah Seitz and Jacob Stubbs, who have worked their tails off for 4 months. They gave up Thanksgiving; they gave up Christmas; they gave up New Year's to work on this. They are remarkable leaders. But it is not just about the time they gave up and the wisdom that they have as leaders, their focus on that was to solve a problem that at the end of this day, may still be a problem unsolved. And tomorrow, we will probably have 6,500 people illegally cross our border just like what is happening right now, today--6,500 people.

Americans want that stopped. So let's actually sit down and figure out how we are going to stop it together.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on vote No. 32, I voted no, but my intention was to vote yes, actually. I would like to ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote, since it will not affect the outcome.

Madam President, it is January. It is cold outside. In fact, it is snowing outside here in Washington, DC, today and tomorrow. It is late January, which means what it has meant for the last five decades: Pro-life Americans will gather by the hundreds of thousands in Washington, DC, and will converge on this city to say: We think every child is valuable.

Now, I have to tell you, every march I have been to--and I have been to a lot--they are all cold. They don't all have snow. This one will, but it won't dampen the spirits for a lot of students, leaders, moms, dads, and little ones who will come just to be able to say: We are in America, and we think life is valuable. We think children are precious. We think this is an important issue.

We haven't always had a March for Life. We had one for 50 years, actually. Interestingly enough, when Nellie Gray and some other pro- life leaders organized the March for Life starting after 1973--after the Roe v. Wade decision--they were recognizing an anomaly in American law.

Our Nation has been a nation almost 250 years, but abortion was only mandated in every State and every place just during that short time period under Roe v. Wade. For the other two centuries of our Nation, this issue about the value of life was decided in every State and among the people.

That is what has occurred again. We still have abortion in America. It is happening all over the country. But individuals are rising up and saying: Our State, our leaders, and even this Congress needs to have a conversation about when is a child a child and when does a child become valuable in our culture and when is a child disposable in our culture, and which child can be disposed of and which child is celebrated.

I love this side-by-side picture here. I don't know if you can really see it. This is an ultrasound that is actually happening in the womb, with this baby in this position with arms up over her head.

And a baby sleeps like that. In fact, both of my daughters often slept like that. We called that the ``touchdown position,'' when their hands were raised over their head. It is funny to be able to see this picture and ultrasound of this child in the womb sleeping just like the same way they would later sleep in the crib.

Do you know why? Because there is no difference between these two babies. That is a baby then, and that is a baby then. The only difference is time. The only difference between myself right now and myself 9 months ago was time--9 months of time. The only difference between this child in the womb and that child lying in a crib is just a little bit of time.

There are literally millions of Americans who have this very simple perspective. We should--as the march says this year--march with every woman, for every child, and we should stand up for those individuals and to be able to honor those families. We march in support of pregnancy resource centers, those folks who are walking with women through very difficult decisions and through very hard moments.

There was a recent study done on pregnancy resource centers in just 2022 that found that $359 million were donated to individuals through pregnancy resource centers all over the country. Those are diapers and wipes. Those are baby formulas. That is car seats. That is free ultrasounds. That is free pregnancy tests. That is after-abortion support. And, sometimes, it is strollers and clothes.

A vast majority of those individuals who work at these pregnancy resource centers are heroes, volunteers who give their time. They have full-time jobs, tasks with families and in other places, but they value every single child, even the children they don't know and love. They would donate their time and their money and their effort just to be able to say that child is just as valuable as that child; and that, in America, we

shouldn't pick and choose which child is precious and which child is disposable. We should just say we all are.

This administration has been exceptionally aggressive on taking on this issue of life, pushing back from the very beginning. For instance, there is a nurse who was in the process of dealing with her employer because this nurse had informed the hospital that she worked with that she was personally opposed to abortion--morally, personally opposed to abortion. She was told: You won't have to participate in abortion. You have a conscience-right protection under U.S. law that individuals can't be compelled to have an abortion.

She worked at this hospital until one day she had a doctor and a nurse who actually compelled her to participate in an abortion or she would lose her job. She was not allowed to be able to have her conscience without losing her job.

That was in the course of litigation. In the earliest days of the Biden administration, that litigation was just dismissed, saying: We understand. It is Federal law that you should have conscience protections. But we don't agree with your opinion, and so you don't get conscience protections, only people we agree with.

That is wrong.

In my State, funding from this administration was cut off in my State for AIDS testing, for screenings, for breast cancer evaluations. That money was Federal dollars allocated to my State to help in healthcare in rural communities. That money was cut off by this administration. Do you want to know why? Because our State would not promote abortion. And the determination was made that you won't get Federal assistance for AIDS testing or for breast cancer screening or for assistance in your county health departments. We are going to cut your funds off for that if your State chooses not to promote abortion.

Our State stepped up and said: We believe every child is valuable-- both of those kids--and we will find a way to do it on our own.

In the meantime, this administration is cutting off funds for AIDS testing because they don't like people in our State, our opinion about the value of life. This administration has just proposed to cut off temporary assistance for needy families to pro-life centers. As I mentioned before, some of these pregnancy resource centers give out food, clothing, and assistance. They have been a part of the TANF Program for years and years and years.

This administration proposed to be able to cut them off to say: If you assist families but also don't promote abortion, you can't actually assist families. You are not one of us.

They are literally telling to those Americans that you don't agree with the administration. So you don't count because you are actually trying to protect life. We won't help you do that.

This administration is currently trying to use the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act to force doctors to provide abortions, even though that law that they are using specifically and explicitly protects pregnant moms and unborn children. But they are currently trying to be able to twist it the other way.

This administration is currently fighting an issue on chemical abortions--chemical abortions that have been around for years. That is a two-drug cocktail where the first drug actually disconnects the child from the connection in the womb and starves them. The second pill causes that delivery. It causes the contraction of the uterus, and they have an abortion at home. It is a do-it-yourself kit for at home.

For years, that has been a very specific issue. There was only a certain specific time period that you could actually use that drug cocktail, knowing that if the child was just a few weeks older, it causes a real danger to the mom. Or if this was an ectopic pregnancy, it could actually take the life of that mom. Or if the mom has the wrong blood type, it could cause the mom not to be able to have children in the future.

In the past, a physician would have to connect with that mom before they would get this drug cocktail. This administration has continued to fight to say: No, they don't need to see a physician. They can just get it mailed to them.

And in a situation with an ectopic pregnancy, literally, the side effects from having the do-it-yourself abortion at home may look similar to the side effects of an ectopic pregnancy, but there is no way to know unless you get that ultrasound. And they will never know.

Listen, I am fully aware that this administration is aggressive about trying to provide more abortions in the country. Why would they put women's lives at risk to be able to make it more convenient to be able to have an abortion?

It is January. We are talking about this issue of abortion because the March for Life is happening. But there are literally millions of Americans all around the country who are going to continue to be able to talk about this issue of life in every way that they can because they look at these two children--literally, a few weeks apart--and they think both of them are valuable. I don't think that is a radical concept.

We live in a culture in America that is committed to tolerance, acceptance, and diversity, but it seems to be so for every area except for that child. That child doesn't get to have tolerance, acceptance, and be welcomed into a culture. That child is sometimes determined to be disposable.

I want to say to the millions of Americans who see both of these kids and who think both of them are valuable: Continue to be able to love people, to be able to walk alongside those moms, to be able to encourage in every way that you can because, as a culture, as we keep talking about this issue, more and more people will look at these two pictures and will say: You are right. They both look like children to me. Why don't we treat them equal?

That is what we should be all about as a country, and that is why we march every cold January.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, no one reads the boring stuff better than Senator Booker from New Jersey, so I want to recognize his capability to be able to go through the details.

I have a staff member who has served with me for 11 years. His name is Derek Osborn. He is a remarkable gentleman. He came onto our team as an intern. He is leaving as an attorney, as a professional, as a patriot, as a friend, as a brother in many ways.

He served in just about every location we have as far as our office space. He started out in Oklahoma City. He served there; he served as an intern. We brought him on here in Washington, DC, to be able to work on Indian affairs issues and immigration--what he affectionately called his forced deployment to Washington, DC. He eventually wore us out that he wanted to be able to return back to Oklahoma, which I don't blame him, and he returned to Tulsa and has led our Tulsa office and has been our deputy State director.

He is a person who is incredibly whip-smart, but he is also so warm in how he interacts with people. People love to be able to spend time with Derek just as a person, and then they ask him the hard policy questions, and he answers them because he is knowledgeable. But he is passionate first, not about issues but about people. He is also exceptionally funny, although please don't tell him so because that would just encourage him to do it even more.

We have a lot of memories and a lot of travel--across several years of traveling and working together because I have given him some of the hardest assignments to be able to work on in our team because he was capable of taking every one of them on each time.

I will never forget, though, a moment that--we were actually under the Trump administration at the time. We were heading out to Camp David for a weekend because he was doing immigration at the time, and we were going to do a working weekend on immigration at Camp David that weekend. So we headed out, headed over, got on an Osprey, and then headed out to Camp David to be able to land there and to be able to head in, and it wasn't until later that he told me he is terrified of helicopters and has been terrified and has never been on one. I got to assure him that an Osprey is actually an airplane, not a helicopter, although I couldn't convince him of that, actually, especially when the back door was open during the whole flight and he was staring right out into the abyss below us. It is a good moment for him to get a little therapy to be able to work on his fear of helicopters.

(Mr. BOOKER assumed the Chair.)

He has been great about mentoring young staff. He is great about being an encourager and somebody who is passionate about his faith and someone who really wants to be able to help our State and help our Nation.

He is the kind of staff member whom every one of us wants to have on our staff all the time, and I have a fantastic team. But in the United States, there is only one Derek. And he has proved exceptionally capable on our team and in our State, and he will be sorely missed in the position he is in.

I will still connect with him in the days ahead because he knows every barbecue place in the State, and he is a great guy just to be able to spend time with and be able to listen to.

I will still continue to be able to push him in his faith, as he pushes me in mine, and I will check in on him. And, hopefully, at some point, I will be able to attend his wedding because the boy needs to get married, and I will be there to be able to celebrate.

In the days ahead, I look forward to maintaining a friendship with someone who has been an employee and a partner in this work in this State.

So I just want to be able to say thank you to a great staff member, Derek Osborn, and I thought you should know a little bit more about him before we end this day.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, there has been a big conversation in this body that actually matches the conversation that is happening around the country right now. If you ask any random person on the street what are the key issues that they are thinking about right now, almost every poll that I have seen for the past several months has said people are concerned about the economy and they are concerned about border security. Just about every poll you have seen everywhere, that has been the one and two. Sometimes border security has been the top issue, sometimes it has been the second issue, but it has been in those top two over and over and over again. It is not just border States, and it is not just Republicans; it is Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike.

They see what is happening on the border, and they just want to know: What is the plan? Because the news came out that last September was the highest number of border crossings ever in the history of the country for any September. Then October was the highest number of illegal crossings of any October. Then November was the highest number of crossings of any November in our Nation's history. Then December came, and it was not only the highest number of illegal crossings of any December in our history; it was the highest single month ever, for any month in our history. Typically, December is a lower month, but instead, it was the highest month in our history, with the highest single day in our history and an average of 10,000 people a day who illegally crossed the border--right at 300,000 people in a single month.

Just to put that in perspective, if I go--during the Obama administration, what we had in December and November exceeded any single year in the Obama administration--just those 2 months. During the early days of the Obama administration, we had 21,000 people a year who requested asylum--21,000 people a year who requested asylum on our southern border. We had that in 2 days in December. That is how things have shifted.

That is why this is not a partisan issue; this is a national issue. People understand the national security implications of this, that we literally have thousands of people crossing the border every day, and we have no idea where they are. They cross the border, and I can tell you quickly how. They cross somewhere in the desert in Arizona, either through a gap that has been cut in the fence or in areas where there is a gap in the fence and they just go around it.

They are given a couple different options. One is a parole authority. It is called 236 parole. You are just released in the country--take off. There is another one called a notice to appear. You will hear the common term ``NTA.'' There are just so many people crossing right now, we don't have time to be able to go through all the paperwork, so we are going to give you a piece of paper that says show up at an ICE office--and you can literally go anywhere you want to go in the country to do this--go anywhere you want to be able to go in the country, hand them this piece of paper and turn yourself in, and then get a hearing date set after that.

It may be shocking to everyone: Not many people are actually showing up at ICE offices and turning themselves in. They are just disappearing into the country by the hundreds of thousands, month after month.

In addition to that, if you come to our ports of entry and you are going to do an orderly entry, well, that has shifted, actually. Since earlier this year, this administration has started using a parole authority that is termed ``humanitarian parole,'' but they are using it in a way that no administration has ever used humanitarian parole in the history of the country. You see, earlier this year--actually, I should say ``last year'' now that it is January. Earlier last year, this administration announced to the world that if you will tell us ahead of time that you are coming, when you come to a port of entry,

we will give you a work permit when you arrive--that day. So 1,500 people a day come to their appointment at the port of entry, from all over the world. They show up. They are given a parole document called 212(d), and they are given a work permit that day and released into the country.

We just ask the question: How does that slow down immigration across the country? Because parole is actually not a status. Parole is actually listed in our law as a nonstatus. It is that you are actually here, but humanitarian parole was designed for a situation like what we had in Ukraine or it was designed for a situation where an individual has a funeral that they have to get to, but in their country, it takes too long to get a visa, and they couldn't get to the funeral, so they get humanitarian parole to be able to come in and get to that funeral. It is not designed to say ``You all come.'' It is not designed to be ``Anyone from anywhere in the world just show up, and I am going to hand you a work permit when you get here and release you into the country at 1,500 people a day.''

Americans see this. This doesn't make sense to people. They just want to know what we are going to do to get order where there is chaos. They are not asking for a political solution; they are just asking for a solution.

This shouldn't be something that we don't address here. For 2\1/2\ months now, my colleague Senator Murphy, my colleague Senator Sinema, and a whole bunch of folks around the three of us--our other colleagues in this body and their staff--have worked together to try to get to a solution on how we can address this in a bipartisan way. This body requires bipartisan solutions. We have to have 60. So we have to work on hard issues.

I would tell you, the House of Representatives did a very good bill called H.R. 2 that addressed a lot of issues dealing with immigration, but unfortunately the House didn't have any Democrats on board. In fact, they didn't even have all the Republicans on board that particular bill.

They passed a very comprehensive set of solutions to be able to deal with border security. That is what they passed. This body has not passed anything to be able to respond. The House noticed a long time ago that this is something that needs to be addressed. This body has been allergic to working on how to be able to solve the border crisis.

So for the last 2\1/2\ months, we have met in a bipartisan way to hammer out how do we solve this because it can't be ignored. The worst- case scenario is for Americans to say, ``Who is going to do something?'' and for this body to say, ``Not it.'' We have to come to some solutions.

Some of the issues are obvious. The vast majority of people coming in across the border will say, ``I have fear in my country'' because the cartels have told them, ``If you say the magic words, you will be released into the country because that puts you on a track for asylum,'' when actually what it does is it puts you into a 10-year backlog of claims that are out there. And people know, if I cross the border and just make a statement, I can be in the United States for the next 10 years.

It is the greatest country in the world. There are billions of people who would like to be able to be here. That is a pretty easy entry--to be able to just come across, say the secret word, and you are in. We have to be able to resolve that.

We as a nation should be able to filter through the people who are coming and to identify who actually qualifies for asylum and who is just wanting to come to be a part of the greatest Nation in the world. If you want to just come for economic reasons, there is a way to be able to do that, to go through the legal process.

We allow about a million people a year to legally naturalize into our country. We are one of the most generous countries in the world in our legal naturalization process. We should continue to be able to do that, as we have for decades and decades.

But for people who want to game the system, we are lawmakers. Why would we ignore people who are abusing the law? If we ignore the abuse of the law, what are we doing making law if it is not going to actually be enforced?

So let's get back to identifying those who actually qualify for asylum. And those who are just gaming the system--turn them back around and say: Go through the legal processes. Don't run through the desert. Don't swim across the river. Don't come to a border agent and lie to them.

Let's figure out a legal way to be able to address legal immigration and turn around illegal migration. We should be able to solve this issue. It is obvious to everybody. We should be able to bring immediate consequences when someone has actually violated our law.

Currently, if someone crosses the border, it may be 10 years before it is addressed. If we can't deal with immediate consequences--as I have heard over and over again from parents and from every individual, a delayed consequence is a nonconsequence. So if the consequence is delayed 10 years, that is not really a consequence, and everyone knows it. So we have to be able to have immediate consequences, and we have to have solutions to this issue about just paroling 1,500 random people from anywhere in the world.

If the standard to get into America is literally just fill out a form and tell them that you are coming first, and you are released into the country with a work permit in a nonstatus of parole, literally, that is an executive authority that could be taken away at any moment-- literally. The next President comes in, they can waive every single parolee on the first day, and it would be entirely legal because parole is not a status; it is just a release into the country.

If we can't figure out how to be able to solve that when the mayors of Chicago and of New York and of Denver are saying: Why is this administration releasing people into the country between ports of entry and this other parole process or an NTA with no work permit and just releasing them by the hundreds of thousands, why is this happening--if we can't answer that question, then we need to be able to sit down at the table until we do.

The Senate is where hard things get worked out. This is a hard thing. This is something that has not been resolved in more than 30 years. I understand we have differences of opinion. So does America--except in this one issue. They want this solved. America wants a resolution on this. So I encourage us, as a body, to keep negotiating, keep working at it. We are not going to solve everything; we never do. But we need to solve as much as we can because this is one of the biggest issues in the country. And I will tell you, this is one of our greatest threats.

In the past year in the flood of people crossing our border, tens of thousands of people who came across our border, this administration declared as a national security risk. The term they use is ``special interest alien.'' Tens of thousands of people who crossed were given that designation, ``special interest alien,'' and then released into the country.

We have no idea where they are. These were identified at the border as a national security risk. But because we are not managing our border and we are overrun with capacity, the option they have is releasing them.

For the sake of our Nation's national security and our future, let's actually go back to following the law. Let's actually create a process where when we pass law, we expect it to actually be enforced and to be done. We can do a hard thing. That is our job.

I yield the floor.

Yes, I would.

I don't run into many people who call the Canadians extreme. Not a derogatory statement towards the Canadians, but they have a pretty consistent system on it. If you crossed from the United States into Canada and ask for asylum, they would first ask you: Did you cross through the United States of America before you came into Canada? And if your answer was yes, they would turn you around and immediately return you back to the United States and say you can't request asylum here in Canada if you haven't requested asylum in the places you have already traveled through. That is the law in Canada.

Senator Tillis, that is correct that during the past several administrations, we had millions of people who have actually crossed our border, have either never requested asylum--at the border, they declared they were going to ask for asylum but, literally, never did, never filled out the paperwork, never even tried because they knew they weren't eligible--or they travelled through multiple countries on the way, never requested asylum because they wanted to come to America, which I don't blame them. It is the greatest country in the world. But that is not what asylum is. ``Asylum'' means I have fear in my entire country. There is no safe place in my country, so I fled to the next safe place. That is what the international definition of ``asylum'' is.