Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want to bring a date to this body to

think about. It is a day we have all known was coming for a very long time, but there seems to be no urgency about this day. The day is December 21.

If anybody is wondering: What is December 21; what is the big deal about this date? I would say: That is the problem. December 21 is the date that Title 42 authority ends on our southern border.

What is title 42 authority? Everybody in this body knows this, but title 42 is a temporary pandemic-related authority at our southern border to be able to deal with individuals that are coming across the border that they could be turned around. That authority was put in by the previous administration and has remained in this administration but has been chipped away, and as of December 21, that authority goes away.

So what happens on that day? Well, the best estimate we got initially from DHS is it would move from about 6,000 people a day illegally crossing the border to 18,000 a day illegally crossing the border at that time. But, realistically, now they won't give us an estimate at all.

So let me just put this in context where we are at our southwest border right now, because for a year and a half I have asked Secretary Mayorkas: What happens when title 42 authority goes away, because it is temporary? What is your plan? And for 2 years almost, I have gotten: We are working on it. We are very aware it is temporary, and it will go away at some point. We have a plan.

And then, months ago, they came out with their six-point plan. Let me read their six-point plan to you.

The six-point plan of what to do at the termination of title 42 is: Acquire and deploy resources to address increased volumes of migrants. In other words, be prepared to handle the number coming at them.

No. 2: Deliver more efficient and fair immigration processing.

No. 3: Use expedited removal to process and remove those who don't have a valid asylum claim.

No. 4: Work with other Western Hemisphere governments to address the root causes of migration.

No. 5: Bolster NGO capacity--that is to be able to handle the flow.

No. 6: Target and disrupt cartels.

All those are fine. My question is, Are they working?

When Alejandro Mayorkas was in front of the committee just a few weeks ago, I asked him: title 42 is going away December 21st; what is your plan? And he repeated this back. The problem is, they already implemented these six items and the flow continues to accelerate.

Again, let me put this in perspective, because it is hard to be able to wrap your head around the numbers. During the Obama administration, there was a massive surge in the number of people illegally crossing the border. That was the time many people in this body fully remember, when there were additional detention facilities that were opened up. There was a big push to be able to increase the capacity during that time period. That massive surge on the border during the Obama administration was in 2014, and it was 569,000 people a year. That was a crisis-level. Jeh Johnson came out and said: This is a crisis-level surge. It was 569,000 people that year who illegally crossed the border.

To put that in context, we have had that many people illegally cross the border in the last 2 months. What the Obama administration called ``a crisis'' over 12 months, we have had in the last 2. We have well over 2 million people a year that are illegally crossing the border now, and in the last 2 months since the nearing of Title 42 is coming, that number is rapidly increasing.

During the Obama administration, they called it a crisis if there were 1,500 people illegally crossing the border a day; we are now approaching 9,000 people illegally crossing the border a day.

And when I ask, ``What is the plan?'' I get: Well, we have this six- point plan.

Here is the problem: When I dig a little bit deeper--and we have been digging deeper to be able to find out how this is working--currently, there are no cooperative agreements with other countries to be able to return back individuals who are coming to our country where we don't have a relationship. I know it is on their plan to get it at some point. We don't have it, and December 21 is next week.

All the work to be done to increase NGO capacity and processing capacity? That is happening. How to move people into the country faster? That is actually true. In fact, newspaper reports even as recently as today have reported that ICE agents are being told to release lower-level prisoners that they are currently holding to be able to allow more surge capacity for processing individuals after the 21st of December.

That is today's news.

So they are gearing up to expedite processing people into the country. They are just not slowing down the number of people coming into the country or providing a deterrent.

Other than this one comment that was made to my staff this week when we asked point blank on the expedited removal process and they said: Yes, we are actually increasing the number of people that we use for expediting removal.

That sounds great until you check the facts on it. Here are the facts: This administration, in this year, the number of people that they have declared ``expedited removal'' they have actually removed, from those folks, 7 percent of the people--7 percent--that were declared expedited removal.

Again, let me go back to the Obama administration and set this in context. In 2015, in the Obama administration's expedited removal, they were removing 69 percent of the people in 1 year. That is not an anomaly year, that is typical of people that were declared expedited removal who they were actually removing.

This administration is using the term ``expedited removal'' so people will think, ``Oh, they are doing something,'' except only 7 percent have actually been removed.

Now, listen: We have a wide diversity of opinion in this body about what needs to happen in immigration.

I don't run into a lot of people that like what is happening on our southern border right now. It is chaos.

I personally asked the Secretary of Homeland Security: How many people who are crossing our border right now--of the 2 million-plus last year, how many of those individuals have we done a background check on from their home country?

His answer to me in the hearing was: Let me get back to you on that.

By the way, I already know the answer to that, and so does he. It is zero.

We do background checks on individuals when they cross our border to see if they have criminal records in the United States or if they are on a terror watch list, but we have no idea, as to the 2 million individuals who have crossed our border, if they were fleeing poverty or fleeing justice. We have no idea. We know they paid the cartels to be able to get through Mexico, and then we literally ushered them into the country. On the 21st of this December, the problem accelerates even more.

To this body, I say: We have four times as many people illegally crossing our border now than during the Obama administration when they called it a crisis. Right now, we have four times as many people coming. On December 21, the problem gets worse because we cannot as a body speak to this issue and say: Stop.

I don't know what it is going to take in our Nation because this is not a partisan issue across the country. It is just not. I run into people of all parties and all backgrounds who say: I am all in on legal immigration. I just think we should know who is coming through the door--is that so unfair?--or have some way of processing people to be able to know.

Again, I have had folks say to me: What happens to these folks?

Well, let me tell you the current process because the Biden administration continues to say: We are going to fight against all of the push-and-pull factors for these individuals who are coming.

Can I tell you what the pull factor is? This is not hard.

The pull factor is, right now, as for the vast majority of the folks who cross the border illegally, the Biden administration is processing them as fast as they can. The fastest way to process them is to give them what is called parole, and that is for the vast majority. Now, this is a different process from what previous Presidents have done--of all parties. They are processing individuals for speed to be able to give them parole. Parole gets them across

the border quickly. They hand them a document and give them a work permit that day. That day, they get a work permit. Then they are told to check in at ICE, but the next appointment at ICE, right now, is 5 years in the future. Once they check in with ICE 5 years from now, then they are put in the next line to get to a Federal court to make their asylum claims. That is currently 10 years out.

Can I explain to you what is happening? This is not hard.

We are handing out American work permits at the border to people we have done no vetting for, ushering them into the country, and saying: We will check your asylum claim 15 years from now. Then, for some reason, it is a mystery as to why we are getting 2 million people illegally crossing the border.

It is no mystery. We happen to live in the greatest country in the world, and everybody in the world wants to come here. This is not a mystery. This is why no President has done an asylum policy like this. This is why no President in the past has managed the border like this-- because we would have a massive rush at the border. On December 21, a bad situation gets worse, and this body just yawns and says it is no big deal. It is. When this blows up in our country's face, all of us are going to have to answer for it.

Now, to be frank, the vast majority of the people who are coming across our border illegally are just trying to connect with family who are already here--also illegally present, but they are just trying to connect with family here.

They have got job opportunities and want to be able to come for the job opportunities. I completely respect that. They are individuals from around the world who can make 10 times as much money if they cross our border and come into the country. I understand the pull factor of that, but we do have a legal process whereby we manage that, in theory. But who cares about the legal process anymore when you can just pay a cartel and come into the country illegally?

The cartels on our southern border are some of the most ruthless cartels in the world. May I remind this body of what we all know full well: The State Department does a listing for every country in the world about Americans' ``travel and do not travel.'' A level 1 is Canada. A level 4 is Syria and Yemen: ``Don't go there. We can't get you out.'' We all know that ranking full well. May I remind you that the states just south of our border in Mexico have a level 4 rating from the State Department, warning Americans not to travel in that area just south of our border.

Why do they have that rating from the State Department? Because a ruthless set of cartels runs several of those states. The State Department is advising all Americans: ``Do not travel there because it is not safe for you, and we cannot get you out.'' Those are the cartels that are being paid by all of the trafficking coming in.

Last year, when I was there, I asked the Border Patrol: Have you been able to track how much the cartel just immediately to your south--this was in McAllen, TX. Can you track how much that particular cartel makes from trafficking people into the country?

Their response was: Yes, we do interviews with folks. We know how much they are making.

So what is the number?

They said: The cartel just in this area--not along the whole 2,000- mile border but just in this area south of McAllen, TX--makes $152 million a week from trafficking people into our country.

Our open immigration system is enriching some of the most ruthless cartels in the world, and we are currently doing nothing to stop it. Just wait until December 21 comes. Then let's see what happens.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object.

Madam President, let me clarify what this motion is. This motion today is to ask for a unanimous consent of all 100 Senators to be able to move a nominee through the process, a nominee that, when she came through the Foreign Relations Committee, every single Republican opposed--every one of them.

It seems the frustration here doesn't seem to be with Republicans; it seems to be with the Democratic leader, quite frankly. This nominee was brought to the committee last year and then was voted out of the committee in July of this year but has never been brought to the floor for a vote--never. Instead, it has been to try to do a unanimous consent when my colleagues full well know that every single Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee opposes this nominee. And now the request is: Now that you opposed her in committee, now consent on the floor to be able to support her. That is not going to happen, obviously.

Now, we have not blocked a vote. If the Democratic leader wants to be able to bring this nominee to a vote, he has had plenty of opportunity to be able to do that and still has plenty of opportunity to be able to do that. No one is inhibiting a vote on the floor.

What we oppose is what is being pushed onto us to say: Now unanimously consent to someone you know you don't agree to in the first place. It has often been interesting in this conversation to say this nominee has nothing to do with reproductive rights, has nothing to do with that. I have heard that from my colleagues.

It is fascinating to me that Planned Parenthood put out a statement in strong support of this nominee and specifically stated in their release: because she will speak out on reproductive rights for women globally.

So either Planned Parenthood is not telling the truth or something else. So it is interesting, when we get into this dialogue, to say: OK, let's just have the vote on it and allow everyone to be able to speak out.

We have a disagreement on this nominee, but it is the right of the Democratic leader to be able to bring who he chooses to the floor for a vote at any time. But I would say, as one Republican of many, please don't ask me to unanimously consent to someone that we have a philosophical difference with.

So, with that, I object.

Reserving the right to object.

Madam President, I would say to my colleague that, obviously, I am not in the position to be able to make a decision for all of my colleagues at this moment whether that is acceptable. That is something we should discuss with the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee and with the Republican leader and allow our conference to be able to have that dialogue if that is an acceptable thing.

So at this point, I would object just saying I am not in a position because I am not going to speak for the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, who voted unanimously in opposition to this nomination.

Absolutely.

If I may respond to my colleague as well.

Have I engaged in a colloquy, in a conversation? Actually, I have not. The members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as you serve faithfully in that role--that is not a committee I serve on, but I do know that all the Republican members of the committee have had the opportunity to be able to sit down with her personally and to be able to go through all of those notes.

I know how she came through the committee without any Republican support at all, and I know the different statements that have been put up--one by Planned Parenthood, a very strong statement in support of her specifically on the issue of women's reproductive rights.

That seems to say, at least somebody is saying this role is going to take on that issue. But that is not a committee that I currently serve on, but I do know those well who do.

Madam President, I would affirm, again, as a husband and as a dad of two daughters and as someone who is very passionate about global women's issues as well, I am fully aware that women do a lot more than have babies--regardless of Health and Human Services currently using the term ``birthing people'' and ``menstruating persons,'' which, again, I find offensive in the process as well--that this is a group of people, half the population of the Earth, that has made tremendous contributions, including my own wife and my own family.

I would just simply ask the question: This is not a nominee that we are going to give unanimous support to, but I am unsure why the Democratic leader has not scheduled this vote now for months on the floor when there have been months that we have been in session but it has yet to be scheduled for a vote.

Mr. President, I want to tell a bit of a story. There are some great schools and great teachers in Oklahoma. They do an incredible job, and they serve our families every day, doing remarkable work, working alongside so many kids who struggle in their educational environment, who struggle to be able to learn but who excel. I am grateful to those teachers across our State. Those teachers who are in our public schools--both our public traditional schools and our public charter schools--deserve to be applauded and encouraged for the work they do every day, and I am proud to know many of them as friends and as neighbors.

But what is interesting to me right now is there is a push that is happening from the Biden administration to divide teachers, teachers who are in public school education, that there are some who are like the good public school teachers, and apparently there are some that-- you are the bad public school teachers. And it is not based on the ratings for their students or the quality of their teaching; it is based on which public school they choose to be able to serve in.

You see, the Biden administration has put out a new policy to try to crush public charter schools. How are they doing it? They are saying that if there are open desks in other public schools, then the public charter school can't prove a need for them to exist at all, and they want to just be able to wipe them out.

Stop. Let me just set this in context for you. In Oklahoma, there is a school called Harding Charter Preparatory High School. Maybe you wouldn't know it, but U.S. News & World Report--they know it. U.S. News & World Report--with 18,000 schools in America, they rank the 18,000 schools in America. U.S. News & World Report ranked Harding Charter Preparatory School in Oklahoma City 115th out of 18,000 schools. In fact, in Oklahoma, Harding Charter Preparatory High School was ranked No. 1. The No. 1 school in the State is this public charter school.

Now, it happens to be in an area where there are open desks in other schools around it, so it won't meet the need requirement that the Biden administration is putting out to say: You can't prove a need for your existence. So the No. 1 school in our State could be wiped out because those public school teachers are teaching at the wrong public school.

What else can I tell you about Harding? At Harding, 100 percent of the students go to AP classes--100 percent of them. What else can I tell you about Harding? Seventy-two percent of the students at Harding Preparatory School are minorities--72 percent--and it is the No. 1 school in our State.

What is different about a public charter school and a traditional public school? Well, the rules for the kids are exactly the same--the same testing requirements, the same State requirements, the same Federal requirements for the kids. The rules are exactly the same for the kids, but they are different for the grownups. The grownups have a different set of rules. They have a different set of accountability in charter schools.

What is the result they are getting? The No. 1 school in our State is a charter school. The 115th school in the country is this charter school. Yet, now the Biden administration is saying: You are going to have to prove a need for it.

Can I tell you, the parents and families in Oklahoma have already proven a need for it. I got an email in from one of those students, who said: I was not getting access to these AP classes in the school--in the public school they were in before. They had no shot of really getting into the college they wanted to be able to get into until they got into Harding Charter Preparatory School, a public charter school, and now they have a shot.

I have to tell you, I don't understand the battle with choice that is happening with parents in this country. I don't understand why suddenly so many government officials want to be able to say to parents: You go to that school, the school we choose; you can't move; you have to stay right there--why that is suddenly the trend in America.

This growing push across our country for public charter schools, for parents to be more involved in their child's education, for parents to have new options in education, for parents to be able to have a choice and some freedom, why is that so bad, that so many kids get a shot?

Can I tell you, I have two daughters. They are not the same. They have different preferences. They have different ideas. They are both beautiful and amazing girls. But, for some reason, the folks in the Biden administration, in the Education Department, are saying: All kids are the same, and we are going to require them to do it the way we want all kids to do it--rather than allowing parents like me and parents like others to be able to say: This child's best education environment is in that location, in that public school, or another child has a better educational environment in a different charter public school.

Don't lose track of this: They are both public schools. They both have requirements for the students which are exactly the same, but the rules for the grownups are different. Some in the teachers union do not like that, and so this plan is to shut down this type of school, like Harding.

I say let's stand with those parents and with those students, with that charter school and a multitude of others in my State where parents are engaged in their child's education and administrators in those schools have to work twice as hard because they don't get the same level of funding as other public schools. Let's support them, not try to diminish them.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I would like to enter into a colloquy with the senior Senator from Connecticut to discuss the Big Cat Public Safety Act. Section 3 of the bill amends title 16 of the U.S. Code, section 3372(e) by striking the entire subsection and inserting new prohibitions on private ownership of big cats, registration requirements for existing private owners, and new regulation parameters for facilities that display these animals to the public.

Striking all of subsection (e) to insert the bill's proposed language eliminates a standing protection of State authority to enact and enforce their own laws in this area. Section Sec. 3372(e)(4) currently states that ``nothing in this subsection preempts or supersedes the authority of a state to regulate wildlife species within that state.'' By striking this protection against Federal preemption, Federal authorities and regulators would have the ability to supplant any State action or policy unless there are other sections of U.S. Code that protect the rights of States.

Senator Blumenthal, do you understand this to be the case?

In light of this protection of State authority being eliminated from statute by the Big Cat Public Safety Act, I would like to clarify that there are existing protections that apply to the entire chapter in which this bill amends. Title 16 of U.S. Code section 3378(a) states that ``nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the several states or Indian tribes from making or enforcing laws or regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter.''

While this preemption provision is not nearly as clear as the one that will be removed by the Big Cat Public Safety, it is our intention and understanding that it will preserve the longstanding policy that the provisions being amended by this bill will not preempt or supersede the authority of a State to regulate wildlife species within that State.

Senator Blumenthal, do you agree that State authority should and will be protected on this issue as it has historically been?

Mr. BLUMENTHAL Yes, I do.

Madame President, I thank Senator Blumenthal for helping clarify the intent and effects of the Big Cat Public Safety Act on this matter and would like to reiterate that we are not negating State authority with these changes within the bill. The Big Cat Public Safety Act will close the loopholes of private ownership that now exist and fill the gaps that exist within State laws where such prohibitions do not currently exist.

For States that have existing authorities addressing this area or any State that may enact and enforce such authorities in the future, Federal Agencies and authorities will not preempt or supersede them unless expressly authorized by that State.

Now, with this clarification and a commitment from the senior Senator from Connecticut to help include language in an upcoming authorization bill to affirm the clarifications made today, I will lift my hold on this bill

Madam President, on behalf of Senator Rubio, I call up amendment No. 6493 and ask that it be reported by number.

I would like to also call up amendment No. 6496 and ask that it also be reported by number.

Madam President, in 2015, after the Obergefell decision came down from the Supreme Court, putting same-sex marriage as the law of the land, President Obama made a statement to the country. He came and spoke to the country when there was a lot of heat and a lot of emotion going on around the country around that particular decision. He was supportive of the Obergefell decision, but he made this statement. At that time, President Obama said:

I know that Americans of goodwill continue to hold a wide

range of views on this issue. Opposition in some cases has

been based on sincere and deeply held [religious] beliefs.

All of us who welcome today's news should be mindful of that

fact; recognize different viewpoints; revere our deep

commitment to religious freedom.

That is a wise statement from President Obama during that time period to be able to say: There are going to be a lot of views. We as Americans need to have a wide set of conversations about same-sex marriage and about how we revere marriage in general. There are different religious views, different perspectives.

Now we are approaching a bill that will be voted on in just about 2 hours. This bill has a section in it dealing with marriage, and it says it has certain religious protections in it.

As I read the bill initially to be able to check the religious protections that are in it, I was surprised at some things that were in it, and I was surprised at some of the things that were left out. So our team went to work writing an amendment to address the specific issues in this bill. We narrowly tailored this bill for our amendment, and we addressed it. Why? Because we were the only ones who thought there was a problem? Actually, no, we weren't the only ones who saw this bill as a problem dealing with religious liberty. In fact, religious liberty groups all over the country and religious institutions started contacting our office and putting out their own statements in opposition to this bill, saying the bill as currently written, even with the ``religious protections'' in it, does not actually protect the religious liberty of all Americans.

This is just a short list of groups who are in strong opposition to this bill: the Alliance Defending Freedom, the American Association of Christians Schools, CatholicVote, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, the Centennial Institute, the Christian Employers Alliance, Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the Faith and Freedom Coalition, the Family Research Council, the Family Policy Alliance, Focus on the Family, Heritage Foundation, Liberty Counsel, Lifeline Children's Services, the National Religious Broadcasters, the Religious Freedom Institute, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Samaritan's Purse. The list goes on and on and on of organizations and entities that read through this bill and said there are major concerns with the religious liberty portions of this bill.

Now, I am well aware that there are also groups who have put out a statement and said that they are comfortable with it, that it would protect them, but other organizations are putting out statements and saying: Yeah, that is nice for you, but it actually wouldn't protect us and our members.

There are three major concerns that are in the bill itself under the issue of religious liberty, and if these three things are not changed in this bill, it will put the issue of religious liberty at great risk for millions of Americans who, as President Obama said, hold sincerely held beliefs that are different.

The first is this: There is a section in the very beginning of the bill where it

says any entity that is acting under the color of State law, and then it puts all the restrictions there on them. That is a broadening, actually, of what Obergefell actually did. This says any entity, actually, or individual who is acting under color of state law. What does that mean? Most people don't live in that legal kind of counsel. Well, this would be an entity that a State actually hires to fulfill something for them on behalf of the State.

Let me give you a for-instance on this. A private prison may be one of those examples, but it could also be adoption agencies, foster care agencies. It could be an entity that actually does housing for immigrant and migrant families. It could be a homeless shelter that is contracted by the State to be able to provide services. It could be any number of entities. Many of these entities are actually done by religious organizations that the State actually contracts with them to be able to do those services. In this new statute, if this passes in 2 hours, there would be a new restriction on those religious entities that formally held contracts that then would very well be pushed out from providing those services.

Let me remind you, our Nation functions under not just government operations but cooperation with families and with faith-based entities and nonprofit entities around the country. Our safety net, I talk about often--our first safety net is the families, the second safety net is nonprofit entities, and the third safety net is government. Many governments partner with nonprofit--including faith-based--entities to be able to carry out social services. For those entities, they would now have a target on them because they are functioning under the color of State law, and they would have new restrictions. So their choice would be either not to provide those services or to abandon their faith.

Now, what are the challenges to them in particular in this? Well, the first challenge is that they would face litigation from the Attorney General's Office. The second challenge would be they now face a new what is called a private right of action. That is what the second area my amendment specifically deals with. First, it corrects this looping into lots of new faith-based entities and saying: You are now a State actor; you are under new restrictions. The second one would be this private right of action.

The private right of action would now be--anyone who is functioning ``under the color of State law'' would now be a target from an individual who senses that they have been harmed by the entity. Now, it is not defined--what ``harmed'' means--in this new statute; it just says that if someone feels they have been harmed by it, they would now have the opportunity to be able to sue someone else because of that.

It is not hard for me to be able to say something that is fairly obvious; that is, if Congress creates a new right to sue people, there will be a lot more lawsuits, and there will be new tests and evaluations on that. For anyone who believes that this new right to be able to sue people won't be used and won't be used quickly by lawyers and outside groups all around the country, you are kidding yourself. What will happen in the days ahead, there will be--who knows?-- countless numbers of lawsuits testing every new definition of what, under the color of State law, what a partnership with government might look like. Whether that is a vendor who is at an official State event or whether that is an entity that is providing something like a private prison or adoption services, they will all face lawsuits and challenges in the days ahead by entrepreneurial attorneys testing out the limits of this new law.

We don't know what those limits will be determined by the courts. We have no idea because it is not defined what it means when they say they have been harmed and what that definition might mean to different courts around the country. But we do know this is going to be a major issue.

My first question is, Why is this even included in this bill at all? There is already a protection that the State has the opportunity to be able to make sure they are enforcing the law within their State. This new private right of action, though, goes above and beyond that and gives the opportunity for entrepreneurial lawyers to be able to practice their craft at the detriment of entities all over the country.

What it really does is it silences any individual who may disagree and discourages any faith-based entity from cooperating with government; to say, if you want to be able to partner with the State in the area, you probably aren't welcome here because you don't share the same beliefs.

The third big issue that we try to correct in this that is a major problem in this bill is, in the bill, if you actually read from the text 7(a)--now, 7(a) probably means nothing to many people outside this room, but the 7(a) section is designed to be able to protect the rights of individuals or entities not to be able to lose their nonprofit status or grants or contracts or whatever it may be, but it has very specific language that is built into this. The specific language is, if that benefit or right does not arise from a marriage. It is very carefully written.

When I passed it around to different attorneys to say what does it mean, it has been fascinating to me to learn different interpretations of this statute. This particular section 7(a) is written so vague that it is very difficult to understand what it does mean, but it is very clear what it doesn't mean.

When it says all these different rights that have been granted based on does not arise from a marriage, it doesn't include your belief about marriage. It just says does not rise from a marriage.

Why do I say that? Our amendment actually includes the belief about marriage included into it to make it very, very clear that if you have a different belief about marriage, you won't lose your nonprofit status, you won't lose your opportunity to have grants or contracts, but that is not included in this statute.

What is included in the statute is just does not arise from a marriage. That will be a problem in the courts and, unfortunately, that will have to be litigated until that is actually determined what it would mean.

What we could do instead is pass my amendment. The amendment makes it very clear. What I hear from even some of the bill's sponsors is they say: No, this is what it is intended to mean. I look at it and say: That is not what it actually says.

So let's have that section say what you actually intended for that to say to make it clear. Let's take away the private right of action so that people around the country aren't perpetually worried about a lawsuit coming at them constantly. Let's take away this under the color of law section so that there is not a fear of faith-based nonprofits not partnering with their own government for fear government would step in and say: Oh, if you are going to partner with us, then you have to surrender these different beliefs.

Again, I have had individuals who are sponsors of this bill say none of those things are what we intend. But courts don't rule on intentions of Congress; they rule on the text that we actually put out.

Those are three major problems in this text. If they are not corrected and if they are not corrected today, my fear is President Obama's statement of just 7 years ago that we would not ``recognize different viewpoints [and] revere our deep commitment to religious freedom'' would today be ignored.

I encourage the adoption of my amendment, and I encourage everyone in this body to ask a very simple question of themselves: Is today about respecting the rights of all or is it about silencing some and respecting others?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this amendment is very, very narrowly tailored. It is in response to the bill. I have talked to several of the bill's sponsors, and they have told me their intent is to be able to protect religious liberty, which I appreciate that to be able to have a balanced perspective in this particular bill because people of good will on both sides have disagreements in this area.

The problem is, there are three certain areas of the text that do not actually meet that standard of being a balanced protection. So this amendment goes into those three areas and corrects the text to make sure it actually says it is going to protect religious liberty. It is three areas.

One is a very wide perspective of operating under the color of State law. That has a very broad net on it. We tried to be able to correct that one.

The second one deals with striking the private right of action on this, which will dramatically increase the number of lawsuits. I can assure you, if Congress passes a law that opens up a new lane for lawsuits, there will be lots of new lawsuits in that area.

The third area is in 7(a), where it talks about protecting all these rights if it does arise from a marriage, not from a belief in a marriage. So we are trying to correct that text to make sure it is not just the action of marriage but also the belief of marriage.

That is what this amendment does.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, as the junior Senator from Oklahoma, I can't tell you what an honor it has been to be able to serve with my senior Senator.

Jim Inhofe has for decades served our State. He has been reelected over and over and over again because the people of our State know he loves them, know he cares about them. They trust him in some very hard decisions that had to be made in this place, and they know Jim Inhofe has been there for our State.

I jokingly say--and Senator Inhofe mentioned his passion for infrastructure and for the U.S. military--that when I run into somebody who is griping about the construction traffic that they are currently sitting in, I will jokingly say to them: Well, blame that on Jim Inhofe because that new road, that new place, that new infrastructure has been his passion all along to be able to make sure our State and our Nation, quite frankly, continue to be able to advance.

In the days ahead, Senator Inhofe will be dearly missed in our State. There is not a town that I go to as I travel around our State that they don't ask me: What are we going to do when Senator Inhofe retires? Not one. They are all grateful, and they are all spoiled by Senator Inhofe's service to them.

But I can't tell you how excited my wife Cindy and I are for him and Kay getting time together because they have sacrificed much for our Nation and for our State for decades, and I am excited for them to be able to finally get some time to be able to wake up every day and to be able to see each other and, quite frankly, for Jim to not have to be in yet another vote-a-rama all night voting, that he can actually spend his time with Kay.

So if I can say for the State of Oklahoma, we are grateful for Jim Inhofe. We are grateful for the legacy he has left for our State. We are grateful for his firm conservative stand that he has taken year after year after year. We wish him very well in retirement and are very excited to still continue to be able to walk with him in the days ahead.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, 29 years ago today--29 years ago today-- President Bill Clinton signed into law a bill sponsored by then- Representative Chuck Schumer that has aided in the defense of protection of one of the most fundamental freedoms that we have in our Nation; that freedom, religious freedom. The bill was called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed by Congress today, 29 years ago, found that government should not substantially burden religious exercise without a compelling justification. It was truly a landmark piece of legislation to be able to add further protections to individuals who have religious liberty differences. And we have wide variations of religious expressions in the United States. It is part of what makes us such a unique nation. It is that we guard the rights of every individual to not have to believe the same as the government believes or not even have to believe the same as your next-door neighbor believes but to have the right to freely have a faith of your choosing, to change your faith at any point, if you choose to, or to have no faith at all and be respected as an American; quite frankly, to be protected as an American.

This landmark piece of legislation, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, has not been altered in the 29 years since it has been passed. The purpose of the act was to restore a compelling interest test to be able to make sure that if government acted in any way to affect anyone's religious liberty, there had to be a compelling reason for that from the government to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened and provide a claim or defense for those whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act doesn't pick winners and losers. It provides a balancing test. The government may burden someone's religious exercise only if the burden is in furtherance of a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest. Twenty-nine years ago today.

Then, today, my colleagues moved forward on a bill that, instead of promoting equality for all people of all opinions, it specifically highlights areas of religious faith differences and says their opinions won't count this time.

It deals with this issue of marriage, which has been a controversial issue in America but was, quite frankly--since 2015 in the Obergefell decision in the Supreme Court, there have been no cases moved in the country to deny same-sex marriage to any individual in any State across the Nation.

Today, my colleagues moved forward on a bill to open up debate-- without amendment, may I add--on a bill that would certainly affect the religious liberty of countless people across the country. That is not just my opinion. Religious liberty organizations from all faiths and from all backgrounds have already been speaking out on this issue. Just in the last 24 hours, the Alliance Defending Freedom, the American Association of Christian Schools, CatholicVote, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, the Centennial Institute, the Christian Employers Alliance, Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the Faith and Freedom Coalition, the Family Research Council, the Family Policy Alliance,

The Heritage Foundation, the Liberty Counsel, Lifeline Children's Services, the National Religious Broadcasters, Religious Freedom Institute, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the Ethics and Public Policy Center have all spoken out and said this bill that is currently on the floor of the Senate will damage religious liberty.

Religious institutions are rising up, reading the text of this bill, rather than just listening to the debate of this bill, and saying: There is a problem here.

Practically, what would this mean? Practically, what could this mean?

I would say, first and foremost, we don't want anyone to be discriminated against in America--anyone to be discriminated against in America. All individuals should be honored. All individuals should be able to live their lives in freedom in America. But, practically, this bill puts faith-based child welfare organizations who are operating in accordance with their sincerely held religious beliefs, namely, to place children in loving families--it puts them in jeopardy.

While some of my colleagues may say, Well, that is farfetched, may I remind you, the Supreme Court has already handed down a decision in Fulton and would remind us this is continuing to happen. Catholic Charities has been shut out of the child welfare system in Illinois, in DC, in California, and in Massachusetts already, and then this bill is coming.

Let me tell you some of the problems with the bill because I have had individuals tell me about what they say is in the bill, and then I actually pull the text of the bill out and show it to them and say: Show me where that is in the bill. And their response to me typically is: Well, that is the intent of the bill.

Well, we don't deal with intent here in Congress; we deal with legislation and text. The words matter in this, and the words in this do not provide the level of religious liberty protections, as many on this floor who have come to debate this say that is actually in this bill.

Let me give you just some simple examples of this. This bill gives a private right of action for both--well, I should say gives protections from the Attorney General to be able to file charges against an individual that shows discrimination or a private right of action for an individual to be able to sue another individual or entity in this, unless the discrimination is for religious liberty. They are peculiarly left out.

If there is discrimination against someone's religious liberty issues and their personal beliefs or their entity's beliefs, they don't get this same private right of action. So the private right of action only goes against people that have religious objections. Those religious individuals, if they are discriminated against, are on their own. They get no protections in this bill.

The bill itself, I have heard individuals say: Well, it has a section in it that is literally titled ``No Impact on Religious Liberty and Conscience.'' So that is the big, nice title of that section, section 6 of the bill. So let me read section 6 of this bill to you.

The first part of it, section (a), says:

Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act,

shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious

liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an

individual or organization under the Constitution of the

United States or Federal law.

Now, that has got to be the biggest ``no duh'' statement out there. This piece of legislation doesn't overturn the Constitution is what it says. That is an unnecessary statement on it. Of course the Constitution stands above it.

The second part of this, in part (b), says, basically, a rabbi, an imam, or a pastor is not compelled to perform a marriage ceremony that they are religiously opposed to. That is the whole religious liberty section of it--the whole section. First, it says it doesn't overturn the Constitution, and, second, it says pastors, imams, rabbis don't have to perform religious weddings that they are personally religiously opposed to.

That doesn't help. In fact, there is a qualifying feature in the middle of all this in that section, section 6, which limits the individuals that would even get any kind of protections on this by saying ``whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion,'' meaning an individual would first have to prove that your principal purpose is to study, practice, or advance religion before you even got those exceptions.

Why is that important? Well, I asked some of the sponsors of this bill why that particular piece of text is in there, and their explanation was, well, because we didn't want to include, for protections on religious liberty, private individuals and their personal religious expression or private businesses; that maybe the owners of that business have a personal religious belief in how they carry out their business, but they would not have religious protections because they are not principally a religious organization. So they do not get a defense. They don't get a private right of action to defend themselves. They just have to cave to the religious beliefs of this law.

Twenty-nine years ago, this Congress said we were not going to impose beliefs onto people. Today, this Congress said: If you are a faith- based individual and you have a difference of conscience about marriage, too bad. You have to prove you are a principally religious organization to have an exception; an individual doesn't count. A private business is specifically excluded.

In section 7 of this bill--I have had several of the sponsors who have told me: Section 7 covers everything else. It makes sure it protects nonprofits. It makes sure it protects all of your tax-exempt status, your grants--it is all in there. Until you read the text. No, those words are in there, but there are two big qualifiers that are also in that section.

The first of the qualifiers begins with ``Nothing in this Act . . . shall be construed to deny or alter'' the benefits, meaning if it is in something else, that is not protected. It has to be something specifically in this act.

The second thing is the very end of this. It gives a long section on this.

Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act,

shall be construed to deny or alter any benefit, status . . .

It goes on to explain some of these things, and then it ends with this:

Provided such benefit, status, or right does not arise from

a marriage.

That is the qualifier:

Provided such benefit, status, or right does not arise from

a marriage.

Now, I have handed this around and asked legal counsel: Explain to me what that means. And the first response that I get is: Well, that is a clear protection for individuals that are married that if there is any right given to any other married couple, they get the same right.

And I was like, that makes total sense. What about for entities, because the word ``entity'' is in this list?

And that is where it gets fuzzy because it has this qualifier:

Provided such benefit, status, or right does not arise from

a marriage.

We don't know how that is going to be interpreted for entities. So it is left for the courts to decide in the days ahead how that is going to be interpreted.

So what has been done with this? All these things have been brought up. We have had this text now for about 36 hours. It literally just got dropped on us. So for about 36 hours we have been going through it--and it is not long; it is three pages--asking questions: How does it work? What happens with it?

Several individuals have said: Hey, this is a real problem for religious liberty. We should fix this.

And others have said: Yeah, that is a good idea. Let's make sure that it is actually clear--except, now that the debate has started, amendments have been shut out. There are no amendments. All of these gaps that I talk about for individuals, for small businesses, for individuals of conscience, for the right to be able to protect yourself if you are facing religious discrimination on this, for the limiting portions in this act or from explaining ``not arising from a marriage,'' what that may mean, the issue of principal purpose and not having to prove your principal purpose, in a court of law, is a religious issue--everyone seems to nod their head and say: Oh, yeah, those are problems.

Multiple Members have brought amendments and said: Let's fix it. Yet they are being told over and over again: No amendments. We are not going to fix it.

You know what that tells me? These are not mistakes in the drafting. This was purposeful. That is what that tells me.

Listen, I believe the rights of every individual should be honored, but this is not choosing to be able to protect the rights of every individual. This is saying some people are more equal than others. That is a problem.

After the Obergefell decision was made, President Obama spoke to the Nation. He supported the Obergefell decision from the Supreme Court, but then he said this:

I know that Americans of goodwill continue to hold a wide

range of views on this issue. Opposition in some cases has

been based on sincere and deeply held beliefs. All of us who

welcome today's news should be mindful of that fact;

recognize different viewpoints; revere our deep commitment to

religious freedom.

Great words that seem to be on the cutting room floor today. It hasn't taken long for President Obama's statement after the Obergefell decision to say: Never mind.

This is fixable, but when people see the problem and the issue with it and choose to ignore it, I have to ask why.

Twenty-nine years ago today, President Clinton signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and 29 years later, Congress is saying: Never mind.

I find that a problem.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, while we are standing here right now in Washington, DC, in the middle of an afternoon, protests are happening all over Iran right now.

The latest news reports coming out from social media and the very limited media that can get out of Iran--massive protesters are in the streets of 20 different cities in Iran right now. The latest count is nine people have been killed in those protests by Iranian forces trying to be able to shut down the protests that are now breaking out all over the country--including, by the way, protests in Tehran.

What is going on? This has been a simmering issue for a long time in Iran. As I have stated several times on this floor and in committee hearings, our opposition with Iran is not with the Iranian people. The Iranian people live in oppression underneath the Iranian regime, which pushes their thumb down on them and limits their progress in the world and in their own country.

The spark of this latest group of protests that are happening in the streets all over Iran is a young lady who was murdered in police custody in Iran named Mahsa Amini.

Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Iranian woman, died in custody because she broke Iran's hijab law. In other words, she wasn't wearing her head covering, and so--brace yourself--the morality police arrested her. The morality police in Iran detained her, where she was apparently beaten to death while she was in prison. Now, the police and the regime have come out and said she had sudden heart failure, but with multiple injuries around her head, that is not sudden heart failure.

The nation--once again--of Iran is rising up to say: This has to stop.

Americans would be surprised at the number of social media posts that are getting out of Iran right now, where

large crowds--large crowds--are gathering in cities, tearing down the pictures of the Ayatollah, and chanting in the streets of Tehran, ``Death to the dictator.''

I have friends in Iran who have actually sent me some of the social media posts to be able to show me that this is what the street looks like today. This is breaking out across Iran.

Now, what is interesting is that, at the same time, the President of Iran has been allowed to be able to come into the United States to be at the U.N. General Assembly to be able to speak out for the regime's benefit to the rest of the world. It will be a remarkable side-by-side of what is happening in Iran on the streets right now and the Iranian leadership at the U.N. General Assembly.

At this same moment as well, Iran is working with Russia and has delivered hundreds of unmanned aerial vehicles that are weaponized, little kamikaze drones that are literally taking out Ukrainian artillery right now in the field in Ukraine. The Iranians haven't just supplied these weaponized drones to Russia; they have brought Russian leaders into Iran to be able to train them on how to be able to attack Ukraine with these weapons.

Right now as well, the Russians are calling up additional reservists to be able to fight the Ukrainians and to be able to continue to take the fight to them. Protests are also erupting in Russia right now from Russian moms who are furious that their husbands and their sons are being called up to be able to fight in Ukraine to replace the thousands of casualties that Russia has suffered in Ukraine.

Now, why do I connect the dots in all of these--what is happening in Iran on the streets, what is happening on the streets in Russia, and what is happening right now in Ukraine? Because in the middle of that moment internationally that is happening, the U.S. Government has partnered with Russian diplomats to negotiate with Iran a restart of the nuclear deal with them. I can't make this up. So the United States is using Russia as its proxy to negotiate with Iran to be able to restart a nuclear negotiation with them.

Listen, the JCPOA, this nuclear deal, as it is commonly called, when it was put in place in 2015, was then set aside to say: It is not accomplishing its purposes.

In 2015, when it was put in place--let's just review real quick what happened in the days after that.

Planes full--literal planes full--of pallets loaded with cash were sent to Iran as soon as this deal was signed. It was a government suddenly flush with cash. How did that regime use that cash? They bought munitions to be able to fight against Americans in Iraq.

From 2015 to 2017--that period immediately after the JCPOA was signed and planes full of cash were sent to them--munitions fired against American troops in Iraq increased 341 percent. During that same time period, terrorist incidents increased 183 percent. There were 58 incidents involving Iranian vessels in the gulf that put American troops at risk. Iran used its money not to be able to help the Iranian people but to attack us and to attack our allies.

Our Nation withdrew from this nuclear negotiation 4 years ago. After that happened, Iran's exports of crude oil declined by more than 2 million barrels a day, cutting off a major supply of money into the regime. Iran's defense budget was then cut 28 percent because of those revenue shortfalls. Iran's currency lost 70 percent of its value as the pressure was applied to Iran to actually join into nations around the world, to actually become a nation like the rest of the world.

I am bringing this into the Senate today. It is an issue that I have brought multiple times. We should have ongoing dialogue with Iran. They are ambitious to become a nuclear weapons-capable nation. They are the single largest State sponsor of terrorism in the world. They are the destabilizing force in all of the Middle East. Every nation in that entire region has to prepare themselves for an inevitable, erratic, irrational attack from Iran; and every nation fears the day that they gain a nuclear-capable weapon.

But the gaps in the nuclear negotiations are large. Let me list some of them. The nuclear negotiation excludes any conversation about their terrorist activities. It is just simply not limiting their terrorist activities, just limiting their nuclear capability. They are building long-range weapons capable of carrying a nuclear weapon. Why would you need to build a long-range heavy missile unless you are carrying a nuclear tip? The two are connected--their terrorist activities, their missile ambitions, and their nuclear ambitions. We should connect those in all of our relationships.

My amendment in my sense of the Senate that I bring is very clear today. One is to acknowledge what we all know is actually happening. The second is to say, we can't have any kind of sanctions relief, especially preemptively in negotiations on lifting energy petroleum sales coming out of Iran. The next section of it, the third section of it, is simply not releasing any of the sanctions on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. They are the core of the terrorist activities in the area. They are the trainers for those who actually attacked Americans in Iraq. We should not lift sanctions on them. The fourth on this is not providing relief to the financial institutions in Iran so they can't continue to extend their terrorist activities and their financial activities behind the scenes. The goal of this is to be able to put pressure on the regime but to protect the Iranian people as much as possible.

The final statement that is in this sense of the Senate is to affirm our long-term friendship with the people of Iran and our understanding that they are living under the thumb of this regime.

My friend that I had mentioned before who is from Iran has reached out to me in the last 24 hours with this simple question. The Iranian people are on the streets, trying to gain their freedom, trying to be able to speak and live their faith as they choose to. And here is this question: What are the Americans going to do to stand with us? That is a fair question for this body.

The Iranian people who are begging for their own freedom do not want the American response to be sending cash to the regime so they can oppress their people more or lifting the sanctions at this moment so that the regime can continue to advance its terrorist activities or just disengaging from its missile ambitions that destabilizes the region or to continue to be able to use Russia as a proxy for the United States of America while Russia is literally using Iranian drones to attack the Ukrainians.

Let's speak with a clear voice to the Iranian people on the streets. They want to hear the United States say: We stand with your passion for freedom, and not: We stand with the regime in what they are trying to do to you.

So saying all that: As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 1950 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; I ask further that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague. We have a lot of agreement in areas in Lebanon and other areas in the region that we work diligently together to be able to resolve--very, very difficult areas in this region.

But I do want to say: Facts are stubborn things. When my colleague makes a statement that we can see what happens during the time of the JCPOA and we can see what happens during the time of sanctions, I am welcome to be able to look at those facts. During the time of the JCPOA, as I mentioned before, from 2015 to 2017, munitions fired against American troops in Iraq increased 341 percent. Many of those munitions were Iranian-provided. So to be able to say that there were no attacks on Americans during the JCPOA is just factually not correct.

I can take you to a multitude of members of the U.S. military that will speak specifically of munitions that were fired on them and all kinds of improvised explosive devices created by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and shipped into Iraq to be able to attack them specifically during that time period. So it is not factually correct there were no attacks on Americans during the time of the JCPOA. In fact, all the folks that look at these issues saw that terrorism increased 183 percent during that time period.

During the time of the sanctions, Iran suffered real consequences in their economy, including a dramatic drop in their own defense spending by 28 percent during that time period. I received a personal outreach from an individual who is a leader in Lebanon, who my colleague and I both know well, who reached out to me personally and said whatever the United States is doing right now to cut off funding to Iran, keep doing it because it is also cutting off funding to Hezbollah and to Lebanon. They are not getting their paychecks right now, and that is helping the stability of our government.

So there was a real effect during that time period. We can discuss strategic aspects of which one is more effective, the agreement or the heavier sanctions, but we can't just ignore it and say there was no benefit during that time period in the last several years on the pressure that was put on Iran during this time period.

The fact still remains, the people of Iran are asking the question. They are on the streets chanting for freedom. What is the Senate going to do to stand with them? And, currently, it is nothing. I would like for it to be something, to stand with the people of Iran as they speak out against the repressive regime that they are under the thumb of.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, 2 years ago, almost to the exact moment, I was sitting on the south lawn of the White House in the blazing Sun, where a redhead should never sit, getting a sunburn, on a hot September day in DC, watching leadership of the UAE, Bahrain, Israel, and the United States all shake hands and sign an agreement called the Abraham Accords. It was a remarkable moment in American history.

We have become so accustomed in the last 2 years to this conversation about the Abraham Accords, we lose track that it was just 2 years ago that we had one of the greatest breakthroughs in Middle East peace that we have had in decades.

In 1979, Egypt and Israel came together for a peace agreement under President Jimmy Carter and the Camp David Accords. In 1994, Jordan and Israel normalized relationships under President Clinton. But for 26 years, there were no additional peace agreements and, quite frankly, very few conversations even. It stopped. All the conversation among foreign affairs was that you had to resolve the Palestinian conflict before anything else could be resolved in the Middle East, and for 26 years, all the focus was on that.

The Trump administration came in and put the whole thing on its head and said: What if? What if we work towards peace agreements outside of the Palestinian conversation? If we set that aside, could we still normalize agreements?

Again, most people said: No, that is not possible--until 2 years ago today. Two years ago today, when the leaders of UAE, Bahrain, Israel, and the United States met together and signed an agreement, they started not just a process, they started a conversation and a dialogue. They shook hands and signed an agreement that had remarkable statements in it about religious liberty that we look at and think: The Arab world would not sign that, but they did, quite frankly, because people hadn't asked them to.

There were conversations and agreements made about energy policy, about economic development in a region of the world that many would say that no one will ever meet and this will never get better.

President Reagan once said:

Our involvement in the search for Middle East peace is not

a matter of preference; it is a moral imperative.

We are a people of peace. We are a people, as a nation, passionate about religious liberty. We are a people who want to see a nation joining other nations in economic development. It is who we are. It is who we have been from the beginning, and we are at our best when we are expanding that.

Since the signing of that document, several things have happened in that 2-year time period.

The first thing that happened, really, was that in October of 2020, Sudan raised their hand and said: I want to join that agreement. Then, in December of 2020, Morocco raised their hand and said: I want to be in that agreement. It quickly went from four nations to five, to six, all in this ongoing dialogue about peace in the region.

The countries have exchanged Ambassadors since then. Again, that may not sound revolutionary, but it is in that region. The UAE, Morocco, and Bahrain all opened up Embassies in Israel--again, revolutionary. Israel opened up its Embassy--the first ever in the Gulf nations--in Abu Dhabi in January of 2021. It opens up its next Embassy in Bahrain in September of 2021.

The UAE and Israel have signed comprehensive free-trade agreements. There is now $10 billion worth of trade in the next 5 years that has been set up between those nations. Trade has begun between Israel and Morocco. In fact, it has increased 94 percent in a year. Trade between the UAE and Israel has increased 88 percent in 1 year. Trade between Israel and Egypt, even, has increased 41 percent in the last year and between Israel and Jordan, with a longstanding agreement, has increased 55 percent.

The UAE and Morocco now have university students who are studying in Israeli universities--something we thought we would never see. The UAE has overhauled its school curriculum to increase tolerance and understanding of other faiths and other religious groups.

Dozens of daily flights are now moving in those Abraham Accord countries, bringing business and tourism. There are even real conversations about water, about energy sharing and development and large economic infrastructure projects.

There are other countries, even, in the region that have started to take notice of this. Countries like Saudi Arabia are now allowing Israeli-bound flights to fly through Saudi airspace. Now, again, that may not seem revolutionary to some, that planes get to fly over them, but, you understand, 2 years ago, that didn't happen. The Saudis made every Israeli-bound flight go around their airspace. Israel and Saudi Arabia have also participated in multilateral naval and air drills, alongside UAE, Bahrain, and other countries. It is an enormous shift.

If I can even say this in the region, Israel and Lebanon are very close right now to forming an agreement on what they call the Blue Line, the border between Israel and Lebanon, including the maritime areas. What does that matter? It is a tremendous development for Lebanon, for their economic development, because there is a large natural gas field just off of Lebanon's coast, but the border has been unresolved for years.

In the conflict between nations and the trust that has collapsed, the Abraham Accords have provided an opportunity and a moment for the nations in the region to say: If peace can begin with UAE and Bahrain and Sudan and Morocco and Israel and recognition and economic development and Ambassadors can be exchanged, who else can engage in economic development?

Let's start with their neighbor Lebanon. To build trust is to also build clear borders. This is real progress in 2 years.

My challenge to the administration and to our State Department is, fan the flame. Keep going on this. We have seen nations begin to do economic development, families meeting other families, school curriculum changing to taking out anti-Semitic tropes, basically, out of their curriculum. We have seen real progress in this area. Keep going. Other nations should be welcomed to be able to join in the Abraham Accords. It is not closed. Other nations can join in that economic development.

There are four of us who began the Abraham Accords Caucus: myself, Senator Rosen, Senator Ernst, and Senator Booker. We launched out the four of us and invited all of our colleagues to be able to join into it. Our focus is to be able to work with the Ambassadors of those nations to say: How can we partner together to bless what has already occurred, and how can we expand into other nations? How can we encourage increased economic development?

Now, there are still very real challenges. The work is not done by any means, but it has at least begun, and progress is taking off--this simple principle of economic engagement, going past all of the government noise and saying: What if we allowed infrastructure to be able to work together? What if we allowed tourism to be able to happen? What if we allowed businesses to work with other businesses in other nations that used to be hostile? How can we engage in such a way that would help?

The four of us in the Abraham Accords Caucus brought to the floor today a resolution to recognize this 2-year anniversary. It sat before all 100 Senators, and I don't know a single Senator who is opposed to that because we all want to see peace in the Middle East. We all want to see that kind of progress, and we all want to see this increase.

So, to our State Department, keep the work going. Keep the conversation going. To nations around the world that used to be hostile to Israel and the region, why don't we set down the past and prepare our families for the future?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to go into some comments about some things that I heard from Oklahomans in August--in, thankfully, a deep-breath moment when we were not in session here for a little while. But I first need to just make a couple of quick comments for folks who might have just heard my colleague before, from Illinois, saying that Republicans believe that electric vehicles are socialism if you promote electric vehicles and that we oppose electric vehicles and electrification. Actually, I just have to make a quick comment about that.

I don't hear that Republicans are in opposition to electric vehicles. I hear Republicans in opposition to handing companies billions and billions of dollars of taxpayer money and saying: If you will produce electric vehicles, then we are going to give you these billions of dollars to be able to do it.

I also hear Republicans, like myself, in opposition and saying: 85 percent of the world's lithium, which runs these electric vehicles, comes from China. So, until we can actually get our own supply of energy for lithium, we shouldn't be running toward electric vehicles, because if you run toward electric vehicles and then you are dependent on communist China for your fuel, that is a bad idea.

I also hear Republicans saying: Our infrastructure is not ready for this. This is not some fairytale. Today, in California, they are telling people to turn up their thermostats because they don't have enough electricity, and don't charge your electric vehicles.

So what I hear is a little bit of common sense on our side of the aisle to say: We don't have a problem with electric vehicles. People should be able to choose to drive whatever vehicle they want to be able to drive and that the consumer will actually purchase. But when you hand companies billions of dollars and say that you only get this money ``if'' and if you push people to use a fuel that is dominantly coming from a communist nation and we don't have the infrastructure to actually support it but say you need to get it anyway, we think that is a challenge.

The market is going to drive this. People will make choices, and the market will be able to keep up. But when government arbitrarily pushes that forward faster, that causes a problem in our economy, and we have seen it already.

As I traveled around the State, our State, like several other States, goes back to school early. It is always funny to me when I return after Labor Day and people are talking about their kids are going to school this week. I always smile and say: Our kids returned to school 3 weeks ago, actually.

August is a great time to be able to see families getting organized, people heading back to school, talking to teachers and superintendents and talking about their hope and prayer for a normal school year, where there aren't mask mandates and all the things coming down on them.

It is time for me to actually, some evenings, be able to stand out in the yard and be able to talk to my neighbors. It is great to just be able to visit and catch up, to be able to chat with someone in my Sunday school class and to be able to hold their young child and to be able to look in the face of a new baby.

I had the opportunity to be able to be home and to be able to stand in a funeral home with a law enforcement officer who was murdered in the line of duty.

It was an opportunity to be able to talk to some of our electric cooperatives that are getting power to our rural areas and making such a difference.

It was an opportunity to stand and pray with a cancer survivor in Guymon who has had a really--the past couple of years, it has been tough.

It was an opportunity to be able to visit with an aerospace company in Oklahoma--in fact, several that are doing the technology and the innovation that are making quite a difference in both our national security and in our own aerospace safety and to visit with small business owners who are making things work in a very tough economy based on their work, not based on what is happening in Washington, DC-- based on their work.

August is an opportunity to go visit the stockyards and feedlots and get a chance to be able to talk to folks who are, every day, making our food supply work. It is an opportunity to be able to visit with big companies based in Oklahoma that have large facilities like

Amazon and Macy's--major companies that are out there that are doing business across our State and, quite frankly, to be able to interact with companies that are just as large that are also coming toward my great State of Oklahoma because it is a great place to be able to do business.

There were individuals whom I got a chance to be able to visit with in the fire training center, many of them volunteers who come to this fire training center because they want to be able to learn better about how to be able to fight fire because this is literally neighbors taking care of neighbors. I hear so much conversation in Washington, DC, about how Washington, DC, is solving all the problems in the country. But when I meet with volunteer firefighters, they know full well it is everybody taking care of everybody's neighbors, doing what they can to be able to help each other.

I had the opportunity to both sit in church and watch 25 people get baptized on one Sunday and see life change literally happening before my eyes.

I also had the opportunity to be able to visit with folks in nursing homes and visit with their staff who are really struggling under some of the mandates that are on them still. I have to tell you, for many of the families who are living with nursing homes and are dealing with CMS right now and some of the mandates that are still on them, it seems like life is returning to normal for many places, but the mandates are still on prisons, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and Head Start facilities. For those kids and for those seniors, it is tough, and they are looking for relief from DC.

I had the opportunity to be able to go through No Man's Land Beef Jerky, some of the best beef jerky in the country. You ought to try it sometime for folks who haven't. You walk through No Man's Land Beef Jerky, and there is a lot of meat there, let me just tell you, as they are hand-trimming each section and dehydrating and preparing it for customers all over the country--quite frankly, many places around the world.

I was able to visit VA centers, talk with their staff, talk with veterans who are there getting care, able to go to our military bases and able to talk with leadership there about what do they need because they work every day to be able to protect our Nation's future. I was able to visit our inland water ports. Yes, there are ports in Oklahoma. For those of you all who are not tracking geography, Oklahoma has the northernmost inland ports in the country, and it is a vital link to the Midwest, getting fertilizer and getting wheat out, taking care of heavy steel and supplies. They are a vital part of our technology and of our transportation.

There are too many places to be able to name, but I do have to be able to call out some amazing folks who are in New Leaf. New Leaf is a group of people who have dedicated their lives to helping the developmentally disabled. There are hundreds of people who serve there, serving hundreds of people. These are developmentally disabled adults who have hopes and aspirations. They want to work. They have dreams and goals for their life as well. They want to get married; they want to engage; and they want to have friends. They are a group of people who have wrapped around these families and are blessing them in ways that most folks would never know. It is neighbors helping neighbors.

As I traveled around the State, literally from Guymon all the way across to the east of my State--as I traveled across the State, I heard the same comment over and over and over again: When is inflation going to come down? When is the cost of living going to get better?

From every small business that I talked to, they would talk about supply chain issues and the costs and the contracts and the prices that they are selling things for and the prices that they are getting things for and the challenges they face.

NFIB works with a lot of small businesses around the country. They do an optimism index every year. Thirty-seven percent of small business owners now report their single biggest issue as a small business owner is inflation.

I got into a lot of conversations with a lot of folks, as probably many people in this room did. But I can't even begin to tell you the number of conversations I got into that, within minutes, the conversation turned to the price of eggs, to say: Wow, have you bought eggs yet? They seem to go up every single week.

If it feels that way for folks, I can tell you it actually is that way for folks. The data continues to be able to show that. Studies show, in Oklahoma, relative to January of 2021, Oklahomans are paying $593 more a month right now than they were just in January 2021. That equals out to $7,115 more a year that each family is paying this year than they were 2 years ago--$7,115. This is a real effect on families.

While all of us are grateful that the price of gas seems to be coming down little by little--everyone is celebrating that gas prices are only $3.50 now--we understand that just a year and a half ago, gas prices were a dollar and a half less than what they are now.

The single biggest effect on our economy right now--single biggest effect--is the price of gasoline and the price of energy. As energy prices rise, and they continue to stay high, it continues to drive the cost of every other product because you have got to move products to actually be sold or to be manufactured.

Gasoline right now, this July, is 44 percent higher than it was last July--44 percent. And while it has come down, we forget how fast and how high it rose. People seem to be relieved now that it is only three and a half bucks, knowing that that is 44 percent higher than it was a single year ago.

The cost of breakfast cereal is 16 percent higher than it was a year ago. The cost of chicken is 18 percent higher than it was just a year ago. The cost of milk is 16 percent higher than what it was a year ago. The cost of coffee is 20 percent higher than what it was a year ago. The cost of butter is 22 percent higher than what it was a year ago. Baby food is 15 percent higher than what it was a year ago. And just household cleaning products, it is 11 percent higher than what it was a year ago.

For many people who hear this outside of this room, they would say: Yes, all those things are true. They are obvious. But I have yet to run into a family, as I traveled around my State and engaged with so many great Oklahomans--I didn't hear a single one say: I am so grateful that we are going to have more IRS audits in the next couple of years because that is going to bring down inflation. I didn't have one. I didn't have anyone say: I am so glad there are going to be additional subsidies for electric vehicles because that is going to bring down the cost of eggs.

There is a real concern here. People are worried because they don't know what happens next.

For retirees, the latest study that came out, $3.4 trillion--$3.4 trillion--has been lost from IRAs in the past year--$3.4 trillion. So the mix that we have right now are individuals who are worried about just paying for the next thing, when the cost of living for them is $7,000 more this year than it was last year, just trying to be able to keep up. And the challenge for retirees, watching the value of their retirement go down, as many who are on a fixed income also realize, the costs have gone up dramatically. It is real, and people do feel it.

While in Oklahoma, I interacted with lots of folks who are neighbors taking care of neighbors. There is a very real concern about Washington, DC, and what they will do to them rather than for them, and people are worried about it.

I would say we, as leaders, have a responsibility to be able to set a direction to be able to take care of other people's money--that is the tax dollars that are there; that is other people's money--to be able to manage the debt of this Nation that has accelerated dramatically in the past several years, much of it due to COVID, much of it not. We have some responsibilities to take care of. I hope everyone had the opportunity to be able to listen to people in their own States and to be able to hear what I was able to hear in August.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I yield myself 20 minutes from the bill time.

Madam President, Hans Christian Andersen, in 1837, wrote a story about group think. It is called ``The Emperor's New Clothes.'' It begins with a leader who really loved his clothes. Some unsavory characters saw that, and they set up a weaving loom to make the finest clothes in the land, but they were actually weaving just air; there was nothing to it. The catch was they had sold the story that, if you can't see what they are weaving, it must be that you are just not wise.

So the Emperor sends a couple of his advisers to go check out the weaving to see what it looks like. They see, obviously, nothing because there is nothing there, and they all declare ``Oh, it is beautiful; it is lovely'' because they don't want to be seen as unwise.

Then it ends up with the Emperor preparing for a big parade, and that is where I pick up the story. Let me read to you from Hans Christian Andersen, from 1837, when he tries on the ``new clothes.''

These scoundrels, these unsavory characters who had sold him this said:

``How well Your Majesty's new clothes look. Aren't they

becoming!''

The advisers all chirped in. He heard on all sides, ``That

pattern, so perfect! Those colors, so suitable! It is a

magnificent outfit.''

Then the minister of public processions announced: ``Your

Majesty's canopy is waiting outside.''

``Well, I'm supposed to be ready,'' the Emperor said, and

turned again for one last look in the mirror. ``It is a

remarkable fit, isn't it?'' He seemed to regard his costume

with the greatest interest.

The noblemen who were to carry his train stooped low and

reached for the floor as if they were picking up his mantle.

Then they pretended to lift and hold it high. They didn't

dare admit they had nothing to hold.

So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid

canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, ``Oh,

how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to

perfection? And see his long train!'' Nobody would confess

that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him

either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the

Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.

``But he hasn't got anything on,'' a little child said.

``Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?'' said its

father. And one person whispered to another what the child

had said, ``He hasn't anything on. A child says he hasn't

anything on.''

``But he hasn't got anything on!'' the whole town cried out

at last.

The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But

he thought, ``This procession has got to go on.'' So he

walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the

train that wasn't there at all.

When the facts come out, it is hard sometimes to admit you are on display, that the bill actually doesn't do what the title says it is supposed to do. This time, the bill is called the Inflation Reduction Act. They say it is designed to be able to lower inflation and to reduce the deficit except that now it has actually been scored. It doesn't actually reduce inflation, and deficit reduction is as invisible as the Emperor's new clothes.

The score for inflation stated in the public scoring that ``the impact on inflation is statistically indistinguishable from zero.''

The CBO scored the bill and said it ``would have a negligible effect on inflation.''

Remember, this is the bill titled: the ``Inflation Reduction Act.'' The score on the deficit end, after many on the other side of the aisle here have said it would have $300 billion in deficit reduction, it is less than a billion. But wait, there is more to the story on even that $100 billion.

More than 200 economists wrote a letter to Senator Schumer detailing how this bill will not reduce inflation nor reduce the deficit. Taxing more and spending more will only make the problem worse.

They closed by saying this statement:

The bill deficit reduction is likely to prove illusionary

due to implausible spending phase-outs.

In summary, we agree with the urgent need to reduce

inflation, but the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 is a

misleading label applied to a bill that would likely achieve

the exact opposite effect.

What they said was, the Emperor has no clothes. It doesn't really reduce inflation. At some point, the emperor has to make a decision: Am I going to keep parading through the streets, when everyone knows the Inflation Reduction Act doesn't reduce inflation or am I going to head back and fix it?

Let me start with just the plan that is in this bill.

Here is the bill. It is titled: The ``Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.'' So the plan my Democratic colleagues have laid out--let me just give you a couple of details in the plan to reduce inflation in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

Here is one: Up to $4 billion has been allocated to study cow burping and their production of methane. I am sure that that is going to bring down the price of beef right away. As I have heard, even on the floor today, this is going to bring down the prices at the grocery store by having up to $4 billion allocated to study cow burping.

It adds $2 billion in construction grants to improve walkability in context-sensitive projects. No one seems to know what the words ``context-sensitive projects'' even mean or how $2

billion in construction to improve walkability will bring down inflation.

There is $3 billion for environmental justice block grants to facilitate workshops--workshops--to bring down inflation. Aren't you confident that the price of eggs and bread will go down after $3 billion is spent on environmental justice workshops?

There is $17 million for consumer-related education and partnerships to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By the way, that is not reducing. Those are partnerships to discuss reducing.

There is a brandnew tax credit for Elon Musk that is in this, though. I am sure that it will bring down inflation. Tesla has used up all of its credits for its electric vehicles so this bill renews it and does a special perk for Tesla to give them an unlimited number of new tax credits. I am sure Elon Musk is thrilled about his unlimited new tax credits to him, and I am sure all of our prices will go down based on Elon Musk's new multibillion-dollar tax credit that he gets. Again, the bill is the Inflation Reduction Act.

There is a new fee on methane that will raise the price of natural gas, which has been estimated to raise the price of our natural gas to the consumer by 17 percent--a 17-percent increase on our natural gas. Now, let me remind you that this is the Inflation Reduction Act that will increase the price of our heating, of our cooking, and of our energy production--17 percent.

There is a new tax on imported oil and new fees on domestic oil produced on Federal lands.

There are new inspection fees and owners' fees on pipelines. I do not understand how new fees and new taxes on oil and gas are supposed to lower the price of natural gas and of gasoline, but that is what is being declared in the Inflation Reduction Act. If only we had more taxes on oil, gas, and natural gas, then prices would somehow magically go down.

As has been mentioned multiple times on the floor, this Inflation Reduction Act hires more than 80,000 new IRS auditors, with no limit on whom they can audit. If you thought that there would be a limit to those people making $40,000 or more on being audited, you were wrong. Now, that could have been in this bill, but they chose not to put it in this bill. There are no guardrails for who can be audited by the IRS with billions of dollars being allocated to new IRS agents. Every single American in every income bracket, every small business, and every large company--everyone--is going to experience new IRS audits in the days ahead.

Remember this night. Remember this night. In the next 10 years, when you get an IRS audit, it was the Democrats in this body who sent the IRS to your house. So keep your records because IRS audits are about to dramatically go up due to the gift of the Inflation Reduction Act.

Maybe this bill should instead be called the CPA Hiring Act because I assume millions of taxpayers who struggle under our complicated Tax Code already will now have to hire a CPA knowing their chances of being audited are greatly increasing now. They know the complicated rules of the IRS. Most taxpayers I talk to submit their tax forms every year and hope they get it right because it is so complicated, but because of this night and this vote, there will be auditors coming after you to make sure that you got it right.

The Democrats, in the days ahead, when the IRS comes to this body for a hearing, will be asking them: Did they pull in additional money based on the audits they gave them? They are not telling you this, but they assume the IRS will collect $200 billion more once they give them these new auditors. You can be assured that that is going to be a metric that is going to be checked in the days ahead. The IRS will suddenly be like the smalltown police force that has a quota for writing tickets on the highway through their small town in order to help pay for the new city hall. If you have to pay for city hall, you need to write more tickets on the highway. It is about to be that way with the IRS. They need to audit more and go get more because we gave you more people.

Remember, this is the Inflation Reduction Act. I have yet to figure out how Americans getting more audits reduces inflation, but as has been advertised, this is going to bring down the cost of groceries, and this is going to bring down the cost of gas by more people getting audited by the IRS.

One of the other interesting plans in this bill to reduce inflation is to force more Americans to join a union. Now, I have to tell you that I have no angst against unions. Unions are a choice. Those individuals should be able to choose to join a union and be a part of collective bargaining as an American right and privilege.

Let me say this: 10.3 percent of the American workforce is union-- 10.3 percent. In the energy portion of this bill, which is billions and billions and billions of dollars, the unions get billions of dollars, and nonunion workers get nothing. So, if you work in the energy sector right now and if you are not a union employee, you are about to get cut out because the way this bill is written it gives Federal payouts to companies that use union laborers, which will make nonunion energy companies uncompetitive and will force them out of business or force them to unionize.

Quite frankly, this bill should be called the Mandatory Union Bill of 2022, not the Inflation Reduction Act, because I am not sure how forcing more people into a union reduces inflation, but that is a major portion of this bill.

I am confident the union bosses across the country are thrilled to finally see a return on their investments since they gave heavily to Democrats in 2022 to get them elected, and this is their payoff. There will no longer be 10.3 percent of workers in unions. This is going to force more companies to have to unionize or they will not be able to survive because of the Federal credits that only go to companies that hire union labor. Does forced unionization sound like the solution to inflation reduction to you? It does to apparently half this body.

It creates a subsidy in health insurance to be announced right before the fall elections this fall. And it is not for those who are in poverty. Those who are in poverty, all the way up to 400 percent of poverty, already get healthcare subsidies. Oh, no, this is not for those folks at the poverty level--200 percent, 300 percent, or 400 percent of poverty; this is a family of four making $200,000 who will get this healthcare subsidy.

What do the economists think will happen with this new subsidy? They believe employers will drop their health insurance and will push employees under the government Affordable Care Act policies and will shift more and more people onto the government rolls. Remember, this is the Inflation Reduction Act.

As homelessness increases across the Nation right now, the bill adds $1 billion into HUD for zero emissions electricity generation in affordable housing. That is what it is called, zero emissions electricity generation in affordable housing. It is not about increasing access to housing for those who are homeless; it is solar panels in public housing. I am confident the people who are living on the street, trying to survive a 9-percent inflation rate, are really not hoping that they can find someplace with a solar panel, but that is what is in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, solar panels in public housing. That is their solution to solving inflation.

While many of us have been pushing back hard to block China from buying more land in the United States, this bill actually gives ag subsidies to land owners regardless of who is the owner of the land. They don't have to be a U.S. citizen. They don't have to be American ownership. We are literally opening up that to owners of land to be able to get access to it.

I have also heard over and over again that there are no new taxes in the Inflation Reduction Act. I have heard that in national media from my Democratic colleagues saying it over and over again and on this floor. Well, it seems to be true. If you are a green energy company, that is true; there are no new taxes for you. They will have huge tax breaks. And while there is a push for everyone to have a 15-percent minimum tax, that is not exactly true for those folks who are in these green energy companies that are major Democrat donors. They will not have that same minimum tax standard.

But the Tax Foundation found this. This is their quote:

On average, tax filers in every quintile would experience a

drop in after-tax incomes.

Let me run that past you again. ``On average, tax filers in every quintile would experience a drop in after-tax incomes'' if this bill passes. That means everyone in the country, under $400,000 and over $400,000 a year--everyone has a drop in after-tax income.

One of the new taxes that was just added into the bill today is the stock buyback tax. This is to punish companies that are listed on our stock exchanges that buy back stocks to raise the value of stock. Now, they buy back stock so that the stock value goes up. They are putting a tax on them to be able to punish them to try to prevent them from doing this. They make it sound like they are hitting the big, fat cat corporate CEOs and the guys on Wall Street, keeping the value of their stock lower. They are going to really stick it to the man--except 60 million Americans are invested in a 401(k) plan for their retirement. Sixty million. The largest owners of stocks in America are retirement plans, insurance companies, and nonprofits. Google ``largest owners of stocks.'' So the people who will be hurt the most in this new plan to drive down the stock market prices are nonprofits, insurance companies, and retirement plans. Fifty-eight percent of Americans own some kind of stock.

This is a tax directly and deliberately designed to keep the price of individual stocks from going up. Sure, that is going to hurt CEOs who own their own stock, but it is also going to hurt everyday Americans who just own stock on their own, and it is going to hurt all of those retirement plans. But they seem not to care whom they hurt in this as long as they can also hurt CEOs. Driving down the stock market will, I guess, reduce inflation, if that is their plan in their Inflation Reduction Act, is to drive stock prices lower for retirees and nonprofits and individual investors.

Another new tax that was added today is a 15-percent minimum tax on businesses that are funded by private equity. I have to tell you, this one shocked even me when it got slipped in today. Most companies that are funded by private money are small businesses, research companies, small manufacturing companies. This adds a new 15-percent tax on those small businesses.

Basically, if you are owned by private money or funded by private money separate from the owner itself, you are considered a subsidiary, and so you get this big tax laid on you.

Let me give you an example of this. I know directly a company in Oklahoma that is a small manufacturing company. They are funded by private outside money. During COVID, my Democrat colleagues had the same vendetta against manufacturing that was funded by private equity. This particular company, unlike every other company across the country during COVID, could not get access to the Paycheck Protection Program because Democrats said: If you are funded by private outside money, then we are not going to get you access to that because you are in evil private equity areas--even though they are vastly small businesses.

This particular manufacturing company in Oklahoma produces valves. This valve company had hundreds of employees before COVID. Once COVID happened and business dropped off immediately, because they couldn't get access to the Paycheck Protection Program like every other small business, they laid off hundreds of workers. Those workers weren't rich folks. Those were folks turning a wrench and making a great product that a lot of people wanted. They got laid off simply because of how they were funded.

Now my Democratic colleagues want to jump right on top of them at the end of COVID, as the company is finally starting to come back and they are hiring people back, to now slap a brandnew tax on top of them that no one has discussed, no one has evaluated, and no hearings have occurred on it to determine how wide and how broad this will be. Literally, the owners of this company will wake up tomorrow morning, because in the middle of the night, a new tax got added onto them right at the tail end of COVID simply because my Democratic colleagues don't like any company--regardless of what they do, regardless of the workers who actually work there, they don't like how they are funded through private individuals who fund them.

This bill doesn't lower inflation. I listed a lot of things. Can a single American go: Oh, that will take down inflation; that will work. None of those things take down inflation.

It also doesn't reduce the deficit. Brace yourself for this. Their plan for reducing the deficit is not doing programs they were already not going to do. That is their plan. That is the deficit reduction.

Let me give you an example of this. Let's say you are going through Walmart, shopping, and you are with your shopping cart. You step aside to be able to get something off the shelf, and when you turn back around, somebody has stuck in your basket a big bag of frozen brussels sprouts. Now, you didn't put them in there; somebody else put them in there.

As you go through the aisle, you look down and you see this big bag of brussels sprouts. I don't know about you, I don't want frozen brussels sprouts. Maybe some of you love those. Great. But if somebody slipped a bag of frozen brussels sprouts into my cart, I would put it back. I would put that away and say: No, I am not going to buy that. Somebody else put that in my cart.

Here is what I wouldn't say. I wouldn't say: Somebody put a bag of frozen brussels sprouts in my cart. I am going to put it back on the shelf. That is deficit reduction in my cart. I wouldn't say that.

Here is what I mean by that. During the end of the Trump administration, they laid the groundwork for seniors to get a rebate at the pharmacy counter for Medicare prescriptions to make sure that every senior got a discount at the pharmacy counter. That was the plan. That is what the Trump administration put in place.

When the Biden administration came in, they didn't like that plan to give discounts to seniors at the pharmacy counter, so they set that plan aside and said: We are not going to do that. Instead, they have come up with this new plan that I will explain in just a second. But they are saying that because they didn't do the plan that Trump was planning to do, because they didn't do that plan, that is $100 billion in savings by not buying what they never intended to buy, ever.

Let me just tell you, if you don't buy the brussels sprouts, you just don't have the brussels sprouts, but you are not saving the money from that. You just didn't get them. That is not real savings. So when they say it is deficit reduction, it is because they are not doing what they never said they were going to do, and now they are magically calling it deficit reduction. That is not real reduction of the deficit; that is a budget gimmick in Washington, DC--a huge budget gimmick. Can I just say, the Emperor has no clothes. It is not real.

In the place of this rebate rule, in its place, they have created a real method of price controls for some drugs. And it is not price negotiations; it is price controls. They are spending $3 billion to set up a system for the government to be able to select prices on one of the most used drugs in America.

By the way, it starts in 2026, is when this starts. I have heard some people on the floor say: We are going to have lower prices right away. This plan starts in 2026. It wouldn't actually affect anyone's pharmaceuticals until 2027. So if you are planning on a reduction in prices, it is not coming soon; it is 5 years away, if there is a price decrease at all.

The way it is set up is the President, whoever that may be 5 years from now, will have a new authority not to negotiate prices in the next 10 years. It is not a negotiation, it is setting the price, because if you disagree with the next President, whoever the next President is, and what they set on the price, they can raise the taxes on your company 95 percent. So if you disagree with the price that they pick, whoever the next President is, what they pick for the price, then your company gets hit with a 95-percent tax. How does that sound for government sheer power over a company, to crush whoever they choose? That is how this is set up. You don't follow what I say, we will crush your company.

What does that mean for the future? Drug companies will have new incentives to not use existing drugs for new

treatments because here is how it typically works: If a cancer drug works for lung cancer, then they start experimenting with other types of cancer to see if it works on those. But in this system the Democrats are setting up, if a drug works for lung cancer, they have a disincentive to try it on other cancers because if the drug gets too used, then it falls into this new negotiation category. So the incentive for the drug companies is not to try new ways of using this drug for fear of getting too big.

Can I tell you what this looks like in real life? I have a friend at home whose wife has pancreatic cancer, and they are desperately trying every treatment and trying to get into every clinical trial they can get into, desperately. They are praying, and they are working, and he is being an awesome husband, and she is being a tough warrior going through nausea and pretty awful treatments. They are trying to get into clinical trials, which is already hard. This bill will make it even harder because existing cancer drugs will have a disincentive to test out new ways to be able to serve their cancer. Thank you very much to my Democratic colleagues who are reducing the number of cancer cures for the future. How does that cure inflation in the Inflation Reduction Act?

There is also a special little feature in it, in the way the drug piece is set up, that it incentivizes more IV drugs and fewer oral drugs because IV drugs get more time and oral drugs get less time. So the incentive is to set up IV drugs instead--for the drug companies.

So for all of us who would prefer taking a pill than taking a drug intravenously, tough luck. Democrats prefer IV drugs to oral drugs. So, in the future, when you are taking an IV instead of an oral medication, it is because of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

Can I just remind everyone that Medicare has insolvency in 6 years-- 2028. This Inflation Reduction Act takes the savings from this new prescription plan from Medicare and takes it out of Medicare. It doesn't stabilize Medicare, which is going insolvent in 6 years. It takes it out of Medicare and moves it over to the Affordable Care Act subsidies.

It literally takes money designed for 76-year-olds on a fixed income and gives them to 26-year-olds and their family making $200,000 a year. That is the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. By the way, did I mention, again, that those subsidies land right before the election this fall?

This bill is three-quarters of a trillion dollars that not a single person in this Chamber has read--755 pages of it--that came out a few hours ago. The media, which also hasn't read this bill, continues to be able to talk about what a great plan it is for inflation reduction. They continue to praise the bill, though they have read the same things: It doesn't reduce inflation; it doesn't reduce the deficit.

They have joined in the chorus talking about the beauty of the emperor's new clothes. I am willing to say what a lot of people in this room know in their gut but they are afraid to say. It doesn't reduce inflation. It doesn't reduce the deficit. The emperor has no clothes.

Let's reject this bill.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 5384 and ask that it be reported by number.

Madam President, the Biden administration continues to declare that we are in a public health emergency because of COVID-19. This public health emergency, first declared in January 2020, has been renewed 10 times.

Title 42 is the health authority specifically designed to prevent people from coming into the country during a pandemic. It is nonsensical to say that we have a COVID health emergency everywhere but on our southern border. If there is a public health emergency in this country, then title 42 authority must remain in place.

Title 42 authority is the last line of defense that our Border Patrol agents have to protect our Nation, and my Democratic colleagues said they agreed with that idea back in April. The situation has only worsened since that time so surely they will agree with me more today.

I urge the adoption of this amendment, that we would remain consistent with title 42 authority in this Nation.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, well, I anticipate there will be a few people who are going to vote for it before they vote against it, in this case. What this is, is this is actually my title 42 bill, except with one little tweak in it. It takes it out of Byrd compliance. So this allows any individual to be able to vote for this one but actually oppose the one that would have actually implemented the policy that was actually Byrd-compliant.

This is the reason people get so angry at Washington, DC, because people will say: Oh, I didn't really mean to do that; I meant to do this.

Here is my concern. I think anyone should ask everyone, if they voted one way one time and one way another, what is different on this, because here is what I think happens next. What I think is about to happen is, someone is going to stand and they are going to call a point of order on this and to say this is not compliant with the Byrd rule. And people are going to say: I tried to get it done, but that Parliamentarian just knocked it down. So that is what I bet happens next. We will see.

Mr. President, this is an amendment from Senator Barrasso and me. It is very straightforward.

If you are a restaurant, you can deduct your business expenses. That is normal tax code. If you are a hardware store, you can deduct your business expenses. That is normal operation.

Since 1913, intangible drilling costs have been the tax deductions for oil and gas. IDCs, or intangible drilling costs, since 1913, have been set aside for preparing the space, doing all the labor costs, the services, the normal business operations, for 100 years, until now.

Slipped into this bill yesterday, into the base tax, strips away the tax deductions for oil and gas companies, what has been in place for over 100 years. If you are a wind farm, you can use renewable energy credits to take your tax rate down to zero because you can deduct your normal business expenses as well. If you are a coal company, you can use 45Q, but if you are oil and gas, your prices are going up.

Americans should remember this bill when they fill up in the days ahead and when the people in their communities are trying to get a job with oil and gas.

Madam President, if this body were to look at the tests and the homework, the quizzes, and the essays of the Department of Homeland Security and give them a grade based on their performance for the last year and a half, what would the grade be?

DHS says they have six missions, and they detail out those missions. One of those missions reads: Secure U.S. borders and approaches. Then they give this little piece behind it to describe that.

The Department of Homeland Security secures the Nation's air, land, and sea borders to prevent illegal activity while facilitating lawful travel and trade. What would their grade be on that? And is anyone going to hold them to account for their grade or is this body going to continue to just ignore what is happening on the southern border?

It is the role, it is the task, it is the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security to help secure our Nation, but this Department is currently facilitating illegal immigration, not stopping illegal immigration.

I wish I was wrong on that, but I am not. In fact, as recent as the last 2 weeks, I met with DHS leadership who described to me the new method they have laid out so you can apply for asylum, come to the United States and come to any airport in the country. So you wouldn't have to come through the southern border; you would just come in. But it would be the same process as what is happening on the southern border where people from 150 countries just this year have crossed our border. They have been checked in by Border Patrol, who know full well they are not legally present here. Then they are released into the country and given 8 years until their hearing--8 years.

Instead of responding to be able to slow down the more than 2 million people who have illegally crossed in just the last year, this administration is actually working to say it is actually not enough people. They are increasing the access points to increase the number of people rather than decrease.

The administration was proud to be able to say in May and in June that the numbers went down slightly from what they were in the previous months. The problem with that is, the previous month was a record, and so was the month before that. If you look at just the June number that, yes, was slightly down from May, it is still the highest June ever recorded by the administration.

We are being overwhelmed with the number of people coming in illegally across our border. The administration is currently releasing people, and their sole focus seems to be on making illegal immigration more efficient rather than more enforced.

What grade would you give DHS? A more specific question: Mr. President, do you want to stop illegal immigration? Because I don't think you do. And I think it is clear that the policies you put in place are directly leading to this record influx of illegal immigration from all over the world.

I wish you could even say: Well, at least we vetted them, but I know that is not true, and so do you. Not a single one of these people entering the country has their criminal background check from the country they are from. We are doing a quick fingerprint analysis to see if they have committed a crime here, but we have no idea of the 150 countries-plus that they are coming from because right now the goal is not to check their criminal history; it is to get them released in the country within 8 hours. Keep it moving. Keep it moving. You don't want to have a clog up at the border. When they cross the border, the goal is to just keep them moving into the country.

Last weekend, I spent the weekend again at our southern border. Serving on the Homeland Security Committee, I spend a lot of time back and forth across that border to be able to evaluate what is happening now because it changes from week to week.

I was in the Rio Grande Valley last weekend spending time with CBP, the Border Patrol, individuals from Air and Marine Operations, from the Department of DPS in Texas, from the National Guard. All of them expressed incredible frustration.

When I got there last Thursday night late, we went on a midnight patrol with Border Patrol. Literally within minutes, we ran through our first group of folks coming across the border, a group of teenagers. Minutes later, literally while that group was being processed, another group was interdicted coming across the border not far away. This time it was 6- and 7-year-old children and a couple of families. While we watched them being processed, they called us on the radio and said that about 2 miles down, they just picked up another group. This time, it was adults, including one pregnant lady who was deep into her eighth month coming across the border to make sure she delivered here in the United States.

One hundred fifty-plus countries just this year are crossing the border because it is open.

I hear the Secretary of DHS say they have secured the border. As I just came from the border, I wonder when the President of the United States is going to actually go to the border to be able to see what is actually happening on the border and the policies they put in place, because so far the President has been able to make it to Saudi Arabia but has not been able to make it to our own southern border to even look once at what is happening on our southern border.

If he goes--someday, I hope--I hope he meets with Border Patrol because the Border Patrol agents I talk to tell me about a time when the border was secure. They tell me about a time not long ago that we added forcible borders and where the policy wasn't to release within hours and the enforcement priority wasn't to get them moving as fast as possible; it was to actually secure the border.

You could meet with the landowners, like I did last weekend, who live in that area. Some of them have lived there for generations, and they are absolutely furious because although they have lived there--and their family--for generations, they have never ever experienced this.

They tell me about how, when they were children, they used to play in this area, and now literally they will not walk out their own door without a firearm on their hip. They told me about multiple vehicles being stolen from their property, windows being smashed at all hours of the day and night, and people walking up to their windows and peering inside.

One rancher told me about his wife, who is pregnant, and his child, who is 2--how they literally fear for their lives every day because of the number of people who are coming across their property and for him personally, the number of dead bodies that they found on their property just this year. This wasn't happening before.

They had a very simple request. Their simple request was: I am an American. Why does my property not count? Why do my rights not count?

The only rights that seem to count are people who are illegally crossing the border. Their rights seem to count, but the rights of Americans do not.

Mr. President, would you be willing to answer his question? Would you be willing to talk to his wife and explain to her why there are bodies on their ranch and people are peering in their windows at all hours and they can't live in safety on their own ranch? That was different just 3 years ago. Would you be willing to explain to them what has changed in your policies, because the goal of this administration seems to be efficient movement of illegal immigration, not stopping illegal immigration.

I met this Monday with leadership from the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics, who explained to me about the

overwhelming amount of methamphetamine that is coming into my State and the number of people who are dying in my State because much of the meth is laced with fentanyl, and it is killing people in my State.

I asked them if the meth is being cooked in Oklahoma, as it used to be, and they said: No, we hardly ever find a lab making meth anymore. It is all coming from Mexico--all of it.

Mexican cartels are actively working in my State to distribute methamphetamine, partnering with Chinese groups who are doing not only the supplies but the distribution network in my State.

When I was in the Rio Grande Valley this weekend, individuals with Customs and Border Protection showed me the numbers. Just this year, just in the Rio Grande Valley, 144 pounds of fentanyl has come in and 27,550 pounds of meth that they have interdicted just in the Rio Grande Valley just this year. Let me run that past you again: 27,550 pounds just in that one area, just this year.

Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics has explained to me that if you go back to 2020, we didn't have the drugs moving this way because the border was not open at that time. Now the drugs are flooding into our State because the border is open.

What grade would you give the Department of Homeland Security when they are allowing our country to be flooded with drugs, when they are choosing to make illegal immigration more efficient rather than stopping illegal immigration? What grade would you give them?

When is this going to change?

I have to tell you, I believe one of the main roles of the Department of Homeland Security is to be able to shut down transnational criminal organizations from functioning inside my State, but instead, just in the Rio Grande Valley, when I talked to them this week, just in that one sector, they estimate that the cartels make $153 million a week-- $153 million a week just in that area of the Rio Grande Valley, moving people across the border illegally, because each of them has to pay the cartels. In fact, we saw the wristbands that they all wear. Once they pay the cartels, they are marked that they can actually be moved across the border; they paid their amount.

That is $153 million a week the Biden administration is facilitating in payment to transnational criminal organizations just moving people, based on a liberal policy of ``We are going to open the border up to be nice.'' That policy is facilitating the cartels in Mexico being enriched. They make more a week--a week--in moving people than is the budget for Border Patrol in a year in that area. That is all being facilitated based on this administration making it easier to cross the border and more efficient to cross the border than stopping it.

I am tired of hearing about the number of people who illegally cross the border. And many in this body just ignore it. I am tired of hearing from the FBI in my State that the price of methamphetamine is going down in my State. It seems like the price of gasoline has soared, the price of food has soared, the price of housing has soared, but the price of meth is going down. Why would that be? Because the supply of meth is going up because it is coming from the cartels in Mexico, and this administration is just looking the other way.

When is this administration going to talk to the landowners in South Texas like I did and hear from them the threats that they face? They are American citizens. When does their life matter?

It is time we address this issue. It is time we actually step up and say that DHS is failing in its most basic task of securing the Nation.

It is time we stopped the illegal drugs coming into our country and killing our kids. It is time. And I am going to continue to come to this floor and to show what the media will not show anymore. They have looked away, and my Democratic colleagues have done the same. They just look away like it doesn't exist, while 2 million people illegally cross the border.

One more stat: Right now, we have somewhere between 4,500 and 8,000 people a day illegally crossing the border--between 4,500 and 8,000 a day illegally crossing the border. May I remind you, President Biden, years ago, called it a humanitarian crisis when 2,000 people a day crossed the border. Now we have between 4,500 and 8,000 a day, day after day after day.

This administration is not only opening up the borders, they have also changed the enforcement priorities here in the United States. So we have round numbers--6,000 people a day illegally entering the country. The Biden administration has changed the role for ICE in deportations. We are currently allowing 6,000 people a day to cross the border, but we are only deporting 161 people a day from the country.

Six thousand a day, every day, day after day after day, illegally coming into the country; 161 people now that we are deporting a day. What would be your grade for DHS in their task of securing the country?

I know what mine is. It is time this body actually does something rather than just look away.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, this is my first time to be able to stand and speak since the Court made its decision in Dobbs. I have been on this floor I actually don't know how many times talking about the value of every single child.

The conversation today is not just about the right to travel and the right to healthcare. It is deeper than that. It is the right to live.

The conversation today is not just about women. There are two people in this conversation--a child with 10 fingers and 10 toes and a beating heart and DNA that is uniquely different than the mom's DNA or the dad's DNA. They have a nervous system. They feel pain. There is a child in this conversation as well.

In my conversation when I have come to the floor over and over again, it has been to say that at some point our Nation should look at basic science and to say when you have DNA and you have a functioning nervous system and you have cell division, in every health book everywhere in the country, they call that life, but for some reason, on this floor, it is just tissue.

I actually come to be able to thank millions of women and millions of men who for five decades have not written off children, who have walked out, who have marched, who have silently prayed, who have gathered in places and said: When are we going to recognize what is self-evident? That child in the womb is a child, and that child may be inconvenient, but that is a child. When are we going to recognize that basic thing?

For 50 years, that conversation has gone on with the simple statement of, at what point will we be able to speak out for the value of every person, and I do mean every person, including the mom?

It has been interesting to be able to hear all the misinformation in the past couple of weeks. I have read story after story and seen all these breathless news reports about how women with an ectopic pregnancy will not be able to get care; they will be doomed to die--except there is no State law that would prohibit someone getting treatment that is lifesaving for an ectopic pregnancy in any State. I have seen all these breathless reports about how there will be miscarriages and you won't be able to get care--except that is not true in a single place, not one. This over and over riling people up.

What I have seen are 50 churches that have been attacked. What I have seen are 57 crisis resource centers for pregnancy resource that have been attacked and firebombed. I have seen that. Now, we don't seem to discuss that here on the floor. No one is actually saying that all this conversation, all this misinformation, all this noise is actually leading to actual violence across the country. Everyone is like: Oh, no, no; that is not related. Oh really? So when a pregnancy resource center is firebombed and spray painted on the side of it ``If abortions aren't safe in America, neither are you''--we should probably just ignore that? Because that is what is actually going on across the country right now as well.

To be very clear, no State has banned interstate travel for adult women seeking to obtain an abortion. No State has done that. Now, am I confident there are some people who are out there talking? Yes. But there are also in this Senate 5,000 bills that have been filed. And how many of them are actually going to move--as it is in every legislature across the country, and everyone in this body knows it. Everyone knows it. But this seems to be just trying to inflame, to raise the what-ifs.

It has been interesting to me that there is another bill that is actually being discussed that would literally--if you are a pregnancy resource center

dealing with crisis pregnancies, if you don't perform abortions, they would call that misinformation. In the other bill that is being discussed right now, they would fine you $100,000.

I can't even begin to explain my emotion when I think, if you take the life of a child, there is pressure to say: We want Federal funding to take the life of a child. If you protect the life of a child, we are going to fine you $100,000. Is that really where we are? Is that really what this debate has become?

This administration has quickly become the most pro-abortion administration in American history and has rapidly moved to accelerate abortions across the country, while millions of other Americans just ask a simple question: Does that child in the womb have the right to travel in their future? Do they get to live?

Some would say: No. They are terribly inconvenient. They need to die.

Others would say: Why don't we actually live by our values, including the right to life?

So while there is conversation about how to put a piece of legislation out that may very well protect individuals who are being trafficked to go to other States to get an abortion or all kinds of other issues that are there, I come back to the most basic thing: There is a child in this conversation, and maybe this body should pay attention to children as well and to wonder what their future could be to travel in the days ahead as well.

I look forward to the day when we are talking more about that little girl and less about misinformation.

I object.