Floor Statements

Mr. President, I was unavailable for rollcall vote No. 162, on passage of Calendar No. 211, H.R. 3935, an act to amend title 49, United States Code, to reauthorize and improve the Federal Aviation Administration and other civil aviation programs, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to support the confirmation of Mr. Edward Sunyol Kiel to the U.S. district court of New Jersey.

Mr. Kiel, whom Senator Booker and I proudly recommended to President Biden, is eminently qualified for this position. Mr. Kiel has spent the entirety of his career demonstrating an even temperament and an unshakable commitment to equal justice under the law.

With 27 years as a practicing attorney in New Jersey, he has amassed an abundance of trial experience and an objectively impressive record of pro bono work for numerous organizations and church groups.

Atop his outstanding credentials, Mr. Kiel is already quite familiar with the District of New Jersey and the Newark courthouse. In fact, he currently serves as a magistrate judge on that very same court. During his time on the bench, he has again and again proven himself a capable and even-keeled jurist, a sharp legal mind with a deep reverence for precedent and the rule of law.

Beyond his regular duties to the court, Judge Kiel has also devoted generous amounts of time to Newark vicinage's Pretrial Opportunity Program, an important initiative that offers treatment alternatives and noncustodial sentences for eligible individuals--once again proving his commitment not just to the law but to human beings impacted by our justice system.

I would be remiss to discuss Judge Kiel's qualifications without also touching on his incredible personal story. Judge Kiel was born in Daegu, South Korea, to parents who fled North Korea as refugees during the war, on foot.

While his parents did not have much in terms of material wealth, they were rich in faith and in love. With just $40 in their pockets--a gift pooled together by their relatives before the journey--his family made a decision to come to the United States and bet it all on the American dream. On their very first Sunday in the United States, Judge Kiel's mother placed that $40 in the church's offering plate--a symbol of her undying optimism for her family's new life in America.

Today, Judge Kiel works every day in the same exact courthouse where his parents became U.S. citizens in the 1970s. If that is not a shining example of the American dream, I don't know what is.

Judge Kiel's story is one that is familiar to so many in the Garden State and across America. His confirmation will be another important step towards achieving the ideal of an independent judiciary that reflects the best of America and mirrors our Nation's rich cultural tapestry. To this end, I commend President Biden for nominating the most racially and ethnically diverse group of qualified Federal judges of any President so far in our Nation's history.

In all branches and at all levels of our government, our democracy and institutions are made stronger by public servants whose lived experiences are as unique and colorful as America itself.

This is a cause to which I have dedicated my Senate career--ensuring that the governed see themselves in their own government, to ensure that our democracy is generally a government of, by, and for the people. It is therefore my sincere pleasure to vote today in favor of confirming Judge Kiel to the district court of New Jersey. I urge my colleagues to do the same. I have no doubt that he will continue to be an asset to New Jersey's Federal bench, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in swiftly confirming him today.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I object.

I object.

Objection.

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

Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to respond to a series of accusations raised by the U.S. attorney of the Southern District of New York.

First, I would note that this is the second superseding indictment brought forth by the government. It should be noted that all of the information presented in the superseding indictments were fully available to the government since the beginning of this process and for at least a year prior to the bringing of this indictment, which, therefore, begs the question: Why did the government not proceed with all of these accusations from the beginning?

The answer is clear to me. By filing three indictments--one in late September, a second one a few weeks later in mid-October, and the third one just last week, in early January--it allows the government to keep the sensational story in the press. It poisons the jury pool, and it seeks to convict me in a court of public opinion. In so doing, the government's tactics harm not just me but each of you, my colleagues, the political establishment, and, most importantly, the electorate of New Jersey.

The sensationalized allegations are now creating a rising call for my resignation, despite my innocence and before a single piece of evidence has even been introduced in a court of law. The U.S. Attorney's Office has engaged not in a prosecution but a persecution. They seek a victory, not justice.

We have seen this play out with other prosecutions of public officers. Remember what happened to Senator Ted Stevens or Governor Bob McDonell. There are numerous other examples. It is an unfortunate reality, but prosecutors sometimes shoot first before they even know all the facts. It would be a shame that this venerable body does the same.

So having set the stage for why this process has unfolded this way, let me deal with some of the issues, starting with the latest accusation.

I have received nothing--absolutely nothing--from the Government of Qatar or on behalf of the Government of Qatar to promote their image or their issues. The government's principal allegation of what I supposedly

did for Qatar was to support a Senate resolution. This resolution was sponsored and introduced by Senator Graham and cosponsored by 11 other bipartisan Senators, posted on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee agenda, and passed by voice vote.

Now, what was that resolution about? The resolution sponsored by Senator Graham and 12 of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle thanked the Qatari Government for assisting the U.S. military in evacuating American citizens and Afghan refugees from Taliban rule. How nefarious was that?

Then they referenced some press release I made. Well, the press release says in one sentence:

I am [glad] to see our friends and allies in Qatar be moral

exemplars by accepting Afghans ultimately seeking safe haven

in the U.S. after being forced to escape for their lives.

That is the one thing it says about Qatar. The rest of it is a call for international cooperation to help protect Afghan civil society members, journalists, and others at risk of Taliban rule, something I have heard many Members of the Senate at the time speak out for.

Qatar has played important roles in hosting our U.S. Al Udeid Air Force Base, the largest in the Middle East, in responding to the administration's call to supply natural gas to Europe during the Ukrainian conflict with Russia, and, yes, facilitating and receiving Afghan refugees whom the U.S. Government was seeking to evacuate, among other initiatives. And, most recently, they played a role in brokering the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas.

Like any other country, there are things that we disagree on. During the World Cup preparations, the question of labor violations took center stage. Qatar's engagement with its next-door neighbor, Iran, and with Hamas have all been points of contention, and I have criticized Qatar, as I have any other country, when I felt they were falling short of their international obligations and applauded them when they have led in ways the United States and the world would commend. That give- and-take, that carrot and stick, that cajoling and rewarding, is the essence of diplomacy. It is a job we all partake in every day as part of our duties in the Senate.

The government seeks to use baseless conjecture, not facts, to create the connective tissue to substantiate their allegations. They show a picture of watches but no proof of receiving any such gifts. They talk about tickets to a State-sponsored event, but as we all know, Members of the Senate often attend State-sponsored events. Indeed, I have seen members of the State Department, the administration, and, yes, even the Justice Department, attend State-sponsored events. The government fails to mention that the family member referenced to already had their own purchased tickets to the event. That is not a perk and, certainly, not a bribe.

Finally, on this point, the suggestion that an introduction of a constituent to a Qatari investment company is illegal is not only wrong as a matter of law; it is dangerous to the important work all of us as Senators do. Under the government's theory, it may be a crime for Members of the Senate to make introductions to companies and constituents in their own State, to foster investments in their State-- investments that create jobs, ratables, revenues, and help grow the economy. Indeed, if that is a crime, then advocating for Boeing aircraft to be purchased by a foreign government, attracting a foreign chip manufacturer to your State, getting a country to buy agricultural products from your State, making technology investments, and so many other actions that Members of Congress take to attract investment and economic opportunity to their States would now be a crime.

Now, let me turn to the government's other outrageous accusation of conspiring to act as a foreign agent for the Government of Egypt. This is an unprecedented accusation, and it has never, ever been levied against a sitting Member of Congress--never--and for good reason. It opens a dangerous door for the Justice Department to take the normal engagement of Members of Congress with a foreign government and to transform those engagements into a charge of being a foreign agent for that government.

I want to address the accusations as they relate to me, but I don't want you to lose sight of how dangerous this precedent will be to all of you.

Let me start by describing my history of taking adverse positions to the Government of Egypt; my defense of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in that country; and my stinging criticism of the violations of human rights, democracy, rule-of-law issues in Egypt.

One fact is indisputable. Throughout my time in Congress, I have remained steadfast on the side of civil society and human rights defenders in Egypt and everywhere else in the world. If you look at my actions related to Egypt during the period described in the indictment and throughout my career, my record is clear and consistent in holding Egypt accountable for its unjust detention of American and Egyptian citizens, its human rights abuses, its deepening relationship with Russia, and efforts that would have eroded the independence of the nation's judiciary, among other concerns.

In 2017, I led the writing of a bipartisan letter to President Trump expressing grave concerns with the worsening situation for human rights and civil society in Egypt.

That same year, I sent a letter to the Senate Appropriations subcommittee supporting U.S. assistance to Egypt as long as Egypt adheres to the Camp David accords and urged the Appropriations Committee to include the requirements for assistance reform strategies outlined in the Egypt Assistance Reform Act of 2013.

In 2018, I urged Secretary of State Tillerson to focus more on human rights issues in Egypt and raised concerns that the electoral environment ahead of Egypt's elections at that time were not fair, free, or credible.

In 2019, I met President El-Sisi, along with Members of the Senate, at the Munich Security Conference and pressed him on the level of repression inside of Egypt, warning him that it risked eroding our security cooperation, and raised concerns, at that time, about Egypt's intention to purchase a Russian missile system.

In 2020, I spoke on the Senate floor for International Women's Day and cited the cases of Mahienour El-Massry, a human rights lawyer, and Esraa Abdel Fattah, a human rights activist and reporter, who were unjustly detained in Egypt for fighting for human rights, democracy, and a free press.

Does any of this sound like I was on the take with Egypt? Of course, not. But that is not all.

In 2021, during this very time period that this indictment alleges I was an agent of Egypt, I placed a hold on $1.58 billion in foreign military funding to Egypt--M1A1 tank fleet--and $125 million in economic security funds. I placed that hold based on concerns I had with reference to the worsening human rights situation in Egypt and the harassment and detention of activists in general, including the detention or harassment of family members in Egypt of activists currently living in the United States.

In the fall of 2021, I took an official trip to Egypt, where I forcefully raised all of these issues directly with President El-Sisi in the presence of our U.S. Ambassador to Egypt, as well as staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The government references this trip in its indictment but, tellingly, fails to state what actually occurred and how I confronted President El-Sisi, which they know. The omission intentionally leaves a bad and unfair impression.

Most recently, in a congressional delegation trip to Egypt in August of 2023, led by Senator Graham, along with nine fellow Senators and two House Members, I once again challenged President El-Sisi on these and other issues in the presence of my colleagues and U.S. Embassy personnel. Each and every time, I raised issues of arbitrary arrest and detentions, violations of human rights, disbanding of nongovernmental organizations, and other issues in a direct challenge to President El- Sisi.

Again, when Egypt has acted in concert with U.S. interest and values--like fighting terrorism in the Sinai, or its peaceful relations with Israel, or working to improve the rights of Coptic Christians to worship as they pleased--

I have commended Egypt's actions. But you can't challenge the leader of an authoritarian State in public and among other Members of Congress and take actions adverse to their interests and at the same time serve as an agent of that same foreign government.

Over my 30 years of engaging in foreign policy, I don't know of any dictator or authoritarian leader who is willing to be publicly chastised or who regards someone who dares to do so as its agent, which brings me to the danger of what the Justice Department has created by charging a sitting Member of Congress with acting as a foreign agent.

The relevant FARA statute's definition of ``agent'' is broad. It includes anyone who engages in ``political activities,'' ``publicity services,'' or other certain acts at the order, request, or under the direction or control of a ``foreign principal.''

Applied to Members of Congress, it covers anything that could ``in any way influence any agency or official of the United States, or any section of the public within the United States'' as to public policy.

So when Members of the Senate from agricultural States went to communist Cuba to sell rice or poultry or sugar or beef and were told by the Castro regime that they would consider doing so but that the Senators needed to convince the U.S. administration to change U.S. law and lift the embargo and permit credit to take place for such sales, and then came back to the United States and advocated for exactly that request, did that make them a foreign agent of Cuba? I think not.

When Senators travel to Israel and hear from their elected leaders requesting greater economic and defense assistance or for the replenishment of the Iron Dome, did their advocacy upon return make them a foreign agent of Israel? I think not.

When Senators traveled to the Middle East in pursuit of engaging countries to become part of the Abraham Accords and heard from Saudi Arabia that a civilian nuclear program, a mutual defense agreement, and technology transfers might be prerequisites for Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords, and then they came back to the Senate to advocate for that, were they foreign agents of the Saudi Government? I think not.

What if, in any of these examples, that country bought rice or sugar or meat from your State? What if that country purchased Boeing aircraft made in your State? Would that be a quid pro quo? What if you got contributions to your campaign from U.S. entities or individuals associated with those countries? Would that be a quid pro quo? For the government, the sky is the limit if they want to pursue you.

What a chilling effect on the mere engagement of these conversations and inquiries would it be if the sum of those actions, taken in pursuit of your factfinding effort to inform you of what your legislative actions should be, can be turned into official acts in violation of the law and not within the protection of the speech or debate clause of the Constitution.

Now, some may be alarmed by what I have described but in this case explain it away by saying: But in this case, there are allegations of cash and gold bars. The problem is that there is no evidence of the giving or receiving of cash and gold bars. In fact, there has been and will be at trial a full explanation of what is the truth about those issues--a truth that proves I am entirely innocent of the charges.

And that is the problem. Almost everyone, including my friends in the press who have reported on it, haven't read the indictment. They have only taken the government's sensational narrative of what the accusations are as truth. They haven't sought facts of the allegations.

I am innocent, and I intend to prove my innocence--not just for me but for the precedent this case will set for you and future Members of the Senate.

I am, however, alarmed that the greatest and most ardent defenders of the Constitution in this body are among the most vociferous in calling for my resignation. They would deny me due process and undermine the fundamental principle of our law--that in America, you are innocent until proven otherwise by a jury of your peers. Now, Members of the Senate are not above the law, but they are not beneath it either.

If for political expediency an indictment and its accusations are now tantamount to guilt, we have upended our system of justice in America. And when the next person or group of persons are wrongfully accused, you will not be able to claim that the constitutional guarantees of due process and innocence until proven guilty need to be observed.

Now, some say that a U.S. Senator answers to a higher standard, but even then, the question of whether that standard has been violated depends not on accusations but proof of guilt after being afforded due process beyond a reasonable doubt.

Finally, let me say that I understand how the government's accusations, made in the most sensational and purposefully damning way possible, its misuse of the grand jury system to bring superseding indictments even though it had all the information they alleged from the beginning, can be a source of concern and contempt by some of my colleagues, the political establishment, and most importantly, the people of New Jersey. I get it. And I am suffering greatly as a result of what they have done. After 50 years of public service, this is not how I wanted to celebrate my golden jubilee. But I have never violated the public trust. I have been a patriot for and of my country.

Now, let me close by saying I understand some of my colleagues are in tough races, and for them, this was a political calculation. Let me also say that for the administration, the political establishment, and for my detractors, it would be much easier to have me exit the scene so that an unjust deal on immigration that won't really solve our problems at the border but that would hurt the Latino community would be easier to be achieved or that a new deal with Iran would be more possible or a cozying up to the Castro regime could take place or selling F-16s to Turkey could be finalized. I get it. But I will not step aside and allow those things to happen in the name of political expediency. I have never chosen the easy path. I never have, I never will, and I will not do so now. I simply ask for justice to be allowed to work its way.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the confirmation vote on the Kazen nomination, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today seeking unanimous consent of my legislation to reauthorize the Firefighter Cancer Registry, a law that was passed unanimously by Congress and signed into law in 2018.

The Firefighter Cancer Registry improves our Nation's ability to conduct research and gather data on the cancer risks that are associated with firefighting, and in doing so, we learn how to mitigate those risks. It is a vital program, one that furthers our understanding of how to protect the brave first responders who run toward danger when everyone else is running away from it.

Yet, on October 1 of last year, the program expired. That should have never happened. In July, this Chamber passed this very legislation as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, but, unfortunately, it was stripped out of the House version.

My bipartisan, commonsense legislation would reauthorize the program for an additional 5 years while bringing it in line with the current appropriation level. And since this body has already once approved reauthorizing it at this funding level, a unanimous consent vote should be a simple task that we can all agree upon.

In the House, the House Energy and Commerce Committee has already marked up language identical to this bill, including the specific $5.5 million figure which, I should add, is in line with the program's current appropriation. Further, the $5.5 million appropriation was the product of a negotiation between the firefighter organizations, including the International Association of Fire Fighters, the CDC, and the House committee members. Although the CDC actually wanted the program funded at a higher level of $7.5 million, there was an agreement on that $5.5 million, which is the present authorization.

Supported by Senators Murkowski, Brown, Klobuchar, Fischer, Rubio, Tester, and Blumenthal, this legislation would benefit both career firefighters as well as volunteers such as my constituent Edward Diaz. Mr. Diaz is the son of Eduardo Diaz, a North Bergen firefighter who, tragically, passed away in 2017 from pancreatic cancer.

Today, Edward carries on his family's legacy as a volunteer firefighter in Hasbrouck Heights, NJ. I submit to my colleagues the Diaz family, along with their fellow brothers and sisters in the profession, are the reason we should support this bill today. Firefighters put their lives and well-being on the line every single day to keep our loved ones and our communities safe, and it is time we care for them and make their health a priority. Firefighting is more than a job. It is a calling. I believe we should honor that calling by reauthorizing the Firefighter Cancer Registry.

I don't think we need to wait for a firefighter to die to honor them. We can honor them by ultimately passing this legislation so we can continue to mitigate the risk firefighters face by cancer substances that ultimately can take their life.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of S. 2119; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I appreciate that Senator Cotton is supportive. But let me just say, I wish Senator Paul and Senator Lee were here to have firefighters across this Nation understand why something that is bipartisan--something that passed the Senate through the NDAA, something that is presently exactly being mirrored by Republicans in the House of Representatives--cannot ultimately pass this Chamber.

I guess it is ``bah humbug'' to firefighters this season. But we won't stop until we get it passed.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, 11 years ago tomorrow, our Nation and the Newtown, CT, community experienced one of the deadliest school shootings in American history. Horror ripped through our hearts as we heard the news.

Twenty first grade students and six teachers and staff members gunned down in cold blood inside of Sandy Hook Elementary School. Twenty first graders who right now should be high school seniors, relishing special moments and milestones with their friends. They should be finishing their college applications, taking their driver's tests, and getting measured for their caps and gowns. Their families should be watching them flourish as they become young adults embarking on all the world has to offer. Instead, their lives cruelly cut short, and their family members will never be whole again. Adults who tried desperately to protect their students, albeit in vain, from the Goliath force of an AR-15 style gun.

Eleven years ago, we grieved with the families, we cried, and we prayed. Eleven years ago, we said never, never again would we let this happen. Instead, it has happened again and again, over and over-- Parkland, Santa Fe, Michigan State, UNLV, Uvalde.

The scenes from Robb Elementary School, where 19 students, mostly third and fourth graders, and their two beloved teachers were gunned down with an assault weapon last year, could not have been more reminiscent of Sandy Hook. The innocent lives wiped out in a spree of mindless violence. All of this happening again, right before our very eyes, 10 years--10 years--after Sandy Hook.

This weekend in my home State, we just commemorated the fourth anniversary of an anti-Semitic shooting in Jersey City, where two hateful gunmen took the life of a Jersey City detective before they rampaged through the Jersey City Kosher Supermarket, taking three more innocent lives. Among the five weapons the shooters were armed with was an AR-15-style assault weapon.

According to the Washington Post's database, 2023 has seen more mass shootings--39--than any year since 2006 when they first began tracking shootings with 4 or more deaths. Monterey, CA. Nashville, TN. El Paso, TX. Lewiston, ME. We are the only civilized Nation on Earth where innocent human beings are routinely murdered in mass shootings. Is this what it really means to be an American? It cannot be.

I met last week with members of the Newtown Action Alliance-- survivors of gun violence who shared their heartbreaking stories of grief and trauma. Their message was simple: When will enough be enough?

Eleven years since Sandy Hook and yet barely any progress has been made. Even Ethan's Law, a commonsense bill which I cosponsored and which simply requires safe and reasonable and responsible gun storage, is opposed by most congressional Republicans. This should be a no- brainer.

Tiffany Starr, a gun violence survivor and proud New Jerseyan, told me about how her father was killed in 1994 when her sister's abusive ex-boyfriend shot his way into their home looking for her. Their father pushed her sister out of the way and was shot himself, giving his wife and daughters just enough time to run and hide in the neighbor's house. She is now older than her father ever got the chance to be.

Jackie Haggerty shared how she survived the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting when she was only 7 years old. Now 18, she continues to bravely share her story and advocate for gun safety legislation. She broke down in tears during our meeting, describing the sheer horror and trauma of seeing her friends' and teachers' destroyed bodies in the hallways of Sandy Hook. She told me how all she wants for Christmas is to know that she won't get shot. Let me repeat that. A young woman in America is praying that she won't get shot, which is what she hopes for Christmas.

Only in America do we live like this. Do we let families and whole communities drown in the grief of mass shootings for the benefit of the gun lobby and the gun industry? Only in America are guns the No. 1 killer of young people. Only in America do we pray, grieve, and move on until the next Uvalde or the next Lewiston.

Guns--especially assault weapons equipped with high-capacity magazines--do not belong in our communities. High-capacity magazines, from my view, are about high-capacity killing, not about hunting. They do not belong in our supermarkets and movie theaters, our houses of worship, our restaurants, or our bowling alleys. They don't belong on our streets. These are weapons of war meant for high-capacity killing. And those who seek to kill Americans with such weapons do not have any greater rights to bear arms than our Nation's children and community have a right to live.

Just last week, Majority Leader Schumer came to the floor with the hope of reintroducing the assault weapons ban. He was swiftly blocked by Republicans. Senator Murphy followed by asking for a unanimous consent vote for universal background checks, which also met Republican resistance.

While I am proud to have supported the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which became law last year and which contained important gun safety measures, we must do more. That was simply the first step in the right direction. There are more measures we can and must enact.

I believe we have to reinstate the assault weapons ban, and we must establish universal background checks for the sale of all firearms.

A poll by FOX News conducted in April of this year found that a majority of all American voters--61 percent--support an assault weapons ban. That includes Republican voters. If there is 61 percent support among Americans for an assault weapons ban, there should be 60 votes for it here in the Senate.

A June 2022 Gallup poll also found that an overwhelming 92 percent of Americans favor requiring background checks for all firearm sales. With that level of near-unanimous support, background checks for all firearm sales should be able to pass out of this Chamber by unanimous consent.

Did the assault weapons ban have a positive impact when it existed? Well, a 2018 study by NYU Langone medical faculty showed that during the 10 years that the assault weapons ban was in place, mass shooting- related deaths were 70 percent less likely to occur. That is countless lives saved, countless funerals avoided, and countless families spared from bottomless grief.

I want to be clear. We have solutions supported by the majority of Americans to end the epidemic of gun violence in our country. We just need our Republican colleagues to join the rest of us. We need Republicans to take their NRA blindfolds off and open their eyes to the realities we all face together.

After the horrific mass shootings in Lewiston, ME, Congressman Jared Golden reversed his position and now supports an assault weapons ban. I am glad he has seen the light, but it should not take the death of 18 people and a community terrorized for this type of awakening.

Every single Member of Congress should join Congressman Golden, put politics aside, and put the American people first. We owe it to those no longer with us. We owe it to Jackie Haggerty and the Sandy Hook students and teachers and all gun victim survivors. We owe it to every child and parent in America so that when we say ``never again,'' we actually mean it.

I will end with this, which is a few questions for my Republican colleagues. As we head home for the holidays, what will you say to all the families facing an empty seat at their dinner table or one less stocking on the mantel? How can you claim to be the pro-life party, the party of public safety, when you put the interests of the gun lobby before the lives and security of your constituents? How can we possibly claim the mantle of the greatest country in the world if we as elected officials simply stand by and let mass killings take place day after day after day on our watch?

My hope is that you will think about each and every one of these victims and their families, that you will come back with renewed purpose and commitment to our most basic mission, which is protecting the innocent lives of our constituents, our neighbors, our loved ones.

Let's build upon the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, fully implement universal background checks, and pass a national assault weapons ban. I appreciate that the Presiding Officer has legislation, with others, to think about how we manufacture these in a way that would create less loss of life. It is an innovative idea, and it is one of many that should be pursued. It would be the greatest gift we could deliver to the American people.

During a season of thoughts and prayers, what the American people need--what they demand--is concrete action. Whether or not we will act will define Congress and, I think, indeed American democracy itself for decades to come.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, as our allies and democracies around the world face compounding life-and-death geopolitical challenges, the world is watching what we do or fail to do here in the U.S. Senate, and the stakes could not be any higher.

Ukraine is rapidly running out of arms to defend itself against Russia's illegal invasion and the many war crimes it has been perpetrating against the Ukrainian people. Israel is in the midst of an existential war against Hamas--a barbaric terrorist organization funded and propped up by Iran's brutal regime with one singular mission: to wipe out Israel and every Jew on the face of the Earth.

Moreover, our allies in the Indo-Pacific, like Taiwan, remain on high alert as China aggressively flexes its military and economic might there and around the globe while, at the same time, taking careful notes on how democracies around the world respond when one nation violates the sovereignty of another by attempting to take its territory by force.

Now is the time for the U.S. Senate to come together in defense of America's allies in their hour of need. We have a strategic security, economic, and moral imperative to meet the moment, and that is exactly what Democrats in the Senate are ready to do.

Right now, Democrats are prepared to take up and pass the National Security and Border Act of 2024, a comprehensive package that provides aid to Israel, Ukraine, the Indo-Pacific, and Taiwan as well as addresses ongoing challenges at our southern border, including the flow of migration and fentanyl into the United States.

Democrats are willing to put politics aside and defend our allies and our values with real dollars, real military aid, and real solutions. We are ready to secure our southern border against the most dire threats we face, especially the relentless flow of deadly fentanyl fueling our Nation's opioid epidemic.

Now, to be crystal clear, some aspects of this supplemental package, which closely mirrors the supplemental request President Biden sent to Congress, raise serious concerns for me and for others.

For example, I am worried about funding to add another 1,300 Border Patrol agents to work at the border. The U.S. Border Patrol is already the largest Federal law enforcement Agency, and its alarming track record of the abuse and mistreatment of migrants gives me pause about expanding its force further.

I also have serious hesitations about funding to expand our detention capacity by over 45,000 beds. Detaining migrants en masse, including entire families, is never the most humane or effective solution to managing our border.

Supporting a supplemental package that includes these items would not be an easy vote for me and several of my colleagues. It would be quite difficult because these funds come with concerning policy consequences. However, in the name of getting a reasonable, thoughtful package across the finish line for our allies in need, without gutting our asylum and humanitarian parole laws, I certainly am willing to consider it.

But where are Republicans? Americans might ask. Where are our colleagues across the aisle who, for so many years, have posited themselves as the champions of defending democracy and freedom around the world? Where is the party of Reagan--the party of self-proclaimed defense hawks who supposedly never bat an eye when it comes to supporting our allies?

In an incomprehensible turn of events, Republicans have decided they are going to hold hostage vital aid to our closest allies in a life- and-death struggle over completely unrelated, hyperpartisan demands on immigration and border policy, and they are insisting on these changes without any actual, deliberative process or willingness to compromise.

No, you didn't hear that incorrectly.

Senate Republicans have declared they are ready to tank this national security package--one that would help our allies defend themselves so that we don't have to send America's sons and daughters into harm's way and take the battle themselves when the next set of NATO countries is invaded by countries like Russia. I would rather have the Ukrainians fight for their freedom and provide them the resources to do so instead of sending America's sons and daughters abroad.

Now, why are they doing this? Because they are using the immigration issue, in my view, to hide behind the embarrassing fact that a significant number of Republicans in both Chambers doesn't want to vote for aid to Ukraine and because Democrats refuse

to accede to far-right and far-reaching immigration policy demands that have absolutely nothing to do with the existential crises threatening our allies.

It is the height of irresponsibility and partisan politics for Republicans to claim that the price for assisting our international allies is to gut our asylum and humanitarian parole laws, which, I would add, as someone who has been on this issue for almost a quarter of a century, will do nothing to mitigate the flow of migration and deadly drugs into our country.

Think about the dangerous signal that sends: The United States cannot temporarily put aside its domestic political disputes to confront the collective challenges facing democracies and freedom around the world. Such a signal would be crippling to those who look to the United States for our leadership when confronted with the evils of tyranny and terrorism. Such a signal would amount to a shameful retreat from America's singular place on the world stage and would leave us with fewer allies willing to stand with us. Who is going to stand with you if you are going to cut and run?

What makes this all so much worse is that Republicans are willing to gamble our national security interests--indeed, our ability to conduct foreign policy--over half-baked, failed ideas that do nothing to solve the problems they claim to solve.

Let's just take a look at a few of the demands the Republicans are making on immigration and asylum policies.

I heard one of our colleagues speak before that we only just want to have the asylum crisis be dealt with quicker. Well, that is not the case. Republicans say, for example, that they want to heighten the initial ``credible fear'' standard asylum seekers must pass and have been passing for decades in order to make it to the next stage of the asylum process.

Well, news flash: No matter how much the ``credible fear'' standard is heightened, it will do nothing to address the root problems causing asylum seekers to flee their home countries in the first place. If I am in one of these countries and my choice is to stay or die or see my daughter raped by a gang or be forcibly put into a gang, I am going to flee. That is why we have 20 million people in the Southern Hemisphere who are refugees and asylees displaced presently in other countries in the Western Hemisphere.

Unless we deal with that root cause challenge and help those countries assimilate those people, those are 20 million feet that are going to come knocking. Worse yet, constricting access to asylum would only encourage more illegal attempts to make it into the United States through other avenues that will, ultimately, enrich human smuggling networks.

Our asylum system encourages order. In fiscal year 2023, 99.5 percent of asylum seekers appeared--appeared--99.5 percent of asylum seekers appeared for their hearings before an immigration judge. So only about five-tenths of a percent were in absentia. The vast majority of those asylum claims was, ultimately, denied. Then, at that point, they no longer have a right to be present.

Pushing migrants outside of the asylum system is not in the interest of anyone who wants an orderly immigration system or who professes to care about reducing the numbers of migrants that are encountered throughout the border.

Republicans say, for example, they want to dramatically limit the President's statutory authority to grant individuals humanitarian parole into the United States in response to major crises such as wars and invasions.

Well, here is another news flash: Dramatically shrinking humanitarian parole risks dramatically increasing irregular flows of migration to our borders.

Think about what would have happened in the wake of America's withdrawal from Afghanistan or in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine if the United States did not have a robust humanitarian parole system screening tens of thousands of Afghans and Ukrainians for refuge through an orderly process. It would have been utter chaos with unknown numbers of unscreened, unvetted individuals from these countries potentially seeking entry at our borders.

Humanitarian parole allows the United States to be in the driver's view to determine which individuals can obtain protection in the United States and which cannot.

It also serves our national security interests by sending a clear message: If you stand with us, if you fight for freedom and there comes a life-and-death moment, we will provide you with refuge.

So this shouldn't be about sticking it to President Biden and the Democrats. The reality is that there will one day be another Democratic or Republican administration that will need to rely on our humanitarian parole laws to respond to moments of crisis like in Afghanistan and Ukraine. By fundamentally eroding these laws, Republicans would only hamper the ability of any future administration to respond to such crises. Gutting humanitarian parole only invites the very chaos at our borders that Republicans claim they want to mitigate.

What these and other demands reflect is the now-dominant and dangerous strain of Republican thinking that believes that our asylum, humanitarian parole, and refugee systems are largely fraudulent, allowing undeserving individuals to enter into our country.

Years of anti-immigrant fearmongering by former President Trump appear to have clouded the Republicans' ability to talk about our immigration system based on the facts--the type of conversations we had when we passed comprehensive immigration reform in this Chamber with a gang of Senators--Republicans and Democrats--of which I was a part, with an overwhelming vote. That was a level-headed discussion. As a result, their policy ideas now are driven more by Stephen Miller's demagoguery than by any deliberative assessment of reality.

Here are some facts worth reminding my Republican friends about: Immigrants wield nearly $1.3 trillion--trillion--in spending power in the United States, and they contribute tens of billions of dollars in taxes every year. A recent study found that a 25-percent reduction in the number of asylum seekers in the United States would cause an economic loss of over $20 billion over 5 years.

Immigrants disproportionately make up our essential workforce by taking care of our sick, putting food on our tables, and taking care of our workplaces. They were the ones, when we were all home, sheltering, who were out taking the risks of their lives in order that the rest of us could be sheltered.

Immigrants are 80 percent more likely to become entrepreneurs than native-born Americans. Indeed, nearly 45 percent of Fortune 500 companies--45 percent of Fortune 500 companies--which employ tens of millions of Americans, were founded by immigrants or their children.

These migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees have not just enriched our economy, they have changed and shaped our Nation and the world more broadly.

Ever hear of Albert Einstein, a refugee who changed our understanding of science forever; Sergey Brin, the cofounder of Google, a refugee who changed technology forever; Gloria Estefan, a refugee who fled the Cuban revolution with her family and helped shaped our musical landscape; or how about former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright--does that name ring a bell?--a refugee from Czechoslovakia who helped shaped the modern world as the first woman to ever serve as U.S. Secretary of State. The list goes on and on and on.

The hard, undeniable reality is this: Our Nation's prosperity, power, and greatness are inextricably intertwined with our identity as a nation of striving, hard-working immigrants. So it is no wonder that our asylum, refugee, and humanitarian parole systems have received overwhelming bipartisan support over the decades. They are an essential source of our strength.

And let's be perfectly clear about something else. Welcoming asylum seekers, parolees, and refugees into the country is far from just an act of compassion. These systems directly support our national security and strategic economic interest at home and abroad.

Imagine a world where the United States and other countries did not have systems to provide refuge to dissidents,

journalists, lawyers, and others taking on tyrants and defending liberties in their countries. Would they have the same level of courage to enact change in their countries if they did not think they could protect themselves and their families if they faced life-and-death persecution?

So to my Republican friends, I say this: It is time to free yourselves from the Trumpian demagoguery that informs your current worldview on immigration. Join us in good faith to deliver inclusive, humane, and orderly immigration reform that will secure our borders, provide relief to the undocumented community, and strengthen our strategic posture in the world.

However, attempting to force this conversation here and now, when our allies have their backs against the wall, when they are fighting on the frontlines to protect U.S. interests, and when innocent people's lives hang in the balance is the height of recklessness and irresponsibility.

We can continue serving as the world's last, best defender of freedom and democracy without sacrificing one of our greatest strengths: our identity as a nation of immigrants.

We are the United States of America. Let's start acting like it.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be completed prior to the vote.

Madam President, I rise today to proudly vote for the confirmation of Jamel Semper to the U.S. District Court of New Jersey.

Mr. Semper, whom I personally recommended to President Biden, is exceptionally well-qualified for this position, and you don't have to take my word for it. Mr. Semper received strong, bipartisan support on the Judiciary Committee. So there is no reason he shouldn't enjoy that same bipartisan support here on the Senate floor.

For more than 15 years, Mr. Semper has tirelessly sought justice for the residents who call New Jersey home. Indeed, it is the central theme that runs throughout Mr. Semper's career--an unwavering commitment to the rule of law and to the communities the law is meant to protect.

He began his career as an assistant prosecutor in Union County, handling a wide range of cases across the appellate, juvenile, and adult trial units. Then, in Essex County, he went after carjackers and murderers, including the first prosecution of a homicide under New Jersey's domestic terrorism statute.

In 2018, he was sworn in as an assistant U.S. attorney in Newark, climbing the ladder and ultimately serving as chief of both the violent crime and organized crime units. Today, he is the deputy chief of the criminal division, a role in which he is responsible for supervising all phases of criminal investigation and prosecution.

In each of these positions, Mr. Semper has demonstrated unflinching fidelity to the rule of law. Time and time again, Mr. Semper has kept New Jerseyans safe, while also building bridges between residents and those who have sworn an oath to protect them.

This community-focused approach to law enforcement has earned Mr. Semper plaudits from individuals and organizations representing diverse interests, especially those who advocate for communities of color in the Garden State.

Consider the words of Rev. Ron Slaughter, the pastor of St. James AME in Newark. He said:

``Semper has touched all the bases, stayed connected to the

community, and remained patient. This is a great day for New

Jersey, America, our judiciary, and my community.''

Truer words haven't been spoken.

Mr. Semper's confirmation today not only furthers our collective goal of addressing judicial vacancies across our country; it also advances our efforts to diversify the Federal bench. It brings us one step closer toward ensuring that our most hallowed institutions reflect the rich tapestry of America.

For nearly 18 years, I have always taken my constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on judicial nominees seriously. It is one of the most solemn obligations as U.S. Senators that we have, and it is one of the most consequential impacts we have on our democracy as Senators--confirming judges who interpret and shape the law and our Constitution for decades to come.

So I am a firm believer that our independent judiciary must reflect the very best of America's values and its citizens, which is why I can honestly say that Jamel Semper's relentless commitment to public service, combined with his temperament and the trust he has built with New Jerseyans--all this is exactly what we look for in a Federal judge.

He will, no doubt, be an asset to New Jersey's Federal bench, and I encourage all my colleagues to support Jamel Semper to be in his rightful place on the District Court of New Jersey.

Madam President, before I yield the floor, I would like to take a moment to forcefully oppose ongoing efforts to attach harmful immigration proposals to the national security supplemental package we are considering. It is the height of absurdity to claim that the price for assisting our international allies is gutting our asylum and humanitarian parole laws.

Democrats should not and cannot stand idly by while asylum seekers and immigrant families are imperiled by a handful of Senators operating in total darkness, without any meaningful feedback from a broader coalition of Hispanic, Black, and Asian legislators, advocates, and others who should be helping shape these negotiations.

For all those who care about the future of immigrants in this country--indeed, our very identity as a beacon of hope for those seeking a better life--now is the time to make your voice heard. Now is the time to make it clear that we will not allow our asylum and humanitarian parole laws to be gutted, while undocumented immigrants, including Dreamers, TPS recipients, farm workers, and essential workers are forced to stay in the shadows. Now is the time to make it clear that we will not stand by as some try to fundamentally change our immigration system without any transparent, deliberative process. This is the time to make it clear that we should not be codifying asylum and transit bans into law--failed policies that will do nothing to mitigate the flow of migration to the United States.

Moreover, now is the time for my Democratic colleagues in both the Senate and the House to meet the moment. This is our clarion call. We must find the moral courage to do what is right. Otherwise, what are we doing here? How are we supposed to face our constituents and immigrant families across the Nation, some of whom are doing the most difficult jobs in our country in order to help us, and argue that we are the party that stands with immigrants? We cannot capitulate to the extremes in the Republican Party that are more interested in demonizing and hurting immigrants than working together in good faith to fix our immigration system.

We must reject the notion that playing our role as the defender of freedom and democracy around the world comes at the cost of our own identity as a nation of immigrants. We are the United States of America. Let's ultimately start acting like that.

I yield the floor.