Floor Statements

Madam President, North Carolina Baptist Hospital opened on May 28, 1923, as an 88-bed hospital in Winston-Salem, with a simple commitment: to be a place of healing and teaching.

Since 1923, North Carolina Baptist Hospital has served the community and the region through educational programs. The School of Nursing educated nurses from 1923 to 1974, and the Bowman Gray School of Medicine graduated its first class in 1943.

Today, the hospital plays a pivotal role in research and education for Wake Forest University School of Medicine, a nationally known leader in groundbreaking research and experiential medical education, and the academic core of Advocate Health. North Carolina Baptist Hospital has grown over the years. Now known as Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, the hospital continues to grow to meet the needs of those it serves.

Today, Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, has grown to become an 885-bed tertiary care hospital that includes Brenner Children's Hospital, and the health system includes five community hospitals, more

than 300 primary and specialty care locations, and more than 2,700 physicians. It has over 20,000 employees and is Winston-Salem and Forsyth County's largest employer. In 2022, construction began for a new critical care tower at the medical center. The investment in this world-class facility will transform emergency and critical care throughout the region.

The hospital and the health system continues to expand services, make research discoveries to bring medical innovations to patients more quickly, and educate the next generation of healthcare professionals-- to meet the growing needs of the communities it serves and to improve health, elevate hope, and advance healing--for all.

Mr. President, I will continue:

You may well ask: ``Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches

and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?'' You are

quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the

very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks

to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a

community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced

to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue

that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of

tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may

sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not

afraid of the word ``tension.'' I have earnestly opposed

violent tension, but there is a type of constructive,

nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as

Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in

the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of

myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative

analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for

nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society

that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and

racism to the majestic heights of understanding and

brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to

create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably

open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in

your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland

been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue

rather than dialogue.

One of the basic points in your statement is that the

action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is

untimely. Some have asked: ``Why didn't you give the new city

administration time to act?'' The only answer that I can give

to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must

be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it

will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the

election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the

millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much

more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both

segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status

quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable

enough to see the futility of massive resistance to

desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure

from devotees of civil

rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not

made a single gain in civil rights without determined

legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an

historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up

their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the

moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture;

but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to

be more immoral than individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never

voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by

the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct

action campaign that was ``well timed'' in the view of those

who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation.

For years now I have heard the word ``Wait!'' It rings in the

ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This ``Wait''

has almost always meant ``Never.'' We must come to see, with

one of our distinguished jurists, that ``justice too long

delayed is justice denied.''

We have waited for more than 340 years for our

constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and

Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political

independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace

toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it

is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of

segregation to say, ``Wait.'' But when you have seen vicious

mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your

sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled

policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and

sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty

million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of

poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you

suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering

as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she

can't go to the public amusement park that has just been

advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her

eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored

children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to

form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to

distort her personality by developing an unconscious

bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an

answer for a five year old son who is asking: ``Daddy, why do

white people treat colored people so mean?''; when you take a

cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after

night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because

no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and

day out by nagging signs reading ``white'' and ``colored'';

when your first name becomes ``nigger,'' your middle name

becomes ``boy'' (however old you are) and your last name

becomes ``John,'' and your wife and mother are never given

the respected title ``Mrs.''; when you are harried by day and

haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living

constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to

expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer

resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating

sense of ``nobodiness''--then you will understand why we find

it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of

endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be

plunged into the abyss of despair.

Madam President, over the years, I have taken a moment to recognize the hard work and dedication of my staff as they depart and advance their professional development. One of the most capable staffers I have had the honor of working with is Brad Watts, who served as my chief counsel for more than 4 years.

Brad is truly one of a kind. He is tenacious, tireless, and objectively brilliant. He has earned a reputation for being someone you want on your team advocating on your behalf because he will fight for you tooth and nail and leave nothing on the table. And he has earned a reputation for being someone you don't want to see on your opposing team because he is one tough negotiator who can take you to hell and back.

Brad became my chief counsel shortly before the 116th Congress, which is when I first became chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee. I don't think Brad came in knowing much or anything about intellectual property, which is regarded as one of the most difficult areas of law for even the most intelligent lawyers to pick up.

Not only did Brad pick it up, he excelled at it. Our subcommittee was the most active one on the Senate Judiciary Committee during the 116th Congress as we explored ways to improve and modernize our intellectual property system.

Perhaps most notably, we held a historic 3-day sprint of hearings during which we heard from 45 different witnesses about the broken state of patent eligibility. Only someone as hard-working as Brad could have made that happen.

Brad was also instrumental in negotiating, writing, and passing some of the most consequential bipartisan legislation in generations during the 117th Congress, addressing issues long considered to be ``third rails'' in American politics.

One example was the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. Brad was masterful throughout the negotiation process as Senators and their staff worked

nonstop to forge a compromise. The end result was passing the first law in more than three decades aimed at reducing violence, expanding access to mental health services, and improving community safety. And we did it in a way that protected the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.

Later that year, Brad was assigned another important task: making major modifications to the Respect for Marriage Act and winning enough votes to pass it through Congress. It is a sensitive issue for both sides of the political spectrum that required a well-thought-out approach, and Brad played a key role in reaching that compromise that included a number of new legal protections for religious institutions and nonprofits. These new protections struck the right balance, and the bill earned the bipartisan support it needed to pass both Chambers and be signed into law.

Neither of those bills would have even gotten a vote had Brad not been at the negotiating table and burning the midnight oil every single day.

I take pride in playing an active role in the professional development of my staff, and it was no surprise that the private sector also took notice of Brad's personal dedication and policy expertise. The Chamber of Commerce hired him to serve as their vice president of innovation policy. It is a testament to the work he put in to quickly become of the Nation's top policy experts on intellectual property.

While I am sad to see him go, I am also very proud of the work he has done through his service to the State of North Carolina and the U.S. Senate. And I am excited to see the great things he will accomplish in the coming years. To borrow a line from one of Brad's favorites, the legendary Dolly Parton, ``You'll never do a whole lot unless you're brave enough to try.''

Madam President, I rise today to honor 57 students in North Carolina for their commendable decision to enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces. Of these 57, 31 have elected to join the U.S. Army: Andre Hall, Angie Lopez, Antonio Graham, Chicoria McKeithen, Corbin Thompson, Corwin Pedersen, Daniel Spear, Emily Vera, Emma Steward, Eric Bravo, Ervin Martin, Evan Wesolowski, Gordon Castleberry, Jacob Martin, Jaheim Wade, Jayden Romani-Alamo, Jazyre Clark, John Pippin, Johnathan Atherton, Jonathon Taylor, Joshua Arnette, Joshua Sims, Julia Perez, Landen Nelson, Mauricio Vera-Brito, Nicholas Brewington, Nimrod Castillo, Omarion McCune, Warren Avery, Xavier Mathis, and Zachary Viburs. Fourteen have elected to join the U.S. Navy: Angelina Allen, Madison Thomas, Micah'Ra Granum, Teigen Passage, Indigo Scott, Nakiya Burch, Eric Jones, Kaylee Neff, Elizabeth McNeill, Phillip Vincent, Gustavo Guevara, John Hitchcock, Najae Brown, and Brihanna Bryant. Four have elected to join the U.S. Air Force: Erykah Bordeaux, Mari Collins, Kasey Quick, and Mateo Ray. One has elected to join the United States Marine Corps: Daylon Lewis. One has elected to join the North Carolina Army National Guard: Oscar Soto Flores. Six have elected to join the Army Reserve: Cristal Ventura, Dillon Knight, Jayden Romani-Alamo, Jimella Ameyaw, Landen Nelson, and Raul Fuentes-Garcia.

All 56 students will be recognized today, April 17, at the 2023 Our Country Salutes High School Enlistee Recognition Ceremony in Fayetteville, NC. These North Carolinians represent the very best of America, and they should rest assured that they are backed with the full support of the Senate as well as the American people.

Their decision to serve our country is extremely admirable. I want to personally thank these graduating seniors for the courage and honor that they have shown by volunteering to defend our Nation. We owe them, along with all members of the U.S. Armed Forces, an immeasurable amount of appreciation.

Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about the situation at the border and to lend my voice to other Members who are going to speak about a border that needs to be secured.

About 3 years ago, we had about one-half million illegal crossings. Two years ago, we had 2 million illegal

crossings. Now, we are hearing that, in another 12 months--or in the last 12 months--almost 3 million illegal crossings. And it is likely to be that number or go higher.

We have lost control of the border. Now, when you think, well, what does it mean? Because that is a great comment for somebody from some political stripe to make, but what does that really mean?

When you get to that level of illegal crossings, you are inviting some of the worst crossings that could possibly happen.

Now, let's keep in mind that there are a number of people who are escaping dangerous situations in their country of origin. There are people who probably, rightfully, should be in the United States or some safe third country because they are fleeing a dangerous situation in their country. Think Nicaragua. Think Ukraine.

But we have reached a point to where we actually have a debate on the Senate floor about whether or not we need borders at all. Or we have other people who just say: Build a wall. Frankly, I think they are both wrong.

I am not here to talk about building a wall that is over 1,000 miles long, that goes from the Pacific Ocean to the gulf. What I am talking about is securing the border. If you go down to the border, as I have, you would understand why. There are simply certain sections that you need to secure. You need to secure it so Border Patrol, which has primary responsibility for securing the border and orderly entry, can have control over the situation. They can't today.

As a matter of fact, if they were all back on the line today and we haven't put together a viable border security strategy, they still couldn't do their job. But, now, with the numbers that we have coming across the border, they are not on the frontline. They are not interdicting cartels. They are not arresting and detaining what they call the Sinaloa air force. This is something amazing. We have engaged the Border Patrol officers in so many things that have nothing to do with securing the border that the cartel--one of the biggest ones, Sinaloa--has what the Border Patrol call their air force. They have literally seen them get in ultralight planes with six or seven people flying drugs into the United States, dropping the payload, and going back. They said that that has become a thing. It is not just an anecdote but another device that the Sinaloa cartel is using.

How could they pay for the ultralights or their air force? They are making over $800 million a year in human trafficking. You don't cross the southern border without paying a toll, and that toll is paid to really a whole global network of people that find someone who wants to go to the United States. They say: You are from this country of origin, and this is what it is going to take to get you here.

They even advertise in certain countries that they will get you to the United States illegally if you pay a toll. That toll could be $5,000, if you are from a Central American country, to $50,000 or $60,000 if you are from China. And we have had thousands even from China at the latest report--and a huge increase.

So the lack of border security, the lack of controlling the border, is paying the very same cartels that are pumping our Nation full of poison that we call fentanyl. It is very likely that that air force I talked about was dropping some sort of an opioid, and even more likely, statistically--since 80,000 people a year are dying from fentanyl overdoses--that it was that poison. So we are allowing an unsecured border to enrich the cartel so they can poison Americans--80,000 a year. That is not a number that is in dispute.

So we have to secure the border. And I have said it is not a 1,000- mile-long wall. I mean, if you go to the border, as I have several times, it makes no sense to put a 30-foot wall on top of a 500-foot cliff. Right? If they have made it that 500 feet, they are probably going to make it the additional 30. But maybe--maybe--you need technology there to know that people are going through that path. It is highly unlikely.

But there are other areas, and the last visit to Arizona was to an area called the Yuma Sector. It is in the western part of Arizona, headed to California. There is a gate there. It is only about 12 feet wide--a little bit less wide than the dais down there--that 3 years ago had 8,000 illegal crossings. Two years ago, it had 200,000 illegal crossings through a gate like that--not through a big, wide expanse of 7 miles that is near that gate, but through a gate like that. Last year, there were 300,000 crossings.

Thousands of people from Russia, thousands of people from China, and from a number of other countries are paying a toll to be delivered across the border. Many of them fly into Mexico City, get a transfer flight down to Mexicali, take a cab down to the border, and come across the border as long as they pay the cartel a toll.

We have lost control of the border. We have Border Patrol law enforcement officers who are in the babysitting and bus business right now. We have less than half of the people who are sworn to protect our southern border doing jobs that have nothing to do with what they swore an oath for.

We are turning a blind eye to the death and the destruction that is happening here in the United States and to all the people who are paying a toll and making the dangerous trek here to begin with.

So, Madam President, you can't fix a problem until you know you have it, and our colleagues here in the Senate need to recognize that the border is a problem. And people like me--I don't come out here and do a fire-and-brimstone speech on ``I am a Republican and they are a Democrat; we are good, they are bad.''

I have worked on several bipartisan bills, if people can agree with the nature of the problem and solve it. And this is a problem that is having deadly consequences. And this administration--President Biden-- has rolled back policies in his 2 years here that are making the problem worse. It is solvable, but the Members of the Senate need to recognize that we have a problem, and the Members of the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, need to come up with a solution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am here to join some of my colleagues to talk about President Biden's budget proposal. I have heard a lot of the floor speeches today, and I hear a lot of facts and figures that are all very important, but sometimes it is kind of hard to translate that down to what it means around a kitchen table.

I am actually speaking with a very vivid memory of the life I lived as a teenager back in the seventies when my mother and father, with six kids, were always on the economic bubble based on what happens in Washington.

The challenges of working families are significant, and the challenges this budget presents make them even more so.

I will start off with a couple of facts and figures because I think it is important. We have had inflation go up at about 15 percent since President Biden was in office. I am going to talk a little bit about that in a minute.

If you go on Bloomberg or you read the Wall Street Journal, they use words like ``CPI'' and ``PCE'' and all these things. That won't necessarily make a lot of sense to folks who haven't studied it, but it does matter that grocery prices are up by 20 percent since President Biden took office.

That is a 40-year high. And it also matters that rent prices-- something that my family in the seventies, depending upon what Congress did to us, very seldom for us, we would either be in a house that my parents owned or a house or a trailer that my parents rented. And when rents go up like that, the choices get fewer and fewer.

These interest rates--these numbers are hurting the American people, but I want to go back to the interest rate discussion.

The fact of the matter is, we found ourselves in a once-in-a-century challenge with the global pandemic in COVID. And in this body, I joined the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans to do everything we had to do to make things meet. That is why we did the Paycheck Protection Plan, which saved hundreds, if not millions, of jobs. We did a number of things on a bipartisan basis.

So I think that we have to look at that overall inflation number and see how much of that was just necessary so that, in our judgment, we could weather a storm that could have created a global economic disaster. There are some of my Members who say we shouldn't focus on that, but I think we need to be honest with the American people.

However, what we have seen since President Biden came into office was something that really disappointed me, as somebody who has worked across the aisle a number of different times, and that was two partisan bills: one that was $1.9 trillion shortly after President Biden took office; another

one, the so-called--I call it the ``Inflation Production Act'' because it has very little to do with reduction. Its official title is the Inflation Reduction Act.

So we are talking about $3 trillion in spending, after we had all decided that the money that we put out there to weather the storm for the global pandemic needed to be spent. We even raised questions about whether or not that money should be spent for what we originally intended. The point to that is the government had spent enough, and then these partisan bills took place, and these partisan bills are absolutely one of the root causes and primary reasons why we are seeing inflation today.

As a matter of fact, the rising inflation is one of the root causes behind what we are seeing, and with that interest rates, because when inflation goes up and the Federal Reserve wants to get inflation back down to 2 percent--we are at 6 percent now. There are some people high- fiving over that. I don't know why. Yes, it is down from 7 percent or so, but we are nowhere near where we need to be.

And inflation happens when government spends too much. That is what we are seeing happen, and, in fact, because of inflation and the need to raise interest rates, now we have banks that have failed, largely based on the inflation rate exposure and what they are having to do when their debts come due.

So we have a budget that even the additional spending--I think the top-line number is $6.8 trillion. Now, to be fair, in the COVID timeframe, it was a little over 4 trillion--I think maybe even a little bit north of that but certainly not at this level. We are spending too much. And the American families, and working families, in particular, people on that economic bubble, are the ones who are going to suffer the most if we don't figure out how to get it right.

So we have got a deficit, a deficit in this budget. We have got new debt in this budget. We have got new taxes in this budget. And we have invalid assumptions about where we are today.

How on Earth can we be making an optimistic assumption about inflation that is somewhere near 2 percent? Does anybody here honestly believe that we are going to be high-fiving and being at 2 percent inflation over the next year and a half or 2 years? I don't believe that that is true. But how can you make that an underlying assumption in the budget--because the President is smart, his advisers are smart; they know that that is a false premise for a budget.

So it is even worse than it may seem. And what makes me sad about this is it is really worse for the people who are already getting 80 cents on the dollar for groceries, for the people who are only getting 90 cents on the dollar for rent today. It all comes back to the people who are struggling the most.

We should talk about some of the other taxes that are in this legislation. Energy. Generally speaking, most people have to buy gas; they have got to heat their homes. Energy taxes are going up. I think the estimate that we have right now is about $20 billion in additional energy taxes.

I don't know about you all, but virtually every time I see a tax increase, if you wait long enough, you will see how that translates into a tax burden on working families. It is inevitable. Corporations ultimately don't pay taxes.

When you are going to increase a corporate tax by 30 percent, who ultimately pays for that? Yes, they may be able to work around the edges and absorb some of that, but what they are going to do is find a way to get the consumer--working families--to pay for that. That is how this works.

That, incidentally, is how the bailout of Silicon Valley Bank is going to work. It is fair, and it would pass a fact check, that the plan that was agreed to over the weekend to resolve Silicon Valley Bank isn't a tax in the way that we describe a tax. It is that tax you get from the IRS, for example. It is that tax you get--sales tax at a register.

Why is this also a hidden tax? Because do you honestly believe that some community bank that is struggling to keep a branch open in an underserved area in rural North Carolina--they are going to make one of two choices. They are either going to make that banking service more expensive or they are simply going to leave that bank. And now we get to unbanked and underbanked areas that are most hard hit, the ones that actually have working families who need banks to serve them.

The other thing--I am not going to get into details, but I am also very concerned with the signal that President Biden has sent on defense.

There is a plus-up in defense spending, but the President's proposed budget--in the worst possible time with all the conflicts that we are dealing with--the Ukraine conflict, the threat from China, the continuing threat in the Middle East. Is this really a time to send the signal that we are going to spend less on national defense?

We have been trying to get to a 355-ship Navy for almost a decade--at least 8 years, as many years as I have been here. I have been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for those 8 years, and we were always talking about how are we going to get to 355? We are just under 300 now.

This budget is suggesting that we may even have a smaller Navy than we have today, when China has one of the largest navies that has ever existed--actually, probably the largest navy that has ever existed in the history of the world.

So we are prioritizing domestic spending; we are turning our back on national security; and all the net increase in spending is based on assumptions that they are making that will ultimately--if they don't believe it, they need to believe it--it is going to hurt working families the most.

Well, the good news about President Biden's budget is that it gives us a real, I think, understanding of what his priorities are.

The better news is that that budget is not going to pass through Congress because we are going to have to work on something that is more responsible, that is not inflationary, that tries to get taxes in line so that people can afford the bill that you will ultimately have to pay.

And I hope that over the next--in the coming months that we can have a discussion about let's start with the people who are hurt most. Let's look at the policies that channel directly into making that burden greater, and let's do something good for the United States and the hard-working families across this country.

And for that reason, I will do everything I can, Mr. President. You are somebody I have worked with on a bipartisan basis. I hope that we can get the Senate and the House to recognize that it is time for us to stand up and produce something that puts working families at the forefront.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Isaac Holmes, an intern in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the resolution we are talking about on public safety in Washington, DC.

The DC Revised Criminal Code Act is another example of how the far left is so out of touch that they want to reduce penalties for violent crime in DC while residents, Federal employees, Members of Congress, our visiting constituents, and even our visiting diplomats are facing greater risk.

There are a number of concerns I have with the crime bill that the DC Council passed over the objections of the DC Mayor, many of which have already been discussed at length by my colleagues.

But one of the most puzzling to me is why you would ever reduce penalties for carjacking. DC city officials saw from 2019 to 2020, the number of carjackings in DC more than doubled from 152 to 360. They are not following trends either. In 2021, it went up to 425; and in 2022, it went up to 485. Despite the fact that carjackings have more than tripled in the last 4 years, far-left radicals on the DC City Council thought now was the time to reduce penalties for carjacking. That is one of only several examples we can go to that my colleagues have talked about.

That tells me that the DC City Council is blind to crime happening right in front of them--right outside their front door--or that the carjacking industry has some really good lobbyists here in Washington.

Now, to make it worse, only a month ago, President Biden's Office of Management and Budget issued a statement opposing this resolution and in support of letting radical DC activists on the council let the bill go into effect. Not only that, but at least on two occasions, President Biden's U.S. attorney in Washington, DC, expressed support for letting the radical proposal proceed, even while raising concerns about how extreme the policies were.

I am appealing directly to President Biden. First, I want to thank him for agreeing to sign this resolution when we send it to the President's desk after a successful vote. I am also asking the President to prove his commitment to public safety by working with my colleagues and me on commonsense, bipartisan proposals that keep communities safe. I think that I have a track record of bipartisanship here that the President should take as a good-faith offer. We need to get to work.

One of the bills that I would like to get support for is a bill that I filed last Congress--and I am going to file again--called the Protect and Serve Act. We need to get it into law because it creates penalties for those who assault or kill a police officer, the brave men and women in law enforcement.

We need to show our commitment to law enforcement and to law and order in this country, and I believe the Protect and Serve Act will send a clear signal to friends and foes alike that we care about law enforcement. We need the thousands of law enforcement jobs that are not being filled today because law enforcement feels like at least policymakers--I don't believe the American people--are working against them.

But now I also want to talk a little bit about how crime is getting worse. I consider the Presiding Officer a friend.

You are on the other side of the aisle, but I see us having a lot in common. But, Mr. President, I have to tell you, for those of you watching this speech--my mother and maybe a few others--I think it is important to understand how campaign finance works here.

Both the Republicans and Democrats have national organizations that work on supporting candidates. I think that is fine. Here is what I don't think is fine. It is actually something--I just made sure the subpage is still up. It is. I can't lift up my phone and show you all because it is a violation of Senate rules. If you Google ``ActBlue'' and ``all cops are bastards,'' you will go to a fundraising web page on ActBlue--the very same engine that my Democratic colleagues use for fundraising.

I know most of my Democratic colleagues do not embrace that as anything that they would support or contribute to, but it is out there. If you go to their website, you are going to see the 13.12-mile run. They go on to explain why they specifically picked that distance-- because ``1-3-1-2'' translates into ``A-C-A-B.'' Do you know what ``A- C-A-B'' translates into? ``All cops are bastards''--all.

We know that in any area where you have tens of thousands of people, not all of them are angels, but all of them? Our law enforcement folks here on Capitol Hill--all of them? The ones who protected us on January 6? They are raising money to convince people that all cops are bastards--actblue.com.

It will be interesting to see if anybody on the city council in DC has actually provided a contribution.

More recently, I think that this sort of rhetoric is at least in part what occurred in Atlanta just about a week ago, where violent activists attacked a construction site for Atlanta's public safety training. At least 23 of the agitators were arrested and charged with domestic terrorism after conducting what the Atlanta Police Department is calling ``a coordinated attack on construction equipment and police officers.''

Here is what is ironic about that. I have been to several police officer training facilities, and do you know what they train there? They train them to protect themselves and protect innocent victims, but they also train them how to deescalate. They train them how to take a dangerous situation and let someone who may be a criminal be able to go and face justice but not die at a crime scene. They are teaching police officers to be better.

In Atlanta, because of this sort of rhetoric, they are attacking the very people we all want to see at our doorstep when we dial 9-1-1. The violent activists destroyed multiple pieces of construction equipment. Thankfully, no police officers were harmed. These are not your run-of- the-mill ``defund the police'' activists; these are radicals like the radicals who are raising money on it, who are willing to use violence to achieve their ends of abolishing the police.

This DC crime bill that we are going to overturn today is another step in that direction--enabling and encouraging unsafe communities at the expense of the vast majority of police officers and citizens who simply want to live in peace.

It is long past time for the Federal government to say enough is enough when it comes to crime in this country.

I was proud to join President Trump in supporting the First Step Act, by the way. If you want to talk to me about criminal justice reform, if you want to talk to me about reducing sentences for nonviolent offenders, if you want to talk to me about early release of those who look like they have an opportunity to reform and get back to being active members of society, count me in. Do you know why? Because I have already done it. I have done it at

the State level, and I have done it up here. That is smart criminal justice policy. This is dangerous.

I want to thank my friend and colleague from a onetime home of mine in Tennessee for moving this resolution.

You should be congratulated. You have done great work, and I think you have opened the eyes of several Members on the other side of the aisle here to why this is a sound bill. I am glad to see you carrying it all the way to the President's desk, and it will be successful.

Thank you, Senator Hagerty.

But let's not end with this vote. Go onto that website and see what we are up against. Talk to your local law enforcement and talk about how many unfilled positions there are and how morale is low, and do your part to thank every man and woman in uniform for their service.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Parker Duncan, a staff assistant in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. President, as some of my colleagues may know, we recently lost Kaya, a very special service dog that was a frequent visitor to the Senate.

Kaya's life was devoted to helping veterans with PTSD, and she quickly became an ambassador for veterans and service dogs everywhere.

A few years ago, I ran into Kaya and her owner, Cole. Actually, I was walking down the street and at a street corner when we first met each other. As a dog lover myself, I stopped to say hello. After I learned about Cole's service history, I invited Cole and Kaya to a meeting in my office. At that meeting, I learned something very important--that the Department of Veterans Affairs does not cover the cost of service animals for veterans with post-traumatic stress, which can cost upwards of tens of thousands of dollars.

From the moment I met Kaya, I knew she was special. She was not just a service dog; she was the model of a service dog. She had a gentle nature, kind eyes, and a wagging tail. But I could say that about my two dogs, Mitch and Theo. I could even say that I am proud of the obedience training I have given them. But Kaya is different. She knew all the commands my dogs know, but she also knew how to be there for Cole without even a single command. And like so many other veterans-- service dogs are not just taught to sit and stay and fetch; they are taught to actually see what the veteran is experiencing. They know when to go by that veteran's side just to give them a source of calmness. They actually know how to wake up a veteran who may be in the middle of a nightmare. They know when a veteran or a servicemember who is disabled needs something--they can point to it, and they will retrieve it. These are extraordinary dogs, so you can understand why it may be expensive to get them up to that level.

So few dogs are like Kaya. She was a special one.

Cole and I, when we met, discussed approaches we could use to try to get funding for service dogs in the VA. It is one of the reasons why it culminated in what we call the PAWS for Veterans Therapy Act. I later introduced that bill in the Senate. The legislation established a pilot program to provide canine training to eligible veterans diagnosed with

Mr. President, when I look back at the 8 years I have been in the Senate, I can think of a lot of things I like about this job. I have really gotten to know staff on both sides of the aisle, a lot of Members on both sides of the aisle, being coached more than once by Elizabeth and Leigh on parliamentary procedure and rules of the Senate--those are all things I like about the Senate. But every year on this day, there is one thing I don't like about the Senate, and that is because 2 out of the last 10 years, Senate business has brought me here instead of being home with my wife on Valentine's Day.

Mr. President, my wife and I have been married for 36 years, and our first two babies--our two babies were born in Atlanta, GA, the Presiding Officer's great State. My wife Susan has been my valentine for 36 years, and I am away from her once again.

So if it wasn't a violation of the rules, I would pick up a sign just like this that says ``I love my wife, and I wish her a happy Valentine's Day,'' but that is against the rules, so I am not going to do that. Instead, I am going to say: Susan Tillis, I love you, and thank you for 36 great years.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a great North Carolinian, courageous veteran, and the last living survivor of the Battle of Wake Island: Pearson Riddle, Jr.

Born in Pensacola, NC, on October 15, 1921, Pearson joined the Civilian Conservation Corps at 18 years old upon completing high school. After spending time in Oregon and California learning to operate heavy machinery, he was sent to Hawaii to work for the U.S. Navy and later joined the Wake Island workforce in August 1941 as a general laborer, providing essential support services to U.S. Armed Forces.

On December 8, 1941, Japanese forces commenced a successful siege of Wake Island despite the valiant efforts of marines, sailors, soldiers, and civilians. Pearson was among the hundreds of civilian contractors captured by Japanese forces on December 23, 1941. Forty-four months of grueling captivity and infamous brutality followed.

Pearson was kept on Wake Island until early 1942, when the Japanese forced POWs to board the Nitta Maru, which was destined for a prison camp in Woosun, China. After spending 19 months there in forced labor, the Japanese shipped Pearson and hundreds of other POWs to Kobe, Japan, and again to Tokyo where he was imprisoned until a May 1945 Allied bombing destroyed the prison camp. Sent north to Sendai 7-B Hanaoka after the successful Allied bombing, Pearson and the remaining POWs were liberated in September 1945.

Malnourished, ill, and abused, it took Pearson 2 years to make a full recovery, and despite lifelong medical complications from his imprisonment, Pearson never stopped serving. After his service, Pearson went on to build bases around the world, including in north Africa and Iceland.

In 1987, the Navy administratively awarded Pearson the rank of E-4 and evaluated him as a 100 percent wartime service-connected disabled veteran. Seventy-seven years after his liberation, Pearson received the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal, World War II Victory Medal, and American Campaign Medal for his heroic devotion to duty.

Today, we honor Pearson Riddle, Jr.'s valor, service, and commitment to the values and principles of the United States of America. I ask my fellow Senators to join me in saluting Pearson Riddle for his service.

Madam President, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Mississippi for her comments on this subject.

I am down here on the floor to also talk about the crisis at the border--the humanitarian crisis, the Homeland Security crisis, and a crisis that is resulting in cartels making $800 million a year in human trafficking.

I joined a bipartisan delegation 2 weeks ago. We visited the border. It was very productive. It was one of the first bipartisan delegations in quite some time. The reason that was important is, if you go down there with a

partisan delegation, you are only going to actually talk about one side of the issue. If you go down there with a bipartisan delegation, you can talk about what we need to do on a bipartisan basis to solve the crisis at the border.

I want to start where Senator Hyde-Smith finished--the humanitarian crisis. I am one of the Members who has been trying to negotiate a bipartisan immigration reform bill that has border security and asylum reform in it. I had a lot of my staff ask me: Why would you do that? You know it is going to be unpopular. You are going to get criticized from the left for going too far. You are going to get criticized from the right for having any discussion about immigration reform.

I have been down to the border several times. I told my staff that it is hard for me to forget border security telling me that they just transported an 11-year-old girl who had been repeatedly raped, so much so, she screamed so long she couldn't even speak anymore before she crossed the border.

I told them I can't forget going down the Rio Grande River and seeing a corpse taken out of the river, realtime, while I was down there. It wasn't staged because it is happening repeatedly every year.

When you hear stories of truckloads of people being bused across the border--53 of them dying through suffocation and heat exposure on American soil--I can't forget that. That is a humanitarian crisis that has to be solved.

Then I went to the border last week and I started at the Rio Grande Sector and then I went over to the Yuma sector. At night, at the Rio Grande Sector, we saw two Chinese nationals who had been apprehended.

Chinese nationals pay, on average, about $35,000 to cross the border. In many cases, they don't have the money to do it. They have somebody invest in them, and then they become indentured servants in the United States to pay off that debt.

You have people pay $5,000, $6,000, $10,000 who have an expectation from the cartel that they have a debt to be repaid. That may be an honest job that they could get or that could be an illegal activity that helps the cartels.

Now we go over to the Yuma Sector. The Yuma Sector is in Western Arizona. There is a section of border there that hasn't been completed. It is about 7 miles wide. But the most important part of that 7 miles is about a 12-foot gate. Three years ago, 8,000 people crossed through that gate; 2 years ago, 200,000 people crossed through that same 12- foot gate; and over the last 12 months, 300,000 people have. Five thousand of them were Russian nationals; another 5,000 were Chinese nationals.

Look, I understand why people want to get out of Russia, and I understand why people want to get out of China. What I don't understand is why on Earth in transit to that border--that dangerous crossing that you are paying tens of thousands of dollars to a cartel, a transnational criminal organization--why on Earth wouldn't you stop in a nation that is safe, the first safe country that you can get to out of the country that you are trying to flee from?

That is how international asylum treaties work. You get out of the dangerous country. You go to a country that has international agreements on asylum. You claim asylum. And then you may even want to seek asylum in the United States.

We had reports in the Yuma Sector of people who are flying into Mexicali. They are flying in, not making the trek as many people think of caravans coming from Central America through Mexico--flying into Mexicali with suitcases and bags and taking a cab to the border, making sure their toll is paid and then crossing the border. There is no way on Earth that people coming from many of these nations could not have sought asylum somewhere closer to home and then give us a chance for orderly entry.

In total, it is estimated that the transnational criminal organizations, the cartels, are being paid almost $800 million a year. What are they doing with that? If you go down to the border-- particularly if you go down there around midnight--they play the same play every night, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. They will take innocent people who are going to come across the border, and they tell them: Once you get across the border, present yourself to a Border Patrol agent, and you will be processed, which is exactly what happens.

Under the Biden administration, you are likely to be released within a few days or not more than about a week. The disturbing trend is the one that Senator Hyde-Smith talked about, the disturbing number of people who are evading Border Patrol. Why on Earth would you not opt to go into a facility that is heated in the winter and cooled in the summer and spend a week of being fed three times a day, to have access to facilities, to have changing tables for babies, to have play areas while they are being detained and processed? Why on Earth would you avoid all that and take the dangerous step of evading detection, unless, at least for some of them, there is a nefarious purpose.

Then they are moving into communities where we have already seen--in North Carolina, an illegal immigrant murdered a young lady just a couple of years ago. We have seen this crime, and it tracks back almost invariably to the people who are the so-called got-aways.

Now I want to go to the Yuma Sector and talk about those 300,000 Border Patrol. I am wearing a ``Back the Blue'' flag. But as you all know, if it is Border Patrol, they wear green uniforms, so I say, ``Back Law Enforcement.''

Right now, Border Patrol only has less than half of the people who are sworn to protect the border doing those jobs. They are in processing facilities. They are driving buses. They are providing support for daycare. Literally, I am not exaggerating.

So that means that we have half as many people protecting a border that has wide-open spaces. There are no structures whatsoever. Come across. Walk through the Rio Grande. In most cases, you can. You don't have to swim. But when those 300,000 people get there--this is the most amazing thing about this country--they are going through that 12-foot gate. If Border Patrol goes there, then the rest of the border is open for the got-aways. Our country is so extraordinary that they say: I know that it is only about a 10-minute ride from that 12-foot gate to the processing facility, but they won't transport a child unless they have a car seat for them. If somebody has disabilities, they have to make special accommodations. Imagine 300,000--300,000--people coming across the border in a 12-month period, what Border Patrol has to do to conform to our laws and treat these people humanely and safely.

They need time. Time can only come when Congress recognizes that we have to secure the border. We have to fill the gaps. We have to insist that if you want to come to this country, present yourself at a legal port of entry, present a request for asylum, you will be processed.

We need to send the message: If you want to come to the United States, thank you for the compliment you are willing to risk your life to come to the United States, but respect our laws and don't pay cartels $800 million a year so that they can create a conduit for fentanyl and other drugs that are poisoning almost 100,000 Americans a year.

Now let's talk about immigration reform. I think that one of the ways that we can provide a future flow--a downward pressure on future flow-- is to simply say to people who want to respect our laws and apply for citizenship, for work visas, or other forms of being in this country legally, we need to actually fix the immigration laws that we have on the books to do that.

If we do that, I am not going to have to worry about those memories of that little girl. I am not going to have to worry about the corpses that we are picking up in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. I believe we will have fewer people dying from fentanyl because less of it will come here, for a couple reasons: We will have better security at the border, and we will bankrupt the cartels that are making, over the last 2 years, almost $2 billion.

We need people in Congress to recognize that a bipartisan solution is possible. We have a crisis at the border that needs to be solved, and we have to have an administration that spends more than four hours in 2 years at the border recognizing it is on them to help us fix it.

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in a discussion about the right to life and what happened last week in Washington, DC, when tens of thousands of Americans of all ages, races, and religious backgrounds traveled to our Nation's Capital to march for life.

This March for Life was particularly special since it was the first March for Life after the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, which made this march a special celebration recognizing the unborn lives saved as a result of that decision.

I was proud to see many North Carolinians represent our State in the march by participating and fighting for the young babies who do not have a voice. But for the voices expressed in the March for Life, they would be unheard.

In January 1974, a brave group of committed pro-life leaders led the first March for Life to advocate for a solution to the Supreme Court's judicial activism, in my opinion, in the Roe v. Wade case.

This year, the March for Life was not only an event to advocate for the unborn, it was a celebration of the end of Roe and the return of pro-life policymaking to the States and, I believe, to the Congress.

The Dobbs decision is historic and affirms my belief that all life is sacred. Each State government and its duly elected representatives now make the determination about what types of laws they wish to have in place. I, for one, continue to advocate for commonsense measures that the majority of Americans support, like protecting life at crucial points of development and prohibiting horrendous procedures like partial-birth abortion.

While it is good for us to celebrate the Dobbs decision, as Senators, we must remember that the fight for life in the United States is far from finished. Our work to enact pro-life policies must continue if we are to be a voice for the voiceless.

I believe Congress must vigorously pursue efforts to defend the sanctity of life. Some have said since the Dobbs decision that this is something that only States should weigh into, and I respectfully disagree.

Just 2 weeks ago, I was thrilled to see the House pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which I am committed to supporting. This legislation would protect newborns who survive failed abortions, born alive, requiring the same degree of care as a newborn baby. I urge Leader Schumer to bring this commonsense bill up to the floor for a vote as soon as possible.

Last Congress, I cosponsored dozens of pro-life bills. This Congress, I joined multiple bills to shape Federal policies toward protecting life. This includes proposals that would prohibit the use of Federal funds for abortion and prohibit Planned Parenthood from using Federal funding for abortions.

When I served as speaker of the house in North Carolina, we passed several bills to protect the unborn and to defend life, and it was widely supported by the diverse State of North Carolina, which is by no means a red State. It is a blue State, maybe a purple State. But when you talk about what we were trying to accomplish, the majority of North Carolinians supported it.

I ultimately believe that the States are best situated to set policies to support mothers and to protect life. That is why it is critical that pro-life advocates contact their State legislators and their Governors to ensure that lifesaving protections are enacted to defend the unborn in their respective States.

I am committed to continuing the effort to support life. I am a lifetime pro-life Catholic. I make no apology for it because we are the voice in the absence of that baby yet to be born, and we have to continue to fight for them. I encourage my Senate colleagues to join me in doing this.

Mr. President, I just want to say that I hope that on this issue, like so many that we tackled in the last Congress, thorny issues, that everybody thought nothing could get done--I really hope that we can get people in a room and recognize that we can come together on some basic tenets, get rid of the voices at either end of the spectrum that are preventing us from making progress on this important issue, because, literally, the lives of the unborn--their lives, their opportunity is at stake.

Madam President, we have heard a lot of great comments. First, we heard great words from Senator Burr. I hope that people yield and learn from the lessons.

We have also learned a lot about his body of work over the 28 years that he has been in the House and the Senate.

He mentioned Speaker Boehner earlier, who was probably crying as he listened to Richard's comments. I have a tendency, when I see a friend leaving, to get a little sappy too. So to make sure that we keep Speaker Boehner on the leaderboard for the one who cries the most, I want to talk a little bit about our relationship.

We knew each other before I came here. I was speaker of the house when I first met him. But I learned a lot from him over the last 8 years, and I have seen him work in a way that is unique among many Members.

I feel like you sum up Richard Burr by his patience, his practicality, and his persistence.

He is a very patient person. He doesn't think in terms of, we have got to get this done this Congress. He looks at the reality of the situation, and he just continues to build support until he gets it done.

He is practical. He looks at something, the face of the policy, and he decides whether it makes sense. And he is willing to take the political hits to get good policy done--policy, to use Richard's words, that has purpose and meaning.

And, man, is he persistent. We have had a lot of people talk about the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I watched him work this, and he worked it for quite some time. And when it was finally set up to get passed, he was making a few people and his own conference a little bit uncomfortable because of his encyclopedic knowledge of procedure.

I can remember one scene when he was walking down this aisle, when we were working to get agreement, that it reminded of me of a scene in a western comedy from many years ago.

People down there were saying: Don't shoot him; it will just make him mad.

He knows how to get things done. I have learned a lot from him, and I am going to miss him. But with all due respect to John Boehner, I am going to have your friendship for the rest of my life.