John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, last month, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas resisted Democrats' latest attempt to intimidate the Federal judiciary. This all started a year ago, when Senate Majority Leader Schumer sent a letter to the chief judge of the Northern District of Texas, urging him to change the ways that cases were assigned in that district. In short, the majority leader is unhappy with single-judge divisions in Texas that have handed down rulings that he doesn't agree with. Well, forget for a moment the fact that the left has been more than happy to file lawsuits in courts they believe will be friendly to their arguments. Set that aside for a moment. But the majority leader seeks to avoid more liberal losses in the courtrooms. He wants the chief judge to ignore Federal law--literally, ignore the law--which establishes which courts have jurisdiction and venue over a given case. As Senator Schumer sees it, this change, which would create a random selection assignment system, would prevent judges who are nominated by Republican Presidents from hearing as many high-profile cases. Well, the majority leader might be forgiven for his naivete or his misunderstanding of actually what controls what venue and what jurisdiction is under the law, but the problem is that he went a step further. He ended his letter with a clear threat. If the Northern District didn't comply with his demands, he said, ``Congress will consider more prescriptive requirements.'' In other words, he said: Do what we want, and, if you don't, we will do it for you. Well, for some reason, the Senator from New York thinks he should be the one to decide how cases are assigned in the Northern District of Texas. Late last month, Chief Judge David Godbey wrote the majority leader a letter reminding him of something that the leader already knew, which is that assignment of cases is not governed by politics but by existing law. A Federal statute that Congress passed, signed by a President, gives district courts the authority to decide how to assign cases for a given district. Unsurprisingly, there is no requirement that chief judges consult with the majority leader of the Senate when deciding how to assign cases within their district. There is this thing called separation of powers that the majority leader may have overlooked or forgotten about. As Chief Justice Godbey noted in his letter, the district judges in the Northern District of Texas met to discuss this topic and reached a consensus not to make the changes requested by Senator Schumer. While the chief judge of the Northern District was not swayed by the majority leader's implicit threat, that wasn't the end of the story. Regrettably, the Judicial Conference of the United States, in an effort to placate the majority leader, recommended that district courts across the country randomly assign certain cases that seek to invalidate State or Federal law. In other words, now the Judicial Conference has gotten into the act, ignoring existing laws passed by Congress and signed by Presidents that establish which courts have jurisdiction and venue over a given case. Well, that provoked another telling reaction on the part of our Democratic colleagues. The majority leader rejoiced that this guidance that he sought would prevent ``MAGA-right plaintiffs'' from being able to ``all but guarantee a handpicked MAGA-right judge.'' How insulting is that? These are life-tenured judges nominated by a President, confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and the majority leader is suggesting that a judge who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States can be depended on to reach a predetermined result. Well, I know that is politics, but that is not the way the laws are supposed to be interpreted or applied by the courts. Thank goodness we have an independent judiciary in this country. It is one of the things that makes us unique in the world among democracies--a truly independent judiciary that calls balls and strikes; that interprets the Constitution and laws and applies them to a given case, even when politicians get caught up with their rhetoric and their political desires. Well, the majority whip--the chairman of the Judiciary Committee-- echoed the majority leader's position and noted that changing the way cases are assigned, he says, ``will help restore the public's trust in our court system and strengthen our democracy.'' I think what undermines the public's trust in our court system and undermines our democracy are these baseless attacks on judges, assuming that they are Republican judges or Democratic judges or MAGA-right judges--whatever that is supposed to mean. I guess that means they were appointed by President Trump, but also confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The irony of calling a Senate-confirmed Federal judge a ``MAGA judge'' in talking about the importance of public trust in the judiciary is pretty rich. I want to commend Chief Judge Godbey and the judges of the Northern District of Texas from resisting this political pressure and commend them for doing what they know is right for their district and the people who live and litigate within that district. This was, without a doubt, the right decision for multiple reasons. As a practical matter, the majority leader's preferred case assignment scheme would likely subject litigants to logistical nightmares. I know Texas is a lot bigger than New York. But take the Northern District of Texas, for example. It is one of the largest judicial districts in the country. It stretches over 100 out of our 254 counties and encompasses more than 96,000 acres. If the Northern District of Texas were a State, it would be the ninth largest State. If Senator Schumer had his way, a suit filed in one division could ultimately be heard by any division within the Northern District. Someone--say a woman challenging the State's abortion laws in Fort Worth--could have to travel all the way to Lubbock for her day in court. And a company in Dallas challenging government overreach or perhaps a new environmental regulation would have to go all the way to Amarillo to have that case decided, under this random assignment system. This would obviously create a lot of burdens on litigants--my constituents, Texans, American citizens. It would create burdensome and expensive hurdles that both parties in a case would have to overcome for no real purpose. We all know that cases decided by district judges get considered by circuit courts--appellate courts--and, potentially, even the U.S. Supreme Court. But the majority leader's political pressure on the Northern District would ultimately harm access to justice for those litigants who don't have the time or the money to travel long distances or to pay their lawyers in order to do so. But the more fundamental issue is the constitutional one. Under the law, only Congress has the power to pass venue changes--that is where a case is heard--not the courts. The courts apply laws that the Congress passes and were signed into law by the President. The Constitution vests Congress with the sole authority to determine the structure and organization of the lower courts, and that includes venue laws, where cases are heard. From there, each individual district has the latitude to determine how cases are ultimately assigned. So if the majority leader wants to change the way that venue laws are applied, he can try to do so, but he has to do so through a change in the law, not by trying to intimidate the judges in that division. Over the last years, our Democratic colleagues have repeatedly launched deeply concerning attacks against America's independent judiciary. Several years ago, five of our Democratic colleagues threatened that the Supreme Court would be ``restructured'' if it failed to rule a certain way in a case related to the Second Amendment. The following year, the majority leader, the Senator from New York, stood in front of the Supreme Court and threatened two sitting Supreme Court Justices by name if they didn't rule the way he wanted them to rule in a case involving abortion. He said: I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. How shameful on the part of the majority leader to stand on the steps of the Supreme Court and to threaten the sitting Justices unless they ruled in a particular way. The next year, just a few months after President Biden took office, our Democratic colleagues in both the Senate and the House introduced a bill that would allow him to pack the Supreme Court with four new liberal Justices. A couple years later, Senator Wyden, the Senator from Oregon, advocated for the Biden administration to ignore a potential court order from a Northern District of Texas court because he didn't agree with it. He actually said that the Biden administration should ignore the ruling of a Federal judge--not appeal it; ignore it. Then 15 of our Democratic colleagues recommended slashing the Supreme Court's budget if it failed to meet their demand to implement a new code of ethics that had our Democratic colleagues' stamp of approval. And, more recently, some of our Democratic colleagues have called on Justice Sotomayor to retire so President Biden can install a new liberal Justice, likely to serve for many years in the future. Democrats' attacks on our judiciary have varied, but the theme is always the same. It is all about control; it is all about politics; it is all about outcomes--not justice and the rule of law. Their message is: Deliver the wins we want, impose a code of ethics that we wrote, and retire when we say. Well, we all know that lifetime tenure is provided for Federal judges to provide for their independence so they can't be intimidated, so they can't be forced to retire. And we can't cut their pay for the same reason. Forget this idea of fair and impartial courts. They want judges who fall in line, salute smartly, and follow orders. As I said earlier today, an independent judiciary is essential to our democracy and the rule of law. It is the crown jewels of our government, of our Constitution. The courts cannot and must not be subjected to pressure campaigns from anyone--politicians, political activists, or anybody else. The Federal judiciary certainly is not subservient to Congress; it is a separate and coequal branch of the government--coequal. Our Founders deliberately designed a system of checks and balances to prevent any one branch from forcing the other two to bend to its will. But that is exactly what our Democratic colleagues are trying to do, and it is wrong. It is unconstitutional, and it must be stopped. Today's Democratic party is trying to blur the lines between the legislative and judicial branches of our government in order to secure partisan wins. And there is a reason why their efforts haven't had much success. Their proposals are unpopular. They are unwarranted, and they are flatout unconstitutional. I am glad the Northern District of Texas did not cave to Senator Schumer's demands or the Judicial Conference's ill-conceived guidance. Democrats have made it clear that they will do whatever it takes to secure partisan wins in the courts. They ought to try passing laws here in Congress with open debate and opportunity for everybody to participate in the process; but the problem is, when they lose legislative battles, they simply rely on the courts to get the wins that they ultimately want. But the American people can rest assured that Republicans will continue to defend America's independent judiciary and fight these attacks no matter what form they may take. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if I were to choose a title for the remarks which I plan on making here briefly, I would call the title of these comments ``The Case of the Vanishing American Paycheck.'' Over the last few years, inflation has walloped family budgets. As we all know, prices have grown; they have grown again and grown some more, forcing people in Texas and all across America to scrimp and save just to try to get by. They have cut the number of trips to their favorite restaurant. They've made budget-friendly swaps at the grocery store by trading for less expensive items--maybe the store brand rather than your favorite brand. They have scrapped family vacations in favor of more affordable staycations. In many instances, they have had to make hard decisions between two competing, important expenses. For example, a couple of years ago, nearly 45 percent of Texans said they had to cut spending on basic necessities, including food and medicine, in order to pay their energy bill. Polls continue to show that Americans believe they are even worse off today than they were 4 years ago, and it is easy to see why. Inflation is what has caused this basic shrinking of the great American paycheck. Real wages have fallen. Nominal wages seem to have gone up, but because of inflation, you actually have less purchasing power than you did 4 years ago. People who once lived comfortably are now living paycheck to paycheck. Our Republican colleagues on the Joint Economic Committee recently analyzed economic data to determine just how much inflation is costing the average American family each month. They found that the average household in Texas is spending $1,000 a month more today than they did in January of 2021 when President Biden was sworn into office--$1,000 a month. Biden economics, which, apparently, the President is so proud of that he has named his economic policies after himself--Biden economics is costing Texas families more than $1,000 more each month, or $12,000 in a year. On a monthly basis, that is up more than $200 from a year ago-- more than double the monthly inflation from 2 years ago. Since President Biden took office, he and the leaders of his administration have tried to downplay the impact of inflation, but the American people aren't buying it. After all, the President gets to live in free government housing, otherwise known as the White House. He gets a nice fat paycheck each month. The President and the upper classes in America--the elites--are doing just fine. This kind of inflation doesn't change their lifestyles one bit; but for average Americans, it has a very real and negative impact. For example, last week, the Wall Street Journal took a look at what $100 could buy 4 years ago in the grocery store and compared that to what those same items would cost today. Four years ago, this grocery run would have cost you $100. This includes many of the common items that families buy every week--bread and butter, eggs and milk, fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables, laundry detergent, dish soap, chicken, bread, and a whole lot more. This isn't a shopping trip for champagne and caviar; these are the basic grocery items that most people buy every single week to feed and provide for their families. Over the past 4 years, though, the price of every single one of these items listed here has gone up. The cost of chicken, which is, frankly, a cheaper cut of meat than you might eat if you want to eat a steak on a rare occasion--well, you may have to trade down to chicken, but even chicken has gone up by 40 percent. The price of flour has gone up 43 percent, and sugar has increased 52 percent. A bottle of dish soap costs 46 percent more. Laundry detergent is 36 percent more, and a carton of eggs is up a whopping 63 percent. Now, again, this probably doesn't affect President Biden. As I said, he gets to live in a very nice house at taxpayer expense, and he gets a big paycheck each month. He is doing just fine and so are most of the people who live in this area of the country; but where I come from and where the Presiding Officer comes from, there are a lot of people who are not part of that top 1 percent, who are experiencing the negative impact of Bidenomics and runaway inflation--the highest in 40 years. Well, overall, this trip to the grocery store would have cost $100 4 years ago but, today, $136.89. In only 4 years, the price of a pretty standard grocery run has increased by 36 percent. It is a pretty startling data point, but the truth is most individuals and families in Texas and around the country don't need to see the data to know that their standard of living has decreased because of Bidenomics and 40- year-high inflation. Folks I represent come face-to-face with higher prices every day, and it is not just at the grocery store, as we all know. Families are dealing with higher costs for electricity, for rent, for car insurance, for home insurance, and countless other everyday expenses. These costs invariably add up, and they are having a big impact on the financial health and welfare of the people of every State, including mine. The challenges of inflation are even more severe for those living on a tight budget or a fixed income. Think about those folks living on their Social Security benefits or maybe a pension from a job they held for 30 or more years. Keeping up with rising costs just keeps getting harder and harder and harder because of the policies of the Biden administration. As I mentioned, people try to manage their budget. They cut down on expenses and make more budget-friendly swaps at the grocery store, and they take on additional jobs. Many Americans have simply decided that, in order to keep up, they need to get another job. So many are performing more than one. But for many families, that still isn't enough to pay the bills and keep the lights on. Folks are exhausting their savings just to keep up with expenses, and many have been left with no choice but to take on new debt. Where do they do that? They reach into their wallet, and they pull out their credit card. They say: I don't have the cash to pay the bills. So I will just put it on my credit card. The average credit card debt increased by 10 percent last year--10 percent. The average credit card balance is now more than $6,500. In Texas, the average is even higher, more than $7,000. So people unable to meet their rising costs of living, because of inflation, simply have no alternative other than to borrow money on their credit card. It is easy to assume that credit card debt is caused by excessive spending on nonessential items, but that is not always the case. Experian surveyed credit card holders to understand what is driving this big increase in credit card debt. Nearly 68 percent of respondents said they had recently experienced a significant increase in their monthly bills. Among them, 75 percent said their new or increased bills have impacted their ability to pay down their credit card balances. We all know credit cards carry a much higher interest rate than you pay on your mortgage or other forms of debt. Of course, folks aren't just taking on new debt. They are also struggling to make payments on existing debt, including student loans. When borrowers take out a loan, they know they will need to repay it. That is the deal. It is a contract. It is a legally enforceable agreement. But inflation has made that exponentially more difficult for many student loan borrowers. I recently read a news article about how borrowers are struggling to repay their loans, given the growing cost of living. For example, a high school teacher in Pennsylvania had two master's degrees and owes more than $300,000 in student loans. She said: ``If I pay this five, six, seven hundred dollars this month, how am I going to afford to buy food for the family for the month--[or] for the week?'' That is a familiar struggle for many families. After the ``pause'' on student loan payments ended, the first payment was due in October of this last year. The Education Department said that roughly 40 percent of borrowers still have not made that payment by mid-November. Inflation is about far more than groceries or gas prices. It is a cancer that eats away at our entire economy and the standard of living of 330 million Americans. Inflation impacts the cost of living--as I said, student loan payments, credit card debt, mortgage rates, housing affordability, retirement planning, market volatility, economic growth, and so much more. This is exactly--this is exactly--what Republicans and many leading economists predicted when our Democratic friends went on not one but two partisan spending sprees during the pandemic. First came the American Rescue Plan, which included a long list of progressive social policies. You remember, back during the pandemic, there were bipartisan efforts to help develop a vaccine and treatments to save lives. Those were bipartisan. And then there were also programs like the Paycheck Protection Program and others, which were bipartisan efforts to throw an economic lifeline to people during the pandemic. But after that had largely subsided, our Democratic colleagues just could not give up spending more borrowed money. As I said, it was primarily in pursuit, on a purely partisan basis, of pursuing progressive social policies--backdoor funding for Planned Parenthood, a blank check for mismanaged union pension plans, money for ``climate justice''--whatever that is. Our colleagues tried to brand this liberal utopia of a bill as ``pandemic relief,'' but the pandemic had largely subsided. But they saw, in the immortal words of one former Member of Congress--he said an emergency is a terrible thing to waste, and our Democratic colleagues simply couldn't give up and let go to waste the emergency of the pandemic, even though it had largely subsided. And what they chose to do, then, was to add $2 trillion of spending to the debt and to an already volatile economy. It was like pouring gasoline on a fire. What do you expect? As Democrats pushed this bill forward, they ignored warnings from leading economists that this level of spending could trigger inflation. There is more and more money in the economy chasing the same or fewer goods and services. So, naturally, prices go up. Harvard economist Larry Summers even predicted this package could ``set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation.'' He was exactly right. We could not convince our Democratic colleagues to change course. Instead, they chose to double down. After the so-called ``American Rescue Act''--a partisan spending bill of almost $2 trillion--our Democratic colleagues said: Well, we are not through yet. They went on a second partisan spending spree and gave it an embarrassingly out-of- touch title. They called it the Inflation Reduction Act. The truth is, it was not an Inflation Reduction Act. It was an ``Inflation Nonreduction Act.'' It misleadingly suggested that, somehow, we had to spend another $740 billion to bring down inflation, when, actually, spending that more money--pouring that gasoline on the economic fire-- actually made things worse. This bill included even more liberal priorities, including hundreds of billions of dollars for climate projects. In total, the second partisan spending bill added $740 billion. It is no surprise that it certainly didn't do anything to reduce inflation. As I said, it made it worse. All it did was drive up costs for folks all across the country and add to the mountain of debt--now roughly $35 trillion--that our grandchildren will inherit. And now President Biden and many of our Democratic colleagues want to spend even more money. They are not done yet. They want to spend more money to address the problems created by their own unchecked spending habits. As I mentioned a moment ago, student loans are a fact of life for many, many people. But rather than try to figure out how to work through this debt to help people actually meet their legal and moral obligations to repay the money that they borrowed, the President has proposed spending roughly another half a billion dollars to ``forgive'' student loans. But everybody knows there is no forgiveness of the loan. You are just transferring that obligation from the person who borrowed the money and agreed to repay it back to everybody else--the taxpayers across America, many of whom either worked at a job and paid for their college, so they didn't have to borrow money, or else they didn't go to a 4-year liberal arts college. They went to a community college so they could pay the tuition costs and not have to rack up a bunch of debt. So, once again, the Biden administration has decided to pour more gasoline on the fire by effectively transferring that obligation to the taxpayer. The bottom line is, under Democratic leadership, Texans and the lives of 330-plus million Americans have just gotten harder. The average Texas household is spending $1,000 more a month compared to when President Biden took office. As I said, they are grappling with higher costs for food, for energy, for housing, for insurance, and other basic expenses. Here is the bottom line. For your $100 package or cart full of groceries 4 years ago, now you are paying $136.89 for that. That is probably the most real and dramatic and tangible impact on most Texans and most Americans. When the American people look at inflation and what misguided government policies have done to make their lives harder and to reduce their standard of living, it is no surprise that they are turning pessimistic about the state of our economy--certainly, about their own economic circumstances. In a recent New York Times poll, more than half the respondents rated the economy as ``poor.'' That was the worst option they were given. A Wall Street Journal poll found that nearly three-quarters of voters say inflation is headed in the wrong direction. Maybe you could just call that a statement of the obvious. What is also obvious is that Biden economics and Biden inflation is wreaking havoc on family budgets, and it is clear that President Biden has absolutely no plan, other than to continue to spend more and more money--to pour more and more gasoline on the fire. He has had 3 years to address inflation, 3 years to tamp down rising costs, which are a hidden tax on most Americans' income. He has had 3 years to return to the 1.4 percent inflation rate that he inherited-- 1.4 percent inflation when he inherited the office. Sadly, he has proven himself either unwilling or incapable of addressing the crisis. I suspect he is, frankly, just oblivious to the crisis because it doesn't affect him, living in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, collecting a large paycheck each month. It doesn't affect him one bit. But it affects hundreds of millions of Americans. For the sake of families across the country who are still being crushed by the weight of inflation, we need a change in management. We need a change in direction because, as I said, the American people are not fooled. They know we are on the wrong course, and we need to correct that course come November. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, as we all know, 2 months ago, the House of Representatives impeached Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who has led the Department of Homeland Security since the beginning of the Biden administration. For 3 years, Secretary Mayorkas has overseen the record-breaking crisis at the southern border. During that time, Customs and Border Protection have logged more than 7.4 million migrant encounters--more than two previous administrations combined--and that was over a period of 12 years. In 3 years, the Biden administration has accomplished what took 12 years for the Obama and Trump administrations. Law enforcement's focused response on migrant crossings has caused security missions, including drug interdiction, to take a hit. Staffing shortages have led the Agency to temporarily close international bridges and ports, which have had a severe and negative impact on Texas border communities. And cities across the country, including those located thousands of miles from the border, are being crushed by the weight of caring for migrants. Well, that is hardly a positive reflection on Secretary Mayorkas's tenure as DHS Secretary. Throughout the Secretary's tenure, rather than acknowledge the reality and double down on efforts to deal with it, he essentially tried to gloss over it or ignore it. The American people have watched as he has repeatedly downplayed the severity of the border crisis, using watered-down language like it is a ``challenge'' or ``situation.'' They have disputed his claims that the border is secure as they saw footage of migrants walking virtually unimpeded across the border and filling shelters to capacity and beyond. The American people have raised their eyebrows as he tried to blame Congress for the crisis, even though there are no new laws in effect or no fewer laws in effect than there were during the Trump administration, certainly nothing that Congress has done or did not do which has prompted the dramatic spike in illegal immigration. The truth is, Secretary Mayorkas is bad at his job. That is not news to anyone. But incompetence, by itself, is not an impeachable offense. We have had a number of inept Cabinet Secretaries throughout our country's history who ended their career without the stain of impeachment. Well, despite what some of our Democratic colleagues have claimed, Secretary Mayorkas was not impeached because he is unpopular or just because he is incompetent. He was impeached for two serious offenses, in my opinion, the first of which is his willful and systematic refusal to enforce our immigration laws. Secretary Mayorkas has consistently defied the laws that Congress has passed and which have been signed into law by the President of the United States. He has defied the law and the will of Congress by ignoring detention mandates. Before the U.S. Supreme Court, his lawyer said the words ``shall detain'' are permissive; it really means ``may.'' Earlier this year, he told Border Patrol agents in Eagle Pass, TX, that the current release rate for migrants caught crossing the border illegally was above 85 percent. So you had a 15-percent chance of not being detained even if you were caught. Apparently, he is proud of that. Secretary Mayorkas has made catch-and-release the de facto policy of the U.S. Government, which is in direct contravention of our immigration laws. And we can't ignore the Secretary's unprecedented abuse of a process known as parole. Parole was designed to grant temporary entry to foreign nationals in rare and dire circumstances, such as someone experiencing a medical emergency at a port of entry or donating a kidney or being a witness in a trial. It was never designed to be used categorically or more than on a case-by-case basis. Congress has made clear that parole is intended for urgent circumstances and should be only granted in extraordinary individual cases. But the Secretary violated that law, too, and has used parole to wave broad classes of migrants into the United States. In less than 2 years, the Biden administration has used this case-by- case authority to grant parole for more than 1.6 million migrants. That is in clear and blatant violation of the law, but that is OK with Secretary Mayorkas, apparently. The Secretary's failures, though, extend far beyond policy decisions. As I noted, he was impeached for two offenses, the second of which is breaching the public trust. The American people have watched as Secretary Mayorkas went on cable news programs or testified under oath before congressional committees repeatedly proclaiming that the border was secure. It was clearly a lie. It doesn't take an immigration policy expert to see that his claim has no basis in reality. Day after day, the American people have seen footage that shows how insecure America's southern border is. From the roughly 15,000 migrants who set up camp in Del Rio, TX, a few years ago to the hundreds of migrants who rushed Texas National Guard troops in El Paso last month, there has been no shortage of evidence about our insecure border. It is not just the misleading and false statements on cable news networks. On more than one occasion, Secretary Mayorkas lied under oath to Congress. He told Members of Congress that the border was secure when, clearly, it was anything but. The United States will be dealing with the consequences of this crisis for years, maybe even decades. And Secretary Mayorkas must be held accountable. The House of Representatives was completely correct to impeach Secretary Mayorkas, and now the Senate has a duty under the Constitution to hold a trial. Unfortunately, this has become a familiar process for a majority of our Senate colleagues. In both 2019 and 2021, the Democratic-controlled House impeached President Trump. At the time, my Republican colleagues and I criticized the motivations and process behind these impeachment inquiries, but those concerns didn't impact the process on the Senate floor. Despite our personal views about the House's actions, the Republican- led Senate still carried out our constitutional duty to convene a Court of Impeachment. In both cases, Senators were sworn as jurors. We listened patiently to both sides as they presented their arguments. And, in the end, we had a fair ``guilty'' or ``not guilty'' vote. Prior to the impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas, the House had sent impeachment articles to the Senate 21 times, and the Senate has held a full trial in all but four instances. In three cases, all of whom were Federal judges, the person resigned before the Senate could vote to convict or acquit. And in the final case, the impeached Senator was expelled from this Chamber before his trial. There has never ever in U.S. history been a case in which the Senate dismissed or tabled impeachment articles and moved on. Not once. Unfortunately, if reports in the news are correct, that is likely to change this week. The House is expected to transmit the Articles of Impeachment this Wednesday. Senators haven't received direct guidance, but according to the press, the majority leader is expected to take the completely unprecedented step of voting to table the impeachment articles and eliminate a trial entirely, in violation of the Constitution. As I said, this would be the first time in our Nation's history that the Senate failed to do its duty to consider evidence, hear witnesses, and allow Senators to vote guilty or not guilty. This would be a dangerous precedent to set. It would give future Senates carte blanche to dispense with serious charges against our Nation's most senior officials. What goes around comes around. If Secretary Mayorkas's impeachment articles are tabled, that will become the common practice in the future. Impeachment is one of the most solemn features in our democracy, and the majority leader must not brush these articles under the rug. I can understand why he may want to because the evidence that will be adduced at trial will be damning, both for Secretary Mayorkas and for the Biden administration's policies, which are essentially open-border policies. But at least House impeachment managers and Secretary Mayorkas's defense team deserve the opportunity to present their best case before the Senate. And the majority leader should not prevent that from happening. I would like to remind the majority leader of some words he spoke himself back in 2019. At that point, the balance of power in Washington was completely the inverse of what it is today. We had a Republican majority in the Senate, a Democratic majority in the House, and a Republican in the White House. After House Democrats impeached President Trump, the majority leader, the Senator from New York, came to the Senate floor to talk about the process he would like to see in a Republican-led Senate. He said: To my Republican colleagues: Our message is a simple one. Democrats want a fair trial that examines the relevant facts . . . The message from Leader McConnell, at the moment, is that he has no intention of conducting a fair trial, no intention of acting impartially, no intention of getting the facts. But contrary to what Senator Schumer predicted, the Senate went on to fulfill its constitutional responsibility to hold a trial. We spent more than 2 weeks hearing arguments from both sides--so the American people could judge for themselves--before holding a vote at the conclusion of the presentation of the evidence. So now I would like to echo the Senator's statement from a few years ago, but with a few small changes. To my Democratic colleagues, our message is a simple one: Republicans want a fair trial that examines the relevant facts. The message from Leader Schumer, at the moment, is that he has no intention of conducting a fair trial, no intention of acting impartially, and no intention of getting to the facts. It would be completely unprecedented and unjustified for the Senate to shirk its constitutional role as a Court of Impeachment. The House voted to impeach Secretary Mayorkas, and the Senate has a duty to hold a trial. The majority leader should perform his duty and should not impede or ignore that constitutional requirement. So I urge the majority leader to take his own advice from 2019 and to give the Senate an opportunity to hold a thorough and fair impeachment trial and let the chips fall where they may.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, clearly it is an election year, because we are hearing more and more political speeches from the floor of the Senate and precious little work doing the hard things that we actually are elected to do, which is to legislate. Here we find ourselves dealing with appropriations bills that should have been completed last September. I don't know if people really understand that. What we are doing today, lurching from one shutdown to the next, is dealing with last year's work. But you would think that, under the leadership of Majority Leader Schumer, we would have enough things to do rather than squander the opportunity to deal with those because we are dealing with last year's work. I think we can do better next year. Hopefully, with a different majority, we can actually pass a budget. We can take up and pass appropriation bills on a timely basis, and we can get our work done on time--something that has not happened under the current leadership. I want to mention one hopeful sign, where, at least, one branch of the legislature is actually moving things through committee and across the floor and allowing votes, amendments, and debate. That would be the House of Representatives, not the U.S. Senate, sometimes called the world's greatest deliberative body. To their credit, earlier this year, the House passed a bill that made significant changes in our tax system, and that is what I want to talk about for the next few minutes. This legislation was negotiated by the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, on which I am privileged to serve, Senator Ron Wyden, and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith. They released a framework of this agreement in mid-January, and our colleagues in the House immediately began work on the bill. The Ways and Means Committee, for example, held hearings--actual hearings, legislative hearings--and then a markup to debate the legislation. Members offered and voted on amendments, and, ultimately, this package passed the committee and the full House with strong bipartisan support. Given the polarization and partisanship that often grips Congress, advancing a bipartisan bill is no small feat, especially during an election year. But that doesn't mean the work on the bill is finished. As every high school student knows who takes civics or American history--they know that Congress is a bicameral body. The House and the Senate have to work together. There are two Chambers, two sets of Members with diverse views, Senators representing whole States--in my case, 30 million Texans. The House Members represent a much smaller Congressional District. But the process means that both Chambers need to work through these bills to improve them and make sure they are as good as we can make them before they are signed into law. So my point is that the Senate is not a rubberstamp for the House, and the House would say that they are not a rubberstamp for us. And that is the way it is. So be it. Members of both Chambers have a responsibility to evaluate and shape legislation before it is sent to the President's desk. Congratulations to the Members of the House for doing their job. They sent a bipartisan bill to the Senate at the end of January, and now it is the Senate's turn to take a closer look at this legislation and see how it might be improved. I had hoped that Chairman Wyden would schedule a markup in the Finance Committee and allow members to ask questions and offer amendments to the bill. I am sure he thinks his negotiated bill with Chairman Smith is perfect and doesn't need any improvement, but others may have a different point of view. After all, members of the House Ways and Means Committee had that opportunity. That is called the legislative process. That is what we are supposed to do. So you would think that Chairman Wyden would want members of his own committee to have the same opportunity that the members of the House Ways and Means Committee had, but apparently that is not the case. Nearly 2 months have passed since that bill passed the House, and Chairman Wyden has shown zero interest in moving this bill through the Finance Committee and across the floor of the U.S. Senate, giving all Senators a chance to participate in the process and hopefully improve the final outcome. In fact, the chairman has refused to schedule a hearing or even a markup, as I mentioned, and has rejected commonsense proposals by Ranking Member Mike Crapo and Senate Republicans. Earlier this week, the majority leader virtually guaranteed that the bill will not go through the regular order in the Senate. He took a procedural step to put this bill on the fast track for a vote here on the Senate floor, without any opportunity for the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over tax matters, to engage--no hearing, no markup, just ``take it or leave it.'' Well, I have reviewed this bill, and while I will concede that there are some portions that are very promising, there are problematic areas that need more work. For example, this bill aims to incentivize research and development here at home by easing the tax burden on America's innovators. Cutting-edge research and development is absolutely critical to our competitiveness, and Congress needs to promote new investments in the capabilities that will propel our economy and our national security into the future. This legislation, to its credit, restores full and immediate expensing for equipment and machinery purchases, which will enable small businesses to make new investments in their business and boost domestic manufacturing. I have spoken to a number of my small business constituents in Texas about the need for these types of reforms, and the House-passed bill is a great starting point for a full debate here in the Senate. I believe there is a lot of potential here, but I share Ranking Member Crapo's concerns about some of the remaining provisions in the bill. One example is the watered-down work requirement for the child tax credit. Under the proposed change, parents with zero earnings would still be eligible for a government check. In other words, historically, tax credits have been tied to work and have been a credit against taxes that you would otherwise owe. But a refundable tax credit is merely a check from the Federal Government, regardless of whether you worked or created any income whatsoever. Under the proposal by Chairman Wyden and Chairman Smith, as long as a person worked during one of the last 2 years--one of the last 2 years-- they would be eligible for the child tax credit. As I said, historically, the child tax credit has been tied to work. I would think we would want able-bodied people to be working, if work is available. But this change would completely undermine that basic principle. When the Joint Committee on Taxation analyzed this bill, they found that the expanded child tax credit would cost more than $33 billion over the next 3 years. You heard my colleague--our colleague--Senator Rand Paul talk about the fact that our national debt is approaching $35 billion. This would add another $33 billion to that. And despite what the authors of this proposal have said, the vast majority of that cost is not due to tax relief. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 91 percent of the cost of this legislation is spending. It is writing a check. It may be called a tax credit, but really it is a welfare payment. It is a transfer payment. Mr. President, 91 percent of the money will be sent as a check to people with zero tax liability because they have insufficient income to cause them to have any kind of tax liability. So it is not a credit against earnings or work; it is essentially a welfare check. Only 9 percent of that $33 billion cost is true relief for hard- working taxpayers with children. The rest is a new welfare program by another name. And it is not limited to the 3 years of the R&D tax credit and the expensing of interest; it is permanent. And I have every confidence that our colleagues across the aisle will come back for another bite at the apple. We would be doing a great disservice to taxpayers by allowing the child tax credit to morph into another welfare program. We should not set the stage for it to become a permanent fixture of entitlement spending. Again, you heard our colleague from Kentucky talk the fact that the money that we are appropriating here today and that we did a couple of weeks ago--this is only about a third of what the Federal Government spends. The rest of it is on autopilot. It is mandatory spending. We don't even vote to appropriate that money; it is automatic. Proponents of this tax bill want us to add another $33 billion over 3 years to that number. The truth is, when it comes to the discretionary spending, the money we appropriate, we have done a much better job controlling the rate of increase of that spending, but right now, entitlement programs grow at 6, 7, 8 percent a year. That is one reason why our national debt is approaching $35 trillion. Well, supporters of this proposal have tried to downplay concerns about the cost of the bill because they say: It is only a temporary change. Well, that reminds me of Ronald Reagan's observation that the closest thing to eternal life on Earth is a temporary government program. There is no such thing as temporary around here. People come back either to reauthorize it or to extend it or to grow it. Once created, it doesn't go away. As soon as the temporary change expires, supporters will argue it has to be extended. They will frame anyone who opposes another extension as trying to increase taxes on hard-working families. Well, as I said and as the Senator from Kentucky said, our national debt is currently $34.5 trillion. A lot of that was money we spent during the COVID pandemic trying to deal with the public health crisis and the economic crisis caused by that virus. We did whatever we had to do to make our way through that, but in doing so, we added a lot of money to the national debt. We should not continue that. The national debt is increasing by almost $1 trillion every 100 days, and the permanent tax credit expansion would only fuel the debt crisis we are facing. Someday--someday--there will be a terrible crisis as a result of the trending national debt. Already you are hearing we are spending more money this year on interest on the national debt than we are on our own defense. Well, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, this child tax credit expansion would cost $180 billion over the next 10 years. We need to pump the brakes on this expansion, this runaway debt train, not stomp on the accelerator, which is what this proposal would do. Mandatory spending already represents nearly two-thirds of Federal spending, and a permanent child tax credit expansion would drive that number even higher. That is just one of the concerns that I and many of my Republican colleagues have with this legislation. Over the last several weeks, as we have been able to analyze the text of the bill, even other concerns, more concerns, have come to light. This legislation would have major impact on families and job creators across the country. We need to be careful, we need to be deliberate, and we need to make sure we understand what the impact of this legislation would be before a vote on the Senate floor, which is the reason why committees like the Finance Committee exist. Getting it right is far more important than doing it fast. If Chairman Wyden's goal is to build consensus, which is the way we do things around here, he can't shut everybody else out of the process. I understand building consensus in a diverse body like this is not easy--it is hard--and I think some people are positively allergic to the difficulty of that job. But that is the way we govern. That is the way the Senate operates. We need an open forum to debate this bill and make changes at the committee level, and I am disappointed that the chairman of the Finance Committee himself has refused to do so. Just as our counterparts in the House had their chance to evaluate this legislation and make improvements at the committee level, Senate tax writers need to have the same opportunity. As each of our colleagues knows, Congress has developed a very bad habit of abandoning the procedures that were designed to give every single Senator a voice in the legislative process. For too long now, we have had bills cooked up behind closed doors and plopped here on the Senate floor, facing another deadline, another cliff, and being told: You have no choice. You can't change it. All you can do is vote up or down or else there will be dire consequences, like a shutdown. Committees have been sidelined, and we have moved toward a process in which a small number of Members make decisions and try to bully or threaten everyone into voting yes. Well, I can tell you that I, for one--and I know I am not the only one--am tired of being cut out of the process and being treated like a potted plant. That cannot happen with this bill, so I will not vote to move this bill on the Senate floor until we have a process that allows all Senators to participate but starting with members of the Senate Finance Committee. I hope my Republican colleagues will join me in requesting that the Finance Committee be given an opportunity to do its job. Until that time, I hope there are 41 Senators who will deny the majority leader's request that we proceed to consider this legislation after bypassing the Finance Committee process. But once we do that, the majority leader must allow a robust floor debate and amendment process. That is what we do. That is our job. All Senators deserve a chance to participate, as I said, first in the committee and then on the floor. Many supporters of this bill are pushing for a truncated process in the Senate because the tax season is already well underway. They suggested that the Senate should just abdicate its job and rush to get the bill done. But, as our colleagues know, the tax season began before this bill even passed the House, and the chairman of the Finance Committee completely undermined the urgency argument by sitting on this bill for the last 2 months. The majority leader and the chairman of the Finance Committee want to ram this bill through the Senate without proper debate or amendment, and Republicans must not allow that to happen. The way we gain leverage and force a negotiation rather than being run over and treated as a mere speed bump is for 41 Senators to stick together to deny cloture on a motion to proceed. Members deserve the chance to shape a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the floor, and I urge Chairman Wyden and Leader Schumer to give us that opportunity. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, following Hamas's brutal attack against Israel on October 7, some 5 months ago, Republicans and Democrats came together, along with the President of the United States, and declared our support for Israel. We all condemned the Hamas terrorists, as well as Iran, which is the main support for this proxy of the number one state sponsor of international terrorism. We all watched in horror at the videos we saw of Hamas attacking innocent men, women, and children, and we all vowed to stand in solidarity with Israel as they did whatever they needed to do to defeat this evil. As time passed, it seems like the roar of support among some of our friends across the aisle, including the Senate majority leader, has softened, to say the least. Some of our colleagues have even gone so far as to cast blame on Israel for the violence that is unfolding in the Middle East. They are blaming the victim, not the perpetrator. More than two dozen Senate Democrats have even joined with liberal activists to demand a cease-fire. The quickest way to a cease-fire is for Hamas to lay down its weapons, but we know they are not going to do that because they are committed to the eradication of the State of Israel. ``Wipe them off the face of the planet'' is their goal. This once rock-solid support on a bipartisan basis has slowly eroded, and it reached a new low last week when the Senate majority leader came to the floor to excoriate not Hamas, not Iran, but Israel and its leadership. Israel, we know, is our single closest friend and ally in the Middle East, one of the very few democracies. Yes, they have messy politics. By the way, we have messy politics, too, here in this country, but we respect--we should respect--the sovereignty of that nation and their ability to make hard decisions on their own behalf without being lectured by the President of the United States and by the Senate majority leader. The majority leader criticized Israel's response to the October 7 attack. He condemned Prime Minister Netanyahu's leadership, and he called--get this--he called for an election in Israel to replace him. In my time in the U.S. Senate, I have never seen anything quite like this. The majority leader's comments mark a sharp departure from his previous stance solidly in support of Israel. And, unfortunately, I presume for political reasons, he has decided to undermine our support on a bipartisan basis for Israel and to make it a partisan issue and to attack the leader of a sovereign ally and one dealing with the horrific aftermath of a terrorist attack. Can you imagine, in the wake of 9/11, if our closest allies had called upon the American people to change our President to align with their political preferences? We would have been insulted. We would have been offended and completely outraged. The suggestion that the leader in a foreign country knows the needs of a country better than its own citizens is appalling. On top of that, it undermines Israel's most critical job at this moment, which is to eliminate the terrorist threat against its own people. This is not like al-Qaida, thousands of miles away across an ocean. This is in the backyard of Israel. By browbeating Israel and criticizing its leaders, the majority leader has undermined the trust and confidence Israel needs in our commitment to continue to help them complete this job of eliminating the terrorist threat. Yes, innocent people are getting hurt, but that is not the fault of the victim. That is the fault of the perpetrator of this violence. And, yes, maybe some of us would like to see different tactics chosen on the battlefield, but that is not our call. We have to trust our friend and ally Israel to make the best decisions in defense of its own sovereignty and its own existence. And, yes, we can all have private opinions about how they are going about it. But the truth is America's role in this conflict should not be confused. We should not be saying: Well, on one hand, we support Israel. On the other hand, we think they are being too tough on Hamas. We need to support our closest friend and ally in the region. It is just that simple. It is the choice between good and evil. If you watch the videos of Hamas's attack against Israeli civilians on October 7--as I know the Presiding Officer has, and all of us have been exposed to it--you will recoil in horror as babies are killed, where women are sexually assaulted. I, actually, for the first time in my life, saw a video of a Hamas terrorist behead an innocent Israeli civilian--behead. That is what we are dealing with. That is what Israel is dealing with. There should not be confusion. We should be approaching this with complete clarity. For those of us who said we stand with Israel, we ought to lock arms on a bipartisan basis and reaffirm their right to exist and their right to make choices for their nation and their people, and we ought to support them as they go through what has to be a horrible experience for Israel. It is not just Hamas. Again, as the Presiding Officer knows and we know, in Lebanon, in the northern part of Israel, Hezbollah--another proxy for Iran--is shooting into Israel and attacking Israeli Defense Forces. We know that Houthi rebels in Yemen are also supported by Iran. Iran is the octopus. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis are the tentacles or the proxies they use to do their evil. Then there are the Shia militias who have attacked American troops hundreds of times in Iraq and Syria. There should not be any confusion about this. There is the right side and the wrong side. There is the good, and there is the evil. America stands with Israel. The vast majority of Americans feel exactly as I do. We should trust the people of Israel to make decisions, certainly, about their own leaders. I mean, we don't like it when foreign countries try to interfere with our elections. What is the speech of the majority leader but an attempt by a leader of a foreign government to interfere with their elections? We need to maintain our position that Israel has a right to defend itself against Hamas, against Hezbollah, against any Iranian proxy or any entity or country or group that wants to destroy the Jewish State. So I regret the fact that this has become, it seems, like a partisan issue. This is the last thing that our Israeli friends and allies would want. They don't want this to be partisan politics because we know what happens here when things become partisan. One side supports an action, and the other side reflexively opposes that action. We can't afford to play politics with the U.S.-Israel alliance. Our support for Israel must remain unwavering regardless of whom they choose for their own leaders. We must support democracy. We must support sovereignty. We must support the enduring bond and the common values shared between our two countries. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the weekend, the Russian Federation held a Presidential election. And surprise, surprise, officials declared a landslide victory for President Vladimir Putin. By their account, Putin won a fifth term in office with a whopping 87 percent of the vote--the highest level of support in any previous elections. This reminded me of a story--I think maybe true, maybe apocryphal--of a reporter who was traveling with a driver in Iraq in the run-up to the Iraq war. And as was typically the case in dictatorships, the report was that Saddam Hussein won 100 percent of the vote. And the reporter asked the driver, he said: Well, you have been with me; clearly, you haven't been able to go and cast your ballot. To which the driver responded: Well, I guess Saddam knew what was in my heart. As implausible as that result was and as implausible as this result is, it is entirely predictable. After all, elections in Russia are unlike elections here in the United States or any other democracy. In Russia, elections are carefully orchestrated by the Kremlin. The candidates are hand-selected. The results are predetermined. And the opportunity for change is nonexistent. In short: Russia's elections are a sham. They are neither free nor fair, and it is no surprise that Vladimir Putin will continue to lead the corrupt and morally bankrupt Kremlin. The result of this election was always guaranteed. And the only real question is: What comes next? What, if anything, will change with the start of Putin's new term in office? Well, there is widespread speculation this could signal the beginning of a new military mobilization into Ukraine. The Kremlin has made a habit out of rolling out unpopular policies in the period after a Presidential election. Following 2018, for example, the Kremlin raised the retirement age--a move that was deeply unpopular among the Russian people. Putin even alluded to this new strategy when speaking to reporters in Moscow. He said: All the plans we have created to develop Russia will certainly be carried out and their goals achieved. He added: We have come up with grandiose plans and will do everything to carry them out. Well, this should be an additional warning sign that cannot be ignored by the United States or our allies. We are at a critical juncture in Russia's war against Ukraine, and more support is desperately needed. It is in America's national security interest to help Ukraine because Vladimir Putin will not stop in Ukraine, just as he did not stop with the invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014. He will keep coming and coming and coming. And he doesn't have very far to go after Ukraine to encounter NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. And we have a treaty obligation with those countries under article 5 to come to the defense of any one of those countries that are attacked. So this is very close and near and dear to the United States' national security interests. Over the past few months, the United States has provided Ukraine with unprecedented defense aid: Javelins, Stingers, grenade launchers, small arms, ammunition, and more. A few weeks ago, the Senate passed a security supplemental that, among other things, provided additional support for Ukraine as it battles Russian forces. That legislation passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. But it awaits action in the House of Representatives. The Senate, as we know, is not a rubberstamp for the House, and the House is not a rubberstamp for the Senate. Neither Chamber is under any obligation to take up bills that originated in the other Chamber and pass them as is. But we also have a duty to address the biggest threats that our country is facing--one posed by Russia's aggression in Ukraine and in Europe, generally. I am glad that our friends in the House are working on their own security supplemental. I appreciate the comments being made by the Speaker that we will not leave Ukraine hanging out to dry. We know that the House is working on ideas that include a number of policies that were not part of the Senate's legislation. One of them is called the REPO Act--REPO for Ukrainians Act--which would repurpose seized Russian assets to help finance aid for Ukraine. It would shift some of the financial burden of supporting Ukraine from U.S. taxpayers to Putin and the Russian oligarchs, whose assets have been seized. This is a bipartisan bill introduced by Senator Risch, the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; and it has been cosponsored by a quarter of all Senators, myself included. Now, the House version of the bill was introduced by my friend and fellow Texan, Chairman Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee. And it has more than 75 bipartisan cosponsors. This is a smart and effective way to continue supporting Ukraine without sticking American taxpayers with the bill. I am disappointed that these measures weren't included in the Senate supplemental, but I hope our colleagues in the House will pass this bill--the REPO Act--as part of their security supplemental. I am also encouraged to hear that the House is likely to include language to extend the lend-lease authority. This authority was created, as pertains to Ukraine, by legislation I introduced with Senator Cardin, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act, which became the law nearly 2 years ago. It was rooted in the same principle as President Roosevelt's Lend- Lease Act in World War II, which allowed the United States to supply Great Britain and other allies with military resources. President Roosevelt recognized how critical it was to support Great Britain, which lacked what it needed to protect its people and to fend off German aggression. He famously vowed to transform the United States into the arsenal of democracy and worked with Congress to get the Lend- Lease Act passed to achieve that goal. The original Lend-Lease Act was signed into law in March of 1941 and allowed the United States to supply its allies with resources at a critical moment during World War II. Later that year, Winston Churchill said the bill ``must be regarded without question as the most unsordid act in the whole of recorded history.'' The circumstances we find ourselves in today are not the equal of March 1941, thank goodness. But they could be. In fact, the circumstances today look eerily similar to the circumstances in 1939 when Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia for many of the similar reasons that Putin claims he has a right to invade Ukraine. If the world had stood up to Germany then, we may have avoided global calamity and prevented the loss of millions of innocent lives. The lessons of the past must inform the present. And I believe we have a duty to exercise our role--America's unique role--as the arsenal of democracy to help Ukraine defend its sovereignty and to prevent further spread of military aggression and Russian desires to restore the Soviet Union, which is what Vladimir Putin said: The failure of the Soviet Union in 1991 was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the last 100 years. You know, I have thought about that and contrasted that statement with the fact that Russia lost between 20 and 30 million people in World War II. Putin says the failure of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical tragedy in the last 100 years; and he must mean a greater tragedy than the loss of 20 to 30 million Russians. That is how he thinks. And he wants to restore that golden age for the Soviet Union. And so he will not stop with Ukraine. Given the aid provided by Congress over the past couple of years, the Biden administration hasn't relied on the lend-lease authority to aid Ukraine, but that doesn't mean it isn't needed now. Ukraine is willing to fight. President Zelenskyy is willing to lead the Ukrainian people in that fight. But it needs additional assistance from the United States and our NATO allies to fend off this Russian invasion. Ukraine's arsenal is shrinking by the day. It is rationing its artillery shells and its other ammunition, and it has asked the United States for additional help. Now, there are different points of view, but there is broad bipartisan agreement that America should continue to support Ukraine. But there is also a growing concern over the cost of that assistance. I understand that. That is a concern that I share, which is why I introduced the modern Lend-Lease Act in the first place. Because lend- lease is not a blank check, it gives the administration the option to lease or rent defense articles to Ukraine. It would allow us to answer Ukraine's call to provide more of what they need and ensure it is done in a more fiscally responsible way. The weapons the United States and our allies have provided thus far have allowed Ukraine to punch above its weight against the Russian Army. But one thing the Russian Army is capable of doing is to engage in a war of attrition, simply to wear down the opposition, both militarily and politically. But Ukraine has punched above its weight against the Russian Army, but it can't do so without ammunition and without defense articles. Additional American assistance is vital to Ukraine's success in this war, and we need to reauthorize the lend-lease authority as soon as possible. This legislation was attempted to be added to our security supplemental, and, for some reason, it didn't make the cut. But I hope now that our colleagues in the House will pass a security bill that includes both the lend-lease extension and the REPO Act and send that bill back here to the Senate without further delay. The future of Ukraine is at stake, but that is not all. The rest of the world is watching to see how the United States and our NATO allies respond to a power-hungry dictator. If the United States fails to support Ukraine in this pivotal moment, other authoritarian governments will take note. America's response to this war will likely affect Iran's calculations when it comes to Israel and its other proxies that it supports throughout the Middle East, being the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. And it will also figure into China's calculations when it comes to Taiwan. If they see the United States respond with passivity, they can expect to be met with the same level of weakness when these other autocrats and dictators act. We cannot allow America's global leadership to be diminished in this way because it is dangerous. This isn't a status symbol or something that we want to be able to brag about. This is about our own safety and our own national security, and that comes from strength. As Ronald Reagan said, peace comes through strength. The tyrants and the madmen around the world must see the United States and our allies with strength, and a strong security supplemental is one key to demonstrating that strength and that commitment. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I was shocked to hear the comments of the Senate majority leader this morning excoriating our closest ally, the only democracy in the Middle East. You know, we don't appreciate it when other countries tell us how we ought to govern our country. I am sure that feeling is reciprocated by our Israeli allies. Here is what the former Ambassador of Israel said on social media: Regardless of my opinion of Netanyahu and his fitness to serve, Senator Schumer's call for new Israeli elections is deeply disrespectful of our democracy and sovereignty. Israel is an ally, not a vassal state. Along with the U.S., we're one of the few countries [that have never] known a non- democratic government, and the only democracy never to have known a moment of peace. We [certainly] deserve that respect. I think Ambassador Oren is exactly right. The majority leader's speech this morning was deeply disrespectful of our ally, which is, indeed, as I said, a sovereign nation and a democracy. I traveled to Israel and Saudi Arabia and Jordan in January with five other members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. We met in Jordan and then in Saudi Arabia with Mohammed bin Salman and then with Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Defense Minister Gallant in Israel. Of course, war involves collateral damages to innocent people. But the people responsible for initiating that war in Israel was Hamas, a proxy of the Iranian regime--one of many. And for somehow to say now, 5 months after that horrible attack on October 7, that Israel ought to stay its hand and allow Hamas potentially to reconstitute in Gaza is not only deeply disrespectful, it undermines the ability of the Israelis to do what they must do, which is destroy that threat. I know 3 months after the attack on October 7, when I was in Israel, when I heard some of my colleagues say we need to have a cease-fire-- well, I know if Hamas had not started the shooting, that Israel would not have started and we would not find ourselves with all of these casualties on both sides. But we know that Iran is the head of the octopus and the tentacles reach far and wide. We all learned more about world geography and how the world works in recent years since America--we thought we were safe on our own continent, and we had an ocean to protect us on each side. But 9/11 was a reminder that not even Americans are safe from the hand of terrorists. And Iran is the No. 1 state sponsor of terror--no doubt about it. They sponsor the Houthis in Yemen. They help Shia militias in Iraq and Syria. They help Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon on the northern border. Israel is under attack by people who want to wipe that country and those people off the face of the Earth. Of course, they have a right to defend themselves. Of course, they need to eliminate the terrorist threat that killed so many innocent civilians on October 7. And so for the majority leader to come here and say, ostensibly as a supporter of Israel, that we don't like the current government; that the Israeli people need new elections and to select new leaders; and oh, by the way, you need to quit being so tough on the terrorists known as Hamas--it is shocking to me. We need to stand with Israel. They need to be able to finish the job, not because they want to, but because they must in order to continue to exist.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Cruz for his leadership on this legislation, which I am, of course, proud to cosponsor. We represent a booming State. We represent in excess of 30 million people, and because of geopolitical shifts of manufacturing from China back to near shore or places like Mexico, thanks to the USMCA--the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement--we are mutually dependent with Mexico and Canada for trade, which creates millions of jobs right here in America, and principally in Texas. The first time I went to Lubbock, TX, when I ran for statewide office, a former Congressman, Randy Neugebauer, before he was a Member of Congress, said: There are three things you need to remember about Lubbock, TX: cotton, Texas Tech University, and ports to plains. It was that important back then, and it is even more important today. So the ports-to-plains system, as Senator Cruz pointed out, is a 963- mile transportation corridor. And building on the success we had in passing a bill to designate the Ports-to-Plains Corridor in Texas and New Mexico as an interstate, this I-27 Numbering Act does exactly that. I look forward to seeing the Ports-to-Plains Corridor fuel more trade, more jobs, more energy security, and agricultural production for years to come.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as my colleague from West Virginia has noted, and as the Nation knows--the world knows--President Biden will deliver his third, perhaps final, State of the Union address tonight. Obviously, the border is a major issue confronting the Nation, and I have to say that, coming from Texas with the 1,200 mile common border with Mexico, Washington has just recently acknowledged--the President has just recently acknowledged something that we have known has been a problem for a long, long time without really any help to deal with this flood of humanity and drugs across our southwestern border. I expect that President Biden will do as he always does--blame somebody else for this problem, even though he has had the same tools that President Trump has had with which to deal with it from the day he stepped into the Oval Office. The American people are pretty smart and they are pretty perceptive and they understand that the crisis at our border is a man-made crisis, and that man is President Biden. He has opted, rather than secure the border, to issue dozens of Executive orders dismantling piece by piece the border security protections that President Trump had put in place, things like the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy where people who would otherwise be released into the interior of the United States would have to remain in Mexico while their asylum claims have been determined. Under President Biden, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has encountered nearly 7 million migrants. I have heard numbers as high as 9 million. The truth is we don't really have an accurate number because it is virtually uncontrolled, but we know that it is more than the past two administrations combined. In 3 years, President Biden has allowed more illegal migrant encounters across the border than in 12 years of President Obama's term and President Trump's. Well, you would think, with President Biden knowing he has a huge political liability, that he would seek advice from the experts. But former U.S. Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz said that President Biden and Vice President Harris never even spoke to him during his time in office. This is the man, the expert, who is in charge of the border for the U.S. Government, and the President and the Vice President didn't even speak to him. Well, because of the welcome mat that has been laid out by the Biden administration, border officials are preparing for yet another spike in the record levels of migration. The Biden administration is under fire for reports that it flew 320,000 migrants from foreign countries directly into the United States without vetting them first. Words fail to describe the unprecedented nature of this crisis. It is so bad, I keep asking myself: What is it going to take before the President wakes up? Mr. President, 7 to 9 million illegal entries into the country; 300,000 children placed with sponsors in the interior of the country and, as the New York Times noted, many of them forced into involuntary labor. And then when wellness checks were made to see where these children are after they are placed with these sponsors, in the case of the New York Times, they said that ``85,000 of those sponsors didn't even answer the phone or the door.'' So we don't know what happened to those children, those 300,000 children. And then there are the drugs that flow across the border when the Border Patrol is overwhelmed with mass numbers of migrants. Well, here is another problem. Those who are old enough to remember September 11, 2001, when 19 Saudi nationals flew two planes into the World Trade Center and crashed another one at the Pentagon--19. Four nationals killed 3,000 Americans that day. So far this year, the Border Patrol has apprehended--apprehended--169 individuals who were on the Terror Watchlist. So far this fiscal year, they have apprehended 49. But here is what should keep all of us awake at night: approximately 1.7 million ``got-aways.'' In other words, a large number of these migrants turn themselves in knowing they are going to be released, and that is the easiest way to make it into the United States and probably end up staying for the rest of your life. But 1.7 million people who came across the border evaded law enforcement. They call those ``got-aways,'' people caught on cameras or some sensor. How many more people on the Terror Watchlist were among those 1.7 million ``got-aways''? It should alarm all of us to think about those who made it into this country who have not yet been caught. Then there are the drugs. Last year, 108,000 Americans died of drug overdoses, 71,000 of those from fentanyl poisoning. Last week, the Border Patrol seized 2,800 pounds of meth, fentanyl, and heroin. That is great, but how many more of those drugs have made their way into the United States undetected? That is $12 million worth of narcotics in just 1 week. Of course, who is reaping the benefits of the current border policies? It is the drug cartels. It is the smuggling networks. They continue to get richer and richer and more powerful. Over the weekend, Border Patrol arrested six sexual predators who were illegally crossing the border. Again, we don't know how many more were among the ``got-aways'' I mentioned earlier. This follows a nationwide law enforcement effort last month where U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement apprehended 275 known sex offenders who had entered the country illegally. All this while the country continues to mourn the death of 22-year- old nursing student Laken Riley. As we all know by now, she was killed while jogging in broad daylight on the campus of the University of Georgia. Jose Antonio Ibarra, a 26-year-old Venezuela national who entered the United States illegally and was released by the Biden administration, has been charged with her murder. This week, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was asked if President Biden plans to address Laken's death during his State of the Union speech. She said she had nothing to share on that topic. If the Biden administration had not abused the parole system--that means the catch-and-release by which individuals like Mr. Ibarra were simply released into the interior of the United States--Laken's death might have been prevented. But President Biden has no plans to even acknowledge her death, let alone take responsibility for it. In the last 3 years, I have spoken on the floor of the Senate about these issues more times than I can count because Texas is on the frontline but with precious little assistance from the Federal Government. That is why Governor Greg Abbott has used the National Guard and the Department of Public Safety to do what the Federal Government should have already been doing, and that is to provide security for our border. This is one of the most urgent catastrophes of our time, and it is a huge political liability for the President and his party because they have been watching this catastrophe get worse and worse and worse and done next to nothing about it. We reached a breaking point a long time ago, and now every State is paying the price for President Biden's failed policies, from Texas all the way to New York. As long as the President refuses to do his job and enforce the laws already on the books, deadly drugs will continue to flow into our communities, dangerous criminals will threaten our citizenry, and many more lives will be lost. I hope the President accepts responsibility for what has happened the last 3 years, and I hope his remarks reflect the urgency of this crisis that he created, but the truth is, I won't be holding my breath. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, last year the Center for Missing & Exploited Children received 32 million--32 million--reports of suspected child sexual exploitation. As we are demonstrating here on a bipartisan basis, the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by the Senator from Illinois, passed six bipartisan bills that aim to protect those children, and you have heard of some of them. Two of the bills have already passed the Senate, including my Project Safe Childhood Act. Four others still need to pass, including the SHIELD Act, which Senator from Iowa just mentioned, which I introduced with Senator Klobuchar, from Minnesota, to ensure that criminals who share explicit photos of children online are held accountable. Children are our Nation's most valuable resource, and yet we neglect them far too often when they fall prey to predators on line and in our streets. But we need to move on these bills. It is not enough for us to pat ourselves on the back and say the Judiciary Committee did its job on a bipartisan basis. We need these bills to be taken up, passed, and sent to the President of the United States without further delay. I want to thank Senator Graham for his leadership on this issue, and I hope the Senate can finally advance these bills.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, yesterday, my good friend Leader McConnell shared some big news. At the end of this year, he will step down as the Republican leader of the U.S. Senate after having served the longest tenure of any leader in Senate history. For more than 17 years, he has been the steady hand at the helm, guiding us through some of the most consequential debates in recent history. He steered us through multiple wars, through a pandemic and countless high-stakes political battles under four different Presidents. Under his leadership, Congress rewrote the Federal Tax Code to help families across the country, unleashed American-generated power, and reshaped the Federal judiciary for a generation--and so much more. It has been an honor to serve alongside Leader McConnell and witness a modern-day ``Master of the Senate.'' I will have more to say about our friend from Kentucky at a later date, but the good news is he is not going anywhere. Senator McConnell will lead our conference through the end of this Congress, but he will remain in the Senate through the rest of his term. During that time, he will do as he has always done: represent the State of Kentucky and put his expert knowledge of this Chamber to use on their behalf. For now, let me just say thanks to Leader McConnell for everything he has done for this body and our great country.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, tomorrow President Biden will do something he has done only once before in his term as President of the United States, he will travel to the U.S.-Mexico border to Brownsville, TX, in an attempt to address his biggest political liability. Since the President took office 3 years ago, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has logged more than 7.2 million migrant encounters at the southern border. By that, we mean people who have shown up at the border and, by and large, have simply been released into the interior based on an initial claim of asylum which has yet to be put in front of an immigration judge. And it may be as long as, in places like New York, 10 years in the future before they ever get in front of an immigration judge; or, as we have seen tragically here most recently, these migrants will be paroled or simply released into the interior of the country--even without a claim of asylum--given a work permit, and stay here indefinitely. Mr. President, 7.2 million is higher than the total number of migrants who came across the southern border under President Obama, who served 8 years, and President Trump, who served 4 years. So the Biden administration has done in 3 years what it took 12 years for the two previous administrations to accomplish. We have experienced more illegal immigration in the last 3 years than in the last 12. The American people have become increasingly concerned at the southern border because they see with their own eyes that this is a humanitarian crisis, and it is a public safety crisis. And they overwhelmingly--and quite appropriately--blame Biden administration policies and the President himself. They see that his policies and his rhetoric, rather than deter illegal immigration, have actually encouraged it. Let me say that again: They understand that the policies of this administration and the rhetoric that has been used are the driving force behind America's most serious border crisis in history. But, as usual, the President refuses to accept any responsibility. He has tried to blame everybody but himself. He has blamed congressional dysfunction. He has blamed MAGA Republicans. He has blamed anybody and everybody that he can possibly think of, rather than accept responsibility himself. Not only that, he has, at different times, claimed that he lacks the tools to fix this crisis. At different times, he has claimed that his hands are tied unless Congress passes new laws. The problem with that storyline, that narrative, is the facts simply don't support it. For one, the suggestion that only Congress can fix the crisis implies that Congress created the crisis. I would point out the same laws that were in effect during President Trump's administration are still in effect during President Biden's administration with far different outcomes. As each of our colleagues knows, Congress has struggled to pass any immigration laws in recent years; and, certainly, it has not passed any that would cause the dramatic surge in immigration that began the day that President Biden took office. The President was dealt exactly the same hand as his recent predecessors. The only difference is he used these authorities entirely differently and sent an entirely different message. As I have spoken before on the floor, the Border Patrol, which are the experts on border security, tell me that there are two main drivers of illegal immigration: One is push factors, they call it--poverty, violence, a desire for a better life. And we understand that. America is a nation of immigrants, of legal immigrants. But there is also the pull factors, like a magnet encouraging people to make the dangerous journey to our border, even in the form of unaccompanied children designed to exploit gaps in Biden administration policies and permanently reside in the United States. Earlier this week, I was surprised by a New York Times article that acknowledged the fundamental hypocrisy behind President Biden's efforts to shift the blame once again. This is a quote from February 26, 2024, the New York Times. David Leonhardt is the columnist. He said, in part: Biden is the president, after all, and a president has significant authority to shape immigration policy even without new legislation. Biden himself has been aggressive about using this authority--albeit to loosen immigration policy rather than tighten it. So the current phenomenon, this crisis--humanitarian and public safety crisis--is as a result of President Biden's own policies. It is not the laws that are broken or inadequate; it is his will to actually enforce the law and his active encouragement for people to come to the border because they know they will successfully be able to stay in the United States. I have mentioned before about a trip that several of us colleagues on a bipartisan basis went to Yuma, AZ, a little sleepy agricultural community in southwest Arizona right across the border from Mexico. The Border Patrol Chief said: Welcome to the Yuma sector. Last year we welcomed people from 140-plus countries--not Mexico, not Central America, but from 140-plus countries that speak more than 200 languages. Senator Kelly, our colleague from Arizona, pointed out that there was an airport in northern Mexico, in Mexicali--which is a fairly large city in northern Mexico--and, apparently, what happens is people fly into Mexicali and literally Uber over to the Border Patrol and declare amnesty--well, declare ``asylum'' is the right word. Well, I know the President will have a hard time with this, his second drive-by of the American-Mexico border during his term as President, but, of course, his goal is to try to shift the blame once again. As this journalist wrote, President Biden is the President. He wanted to be President. He got elected President. He ought to do the job that Presidents do, which is to enforce the laws. That is what the executive branch of government does: Congress passes laws. The judicial branch decides disputes about those laws as applied to given facts, but it is the President and the executive branch--the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security--that are responsible under our constitutional order for actually enforcing the law. And what has President Biden done with that authority? He has loosened immigration policy rather than tightened it. This is what I have been saying for 3 years; and, even now, I can't tell you how surprised and pleased I am to see this stated in the New York Times. But President Biden could listen to Mayor Adams, the mayor of New York City. He has said: This has been a disaster for New York. You hear the similar complaints from people like the Mayor of Washington, DC, the mayor of Chicago. These are self-styled sanctuary cities that you think would welcome these migrants, but they have been overwhelmed. Well, what about 7.2 million that are showing up on our back doorstep in Texas? It is hard to have much sympathy for the mayors of New York and Chicago and Washington, DC, when they have dealt with just a fraction of the numbers that we have had to deal with in Texas without any help from the Federal Government. And the Federal Government has been actively undermining efforts by the State of Texas to reduce illegal immigration. During his first few days in office, President Biden signed a raft of Executive orders related to immigration and border security: He halted construction of the border wall. He dismantled the agreement we had with Mexico that migrants could remain in Mexico while they waited for their asylum claim to be adjudicated. But he ripped that up too. He ended an asylum agreement with Northern Triangle countries and even issued a 100-day pause on deportations. So even if you were here illegally, you knew, at least for 100 days--and very likely for the rest of your life--that you would not be deported because of President Biden's policies. These are just a few examples of the Executive orders President Biden issued within days of taking office. In the 3 years since, he and other leaders in the administration have gone to great lengths to roll out the welcome mat. One of the most egregious examples is the administration's widespread use of parole. Parole, in this context, means that is a temporary entry for foreigners under rare and dire circumstances. It was never meant to be used categorically or in a blanket fashion as the Biden administration has done. It is meant to be used on a case-by-case basis in extreme cases--someone experiencing a medical emergency at a port of entry; somebody is donating a kidney or serving as a witness in a trial. It was meant to be used on a case-by-case basis which, by nature, gives the administration a good amount of discretion. But to provide some comparison, during the two previous administrations, an average of 5,600 migrants were paroled into the United States each year--5,600. Once President Biden took office, that number skyrocketed. The Biden administration has used parole to facilitate catch-and- release at the border at an unprecedented pace, but its use of parole extends beyond illegal crossings at the southern border. The Biden administration announced a new program which allows individuals from four countries--Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela--to enter and remain in the United States, all under the guise of parole. You don't need to claim asylum. If you can make it to the border, if you pay the smugglers enough money to get you there, you know you are going to be able to stay here. This program that the Biden administration set up intentionally and with great deliberation provides 2 years of legal status and work authorization to 30,000--30,000--migrants from these four countries each month. That is 360,000 a year. The Biden administration: Roll out the welcome mat. Give them a work permit. Say ``You can stay,'' knowing that they probably will be able to stay indefinitely. In total, the Biden administration has used its case-by-case parole authority to grant parole to 1.6 million migrants in less than 2 years--1.6 million. As President Biden has shown repeatedly, if you give him an inch, he will take a mile. Another example of gratuitous discretion came from Secretary Mayorkas, who has been impeached by the House of Representatives. Secretary Mayorkas issued a final directive for immigration enforcement priorities in the fall of 2021. This really should be called--instead of immigration enforcement priorities, this should be immigration nonenforcement priorities. That would be a more accurate title. But under this guidance--one headline summed up the contents rather succinctly. It said the ``U.S. Will No Longer Deport Illegal Immigrants Based on Undocumented Status Alone.'' We are not going to deport people who are illegally entering the country? What kind of message does that send? But the memo went on to explicitly discourage ICE officers. ICE is Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Once you get past the border, ICE is the one responsible for repatriating or returning people who are here illegally. This memo explicitly discouraged ICE officers from arresting or removing illegal immigrants unless they have been convicted of a serious crime. It defies all common sense to ask law enforcement officers, who take an oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States--it makes no sense to tell them at the same time to turn a blind eye when you encounter people who are here illegally just because the Biden administration doesn't want to enforce the law. Secretary Mayorkas went further. He laid out mitigating factors that should be considered before arresting or removing illegal immigrants, including their age, how long they have been in the United States, and the impact the removal would have on their family. Even in the case of an alien convicted of a very serious offense, like murder, like rape, receipt and possession of child pornography, ICE would have to consider these mitigating factors before they could take action and remove that person. The reality of the situation, no matter how inconvenient it may be for our Democratic colleagues, is that by entering the United States illegally, these migrants are breaking the law. There is nothing wrong with prioritizing the removal of the most dangerous criminals. Previous administrations have prioritized certain categories of illegal immigrants, like those suspected of terrorism or those who could be a threat to national security or public safety. But there is a difference between prioritizing certain groups for removal and exempting entire categories from enforcement. Given everything we have witnessed over the past 3 years, President Biden has no right--no right--to claim that his hands are tied when it comes to addressing the border crisis by Executive action. From day one, President Biden made clear that he was willing to use Executive action, as David Leonhardt notes here, but he did it to loosen illegal immigration, make it easier, not harder. He used Executive action to stop border wall construction, end the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy, halt deportations, exclude broad classes of migrants from removal, parole more than 1.6 million migrants into the United States, and so much more. So this is a crisis of President Biden's making. This is a manmade disaster, and that man is President of the United States. If the President believed that he had this much latitude to loosen immigration policy, he shouldn't feel constrained by Congress when it comes to tightening immigration policy. It would be good politics for him. I pointed out that this is a major political liability for the President going into an election. He could fix it, just like he broke it. Executive actions have been used in the past to address migration surges--and with a great deal of success. Back in 2005, then-DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that I serve on and spoke about the Department's response to a surge of migrants from Brazil. All of a sudden, a bunch of migrants from Brazil showed up at the border. But what did they do? What did the Bush administration do? They used their existing authorities to expand the use of expedited removal, which allows agents to quickly remove migrants who have no legal basis to remain in the United States. As Secretary Chertoff noted, word spread fast. After 30 days, the number of Brazilians dropped by more than 50 percent. After 60 days, it dropped more than 90 percent. President Biden can do precisely the same thing, but he won't do it. President Biden has the exact same authority to replicate that effort today. He could expand expedited removal, send a clear message that our southern border is no longer an open corridor. But, as Mr. Leonhardt points out, all the messages he is sending are ``You can come. You can stay.'' What more powerful magnet, what more powerful pull factor for illegal immigration can you imagine? As I pointed out time and time again, it is not just about illegal immigration; it is about the drugs, because the cartels have figured out that if you flood the border with people, you can overwhelm the Border Patrol. Many of them would have to leave the frontlines to process paperwork, provide transportation, food, shelter, clothing to migrants in order to treat them humanely while they are here, but they are not on the border. Last year alone, 108,000 Americans died from drugs that come across that border, 71,000 of them from fentanyl, the synthetic opioid pressed into counterfeit-looking pills that high school-age children are taking across the country, thinking that they are taking something relatively innocuous, but, in fact, it kills them. Fentanyl is the leading cause of death for young people between the ages of 18 and 45. We know where it comes from. It comes across that border. It is manufactured in Mexico from precursors shipped in from China. But that is part of the disaster that the Biden administration's open border policy has wrought--108,000 dead Americans last year alone. Well, news reports are that President Biden could announce new Executive actions on his trip to the border tomorrow. I am eager to see whether he will reverse course and issue an Executive order that will actually tighten the border or actually do his duty of securing the border or whether these are measures more designed to loosen immigration policy. Of course, I expect that the American people, being very smart, will understand why President Biden has chosen this time to take this trip-- the second driveby of the border since he has been President. It is all about the election in November, and he understands that this is a gaping political liability, and he is trying to plug that. Not only is he trying to plug that hole, he is also trying to blame others for his failure, and that will not work. The American people, being very smart and perceptive, can see through that smoke screen. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I yield 30 minutes of debate time to the manager.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, for the entirety of President Biden's term of office--for the last 3 years--my Republican colleagues and I have spoken out about the crisis on our southern border. Of course you can imagine, coming from a border State like Texas--we have 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico, and we are at the epicenter of this crisis. I can't tell you how many times I have come here and tried to convince my colleagues that we needed to do something in order to stop the flow of humanity coming across the border, along with the drugs, the criminals, the people on the Terrorist Watchlist--the whole enchilada. I explained that the recordbreaking number of illegal crossings was something that is not normal. This is an extraordinary and unprecedented wave of humanity coming across the border. It is making these criminal organizations that pay by the head--or get paid by the head for smuggling people to the border from around the world and the ones who smuggle the drugs that follow on closely behind fabulously wealthy. I have criticized the Biden administration's policies day in and day out because they send a clear signal to the migrants to keep on coming. In other words, the Border Patrol likes to talk about the push factors for immigration. Those are poverty, violence, things like that, a desire for a better life. They also talk about the pull factors and the Biden policies of releasing everybody who comes to the border illegally, either in claiming asylum or in granting them something called parole, which is 2 years in the country, plus a work permit. This is an enormous pull factor. It is like a giant magnet, telling people: Come to America. Forget illegal immigration. Forget the fact that people who come here legally have to wait in line and have to meet certain legal requirements. I want to make clear: America was built on legal immigration. Legal immigration has been one of the greatest blessings our country has ever encountered. No other country in the world is as generous as the United States of America when it comes to welcoming people from other countries. But we expect them to follow the rules, which allows us to control the numbers, which allows for the reasonable assimilation of those individuals because we want everybody not to be a hyphenated American but to be an American, and that means assimilation into our society. It also means keeping criminals out. It means keeping terrorists out. It means keeping the drugs out that come with illegal immigration. So the Biden policies have been a flashing green light and a welcome mat for people from around the world. There are as many as 300,000 a month now--unbelievable--and as many as 13,000 a day. Jeh Johnson, the former Secretary of Homeland Security under Barack Obama, said that 1,000 illegal border crossings a day was a real problem, and we are seeing 13,000 under President Biden. I have tried to share the stories of my visits to the border and what I have learned. In fact, Senator Cruz, my colleague from Texas, and I have hosted numerous Senators and asked them to come to the border so they can talk to the same people we have talked to--the Border Patrol, the nongovernmental organizations, the Federal Government employees, the community leaders--who are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of people showing up. It wasn't that long ago, in a little town of Del Rio, TX--population 35,000--that 15,000 migrants from Haiti showed up. Can you imagine the impact on that town of 35,000 people to have 15,000 people show up at the same time--people who needed food, shelter? They couldn't provide that sort of just simple necessity of life to these migrants. They were overwhelmed. These migrants had actually been living in South America. They actually didn't come directly from Haiti, so they didn't have any credible fear of persecution coming from South America. But the Biden administration said: Come on in. And they do and they have and they will. I have highlighted the link between the migration crisis and the fentanyl epidemic, which killed 71,000 Americans last year. This incredibly powerful synthetic opioid has taken too many young lives. In fact, it is the leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 18 and 49. If we were having car accidents that was the leading cause of death of Americans between the ages of 18 and 49, we would say something has got to change. But we have become anesthetized to these numbers. They are so huge, it is hard for us to process those. But anything that is the leading cause of death for 18- to 49-year-olds in our country, you would think would be something that we would all be concerned about and want to do something about. I have raised concerns over the increasing number of potential terrorists. My memory is that at last count, we saw last year, roughly, 170 people on the Terrorist Watchlist detained at the border. You might think: Well, that is great. We got all of them. We stopped them. Well, there were 1.7 million ``got-aways.'' Do you think there were people on the Terrorist Watchlist among those 1.7 million ``got-aways''? What do you think those ``got-aways'' were doing evading law enforcement? They certainly must have had concerns because anybody without a criminal record who is not engaged otherwise in a crime, they are turning themselves in, either claiming asylum or being released by the Biden administration. So the people who are actually running away from law enforcement, I think common sense would tell you they are running for a reason--either carrying drugs, they have criminal records, or worse. I have also talked about the negative impact of this crisis on lawful trade and travel. You know, I saw an article this morning that now Mexico is America's largest trading partner. It used to be China; but now it is Mexico and, actually, NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement--now the successor is the U.S.-Mexico-Canada, the USMCA, trade agreement. Legitimate trade and commerce across our border supports millions of jobs in America and represent essential supply chains for our manufacturers--something we became acutely aware of during COVID because we found out that if you are depending on Taiwan, for example, to make advanced semiconductors, well, in the event of another pandemic or a war or a natural disaster, we might not be able to get those. It made us start to think: What do we need to do to make our supply chains more reliable? Part of that is the businesses have moved to Mexico. But many times, because the border has been overwhelmed by migrants, they have had to shut down the bridges and the ports of entry. Recently, one of the railroads that transits the U.S.-Mexico border that is essential for trade and to maintain some of these supply chains was shut down completely, costing billions of dollars in lost revenue because the Biden administration does not control the flow of migration across the border. For me, this is not a political cudgel; it is something my constituents care deeply about. It is an issue that my State has battled every day that President Biden has been in office. We are at ground zero. It is also sucking up taxpayer dollars, endangering children because 300,000 of them have been placed with sponsors who came--children who came unaccompanied to the border are placed with sponsors in the interior. There have been 300,000 of them placed with those sponsors since President Biden took office, and the Biden administration can't tell you what has happened to them. The New York Times documented children in forced labor--dangerous jobs illegally forcing children to work in these jobs. But we don't know whether these children are going to school, whether they are getting the healthcare they need, whether they are being fed properly, whether they are being trafficked for sex, or recruited into gangs. And the Biden administration can't tell you. That is what the status quo of the last 3 years has given us. It would be an understatement of the century to say that our Democratic friends have been less concerned about what is happening at the border. Two years ago, President Biden visited a semiconductor plant in Arizona while the border crisis was raging. The President was asked why he wasn't visiting the border since he was so close, and he said: Because I have more important things to do--more important than visiting the border and seeing for himself what damage the Biden border crisis was creating. That month--the same month that the President refused to go to the border because he had more important things to do--250,000 migrants crossed the southern border. But the President couldn't be bothered to go to the border. The Vice President, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the White House Press Secretary, and other administration officials have repeatedly downplayed the severity of what is happening at the border. They have lied. They have lied to the American people--some of them under oath--like Secretary Mayorkas. Time and time again he said the border is secure. Does he think we are so gullible as to not see what is happening on TV or online with our own eyes the caravans of migrants making their way to the border and then being released into the interior, and the Secretary says the border is secure? That is outrageous. But the majority of our Senate colleagues on the other side of the aisle weren't bothered by that. During President Biden's first year in office, the senior Senator from Montana threw cold water on the idea that Congress should act on the border. He said: I don't know you need legislation-- This is our senior Senator from Montana. He said: I don't know you need legislation. I think what we need is to make sure we get the people and the technology down there to stop it. He said we don't need legislation. I guess in one sense he is right, because if President Biden would just enforce the law, everything could change and would change. But now we are seeing a different tune. Our colleagues are saying: Well, because there has been disagreement on the border, border changes in the context of the current discussion on the emergency national security supplemental, they said: We care about the border, and the people who disagreed with the product that was negotiated on a bipartisan basis don't care about the border. The American people are not stupid. The American people are smart, and they could see through that sort of fig leaf or that attempt to try to mislead them from what they have seen with their very eyes over the last 3 years. The following year, after the senior Senator from Montana made those comments, the senior Senator from Ohio tried to minimize the impact of the security crisis on the border. He said: I don't hear a lot about immigration from voters except from people on the far right that always want to gain political advantage by talking about it. Well, I wonder what he is hearing from his constituents these days. This is not just conservatives or Republicans. How about he listens to the mayor of New York City--a self-styled sanctuary city--or the mayor of Chicago or any major city that has seen migrants make their way into their jurisdiction? There is no better example of our colleagues' intransigence than the lack of action by the Senate Judiciary Committee. I have served on the Judiciary Committee my entire time here in the Senate. It is a great committee. It has jurisdiction over immigration matters. But the Senate Judiciary Committee hasn't had a single markup on an immigration bill in the last 3 years, not one. We have asked the chairman, the senior Senator from Illinois: Please schedule a markup. We are not even saying it is my way or the highway. We are saying: Bring an immigration bill to the Judiciary Committee. Let the Senators on the Democratic side and the Republican side offer amendments, and let's let the chips fall where they may. But the very committee in the U.S. Senate that has jurisdiction over immigration and border matters has done nothing in the last 3 years, even longer than that. We have talked about the issue. We have advanced a couple of narrow bills that touch on the edges of what is happening at the border, including bills to combat human trafficking and support law enforcement. But under the chairman's leadership, the Senate Judiciary Committee hasn't made a serious, honest attempt to tackle this issue head-on. To be clear, it wasn't for lack of bills to vote on. Just a few months into the Biden Presidency, Senator Sinema--the Senator from Arizona--and I introduced, along with our colleagues in the House-- Henry Cuellar and Tony Gonzales--we introduced a bill we call the Bipartisan Border Solutions Act to try to address the surge in immigration. The theory was that, here is a bipartisan, bicameral bill that maybe--just maybe--the Biden administration would be willing to work with us on. Maybe if things got so bad, they would look at this as a lifeline to begin a conversation on immigration. That bill would have increased staffing levels for law enforcement and immigration courts. It would have expedited legal proceedings and enhanced protections for unaccompanied children. These were commonsense measures. They were modest measures that had bipartisan and bicameral support. And it would have allowed us to at least get started to meaningfully address the problems we faced at that time before they spun completely out of control, as they have today. Still, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee won't schedule a hearing or a markup on that bill. Now, we are not saying this has to be the final product. We are saying let's start the conversation. We have been asking over and over again for the chairman to have a hearing, have a markup, but he has refused. He has refused to engage at all. Had that bill been signed into law at the beginning of the Biden administration, it could have prevented some of the chaos we have endured over the last 3 years, but instead, the leadership on the Democratic side has buried their heads into the sand until the situation has become so dangerous and untenable that it has turned into a political liability for President Biden. It is not lost on me that here we are--February--looking at a November election, and President Biden says: We have got to do something about my terrible poll numbers when it comes to border insecurity. You would think, if it had been serious, that he would have engaged earlier, but this is what we call an election-year conversion. Once the shift happened, the rhetoric from our Democratic colleagues has changed significantly. Last month, the senior Senator from Montana, who once said we didn't need any new laws, wrote an entire op-ed about the need to act on the border. In it he wrote: The lack of urgency from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle . . . is frankly disturbing. This is from a Senator who said you don't need new laws. Earlier this week, the senior Senator from Ohio, who once said he didn't hear much about immigration from his constituents, advocated for a border deal, saying: Ohioans cannot . . . wait any longer. And, yesterday, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who for 3 years has refused to use that committee, the committee of jurisdiction, to advance any bills to deal with the crisis, stood here on the Senate floor and he blamed--you guessed it--former President Donald Trump for lack of progress on the border. We should wish for the numbers of illegal crossings that occurred during President Trump's time in office because it was a fraction of what we have seen under President Biden. As a matter of fact, we have seen more illegal border crossings in 3 years under President Biden than we have in 12 years during the Obama administration and during the Trump Presidency. But that is what people do here in Washington, DC. This is a city in which the blame game is like an Olympic sport. People are vying for medals by telling the biggest whoppers. It is completely disingenuous for Senate Democrats to blame anyone but themselves and President Biden for the lack of broad progress on the border crisis. Despite this shift in rhetoric that we have seen, President Biden's comments have once again taken the cake. Earlier this week, President Biden made the most bogus, delusional claim about the state of the border, somewhere he hasn't been in a long, long time. Now, I remember he did come to El Paso for a driveby. But he said: The only reason the border is not secure is Donald Trump and his MAGA Republican friends. You know, at some point, when you hold elected office, the most powerful office in the land--maybe on the planet--you ought to accept some responsibility, not just blame other people. But that is not what President Biden did. These are the words of the current President of the United States, the man who has the power, under existing law, to detain and deport illegal border crossers but has chosen not to do so. On President Biden's watch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has logged more than 7 million migrant encounters, and the Biden administration has released 2.3 million migrants into the country. And President Biden thinks that the American people are gullible enough to believe that we are in this situation because of former President Trump? Give me a break. For 3 years, we have been beating on the door, begging and pleading with our Democratic colleagues and the White House: Work with us. We are not asking for perfection; we are asking to do our jobs and do your job. But President Biden has refused to engage. Our colleagues across the aisle have pretended like there is no problem, and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee won't even schedule a markup. Now, because Republicans voted against a single bill that was negotiated by three Members, including many policies that Republicans have been on record opposing for years, the American people are supposed to buy this argument that our party is to blame for the border? Well, I, for one, am still ready to engage with my Democratic colleagues if they are sincere, but it is hard to believe when this rhetoric occurs in the context of upcoming elections. It really does feel like an election-year conversion. In the past few days, our colleagues have proven that this was never about solving the border crisis; it was about giving President Biden a new talking point on the campaign trail in order to cover up the disaster of his own making. This is a manmade disaster, and the man who made that disaster was President Biden. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, after listening to the majority leader's comments, I think it is worth taking 5 minutes to recall how we got here. You know, it is ironic to me that people give speeches here on the floor of the Senate about their support for Israel. And there is no doubt Israel is involved in an existential fight with Iran and Iranian proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah, the Houthi rebels, and the Shia militias in Syria and Iraq. But the House passed an Israel aid package on November 2. Israel was attacked October 7. The House acted on November 2, and the majority leader, who is the only one who can schedule a vote on anything here on the Senate floor, has done nothing to help our best ally and friend in the Middle East, the State of Israel--nothing. He has insisted that we package together aid to Ukraine, aid to the Indo-Pacific. And there have been endless discussions about a border bill, which I will come to in a moment. But this problem that we are running into is one of his own creation. He could decide to take up these bills individually, knowing that the House has already passed an Israel aid bill, and then have the Senate take it up and pass that bill. Then we can turn to the other issues that are vitally important to our national security and deserve fulsome debate and an open amendment process. That is the question my friend from Mississippi was trying to ask the majority leader, but he decided to leave the floor without responding to that, giving me some doubt as to the sincerity of his commitment to have an open amendment process and actually restore the Senate to its previously held reputation as the world's greatest deliberative body. Nobody can call us that now with a straight face. I understand that the majority leader is trying the best he can to help the Republican Party. He gives advice freely as to what Republicans should do. But the fact of the matter is, we have no confidence--zero confidence--that the Biden administration will enforce the law when it comes to the border. That has been the case for the last 3 years, resulting in historically high numbers--300,000 people a month--showing up at the border, only to be ushered into the interior by Biden open-border policies that either people claim asylum and are released into the interior, perhaps never to be heard from again, or they are released on parole. Catch-and-release is the policy of the Biden administration and congressional Democrats. That has proven to be a powerful magnet for illegal immigration--people literally coming from all around the world because they know they can make it into the country because President Biden and Senate Democrats have laid out the welcome mat. So you will have to forgive me when I note the fake outrage, the phony messaging that we hear from Democrats about this border negotiation. Yes, it is true that we hoped to come up with something credible. On our side of the aisle, Senator Lankford from Oklahoma has done a heroic and a thankless job of trying to come up with a negotiated package. But the fact of the matter is, the package includes catch-and-release still, providing additional or continued incentives for people to come to the country illegally, knowing they will be released into the interior; and it does nothing to stop the Biden administration from abusing something called parole, which means that, in order to avoid bad press, in order to avoid embarrassing TV pictures of an overwhelmed border, they simply just release people into the interior of the country for 2 years and give them a work permit. Are you kidding me? They now claim to be the defenders of the border and for border security? What a joke. What a joke. And it is a bad joke. We know, as a result, the Biden border policy, supported day in and day out by our Democratic colleagues for the entire time that President Biden has been in office, has resulted in roughly 7 million migrants being released into the interior of the United States, and 1.7 million ``got-aways''--what the Border Patrol calls them, people evading law enforcement, for good reason, I suspect. Either they are transporting illegal drugs into the interior of the United States or, maybe, just maybe, out of that 1.7 million, there are a few people who are on the Terrorist Watchlist. We know the Border Patrol has detained roughly 170--I think, at last count--people on the Terrorist Watchlist. That is the people they know about. But they can't tell us how many more people on the Terrorist Watchlist are among those ``got-aways,'' endangering the safety and security of the United States. It took 19 people to kill 3,000 Americans on 9/11. What about 1.7 million ``got-aways''? We don't know whether these are serial criminals. We don't know whether they are transporting drugs. We don't know whether they are terrorists. We don't know anything about them, and, frankly, President Biden doesn't care--and neither do our Senate colleagues who have done zero--nothing, nada--to deal with this problem. So you will have to forgive me if I find their fake outrage unconvincing. And then there are the 108,000 Americans who died of drug overdoses last year. That is also part of the Biden open border policies. I have been wearing since April of last year a rubber bracelet given to me by a father of a young woman who lost her life because she took a pill that she thought was relatively innocuous but was laced with fentanyl. Her name was Sienna. Her father asked me to wear this rubber bracelet that says: ``One pill can kill.'' Well, 71,000 Americans died last year as a result of fentanyl poisoning, including young women like Sienna, who took something they thought was relatively innocuous, which was a counterfeit pill laced with fentanyl--and not waking up the next morning. And then perhaps the greatest untold story--we tried to tell the story, and the New York Times has written about this--is the hundreds of thousands of unaccompanied children who have been placed with sponsors in the interior of the United States who have come across the border. They have been attracted like a magnet to our border and under Biden policy have been released to sponsors, many of whom aren't even immediate relatives. And the Biden administration has simply lost track of them. They can't tell you whether the 300,000 children are going to school, whether they are getting the healthcare they need, whether they are being trafficked for sex, whether they are being forced into involuntary labor. The New York Times has written at least two times that I recall about forced labor conditions for these migrant children--forced into illegal, dangerous labor. And the New York Times tried to call some of these sponsors to see if they knew about what these children were doing, these children who were turned over to the care of these sponsors by the Biden administration under their current policies. In 85,000 cases--85,000 cases--there was no answer. So the truth is, under the Biden border policies, under the policies supported by all of our Democratic colleagues--now who are demonstrating fake outrage about the failure of the current border bill--they simply don't care. They don't care about these children. They don't care about the families grieving lost loved ones as a result of the illegal drugs that stream across the border, carried by the very criminal organizations that smuggle people from around the world who show up at our border and are released into the interior of the United States. What greater incentive can you think of for attracting illegal immigration than the open border policies which, tragically, result in the death of innocent Americans, including innocent children, losing 300,000 children placed with sponsors? The Biden administration doesn't care. So let me just say that when the majority leader takes off his hat as the majority leader of this great institution and puts on his hat as a Democratic partisan making political attacks against the very people he is hoping will support the legislation that he is advocating for--aid to Ukraine--this is not a good day for this institution. And it strikes me as a bizarre tactic when you know who the hundred people are who are going to be voting on the legislation that he is going to put on the floor. And the fact that the majority leader walks away from a legitimate question by our colleague the Senator from Mississippi who asked whether there will be an opportunity for debate and votes on amendments--he won't even answer the question. This is the same majority leader who put this bill on the floor that we will be voting on at 1 o'clock and said, ``OK, we released the text,'' on Sunday night and that in 72 hours Senators are going to have to vote on it. These are detailed, complex negotiations that have been taking place for months now, and the majority leader won't even give the Senate and Senators time to digest it and understand it. I think that tells you all you need to know about his motives. This is all about partisan political attacks and posturing leading up to the November 2024 election. President Biden is guilty of some of the same posturing. He said-- this is rich--after Secretary Mayorkas, the Secretary of Homeland Security, has said time and time again under oath, ``The border is secure''--well, we knew that was a lie because our eyes did not deceive us. We could see what was happening at the border. We could listen to Mayor Adams in New York City, the mayor of Chicago, Governors around the country, saying: We are being inundated by migrants coming across the border. And in the case of Mayor Adams, he said it is going to destroy New York City, even though they are a self-designated sanctuary city. Well, all of that has fallen on deaf ears for the last 3 years, and the Senate majority leader and the President of the United States think that the American people are so dumb that they haven't seen what has been going on the last 3 years. They have resisted every single effort on our part to secure the border, to halt this tsunami of illegal immigration and illegal drugs. They have resisted all of it. And now the majority leader would have you believe that he has had a conversion. This is Saul on the road to Damascus. But I don't believe it, and I don't believe the American people will believe it because their common sense, their very eyes and ears tell them something different, and that is that the Biden administration, Democrats in the Senate, and the Senate majority leader who came out here crying crocodile tears over the failure of the border negotiation--they know it is not true. The American people will not be deceived by this transparent political pitch suggesting that now they are the champions of border security. The President of the United States has every tool he needs--every tool he needs--to secure the border. The laws that are in effect now are the same laws that were in effect when President Trump was in office, and the numbers were dramatically different. In fact, President Biden's numbers of people coming across the border have exceeded the number that came during the entire 8 years of the Obama administration and the entire 4 years of the Trump administration. So, Mr. President, I know there are others here, including my friend the Republican leader, who are prepared to speak, so I will sit down. But I just couldn't help myself, sitting here listening to what the majority leader was trying to sell, which is so patently ahistorical, false, and is clearly just partisan political rhetoric trying to improve what is a very, very damaged reputation when it comes to dealing with our national security and the border. Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on Sunday night of this last weekend, three of our colleagues released the much anticipated text of what has come to be known as a bipartisan border deal. In fact, this was negotiated by three main principal Senators here in the Senate: Senator James Lankford from Oklahoma, Senator Sinema from Arizona, Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut, along with the Biden administration. I want to express my gratitude to Senator Lankford, for our part, for the time and effort he has invested in this process. I know of no one who has worked harder in good faith to try to come up with a solution to our broken border. I know, like all of our colleagues on this side of the aisle, he is outraged by the Biden administration's failure to secure the border, and he is eager to find a way to change the policies which will provide that security. And I think our Democratic colleagues finally realize that the status quo on the border is a huge political liability. Well, what Senator Lankford hoped to deliver through this process, unfortunately, has become increasingly clear that it has not been attainable. Notwithstanding his best efforts, this proposal is not what the country needs, wants, or deserves, and I would be happy to explain why. Given the fact we are operating in divided government, any successful reform requires bipartisan support. As I said, Senator Lankford worked in good faith with Senator Murphy and Senator Sinema, who also worked in good faith, as well as the White House to craft this agreement. But I am disappointed that the White House has refused to budge on policy changes that would lead to significant improvements; by that I mean reduction in the flow of migrants across the southern border. For example, this proposal doesn't place significant limits on parole authority. Now, just by way of a footnote here, parole authority means that the Biden administration has been releasing people who come to the border even if they don't claim asylum; and it is, frankly, just a population management tool. They are released into the interior of the country, given a 2-year permit and a work permit. So no matter what we do on the front end in terms of asylum reform or the process to deal with this exploitation of the gaps in our asylum system, the Biden administration could still parole as many people as they wanted to under this proposal. As a matter of fact, no changes were made at all to the fact that the Biden administration is releasing up to 30,000 migrants from four countries each month, presuming or assuming that they actually should be released into the country without any claim of asylum or anything else. Just letting them come and stay and work. This is a huge magnet--a huge magnet--to people coming from those four countries, and that is 360,000 migrants a year. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. This bill also does not end what has come to be known euphemistically as catch-and-release, and it actually creates a new system under which migrants who might express an intent to apply for asylum must be released from custody even before an initial screening interview is completed. Just to take a look back, I think it was in 2005 when then-Secretary Michael Chertoff came and testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he noticed an uptick in the number of Brazilians that were coming across the border. What he testified to under oath is they realized that the only way you would provide the deterrence that would prevent people from coming illegally into the country is to detain them. In other words, don't catch-and-release them; catch-and-detain them. Determine whether they have a legitimate claim, and if they did not, then return them to their country of origin. That actually provided the kind of deterrence that addressed that problem at that time, and that kind of deterrence is missing in this proposal. And as I said, it actually creates a new system that can be exploited by the people who continue to get rich smuggling migrants to the United States from around the world, the same criminal organizations that are also involved in smuggling drugs into the United States. And the only way you avoid catch-and-release and you provide catch- and-detain is, you need more detention space. And this proposal does not provide adequate detention space and assures that migrants will continue to be released into the interior of the country. Again, a huge magnet, or in the terminology that the Border Patrol has taught me, he calls this a pull factor. The push factors are the reasons the people want to leave their home country: violence, poverty, desire for a better life. We all understand that. But what the pull factor is, is the perception that there are no consequences to coming illegally. Legal immigration has been one of the biggest blessings for this country that we have ever received because almost a million people a year are naturalized. They go through the system the right way. They take the citizenship test. They go through the background check, and then they become American citizens like you and I. That is an unmitigated blessing, in my opinion. Illegal immigration--or outsourcing our immigration policy to drug and criminal cartels--is a disaster. Well, this proposal also does not make a meaningful investment in enforcement resources to actually remove people who don't have the legal authorization to stay in the United States. That is a job ordinarily performed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. So if people can come to the country, can be released either on parole or released while they are awaiting the decision on their asylum claims, and there is no mechanism to make sure that they are repatriated to their home country if they don't qualify to stay, then they are going to continue to come, which is the reason why we have seen roughly 7 million migrants come to the United States and stay over the last 3 years. In other words, this proposal does not fix the single biggest policy failures that have contributed to this crisis. I believe this is the responsibility, again, of the Biden administration, which has done everything they can to handcuff their negotiators and to fail to meet the requirements of what a proposal would look like that would actually make things better or would actually work. I have said from the beginning that I would only support an agreement or proposal that would make significant policy changes and change--by that, I mean reduce--the influx of humanity coming across the border, and this proposal does not meet that requirement. But this is, while disappointing, it is not entirely surprising. After all, President Biden is the leader of an open-borders administration that has ushered in the largest border crisis our country has ever seen. The only reason I think President Biden all of a sudden took an interest in the border is because he saw the approaching election and his plummeting poll numbers. Since President Biden took office 3 years ago, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has encountered more than 7 million migrants--I mentioned that a moment ago--7 million in 3 years. And that doesn't even count the 1.7 million ``got-aways.'' ``Got-aways'' are people who are seen, although not detained, on cameras and other sensors and who are intentionally evading law enforcement. You can only imagine what they are up to, and I assure you, it is no good. But we have seen, under President Biden, nearly double the number of illegal crossings that we saw during the entire 8 years President Obama was in office. Now, to be clear, Congress has not dramatically changed immigration laws in the interim that caused this dramatic increase in migration under President Biden. Under President Trump, the laws were essentially the same, and there was no crisis of such epic proportions. This fiasco is a direct result of the policies and the actions of the Biden administration. The President created what, in effect, is a high- powered magnet for illegal immigration. The problem isn't just that more migrants than ever are crossing into the United States, it is also that more migrants than ever are being released into the United States. The Biden administration has gone to great lengths to ensure that people who cross the border illegally can stay here. It is really, if you think about it, an insult to the people who follow the law and immigrate legally. They wait patiently in line. They play by the rules. And in the meantime, the Biden administration is waving through millions of migrants who are violating those rules and who are not waiting in line. Instead of detain and deport, this administration has focused all of its energy on catch-and-release. Last month, Secretary Mayorkas told Border Patrol Agents that more than 85 percent of migrants who were caught crossing the border were being released. Now, this is from a man whose responsibility it is to enforce our immigration laws, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and he admitted to Border Patrol Agents that 85 percent who were caught crossing the border illegally were simply released. Again, this is not a major shift in immigration policy. The Congress hasn't tied President Biden's hands or restricted his ability to detain and deport illegal immigrants. President Biden was dealt the exact same hand as his recent predecessors when it comes to enforcement authorities, but he has simply refused to use them, which is what gets to the root of the problem here: The White House really doesn't want a solution; it wants political cover. President's Biden mishandling of the border has landed him in red ink in the polls. He is looking at the upcoming election, and he needs to change his posture and the appearance that he looks like he is actually taking this seriously for the first time in 3 years, but I have no expectation that this will lead to any sort of meaningful shift in enforcement. Congress can pass all the laws that we want, but it is the executive branch, the President of the United States, that enforces those laws. And when they are not enforced, under our system, unfortunately, there is not much recourse. After all, if Joe Biden really wanted to fix the border breakdown, he could have done so at any point in the last 3 years. He could have used existing authorities to hold lawbreakers accountable and provide deterrence, which would have mitigated the flow of humanity across our border. Instead, he created new incentives, new pull factors, from parole to the CBP One app. Now, President Biden has finally realized that this is such a liability that 9 months before the next election, he has decided he wants to change his position--at least publicly. But I can tell you, we are not interested in being complicit in a PR stunt. We are interested in actually securing the border and deterring illegal immigration. So, on Wednesday, when we vote on whether to proceed to the proposal, along with aid to Ukraine, Israel, and the Indo-Pacific, I will vote no on the motion to proceed. To be clear, this is not no; this is not now. In other words, when cloture ``fails,'' which is the technical procedural term, it means we need to continue to discuss this and to work it out and come up with a better solution. But fixing this bill really requires us to go back to the drawing board and for the administration to accept some of the border enforcement proposals that we have called for, like ending catch-and- release. Voting for this proposal, some 300 pages of technical immigration law changes, 3 days after it was released is really a bad joke. There is just no way, given the complexity of the subject matter, that Senators can do their due diligence and really understand what the impact of this proposal will be. Now, I have spent most of my career in the Senate on the Immigration Subcommittee. And obviously coming from a border state, we are at ground zero when it comes to this crisis. But many of our colleagues have not steeped themselves in the complexities of immigration law, and we need time--all of us need time--in order to do our due diligence to understand both the intended and the potential unintended consequences. In the 3 years since President Biden took office, the security situation at the southern border has dramatically deteriorated. I think at last count there were about 170 individuals on the Terrorist Watchlist that were detained at the border. We have no idea--and the Biden administration can't tell you--how many more individuals on the Terrorist Watchlist were among those 1.7 million ``got-aways.'' In the years I have been representing Texas in the Senate, there have been many ups and downs in migration levels at the border. There have been surges, some caused by events beyond our borders, others triggered by policies from the occupant of the White House. There have also been drops in migration levels, some caused by events like the pandemic, others a result of stricter policies that have actually deterred illegal immigration. In the countless conversations I have had with folks along the Texas- Mexico border, everyone has shared the same sentiment: They have never ever seen it as bad as it is now. Law enforcement, local elected officials, NGOs--nongovernmental organizations--and private property owners agree: This is unprecedented and unsustainable. We need a major policy shift, not a figleaf. We need a major policy shift to address the Biden administration's many failures, and we need a change of behavior, not just in the policy but in actually enforcing the laws that Congress has passed. Because our colleagues have--and the Biden administration in particular has--refused to budge on policy changes that would actually force his administration to apply the law to deter illegal immigration, I cannot support it as written. But now, as I said, the majority leader, the Senator from New York, has teed up a process that would force us to vote on this massive bill totaling, I think the last count, $112 billion, including this border provision, just 3 days after the full text has been released. At this point, Senator Schumer has given our colleagues a binary choice: Take it or leave it. For me, the choice is obvious. I will not vote just no; I will vote not now. We need to continue this process. We need to see a change in behavior. We need to see a change in real policies that will prevent and deter this fast humanitarian and public safety crisis occurring at our border under President Biden's open border policies.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, tensions in the Middle East have escalated dramatically since Hamas, an Iranian-backed terrorist organization, launched its war on Israel on October 7 of last year, killing innocent men, women, and children and taking and still holding up to 132 hostages. Over the last few months, another Iranian proxy--Iran-backed militias--intensified their attacks throughout the region. There are Houthis in Yemen, there is Hezbollah in Lebanon, and, of course, as I mentioned, there are the attacks against Americans and American interests by Iranian proxies in Iraq and Syria. These conflicts are playing out thousands of miles away from here, but we are not just a distant and disinterested spectator. Thousands of American troops are stationed in the region--not engaged in combat operations but in carrying out a range of security and intelligence missions and helping the residents and citizens of those nations defend themselves and provide a stabilizing force against what is the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism, which is the Iranian regime. The presence of these American troops is vital to the stability of the region and, as I said, our own security interests. We may engage in wishful thinking, thinking that what happens over there doesn't affect us here. You would think that after 9/11--albeit it occurring some 23 years ago now--it would have awakened us to the reality that what does happen in the Middle East does not stay in the Middle East. So it is important for us to provide stability operations and assistance, train- and-assist operations, for our allies in the region in a very dangerous neighborhood. Since mid-October, Iranian-backed militia groups have attacked U.S. troops in the region more than 165 times--165 times. In less than 4 months, U.S. troops have been targeted 165 times. This last weekend, the situation escalated dramatically when Iranian proxies targeted a U.S. military post in Jordan known as Tower 22. Tragically, these proxies of the Iranian regime--these militias--used a drone to attack the base, killing three American heroes as they slept. SGT William Rivers, SGT Kennedy Sanders, and SGT Breonna Moffett made the ultimate sacrifice in service to their country that night. These brave individuals were the first American servicemembers killed by enemy fire since the start of the Israel-Hamas war last October, but they are not the first Americans who have been targeted by the Iranian regime. The truth is, as you look back at the changes in Iran since the revolution in 1979, the Iranian regime has been in what you might call a low-grade war against America and American interests for the last 45 years. Last month, two Navy SEALs were killed while seizing a vessel carrying Iranian-made arms intended for the Houthi rebels in Yemen. These brave SEALs and their comrades prevented the Houthis from receiving ballistic missiles and cruise missile components that could have been used to target U.S. forces or commercial traffic in the Red Sea or the nation of Israel. Today, I know our country mourns alongside of the families of each of those heroes, and we pray for the safety of the servicemembers who continue to serve our Nation providing these stability missions in the Middle East. But, as I said, the violence that we are seeing and experiencing in recent days is only a tragic continuation of Iran's decades-long proxy war against the United States. I said Iran is the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world. That is a fact. And the reason they operate through proxies is because they don't want to directly confront the United States because they fear American military might, as they should. But what they do is they will carry out terrorist attacks, having been equipped and trained and provided weapons by the Iranian regime, against innocent civilians and American servicemembers in the region. Of course, relations between the United States and Iran have been extremely fraught and violent since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, when the country quickly transformed from a pro-Western democracy to an anti-Western theocracy. Its Supreme Leader is driven by a radical ideology and a deep hatred of the United States and the freedoms that we enjoy. He even referred to the United States as the ``Great Satan.'' As we have witnessed over the last four-plus decades, that shift from a pro-democracy to an anti-American policy carried with it very serious consequences. Of course, many of us remember the Iranian hostage crisis. The movie ``Argo'' was written about getting some of the 52 Americans out of Iran who had been held hostage for up to a year. Four years later, the Iranian-backed terror group Hezbollah in Lebanon bombed a Marine Corps barracks, killing 241 American servicemembers. And then, in 1996, Iran orchestrated an attack on U.S. Air Force personnel in Khobar, Saudi Arabia. A truck bomb was detonated next to a building housing American troops, killing 19 U.S. Air Force personnel and a local Saudi citizen and wounding 498 others. Then, during the war in Iraq, from 2003 to 2011, it became common knowledge that Iran was supplying the most dangerous form of munitions--explosively formed penetrators--that penetrate the armor of humvees and other up-armored vehicles that the U.S. forces were in and planted numerous IEDs, killing hundreds of American troops. And today, as our country is mourning the troops who were killed in Jordan last weekend at the hand of Iranian proxies, we need to be absolutely clear-eyed about the fact that this is not a new innovation. This isn't something that just happened in the last 2 days. This has been going on for 45 years. To be clear, this is not an exhaustive list of the violence Iran has unleashed against the United States and our interests. Sadly, this just scratches the surface. But it is important to look back at the history to understand the Iranian intentions toward the United States and our allies. Tehran has consistently waged acts of war against the United States. It has gone to great lengths to export terrorism around the globe, and it has engaged in gross human rights violations against its own people. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, otherwise known as IRGC, is the loyal henchman responsible for leading these efforts. It is a branch of the Iranian Armed Forces that tries to squash democracy movements, both at home and abroad, by pushing its extreme ideology beyond Iran's borders. They provide training and equipment to terrorists which they use to kill innocent civilians--not just in Israel, not just in Syria and Iraq, not just in Lebanon, but even in the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula, in Yemen. The IRGC wields vast power and influence, and it uses its capabilities to spark turmoil throughout the Middle East. As I said, it provides arms, training, and foot soldiers to these terrorist groups. As the world has seen in recent months, those attacks are quickly intensifying. It is a grave cause for concern in a very dangerous neighborhood, the sort of escalation that we are seeing by Iran via its proxies. But the only responsible answer is for the United States to take swift and decisive action to respond to these attacks, because, if we don't, we are sure to be met with more. Sadly, I don't think the Biden administration has responded to this attack with the sort of decisiveness that it needs. As far as we know, the administration hasn't taken any action to target Iran's leaders, the IRGC, or the Quds Force--militarily, financially, or otherwise. We are told that the President has decided what he is going to do, but he is not sharing that with us. And, I fear, as more and more time goes by, the Iranian regime will not connect the killing of three American servicemembers in Iraq by Shia militias backed by Iran with whatever the subsequent kinetic attack against Iran's forces are. We are all watching to see what the coming days may hold, but I would like to encourage President Biden that, when it comes to Iran, there is no benefit to applying anything less than maximum pressure. Now, we are not talking about American boots on the ground. We are not talking about another war. We are talking about deterrence. So if there is no price to be paid for these repeated attacks against civilians and American servicemembers, they are going to continue. This is not a cost-benefit analysis made by the regime; this is pursuant to their radical ideology where they want to destroy Israel. And they call America the ``Great Satan''; so you know they don't mean us well. Iran's leaders must learn that the attacks on U.S. servicemembers and American interests will be returned in kind. Regardless of who carries out an attack--Iran or its proxies--the Iranian regime must be brought to account. It is the head of the octopus, and the tentacles are the proxies they use to commit mayhem and terrorism around the region. The only way to achieve deterrence and to prevent this conflict from widening is to teach the Iranian regime that these sorts of unilateral terrorist attacks will not be tolerated. Given the escalating tensions between our countries, President Biden can't continue promoting the same weak policies that he has embraced over the last few years, trying to appease the Iranian regime because he wants to get them back in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the Iran nuclear deal, negotiated under President Obama. He has lifted sanctions, which have allowed Iran to supply China and other countries oil, which has helped bolster their economy. They have continued to enrich uranium, getting closer and closer to a breakout for a nuclear weapon. As dangerous as Iran and its proxies are now, can you imagine what it would be like if they had a functioning nuclear weapon in the region? What would the response be of countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, and other Arab countries that Iran has historically fought for control--not just geographic control but control as the leader of the Muslim world, according to their own brand of Islam. Unfortunately, in the messages that President Biden has sent over the last few years, from the disastrous withdrawal in Afghanistan without even notifying our allies--just pulling the plug and having the Taliban march in without a shot being fired--to the attempts to appease Iran in order to get back to the Iran nuclear deal, to the foolish decision to unfreeze $6 billion in Iranian assets, the Biden administration has projected an image of weakness when it comes to foreign policy. These missteps have sent a message to the Supreme Leader that he can continue to push until we push back. The Supreme Leader will naturally continue to test the limits of this administration to see how far he can go. We know what his ultimate aims are. We know the methods by which they act, and we don't need--we don't want--any more dead Americans because Iran continues to attack Americans and American allies in the Middle East. The root and foundation of all of this violence and instability in the Middle East is Iran. We can talk about Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and the Shia militias, but it is Iran that finances, equips, and trains these terrorists. That is true today, and it has been true literally for the last 45 years. From the Iran hostage crisis to the regime's outright support of terrorist groups in the Middle East, to the latest attack that killed three U.S. troops, Iran has demonstrated over and over and over again its unequivocal hatred of the United States. President Biden cannot hit Iran with kid gloves or allow the attacks on our servicemembers to go unanswered. It is a lesson that we have to learn, apparently, from history, time and time again, that appeasement is not a viable strategy when it comes to autocrats and dictators and terrorists. Appeasement doesn't work, and it is time for the President to impose crippling consequences on the Iranian regime, and I am talking about on the instruments of their terrorism, which is the IRGC and the Quds Force, which would be a good place to start. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Biden administration, in the last few days, has made another reckless attempt to try to appease its more radical aspects of its political base--in this case, leftwing climate activists. Last week, the administration halted new liquefied natural gas projects, effectively chilling new investments in the industry that powers the United States and many of our closest allies. Had the administration announced this decision 3 years ago, it would have been dangerous and shortsighted. But given the state of the world today, this step is almost unthinkable. Russia's unprovoked war in Ukraine is nearing the 2-year mark. Iran's terrorist proxies are unleashing chaos on the Middle East, and China is responsible for growing tensions in the Indo-Pacific. This is an extremely fraught time--I think we would all have to agree--given that the instigators of each of these conflicts are three of the world's largest natural gas producers. This is an extremely risky time for energy security. Fortunately, the United States is in a uniquely strong position to temper those risks. We are the world's largest natural gas producer, and, last year, we became the largest LNG exporter. That means energy produced in America, creating American jobs, helping to grow our economy, is being exported to countries all around the world that don't have access to those natural resources. Around the globe, American LNG supports the energy security of our friends and allies. If they are importing American energy, they don't have to worry about some rogue dictator cutting off the gas with a moment's notice. Sadly, many of our friends in Europe had to learn this the hard way, after the invasion by Russia of Ukraine, because much of Europe had a single supplier of their energy needs. In 2009, Russia effectively turned off the gas to Ukraine for almost 3 weeks, using that energy supply as a weapon. This affected at least 10 countries in Europe whose natural gas traveled in a pipeline through Ukraine. In many ways, this should have been a wake-up call for the United States and our allies about the dangers of energy dependence, the lack of diversity in the supply. Relying on anyone--any country--for basic needs like heating, electricity, and fuel creates serious vulnerability, but relying on an adversary, as Europe did, is downright dangerous. Over the last 15 years, our friends in Europe have been working to diversify their energy supply and reduce their reliance on Russia. I remember John McCain, our former colleague, saying: ``Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country.'' It is their principal export and what they use to fuel their economy and, unfortunately, what they use to arm themselves when they invade neighboring countries like Ukraine. So oil and gas is how they do that, and they somehow had convinced the Europeans that they were a reliable, sole source for that energy. Well, they learned the hard way after Russia invaded Ukraine. Following Russia's invasion, Putin became persona non grata on the world stage. No one wanted to do business with Russia. They didn't want to purchase Russian oil and gas that would help Putin finance his barbaric war, and they certainly didn't want their energy supply to be subject to the whims of a cruel and vindictive dictator. Our friends in Europe turned to the United States for LNG, and, fortunately, we were able to fill the gap. Liquefied natural gas exports to Europe more than doubled between 2021 and 2022. That was only possible because of America's energy producers. You know, it wasn't that long ago I remember we were seeing terminals built for the importation of liquefied natural gas from other parts of the world to the United States. But it is a testament to the innovation and the investment in America's natural resources that allowed, as I said, America to be the No. 1 exporter. So rather than importing that energy from other countries, we are supplying that energy to friends and allies around the world. Thanks to our energy industry and the incredible men and women behind it, we had the supply, the export terminals, and the ability to send our allies the energy they needed at a critical moment. Had this freeze been issued several years ago--the one President Biden announced last week--that may not have been the case because producers can't ramp up production and increase exports overnight. It requires a lot of preparation. It requires infrastructure. It requires deploying your assets strategically. It is not like a faucet you can turn off and on in an instant. The production of energy takes time, investment, infrastructure, and a whole lot of certainty because investors will not invest in something that does not have a reasonable chance of producing a return. Now, with the stroke of a pen, President Biden has virtually eliminated that certainty. President Biden's pause, as he calls it, has thrown future LNG projects into limbo, and our allies are understandably spooked. They don't know if they can continue to count on the United States for the affordable energy they need to keep the lights on, to heat their homes, and to cook their food. The Biden administration has offered some ambiguous assurances that this decision won't impact our ability to export LNG to our allies in the near term--whatever that means--but it doesn't offer much peace of mind, and it certainly doesn't offer the sort of predictability that the marketplace needs in order to incentivize investment in this energy production. So our allies now are left to question if or when American LNG will stop serving global markets. Today, they are wondering if they should ride this wave while they can or whether it is time to start looking for another seller. The Biden administration has created unnecessary chaos and confusion on our allies, and for what? A new talking point in a political campaign ad? It just does not make sense in any other context. It simply is disingenuous to suggest that this is a way to combat climate change, because curbing LNG exports won't change the reality of the situation we are in today. If countries can't get access to relatively clean natural gas, what are they going to use? Coal, for example? Certainly nothing as clean as American-produced liquefied natural gas. They can't just flip a switch and turn to wind, solar, and renewables. At the end of the day, they are going to need fossil fuels for a baseload to keep the lights on. Texas, I am proud to say, is an ``all of the above'' State. We produce more electricity from wind than any other State in the Nation. I know we are thought of as exclusively an oil and gas State, but that is simply not factually true, although the Permian Basin, for example, does produce the lion's share of natural gas for not only America but that we use for export. At the end of the day, we are going to have to transition. I know people think--again, some people in their fevered dreams think that you can automatically do away with fossil fuels and go to wind turbines and solar panels and renewables. Well, we do need to transition, but we can't transition overnight. It is going to take time. I believe America's innovators, our job creators, will come up with other ways to generate access to energy that will allow us over time to transition. It is inevitable. We have always been in a period of transition. But it can't be forced overnight like the Biden administration seems to think it can. Well, as I said, maybe our allies will turn to coal. Maybe they will purchase natural gas from Russia again or Saudi Arabia, which don't have nearly the same environmental standards we have in the United States. At the end of the day, one thing is certain: Restricting the supply of American liquefied natural gas isn't going to make the world's energy consumption any cleaner, and it is sure to jeopardize global energy security. Once again, President Biden has missed the forest for the trees. He is so focused on pleasing climate activists that he has lost sight of the bigger picture. American LNG is not the enemy here. In fact, it is a vital security tool. We have to uplift our closest allies and provide energy at an affordable cost to American families. It gives other countries the ability to source their energy from a stable democracy rather than a temperamental or volatile dictator, and it gives countries lower emissions options--something you would think the Biden administration would want to encourage. Of course, as I mentioned, it creates jobs in places like Texas, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania and lifts up the entire U.S. economy. The Biden administration's decision to halt new export projects puts all that in jeopardy at the worst possible time. It weakens U.S. energy security, it kills American jobs, it kneecaps our energy industry, and it sends more business to Russia and Iran. This isn't a climate victory. It isn't an economic victory. It certainly isn't a victory for our security. This is an unforced error and a pretty transparent attempt to try to please climate activists. The climate-first approach to energy policy isn't just foolish, it is extremely dangerous. It is hurting our allies and helping our adversaries. But I want to be clear. I support efforts to diversify our energy sources and reduce emissions. As I mentioned, my State has embraced an ``all of the above'' energy strategy, which includes oil and gas, solar, wind, and nuclear. But on top of that, Texas-based companies are making enormous strides in energy innovation. Every day, they are finding new ways to make our most prevalent and affordable energy sources cleaner. I believe we should do more to encourage innovation and diversify our energy sources, but those efforts must come second to energy security. Our top priority must be to ensure the United States and our allies have access to the energy they need to keep the lights on. It is embarrassing that even after what we have witnessed over the last few years, President Biden still hasn't learned that important lesson. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, earlier this week, the American people received the tragic news that two Navy SEALs died during a nighttime raid near Somalia. Somalia is a world away from here, but what happens in that region has a direct impact on us here at home because one of these Navy SEALs was from the great State of Texas. These men and their brave comrades were seizing a vessel that was carrying Iranian-made arms intended for Houthi rebels in Yemen. I know, after 9/11, there was a famous country-western song--I think ``Where Were You (When The World Stopped Turning)''--and one of the lines was, `I don't know the difference between Iraq and Iran.' Well, the truth is, the American people have had to learn a lot about world geography, unfortunately, because things that happen far away from our shores have a direct impact on us and on the potential for regional war or worse to break out. The Houthis, as some may know, are a terrorist group. They occupy Yemen, which is south of Saudi Arabia and right next to Oman. You may have to get out your maps to place it. But this is a terrorist group that has been engaged in a civil war in Yemen for many years now and has attacked Saudi Arabia and has been subject to retaliation by Saudi Arabia and the Emirates for some time now. But, unfortunately, they have proven to be enormously resilient. They have a disturbing ideology. They are known for their saying ``God is great. Death to America. Death to Israel. Curse on the Jews. Victory for Islam.'' That is their motto. There is no mystery about their intentions. In the wake of the invasion by Hamas on Israel on October 7, the Houthis have escalated their attacks in the region--again, supplied by Iran with weapons that they have used not only to attack Saudi Arabia but also to try to attack Israel and American forces in the region. They have launched dozens of drone and missile attacks on commercial ships traveling through the Red Sea and bound for the Suez Canal. This is an area of the world where international commerce is so important. Goods that flow between the Red Sea and the Suez Canal do everything from provide us with the commodities that make our lives better to provide the energy necessary for countries around the world. The U.S. Central Command described these attacks as a direct threat to international commerce and maritime security. The Houthis only have the resources to carry out these attacks because of the support they receive from Iran. Like Hamas, another Iranian proxy, the Houthis and other terrorist groups in the region are armed, trained, and funded by Iran. On the evening of January 11, a heroic group of Navy SEALs seized a vessel carrying ballistic missiles and cruise missile components destined for Houthi forces. They prevented the Houthis from receiving even more weapons that could be used to target U.S. forces or commercial ships in the region. Now, you can imagine that boarding an enemy vessel is a dangerous and difficult mission, but doing so in the dead of night, in rough seas, while loaded with heavy equipment, is even more perilous. While boarding the ship, Special Warfare Operator 2nd Class Nathan Gage Ingram, a Texan, fell into the Arabian Sea. Following SEAL protocol, Special Warfare Operator 1st Class Christopher Chambers heroically jumped in, trying to save him. Well, unfortunately, the U.S. Navy and our allies have now conducted a thorough search and rescue operation, covering more than 21,000 square miles over 10 days, but sadly their bodies were never recovered. These men represent the very best of our country. They exemplify the courage and selflessness that generations of American servicemembers have embodied. Our hearts go out to the families of these brave Navy SEALs who made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our country. But this is a reminder of the immense risks our servicemembers face every single day. They sacrifice time away from their loved ones and place their lives on the line to keep our country safe. Given the chaos unfolding around the world, which seems to be getting worse and worse, the threats they face continue to grow. As we all know, in recent months, the tensions in the Middle East have escalated dramatically. As I mentioned, Hamas carried out an attack on Israel on October 7. In Israel, they call this their 9/11-- like the attack on September 11, 2001, that killed 3,000 Americans. The Houthis are disrupting, as I said, global commerce and freedom of navigation. Iranian-supported proxies in Iraq and Syria are attacking U.S. forces. Hezbollah, in Lebanon, is launching constant attacks on northern Israel. Terrorist threats are intensifying throughout the Middle East, and the common thread uniting all of these attacks is Iran. Iran is the head of the octopus, and its tentacles of terror extend throughout the region. There is Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza and the West Bank, and Shiite militias in Syria and Iran. Iran provides its terrorist proxies with funding, weapons, and training to enable the types of attacks we have seen in recent weeks. This chaos threatens to destabilize the Middle East even further and possibly start a much wider conflict. Given the growing tensions in the Middle East, one of America's top priorities must be to reestablish deterrence. Iran needs to pay a price for using its proxies to attack the United States and U.S. interests. This is absolutely vital to the future of Israel. Iran is a country driven by a dangerous ideology that calls for the destruction of Israel, and it will bleed the Iranian people dry in order to sustain that fight. But, as we know, Iran's ambitions do not end with Israel. The Supreme Leader once labeled the United States as Iran's ``number one enemy.'' Until recently, Iran felt intense pressure from the United States. The Trump administration withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and placed sanctions on hundreds of businesses and individuals who helped finance Iran's illicit activities. It also brokered the historic Abraham Accords, which served as a major blow to Iran as like-minded nations in the region normalized their relationship in order to counter their common adversary: Iran. The maximum pressure strategy dissolved as soon as President Biden took office. It seems to be the guiding philosophy of President Biden that if President Trump did it, President Biden will undo it, and that is what happened here. Less than a month into his Presidency, President Biden made the foolish decision to remove the government designation of the Houthis as a terrorist group. Given the brazen attacks that I have mentioned, President Biden has now reversed that decision last week but only partially. The President has only redesignated the Houthis as a ``Specially Designated Global Terrorist.'' He also failed to reclassify them as a ``Foreign Terrorist Organization,'' as they were before President Biden took office. The truth is, I doubt this will have any impact on the Houthis. Unfortunately, it is just one of many examples where President Biden's weakness toward Iran has not provided greater peace and stability but more dangerous circumstances. It actually has emboldened our adversaries. President Biden has made no secret of his intent to revive the Iran nuclear deal while Iran continues to enrich uranium. If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia won't be far behind and other countries in the region will try to figure out how they can defend themselves against the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism that now, instead of just missiles and drones, has a nuclear weapon. You can imagine what might come from that set of circumstances, and it is frightening. Then the administration has loosened sanctions on Iran's oil sales. Iran's economy, not surprisingly, has rebounded. China--that imports about 70 percent of their energy needs--has now entered into a strategic partnership with Iran because they need the oil that Iran produces along with the oil and gas produced by the Russian Federation. Of course, we all know President Biden carried out the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan without even consulting our friends and allies, which created a power vacuum in the region that is now being filled by--you guessed it--Iran. The administration unfroze billions of dollars in Iranian assets, giving Tehran even more money to pour into its terrorist proxies. It failed to take quick and decisive action to respond to Iran's attacks on U.S. forces in Syria. In other words, it is not enough for us or Israel to attack proxies. We need to go after the head of the octopus, not the tentacles. President Biden has consistently projected weakness when it comes to Iran. They understand weakness, but they also understand strength. This administration has steadily loosened the pressure valve, and now we are seeing the consequences with an emboldened Iran. Appeasement is not a viable strategy. It never has been and never will be, particularly when these countries understand nothing but strength. If they experience mush, it is, in fact, an incentive or provocation for them to keep doing what they are doing. President Biden should have known from the beginning. He served in the Senate as the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee for many, many years. He is worldly wise, but he seems incredibly naive when it comes to what it takes to deter state sponsors of terrorism like Iran. The only way to counter the growing threat is by reestablishing deterrence. That can only be achieved through strong and decisive leadership and reciprocal counterstrikes not on the proxies alone, but on the head of the octopus. Sadly, President Biden has spent the last 3 years projecting this image of weakness and uncertainty. Given the chaos Iran has unleashed in the Middle East, it is time for a swift change in strategy. President Biden needs to work with Republicans and Democrats in Congress to confront threats from Iran and reestablish a credible deterrence in the Middle East. Iran needs to understand that attacks against the United States and our allies will not be met with kid gloves. Until that happens, Iran and its proxies will continue to escalate their attacks and threaten the possibility of even a wider war. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, since President Biden took office 3 years ago, Customs and Border Protection has encountered 6.7 million--6.7 million--migrants at the southern border. Just to give you an idea of how that compares to the Obama administration and President Trump's administration, this is more than those two administrations combined. And that was for a period of 12 years, where President Biden has been in office for 3 years. The administration still hasn't released the number of illegal border crossings for December, but multiple news outlets have reported that more than 300,000 migrants have crossed the border last month, which would be a new record. What I have a hard time comprehending is why President Biden thinks that is a good idea. It is his policies that are responsible, because they are like a magnet. They attract people from, literally, around the world, who show up at our border and either claim asylum, only to be put on a docket and wait 10 years before they get heard by an immigration judge--and, in the meantime, they get released into the interior--or they are simply released into the interior of the country, using something called parole. Now, I think it is a little confusing because, most of the time, we think about parole in the context of criminal law, that if somebody is tried and convicted and goes to prison, they can then be paroled out of prison. But this simply means that, in the immigration context, people come to the border, and they are just released--just released. In other words, there is no consequences associated with people entering the country illegally. So it should be no surprise to any of us that people still come. And that is why we are seeing higher and higher levels of people coming to the border under President Biden's policies. The problem isn't just that more migrants than ever are crossing into the United States; it is also that more migrants than ever are being released into the United States. The Biden administration has gone to great lengths to ensure that people who cross the border illegally can remain in the United States, regardless of whether they have a legitimate reason to be here or not. To do that, the President and his administration have abused an authority known as parole to facilitate catch-and-release at an unprecedented rate. Parole, in the immigration context, was designed to grant temporary entry to foreign nationals in a rare and dire circumstance such as someone donating a kidney or being a witness in a trial. It was never meant to be categorical or a large-scale immigration authority. It was meant to be used on a case-by-case basis. The Biden administration has completely abused the parole authority, and it is not just at the southern border. The President's administration has stood up a program that allows individuals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to enter or remain in the United States--all under the guise of parole. In other words, these are not individual case-by-case determinations; this is categorical. In other words, you come from a country; we are going to release you into the United States--to the number of 30,000 a month. That is 360,000 a year. When the administration does so for these four countries, it provides a 2-year legal status and a work authorization. And so, again, it is no surprise people continue to come. This is also big business for criminal organizations that smuggle people into the United States. And it is as a result of overwhelming the capacity of the Border Patrol and Federal officials on the border that the opportunity to smuggle drugs into the United States becomes so relatively easy--thus, again, enriching the cartels that deal in the poison that took the lives of 108,000 Americans last year alone. The administration is using--or I should say ``abusing''--parole authority to try to legalize illegal immigration. And they do that so they can cook the books; so they don't have to include these numbers in a total tally of illegal border crossings each month. In other words, that is not even on the list of the 300,000 because they are exempted from that because they are released using--or abusing--this other authority. This policy allows the administration to roll out the welcome mat for tens of thousands of migrants while making it seem like the numbers have gone down. It is really a shell game. Thanks to the leadership of my friend Senator Graham, from South Carolina, the American people now have a much better idea about the degree to which parole is being abused by the Biden administration, both at the southern border and beyond. To provide some comparison, during the two previous administrations-- that was 12 years--an average of 5,600 migrants were paroled into the country each year--5,600 each year. When President Biden took office, that number skyrocketed. For fiscal year 2022 alone, the Biden administration paroled almost 800,000 migrants. In other words, an average of 5,600 became 800,000 under President Biden. We still don't have full data for fiscal year 2023, but it is already clear that the administration has passed the previous year's total. The Biden administration has paroled more than 802,000 migrants into the United States in only 9 months. In other words, it is going to set a new record. In total, the administration granted parole to nearly 1.6 million migrants in only 21 months. Is it any wonder that people continue to come to the border outside the legal process if they know they are going to be released, while the human smugglers continue to get richer and richer and the drug cartels continue to get richer each day? Well, these numbers are hard to get your head around because they are so large as to be incomprehensible. But 1.6 million migrants released into the country in 21 months? When this many migrants are being released into the country, it creates serious challenges. Migrants arrived at our border with no money and no place to go. They need to be fed. They need clothing. They need a safe place to sleep. They need medical care. And none of these things are cheap or easy to provide. But they are a feature of illegal immigration. For more than 3 years, communities along Texas's southern border have carried the weight of the President's border crisis. Local governments and nongovernmental organizations provide migrants with basic needs like shelter, food, and clothing. They deliver lifesaving medical care. They provide transportation. In short, they prevent this humanitarian crisis from becoming a humanitarian catastrophe. It is expensive; it is burdensome; it is extremely time-consuming; and these men and women don't receive nearly enough recognition or gratitude for the work they do each day. The border crisis continues to have a major impact on border communities in my State. But the scale of the crisis means the burden is now shared by communities across the country. Given the unprecedented number of migrants released, every State in America is now a border State in terms of the direct impact of the Biden border crisis. As this crisis has grown and expanded, it has prompted an interesting shift in rhetoric among leaders in blue States and cities. Liberal enclaves like New York and Chicago are long-time supporters of open border policies. They proudly identify themselves as sanctuary cities and have criticized commonsense measures to enforce our immigration laws. Until President Biden took office, these and other liberal cities across America could say what they wanted because they didn't have to bear any of the burden. With the U.S.-Mexico border a thousand miles or more away, immigration levels didn't impact their daily lives. Residents did not see hundreds of migrants sleeping on city sidewalks. Their children's schools weren't used as emergency shelters. Their local ambulances weren't delayed because of a high influx of migrants who needed medical care. So it is easy to weigh in on an issue that has absolutely zero impact on your daily life. But as more and more migrants have poured into blue States and blue cities in the past few years, the story has changed. One example is Phil Murphy, the Democratic Governor of New Jersey. He campaigned on the promise of making his State a safe place for illegal immigrants and once vowed to turn New Jersey into a sanctuary State. When it became clear that more States needed to help carry the weight of this national crisis, he quickly changed his tune. When given the opportunity to take care of migrants with nowhere to go, Governor Murphy said the State didn't have any room for these migrants. We have seen a similar shift--you might even call it a flip-flop-- from leaders in Chicago, which has been a self-proclaimed sanctuary city for decades. The city's mayor, Brandon Johnson, was just sworn in last May and ran on the promise of embracing migrants who arrived in the city. Last spring, he said: Sanctuary means that everyone is welcome here--everyone--whether you come legally or illegally. When you make that kind of declaration, it is tough to be mad when people take you up on it and show up. But that is exactly what he has done. As migrants have arrived in Chicago via bus and plane, he has lashed out at Texas Governor Greg Abbott for providing migrants with the transportation to actually take him up on his offer. At one point, he even accused the Texas Governor of attacking Chicago and other cities that received migrants. Pretty unhinged, if you ask me. This would be like sending an invitation out to a party that says: Everybody is welcome, and then berating the person who actually shows up with a carload of people. I think there is a lesson there: Don't say everybody is welcome unless you mean it. President Biden's border crisis has grown to such a magnitude that even the sanctuary cities and States are turning off or flipping over the welcome sign. The crisis just keeps growing and growing, and the pressure on President Biden is mounting. And, oh, by the way, he is going to be a candidate for reelection in November 2024. That may have something to do with his newfound attention and concern about the problem. He didn't care about the border crisis when it was just hurting Texas or the communities along the border. He didn't flinch when frontline law enforcement pleaded for more support. He didn't bat an eye when we broke the record for the most border crossings in a single day, month, and year. But now that Democratic voters--voters he is going to need to get reelected in places like New York and Chicago--are sounding the alarm over the border crisis, so it looks like President Biden is finally starting to pay attention. When asked by a reporter last week if the border was secure, President Biden said: No, it is not. It is welcome candor. But given the magnitude of the crisis, it is sad that that statement was actually newsworthy because it marked a much needed change from the President to recognize we have a problem on our hand. The fact is--and we all know the answer--that the status quo was unsustainable. We have reached a breaking point. And the only way to restore some sense or order is by addressing the current failed policies of the Biden administration--particularly this abuse of parole, which is just simply releasing people, giving them a work permit, even to those who aren't claiming a credible fear of persecution or grounds for asylum. Now, we all know several of our colleagues are trying to negotiate an agreement on legislation that would create meaningful policy changes to address the crisis. And I appreciate their efforts. I sincerely do. But so far, all we have seen are statements about what is being negotiated. None of us have seen the text of the actual negotiated product. And I, for one, am anxious to see that so we can have a real discussion and maybe a debate and, hopefully, make some significant progress on what has come to be known as the Biden border crisis. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, President Biden, last Friday, garnered a lot of attention for his comments on the border crisis. When asked by a reporter if the border was secure, the President didn't hesitate; he didn't equivocate. He said, ``No, it's not.'' ``No, it's not.'' On its own, that statement is not particularly shocking because it is actually true. What is shocking is that it represents a 180-degree flip from the position taken over and over and over by the Biden administration, from the President to the Vice President to the Secretary of Homeland Security, on down. The fact of the matter is that under President Biden's leadership, the Federal Government has shattered virtually every record on the books when it comes to illegal border crossings. In the last 3 years, Customs and Border Protection has logged more than 6.7 million--6.7 million--border crossings. At the same time, the cartels have trafficked record amounts of fentanyl across the southern border, fueling the overdose epidemic. Gang members, dangerous criminals, and potential terrorists--people on the Terrorist Watchlist--have used the chaos on the border to attempt to sneak into the United States. And 1.7 million of them, the so-called ``got-aways,'' that were detected on cameras and other various sensors simply have evaded law enforcement, and the Biden administration can't tell you who these people are, what they are doing, and what their intentions are while they are here. Communities across the country, not just in my State--in Texas--but across the country have been forced to carry the burden of caring for thousands of immigrants who cross our border every day. No, the border is not secure, not in the least. Anyone who has been paying attention for the last 3 years could have told you that. But it took the President 3 years to finally be willing to speak the truth, because for President Biden, this is a shocking reversal. After all, as I said, the senior most leaders of the administration have spent the last 3 years trying to convince the American people that there is no such thing as the Biden border crisis. The White House press secretary has said, ``The border is secure.'' Secretary Mayorkas, the Secretary tasked with the border security responsibilities, the Department of Homeland Security, he said, ``The border is secure.'' Vice President Harris, the anointed border czar for President Biden, said, ``The border is secure.'' This is the same line that has been parroted over and over and over by leaders throughout the Biden administration. And it is not true. It is not true. On Friday, President Biden not only admitted that the border is not secure, he went on to say he believes it hasn't been secure for the last 10 years. That means every single attempt by his administration to assure the American people that the Biden administration was performing its responsibilities by enforcing the laws to secure the border has been untrue. I don't know how to say this charitably. I don't easily accuse a President of the United States for intentionally telling an untruth, but it appears that that is absolutely the case. By his own account, President Biden has known all along the border was not secure, but he chose to gaslight the American people with untrue assurances that everything was just fine. Sort of like the story goes: ``Don't believe your lying eyes,'' when the American people see caravans of migrants coming up to the border, because they know that President Biden has laid out the welcome mat and will release them into the interior of the United States. That is a huge magnet, not only for people coming from Mexico, but around the world. That is what has changed under the Biden administration is that this is not a regional, this is not even an economic issue. This is a matter of the human smuggling networks making billions of dollars smuggling people from around the world and, unfortunately, overwhelming the Border Patrol to the point that the Border Patrol is processing paperwork, providing transportation and care for unaccompanied children, who were likewise incentivized to come to the United States, and here come the drugs that took the lives of 108,000 Americans last year alone. Finally, when the President was asked if he believed his own policies had enabled this crisis, he offered another shocking statement: ``No.'' So he said the border is not secure. He admitted that, finally. He said it hadn't been for 10 years. And he was asked whether his own policies had enabled that, and he said no. I don't think you can have it both ways. There is a huge difference between the number of border crossings that we saw during the previous administration, during the Trump administration and compared to the Biden administration. None of the laws have changed. It is simply the willingness or, in the case of the Biden administration, the unwillingness to actually enforce the law. Since President Biden took office, the United States has logged, as I said, more than 6.7 million illegal border encounters. That is higher than the 8 years under President Obama and the 4 years under President Trump. So in 3 years, he has managed to accomplish something that took 12 years in the previous two administrations. The fact that President Biden believes his policies have nothing to do with this sea change is absolutely unbelievable. It is not credible--that is what I mean. It is unbelievable. You can't believe it. This administration's refusal to take its responsibility for this crisis is pathetic, and it should be embarrassing. But, sadly, it is nothing new. We have seen this song and dance many times over. The Supreme Court of the United States, I am told from published reports, just said that the State of Texas, which was trying to fill the breach left by the failure of the Federal Government and the Biden administration to do its job couldn't put razor wire or impediments to illegal immigration on the border. I haven't read the opinion, but, presumably, they say it is the Federal Government's exclusive authority, and the States can't enforce that. But if the Federal Government is not going to do its job, why can't the State do it? It doesn't affect people here in Washington, DC, directly, although we have heard the mayor of Washington, DC, complaining about the fact that migrants have come to the District of Columbia. But it does affect my State. We have 1,200 miles of common border. The huge tsunami of humanity coming across the border has affected my State disproportionately because we are at ground zero. And now, because Mayor Adams in New York or Mayer Bowser in Washington, DC, or Governor Pritzker in Illinois, it is impacting them in a rather minor way compared to the way it has affected my State over the recent years. The Biden administration has finally realized this is a huge political liability. President Biden is going to be on the ballot in 2024, and he realizes that this is a huge problem for him and everybody up and down the ticket because the American people really never believed the statement that the border was secure, because they could watch on television and watch on social media the huge numbers of people coming across. They knew it was not true. But now, after 3 years, the President has finally come around to admit it. You know we talked about the drugs. We have talked about the people. What we haven't talked about enough, in my view, is the fact that the Biden administration has simply lost track of unaccompanied children who have been placed with sponsors in the interior of the United States. The New York Times ran several investigative pieces pointing out that 85,000 calls were made to these sponsors to see, How are these kids doing? And the calls were never answered, and they were never followed up on. The Biden administration takes the position--I think it is an irresponsible position--that once they place these children with sponsors, they have washed their hands of any further responsibility--no followup, no wellness check if there is no response to the phone call. And the Biden administration, apparently, just does not care. And then, most recently, we have seen a new low as they falsely blamed the State of Texas for three tragic drownings at the border at Eagle Pass, TX. A little over a week ago, a woman and two children drowned in the Rio Grande River attempting to get across the river. It was near a park that is currently the subject of a standoff between Federal and State officials. Now, migrant deaths are a tragedy. There is no two ways about it. And, sadly, it is a too common tale along the border. Migrants frequently drown crossing the Rio Grande. In the summer, they may die due to the intense heat and from lack of water across remote stretches of desert or ranch land. It is an inhospitable place in the heat of summer. Some are killed in car accidents in high-speed chases, while others are killed while being smuggled into the United States in the back of a semitractor trailer. Given the skyrocketing number of border crossings on President Biden's watch, these sorts of tragedies now seem to happen routinely. According to the National Border Patrol Council, roughly 2,300 migrants have died at the southern border since President Biden was sworn into office. It is an average of more than 2 deaths each day since his open border policies have been in place. As I said, these deaths are tragic, and they are tragically common. But this pace is not. In fact, the pace of migrant deaths has more than doubled compared to previous administrations. More and more migrants are losing their lives because of the failed open border policies of the Biden administration. Yet the Biden administration refuses to take responsibility for the dangers their policies have actually created. The day after the most recent tragedy in Eagle Pass, the Department of Homeland Security put out an outrageous, outrageously false statement pinning the blame on the State of Texas and its attempts to do what the Biden administration has refused to do, which is to secure the border. The statement actually claimed that ``Border Patrol agents were physically barred by Texas officials from entering the area.'' It went on to describe the efforts by State officials to help manage the chaos at the border. They called that ``cruel, dangerous, and inhumane.'' In other words, when the Federal Government does nothing and the State officials try to step in, the Biden administration calls that ``cruel, dangerous, and inhumane.'' And the White House press machine has been quick to repeat the claims, saying: Texas officials blocked U.S. Border Patrol from attempting to provide emergency assistance. These statements were designed to paint a very specific picture. The White House and the Department of Homeland Security tried to portray Texas as heartless and cruel for refusing to let Border Patrol agents rescue these three migrants in distress. The problem with this carefully crafted story line is it is absolutely false, but the story spread like wildfire. The Associated Press published a story with the headline saying: ``US says Texas blocked border agents from entering park to save 3 migrants who drowned.'' Countless other news outlets ran similar stories. Social media, pundits, and even Members of Congress spread the story and criticized the actions by Texas officials. Again, the problem is this entire narrative is demonstrably false. It is a lie. In a new Supreme Court filing, the Biden administration has now admitted that the three migrants died before Border Patrol even attempted to enter Shelby Park on Friday night. Sadly, they were part of the 2,300 migrants who died on President Biden's watch, but it didn't have anything to do with what Texas officials were doing. The Justice Department now admits that the women and two children died around 8 p.m., and the Border Patrol didn't even request access to the area until roughly an hour later. But by the time this correct and accurate information became public, the damage had already been done. News stories had circulated far and wide blaming Texas officials for blocking potentially lifesaving care for a woman and two children who drowned. Well, did the Biden administration apologize for its false accusation? Did it admit that it had perpetrated a false narrative? Absolutely not. Then, again, why would you really expect them to? This is just another example of the Biden administration that cannot be trusted to tell the truth, another example of spreading lies about what is happening at the southern border--no remorse, no shame, no accountability. The lies, dishonesty, and mischaracterizations have become commonplace, and the American people are fed up with them. Leaders in the Biden administration have repeatedly intentionally misrepresented what is happening. They dissemble; they shift the facts; they deflect; they distort the truth; and then they try to pin their own failures on somebody else. Well, as sad as it is now 3 years into the Biden administration, I am glad that the President has finally admitted that the border is not secure, and I am really shocked that, 3 years in, he is finally come around to admit it. But the fact he won't accept the reality that it is his administration's policies that created the crisis is a serious problem because the status quo at the border is absolutely unsustainable and has been for a long time now, and something has got to change. As we speak, several of our colleagues are trying to secure an agreement on legislation that will address the border crisis. I am sure it will fall short of what I would like to see happen, but Senator Lankford and Senator Sinema, Senator Murphy, and others are working to try to come up with some changes in the law that will force the Biden administration to put an end to some of the most egregious practices. And I, for one, am eager to see if they can come up with something that will force the administration to change its disastrous southern border policy, and I will be watching closely with interest as the negotiations progress. I yield the floor.