James Lankford

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I spent last weekend along our southern border, again, as I have done many weekends, to be able to get down to the border in different areas. Last weekend, I went down to the San Diego-Tijuana border area. In that area, there are 1.3 million people living in San Diego. That city bumps right up against our border with Tijuana. Tijuana, Mexico, has over 2 million people living in that town. There is a 30-foot fence that actually separates the two there. That is a double-section fence. It is incredibly important to be able to manage that border, not only for the crossing of traffic illegally but also for the crossing of legal traffic. One of the largest ports and traffic movement of people and cargo in the world is right there, and it is an incredibly important location for us. I went there to be able to see the implementation of the new authorities and the things that the President is actually implementing there that have so precipitously dropped the movement of illegal immigration and have dramatically increased the number of interdiction of drugs that are moving through that area. That literally benefits the entire country. What I found when I visited with the folks from CBP was that morale was up and the chaos is down. I found folks who are there that are law enforcement professionals actually doing law enforcement. When I visited with some of those same folks before, during the Biden administration, they were being treated like hotel check-in staff that were being asked to actually just move people into the country as fast as possible. Now, they are actually able to do their jobs, to actually enforce the law, and to do what they signed up to do. And they are eager to be able to protect the Nation and know full well the threats that we are facing. In that area in San Diego, we have had more of what are called special-interest aliens move through that area of our border than any other area of our entire 2,000-mile-long border with Mexico. People from Russia, China, from Central Africa, from Uzbekistan, and from multiple other places fly into Tijuana and then literally drive up to the gap in the fence and walk across, right into the United States. At least, that is how it used to be. That is not what is happening anymore. So I wanted to be able to talk through with this body a few of the things that I saw there and the work that is still undone. One, that section of the gap in the fence is right there at Tijuana, on the eastern side of San Diego. That gap is still there, but something has changed. Construction is beginning to be able to close that gap, and it is incredibly important. It is one of the first places that CBP and Border Patrol took me to and pointed out to say: We need this gap closed. It is very important that we actually get this gap secured because it is in a very remote area, difficult to traverse, and it is dangerous for our Border Patrol folks to have to be able to chase someone through that area. In fact, while I was in that area, around that gap, I literally watched one of the Lakota helicopters come in and to be able to identify someone who was literally cutting through that area and smuggling right through that zone. The good news is things are different now, and that person was caught because we have the manpower in place to be able to catch them. And that person will be deported immediately. That is also a big change that has actually occurred. So things are different in what is actually happening there, and I am grateful to be able to see the chaos going down and the morale and the enforcement going significantly up. That gap in the fence will be closed in the days ahead. And as one of many requests the Border Patrol has: just help us have a deterrent in this area so that we can better patrol and be able to chase folks down that are violating American law. They need additional personnel as well. I will talk a little bit about that in a moment. They need additional resources to be able to do their tasks, and they need additional authorities to be able to make sure they can fully execute the law that is put in front of them. Something that was interesting--the multiple times I have been to the border the last several years--often the Border Patrol would tell me they can't put checkpoints up anymore. They used to have checkpoints on the major highways as they were headed north away from the border, and they would check vehicles for people being smuggled and drugs being smuggled into the country and other contraband. They weren't able to do that because they were asked to actually go to the border to facilitate people coming in, and so they could no longer do those checkpoints. Guess what. Those checkpoints are back up again. They are actually stopping people on the highways now to be able to check and see if there are drugs there that have found their way across the border and are moving north, and they are interdicting narcotics again there. They are able to actually process a lot faster turning people around, to have the people at the checkpoints, and to be able to do the enforcement because the numbers are so precipitously lower than what they used to be. What does that mean side by side? A year ago, we had some days we had 12,000 people a day illegally crossing our southern border--12,000 people a day. Last week, most days were around 200. In fact, for the first time that I can remember in a very long time, when I checked in at the Border Patrol station and was talking with them about where things were going and how things were going and what has changed, as we walked past the area they would typically check in unaccompanied minors, that room was empty. I can't remember the last time I walked past, and there were zero unaccompanied minors that were there. The border is being enforced. It is bringing some sanity to our southern border. It is an enormous help and change. But there are a couple areas for cartels that are obviously moneymaking organizations-- they are very focused on what they are going to do next. Literally, right there at the port of entry, they discovered a tunnel being dug directly under the port of entry to be able to smuggle drugs and people in. Now, our teams were able to find it, identify it, and they are going to shut it down, but the cartels continue to be able to move and to be able to find other ways. We should make no mistake, just across the border from San Diego, there are three active criminal cartels that are ruthlessly killing each other. They are ruthlessly killing anyone that would try to cross the border without paying their fee, and they are determined to bring violence to Northern Mexico and chaos to the Southern United States and push as much drugs as they possibly can into our country. We should make no mistake about that. They are determined to be able to do that, and we should do whatever we can to be able to stop that violence and that chaos. The other thing that came up over and over again was now that the southern border--the land border--is being shut down, the cartels are not only drilling tunnels now, but they are also putting folks on jet skis and in Panga boats, taking them out into the Pacific and trying to be able to come around the maritime barrier and be able to drop off somewhere around the California coast. Just this week, we had a smuggler that was smuggling folks in a Panga boat just on that exact route that capsized in the Pacific, and multiple people died. Our Coast Guard went and responded and rescued multiple people as well. Those folks will be processed, and they will be returned right back to Mexico again. But that is the kind of danger these folks face to be able to come across. The cartels don't care about the people that they are moving. They just care about the dollars. They don't care about America. They just care about pushing drugs on us so that they can make more and more money. I had the opportunity to be able to do a ride-along with some of the Coast Guard and be able to see firsthand some of the things that they are doing. They need additional resources. This body should pay more attention to the Coast Guard. They are not only important for our national security or foreign threats coming at us but for our port security and rescues that are off coast, but they are also being pushed really hard right now by the cartels trying to be able to smuggle drugs and people into the United States. The Coast Guard needs this body to be able to stand alongside of them so they can do their job. They are remarkable people that are literally out there every single day, working to be able to help our country, and I was exceptionally grateful to get time with them to be able to see what their day looks like, how things are going, and the important work that they are doing. As the Border Patrol is seeing fewer coming across the land border, the Coast Guard is seeing more. So we have got to pay attention to all areas of our border. I did note a couple things that I have read. That was interesting for me to actually go down and to be able to see because I have seen all these media reports, all these different pieces of fake news that are coming up or all these different challenges about what the Trump administration is doing at our border. I could highlight a bunch of them, but let me highlight a couple of them that came up. I have heard over and over again that the Trump administration is not honoring due process. They are not honoring due process. They are ignoring the Constitution to be able to do that. Interestingly enough, just last week, President Trump's DHS released an extensive release that they called 100 days of fighting fake news. One of the items that they listed as the fake news that they are fighting is that aliens don't go through a process. Their statement: They do, according to the Constitution. Secretary Rubio also made that same statement on ``Meet the Press'' as well, saying everybody goes through due process--everyone has a process. Illegal aliens do not have rights like American citizens. No one is denying that. That is a fact. But there is a process they are being taken through. The law is being followed. I watched it personally. When people come across our border illegally, here is what is actually happening along our border. They are arrested. They are being instructed by law enforcement that they violated American law, that they are not legally present, and they are being immediately turned around and sent back to their country. That is the legal process. For individuals that were coming in from China--and I saw several that were actually being processed through that--they are being detained. Then they are being put on the next plane out. Special interest aliens aren't being released into the country anymore like they were under the Biden administration by the thousands. They are now being sent back to their countries, as they exactly should be, following the exact legal process that should be done. And I saw for the first time in a very long time a legal process being done that if you cross our southern border and you have been deported before--which is why we don't just grab them at the border and turn them around. We actually get fingerprints, get information from people in the processing. If you are coming a second or a third time, I watched the prosecution by U.S. attorneys actually prosecuting individuals there through that process, getting them a felony and then putting them on a bus back to Mexico again. They are following the law. They are going through exactly what the process is doing. They are doing the legal process. I also heard over and over again this fake news about our military going down and our military taking over our border. I actually got a chance to be able to meet some of our military down there. They are doing pretty remarkable work along our border. We have got engineering groups that are there that are helping beef up that border wall, finding areas where folks are finding ways to be able to scale a 30-foot wall, finding ways to be able to strengthen that wall to make sure that never happens again. That is some of our military engineering groups doing that. I watched that Lakota helicopter that I mentioned before. That Lakota helicopter is actually a military helicopter. Their job is not to arrest. That is Federal law enforcement on the ground who is doing it, but they are able to be an extra set of eyes in the air to be able to identify folks that are getting around those gaps in the wall, smuggling in people and smuggling in drugs so our Border Patrol can focus in on those areas. I watched members of our military sitting at a workstation with the Coast Guard at the port area, helping monitor the different cameras that are in our port area, looking for those jet skis and those Panga boats that are smuggling in people and drugs. They are doing a great job. I am grateful those folks are there. But this body needs to have a further conversation about how do we move more Coast Guard folks there so that they can take on that job, allowing our military to go back to doing their first job. How we can actually reinforce some of the resources that are needed so that our military can do their first task, and our DHS folks can do their first task? So, yes, it is more fake news that our military is there actually being law enforcement. They are not being law enforcement, but they are helping our law enforcement to make our law enforcement even more effective. I am grateful to be able see the numbers drop so much, allowing our law enforcement to go back. If I can just make this one last statement: I won't ever forget standing at that port, which is incredibly busy--lots of trucks coming through, lots of Customs screenings and everything, all the things that are happening--and I asked the Customs folks there: What has changed? They said: We are able to catch a lot more drugs now than we were able to catch because we have got more time to focus in on catching those drugs. This is going to make a huge difference in America for us to be able to focus on illegal activity coming across our border. When those numbers drop, we are able to go more after what is the worst of the worst coming into our country. I am grateful to see the work that is happening on our southern border. We all should go see it. I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I have six requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I join my colleague in expressing some frustration that we can't vote on the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is the kind of stuff that drives people crazy back home for an individual that is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Most people back in my State of Oklahoma think this has already been done. But to not be able to move on this, to literally have my Democratic colleagues block it and say we are not going to allow the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for our military to be able to be there, it is just another one of those moments of Washington, DC, gridlock and frustration, especially when this person moved out of committee with a vote of 24 to 4. That is overwhelming bipartisan support. There is just not controversy about this nominee. But now suddenly to be able to have a game, to be able to say we want to be able to stall this out and maybe block this person until after Easter, so we don't have a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is frustrating for people to say: Come on, just have the vote. So I join my colleagues on the Republican side to say: What is the problem? Everyone knows this person is going to be voted on and is going to be approved because there is such wide bipartisan support, but for my Democratic colleagues to say: Nope, we want to drag this out for weeks, I just don't think it is the right thing to do. Clearly, they disagree, but I don't think it is the right thing to do. 30th Anniversary of Oklahoma City Bombing Mr. President, next week, Oklahoma and the Nation will pause for a moment, and we will remember, nationally, for a moment, on April 19 at 9:02 in the morning. And some people will look around and go, ``Has it been 30 years?'' and other people will say: ``What happened 30 years ago?'' because it depends on your generation of when you were born and how old you were or if you were even alive in 1995, but if you were alive in 1995, you remember where you were when the news came out that there was an explosion at a Federal building in Oklahoma City. It was the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. A man who was mad at the government and determined he was going to cause an uprising of people to take down the Federal Government pulled a Ryder truck in front of a Federal building, loaded it with diesel fuel and with ammonia nitrate, lit fuses, walked away, got in his car and drove away. As he drove away, behind him, the explosion went off that killed 168 people, including 19 children who were in the daycare center on the ground floor. And our Nation was forever changed. We pause every year still in Oklahoma. We have never forgotten. Every year, we think about those who were killed and those who survived and those who were changed forever. We remember every single year, as we will again this year on the 30th anniversary, and we will pause to remember. The people that are around us in Oklahoma are our neighbors, they are our friends, but many of them are also survivors or family members of survivors or family members of those who are lost. There are still police officers and firefighters that have literally never been back to that location because it is too painful to be able to return to a spot where they carried out the bodies of their friends and neighbors. There are individuals that their family was truly forever changed. And now, 30 years later, they still get together and talk and visit, catch up with each other. There are survivor networks that still engage and still keep in contact with each other, remembering what happens when out-of-control anger took the lives of 168 people. On that sacred ground, there is still a quiet reflection pool. There are 168 chairs there to remind people of the 168 lives. There is a phenomenal museum that is next to it that people come to literally from all over the world to study terrorism, domestic terrorism in particular, and to be able to walk through what happened in the crime scene and how it was so quickly resolved. We have law enforcement, first responders, families and communities that come from everywhere just to be able to learn and to reflect. There are children that survived the daycare center that are now adults. Let me give you two: Brandon and Rebecca Denny. Brandon was 3 years old, and he literally barely survived his injuries; in fact, doctors gave him a 10 percent chance of survival, but he did. As an adult, he works to still help and serve others. Rebecca, she was rescued from the rubble at 2 years old. She now has a family of her own. She speaks powerfully, still, about forgiveness over bitterness. They were some of those miracle babies that survived. Many of the children around them did not. This past week, it was really a remarkable moment that a lot of people in this town probably missed, and I understand. There is a lot of things going on right now. But on the south side of the Capitol, there was a spot of dirt that was dug up there and a group of Oklahomans, along with the Architect of the Capitol, buried a seedling tree. Now, that may not seem like a big deal on the Capitol grounds, but there aren't many trees that are planted on the Capitol grounds. Many of the trees that are on the grounds are 100 years old or some, 200. This is a great historic place and a spot of reflection. But in one spot there, we just planted a tree. And you may say: What is the big deal about that tree? Well, if you are in Oklahoma, you already know the rest of this story, but I would like to be able to tell this body the rest of that story. On April 19, 1995, when that truck bomb explosion took place, it took 168 lives. It destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Across the street was the Journal Record Building; it just demolished a big section of that as well, blew out all the windows, destroyed it. In the parking lot there in front of that building was an American elm tree. It was a scrubby tree growing in a parking lot. If you have seen a tree in the parking lot, you know it is not usually the healthiest looking thing, but it was just growing there in the middle of the asphalt. But when the explosion happened, it literally destroyed all those lives. But for that tree, it blew literally every leaf off of that tree. But the force of the impact and the heat of the impact was so strong, that it literally turned the tree. The bark literally that usually has this nice little stripe as it grows literally has a turning point in it and around it, and everyone just assumed that tree is dead. No one paid attention to it. In the year of the cleanup and all of the recovery and what was happening during that time period, no one paid attention to it, until the next spring, that scrubby little tree in the asphalt started sprouting. And people were shocked. It is alive. And suddenly it went from being a scrubby tree in the parking lot that was just going to be cleared out to being a sign of hope. So we cleared the asphalt and everything else away from it. An arborist came and began to fertilize it and to take care of it. That scrubby little tree is now nicknamed ``The Survivor Tree'' now, and it is the picture of Oklahoma after that bombing. We survived. That scrubby little American elm tree is now enormous 30 years later. Its branches and its leaves spread out over that site. It is the shaded spot. And on the morning of April 19, there will be survivors and families that will sit under its branches. And as we pause for 168 seconds and as we read the names of those who we lost, they will be underneath that Survivor Tree thinking again of: We survived. We are still here. The term ``the Oklahoma standard'' was born during that time period as neighbor helped neighbor and as we cared for each other and the people who came to our home from all over the world, literally. If you walk into my office, you will see a picture of the Survivor Tree that is there. How does that seedling that we just planted and that Survivor Tree connect? Well, that seedling is a daughter of that Survivor Tree. A seed was literally picked up off the ground under that Survivor Tree, was planted and grown, and now it is about 3 feet tall. That seedling, that daughter, we just planted 30 years later at the U.S. Capitol so that this Nation will never forget the out-of-control anger that turned to violence and hatred. It is our prayer from Oklahoma that, as people walk down the path outside, that they would stop and read the plaque beside that little seedling tree. That in the decades ahead, it will grow to be a giant American elm, just like its parent, the Survivor Tree, and that people would remember the lives that were lost, those who survived, and those who were changed forever. That is our hope. That is why that tree was planted on the Capitol lawn this week. My simple request for my colleagues: April 19, it is a Saturday--when it comes, at 9:02 central time, would you just pause with us for just a moment and remember? Join us because we will absolutely never forget. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 174, which is at the desk.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, April 19 is coming very soon, and the country will pause. I am grateful that the Senate has passed now a resolution from this body that all 100 Members have stated together that we as a nation will pause and remember April 19, 1995, and as a nation this April 19, we will remind the Nation again, we have not forgotten the loss that was there in that Federal building in Oklahoma City. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wyden and I both be able to complete our remarks before the vote.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I do appreciate so much my colleagues coming to the floor just to be able to talk about the scourge of fentanyl and what it is really doing in our communities. Senator Ricketts, Senator Moody, Senator Budd, and Senator Hoeven spent a lot of time laying out the challenges we really face. I think most Americans know it and have seen it, and they just don't realize how fast it is really moving. Ten years ago, we had 700 deaths in the country due to fentanyl. Last year, we had 87,000. That is the acceleration we have seen in a decade. A vast majority of fentanyl used to come across the border from, quite frankly, China. It was being mailed in. Active work was done to be able to shut that down. It started to come through Mexico--that is progressively. We are taking that on. The cartels and the criminal organizations are shifting more and more to Canada to be able to find ways to be able to move it in. The Canadians have seen that and they have noted that as well by the aggressive actions they have taken. Just to give you a quick glance at this, dealing with just the fentanyl issue, in 2020, the Canadians interdicted 1,000 pounds of fentanyl precursors; in 2021, it was 11,000 pounds. That is the acceleration that is also happening for these criminal organizations that are trying to be able to move fentanyl into our country and, quite frankly, into Canada as well. So we are grateful for their partnership, but we definitely see this as an emergency. A decade ago, the United States did not move fast enough to be able to stop the movement of fentanyl into our country. We lost tens of thousands of Americans. President Trump is determined, and, quite frankly, this Congress is determined. We are not going to be asleep on that again. We will take it very, very seriously. It is a very big emergency. So I thank my colleagues for coming here to be able to talk about it today.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Reserving the right to object, my friend from Oregon-- and we are friends, and we had the opportunity to be able to serve together, and we have worked on a lot of issues. He is correct, and I am glad to be able to see a larger proposal to deal with unemployment insurance. It has been an issue for a long time, but this is one of the most classic examples of saying the perfect is the enemy of the good. Today, we have people getting away with fraud--today--and we can do nothing about it because the statute of limitations has run out. The House has passed a bipartisan bill by a wide majority to deal with this one problem, and they have come to an agreement by a wide, bipartisan majority to say let's at least solve this part and then we will work on bigger solutions later. What my friend is recommending is to say: No. Let's force everyone to work on the bigger solution, and every single day, let more people get away with fraud until we come up with a bigger solution and can agree on it. We should stop as much fraud as we can today and keep working on the bigger solution to be able to get the bigger issues done. If I can also say to my friend, he also knows this bill well. This is not about incidental actions that have happened through someone who accidentally filled out something or a State did something inappropriately. This bill is very clear. That is why it had such strong bipartisan support out of the House. This is about criminal actors. These are people who criminally engaged in large-scale fraud deliberately. It is $191 billion out there that the inspector general under the Biden administration even identified. I want to do as much as we can on the unemployment insurance side, but let's do things as quickly as we can to be able to stop criminal activity and be able to prosecute those individuals. So, in knowing that, I will not modify my request.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I look forward to working on a larger proposal in the days ahead, but that larger proposal is not going to move in the House in the next month or 2 months. In the meantime, we are going to have criminal organizations getting away with it over and over and over again. So let's move as much as we can as fast as we can, but at least, at this point, let's solve what we can today.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, we are in the tenth week of the first 10 weeks, obviously, of this Senate's session. It has been exceptionally productive during this time period. We have not only moved more nominees into confirmation for President Trump than any Senate has done in more than two decades, we have passed bills like the Laken Riley Act, which will absolutely help us in trying to remove criminal aliens out of the country. We have rolled back a lot of Biden's last-minute regulations that he literally threw in in the final hours that did not have the oversight, did not have the appearance. And they, obviously, didn't do it in the first 3\1/2\ years of their term. They stalled it till the very end on that for a reason: because it was unpopular with the American people. Those have been rolled back, many of them, and we still have several to go. Today we are finishing up a bill called HALT Fentanyl. The fentanyl epidemic is raging in our country. If you go back to just 2019 and compare that to 2023, in that short period of time, in my State of Oklahoma in 2019, we had 50 people who died of fentanyl. Fast-forward 4 years to 2023, the last year that we have complete records on; that is actually 730 people died. In 2023, across the country, we had 74,000 Americans who died from fentanyl overdose. Again, go back to 2019. Only about 10 percent of the opioid deaths in my State had fentanyl connected to it. Fast forward to 2023, 90 percent of the opioid-related deaths were connected to fentanyl. What the Mexican cartels are doing and what Chinese precursor chemicals coming into the country are causing is the death of fellow citizens, as they slip it into different fake pills, as they slip it into methamphetamine, as they slip fentanyl into cocaine, as they slip it into different places, to have someone who is using a drug or someone who never intended to use that drug to take their life. It has to stop. Even worse, the cartels not only know what they are doing, but they are trying to find specific ways to be able to avoid our laws. Fentanyl has a very specific definition in science of exactly what makes up fentanyl. And so what the cartels are doing is they are changing that chemical makeup ever so slightly in what they call an analog, and so it is really not ``fentanyl'' as a definition--meaning law enforcement, when they see it on the street, it has the same effect: It still kills you, but it is, actually, technically, not fentanyl, so you can't be prosecuted for it. This bill that we are bringing to the floor today opens up the fentanyl definitions to deal with fentanyl and the analogs of fentanyl so that the cartels can't continue to bring these deadly drugs into our country to take the lives and increase addiction in America and get away with it. This puts it in the hands of law enforcement, where they have been disarmed in that area, enforcement priorities, so they can actually enforce the law on these cartels and on the drug dealers and so we can identify it for what it really is. It is a killer drug. The HALT Fentanyl Act is incredibly important. And I am fully aware that in a week where our country is talking about: Are we going to have another government shutdown, it is going to slip through and people aren't even going to notice it. But law enforcement will notice it, and families in the future will notice it. The folks aren't dealing with the same addiction, as we are putting one more piece out there to be able to take this off.

Mr. LANKFORD

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

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls with respect to the cloture votes on the Chavez- DeRemer nomination and the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 18, S. 331, be waived.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we move to begin the vote right now.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, this body knows from just my conversations in the hallways that I am a proud dad of two amazing daughters. They are remarkable young ladies that I am terribly proud of. I was also one of those dads that was up way before dawn when they were in middle school and high school because they were cross-country runners. Cross-country runners in high school have a long-term saying that their sport is other sports' punishment. They are there at 6 a.m., stretching out and running a mile so they then can prepare to go run 5 or 6 more just to be able to get ready for cross-country meets in the fall. They were remarkable athletes in high school and enjoyed that. They ran with guys and ladies when they were training, in all of their time in the training time, because the team was a team of guys and girls. But when they actually got to the competition day, my daughters competed against other girls in that competition because what we all know to be a fact, to be true, is that boys in cross-country that are training for cross-country and girls that are training in cross-country--both great athletes--have different times to the finish line. That is just a reality. It is not one negative on another. It is not diminishing one to another. It is a reality. In the last Summer Olympics, the woman who was a remarkable athlete that won the women's marathon as the greatest runner of our time, when she came in as the Gold Medal winner, her time would have been beaten by 67 of the men who ran in the Olympics in the same sport, same distance, same track--gold medalist for the women. The top 67 men running in the marathon would have beaten her. Where am I going with this? This is common sense that we all know and that we have all seen in our own families and in communities. It is the reason that we have protected women's' sports for years to be able to make sure that women and girls have the ability to be able to have great competition, to enjoy the joy of sports and all the lessons that you learn from sports, and to be able to have equal competition levels. But in the past few years--really, very, very recently in our country--there is a movement to be able to say if a biological male, transgender individual, wants to be able to compete in the women's sports area, they should be allowed to do that. The question is, Whom is that fair to? Is that fair to this transgender individual or is that fair to the other female athletes? Because culturally, there seems to be a push to say I don't care if it is unfair to the female athletes. I picked this one transgender individual, and I want to be fair to them. I look at a whole team of other folks to say: Whom is this fair to? This seems like basic common sense that 15 years ago wouldn't even have been a dialogue in our country. Fifty years ago, it wouldn't even have been in discussion in our country, but now we are having this dialogue. This is not about disrespect for any individual or the rights of individuals to be able to make choices in their own life. It is about respecting the rights of women and girls in their sport to be able to compete on a level playing field to make sure they are able to thrive in their sport the same as men are able to thrive in their sport and to enjoy the thrill of competition without the intimidation of someone crossing over into their sport to be able to take it away from them. It doesn't seem reasonable. For some reason, in this room, contrary to the rest of the country, this is some kind of irrational conversation. It is not. It is basically common sense. But in this room, we just had a vote this week to be able to say women should compete in women's sports, and men should compete in men's sports. In that vote, just to begin the debate on the bill to say let's open it up for amendment, let's talk about this as a concept, every single Republican for just that simple of a bill said: Let's start debate on this and figure out where we are going to go. Every single Democrat said: I don't want to even debate this. This is not up for discussion. Well, it is up for discussion, but where it is up for discussion is in homes and families and communities all over the country because in homes and families and communities all over the country, there are lots of dads like me of amazing daughters that are saying: I don't want my daughter to compete against a biological male because there are inherent advantages in some sports and in some speeds just based on bone density and muscle structure. Again, it is not negative toward female or male on that. It is reality and basic biology. Families across the country are talking about this, and for some reason this room is allergic to talk about it. Well, we are going to continue to be able to bring this up because Americans have an expectation that this is going to be resolved. I am grateful to President Trump that he has rescinded the Biden administration's Executive order allowing transgender individuals to compete in girls' sports. That is a good thing. That sets ladies across the country at ease to say: Let's go play soccer; let's go run in cross-country; let's go do the sports we want to be able to do and not have to worry about somebody hitting me in the face at high speed in a volleyball game but to go compete on a level playing field. That is a good thing. But it is an Executive order. That means it doesn't last from President to President to President. I don't know what the next President is going to do, but I think I know where Americans are still going to be. They are going to want to say: Let's compete. We may all train together; we may be all friends together; we may all hang out with each other at school, but when the competition comes, give me a fair, level playing field for competition and watch people compete and enjoy the sport. That is what sports have been about, at least that is what they used to be about. Now, they seem to be about political messaging instead. So we are going to continue to be able to bring this up. I am grateful to Coach Tuberville for the work he has done on this and grateful to President Trump for the work he has done on it. But it is unfinished business at this point, to the great frustration of a lot of families around the country, including in my own State of Oklahoma. I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, President Biden liked to be able to say over and over again that we are producing record amounts of oil and gas. Some of my Democratic colleagues have even come to this floor in the last couple of days and have said: We don't have an energy emergency. Those two things together are kind of a message going out to the American people: There is nothing to see here. Move along. Everything is fine on energy. But if you talk to electricity-generation companies, regional distribution networks, and ask them ``How are things going with electricity generation? How are we doing with capacity?'' they will give you a very different story. The feeling is, when you walk into your own house and flick on the lights and the lights turn on, you are like: Yeah, the lights are fine; there is no emergency. But if you talk to the electric company behind it and say ``Two years from now, what does it look like for capacity for you?'' they will probably shake their head and say ``We have a problem coming.'' Now, we can either deal with that problem 2 years from now when we are having brownouts and don't have enough electricity or we can deal with it now. I would rather deal with it now so we don't have the challenges ahead. How do you do that? Continue to be energy dominant in, actually, the energy that we are producing here in the United States and to be able to make sure that we are producing truly ``all of the above'' energy but we are actually producing energy at a price Americans can afford and at the amount Americans need. If we are going to be the world leader in AI, if we are going to be the world leader in data centers, if we are going to be world leaders in innovation, you can't be that if you don't have the power behind it. You can't be that if the price continues to go up, up, up for continuing subsidies. Under the Biden administration, the price of gasoline went up 30 percent--30 percent in 4 years. Under the Biden administration, in 4 years, the price of electricity nationwide went up 28 percent. Every American feels it. When we pay our light bill, when we put gas in our car, we feel it. So now the question is: What do we do about it? How do we actually engage to be able to make this better? Well, there are multiple things that we can do. We have already started some of those already. Quite frankly, President Trump, in his earliest days in office, stepped in and started the process of turning around some of the policies to increase more American energy so we can begin to bring prices down and availability up, because sometimes it is not just about price; it is making sure, 2 years from now, we are not running out and we are not having brownouts all across the entire Nation in our electric grid. So there are a couple things President Trump did right away. He actually changed all the cancellation of leases in Alaska to actually drill in the area literally set aside, decades ago, for drilling. That is an area that should be a no-brainer, but the Biden administration stepped in and said: No, we are not going to allow anyone to drill in the area set aside for oil exploration in Alaska. They canceled that. President Trump canceled the mandate for electric vehicles, not because he hates electric vehicles. There happens to be a guy who hangs around him a lot that runs a company that sells electric vehicles. The problem is not electric vehicles. The problem is the mandate to try to force Americans to be able to shift to that when we don't see that in the grid. Quite frankly, the electric grid is not prepared, even, for Americans to be able to do all-electric vehicles, and frankly, most Americans aren't either. If you talk to Oklahomans in rural areas and say, ``Are you willing to have an electric vehicle when it is 35 miles to the next town from where you are and to be able to take the risk?'' they are not. And even for a lot of our farmers and ranchers that will say, ``Well, there is an electric pickup out there,'' if you ask the question, ``How far does that electric pickup go if you are towing a trailer?'' the answer you will get from the manufacturers is 80 miles. Do you know what? Our farmers and ranchers need to go a little farther than 80 miles with their vehicles. So there are a lot of issues that are out there. To be able to take the mandate away and say, ``Let people choose what vehicle they want to be able to choose,'' we think is a better option, and, quite frankly, with our grid not prepared for the strain on that long term, it is a wiser option for everybody in the process. Decisive action has taken place on the issue of drilling in Federal waters. President Biden, literally in the final hours of his administration, put a ban on actually drilling on 625 million acres offshore. So 625 million acres that have oil and gas in them, President Biden just banned it. Well, President Trump flipped that and said: No, we are going to allow that to be able to happen--quite frankly, as every other President has on that. So these are basic things the President can do and has done, but what do we, as Congress, need to be able to do? We have engaged in several areas already. We have chipped away at what we call the methane fee that has been put on. Every single homeowner that has a hot water tank that uses natural gas--or even if their electricity that is coming into their house is produced by natural gas or they cook with natural gas--had a new fee added on to them at the end of the Biden administration. We have now voted to be able to take that away and say: We are not going to raise the prices of everybody because they happen to use natural gas to cook their food or to be able to heat their homes or heat their hot water or that they get electricity from as well. We have also now voted on, quite frankly, a regulation that was done by the Biden administration at the very end of their time that was intentionally designed to be able to raise the price of offshore oil drilling, where they intentionally placed a new fee on any company that is drilling offshore. That could be $1 million per well. The reason for that is to try to block more development offshore on that. What does that actually do? That doesn't decrease the need that we have in the country. It increases the number of imports that are coming into our country. So we are buying more from Saudi Arabia, more from Venezuela, rather than actually producing from our own jobs and our own locations. I don't have a problem with ``all of the above'' energy. In fact, I have had this conversation with multiple people in this body. I am willing to put the Oklahoma portfolio for energy against any State that is here, as far as our use of renewables versus fossil fuels. Forty- five percent of the electricity produced in my State today is done with wind. We do wind, solar. We do hydro. We do oil, gas, coal. But we are working to be able to make sure that we can actually produce electricity that is needed for manufacturing and for our homes. That shouldn't be a difficult issue for us. That should be what it is actually all about. Quite frankly, the frustration that we have had is this has been a challenge for energy companies just to produce energy in the last 4 years. This is something that should be normal. America needs energy. Every single American needs energy. Every person sitting in this room or watching this right now is using energy. We need access to that. So let's find the best ways to be able to do it. A couple of things that we are working on right now: One is that I have a bill dealing with what we are talking about, with the tax treatments that we are all debating right now, as well, on this floor, called Promoting Domestic Energy Production Act. That act is very straightforward. It treats oil and gas companies the exact same way for taxation as every other manufacturer is treated. Now, a lot of Americans may say: Well, they are not treated the same now? No. When Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act--which was bizarrely named because, actually, inflation spiked after that, with all they put into it. When the Inflation Reduction Act was passed, it created a new tax on oil and gas companies, specifically designed to be able to reduce new wells coming into America and increase the price of oil and gas. That was the design of it because their goal was, if they could make it so expensive to get gasoline, then more people would actually run to an electric vehicle, and they would buy an electric vehicle. Well, guess what is happening. The more expensive gasoline is definitely happening, but more and more people aren't running to an electric vehicle. They want to be able to choose. And that is a pretty fair option for them for that. So the bill that I have actually moves us back to treating oil and gas companies the exact same way as every other manufacturer is treated in our tax policy. There is another bill that is not just an oil and gas bill. It is called the ALIGN Act. This handles what we call bonus depreciation. When a company actually buys a big piece of capital equipment, they are going to pay their tax that year on it, but they have to decide, for that big piece of equipment, how many years it takes to be able to depreciate the value of that. The ALIGN Act just says: In the year that you bought it, you can also depreciate it, and you can take it off your taxes. Now, this doesn't change the amount of income coming into the Federal Treasury one bit. You are either going to have it over several years or you are going to have it over one year. It doesn't change the amount at all, but it does make a huge difference to that business, in the year they do a big capital investment, that they also get to write that off on that same year. Well, I think it is just good policy to be able to say: Let's incentivize every manufacturer to be able to do additional manufacturing. Our economy needs it right now because, when they do more manufacturing, that is more jobs in the country. And for energy, that means more pipelines, more capabilities to be able to move energy at a cheaper rate. Those are commonsense things that don't hurt our deficit as a nation but actually benefit our economy and benefit jobs. Energy policy should be just commonsense conversation. It shouldn't be political. It should be: What do Americans need? And we should look beyond just today that the lights are on. We should at least look 2 years in the future to say what is about to happen in the country with our electric grid, anticipate the problems that are coming, and make changes in policy here to make sure we don't have an emergency there. So let's declare the American energy emergency. Let's fix it before we have the challenges that are coming in just a few short months. I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent to be able to use a prop during my speech.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, in Oklahoma, if you were to go to any house anywhere in the State right now and ask them how their money should be spent, they would probably smile at you and say: I would like to decide that, not somebody else. That would be a pretty common conversation, I would bet, in most every State. For a lot of folks in my State that make $55,000, $60,000--make enough to be able to get by, work hard, take care of their kids and their family--it is a challenge for them from day to day, so every single dollar counts to them. They think about how every single dollar is spent or saved. That is why it is surprising, in all the dialogue right now about government waste--there is a big dialogue about how do we handle waste and how do we cut back and how fast should we cut back and what should that look like. But Oklahomans that I talk to are not offended that we are actually cutting back on waste. Now, they may have questions about how it is done and the speed and where it comes out. Those are all reasonable questions we should have a national dialogue on. But when Oklahomans hear that USAID last year did a grant of $32,000 to create a comic book about transgenders in Peru, they would say to me: Hey, I would like to be able to spend that $32,000 myself rather than the transgender comic book in Peru. If the folks in Peru want that comic book, maybe they should pay for it, not American taxpayers. The folks in Oklahoma, if I were able to talk to them about the same issue, would ask me questions about the $2.5 million grant that was given to Vietnam to be able to fund the construction of electric vehicle battery recharging stations--which, by the way, $2.5 million that was given by USAID to Vietnam to do that created one charging station which so far has saved a total of 260 gallons of gas equivalent--$2.5 million. It might have been cheaper just to send them 250 gallons of gas than it is to send them $2.5 million to be able to do that. Now, if I were to talk to Oklahomans, they would tell me they want to be able to be more in charge of that money, not sending it to do that. They would do the same thing when they find out that $10 million in food aid that was supposed to be going to Syrian refugees was actually diverted to a terrorist group linked with al-Qaida, and they would want to ask USAID why that was done. They would ask some basic questions: why almost $1 million was sent to a group linked to Hamas just the week before the October 7 attack was actually done. All those things are reasonable conversations to have that are really, honestly, not partisan conversations in this room. I don't find anyone that thinks that is a partisan issue. Everybody just says: How do we go after that waste, and what do we do to be able to stop it? For the last 10 years, I have stood in this room and I have talked about my ``Federal Fumbles'' book. We just released the latest version of my ``Federal Fumbles'' book today. The ``Federal Fumbles'' book that we put out each year is not trying to be overly critical of government. We have released it under Republican and Democrat Presidencies and Congresses. We have said: Why don't we spend time--quite frankly, as I ask every year--why doesn't every single Member of this body assign their staff to go look for areas of waste and regulatory inefficiency and just ask some very basic questions: How could we do this better? Every business asks that question all the time. They ask the question: How can we be more efficient? How can we do things better? But we in government ask more ``What can we do next?'' and very seldom stop to evaluate what has already been done. That is all ``Federal Fumbles'' is saying: This is the money that was allocated. How was it actually spent? Over the years, we have engaged in things to be able to identify some areas of waste and to be able to put a stop to them. We stopped the funding that was going toward drag shows in Ecuador that we used to fund in American tax dollars. That is not happening anymore. We stopped the funding that was being sent to France to help preserve the secret language of French Parisian butchers. We used to fund that. We don't anymore. We stopped the funding that was going to research the Russian wine industry after we exposed that. We even stopped the funding that was going to the border to be able to fund Shakespeare all along our border. There might be other ways to be able to spend our money better at the border other than doing performances of Shakespeare with Federal tax dollars. This year, we are spending some time actually focusing in on what can we do better; what has already been done that the money has gone out the door or how can we do things better. One of them, interestingly enough, has been one of the areas that are being talked a lot about more that we have already focused on, and that is FEMA and disaster relief. Now it has suddenly become a big topic of conversation over the last couple weeks. But we ask a very simple question: When a community experiences a hurricane, a tornado, a flood, and they want to engage with the Federal Government for disaster relief, this is what they confront: 30 different Agencies, 30 different processes for aid coming to their community, most of them having a different way to actually sign up for them, different deadlines, different information that is needed, and also different percentages. Some of them pay 90-10. Some of them pay 85-15. Some of them pay 50-50. They have to know this intricate set of rules in the middle of cleaning up from their disaster to be able to get relief. This is a disaster, and it shouldn't be a partisan issue for us to be able to look at it and to say: We can do better. When a small, rural community faces a devastating flood, why are we asking the mayor of that community to figure this out to be able to get aid? They won't be able to. They are trying to help their neighbors dig out. We can do better on this. So we exposed the 30 different Agencies and the spaghetti map of how to be able to get aid and to say: Let's work on this. We exposed some of the inefficiencies that are out in our Federal Government right now, even for things like permitting. We all talk about energy production, and I know we have differences of opinion on where that energy should come from, but when we start talking about the permitting to go get energy--whether that is lithium or whether that is natural gas--we get into a conversation about how do you permit to actually go get that resource. Well, right now in the United States of America, it is taking 29 years to go from the beginning process where a critical mineral is mined to actual production. We are on the same international ranking for efficiency of regulations on mining as Zambia. If we go into our northern border, to Canada--now currently, apparently, referred to as the 51st State--if you go into Canada, it takes 3 years for them to be able to permit a mine. And they go through all their environmental reviews. They go through their legal challenges. They do all those things in 3 years, what is taking us 29 in current structure, if it ever gets done at all. We can do better on that. If we want to increase our use of American-made minerals and our American-made production on that, we as the Federal Government, we as the U.S. Senate, have to be able to reform the way we are doing our permitting processes so that we can produce that American energy. If we have some belief that China or Central Africa or the Middle East is producing energy cleaner than we are, we are kidding ourselves. We will produce it cleaner if we can get to it at all. In this ``Federal Fumbles'' book, we walk through a lot of areas of waste we have identified and said: Hey, let's find some common areas of agreement that we should all be able to look at. Let me raise one that is controversial: the SNAP program. I don't know a person in this room that would say they want to end the SNAP program. That is food stamps, for some people that still use the old term. But over $10 billion was actually allocated in the SNAP program last year of what they called improper payments; that is, we don't know if they qualified or not for the program. Now, a lot of folks in Oklahoma would say: I don't mind people getting some help when they need it, but for folks that don't qualify, why are they actually getting access to that? We have the same issue in the Medicare and Medicaid Program. We don't want to do anything to be able to hurt that program. We have a lot of things we need to do better in that program to deliver. But over $100 billion in Medicare and Medicaid last year was designated as improper payments; that is, we don't know if it is an appropriate payment that was done or not. That is something we should spend some time investigating. Mr. President, $100 billion seems like real money to me. Last year, there was a billion dollars that was allocated in subsidies to a Chinese solar manufacturing facility--a billion in American taxpayer subsidies. If I went to the folks in Oklahoma and said, ``Where should we get solar power?'' Not a one of them would say China. And if they did, they certainly wouldn't say: We should give a billion dollars to a Chinese company to be able to subsidize them to be able to send solar panels to us. If I were to walk around Washington, DC, right now, current stats are there are 17 Agencies in Washington, DC, that are using 25 percent or less of their real estate. Seventeen of our Agencies are using 25 percent or less of their occupancy building space. That is billions of dollars in costs in electricity; that is billions of dollars in costs in furniture--for a simple question, because it is not a business. They are not having to pursue efficiency. We have 75 percent of the building unused. That is an area that we should actually ask some very simple questions about and just say: What can we actually do better on this? Listen, these aren't partisan things. If I sat down with my Democratic colleagues, they would nod their head and say: Let's take a look at that. Let's figure it out. The most simple thing that we do every year when we bring out this ``Federal Fumbles'' book is say: Here are things we can talk about. Now, I understand the DOGE conversation has become controversial with Elon Musk and some of the tactics and the speed that they are moving. I completely understand that and respect the conversations about that. But government inefficiency shouldn't be partisan. It shouldn't be controversial. And for those that have joined all of us that have worked on this for years to expose waste in government, welcome to the club. We are glad to have folks engaging on this. I am not critical. I am excited that you are here because we need more help, because when the Federal Government fumbles taxpayer dollars, people in Oklahoma, in my State, lose their hard-earned tax money on things that aren't education, aren't roads, aren't national defense. They are waste, and that is what people want to see stopped. So I not only encourage people to be able to just take a glance--it is easy reading, lots of pictures. I not only encourage people to take a glance at our ``Federal Fumbles'' book, now that it is released, but I encourage every Member of this body to assign their staff to go look for waste. And then let's sit down together and see if we can figure out how to make it stop. We should waste less and save more. It shouldn't be that hard. I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

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

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, over the last several weeks, we have worked at record pace here in the Senate on nominations. This has been one of those tasks that happen literally every time there is a new President that comes in, but the pace we have moved on nominations has been epic based on the last two terms of different Presidents. We have confirmed more people now in the Senate than were confirmed in the first 3 weeks of the Biden administration and in the first 3 weeks of the first Trump administration combined. It is because we have been willing to be able to run the clock and to be able to compress this. Now, the nominations process does take a long time. Every single one of the Cabinet officials requires 30 hours of debate here in the Senate. Each one of the other individuals requires 2 hours of debate here in the Senate, and we have 1,200 people total that we have to get through. But, at the beginning of this time period, we focused on the Cabinet- level officials, moving, for instance, Marco Rubio the very first day of the President being inaugurated, and we came into this Chamber that evening and were able to move Marco Rubio. We started the hearings before the President was even sworn in, to be able to make sure that we are ready. We are literally doing hearings in committees, cueing up the next people, even as we are dealing with the folks that are on the floor, to be able to make sure we can move as rapidly as possible. This is not just about President Trump. It is about the United States and about us having a good operation for our government. Let me give you a ``for instance.'' Mr. President, you know extremely well, because you were part of this group to be able to move him, but Sean Duffy was actually sworn in. His nomination was done, his hearings were done, we confirmed him on the floor of the Senate, and within 24 hours, we have gotten the worst airline disaster that we have had in 15 years. That Secretary of Transportation was literally on the frontline within 24 hours, dealing with a terrible accident. It is important that we have people in these roles. We moved Doug Collins yesterday. Doug Collins, who himself is an Air Force Reserve chaplain, a veteran himself, will now be leading the VA. He is able to step into that role today, taking care of all those issues because we were able to get him confirmed. Pam Bondi and all the issues that we need to be able to resolve within Justice--she can actually get started on those issues now because she has been confirmed. She is the new Attorney General of the United States. All these different roles, as we move through them and through the committees, are vital for us to be able to get done. We are fulfilling the task that we need to do, whether that be for Secretary of State in international policy and the chaos happening right now in the Middle East, or whether that is Scott Turner and his experience that he is going to bring dealing with Housing and Urban Development, and with people in poverty in our country that desperately are in need of getting access to housing. We are moving on these folks to make sure that we can actually fulfill the promise that needs to be fulfilled. Mr. President, I just want to be able to remind everyone, we have more to go. We are going to continue to be here this week to finish out the Office of Management and Budget and Russell Vought in that role, because if we are going to deal with spending and we are going to make the government more efficient, we have to have leadership in the Office of Management and Budget. That will be done this week, to make sure that we can continue to be able to implement the policies to be able to help the Nation to continue to move forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, this week, we observe International Holocaust Remembrance Day. We honor the 6 million Jews whose lives were lost during the Holocaust, their families, and the scar that has left on the world. The term ``We will never forget'' still rings eight decades later. The end of that atrocity did not bring the end of anti-Semitism, unfortunately. On October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorists brutally attacked Israel with the intent to wipe Israel off the map. Hamas killed 1,200 people simply because they were Jewish. People marched in the streets even in sections of America and on university campuses, screaming ``from the river to the sea,'' meaning the obliteration of the Jewish people and the Jewish nation. A few months ago, I stood at the Nova Music Festival site, literally within sight of Gaza. I walked through that area with a family. I talked to one of the survivors who was there that day. She is still reliving the emotion of being there, just doing an all-night music festival. As the Sun came up, terrorists came in to kill as many people as possible at that music festival. In the immediate aftermath of that attack, it was clarifying for the United States that we needed to continue to stand with Israel. Terrorism is not done. Anti-Semitism has not ended in the world. We should continue to speak out. In my State of Oklahoma, it is extremely personal. We have a lot of Oklahomans who are very pro-Israel because they love freedom and they love a functioning democracy. With Israel being the only democracy in all of the Middle East and having a thriving economy, we have a lot of economic connections to Israel. We have a lot of family connections. We have a lot of individuals who travel to Israel for both vacation and for moments to be able to reflect on their own faith. It is a common connection. In fact, after October 7, my office and I were personally connected with trying to be able to help some families and individuals who were touring in Israel at that time find a way to be able to escape from the fighting and to be able to get out. This is a very, very difficult moment, and it continues to be a very difficult moment for the people of Israel because all they want to do is to be able to live in peace with the people around them. Within days, Israel is not just facing a war with Gaza, Hezbollah began to attack them from the north from Lebanon. The Houthis began to fire missiles at them from the south. And then within a few months, Iran itself began to fire missiles and rockets and one-way attack drones toward Israel, literally facing a war with individuals attacking them from the north, south, east, and west. Israel just wants to live in peace. In the middle of a war, when a group of terrorists crossed the border and began to slaughter Israelis, the International Criminal Court determined it was going to jump in and make a clear statement. Great. Make a clear statement about terrorism. Call out those who are attacking civilians and slaughtering people as they sleep on that morning. But instead, the International Criminal Court released arrest warrants for Binyamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, and for Yoav Gallant, the now former Defense Minister, for trying to defend their country from terrorism. Myself and my other colleagues remembered immediately that during the war in Afghanistan, this same International Criminal Court was filing charges against American soldiers trying to defend the United States while they were fighting in Afghanistan. This is the very definition of a rogue court. By the way, they are in the process of trying to be able to figure out how to be able to fix their image. So just within the past few days, the International Criminal Court has filed an arrest warrant for some of the Taliban leaders. Welcome to the 2000s. The International Criminal Court has now figured out that the Taliban are back, something the rest of the world has known and recognized for more than two decades. This body had the opportunity to do something pretty common sense: Speak out and say we are not a party to the International Criminal Court. The United States has never participated in that. In fact, no President has ever even requested--Republican or Democrat--to join that agreement for the International Criminal Court. No one wants to be a part of that in the United States. I know of no Oklahoman who would say we want our troops to be under the authority of an international court. We are not going to do that. Israel, by the way, has also not joined the International Criminal Court. They have no desire to also be under the authority of a foreign court. They have seen full well the U.N. anti-Semitism, and they have no interest to the international bodies trying to be able to tell them right from wrong, so they are not a party to it either. But the International Criminal Court has seen fit to be able to challenge and try to call out American soldiers and to be able to call out the leaders of Israel, even after they have been attacked. So this body in the U.S. Senate had an opportunity yesterday to be able to speak out on that and to actually sanction and to allow further sanctions of individuals from the International Criminal Court and entities that cooperate with them to say you cannot come after the United States or after our allies. It is a very simple, straightforward bill. It is a bill that passed with a very large bipartisan majority through the House of Representatives. In fact, it has passed twice now with a large bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives. But when it came here to the U.S. Senate, my Democratic colleagues shrugged and said no. The Trump administration, I am confident, will speak out with sanctions against the International Criminal Court. They did during the first Trump Presidency. I am confident they will again. What I am not confident of is every future President after President Trump, if they will hold the same high standard to be able to protect American citizens, our soldiers, and to be able to stand alongside with Israel. I have come to this body over and over and over again, and I have said we should speak out in these areas. We should speak out against anti-Semitism. For instance, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, that definition of what anti-Semitism is, that is a definition the United States was a party to more than three decades ago. Our State Department so recognizes what it means to be anti- Semitic and makes it very clear on that. But this body has failed to actually impose that same definition of anti-Semitism in our Department of Justice--for instance, the FBI--or the Department of Education. Some may say, well, why is that even an issue? Well, ask the Jewish students at Columbia University, and they will tell you why that is important. This week, at Columbia University, masked students burst into a modern history of Israel class chanting anti-Semitic tropes and calling out to crush Zionism, in their class at Columbia University this week, during Holocaust Remembrance Week. I think having a clear definition of what anti-Semitism is and calling out universities that would allow that kind of oppression on their own students, I think, is important. I think for this body to be able to speak out with one voice to say we are not going to allow American soldiers nor our allies to be called in by a kangaroo international court, I think, is important to us. And this week, of all weeks, on Holocaust Remembrance Week, we should speak with one voice. To say ``never again'' means never again. And we will continue to stand with our friends and allies in Israel, and we will continue to stand against anti-Semitism here, there, anywhere. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, for myself as chairman of the Select Committee on Ethics and for Senator Coons, vice chairman of the committee, that the annual report of the Select Committee on Ethics for calendar year 2024 be printed in the Record. The committee issued this report on January 31, 2025, as required by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.