James Lankford

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, there is a difference between a refugee who was fully vetted, that America has welcomed historically and should continue to, and we will. We worked for decades to be able to honor refugees and to be able to do our part in what is happening around the world. That same standard for refugees, where an individual is identified, the family is vetted, they go through the process both at the U.N. and through the United States to be able to identify how to be able to help that family, that same definition for ``refugee'' is also used as a definition for ``asylee.'' It is the same definition, but there is a dramatic difference between the two. The refugee has been fully vetted. We know who they are; we know the situation; we know the crisis that their family has gone through; and our Nation, like multiple nations around the world, engages to see what we can do to help that family in trauma. That is who we are as Americans. It is whom we will continue to be. The challenge is when we have thousands of people cross our southern border requesting asylum whom we don't know who they are, who are not vetted, that begin to take advantage of American generosity, and it becomes a challenge for us to be able to filter who really qualifies as a refugee/asylee as they are crossing the border and who is just taking advantage of our system. That is a challenge. It has been a challenge for us for years, but it has dramatically accelerated in the last 3 years. This year we will have 2\1/2\ million people that will cross our southern border. The vast majority of those will ask for asylum, and they will be released into the United States awaiting a hearing, sometimes 8 to 10 years in advance, to be able to make their case that they qualify. In the meantime, we don't know who they are. They have not been vetted. We don't have background information for those individuals. Last week, the FBI picked up eight individuals with direct ties to ISIS that were in our country, that in the last 2 years had crossed our southern border--had blended in with the rest of the folks who requested asylum--requested asylum and then disappeared into our country. Thankfully, our FBI was able to pick up that these eight individuals were in Los Angeles, New York, and Philadelphia, preparing to be able to carry out acts of violence in our country. We are grateful for the work of the FBI to be able to do that, but why aren't we filtering these individuals at the border? We are not evaluating criminal history even in the country they are coming from. How do I know that? I know that because I work with DHS, and I am fully aware of what their process is. We fingerprint individuals, and we see if they are on the Terror Watchlist; that is, we know them, we have been tracking them internationally, or if they are on the Interpol international criminal list. But if they are on a list in their own country, we don't know that. Last week, Victor Antonio Martinez was picked up in my State, in Tulsa, OK, sitting in a sports bar in Tulsa, where he had left out from Maryland after murdering Rachel Morin, a mother of five. Now, he had fled to Maryland because he had carried out acts of violence in Los Angeles in a violent home invasion in Los Angeles. So he carried out an act of violence in Los Angeles, went to Maryland, murdered a mom there, then was headed to Tulsa. What do you think was about to happen in Tulsa? Oh, by the way, did I mention, he fled from El Salvador because he murdered someone in El Salvador. So he fled El Salvador, came to our southern border, requested asylum, came into the United States, attacked a family in Los Angeles, murdered a mom in Maryland, and then was arrested in my State, in Tulsa. Please don't tell my folks in Tulsa, there is nothing to worry about on illegal immigration, this is all going fine at the border. We don't believe it because a violent, multiperson murderer was on a national crime spree, and my State was next before he was picked up and arrested, now extradited back to Maryland for the crime there. In New York, earlier this year, Raul Castro-Mata from Venezuela shot at two New York police officers. He is one of those folks from Venezuela that had come across asking for asylum. Earlier this month in Texas, an illegal immigrant was arrested when he had broken into a private business and had committed a pretty large robbery there. In Florida, a SWAT team got into a shootout with an illegal alien who had killed a police officer just a few months ago. In Washington State, an illegal alien from Mexico was driving, and he killed a Washington State police officer. The car was going 107 miles an hour. He was under the influence of marijuana at the time. Listen, I am fully aware that not everyone that crosses the border is going to carry out acts of criminal activities. I am fully aware of that. All I am doing is asking a simple question: Are we checking criminal history at the border for the thousands of people that are coming across the border? And the answer is no. For the eight people that were picked up last week that were ISIS terrorist connected, those eight are individuals that were listed as special interest aliens. They are 8 of the 53,000 special interest aliens that had entered our country this year across the southern border. Oh, and if you think that number is big, last year the number was 70,000 special interest aliens were released into our country last year. These are individuals that this DHS has declared, at the border, a potential national security risk. Yet instead of detaining them, the vast majority of them have been released on their own recognizance around the country somewhere. Listen, this body knows full well I am willing to work with anyone on either side of the aisle to be able to solve this issue. Between now and the election, we are going to have another million and a half people illegally cross into our country--between now and the end of the year. We have had 10 million people illegally cross in the last 3\1/2\ years--10 million. If we don't stop this, every day we have folks that are coming in to find work, to connect with families, and folks that are also coming in to commit criminal acts. They are not fleeing from poverty. They are fleeing from the law in their own country, and they are carrying out acts of violence in ours. When we can't tell the difference between the two, why are we defaulting to open rather than defaulting to closed? Why are we literally telling the people in my State: That guy sitting next to you at the sports bar--we didn't know if he was a criminal or not, so we just let him in. We didn't know if he had committed murder in his own country, so we just let him in. Why are we doing that? Why is that happening today on our southern border, and what are we going to do to stop it? I am going to continue to come to this floor to bring this up because it is not getting better. The Executive action the President took 2 weeks ago to declare they are going to put new limits in place--everybody here should check the facts on it. We had the same number of crossings yesterday that we had 4 weeks ago before that Executive action went into place. That Executive action hasn't changed the numbers. What has changed is the way they are counting the numbers. They are now not including in the count the people who come to a port of entry who are not legally present. They are now not being included, so the numbers look smaller, but look at the asterisk and the fine print of who now is no longer being counted in the publicly released numbers. The numbers haven't changed; the way they are publishing the numbers has changed. Then this week, the President announced a new amnesty program for folks who are here in the country. That is now his 95th Executive action announcing to the world that if you get across our border, you can stay. It is inviting people to be able to come into our country illegally. That is the wrong message to the world. It is a message we need to address, and we shouldn't just wait around until it gets better on its own.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, my guess is, if I went to every person in this room--every page, every person sitting in the Gallery, every Senator--and I pointed to this image and said, ``What do you see there?'' my guess is every person in this room would go, ``Well, that is a baby.'' That is my guess. I mean, I haven't asked every person here, but my guess is every person would look at it, and they would go: Well, that is a sonogram of a baby. That is what I would say: It looks like a child to me. So the issue here in America and the next question is: Should it live or die? The first answer is pretty obvious: That is a baby. The second question is: Should it live or die? That one, in America, is not quite so obvious anymore. You know, what is interesting is that I have two daughters. They are amazing, remarkable, beautiful women. They are adults now, but I distinctly remember that pregnancy test and seeing those little lines on that test, and my wife and I looking at each other with excitement. I distinctly remember talking to friends and her parents and other folks, saying that we are pregnant. And as we shared our story, I don't remember a single person saying to me: Well, you are pregnant. What are you going to do with it? Are they going to live or die? No one asked us that. No one asked us: Is it really a baby or is that just a fetus? No one said: You just have tissue. They asked us questions like: Have you thought of a name? Have you figured out how to install the car seat yet? Those are the questions they asked us because, every person we talked to and every person with whom we shared the news that we were pregnant, all acknowledged that reality that that is a baby. Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled on what is now called the Dobbs decision. It took away the Roe v. Wade decision that mandated that abortion had to be everywhere in the country and took it back to where it was for the first 180 years or so of our country, when the law was that the rules about abortion are handled in each State. That is all it did. It didn't end abortion in America. We still have abortion in America, in very high numbers. But the decision of how that is done was not done by a Supreme Court. It was done by legislators, as it always had been. And that is what the Court said. So this is now going back to the people and the people's representatives on all levels. So the debate is, again, scattered all across the country now, and the debate is very simply over: Is that a child? And if it is a child, what should happen to it? I have to tell you, that baby is not mine, but she is really cute. I look at a baby like that--my daughters both slept in that same position, which we, as parents, call the touchdown position, where they both have their hands up above their heads. I am amazed at this picture of the sonogram to see that infant in the womb in that exact same position asleep. I think the only difference between this child in the womb sleeping with her hands over her head and this child is time. That is it. That baby is as much of a baby as that baby is a baby. There is no difference there, other than time. So we debate, and we talk about this very complicated question: When is a child valuable, and when is a child medical waste? When is a child valuable, and when is a child disposable? We, as Americans, are grappling with that issue. The issue about when that child is a child really comes down to preference and convenience and to determine if the child is convenient. If they are convenient, then they are a child. If they are not convenient, then they are disposable. If two ladies are walking down the same street--both of them, let's say, 18 weeks pregnant--and of those two ladies on opposite sides of the street, one of them steps into her workplace and into a baby shower, the folks at work are going to talk about how to install a car seat. They are going to talk about: Where are you going to set up the crib? They are going to talk about baby names, and they are going to talk about all the expenses and things. And the person on the other side of the street, also 18 weeks pregnant, is headed to get a surgical abortion. And so I ask the question: Of those two children, what is the difference between those two children? They are both at 18 weeks of development. One of them is being celebrated and prepared for, and one of them will be disposed of. What is the difference between the two? We, as Americans, are trying to figure out the answer to that exact question. And the conversation is happening all across the country. I get it. It is a fair conversation: When is a child a child? Or when are they not a child? Well, under this administration--this administration, by far, has been the most pro-abortion administration ever in the history of the country. That is not just an opinion. That is just the actions of the administration. That has just been their response to the Dobbs decision. This administration was so disturbed that we might have fewer abortions in America that the Biden administration has aggressively worked to increase the number of abortions in America to offset the possibility that there could be fewer abortions, because they didn't want to see fewer abortions in America. They wanted to see as many or more. So the Biden administration opened up, for the first time, VA hospitals to provide abortions--even late-term abortions, even up to the very final months of a viable child. For those VA hospitals, it would be the first time that they would be able to provide abortions. They are withholding funds for pregnancy resource centers. Now, these are the centers that they really hate the most. These are pregnancy resource centers around the country that offer crazy things like diapers and formula and support for pregnant moms--that if pregnant moms walk in and say, ``Hey, I am really struggling with my pregnancy, and I am afraid,'' they say, ``We will walk with you. We will counsel you. We will give you free materials. We will help provide diapers and baby clothes and a car seat, and we will walk along with you so you don't have to be afraid and alone.'' The Biden administration really hates those folks. So they are withholding funds from any grants going to those folks where they have received grants in the past. HHS is now paying to move people who illegally cross our southern border to places--even teenagers--where they can get abortions, and we have Federal dollars going to be able to move people to make sure that those people who illegally cross our border who want access to abortion be able to get it. It has been frustrating to be able to watch. Even in my State, my State has chosen to say: We think every child is valuable. We look at these two girls, and we see them just a couple of weeks apart. But we see them both as young girls. They kind of state the obvious. But in my State, because we don't allow abortion and promote abortion, Health and Human Services has now stripped away grant dollars from my State for one reason. Health and Human Services came to my State and said: If you don't put a 1-800 number on all of your healthcare materials stemming from the State, telling women where they can get an abortion, we will take away your Federal funding. If you don't show and give a 1-800 number where you can get an abortion, we will take away your grant funding. They didn't take away just any grant funding, because, by the way, my State said: We are not going to do that. So the grant funding they took away from my State was for impoverished women to get cancer screenings and for AIDS patients to get testing. They took that funding away, saying: We will not allow any Federal dollars coming into your State for AIDS testing and for cancer screening for impoverished women, if you don't promote abortion in your State. They were serious. So they did it because this administration is obsessed with increasing the number of abortions in the country and finding ways to be able to expand this and telling people not to look at this picture. It has been a frustrating journey, the last couple of years, because we seem to be ignoring the obvious. We are so tied up here on the politics of this, even when Senator Thune brings a bill that says, if a child is born alive after a botched abortion--they are a fully delivered, full-term baby on the table breathing--what should we do? That is a pretty commonsense bill. Yet my Democratic colleagues have knocked it down today and said: No, that child should not have the opportunity for life. When Senator Hyde-Smith brings a bill that just says, ``Why don't we give education to more doctors and more moms about infertility''--it doesn't limit IVF at all, at all--they are like, ``No, no, not going to do that.'' When Senator Britt from Alabama brings a bill that says: Why don't we recognize, during pregnancy, that that is really expensive, and if States have the requirement to do child support for a child--well, I will just say it: for a deadbeat dad who is not paying child support. If they walk away at that point, that child support should also cover the time of pregnancy, not just after delivery. That is pretty common sense because, for any mom, they know pregnancy is really expensive. It is a very expensive time. So child support should begin when that child is there. A commonsense bill that, I dare say, most Americans would say, ``Well, that makes sense,'' has been knocked down today. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4524 Mr. President, I bring one more that I think is pretty common sense. It is already the law in the United States that every person has the right to conscience. Healthcare providers that go into the profession to protect life, to save life, to heal--many of them also say: I don't want to be a part of taking human life. I went into this profession to protect life. So they express to their clinics, their hospitals--wherever they serve--that they don't want to be a part of the taking of human life. They understand that it is happening in their hospital; they just don't want to be a part of that. They express their conscience issues. By the way, that is protected in Federal law right now, that every one of those healthcare providers has the right to be able to express their conscience and not be required to take human life. The problem is, it requires the Federal Government to actually step in and enforce that law. So let me show you what that looks like. A nurse in Vermont, a few years ago, went into her hospital as she normally did, and as she went into her hospital, went into work as she normally does--she is a nurse that is passionate about the life of every person, including children in the womb, and she had expressed that to the hospital. She got caught as she was going in, saying: Hey, we need you in the ER right now. She said: No problem. So she steps into the ER to help with a procedure, gloves up, gets ready. She is going to go assist. As she walks in, the doctor that is in the room looks at her and says: Don't hate me. She suddenly says: What is going on? She realizes she is being called in to be able to assist with an abortion. She has already made it clear she doesn't want to be a part of taking human life. The hospital says: No. We will fire you if you don't help. We need your help. We are short of staff today, so you are going to do this. A direct violation of Federal law--clearly, no question. They expressed it in the operating room. They knew they were violating her conscience. So the Federal Government goes through the process of starting to be able to enforce the law on that hospital--until the last Presidential election occurs. When the last Presidential election occurred, the new leadership of HHS stepped in and said: We are not going to enforce that. In other words, we are dropping that case. It would be the equivalent of a police officer walking down the street, looking at a burglary that is happening, knowing that a crime is occurring right there, and just saying, ``I am going to choose not to enforce the law today,'' and just walking on by. That is what is happening right now. So the Conscience Protection Act that I bring does a simple thing. It says that if an employer violates Federal law and the Federal Government chooses not to enforce this, the individual that has had their conscience violated--that individual has the right to be able to bring a case on their own. This is not controversial. This would not eliminate a single abortion in America. We will not have one fewer abortion in America based on this policy. But what it will do is it will say to an American: You are free to be able to live your conscience without fear of being fired for living your conscience. That is the only thing it does. I think that is pretty straightforward and pretty common sense. Of all things that we should be able to agree to in this body, let's protect each other's right to believe and to live our faith. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of S. 4524 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, we will continue to be able to speak out. We do believe that is a child. We believe in the dignity of every human being. My wife, when we were pregnant--every single cell in her body--every cell--from her toenails and her toes and her nose and her elbows--every single cell in her body has the exact same DNA. It has that signature of her. But when we were pregnant, suddenly there was a group of cells that had different DNA. They didn't match hers, and they didn't match mine. They were cells with DNA that had never existed on Earth before until that moment. They were uniquely different. I think we should acknowledge that fact in the days ahead, that there is something special about those different cells. We will continue to speak up for the conscience rights of all individuals to be able to state the obvious and to be able to live their faith. I think in the days ahead we will have a time as Americans when we will look back on this season and think, why would we turn away from what was so obvious to all of us? I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, if everyone here in this Chamber is watching the news of late, in the last 24 hours, the FBI scooped up eight citizens from Tajikistan that were in the United States and arrested them on immigration violations, but they were also suspected terrorists that were in the United States. They were in Philadelphia; they were in Los Angeles; they were in New York City; and they were individuals that had direct connections to terrorism. And they were here because they illegally crossed our southern border and were waved in. This is an issue that I have been on this floor at this desk speaking about for 2 years now. The population that is crossing our southern border has dramatically changed in the last 2 years. No longer it is just about everyone from the Western Hemisphere. Now we have very large numbers of people from places like Tajikistan, from West Africa, from China, from Russia, from Pakistan, from other specific places that are known areas of terrorism, and we have people in the thousands that are crossing our borders that we don't know who they are, from places that we typically don't have people illegally crossing. This group of individuals are called special interest aliens; that is, they are not on our Terror Watchlist, but we don't know why they are here or how they got here or the process that they came to come to the United States across our southern border illegally is unusual, different, or is directed by a crime organization outside of Mexico-- special interest aliens. Last year, we had 70,000 people that fell into the category of special interest aliens. This year, so far, we have had 53,000 people that were special interest aliens. These eight individuals that were arrested yesterday were part of that group of special interest aliens: illegally present here, not vetted on our southern border but released on their own recognizance, and now, with an announcement yesterday from the FBI, a connection to terrorism, specifically ISIS terrorism. In the past several months, the FBI has also picked up al-Shabaab terrorists in the United States that had crossed on our southern border, that were listed as special interest aliens, and that have now been picked up. We are literally living on borrowed time. This is the issue that I have brought up over and over again to this body to say we need to pay attention to this issue of what is happening on our southern border. Now, currently the administration has put in place a new Executive order to try to lower somewhat the number of people that are coming across, but the way they are doing it is by turning around people from the Western Hemisphere, but folks from other areas like Tajikistan, those folks are still coming through. Some are being detained, but a large number are actually being released on their own recognizance as special interest aliens. We don't have information on a direct tie to terrorism at the time they are at the border so they are being released. The bill that I brought to this body would have changed the way we did screening dramatically, would have taken all of these issues about terrorism from the end of the process and moved it to the beginning so that we are not releasing people and then trying to figure out if we can chase them. Right now, what is really happening day-to-day is that individuals that are crossing our border, we are hoping that the FBI can pick up any information on them after they are already released into the country. Remember, there were 70,000 individuals like this last year, 53,000 so far this year, and we are hoping the FBI is able to discern they are a terror threat before they carry out an act of terrorism. That is exactly the wrong way to do this. We need to enforce our southern border with more than just some action to be able to reduce what is happening. We should not be living on borrowed time every day awaiting the next terrorist attack in the United States because our border was open. What have we done in the past? Well, last year we deported four Tajiks--last year, four. Now we are in the process of deporting another eight. We don't know what the numbers are here. And at the end of the day, that is a very bad spot for us to be in as a country. I don't want the United States of America living on borrowed time, awaiting the next terrorist attack because we were not paying attention and enforcing our own southern border. We need to be able to wake up on this. 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, the President of the United States is, today, using clips of my speech on the floor of the Senate in his campaign ads talking about border security and immigration. Well, I would encourage him to use clips of this speech today instead, because President Biden created the problem at the border right now. That is not some theory. That is not some political statement. That is fact. And I can compare that to the two previous Presidents, who operated under the exact same law as President Biden is operating under now. We have 2\1/2\ million people--plus--illegally crossing our southern border this year. Under President Obama, we had half a million. There is no difference in the law between President Obama, President Trump, and President Biden. The only difference is the Executive who is actually overseeing that law's prosecution. That is the only difference. So why would we have half a million people illegally crossing the border under President Obama and 2\1/2\ million people under President Biden? It is the Executive and how they are carrying out the law. Now, I have been very clear: That last half a million is Congress's responsibility. We have a responsibility to change the definition of ``asylum,'' to change how the enforcement is done, increase the number of agents that are there, take away a lot of the appeals that are frivolous--and we all know it--to be able to allow people who qualify for asylum to get into the country and people who do not get turned around so they can go through a legal pathway, not through an illegal pathway. That is Congress's responsibility, that last half a million. Those are changes in the law we have to get done, and I have been very outspoken on that and will continue to be outspoken on that because we have not done our job here. But the other 2 million people who are illegally crossing this year, last year, the year before that, that is not on Congress; that is on the President of the United States because he created this. Why would I say that? Day one of his Presidency, he walked in with an Executive order day one and announced to the world: We are no longer going to do a border wall construction. We are going to stop border wall construction. Day one, this President announced that he is no longer going to do the Executive order that had been put in place under President Trump to ensure that there was a meaningful application of Border Patrol laws and immigration regulations. Literally, he took those regs and set them aside and said: We are not going to do that. Day one, he announced a 100-day moratorium on deportations and on enforcement and then continued to be able to extend it out from there. This wasn't day one, but it was a week and a half later: DHS implemented a new policy saying that we are going to change the way we do removals of people who are illegally present in the country. The next day after that, he changed the way asylum processing is done at the border and removed what was called the ``Remain in Mexico'' program. That is something the Supreme Court actually came back and said: You can't just remove that; you have to re-implement that. So the Supreme Court actually required that to be implemented. This President put in the mechanics to do it but is not actually doing it. So, as Americans, we are paying hundreds of millions of dollars to have the facility and the personnel actually there to fulfill what the Court has required them to do, but they are not actually doing what is called the ``MPP,'' the ``Remain in Mexico'' program. That is a decision that they made. A week after that, in February of 2021, Antony Blinken announced that he was terminating the agreements with Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador so that they would then enforce their borders more readily. That agreement that we had made with them with the State Department, the State Department terminated that to be able to open up the pathways for more folks to go. I could keep going on and on and on. You see, what is happening now is not happenstance; it was a deliberate decision made in 2021 to open our borders to ``not look so mean.'' But what has actually occurred is more than 10 million people have crossed our border illegally, and the administration has announced just in the last couple of weeks that 55,000 people have crossed just this year that they designated as a special-interest migrant--their definition--55,000 people. Those individuals are coming from areas that they define as a terror risk. Those 55,000 individuals have all been labeled by this administration as a potential risk to national security--55,000 in just the last year. You know what has happened to those? The vast majority of them are in the United States right now because they were released by this administration. This is a border crisis of this administration's creation. They created this crisis. While Congress has the responsibility to do the things that we need to do, this administration created this crisis with the decisions that they made in Homeland Security, that they made in the State Department, and they made at the Department of Justice. Individuals who cross the border multiple times, that is a felony in American law. Ask the Department of Justice how many of those folks have been prosecuted as a felony in the last 3 years--I dare you; ask them--and you will find out it is zero. They have just stopped prosecutions. They have announced to the world: We are no longer enforcing American law. The world has taken the message, and they are coming because we are the United States of America. We are the greatest country in the world. But we are also the top terrorism threat in the world because people come here to do us harm because they hate our freedom and who we are. We are not doing the most basic security that every nation does, and that is protect our border. So the President announced an Executive action this week, an Executive action that he literally pulled from a section of the bipartisan bill that we worked on, but it was literally the bolt-on section on the end of it. The heart of the bill was not what you do after thousands of people are crossing the border; the heart of the bill is what do you do for the first person that illegally crosses. The bill was set up to say that the very first person that illegally crosses--they are picked up at the border, they are screened quickly, and then they are deported quickly. We changed the screening process, we changed the appeals process, and we changed all the standards. We rapidly affected the first person. This administration has announced a new initiative that they are going to do not for the first person that illegally crosses but for somewhere around the 4,000th. Why do I say 4,000 when they have announced 2,500? Well, you have to read the fine print. They said: After 2,500 people come, then we are going to add some new authorities. But the fine print is pretty important. They exclude the about 1,600 people a day that they are currently letting in at ports of entry using what they call the CBP One app. They are giving those folks parole. They have not gone through any legal process. They are declaring them as legal when they come through. So they are not including those folks that are illegally coming across the border under a parole program they have created. That program could end tomorrow. Illegal immigration would drop by 1,600 people tomorrow if they turned off the program they turned on. They are also not including what is called the Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, Nicaragua program. There are 1,000 people a day coming in under that program. They have just excluded them as well from their 2,500 number. They are excluding anyone who is an unaccompanied minor. They are excluding them. They have also listed a whole bunch of others--if they have a health issue, others. So this 2,500 number--I have had several folks say: Well, that is half of what you all had proposed in your bill. It is not. You have to read the fine print of what is actually in the Executive order. What could this administration do? It is pretty straightforward. Here a few things they could do right now. Right now, they could actually start putting pressure on recalcitrant countries, through the State Department, to take individuals back into their own country. The State Department has stopped putting pressure on recalcitrant countries. They could do that today. The law today allows the administration to start doing direct hire for Border Patrol and for ICE. They are not using that authority. They are just saying: We can't hire enough agents. They have direct hire authority they are choosing not to use. Right now, this administration could speed up the way they handle the appeals process through all these frivolous regulations and some of the Executive orders. They had to literally take away those things and make it more difficult to actually fight through the appeals. They could put those back in today. Today, they could end the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela program that they created to allow folks to be able to come in in greater numbers from those four countries. They started that program. They could end that today. They could end the catch-and-release that they have created at the southern border. They could end that today. They started it. They could turn that off. They could restart the cooperative agreements with Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador to stop the flow of migrants coming from Central America up as they are coming through those areas. They could do that today. They could reinstate the ``Remain in Mexico'' program. All the structure is there. The court required them to have it. They could actually use it, and that would make a huge difference today. They could actually start prosecuting border crossing cases from start to finish. What do I mean by that? This administration is starting the process of prosecuting individuals, but halfway through, they are just dropping the case. Well, it doesn't take long for the word to get out to people who illegally cross that even if you start the prosecution, this administration will drop it and will not finish it. They text family members back home and say ``come,'' and the next group actually comes from there. This administration is currently finding new ways to allow people to come in. In States like Oklahoma--my State is currently being prosecuted by the Department of Justice because we passed laws in our State to put greater requirements on people that are illegally present in the State and have committed criminal acts. It used to be, under the previous administration, if someone was illegally present and they committed a criminal act, they were more active to remove those. Right now, the Department of Justice is actually putting pressure on my State of Oklahoma for pressuring people that are illegally present and also have committed a criminal act. The Department of Justice could actually enforce our southern border rather than actually go after States that are trying to actually enforce the law in our own States. Quite frankly, one of the things this administration could do today is to vet people coming across our border better, because they are currently not coordinating all of the data points we have for foreign individuals. They are not checking against all of those systems when people are crossing our border illegally. This administration and this President need to stop saying there is nothing he can do until Congress acts. Congress does need to act, but there is a lot he could do that would make a huge difference. And it is not just my opinion; I can prove it with fact. Just compare this Democrat President and his number of illegal crossings against the last Democrat President and his number of illegal crossings: Biden, 2.5 million a year; Obama, half a million a year. I understand this President doesn't want to enforce what President Trump did, although that was more effective than what President Obama did, but he should do at least what President Obama did. Stop playing politics with this on all sides. Stop running a speech that I have given on this floor for his campaign purposes unless he wants to run this speech and to say this President needs to step up and do his job. 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, three Senators started, about 8 months ago now, working to try to get some solutions on border security. It is for obvious reasons, because we have record high numbers over and over and over again at our southern border. We had a record high number in October, record high number in November, and record high number in December. In fact, December had the highest number of illegal crossings ever in the history of the country in a single day. As of yesterday, we had about 5,200 people that illegally crossed yesterday. In fact, almost every day this year, we have had more than 5,000 illegally crossing day after day after day. This is a very big issue that the American people want solved. It is a frustrating issue that we have not been able to get to a resolution on. It is an issue that people have been frustrated with President Biden because President Biden has not enforced the border the same way President Trump did or the same way President Obama did. To be clear, this year we will have 2\1/2\ million people illegally cross the border. With the same law in place under President Obama, we had half a million people that illegally crossed that year. And as I have raised over and over again with this administration, if they would just enforce the border the same way President Obama did, things would be very different. But they have chosen not to. They have chosen not to enforce it the same way President Trump did. Instead, we have absolutely been overrun with people from literally all over the world. To put this in perspective, in the last 3 months, we have had more people illegally cross than any full year under President Obama. They need to do what they can do. But Congress needs to do what we can do. We have got to change the definition of asylum. We have to change the appeals process. We have got to be able to speed up the process. We have got to provide more clarity so that we don't have people waiting around 8 years for a hearing. We can't just release people at the border, as what has happened day after day after day for years now. We can't have a brandnew parole program that the Biden administration literally invented that no President has ever used to release thousands of people a day. We can't have that. We need to solve this in the administration. We need to solve this in Congress. I wish that is what we were doing today, but we are not. When Senator Murphy and Senator Sinema and I started working on this months ago, we were working to solve it. We were not able to get that done. But today is not a bill. Today is a prop. Today is a political messaging exercise. Today is an opportunity to be able to have a vote that is sitting out there so people can send fundraising emails out later tonight and say, ``Look, I tried to do something,'' when no work was actually done to try to get something done and completed and passed today. In fact, I anticipate there will be fewer votes today than there were 2 months ago when this came up--on both sides of the aisle--because everyone sees this for what it is. It is not an effort to actually make law. It is an effort to do political messaging. That doesn't help us as a country. We still have people that are illegally present here that need attention, and we are not getting it. Now, we can say--Democrats can bring this bill up and say: Look, we tried to do something. Well, so what. Republicans can do the same thing. We brought H.R. 2 twice. That has passed the House with a broad, sweeping piece of approval in the House to come over here to be able to change the way that actually asylum is done, the entire process. That has been voted down twice on a strictly partisan vote. So we can have this vote today, and people can say: Well, Republicans voted against this; so it didn't pass. Republicans can say: Democrats didn't vote for H.R. 2; so it didn't pass. That still doesn't solve the problem. At the end of the day, the people in my State say: There is another 5,000 people that illegally crossed the border. Why aren't we sitting down and resolving this? So, today, I am going to vote no on a bill that I think should pass, but there has been no effort to really get this to pass. Let's get us back to the table. Let's actually resolve this issue as we need to get done. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, so far this year, 1,624,790 people have illegally crossed our southwest border--1,624,790 so far. We have at least 1.6 million people who have also been designated ``got-aways'' in the last 3 years; that is, they crossed our southwest border, and the Border Patrol could see them, but they couldn't get to them. Let me give you some context on that. As this body knows well, because we have talked about it over and over and over again, in the first 3 years of this administration, we have had more illegal crossings on our southwest border than in the previous 12 years combined--more in the last 3 years than we had in the previous 12 years combined. If you want to just drill down, 1 year under President Biden has as many illegal crossings as we had under 4 years of President Trump. Yesterday, we had more than 5,000 people illegally cross our southwest border--yesterday. That has been true every day, I believe, but 3, in the last 3 months, that we have had more than 5,000 people a day. Now, the national news media has looked away from the southwest border, but those who live on the southwest border can't look away. They are still facing it every single day. And in cities and communities across the entire country, it is still happening every single day, day after day, as this President has looked away from what is happening on our southern border. As I have said to this Department of Homeland Security multiple times, if they would enforce the border the same as President Obama enforced the border, we would be in a very different place. But they don't enforce the border like President Trump did, and they don't enforce it like President Obama did. They just fail to enforce it. The same law--the same law--existed under President Obama, when we had less than half a million people cross illegally in a year, that exists under President Biden, where we have had 1.6 million people so far this year, with still quite a few months to go--the same law, the same capacity to be able to enforce the border. But this President has said over and over again that he has nothing that he can do until something is passed. I have been very clear with this body, and I have been very honest with my own party and with my friends on the other side of the aisle: Congress has a job to do. We need to clarify what asylum means. We need to add the funds that are needed. We need to speed up the process. We need to take away the forever appeals that are built into it that incentivize people coming and gaming the system. That is Congress's job. We should do that. And I have worked with everyone who is willing to work on that to get us to a place where we can get to 60 votes in this body to pass something to do our job. One party cannot resolve this issue. This has to be both parties sitting down and working on it together. That is the rule of 60 in this body. But the President also has things that he could do that he has chosen not to do. In fact, this President has taken 94 Executive orders to weaken border security. He has created new parole authorities no President has ever used before to facilitate faster movement into the country. So instead of actually slowing the process down, he has actually sped it up. And they have done so intentionally. In the past few weeks, the Department of Homeland Security has released a new memo and a new regulatory action that they are getting feedback for that they have admitted to me that will increase screening for, in their words, a handful of additional people--a handful when, yesterday, we had 5,000 people illegally cross. But, currently, as right now Homeland Security is saying that they don't have enough money to hire more agents, they are spending millions of dollars rebranding Homeland Security Investigation, or HSI. They are rebranding them and changing some of their focus on it. Now, we have yet to be able to find out how much they are spending on it, but we do understand it is in the millions. At the same time, they are saying they don't have enough money to be able to handle greater enforcement. This administration is focused on the things that don't make a difference when we need them to focus on the things that do. This body is also focused on the things that are not making a difference on this. Several of us sat down for months to be able to hash out in a bipartisan way: How do we solve this? We felt we had a solution that could pass. We did not. Now, that same option that everyone in this whole body knows won't pass is now coming back to this body again, exactly as it was. And many of us--including myself, who actually worked on the original language-- are saying: Why? This is not about trying to pass something. This is about a show vote in this body to show: Look, we tried to vote on something, and those mean Republicans blocked it. Well, I hate to tell you, this vote, when it comes up on Thursday-- because that is when I understand it is coming--I will be interested in how many Democrats vote for this as well because I have already heard quite a few Democrats say: I am not sure I really want to vote for it if it doesn't have Ukraine, if it doesn't have Israel funding in it-- because, originally, it was border security, Ukraine-Israel funding. And so some of my Democratic colleagues were voting for it. But now that it has none of those things, several have said to me: I am not sure I want to vote for that without the other portions of it in there. Several Republicans are saying the same thing they said before: Hey, I wanted even more in that bill. I know there were a lot of good things in it, but I wanted even more in it. So they are not willing to vote for it until it has even more. So what would be the logical thing that should be done in this body? The logical thing would be to say: That vote failed; so what would pass? You see, we can play the same game because Democrats have blocked the bill from Senator Scott that would fund border security and enforcement of immigration laws at a different level. Democrats blocked that vote. When Marco Rubio and Senator Graham brought bills to enforce the ``Remain in Mexico'' program that President Biden walked away from, Democrats blocked that vote. When Senator Cotton brought up a vote to stop aid for sanctuary cities that incentivize more people coming into the country and disappearing, Democrats blocked that vote. When Senator Grassley brought up a bill to deport criminal illegal aliens, Democrats blocked that bill. When Senator Hagerty brought up a bill to deal with increasing funding for ICE and to deport more criminal aliens that have already been designated criminal aliens in the United States, Democrats blocked that bill. When I brought up a bill to be able to implement and fund the title 42 authority and to extend that, Democrats blocked that bill. When Senator Marshall brought a bill to bring up H.R. 2 and Senator Cruz brought up the bill for H.R. 2--the House bill that has a broad spectrum for border enforcement--Democrats blocked that bill. When Senator Hagerty again brought up a bill to ban Federal funds from being used to fly illegal aliens from other countries to be able to give them parole authority into our country, Democrats blocked that bill. When Republicans--Senator Budd--bring up the Laken Riley Act, Democrats blocked that bill. When I brought up a bill dealing with special interest aliens, those the Department of Homeland Security designated as a potential national security risk--when I brought up a bill to say all those folks could not be released into the country, they had to be detained if they were declared a national security risk--Democrats blocked that bill. We can play this game all day long. Somehow, this belief that if we bring up a bill that has failed before that is somehow a strong movement to be able to solve the issue doesn't. It plays a political game, and we all know it. So what should we do? Actually be grownups, sit down, and actually try to figure out what we can pass rather than bringing things up that we all know won't. Now, I don't know if there is a belief that somehow, on Memorial Day week, Americans across the country can't wait for the Senate to vote again on a bill that has already failed before that could come up again, as if something is going to be different. I have a message to all of my colleagues: The people of America are not, on Memorial Day week, focused on what the Senate is doing this week. They are just not. They are thinking about their family member that was lost defending the country, or they are thinking about a sale at an appliance store. They are not thinking about this and this drama. We should take seriously, though, the national security risk that all of us know about and do something about it. Just as a side note that all of us know full well, the number of people designated by this administration as special interest aliens, those that are a national security risk by definition, who are coming across our border and being released into the country, is in the thousands. We all know it. We should take that seriously. If we want to just deal with the people who are on the higher list, who are on the Terror Watchlist, if I go back to, let's say, 2017, there were two people who were apprehended on the Terror Watchlist in 2017. There were six people apprehended in 2018. There were three people in 2019. But if I take that to this past year, 2023, there were 172. We have people crossing our border who we know are a national security risk while we are playing political messaging games here. Let's sit down and solve this. Let's not just vote on things that we know are going to fail. Let's not just do political messaging. Let's actually sit down and solve this. Over the past 2 years, something has shifted on our southern border. It is not just people from the Western Hemisphere who are crossing illegally; it is people from all over the world. We went from having a handful of Chinese citizens who crossed the border to last year and this year--tens of thousands of Chinese nationals crossing our border. I asked DHS: Are any of these Chinese nationals being deported? They responded to me: Yes, we have started deporting Chinese nationals who are here illegally. I said: Terrific. How many? Their response: Fourteen so far. Fourteen of the tens of thousands who have crossed in the last 2 years. We have deported 14 Chinese nationals. Can I tell you, in Oklahoma, there are thousands of Chinese nationals who have come into my State who are working in illegal marijuana operations. Our Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics has done a tremendous job of trying to be able to shut down all these illegal grow operations, but they continue to spring up. Over and over again, when they do a bust, it is Chinese nationals working, individuals who were trafficked over our southern border and individuals who are in our country illegally--over and over and over. We know this is going on. We know we have a terror risk. We all see it. We know there are individuals by the thousands being released who are declared by this administration as special-interest aliens. We understand full well criminal activities that are happening. And we are doing messaging bills that everyone knows will fail. Why don't we sit down and actually talk about it and work it out? Why don't we figure out how to solve this? That is what the American people expect us to do. My friends in Oklahoma look at me and say ``You guys go figure this out'' because they feel the problem is there, and what they feel is correct. So let's sit down and figure this out. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, can I just recap for this body. Starting in last October, a group of us sat down to have a serious conversation about the border. We had a Democrat Senator from Connecticut, Chris Murphy; we had an Independent Senator, Kyrsten Sinema, from Arizona; and a conservative Senator from Oklahoma. We all understood the problem is serious, and there are very real threats to our national security, our economy. It was spiraling out of control on the border. October was the highest month ever in the history of our country. November was the highest number ever in the history of our country. December was the highest number ever in the history of our country, with the largest day of illegal crossings in the history of our country, in December, of 12,000 people in a single day. Things were spiraling out of control at the border, and they continued. So we sat down in a serious conversation and said we had differences of how to be able to resolve this, but we all want to be able to fix this. So we spent months trying to be able to hammer out a resolution. It was a serious dialogue that we hoped to be able to get to a conclusion, but we failed to do that. We created a bill that, I felt like, was a great bill with common ground in it. It didn't have everything that I wanted in it, but it did have the essentials in it to be able to change the way we do asylum, to be able to change the processing. It literally took it from the very first person that crossed the border each day would be detained, quickly screened, and then deported--the very first person. If we had a caravan of up to 5,000 people across the day, we can't control that; so in that situation, instead of detaining, quickly screening, and deporting, we would just detain and deport, because there was no time to do the screening. We weren't going to release people in; we were going to turn people around. It changed the structure dramatically from what was happening on the border. I felt like this was a good bill to be able to move forward, and I moved in good faith to be able to get that done. But it is also well-known here that I had disagreements, some within my own party--the majority within my own party--that said this is not the time to be able to resolve this. It is what it is. It is the political nature of what is going on right now. I understand that. But the problem is still unresolved. Yesterday, we had 5,500 people that illegally crossed the border yesterday--yesterday. Last month, we had 174,000 people that illegally crossed our border last month. That would have been the highest month ever--in fact, it would have been the highest month in the past 20 years if it wasn't for the last 3 years under the Biden administration. It would have been higher than any month under President Obama, under President Bush, under President Trump. It would have been higher than any of those months, but it doesn't beat even the records that were even set in the previous months before under the Biden administration because of their dramatic change in policy. That 1.5 million people now illegally cross the border this fiscal year--1.5 million people. And they continue to be able to come across our border with almost no restraint. I have said for a long time, this is a serious issue that we need to address. My own party has said this was not the time to be able to do that. Now I am hearing rumors that next week, the folks I was sitting down with to be able to have serious dialogue to fix it may bring bills back up again and to say: Let's do a political thing on the other side of the aisle. Listen, if we are going to solve the border issues, it is not going to be by doing competing messaging bills. If we are going to solve this, let's sit down like adults and let's figure out how we are going to actually resolve this together. If there is a messaging bill that comes back--even the bill that I helped negotiate--next week just to bring it up again to try to be able to poke Republicans in the eye for some sort of messaging piece, why are we doing this? All the American people see it. Everybody sees this is political, but everyone in the country also sees: Why don't you guys and ladies fix this instead? Why don't you actually resolve it? There are a couple of quotes that have come out lately. My Democratic colleagues have put out a memo, and this was the memo, saying: Tom Suozzi flipped the script on his Republican opponent, successfully painting her as unserious about border security because of her opposition to the bipartisan border bill, and turned what could have been a devastating political liability into an advantage. Democrats should learn a lesson from NY- 03. Quite simply, we risk losing the 2024 election if we do not seize this opportunity to go on offense on the issue of the border and turn the tables on Republicans on a key fall voting issue. Senator Schumer put out a statement or he made this statement saying: It's a win if Republicans abandon us at the last minute, because if Democrats could put together a tough, bipartisan border bill on border, it would not take border away as an issue for the Republicans, but it would at least give us a 50-50 chance to combat it. Listen, I understand the politics of the moment. I do. We are in a Presidential election year. Everybody in America is watching what is happening on the border and saying something needs to be fixed. And it is easy for Republicans to look at the White House and to say there are 94 executive orders that the White House has proactively done that changed how the border was enforced under President Trump and under President Obama. OK? A high number--a high number--under President Obama was 2,000 people in a day. Yesterday, we had 5,500 people. If President Biden would just enforce the border the same way President Obama did, much less the same way President Trump did, the border would be very different. Everybody sees that. Everybody also sees that we need a change in the way we do asylum policy. That is a change that has to be done in Congress. That is a vote that we would have to be able to take. So instead of us pointing at each other and doing political stunts, let's solve this. Let's actually sit down and figure out how we are going to resolve it. We can't do everything. The bill that I worked with Senator Murphy and Senator Sinema on, we are not going to be able to pass. So let's find the sections on it that we can pass. The worst case scenario is doing nothing. That is what we are currently doing. Now, the House of Representatives passed a bill yesterday saying that if someone who is not legally present here in the country attacks a law enforcement officer, whether that is State, local, county, Federal, Tribal, or whoever it may be, if they attack a law enforcement officer, they are going to be deported. Well, it bipartisan passed over in the House yesterday. Is that coming here to the Senate? Probably not. It probably won't be taken up. But in a bipartisan way, it passed the House yesterday. We have had two different votes of the House bill that passed called H.R. 2 that was a very comprehensive bill dealing with all areas of border security. It passed the House. It came to the Senate. It has had two votes, and it has failed both times. So Republicans can now say: Democrats didn't take our bill. And Democrats, it looks like, are going to bring things up and say: Well, Republicans wouldn't take the bipartisan bill. And we would point at each other, and we are still in the same spot. Listen, the American people expect us to actually solve this, not just do politics on it. So here is my counsel: Stop doing all the political games. Let's stop bringing up the messaging bills. This is a national emergency. Of the 5,500 people who crossed the border yesterday illegally--I haven't seen the number yet, but I would tell you, in all likelihood, if it is tracking similar to other days--several dozen of those folks were designated by the Department of Homeland Security--this Department of Homeland Security--as special interest aliens; that is, they are coming from areas of known terrorism. They were designated at the border as a potential national security risk, and then they were released into the country awaiting a hearing. And by this afternoon, we will have no idea where they are. That happens every day now, because there is a large percentage of the people who are crossing the border every day now who are not from the Western Hemisphere. They are from West Africa. They are from all the ``stan'' countries. They are from Pakistan. They are from India. They are from China. They are from Russia. They are from areas where we know there are active terrorist cells, but we just don't know this person. They are not on our list. But we do know that clan that they are from and that there are people from that clan in their particular tribe or their particular location that have been an issue. But because we don't have derogatory information, they are being released every day. This has been the bell I have been ringing for months now. The immigration issue is not the same as what it was 2 years ago. There has been a huge shift in who is crossing the border, and we are not taking this seriously. This is a national security risk, and we need to be attentive to who is crossing our border every single day and take that seriously. This body knows full well I am not anti-immigration. We are a nation that has welcomed people in from all over the world, and we should continue to do that. We have a million people a year who legally become citizens of our country. But in the last 6 months, we have had 1\1/2\ million people illegally--illegally--cross into our country. That million that came in that became citizens of our country, they were vetted. They went through the process. They are being welcomed and integrated. That million and a half other folks who crossed illegally, we have no idea. Some are coming to join family. Some are coming to be able to find a job. But some are, no doubt, also coming for nefarious purposes, and we can't tell the difference. So my counsel to us is: Let's take this as serious as it actually is. Press conferences take one person; passing law takes 60. That means we have to sit down together to be able to talk this through. We have to be able to figure out how we are going to actually get something done and at least make some progress. What is DHS currently doing? Well, DHS has just announced they are doing a rebranding of Homeland Security Investigations, or HSI. They are HSI-ICE. Well, they are going to rebrand them and take away the ``ICE'' designation. So we are going to have a new logo and a new something else, and we are expecting a whole new listing of what they are actually going to do. At the same time, they are saying: We don't have enough money to be able to get more Border Patrol, to be able to detain more people, to be able to deport more people. We are spending millions of dollars. We haven't seen the amount yet, but we are spending millions of dollars on rebranding HSI. We should take this moment as serious as it actually is. In the past 3 years, the price of groceries has gone up 20 percent. The price of gasoline has gone up 55 percent. But the price of fentanyl has gone down on the streets. We should take this moment as serious as it is. We have more drugs coming across our border, based on the porous nature of what is going on. Where migrants will come in, Border Patrol will engage with them for humanitarian purposes, and then the cartels will smuggle drugs 2 miles upriver or through the desert when they know that no one is watching that area. So we have a dramatic increase in fentanyl coming into our country, directly connected to 5,500 people who illegally crossed yesterday, and 174,000 people last month, and 1.5 million in the last 6 months. What are we going to do about that? I hope not just talk about it. I hope not just do political messaging. I hope not just saying: We will bring up this bill to fail, that we all know is going to fail. I hope it is actually to sit down together and say: Let's do the work to actually resolve this issue. That is what people sent us to do. I fully understand it is hard. I have personally experienced it. But we were sent here to do hard things. So we should probably start doing them. Let's get this solved. I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, October 7, 2023, was almost 5 years to the day after the attack on the Tree of Life synagogue--almost 5 years to the day. Anti-Semitism has been on the rise around the world and unfortunately here in America. We are seeing it on college campuses. We are seeing it in conversations online. It is not new, it is old, but it is on the rise in a way that we have not seen in a long time in the United States. In 2019, Senator Rosen and I launched the Senate Bipartisan Task Force for Combatting Anti-Semitism. We started that on the 1-year anniversary of the shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue. Our mission was pretty simple: We wanted to create a task force to be able to collaborate with law enforcement, Federal Agencies, State and local governments, educators, advocates, clergy--any stakeholders who wanted to be able to combat anti-Semitism with education, empowerment, and bringing communities together in conversation. Our goal was to speak out with one voice about hate, to support legislative efforts to combat anti-Semitism, to promote Holocaust education, and to bring the issue of combatting anti-Semitism to the forefront of our national conversation and, quite frankly, international. She and I have worked together to be able to contact other nations and their Parliaments on what we have seen as anti-Semitism in other countries, to be able to reach out to Ambassadors, but to also speak out on what we see here in the United States. That has not changed. The State Department has offered this warning: History has shown that wherever anti-Semitism has gone unchecked, the persecution of others has been present or not far behind. Defeating anti-Semitism must be a cause of great importance not only for Jews, but for all people who value humanity and justice. That is our own State Department. So now what are we going do about what we are seeing on college campuses? Interestingly enough, people see this as a new thing just in the last 7 months. This has been on the rise on college campuses for quite a while. Many of us have been ringing that bell to say that there is something happening in the national conversation on our college campuses. So let's find ways to be able to engage on this. Senator Rosen and I have a piece of legislation that is a compilation of multiple pieces that we have worked on for a very long time to be able to talk about anti-Semitism and to say there are specific ways that our Nation can get involved with this. I have affirmed President Biden in areas where we agree, and there are some areas that he has brought up in the task force that he has created on the executive level to take on anti-Semitism nationally. Some of those things have been actually executed and carried out, and some of them have not. So we have continued to be able to nudge in ways that we thought were appropriate to be able to nudge and to be able to poke to say things can be done. It has been leadership at our State Department that has risen up on that, and some, we have been actively involved in trying to be able to get into those positions, to be able to lead. My friend Tim Scott came to the floor to be able to ask for unanimous consent to be able to pass his resolution to condemn anti-Semitism on college campuses. I want to thank my friend Tim Scott for his leadership on this issue and what he has also done to be able to raise awareness. But unfortunately his request to be able to pass that resolution was denied. We should be able to find common ground on issues that condemn hate. His resolution was a simple statement: What are we going to do as a body to be able to condemn hatred in this area? We should not ignore this. The House of Representatives last week brought up the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act. It was a bipartisan piece of legislation that they passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives that they have now sent to this body to be able to take up and to debate and to discuss. What has been interesting to me is, when they picked up the Anti- Semitism Awareness Act as a nonpartisan piece of legislation, this is a continuance of actually what happened under the Trump administration. President Trump used the same definitions and the same process of putting it in the Department of Education, using what is called the IHRA definition for ``anti-Semitism'' and the examples attached to it in Executive order 13899. But what has been fascinating to me is, when the House of Representatives passed it, there was a whole group of folks and some folks from my own party who stepped up and said: No, we can't actually do this, because this would inhibit free speech. I have smiled at those same folks and said: Did you say that when President Trump was actually using it as an Executive order under his administration? Because now they are talking about making a statutory, long-term change. The IHRA definition is not new, by the way. The United States has been a party to this definition since the 1990s. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition--that is IHRA--has been recognized all over the world as a basic definition with examples of what anti-Semitism is. It is not new to the United States. There are many athletic teams that have recognized the IHRA definition for their teams in their conversations to be able to recognize what anti-Semitism is. There are 34 States, including my own State of Oklahoma, that have recognized the IHRA definition within our own States to say: This is how we are going to define ``anti-Semitism'' in our States. This is a very basic principle. It is difficult to discourage what you cannot even define, and when someone makes just a blanket statement for anti-Semitism, it is helpful to put some definition to what it actually means and what it does not mean. For instance, if someone were to say they disagree with the Netanyahu government, is that anti- Semitic? The IHRA definition would say, clearly, it is not. We can disagree on governmental action. That is a normal part of dialogue. It also is not something that inhibits free speech. Even hateful speech in the United States--even foolish, even stupid speech--can be said in the United States. It is a protected right to be able to say whatever crazy thing you want to be able to say in the United States, but when it shifts from free speech to inciting violence and threats, that has shifted. That has moved from just speech to now criminal action. The IHRA definition in what the House of Representatives passed last week in the Antisemitism Awareness Act doesn't limit speech in any way. In fact, it very specifically states it is not trying to take away any free speech rights of anyone. It specifically notes a protection for the First Amendment rights of Americans to be able to say what they choose to say. What it does say is, if you are on a college campus and you are choosing to discriminate against Jewish students, that should fall into the same as any other title VI discrimination falls into. It is no different. So if they are doing discrimination on a college campus, you can't just say: Well, they are discriminating against Jewish students, so that doesn't fall under title VI. That clearly does fall under title VI areas and makes what has been implied clear. What has been done by Executive action in the past under the Trump administration makes it clear for every administration. What has been done under the Department of State for three decades in the United States is clear policy not just for the State Department but also for the Department of Education. I think that is a pretty reasonable way to take on this issue and to be able to clarify what anti-Semitism is on a college campus or any campus that is out there. Some of the responses that I have already mentioned have been fascinating to me on this, things like I have already said: This is going to limit free speech. No. You still have the right to say something, even to say something dumb. That is still a protected right in the United States. We can say things that we both disagree with--that is a protected right--but you can't move into criminal activity. That is not protected, and a university cannot protect discrimination on their own campus. That would not be allowed. My favorite thing is that it does not outlaw the Bible. I have had folks who have said: If you put in the IHRA definition, it outlaws the Bible. I have just smiled and said: That is absolutely ridiculous. And it is not just me saying this. Christian leaders who I know all over the country say that is just a ridiculous statement. There is a letter that just came out this week from Pastor John Hagee, who leads what is called CUFI, the national Christians United for Israel, and Ralph Reed, who is the leader of the Faith and Freedom Coalition. They have made this simple statement: To the Biblically literate, claims that the Antisemitism Awareness Act is anti-Christian are as insulting as they are injurious. I have made it very clear on this as well when people have asked me about this, to say that somehow the Antisemitism Awareness Act outlaws the Bible or limits speech around the Bible. There is a statement in the IHRA definition that talks about using symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism, and the examples are claims that ``Jews killing Jesus are blood libel'' to characterize Israel or Israelis. So they take that one statement and pull that out and say: See? You couldn't use the Bible. I have laughed, and I have said: Well, I would just say not only have Pastor Hagee and others said this--and other faith leaders around--but let me add a voice to this as well. The Scripture is very clear from John 10 that Jesus laid his life down for others. He had the power to lay it down and the power to be able to take it up. That is Orthodox Christianity. Orthodox Christianity says: My sin is what put Jesus on the cross. That is what Scripture says. What the IHRA definition says is, if someone is biased to say ``I hate all Jews because Jews killed Jesus,'' they are saying that that is an anti-Semitic statement to say that. I would also say it is not only inconsistent with the clear teachings of Scripture, but it is inconsistent with the faith practices of individuals. Not only is the New Testament exceptionally clear about respect for Judaism, but the guy on the cross was Jewish. His mom at the foot of the cross was Jewish. The disciples were all Jewish. The people who wrote the New Testament were Jewish. So to somehow believe that Christianity would discount all Jews is to ignore the basic teachings of the New Testament, besides the basic fact that the Romans put Jesus on the cross. So somehow to say that this discounts Scripture--that I have heard over and over again on social media over the past week--I think is absurd, No. 1, and as John Hagee and Ralph Reed have said, it actually is insulting and injurious. There are folks who have said that there will be an international organization that is now going to police speech in the United States. I would encourage them to please read the legislation, not what is on social media, to be able to understand what this actually does. It does not give authority to an international organization to be able to step into the United States and be able to police speech. It is very clear. It just says this is what discrimination looks like under title VI, just like we have discrimination laws in other areas wherein the Department of Education could not say: Well, it doesn't specifically outline religion in this area, and so if there is discrimination against Jewish students, we can look the other way. That would stop under this piece of legislation. First things first: Let's actually have real dialogue as a country. Are we as a nation going to look the other way when students are discriminated against on a campus, or are we going to step in and say: ``No, we are not going to just look the other way when there is discrimination''? Because, as I go back to the statement from our State Department, history has shown that wherever anti-Semitism has gone unchecked, the persecution of others has been present or not far behind. So let's speak out and stop it. For individuals who want to have anti-Semitic beliefs, that is still legal in America to have an anti-Semitic belief. It is still protected as a right. I would say it is hateful, and I would say it is bigoted, but it is still your protected right to be able to have that belief. But, when that speech moves to threats of violence and intimidation, when it moves from a voice to an action, that is criminal activity, and we should treat it as such. We should not let it fester as criminal activity and think it will not spread. It will. My final statement: For the folks who track through social media, where you see voices of anti-Semitism on social media, why don't you be bold enough to speak out for the people who are being bullied online and say every person has the right to their faith and to be able to live that faith and have that protected? We as Americans have the right to have any faith of our choosing, to change our faith, or to have no faith at all, and that would be protected. That should not be any less for Jewish students anywhere online or on their own campuses. So let's speak out on their behalf. And instead of allowing them to be bullied on their campuses or online, why don't we speak out for their right to be able to live their faith and practice their faith as every other American? That is what I think we should do on college campuses, and that is a simple way we can honor the dignity of every student. We are going to disagree. There are people who have strong disagreements with the war that is happening right now in Israel and in Gaza. So let's talk about it, but let's not discriminate while we do it. I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, this week, the Senate began consideration of the FAA reauthorization bill. It is an incredibly important piece of legislation that this body takes up every few years to be able to evaluate where we are on safety of our national airspace. There are a lot of aspects that are in it. What some people may not know in this body is how incredibly important this is, not only to our national air space and our safety, but it is also something that is talked about often in my State of Oklahoma. Oklahomans are passionate about our national airspace for many reasons. One is, we obviously love to fly and have a long heritage of flying in our State, but it is also the unique relationship that FAA has with the State of Oklahoma. There are only two FAA centers outside of Washington, DC. One of those is actually in Oklahoma City, the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center. I would safely say to everybody that if you have been on a flight lately and it took off and landed safely, you can thank the folks in Oklahoma City for that, because Oklahoma City, that operation of Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, that Center has functioned 70 years and has provided a lot of services for the FAA for all seven of those decades. They were established in 1958, home to thousands of great Federal employees there that serve our Nation every single day to keep our airspace safe. But they do it in ways that sometimes people don't see. Let me give you an example of that. The Center houses a lot of different components and a lot of back-office things for a lot of different Agencies. They are on 1,100 acres of land in Oklahoma City with 133 buildings. And as you go through the complex, you think there is a lot going on here. Let me give you just a few examples of those things. Civil Aerospace Medical Institute is housed in Oklahoma City. The Civil Aerospace Medical Institute takes care of the medical certification, the research, education, the occupational health wing for the FAA. They conduct all their research and studies on the human element of flight there. That is safety for pilots, flight attendants, passengers, how to be able to handle pressurization, all those things. They do that in Oklahoma City every single day. The Mike Monroney Center is also home to the only FAA Academy. They handle the first 60 days or so of developmental air traffic control training before a student is actually placed in the field. Basically, when you take off and land, any of their communication with air traffic control anywhere in the country, it is very likely those folks were initially trained in Oklahoma City. The Oklahoma City air traffic control training has geared up to be able to take on as many people as the Nation needs for air traffic control. In fact, this particular bill encourages maximizing as many people as possible actually getting through air traffic control training. And the academy in Oklahoma City is well-prepared to be able to step up to the challenge of that. They have space. They have great trainers that come in from all over the country to be able to do the training there. They are fully capable and have a great curriculum that they have been able to train folks that now serve our Nation every single day. The FAA reauthorization bill expands that capacity in Oklahoma City, rightfully so, and they are fully ready and able to do it. They also set a new minimum hiring target for air traffic controllers so the maximum number of individuals can actually go through the academy. It is very important we train as many people as possible to be able to make them ready. Advanced air mobility is another element that is actually there at the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center. The focus there is the next generation of what is going to happen in unmanned flights. While a lot of folks talk about that in the future, that research is actually happening on the ground in Oklahoma City every single day. There are a lot of aspects of this bill that prepare us for the future of aviation and continues to be able to make our airspace the safest airspace in the world. Let's keep it that way. Let's continue to be able to learn what we can and to be able to continue to advance the future of aviation in the United States. I look forward to the debate that will begin, officially, later on today and will continue all the way through next week or, quite frankly, until whenever the Senate is finished in the debate on this bill because it is important we actually get the FAA bill done in the days ahead. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I rise today to offer my sincere gratitude to Tom Harper, a lieutenant colonel in the Army National Guard. From his beginning as an infantryman in the Florida Army National Guard, he graduated--distinguished--from the Georgia Military College as an artillery officer who served five operational tours, across three continents. A peerless expert in appropriations and military construction, Lieutenant Colonel Harper sought to increase the Army National Guard's contribution to the Nation's security. He recently served as a legislative liaison on Capitol Hill, dedicated to the relationship and understanding between our branches. Throughout his military career, Lieutenant Colonel Harper remained principled--in combat and in counsel--offering his best wisdom and giving our Nation his unreserved courage. I have personally seen the excellence of his service to our Nation. I wish him the best in his next chapter of service to our Nation.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I would like to continue the reading of the ``Letter from Birmingham Jail.'' Dr. King continued: I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: ``How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?'' The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: Just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ``an unjust law is no law at all.'' Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an ``I it'' relationship for an ``I thou'' relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong. Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured? Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest. I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience. We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was ``legal'' and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was ``illegal.'' It was ``illegal'' to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, it has been just 6 months and a week since October 7. The whole world was shaken as a flood, as they actually called it, an Al-Aqsa flood of Hamas terrorists came through the wall separating Gaza and Israel in multiple places, and over the next several hours, they murdered 1,200 Israelis. They took 253 hostage, including 133 who are still hostage still today--6 months and a week. Last week--now, I guess, 9 days ago--I was in Israel. I spent time with Israelis to meet with multiple different leaders and get a chance just to be able to talk to different folks in different parts of the country to see what is going on, on the ground. This is a painful moment for the entire world but definitely a painful moment for Israel and for the entire region. We think back just 7 months ago and all the conversation was normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel. And then a group of Hamas terrorists stepped in and killed as many people as they possibly could in an effort to also kill that normalization that is happening around the entire region, to do whatever they could to be able to drive a wedge, and so that peace could not continue to advance in the region. What has happened since then has been painful for the entire world to watch, but it has been really painful for the people in that region more than anyone else. I traveled to the far southern tip of Israel, along the border with Egypt, to be able to meet with some of the folks who are in that area, to be able to talk about the relationship between Egypt and Israel and what is happening day to day. I traveled to the kibbutzes that literally are right on the border with Gaza that are now vacant and empty and devastated. I can't even begin to explain to this body, unless you have seen it before, the pain of walking through a large kibbutz where there were hundreds of people who lived just a few months ago and now to see every building shot up with bullet holes, burned, destroyed, and think at 6:38 that morning, during a Jewish holiday, on that Saturday morning, October 7, many people were still asleep when a group of Hamas terrorists came into their homes and murdered many in that village and took many hostages from that kibbutz. We could literally walk by the doors, and the person who was walking with us could say: That family died, that family is a hostage, that family died, and go door-to-door as we walked around to be able to see it. The person who was walking us through could even walk us through his own home, which was obliterated, and his son's home right there who died, and then he could point to Gaza and say: My other son is over there in Gaza right now. At the same time, flowers were blooming and the grounds were beautiful and you realize the irony of this moment. Hostages being held in Gaza, families who are struggling every single day trying to make sense of this craziness and trying to figure out why a peaceful kibbutz, living their lives, farming, manufacturing, was overrun by a group of terrorists. Right up the road we stopped by the Nova festival site, which is an absolutely beautiful location for outdoor concerts, for venues, for gathering, and has been for years. The trees and the setting, it is just beautiful. But the day that we were there, there were echoing noises of artillery that was being fired off literally within hundreds of yards of us as we were meeting with some of the folks who survived the Nova festival. One person in particular whom we got a chance to be able to chat with and to be able to pick her brain about the ``what happens next'' was in one of the bomb shelters because there was a launch of missiles coming at them, but then those bomb shelters became places where literally they were sitting ducks for the terrorists as they came in with gunfire. We traveled all the way to the north, had the opportunity to be able to visit with some of the mayors who are right along the border with Syria and with Lebanon, where whole towns are evacuated, whole towns where people can't survive the onslaught of artillery coming at them constantly. We lose track of the fact that there are about a quarter million Israelis right now who are internally displaced as well, who live along the border with Gaza or live along the border with Lebanon or Syria. Those folks have also had to flee because while the world in the last several days has talked about 330 drone strikes, missile strikes, ballistics and cruise missiles that have come from Iran directly, for some reason, the world has lost track of the fact, not about the 330 bombs and missiles that have come at Israel in the last week, but the 12,000 rockets that have been fired at Israel since October 7--12,000. Mr. President, 9,100 of those rockets have come in from Gaza launching at civilians in Israel; 3,100 of those rockets have been launched from Lebanon, from Hezbollah, into the north of Israel; and 35 rockets have been fired from Syria at Israel. And I asked people: How many rockets would be fired at your house before you would respond in a way to be able to make it stop? Israel has had 12,000 fired at them since October 7. The United States has never ever put up with that without responding in a forceful way to say we are going to make it stop. There has been a lot of conversation about Rafah, so I had a lot of conversations with Israeli leadership to be able to talk to them about the plan and what they are going to do. You see there are Hamas brigades. Now, when we think about terrorism, often it is just random terrorists who are gathering. But Hamas actually has a military structure with brigades that they have actually put together of fighting brigades. Most of those brigades have been broken up. The remaining brigades of Hamas terrorists are all living underground at Rafah. And while we need to do everything we can--and I had great conversations with Israelis about everything that they are doing to protect civilians and protect civilian lives that have nothing to do with this onslaught of terrorism, they are also keenly aware that the people who are living underground in Rafah are making public statements on social media that as soon as this war is over, they are coming again to do another October 7. And the Israelis are being very, very clear: We are not going to allow that to happen. We are not going to allow our Israeli citizens to be slaughtered in their beds early on a Saturday morning again. So they are doing everything they can to be able to prepare for that moment, to be able to stop the group of terrorists who are living underground. It is interesting to me when I think about the Hamas terrorist organization. In the United States, our military trains and prepares itself to get between violence and civilians. Hamas does the opposite. Hamas actually trains and equips to put civilians between its military and violence. They put the civilians on the top layer while the safe shelters underground are occupied by the terrorist armies. It is stunning to me just the mental difference between the two and how jarring that that really is. Interesting conversations I had with some of the Israeli leadership, as well, just to be able to chat with them, to say: You can't eliminate Hamas by trying to be able to attack them over and over again to be able to eliminate all people who think like Hamas and who are actually a part of Hamas. And their response was interesting to me. Their response was that we fully understand we are not going to obliterate everyone who is in Hamas. We want to stop the threat that is coming at us, but we understand that there will be members of Hamas in the future who will still think that way. And their response to me was there are still Nazis in the world right now. There are still people who claim to be a Nazi or a neo-Nazi right now, but the difference is, they don't run Germany. And their first goal was that we want to end Hamas's rule, a terrorist organization having the capacity to run the entity right next door to us. We understand that there will still be people who think like that, but we want to show them there is a better way. And we still want to be able to have peace with our neighbors. You see, this connection between Hezbollah and Syria and Hamas is Iran's plan and has been for a long time to build what they are calling a ring of fire around Israel. It was their way of protecting themselves--for the Iranian regime--that if they made it so violent around Israel, Israel would never actually attack Iran. That was their plan. What is interesting was Israel has been working to be able to build a ring of ice around Iran. That is the Abraham Accords. As Iran is trying to make the region more violent, Israel is trying to make the region more peaceful. It is stark when it is side by side, isn't it? Israel is working to build relationships and has with UAE and with Bahrain. They have had longstanding relationships with Jordan and with Egypt. They are working in their relationship with Saudi Arabia as they have even added Morocco into the Abraham Accords. They are building a ring of ice into the region to bring the temperature down in a violent, hostile area, and for the folks who are in Hamas, they hate the thought of that because they don't want normalization; they want violence and control. And as they scream, ``from the river to the sea,'' they mean the death of every Israeli, and, quite frankly, every Jew worldwide. And they have been clear about that. Now, what do we need to do as Americans? I think we need to be attentive in several areas. One is, Russia has formed an alliance with Iran. Many of the weapon systems that are being shot right now at Ukrainians are actually Iranian weapon systems, and we should not ignore that. This alliance between Russia and Iran continues to grow. In just the past several years, Russia has dramatically increased its number of military bases in Syria. They have now gone over 100 there, and there are 103 bases now in Syria that are Russian active bases. We should pay attention to that. For Iran, we have seen clearly what they are doing, how they continue to attack. Again, there is this focus on 330 drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles that were fired at Israel just this past week. What people may not be tracking is what continues to happen from Lebanon, with the Iranian-backed Hezbollah continuing to attack Israel. Just in the past 24 hours, Hezbollah has attacked northern Israeli communities and cities six times in the last 24 hours. But, of course, no media is covering that. But if you are in one of the communities that is now vacant in northern Israel--and that they fled and they are living in hotels or with relatives or fled to some other location from northern Israel--they are keenly aware of what continues to happen there. We have got to deal with the continued threat and awakening from Russia, but we have got to also think seriously about what is happening with the regime in Iran. We, as a nation, have tried to pacify Iran. We tried to isolate them diplomatically. Now, I don't call for a military attack on Iran. No one wants violence and war. We are not interested in our sons and daughters being involved in another conflict. But to think that Iran is going to suddenly be peaceful, when their regime is intent on trying to destroy Israel at the time, should awaken all of us to the reality of where Iran really is. It was also good to be able to see, when 330 projectiles were coming at Israel this week, that the Americans stood by their side. They shot down a lot of those. The Israelis obviously shot down the majority of them. But the British also were engaged in shooting those down. We had French that were engaged. But also the Jordanians were engaged. The Saudis were engaged. The region is pushing back on a violent Iran that is intent on making the region worse and more unstable, not better. Iran has used the vacuum of what has happened in Syria to move in their radicalism across Syria, and they continue to make it a more and more toxic place in Syria and in Iraq. We, as the United States, should turn up our sanctions even more. We, as the United States, should isolate Iran even more. We, as the United States, should use every leverage that we have to isolate not only their economy but to be able to be focused in on that regime, because, quite frankly, that regime is oppressing its own people. Our problem, as a nation, is not the Iranian people. They are living under the oppression of the Iranian regime as well. It is the regime that is there. And while some Members of this body have called for a change in leadership in Israel, I would call for a change in leadership in Iran, because that is really the problem in the region. And we should find ways to be able to apply as much pressure as we can on that regime and to be able to message to the people of Iran, as often as we possibly can: We see you in the oppression that you live under every single day, and we wish better for you--for well-educated young men and women who live under the oppressive thumb of that leadership. Something else we can do as the United States is to stop allowing our soil to be the place where the Iranian regime can spew their hatred. This Thursday, the Iranian Foreign Minister is flying to the United States to be able to speak to a group of people at the U.N., and our administration has given him a visa. I have called on Secretary Blinken to say, literally: This is one of the Iranian leaders who is a leading voice in the IRGC, who is a leading voice in the attack, in the preparation for October 7, who is a leading voice of hatred toward the United States and the West and our ally Israel. We should not extend a visa while Iran is attacking actively from their soil and from all of their proxies. We should not extend a visa to the Iranian Foreign Minister to come stand on our soil, in our country, and spew his hatred. If he wants to do that internationally, he can. Now, I understand the U.N. is a body and a place where we have allowed voices from all over the world to come speak. But do you know what? There was a moment when President Obama denied a visa to Iranian leaders because of where they were. There was a moment when President Trump also denied some visas to some of the Iranian leaders because of what they were actively doing. This is a moment when President Biden and Secretary Blinken should tell the Iranian Foreign Minister: Not this week, not right now, not at all. When you are attacking our friends, we should not loan them bits of our soil to do it from our territory. We should make it clear that the Iranian leadership that oppresses its own people and attacks our allies--and, by the way, uses their proxies to murder Americans who are also serving in the region--we should make it very clear: We will not allow that on our soil. I made it clear when I was in Israel that the people of the United States see the people of Israel. We understand what they are living under. And, as a nation that has faced terrorism in our Nation, we understand the emotion that they have at this point, and we understand their tenacity. We, as the United States, should be very clear: We have an ally, and it is Israel. We are going to walk with her. We are going to help Israel in every way that we can because she has been attacked and is in the middle of the war. And when you walk through the streets of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, you feel it. Just like when you are walking through the streets along the border with Gaza and Lebanon and Syria, you feel it. They are ready for peace. And Israel is actively building a ring of ice in the region to bring down the temperature of the region to push back directly on Iran's ring of fire. We, as a Nation, should be clear on which one we support--those who are bringing peace or those who are bringing violence and hatred? We should make that continually clear and continue to be able to act on it diplomatically and, when we need to, to protect our allies in every way we can, like we did this week with Israel. Let's pray for the peace of Jerusalem, but let's also stand by her. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, next week, we are scheduled to begin a trial of the Secretary of Homeland Security. It doesn't begin a conversation about homeland security in our country. That conversation started years ago now. The American people are incredibly frustrated with what they are seeing on the southern border, and they keep saying it over and over again--remarkably so in a nation where inflation continues to be stubbornly high, where it is harder and harder to afford a carton of eggs and gasoline and all of the basics of life. In all of the areas that you would think the economy would be the No. 1 issue in the Nation, actually, national security and border security end up being No. 1, regardless of what State you live in. This is no longer a border State issue. Americans feel this is a problem. Well, they should. In the past 3 years, more people have illegally crossed our southern border than in the previous 12 years combined, and it is not close--the number. We are approaching 8 million people who have illegally crossed our southern border just in the last 3 years. Cities feel it. Americans feel it. School districts feel it. Communities feel it. Homeless shelters feel it. It continues to spiral into our country. This is not some accident of migration, as the administration tries to say over and over again--that there is global migration that is happening everywhere. This was a series of Executive orders that were done in 2021 that were intentionally designed to change what is happening at our southern border, and they certainly have. Decisions were made in 2021 by the Biden administration to be able to shift multiple things, starting with loosening enforcement. On day one of the Biden administration, stop any construction of the wall and announce it publicly: We are no longer going to do wall construction, not even repair. Step No. 2, dramatically loosen the actual enforcement within the country so that fewer people would actually be deported when they came. So if you crossed the border illegally, it is a much greater likelihood that, once you get across, you will not be deported. The third thing, they changed the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy--that simple policy to say that, yes, you can request asylum, but you can't just be released in the country. They shifted it immediately, and shifted it from ``remain at the border or in Mexico.'' Rather than being in detention, you could be released anywhere in the country on your own recognizance and to be able to go anywhere you want. That dramatically increased the number of people who were crossing. They also shifted where the State Department is no longer negotiating deals with Central America--Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador--to be able to stop migrants from moving through that direction. They have withdrawn those agreements from Central America, and the State Department stopped putting pressure on recalcitrant countries that wouldn't take their people back. These are not accidental things. These were intentional actions. But what I don't think the administration intended was how this has spiraled out of control. They sowed to the wind, and the Nation is reaping the whirlwind of it--almost 8 million people now who have illegally crossed our border. And now it is no longer people from the Western Hemisphere. Literally, it is people from all over the world. Pick up any tracking, at any point, to be able to track what is happening at the border, and you will find thousands of people who are crossing from China, from Russia, from Pakistan, from West Africa, from all over Asia. When I talk to people at the border--and I do talk often to them--one of the first things I ask is: What are the trends? What are you seeing? And for the past year and a half, they continue to tell me: a greater and greater number of non-Spanish speakers who are crossing that border, who are males in their twenties, from all over the world, who are coming. Just in the past year, we have picked up individuals who have al- Shabaab terrorist connections, picked up folks with Hezbollah terrorist connections, picked up folks with all kinds of different connections to all kinds of different terrorist organizations. And we have been able to pick up some, but some have gotten through or have been released. This is an issue I continue to be able to bring up that this administration is not managing. In the past year, there were over 70,000 individuals who were identified as what was defined as a ``special interest alien.'' These individuals crossed our border. The administration designated them as a ``special interest alien'' and then released them on their own recognizance into our country. Let me clarify what that term is. A ``special interest alien''--this is their definition--is a non-U.S. person who, based on the analysis of travel patterns, potentially poses a national security threat to the United States or its interests. Madam President, 70,000 of those in the past year have crossed the border and have been released into the United States. This is no longer a simple migration issue; this is a national security issue, and it is one this administration has not only invited but they have now chosen to not even take seriously. This body knows full well--I believe there are some things that can only be done by acts of this body: changing the definition of ``asylum,'' increasing the number of detention beds. There are multiple issues that we need to do and that we should take responsibility for. But this body should not sit and say that nothing can be done when the White House has authorities they are not using. We should do our job. The White House should do their job. Currently, that is not happening, and the threat continues to increase. Next week, we start an impeachment trial which has never happened in the history of the Department of Homeland Security--that they would have an impeachment of the Secretary. That starts. But can I say to you, even if the Secretary is removed, the White House still created this policy. The Obama administration had multiple leaders in that role, but they had one policy. The Trump administration had multiple leaders in that role; they had one policy. This White House has a policy of maintaining an open border, and until this White House changes that policy and actually uses the authority they already have, none of this is going to change. So my challenge is to us. We should do our job and work on the issues we should do, but this White House needs to step up because right now, they are just hoping that none of those 70,000 people they defined as a national security risk actually does an act of terrorism or crime in the country. I don't want to just hope that someone we have defined as a national security risk doesn't actually carry it out. I think we need to actually enforce the law, I think we need to discourage illegal immigration, and I think we need to actually have a secure border, and I don't believe I am alone in that in this body or in our great country. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2882 with further amendment No. 1713.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to support my amendment that would strike earmark funding for a hospital that performs chemical and surgical abortions, including well into the fifth month of pregnancy. In fact, this hospital, on their website, they brag that they routinely provide abortions up to 22 weeks. Five and a half months into a pregnancy is a late-term abortion. This is beyond even the Roe standard of viability. At 22 weeks--that is 5\1/2\ months--a baby at that point can certainly feel pain. A baby can smile. They have formed tear ducts. They can recognize their mom's voice. They are sensitive to loud voices. They even have their taste buds already formed at that point. Portugal restricts abortions after 10 weeks. Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Switzerland, and Ukraine all restrict abortion after 12 weeks. Belgium, Luxemburg, and Spain restrict after 14. This is a hospital bragging they do abortions at 22 weeks. We may disagree on when life begins, but we should not provide Federal dollars for a facility that advertises it performs late-term abortions routinely. We should strike this earmark.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2882 with further amendment No. 1718.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, yesterday, 5,770 people illegally crossed our southern border. Some of them were identified as special interest aliens. Now let me give the definition for ``special interest aliens'' from the Department of Homeland Security. This is a non-U.S. person who, based on analysis of travel patterns, potentially poses a national security risk to the United States or its interests. Often, such individuals or groups are employing travel patterns known or evaluated to possibly have a nexus to terrorism. That is what these individuals are. They have been identified by this administration's DHS as a potential national security risk and a possible nexus to terrorism. The problem is most of them are released into the United States after a very quick screening at the border. Those individuals that have been labeled a national security risk are not being detained at our border. This amendment would simply say: If an individual has been identified by this administration as a national security risk, they have to be detained--

Mr. LANKFORD.--throughout the time they are evaluated until they are adjudicated. I would ask for a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I am planning to bring three amendments to this set of appropriations bills that are coming. As we are quickly reading through it and going through the details and the information on the six different sections of our Federal funding, which is incredibly important that we actually get done, there are many amendments that are here and many questions that have been raised. I am raising a couple of them on two different issues. The first is a very specific issue. It has been a challenge for us on dealing with an entity called special interests aliens. It is a term you and I know, but many other people around the country do not know. Special interest alien is an actual designation the Department of Homeland Security places on an individual when they cross the border based on where they are traveling from, maybe their connections there, areas of known terrorism, their travel patterns. The definition from the Department of Homeland Security is a special interest alien is a non-U.S. person who, based on an analysis of travel patterns, potentially poses a national security risk to the United States for its interest. Just to be clear, when they are labeled ``special interest aliens,'' the Department of Homeland Security is declaring this person potentially a national security risk to the United States. When that individual is encountered at our southern border--we asked many questions both of FBI and DHS--what happens next? In the past 5 months, we had 58 individuals who were on our Terror Watchlist. Those individuals on our Terror Watchlist, we know who they are. They have been identified. They were detained. We cannot get an exact number of the number of special interest aliens. These are individuals we know have terror links or come from an area where there is known terrorism or are traveling in a travel pattern that we know other terrorists have traveled on, so we know that much about them, but we don't know anything else about them. We asked the simple question: Are they detained? The answer so far has been: Not all of them. When someone at the southern border is declared a national security risk, we think it is reasonable to have that person detained at our southern border. In the past several days, we had almost 7,000 people a day illegally crossing our border. We don't know how many of those were labeled a national security risk, but we do believe the number in the past few months has been in the thousands. But DHS has yet to give us the exact number. We have, potentially, in the thousands of people who have been declared by this administration as a potential national security risk, and they cannot tell us if they have been detained, their whereabouts for all of them, how they determined that they were a national security risk, or what happens next. So the amendment I am bringing is very simple. The amendment I am bringing is to say we do not allow funding to be used to release people who have been designated a potential national security risk and to have them released into the United States so we don't have a situation where we have individuals identified at the border as a potential national security risk and then they were just released on their own recognizance for a future hearing. That needs to be fixed. I wish it was fixed today, but it is not. It is an issue. This is an issue that I have raised for a year now, both with DHS and with the FBI. I recently met with ICE at a hearing. And when I met with some of the leadership from ICE, I asked them about this on the detention. This was the response I got from ICE, current administration: It is accurate that we are not tracking special interest aliens on a day-to-day basis, not the totality of them. Some are probably on alternatives to detention where we have more tracking on, but we are not tracking all of them. Those who are on alternative detention means they have been released into the country, given a GPS device to turn themselves in later, after at the border they were declared a potential national security risk. To this body, I would challenge us to say: What would it take for us to detain those individuals and to make sure that we are not releasing people into the country whom we recognize, literally, at the border are a national security risk? That is why I am bringing this amendment to this bill to say this is a commonsense approach to be able to deal with a very pragmatic national security risk. A second set of amendments that I am bringing actually deals with two earmarks. There are lots of earmarks in this bill, and we can have our own debate on earmarks in this body. I don't actually request earmarks on it. I want competitive grants. I want to make sure we are focused on the highest national security priorities and the national priorities that we have--and we have many. My State has several. Many of your States do as well. We should compete for those to be able to make sure they were reaching the highest priorities. But I do understand there are some in this body who disagree with me on that. I disagree with some of the earmarks that are in this, and I see differences of opinions on some that are here. Some deal, though, with military bases and certain construction, which is totally understandable. Some deal with schools and certain construction--totally understandable. Some deal with a couple of issues that I just have a difference of opinion that is pretty strong. Two of them deal with hospitals. Two of these earmarks deal with a hospital. One of them is Dartmouth Hitchcock hospital in New Hampshire and the other one is Women & Infants Hospital in Rhode Island. What would be unique about those hospitals? Well, this is about $2.5 million in earmarks between the two of them. These two hospitals actually do late-term abortions. They are different than other hospitals that are on the earmark list. In fact, not only do these two hospitals actually do late-term abortions, they actually advertise that they do late-term abortions and put the word out. They make statements about that they are. Let me see if I can pull this out. They make statements they have not only supported late-term abortions up to 22 weeks, but they are ready to be able to do that. As one says, they routinely provide abortions up to 22 weeks. At 22 weeks, we are pushing 5 months of pregnancy. We have children who are alive today who were born premature at 21 weeks. But they are alive today because they were able to get the care when they had a premature delivery at 21 weeks. To make it clear, this is what we are actually up against and what this looks like compared to other countries and locations: Spain does not allow abortion after 14 weeks. It is not legal because the country of Spain considers late-term abortion after 14 weeks. Germany restricts abortion after 12 weeks. Italy restricts abortion after 12 weeks. Twenty-two weeks is a late-term abortion. Most locations do not do that. We have a lot of differences of opinion on this issue of life and the value of every single child. I understand that. We had respectful dialogue in this Chamber multiple times on this issue as I brought this up, but at 22 weeks there is no question that a child feels pain in the womb. There is no question that at 22 weeks, all science shows that a baby in the womb can recognize its own mom's voice and will jump in the womb when there is a loud sound. At 22 weeks, a baby even already has developed taste buds. Twenty-two weeks is a late-term abortion. And two of these hospitals that have designated earmarks perform this, and I have an objection to that. I think we, as a body, should talk about not just our standard for this but what does that mean. Can I just say it as simple as this? Even under the standard of Roe v. Wade that the Supreme Court has now turned back to the States, in this body, after the Dobbs decision, even under the standard of Roe v. Wade, 22 weeks is past the time that would be recognized that a child is viable based on previous experience with other children who have been born even before that and have survived and thrived. We, as a body, should recognize that. And I do object to those earmarks and think that is the wrong direction for Federal dollars to be used to be able to supply a hospital with dollars that is performing this type of late-term abortion. So I object to those two and will continue to be able to speak out on behalf of every child and the value of every child and their life in the days ahead. We have a decision to make as a body. Are we going to stop the release of special interest aliens who have been designated by this administration to be a potential national security risk? And are we going to use Federal dollars to actually provide for late-term abortions through this bill? We will decide that tomorrow. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Reserving the right to object, I, like most Americans, have friends who have loved ones who have children who were born through IVF. I am passionate about the value of every single child and grateful for every single child who we have in our Nation and for their potential future. I have friends who are in the process right now of actually adopting embryos that were still frozen. They could not have children of their own, and so they are adopting those embryos to make sure that they are able to come to life. IVF is not a controversial issue for me in that sense. We are passionate about it, as every State now protects that right and continues to honor that. I understand it has become vogue in this current season right now to be able to say Republicans are somehow opposed to life because they are opposed to IVF. I just don't find that. But within this bill that is actually coming, this bill--actually, part of it came through the Senate Armed Services Committee. That bill, itself, when it came through--it is substantially similar to that--it tried to come to the NDAA and was not included in the NDAA. It had an objection. The CBO scored it somewhere around a billion dollars a year. This bill, itself, I understand, doesn't have a CBO score because it includes not only that section that was a billion dollars a year but actually includes another section that has not gone through the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. In fact, it was brought up in a previous Congress in the Senate Committee of Veterans' Affairs. It didn't have a hearing on it nor a markup. And then during a Democrat- led Senate and then a Democrat-led Senate, as well, didn't even recently, this session, even have a markup on it. So all of these issues, I look at and say: This has not been fully vetted through what this actually is and what it actually does, nor the cost of it, much less to be able to have 24 hours later to try to come for unanimous consent. This bill itself includes some overly broad definitions that I think need some conversation about. Quite frankly, we are in the Senate. This is what we are supposed to do. It includes things like assisted reproductive technology, fertility treatments. It leaves the door open for future definitions for gene editing and cloning and leaves those at the discretion of the Secretary, whoever the Secretary may be, in the future. The bill's definition of infertility includes ``the inability to reproduce or safely carry a pregnancy to term.'' It is a very broad term trying to be able to figure out what that means. Obviously, that means everyone who is not a woman as well would be included in that. The bill also expands the eligibility to ``partners.'' You do not have to be TRICARE beneficiaries. This would be the first time that DOD would be required to provide medical care to someone who is not otherwise entitled to it by virtue of their relationship to the military in other ways. This breaks new ground in that area. So there is not only issues of questions of definitions and such, but there is also just definition of cost or working through the committee process through committees that have, so far, either not passed it or have refused to even have a markup or a hearing on it. So I don't think it is good for us to be able to bring this for unanimous consent to be able to move it at this time. Let's move it through in a broader conversation, but I would also encourage, just as a body, I don't find Republicans who are just broadly opposed to IVF. And I know this is a broad part of the conversation right now to leave that implication after what happened in Alabama, but I am a Republican who is passionate about the value of every single child who also doesn't have an issue with IVF and am grateful to know people who have gone through the process and know their kids and know the value of every single one of those children. So for the sake of honoring life and for the sake of honoring, obviously, what we do as a Senate and how we function together, for those reasons, I object.