John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, as they have for 50 years now--in rain, in cold, sunshine and snow--pro-life Americans will take to the streets of Washington, DC, tomorrow to march for life. They come by the tens of thousands from all across the country, in buses, in cars, and on planes. Young people--so many young people--and Americans of every age, from every walk of life, come to Washington, DC, for a simple reason: to testify to the truth enshrined in our declaration, that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among those are the right to life, to liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And that right to life applies to every person, not just those the pro-abortion movement thinks should be allowed to be born--every person, born and unborn. At some level, I think everyone knows the truth of what abortion is: the killing of an innocent human being. The pro-abortion movement and the Democratic Party--unfortunately, one and the same these days--have tried to obscure this truth. They do everything they can to avoid talking about the reality of the issue. But I think even they are well aware that when we are talking about abortion, we are talking about the killing of a human being. I think they are well aware that a 7-pound unborn baby is just as human and just as worthy of life as a 7-pound baby who has already been born. But although I think everyone knows the reality of the issue, it can be easy to ignore or forget the fact that every year in this country, hundreds of thousands of babies are being killed by abortion. And when I say ``hundreds of thousands,'' I mean hundreds of thousands. The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute reports that ``In the first 10 months of 2023, there were an estimated 878,000 abortions in the formal U.S. healthcare system''--878,000. To put that number in perspective, 878,000 is more than the entire population of some U.S. States. That is a lot of lives lost, a lot of love lost; and we cannot afford to forget that this is happening. And, every year, the March for Life provides us with the powerful reminder. The March for Life is a vast assembly of Pro-lifers and, as I said, a powerful witness. But it is just one facet of the pro-life movement. An even bigger work, an even bigger focus, I might add, of the pro-life movement is offering hope and help to moms in need. That goes on every day in every State around the country at pregnancy resource centers, at maternity homes, where moms have access to the resources they need to care for their babies and to get on their feet--at churches, on college campuses, and in many other places. Supporting moms and babies is what the pro-life movement does, and it is what it will continue to do no matter how many obstacles are placed in its way. Madam President, I am committed to doing everything I can in Washington to protect babies and to support the work of the pro-life movement, whether that is opposing pro-abortion rules from the administration or working to advance legislation like my Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would require that babies born alive during a botched abortion be granted the same medical care as any other baby would be. I am grateful to all of my colleagues who stand up for life here in Congress and the countless Americans who spend each day standing up for moms and their babies. Today, I want to especially thank all of those who will march through the streets of Washington tomorrow to remind us all of the reality of abortion and the importance of defending the right to life. Given the grim reality of abortion, it would be no surprise if the mood at the March for Life each year were somber. But I am always struck by the hope and enthusiasm that emanates from so many of the marchers, especially the young people. I think it is because the marchers know that no matter how long and how hard the battle, at the end of the day, life will win. I firmly believe that, and I look forward to the day when we fully live up to our founding principles and ensure that the right to life of every American, born and unborn, is respected. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, over the weekend, a reporter asked President Biden if the situation at our southern border is a crisis. ``No,'' the President said. ``No.'' Well, I would express surprise, but, unfortunately, failing to recognize crises is pretty much par for the course for President Biden--see also his inflation crisis or his withdrawal from Afghanistan. But the President's answer is still notable for the complete disconnection it shows from the reality at our southern border, and it demonstrates why it has become absolutely necessary for Congress to step in; because the situation at our southern border is, in fact, a crisis--a logistical crisis, a humanitarian crisis, and a national security crisis. For the President's edification, I will just run through the numbers. We have had three recordbreaking years of illegal immigration at our southern border on President Biden's watch. Fiscal year 2021 saw a recordbreaking 1,734,686 migrant encounters at our southern border. Then fiscal year 2022 broke that record, and then fiscal year 2023 broke the 2022 record. If fiscal year 2024 continues on its current trajectory, we will end up breaking the record yet again. December reportedly saw a staggering 302,000 migrant encounters at our southern border--the highest monthly number ever recorded--and I cannot emphasize enough just how large of a number that is. As my colleague from Pennsylvania said of September's border number, it is like having the city of Pittsburgh show up at the border in just 1 month. American cities--blue cities now as well as border cities--are staggering under the influx of migrants. Major cities like Chicago and New York are running up big bills and have begged for more Federal money, and that is just to deal with a fraction of the number of migrants we saw cross the border in December alone. But more than a logistical crisis--and, of course, a humanitarian crisis since migrants are exposed to significant dangers on their journeys to the border--this is a national security crisis. Our country cannot be secure while we have hundreds of thousands of individuals illegally flooding across our southern border every single month. The volume alone smooths the way for terrorists, criminals, and other dangerous individuals to enter our country--and there are dangerous individuals trying to enter our country. In the first 2 months of fiscal year 2024, 30 individuals on the Terrorist Watchlist were apprehended attempting to cross our southern border; in other words, roughly, one every other day. Fiscal year 2023 saw 169 individuals on the Terrorist Watchlist apprehended at our southern border--a sharp increase over fiscal year 2022, which was itself a sharp increase over fiscal year 2021. That is a dangerous trajectory. Of course, these numbers only refer to individuals the Border Patrol actually apprehended. Since October 1 alone, there have been more than 83,000 known ``got-aways.'' Those are individuals the Border Patrol saw but was unable to apprehend. And there is no telling how many unknown ``got-aways'' there have been over that same period. How many of those individuals were terrorists, criminals, or other dangerous individuals? Well, the fact of the matter is, we have no way of knowing. What we do know is that dangerous people are trying to make their way into our country across our southern border, and there is no question that the chaos at our southern border is smoothing the way for them. President Biden bears a lot of responsibility for the 3 years of chaos we have seen at our southern border. From the day that he took office, when he rescinded the declaration of a national emergency at our southern border, President Biden made it clear that border security was at the bottom of his priority list. And over the 3 years since, he has turned our southern border into a magnet for illegal migration-- from repealing the border policies of his predecessor to misusing our asylum and parole systems, which are now providing temporary amnesty to hundreds of thousands of individuals who are here illegally. As his answer to the reporter over the weekend once again made clear, he still does not understand the magnitude of the resulting crisis. In fact, he doesn't understand that it is a crisis at all. So it is time for Congress to step in. After months of delay, Democrats have finally come to the table, and I am encouraged by the ongoing talks. I am hopeful that, in the coming days, we will see final agreement on real border security legislation--not cosmetic fixes or superficial tweaks but real reforms that will allow us to stem the flow at our southern border. Senator Lankford deserves a ton of credit for staying at the negotiating table to hammer home the reality of the situation to Democrats and to craft long-term changes to our border policies that will decrease the flow to the border and remove individuals already within the country. I have to say, I am grateful for his hard work. Three years of chaos is long enough. We owe it--we owe it--to the American people to get this crisis under control today. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde- Smith), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Schmitt), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines) would have voted ``yea,'' the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty) would have voted ``yea,'' and the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Schmitt), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as I said, it is not just football championships keeping South Dakota sports fans busy this time of the year. There is just as much excitement--sometimes even more--at a Friday night basketball game in towns across our State. Over the holidays, I was able to get around South Dakota for some of those games. I caught up with Coach Phillips and the Northern State University basketball team last week. I brought my grandkids to see the Sioux Falls Jefferson girls take on the O'Gorman Knights girls for some Friday night hoops. I went to a girls hoops matchup between the Faulkton Trojans and Highmore-Harrold Pirates. I got to see some of the Hoop City Classic at the Corn Palace in Mitchell, SD, and Saturday was able to see a cross-State matchup between the boys teams from Rapid City Central and Sioux Falls Roosevelt. As I travel around the State, I take every opportunity I can to stop in to a local game or a sporting event. I can count on catching a good matchup wherever I go. It is a chance to connect with people across South Dakota and to support South Dakota's athletes. This weekend, I am looking forward to being back in my hometown of Murdo for the Jones County Invitational Basketball Tournament. For 3 days in January, the gym at Jones County High School is the center of the universe for the eight teams that are competing for the tournament title. For West River basketball fans, the Jones County Invitational is just in our DNA, and it certainly has a special place in my heart. The 1969 inaugural tournament was organized by my high school basketball coach, Jerry Applebee; and my dad Harold Thune, who was our school's athletic director; plus Murdo Superintendent Maurice Haugland. When they organized that first tournament, they weren't sure how long it would last. But each year, the entire community would come together to make it a success. And now it is the longest running tournament of its kind in South Dakota, which is a fitting tribute to the impact that my dad and Coach Applebee had in our community and on countless young athletes, myself included. I can remember sitting in the stands as a kid, dreaming about the opportunity to play in the big tournament one day. I remember the rush of adrenaline that I got coming out of the locker room to a packed house for those games. Nothing could compare to the thrill of winning the whole thing with my teammates, which is something that we were able to do a couple of times when I was in high school. The Jones County Invitational was also how I got introduced to an important influence in my life, and that was, at that time, Congressman Jim Abdnor. In the Friday night semifinal game in my freshman year, I had six attempts at the free-throw line, and I made five of them. The next day, we had to play again, the Saturday night game. I was at the Main Street department store in my hometown at the checkout counter, getting ready to buy something, and somebody in the line behind me tapped me on the shoulder. I turned around, and he says: I noticed you missed one last night. I am like: Who is this smart aleck? I made five out of six. I am a freshman, right? Give me a break. Well, he introduced himself as then-Congressman Jim Abdnor. Jim would go on to be a great friend and mentor, and I would eventually have the opportunity to work for him when he served in the U.S. Senate and as head of the Small Business Administration under President Reagan. But the Jones County Invitational is how I got introduced to him, and that chance meeting is what first opened the door that would lead me to public service. Sports are a part of the fabric of South Dakota's way of life. They are one of the places we come together and connect as a community and, as I said, particularly on these cold winter evenings. For many of us, sporting events bring back good memories of our days competing for our school and remind us of the important lessons that we learn from competitive sports--lessons that have often had an impact far beyond the field or the court. So I am looking forward to being in the bleachers once again this season and watching South Dakota's athletes keep our great heritage going. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, winter in South Dakota can be tough going, but no matter how low the temperatures go or how high the snowbanks rise, you can count on South Dakota sports fans coming out to support local athletes. After all, there are games, tournaments, and trophies on the line this time of the year. For sports fans like me, there is no better place to be than on the sidelines cheering for South Dakota's athletes. This year, we have not been disappointed. On Sunday, the South Dakota State University football team won its second consecutive national title. That is right--the Jackrabbits are back-to-back FCS champions. This Jacks team has a lot of talent and an awful lot to be proud of. Sunday's win closed out SDSU's first undefeated season as a Division I program. They now boast a 29-game winning streak--the third longest in FCS history. Their defense was impenetrable this season, allowing an average of just 9.27 points per game and allowing just 15 points to be scored against them in four postseason games. I want you to think about that. When you get into the postseason, these are the playoffs. These are the best teams. In the four postseason games that they played, including the national title game, they gave up a total--total--of just 15 points. I think that record of accomplishment this year was perhaps best personified in the title game, when Montana was driving the ball in the first quarter down in SDSU territory, and they had a fourth and goal at the 1-yard line, and the SDSU defense made a stand. In an iconic play, linebacker Adam Bock stopped the Montana ball carrier at the 1-yard line, stood him up, and took him down before the ball could cross the end zone and give them a touchdown. The Jacks got the ball back, and from then, it was on to a 23-to-3 victory. Jacks quarterback Mark Gronowski won the Walter Payton Award for outstanding offensive player--the first SDSU player to win this award-- and I don't believe there was a close second. He was richly deserving of it. Gus Miller, center, from Brookings, SD, won the Rimington Award for best FCS center--also incredibly well-deserved. As one reporter put it, ``This team is just dynamite.'' I couldn't agree more. Their hard work and commitment to each other and to the team has brought them success this year, and Jacks nation is incredibly proud of them. I want to congratulate the Jackrabbits players, coaches, and staff on this incredible championship season. There is much to celebrate now, but I am sure Coach Rogers will soon have the team working hard again to keep that winning streak going. Mr. President, at this point, I want to recognize the South Dakota State University Jackrabbits football team by entering a resolution into the Congressional Record. I would ask, as in legislative session, unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 519, which is at the desk.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, negotiations continue on border security reforms to be included in the national security supplemental, and I am thankful that after 3 years of chaos at our southern border, Democrats have, at least, finally come to the table, because it is long past time to get the situation under control. As I said, for 3 years--almost since the day President Biden took office--we have confronted chaos at our southern border. Rather than improving, this crisis has just grown worse and worse with time. Fiscal year 2021 saw a recordbreaking 1,734,686 migrant encounters at our southern border. Then fiscal year 2022 broke that record, and then fiscal year 2023 broke that record. And if fiscal year 2024 continues on its current trajectory, we will, yet again, end up breaking another record. December reportedly saw a staggering 302,000 migrant encounters at our southern border--not only the highest December number ever recorded, but the highest number ever recorded for any month, period. My colleague from Pennsylvania recently compared September's nearly 270,000 border encounters to having the entire population of Pittsburgh crossing our southern border in one month--in one month. The comparison is even more apt with December's numbers. We can't afford to have a major city's worth of illegal immigrants crossing our southern border every single month. As border cities have long known and as major Democratic cities are now finding to their cost, this simply isn't sustainable. New York City, which has seen 150,000-plus migrants enter the city since last spring, is facing cuts to city services as a result of the influx. In fact, just yesterday, it was reported that Mayor Adams is actually temporarily removing students from their classrooms to house migrants. It is not just New York that is overwhelmed; so are cities like Denver and Chicago. The mayor of Chicago recently noted that the situation his city and others are facing is ``unsustainable.'' So there are massive practical problems associated with having a city's worth of people coming across our southern border each and every single month. But that isn't the worst of it. The even bigger concern is the national security crisis that this represents. Our Nation cannot be secure while we have hundreds of thousands of migrants flooding across our southern border each month, frequently to end up released into the United States with court dates that are, literally, years into the future. The sheer volume smooths the way for criminals, terrorists, and other dangerous individuals to make their way into our country. And there are dangerous individuals trying to make their way into our country. Make no mistake about that. During the first 2 months of fiscal year 2024 alone, 30 individuals on the Terrorist Watchlist were apprehended on our southern border. That is, literally, one every other day. Fiscal year 2023 saw 169 individuals on the Terrorist Watchlist apprehended at our southern border, which was more than the previous six fiscal years combined. If we continue on our current trajectory, we will break the 2023 record this year. And that is deeply concerning. Those are just the individuals the Border Patrol is actually apprehending. We have no way of knowing how many dangerous individuals have entered our country over the past years without--without being apprehended. Since the beginning of fiscal year 2021, there have been more than 1.7 million known ``got-aways,'' and those are individuals the Border Patrol saw but was unable to apprehend. Since October 1 alone, there have been more than 83,000 known ``got-aways.'' That is 83,000 individuals entering our country without our knowing who they are, why they are here, or where in the United States they are going. And there is no way--no way--of telling how many unknown ``got-aways'' there have been. With the current chaos at our southern border, there is no question that some individuals are managing to make it into the United States completely undetected. With so many illegal immigrants arriving at our border these days, planning to get caught so they can take advantage of the Biden administration's lax asylum and parole policies, it is especially concerning to see these ``got-aways'' who are working to evade Border Patrol. Some of them may, indeed, be entering the United States simply hoping for a better life, but it is highly likely that a number of them have more malign intentions. I mean, think about it. You look at the number of people just in the month of October: 1,569 convicted criminals got in the country, 50 gang members, 93 people who have had warrants for their arrest, and 12 terrorists. That was one month--just one month. And those are the people that were apprehended. Think about those ``got-aways,'' which I mentioned--83,000 known ``got-aways'' since October 1--and then the unknown ``got-aways'' who you assume are people who know how to evade law enforcement and figured out how to get into the country illegally. The point simply is this: Our southern border has become a portal for people with all kinds of malign interests to get into this country. Now, arguably, there was a time when people came here from places like Central and South America in pursuit of a better life; and, obviously, you can't blame them for leaving the places where they lived and wanting to live in the United States. They come here legally. We have ways of people getting into this country legally; laws that should be followed. We are a nation of laws. But the fact that people like terrorists, like criminals, like cartels who are trafficking in who knows what--weapons, drugs, humans--we know how many people are dying every year from fentanyl in this country--our southern border is out of control. It is a danger to our national security, and it is a threat to the safety and security of every community in this country, whether you are on the border or not. Now, people used to think of this issue as something that just affects people along the southern border. It is not. I just mentioned New York, Chicago, Denver, facing very, very hard decisions because they don't know how to manage this huge influx of migrants coming into their communities. And, again, many of them are coming here for reasons that are, perhaps, understandable; nevertheless, still in violation of our laws. But now what is most concerning is the very fact that so many of these people being apprehended have criminal records, are members of gangs, or, worse yet, are on the Terrorist Watchlist. What do you think they are doing trying to get into this country? Seems pretty obvious to me. And some day, we are going to face something in this country, they are going to trace back some incident harmful to America that they are going to trace back to somebody who came across the southern border. And this administration and these lax policies and their unwillingness to enforce the law are going to be responsible for it. Mr. President, we are a nation of immigrants. I have said that many times. My own grandfather was an immigrant. Immigrants have helped build this country into what it is today. I am a strong supporter of legal immigration. As I said, we have ways for people to come here; but we are, first and foremost and fundamentally and foundationally, a nation of laws. We will only be able to remain a nation of laws as long as the law is respected and enforced, meaning this: Immigration needs to be legal. We need to know who is coming into our country and why. So I am very much hoping that in the very near future, the ongoing border negotiations will produce real reforms that will help us finally regain operational control of our southern border; because 3 years of chaos is 3 years too many. It is time to get this done. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, 302,000--302,000--that is how many migrants U.S. Customs and Border Protection is reported to have encountered at our southern border in the month of December. One month--302,000. To put that number in perspective, 302,000 is equivalent to roughly a third of the population of my home State of South Dakota or almost half of the population of Vermont or more than half--more than half, I should say, of the population of Wyoming. And that is just 1 month of encounters--1 month. Just when you think the Biden border crisis can't get any worse, it gets worse. The situation at our southern border is unsustainable. We have got three successive recordbreaking years of illegal immigration at the southern border under President Biden, and if the current trend continues, we are well on our way to a fourth. The Border Patrol is stretched thin. Border towns are stretched thin. Other major U.S. cities are struggling to deal with an influx of migrants. Take New York City, for example. New York City is currently facing cuts to city services, including a massive 13.5 percent cut to its police force as a result of the migrant crisis. And while practical challenges posed by this immigration crisis are massive, even more worrisome are the national security challenges. Our country cannot be secure while we have hundreds of thousands of migrants flowing across our southern border each month, frequently to end up released into the United States with court dates years in the future. Even more concerning are those who are making their way into our country without being apprehended. Since October 1 alone, there have been more than 83,000 known ``got-aways'' at our southern border. Those are individuals that the Border Patrol saw but was unable to apprehend. That is 83,000 individuals making their way into our country without our having the slightest idea of who they are, what they are doing here, or where in the United States they are planning to travel-- 83,000. And while some of them may simply be in search of a better life, others may be dangerous individuals who should not be entering our country. Let's be very clear. There are dangerous individuals who are trying to make their way into our country. Between October and November alone, the Border Patrol arrested 30 individuals on the Terrorist Watchlist attempting to make their way across our southern border. Fiscal year 2023 saw 169 individuals on the Terrorist Watchlist arrested at our southern border--169--a substantial increase, I might add, over fiscal year 2022, which itself was a substantial increase over fiscal year 2021. That is not a good trajectory. Again, I point out, these numbers only refer to the individuals the Border Patrol actually apprehend. There were 670,000 known ``got- aways'' during fiscal year 2023. How many of them--how many of them were terrorists, criminals, or other dangerous individuals? The fact of the matter is: We don't know. And that is disturbing. This is insanity--the 169 they caught on the Terrorist Watchlist trying to come across our southern border and the 670,000 last year who came across the southern border who got away. We have no idea the composition of those people or how many of them. I suspect that most people who are trying to get in here who are terrorists or who are involved in some other type of criminal enterprise probably figure out a way to get in here and not get caught. There may be quite a few of those on the ``got-away'' list. What we know, however, is that we must regain operational control of the southern border, and it has to happen now. Since President Biden has failed to do so and since his policies have encouraged illegal immigration, Congress is going to have to act. We must act. I am pleased the Democrats have finally come to the table in a real way to discuss needed reforms, but I want to say again that the only acceptable reforms are reforms that will actually meet the challenge at our southern border. Republicans will not sign off on cosmetic measures or superficial tweaks or simply just throwing more money at the problem. We owe the American people a secure border, and we will not agree to anything less than real reforms. I have said this before--I have said it many times--that we are a nation of immigrants. I am one generation removed; my grandfather came here as an immigrant. Yet we are a nation of laws first and foremost. It is fundamental. It is the foundation. It is the bedrock principle that distinguishes our country from so many other countries around the world. We have laws, and they have to be followed. When people come to this country--and we are a welcoming country--they need to follow the law. So fixing the problem means not just having additional funding for border security measures and enforcement personnel but a meaningful reform of our asylum and parole systems, which have been abused under the Biden administration. A recent CBS News article noted: Over the past few years . . . the U.S. asylum system has become a proxy process for migrants to stay and work in America, irrespective of whether they have valid claims or not. That is not acceptable. Our asylum system is meant to be a refuge for those who face genuine danger from persecution. It is not meant to serve as temporary de facto amnesty for those who would simply prefer to live in the United States. Our parole system is being abused as well. The Biden Department of Homeland Security's overly permissive application of parole has allowed hundreds of thousands of individuals who have not been granted legal status and who may not have a case for remaining in the United States to take up residence in our country, once again providing de facto amnesty, even if temporary. The Biden administration's abuse of our asylum and parole systems has to be reined in if we hope to stem the tide of individuals flooding into the country, so any acceptable border security reform must include the reform of these systems. While it may have taken them a long time to get here, I am, as I said, encouraged that at least Democrats have finally come to the table, and I hope for the sake of our country that sooner rather than later we will arrive at an agreement. We have had 3 years of the Biden border crisis. Let's make sure we don't have a fourth. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) would have voted ``nay.'' The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) would have voted ``nay.'' The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Schmitt), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``nay'', the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``nay'', and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun) would have voted ``aye.'' The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) would have voted ``nay.'' The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Schmitt), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``aye'', the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) would have voted ``nay'', the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance) would have voted ``nay'', and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) would have voted ``nay.'' The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) would have voted ``nay.'' The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Schmitt), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``nay'', the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``nay'', and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, President Zelenskyy visited Washington, DC, last week to ask for the United States' continued support for Ukraine as it defends itself against Russia. As someone who strongly believes that it is in our national security interest to aid Ukraine as well as our allies Israel and Taiwan, I am disappointed that we have not already passed the aid Ukraine needs. But let's be very clear: The reason the Senate has not already passed a national security supplemental is that Democrats, so far, have chosen to prioritize an open border over aid for our allies. Democrats have known for months that border security was going to be a part of the national security supplemental. After all, the President himself requested border funding in his supplemental request. Republicans have had a border security proposal on the table literally since the beginning of November, but Democrats wasted weeks, refusing to engage in substantive negotiations even though they were well aware that border security was going to be a requirement for getting this supplemental through both Houses of Congress. Now the supplemental will be pushed to January because Democrats have run out the clock to the point where getting a substantive border security deal passed before Christmas is impossible. Last week, President Biden said that failing to pass the national security supplemental before the holidays would be a Christmas gift to Putin. Well, I would like to point out, once again, that the only reason we haven't passed the national security supplemental already is because of the Democrats and President Biden. Only one of the two parties has been dragging its feet on negotiations, and it has not been the Republicans. A lot of us Republicans are eager to get Ukraine the aid that it needs, but we cannot--and I say we cannot--tend to our national security interests abroad while ignoring the national security crisis right here on our doorstep. President Biden wants to talk about a gift to Putin? Well, let's talk about the gift the President has been giving to terrorists and criminals and cartels for 3 years now with the chaos we have at our southern border. We have had three successive, record-breaking years of illegal immigration at our southern border on President Biden's watch; and the President is no closer to getting this crisis under control than when it first started. During October, the latest month for which we have data, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 240,988 migrants at our southern border, which is the highest October number ever recorded. I might add that among those numbers in October, there were almost 1,600 convicted criminals, 50 gang members, 90 people who have warrants out for their arrests, and 12 people on the Terrorist Watchlist. That was just in the month of October. The past 24 hours alone saw a record-breaking 12,000-plus migrant encounters at the southern border and, I would say, the highest--highest--daily total ever recorded. And those numbers don't count the ``got-aways,'' the individuals the Border Patrol saw but was unable to apprehend. Let's be very clear: While many of these individuals may simply have headed to the United States in search of a better life, there is no question that there are dangerous individuals who are trying to make their way into our country. During fiscal year 2023, the Border Patrol arrested 169 individuals on the Terrorist Watchlist at the southern border--169. That was a substantial increase over fiscal year 2022, which was itself a substantial increase over fiscal year 2021. Needless to say, that is not a good trajectory. Again, these numbers only refer to individuals the Border Patrol has actually apprehended. There were 670,000 known ``got-aways'' during fiscal year 2023. How many of them were terrorists, criminals, or other dangerous individuals? Well, the answer is, we really don't know. We really don't know. One thing we do know is that the chaotic southern border and the chaos that we have experienced there cannot continue. Our country cannot be secure while we have 10,000 people a day pouring across our southern border and hundreds of thousands of unknown individuals taking up residence in our country. Think about it. With the record that we had yesterday--as I mentioned, well over 12,000, which is the single highest--single highest--day that we have ever had on record in terms of people being apprehended illegally at the southern border, if you analyze that number, you are talking about more than 4.5 million people a year--4.5 million a year. That is way more people than the majority of the States in this country, in the entire United States of America. The Federal Government is charged with the responsibility for our Nation's security, and we owe the American people nothing less than a secure border. So while I believe it is essential that we get aid to our allies, any supplemental must include measures to address our national security here at home at the border as well as our national security interests abroad. I want to thank Senator Lankford for his patience and tenacity in working to bring Democrats to the table. After weeks of Democrat intransigence, it is encouraging that the White House is finally--and I say ``finally'' because, as I said, we had a proposal on the table at the beginning of November, and the White House finally engaged last Tuesday--finally has stepped up to take on a role in the negotiations. It is just too bad that they didn't do it weeks ago. But I hope that the President and Democrats understand that the only acceptable outcome of negotiations is a solution that meets the challenge at our southern border. Cosmetic measures and superficial tweaks are not going to cut it. So the ball is in the Democrats' court. We need to get aid to allies like Ukraine, but we cannot pass legislation to do that without addressing the situation at our southern border. I would like to think that Democrats would see the necessity of addressing our border crisis irrespective of what is needed to get this bill through Congress, but at the very least, I hope that Democrats' concern for our national security interests abroad will lead them to finally--and again I say ``finally''--get serious about working with Republicans to address the national security crisis here at home. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) would have voted ``nay.'' The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) would have voted ``nay.'' The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Schmitt), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) would have voted ``nay.'' The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin). The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Schmitt), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Alabama (Mrs. Britt), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) would have voted ``nay''. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst), the Senator from Nebraska (Mrs. Fischer), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) would have voted ``nay''. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Schmitt), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``nay''.