Thom Tillis

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I rise today to honor 57 students in North Carolina for their commendable decision to enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces. Of these 57, 31 have elected to join the U.S. Army: Andre Hall, Angie Lopez, Antonio Graham, Chicoria McKeithen, Corbin Thompson, Corwin Pedersen, Daniel Spear, Emily Vera, Emma Steward, Eric Bravo, Ervin Martin, Evan Wesolowski, Gordon Castleberry, Jacob Martin, Jaheim Wade, Jayden Romani-Alamo, Jazyre Clark, John Pippin, Johnathan Atherton, Jonathon Taylor, Joshua Arnette, Joshua Sims, Julia Perez, Landen Nelson, Mauricio Vera-Brito, Nicholas Brewington, Nimrod Castillo, Omarion McCune, Warren Avery, Xavier Mathis, and Zachary Viburs. Fourteen have elected to join the U.S. Navy: Angelina Allen, Madison Thomas, Micah'Ra Granum, Teigen Passage, Indigo Scott, Nakiya Burch, Eric Jones, Kaylee Neff, Elizabeth McNeill, Phillip Vincent, Gustavo Guevara, John Hitchcock, Najae Brown, and Brihanna Bryant. Four have elected to join the U.S. Air Force: Erykah Bordeaux, Mari Collins, Kasey Quick, and Mateo Ray. One has elected to join the United States Marine Corps: Daylon Lewis. One has elected to join the North Carolina Army National Guard: Oscar Soto Flores. Six have elected to join the Army Reserve: Cristal Ventura, Dillon Knight, Jayden Romani-Alamo, Jimella Ameyaw, Landen Nelson, and Raul Fuentes-Garcia. All 56 students will be recognized today, April 17, at the 2023 Our Country Salutes High School Enlistee Recognition Ceremony in Fayetteville, NC. These North Carolinians represent the very best of America, and they should rest assured that they are backed with the full support of the Senate as well as the American people. Their decision to serve our country is extremely admirable. I want to personally thank these graduating seniors for the courage and honor that they have shown by volunteering to defend our Nation. We owe them, along with all members of the U.S. Armed Forces, an immeasurable amount of appreciation.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about the situation at the border and to lend my voice to other Members who are going to speak about a border that needs to be secured. About 3 years ago, we had about one-half million illegal crossings. Two years ago, we had 2 million illegal crossings. Now, we are hearing that, in another 12 months--or in the last 12 months--almost 3 million illegal crossings. And it is likely to be that number or go higher. We have lost control of the border. Now, when you think, well, what does it mean? Because that is a great comment for somebody from some political stripe to make, but what does that really mean? When you get to that level of illegal crossings, you are inviting some of the worst crossings that could possibly happen. Now, let's keep in mind that there are a number of people who are escaping dangerous situations in their country of origin. There are people who probably, rightfully, should be in the United States or some safe third country because they are fleeing a dangerous situation in their country. Think Nicaragua. Think Ukraine. But we have reached a point to where we actually have a debate on the Senate floor about whether or not we need borders at all. Or we have other people who just say: Build a wall. Frankly, I think they are both wrong. I am not here to talk about building a wall that is over 1,000 miles long, that goes from the Pacific Ocean to the gulf. What I am talking about is securing the border. If you go down to the border, as I have, you would understand why. There are simply certain sections that you need to secure. You need to secure it so Border Patrol, which has primary responsibility for securing the border and orderly entry, can have control over the situation. They can't today. As a matter of fact, if they were all back on the line today and we haven't put together a viable border security strategy, they still couldn't do their job. But, now, with the numbers that we have coming across the border, they are not on the frontline. They are not interdicting cartels. They are not arresting and detaining what they call the Sinaloa air force. This is something amazing. We have engaged the Border Patrol officers in so many things that have nothing to do with securing the border that the cartel--one of the biggest ones, Sinaloa--has what the Border Patrol call their air force. They have literally seen them get in ultralight planes with six or seven people flying drugs into the United States, dropping the payload, and going back. They said that that has become a thing. It is not just an anecdote but another device that the Sinaloa cartel is using. How could they pay for the ultralights or their air force? They are making over $800 million a year in human trafficking. You don't cross the southern border without paying a toll, and that toll is paid to really a whole global network of people that find someone who wants to go to the United States. They say: You are from this country of origin, and this is what it is going to take to get you here. They even advertise in certain countries that they will get you to the United States illegally if you pay a toll. That toll could be $5,000, if you are from a Central American country, to $50,000 or $60,000 if you are from China. And we have had thousands even from China at the latest report--and a huge increase. So the lack of border security, the lack of controlling the border, is paying the very same cartels that are pumping our Nation full of poison that we call fentanyl. It is very likely that that air force I talked about was dropping some sort of an opioid, and even more likely, statistically--since 80,000 people a year are dying from fentanyl overdoses--that it was that poison. So we are allowing an unsecured border to enrich the cartel so they can poison Americans--80,000 a year. That is not a number that is in dispute. So we have to secure the border. And I have said it is not a 1,000- mile-long wall. I mean, if you go to the border, as I have several times, it makes no sense to put a 30-foot wall on top of a 500-foot cliff. Right? If they have made it that 500 feet, they are probably going to make it the additional 30. But maybe--maybe--you need technology there to know that people are going through that path. It is highly unlikely. But there are other areas, and the last visit to Arizona was to an area called the Yuma Sector. It is in the western part of Arizona, headed to California. There is a gate there. It is only about 12 feet wide--a little bit less wide than the dais down there--that 3 years ago had 8,000 illegal crossings. Two years ago, it had 200,000 illegal crossings through a gate like that--not through a big, wide expanse of 7 miles that is near that gate, but through a gate like that. Last year, there were 300,000 crossings. Thousands of people from Russia, thousands of people from China, and from a number of other countries are paying a toll to be delivered across the border. Many of them fly into Mexico City, get a transfer flight down to Mexicali, take a cab down to the border, and come across the border as long as they pay the cartel a toll. We have lost control of the border. We have Border Patrol law enforcement officers who are in the babysitting and bus business right now. We have less than half of the people who are sworn to protect our southern border doing jobs that have nothing to do with what they swore an oath for. We are turning a blind eye to the death and the destruction that is happening here in the United States and to all the people who are paying a toll and making the dangerous trek here to begin with. So, Madam President, you can't fix a problem until you know you have it, and our colleagues here in the Senate need to recognize that the border is a problem. And people like me--I don't come out here and do a fire-and-brimstone speech on ``I am a Republican and they are a Democrat; we are good, they are bad.'' I have worked on several bipartisan bills, if people can agree with the nature of the problem and solve it. And this is a problem that is having deadly consequences. And this administration--President Biden-- has rolled back policies in his 2 years here that are making the problem worse. It is solvable, but the Members of the Senate need to recognize that we have a problem, and the Members of the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, need to come up with a solution. I yield the floor.

Mr. TILLIS

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

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I am here to join some of my colleagues to talk about President Biden's budget proposal. I have heard a lot of the floor speeches today, and I hear a lot of facts and figures that are all very important, but sometimes it is kind of hard to translate that down to what it means around a kitchen table. I am actually speaking with a very vivid memory of the life I lived as a teenager back in the seventies when my mother and father, with six kids, were always on the economic bubble based on what happens in Washington. The challenges of working families are significant, and the challenges this budget presents make them even more so. I will start off with a couple of facts and figures because I think it is important. We have had inflation go up at about 15 percent since President Biden was in office. I am going to talk a little bit about that in a minute. If you go on Bloomberg or you read the Wall Street Journal, they use words like ``CPI'' and ``PCE'' and all these things. That won't necessarily make a lot of sense to folks who haven't studied it, but it does matter that grocery prices are up by 20 percent since President Biden took office. That is a 40-year high. And it also matters that rent prices-- something that my family in the seventies, depending upon what Congress did to us, very seldom for us, we would either be in a house that my parents owned or a house or a trailer that my parents rented. And when rents go up like that, the choices get fewer and fewer. These interest rates--these numbers are hurting the American people, but I want to go back to the interest rate discussion. The fact of the matter is, we found ourselves in a once-in-a-century challenge with the global pandemic in COVID. And in this body, I joined the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans to do everything we had to do to make things meet. That is why we did the Paycheck Protection Plan, which saved hundreds, if not millions, of jobs. We did a number of things on a bipartisan basis. So I think that we have to look at that overall inflation number and see how much of that was just necessary so that, in our judgment, we could weather a storm that could have created a global economic disaster. There are some of my Members who say we shouldn't focus on that, but I think we need to be honest with the American people. However, what we have seen since President Biden came into office was something that really disappointed me, as somebody who has worked across the aisle a number of different times, and that was two partisan bills: one that was $1.9 trillion shortly after President Biden took office; another one, the so-called--I call it the ``Inflation Production Act'' because it has very little to do with reduction. Its official title is the Inflation Reduction Act. So we are talking about $3 trillion in spending, after we had all decided that the money that we put out there to weather the storm for the global pandemic needed to be spent. We even raised questions about whether or not that money should be spent for what we originally intended. The point to that is the government had spent enough, and then these partisan bills took place, and these partisan bills are absolutely one of the root causes and primary reasons why we are seeing inflation today. As a matter of fact, the rising inflation is one of the root causes behind what we are seeing, and with that interest rates, because when inflation goes up and the Federal Reserve wants to get inflation back down to 2 percent--we are at 6 percent now. There are some people high- fiving over that. I don't know why. Yes, it is down from 7 percent or so, but we are nowhere near where we need to be. And inflation happens when government spends too much. That is what we are seeing happen, and, in fact, because of inflation and the need to raise interest rates, now we have banks that have failed, largely based on the inflation rate exposure and what they are having to do when their debts come due. So we have a budget that even the additional spending--I think the top-line number is $6.8 trillion. Now, to be fair, in the COVID timeframe, it was a little over 4 trillion--I think maybe even a little bit north of that but certainly not at this level. We are spending too much. And the American families, and working families, in particular, people on that economic bubble, are the ones who are going to suffer the most if we don't figure out how to get it right. So we have got a deficit, a deficit in this budget. We have got new debt in this budget. We have got new taxes in this budget. And we have invalid assumptions about where we are today. How on Earth can we be making an optimistic assumption about inflation that is somewhere near 2 percent? Does anybody here honestly believe that we are going to be high-fiving and being at 2 percent inflation over the next year and a half or 2 years? I don't believe that that is true. But how can you make that an underlying assumption in the budget--because the President is smart, his advisers are smart; they know that that is a false premise for a budget. So it is even worse than it may seem. And what makes me sad about this is it is really worse for the people who are already getting 80 cents on the dollar for groceries, for the people who are only getting 90 cents on the dollar for rent today. It all comes back to the people who are struggling the most. We should talk about some of the other taxes that are in this legislation. Energy. Generally speaking, most people have to buy gas; they have got to heat their homes. Energy taxes are going up. I think the estimate that we have right now is about $20 billion in additional energy taxes. I don't know about you all, but virtually every time I see a tax increase, if you wait long enough, you will see how that translates into a tax burden on working families. It is inevitable. Corporations ultimately don't pay taxes. When you are going to increase a corporate tax by 30 percent, who ultimately pays for that? Yes, they may be able to work around the edges and absorb some of that, but what they are going to do is find a way to get the consumer--working families--to pay for that. That is how this works. That, incidentally, is how the bailout of Silicon Valley Bank is going to work. It is fair, and it would pass a fact check, that the plan that was agreed to over the weekend to resolve Silicon Valley Bank isn't a tax in the way that we describe a tax. It is that tax you get from the IRS, for example. It is that tax you get--sales tax at a register. Why is this also a hidden tax? Because do you honestly believe that some community bank that is struggling to keep a branch open in an underserved area in rural North Carolina--they are going to make one of two choices. They are either going to make that banking service more expensive or they are simply going to leave that bank. And now we get to unbanked and underbanked areas that are most hard hit, the ones that actually have working families who need banks to serve them. The other thing--I am not going to get into details, but I am also very concerned with the signal that President Biden has sent on defense. There is a plus-up in defense spending, but the President's proposed budget--in the worst possible time with all the conflicts that we are dealing with--the Ukraine conflict, the threat from China, the continuing threat in the Middle East. Is this really a time to send the signal that we are going to spend less on national defense? We have been trying to get to a 355-ship Navy for almost a decade--at least 8 years, as many years as I have been here. I have been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for those 8 years, and we were always talking about how are we going to get to 355? We are just under 300 now. This budget is suggesting that we may even have a smaller Navy than we have today, when China has one of the largest navies that has ever existed--actually, probably the largest navy that has ever existed in the history of the world. So we are prioritizing domestic spending; we are turning our back on national security; and all the net increase in spending is based on assumptions that they are making that will ultimately--if they don't believe it, they need to believe it--it is going to hurt working families the most. Well, the good news about President Biden's budget is that it gives us a real, I think, understanding of what his priorities are. The better news is that that budget is not going to pass through Congress because we are going to have to work on something that is more responsible, that is not inflationary, that tries to get taxes in line so that people can afford the bill that you will ultimately have to pay. And I hope that over the next--in the coming months that we can have a discussion about let's start with the people who are hurt most. Let's look at the policies that channel directly into making that burden greater, and let's do something good for the United States and the hard-working families across this country. And for that reason, I will do everything I can, Mr. President. You are somebody I have worked with on a bipartisan basis. I hope that we can get the Senate and the House to recognize that it is time for us to stand up and produce something that puts working families at the forefront.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the resolution we are talking about on public safety in Washington, DC. The DC Revised Criminal Code Act is another example of how the far left is so out of touch that they want to reduce penalties for violent crime in DC while residents, Federal employees, Members of Congress, our visiting constituents, and even our visiting diplomats are facing greater risk. There are a number of concerns I have with the crime bill that the DC Council passed over the objections of the DC Mayor, many of which have already been discussed at length by my colleagues. But one of the most puzzling to me is why you would ever reduce penalties for carjacking. DC city officials saw from 2019 to 2020, the number of carjackings in DC more than doubled from 152 to 360. They are not following trends either. In 2021, it went up to 425; and in 2022, it went up to 485. Despite the fact that carjackings have more than tripled in the last 4 years, far-left radicals on the DC City Council thought now was the time to reduce penalties for carjacking. That is one of only several examples we can go to that my colleagues have talked about. That tells me that the DC City Council is blind to crime happening right in front of them--right outside their front door--or that the carjacking industry has some really good lobbyists here in Washington. Now, to make it worse, only a month ago, President Biden's Office of Management and Budget issued a statement opposing this resolution and in support of letting radical DC activists on the council let the bill go into effect. Not only that, but at least on two occasions, President Biden's U.S. attorney in Washington, DC, expressed support for letting the radical proposal proceed, even while raising concerns about how extreme the policies were. I am appealing directly to President Biden. First, I want to thank him for agreeing to sign this resolution when we send it to the President's desk after a successful vote. I am also asking the President to prove his commitment to public safety by working with my colleagues and me on commonsense, bipartisan proposals that keep communities safe. I think that I have a track record of bipartisanship here that the President should take as a good-faith offer. We need to get to work. One of the bills that I would like to get support for is a bill that I filed last Congress--and I am going to file again--called the Protect and Serve Act. We need to get it into law because it creates penalties for those who assault or kill a police officer, the brave men and women in law enforcement. We need to show our commitment to law enforcement and to law and order in this country, and I believe the Protect and Serve Act will send a clear signal to friends and foes alike that we care about law enforcement. We need the thousands of law enforcement jobs that are not being filled today because law enforcement feels like at least policymakers--I don't believe the American people--are working against them. But now I also want to talk a little bit about how crime is getting worse. I consider the Presiding Officer a friend. You are on the other side of the aisle, but I see us having a lot in common. But, Mr. President, I have to tell you, for those of you watching this speech--my mother and maybe a few others--I think it is important to understand how campaign finance works here. Both the Republicans and Democrats have national organizations that work on supporting candidates. I think that is fine. Here is what I don't think is fine. It is actually something--I just made sure the subpage is still up. It is. I can't lift up my phone and show you all because it is a violation of Senate rules. If you Google ``ActBlue'' and ``all cops are bastards,'' you will go to a fundraising web page on ActBlue--the very same engine that my Democratic colleagues use for fundraising. I know most of my Democratic colleagues do not embrace that as anything that they would support or contribute to, but it is out there. If you go to their website, you are going to see the 13.12-mile run. They go on to explain why they specifically picked that distance-- because ``1-3-1-2'' translates into ``A-C-A-B.'' Do you know what ``A- C-A-B'' translates into? ``All cops are bastards''--all. We know that in any area where you have tens of thousands of people, not all of them are angels, but all of them? Our law enforcement folks here on Capitol Hill--all of them? The ones who protected us on January 6? They are raising money to convince people that all cops are bastards--actblue.com. It will be interesting to see if anybody on the city council in DC has actually provided a contribution. More recently, I think that this sort of rhetoric is at least in part what occurred in Atlanta just about a week ago, where violent activists attacked a construction site for Atlanta's public safety training. At least 23 of the agitators were arrested and charged with domestic terrorism after conducting what the Atlanta Police Department is calling ``a coordinated attack on construction equipment and police officers.'' Here is what is ironic about that. I have been to several police officer training facilities, and do you know what they train there? They train them to protect themselves and protect innocent victims, but they also train them how to deescalate. They train them how to take a dangerous situation and let someone who may be a criminal be able to go and face justice but not die at a crime scene. They are teaching police officers to be better. In Atlanta, because of this sort of rhetoric, they are attacking the very people we all want to see at our doorstep when we dial 9-1-1. The violent activists destroyed multiple pieces of construction equipment. Thankfully, no police officers were harmed. These are not your run-of- the-mill ``defund the police'' activists; these are radicals like the radicals who are raising money on it, who are willing to use violence to achieve their ends of abolishing the police. This DC crime bill that we are going to overturn today is another step in that direction--enabling and encouraging unsafe communities at the expense of the vast majority of police officers and citizens who simply want to live in peace. It is long past time for the Federal government to say enough is enough when it comes to crime in this country. I was proud to join President Trump in supporting the First Step Act, by the way. If you want to talk to me about criminal justice reform, if you want to talk to me about reducing sentences for nonviolent offenders, if you want to talk to me about early release of those who look like they have an opportunity to reform and get back to being active members of society, count me in. Do you know why? Because I have already done it. I have done it at the State level, and I have done it up here. That is smart criminal justice policy. This is dangerous. I want to thank my friend and colleague from a onetime home of mine in Tennessee for moving this resolution. You should be congratulated. You have done great work, and I think you have opened the eyes of several Members on the other side of the aisle here to why this is a sound bill. I am glad to see you carrying it all the way to the President's desk, and it will be successful. Thank you, Senator Hagerty. But let's not end with this vote. Go onto that website and see what we are up against. Talk to your local law enforcement and talk about how many unfilled positions there are and how morale is low, and do your part to thank every man and woman in uniform for their service.

Mr. TILLIS

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

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, as some of my colleagues may know, we recently lost Kaya, a very special service dog that was a frequent visitor to the Senate. Kaya's life was devoted to helping veterans with PTSD, and she quickly became an ambassador for veterans and service dogs everywhere. A few years ago, I ran into Kaya and her owner, Cole. Actually, I was walking down the street and at a street corner when we first met each other. As a dog lover myself, I stopped to say hello. After I learned about Cole's service history, I invited Cole and Kaya to a meeting in my office. At that meeting, I learned something very important--that the Department of Veterans Affairs does not cover the cost of service animals for veterans with post-traumatic stress, which can cost upwards of tens of thousands of dollars. From the moment I met Kaya, I knew she was special. She was not just a service dog; she was the model of a service dog. She had a gentle nature, kind eyes, and a wagging tail. But I could say that about my two dogs, Mitch and Theo. I could even say that I am proud of the obedience training I have given them. But Kaya is different. She knew all the commands my dogs know, but she also knew how to be there for Cole without even a single command. And like so many other veterans-- service dogs are not just taught to sit and stay and fetch; they are taught to actually see what the veteran is experiencing. They know when to go by that veteran's side just to give them a source of calmness. They actually know how to wake up a veteran who may be in the middle of a nightmare. They know when a veteran or a servicemember who is disabled needs something--they can point to it, and they will retrieve it. These are extraordinary dogs, so you can understand why it may be expensive to get them up to that level. So few dogs are like Kaya. She was a special one. Cole and I, when we met, discussed approaches we could use to try to get funding for service dogs in the VA. It is one of the reasons why it culminated in what we call the PAWS for Veterans Therapy Act. I later introduced that bill in the Senate. The legislation established a pilot program to provide canine training to eligible veterans diagnosed with PTSD. In addition to Kaya's unwavering devotion that brought comfort and support--and dogs like her--to countless veterans, she also educated Congress and this country about the role dogs can play in helping veterans who are struggling with the invisible wounds of war. Because of Kaya's effort--and I guess a little bit from Cole--we were able to pass the PAWS for Veterans Therapy Act, and it was signed into law in 2021. Now, thanks to Kaya, Cole, and organizations like K9s for Warriors, veterans across the country are beginning to benefit from service dog programs that have a track record of reducing symptoms associated with PTSD. But I also have to say we have a lot of work to do. The PAWS Act was only the beginning of several steps we need to take to make these incredible animals available to more veterans because for every one who is being served today, there are dozens who are not. The nearly 17 veteran suicides this country experiences each and every day makes clear that the PAWS Act is only the beginning, it is not the end, and this is a step on a very long journey. We must work to ensure the Department of Veterans Affairs is implementing the PAWS Act as we intended by partnering with service dog organizations to connect as many veterans as possible with canine training to improve well-being and help veterans thrive. I have made it a top priority to do everything possible to combat veteran suicide. This legislation is another tool in the toolbox for our men and women who have served. The passing of Kaya is a true loss. She was sick, and Cole had to make the appropriate but heartbreaking decision to release her from her misery. Cole, thank you for sharing Kaya with us. Kaya, thank you for bringing comfort, hope, and healing.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, when I look back at the 8 years I have been in the Senate, I can think of a lot of things I like about this job. I have really gotten to know staff on both sides of the aisle, a lot of Members on both sides of the aisle, being coached more than once by Elizabeth and Leigh on parliamentary procedure and rules of the Senate--those are all things I like about the Senate. But every year on this day, there is one thing I don't like about the Senate, and that is because 2 out of the last 10 years, Senate business has brought me here instead of being home with my wife on Valentine's Day. Mr. President, my wife and I have been married for 36 years, and our first two babies--our two babies were born in Atlanta, GA, the Presiding Officer's great State. My wife Susan has been my valentine for 36 years, and I am away from her once again. So if it wasn't a violation of the rules, I would pick up a sign just like this that says ``I love my wife, and I wish her a happy Valentine's Day,'' but that is against the rules, so I am not going to do that. Instead, I am going to say: Susan Tillis, I love you, and thank you for 36 great years. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a great North Carolinian, courageous veteran, and the last living survivor of the Battle of Wake Island: Pearson Riddle, Jr. Born in Pensacola, NC, on October 15, 1921, Pearson joined the Civilian Conservation Corps at 18 years old upon completing high school. After spending time in Oregon and California learning to operate heavy machinery, he was sent to Hawaii to work for the U.S. Navy and later joined the Wake Island workforce in August 1941 as a general laborer, providing essential support services to U.S. Armed Forces. On December 8, 1941, Japanese forces commenced a successful siege of Wake Island despite the valiant efforts of marines, sailors, soldiers, and civilians. Pearson was among the hundreds of civilian contractors captured by Japanese forces on December 23, 1941. Forty-four months of grueling captivity and infamous brutality followed. Pearson was kept on Wake Island until early 1942, when the Japanese forced POWs to board the Nitta Maru, which was destined for a prison camp in Woosun, China. After spending 19 months there in forced labor, the Japanese shipped Pearson and hundreds of other POWs to Kobe, Japan, and again to Tokyo where he was imprisoned until a May 1945 Allied bombing destroyed the prison camp. Sent north to Sendai 7-B Hanaoka after the successful Allied bombing, Pearson and the remaining POWs were liberated in September 1945. Malnourished, ill, and abused, it took Pearson 2 years to make a full recovery, and despite lifelong medical complications from his imprisonment, Pearson never stopped serving. After his service, Pearson went on to build bases around the world, including in north Africa and Iceland. In 1987, the Navy administratively awarded Pearson the rank of E-4 and evaluated him as a 100 percent wartime service-connected disabled veteran. Seventy-seven years after his liberation, Pearson received the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal, World War II Victory Medal, and American Campaign Medal for his heroic devotion to duty. Today, we honor Pearson Riddle, Jr.'s valor, service, and commitment to the values and principles of the United States of America. I ask my fellow Senators to join me in saluting Pearson Riddle for his service.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Mississippi for her comments on this subject. I am down here on the floor to also talk about the crisis at the border--the humanitarian crisis, the Homeland Security crisis, and a crisis that is resulting in cartels making $800 million a year in human trafficking. I joined a bipartisan delegation 2 weeks ago. We visited the border. It was very productive. It was one of the first bipartisan delegations in quite some time. The reason that was important is, if you go down there with a partisan delegation, you are only going to actually talk about one side of the issue. If you go down there with a bipartisan delegation, you can talk about what we need to do on a bipartisan basis to solve the crisis at the border. I want to start where Senator Hyde-Smith finished--the humanitarian crisis. I am one of the Members who has been trying to negotiate a bipartisan immigration reform bill that has border security and asylum reform in it. I had a lot of my staff ask me: Why would you do that? You know it is going to be unpopular. You are going to get criticized from the left for going too far. You are going to get criticized from the right for having any discussion about immigration reform. I have been down to the border several times. I told my staff that it is hard for me to forget border security telling me that they just transported an 11-year-old girl who had been repeatedly raped, so much so, she screamed so long she couldn't even speak anymore before she crossed the border. I told them I can't forget going down the Rio Grande River and seeing a corpse taken out of the river, realtime, while I was down there. It wasn't staged because it is happening repeatedly every year. When you hear stories of truckloads of people being bused across the border--53 of them dying through suffocation and heat exposure on American soil--I can't forget that. That is a humanitarian crisis that has to be solved. Then I went to the border last week and I started at the Rio Grande Sector and then I went over to the Yuma sector. At night, at the Rio Grande Sector, we saw two Chinese nationals who had been apprehended. Chinese nationals pay, on average, about $35,000 to cross the border. In many cases, they don't have the money to do it. They have somebody invest in them, and then they become indentured servants in the United States to pay off that debt. You have people pay $5,000, $6,000, $10,000 who have an expectation from the cartel that they have a debt to be repaid. That may be an honest job that they could get or that could be an illegal activity that helps the cartels. Now we go over to the Yuma Sector. The Yuma Sector is in Western Arizona. There is a section of border there that hasn't been completed. It is about 7 miles wide. But the most important part of that 7 miles is about a 12-foot gate. Three years ago, 8,000 people crossed through that gate; 2 years ago, 200,000 people crossed through that same 12- foot gate; and over the last 12 months, 300,000 people have. Five thousand of them were Russian nationals; another 5,000 were Chinese nationals. Look, I understand why people want to get out of Russia, and I understand why people want to get out of China. What I don't understand is why on Earth in transit to that border--that dangerous crossing that you are paying tens of thousands of dollars to a cartel, a transnational criminal organization--why on Earth wouldn't you stop in a nation that is safe, the first safe country that you can get to out of the country that you are trying to flee from? That is how international asylum treaties work. You get out of the dangerous country. You go to a country that has international agreements on asylum. You claim asylum. And then you may even want to seek asylum in the United States. We had reports in the Yuma Sector of people who are flying into Mexicali. They are flying in, not making the trek as many people think of caravans coming from Central America through Mexico--flying into Mexicali with suitcases and bags and taking a cab to the border, making sure their toll is paid and then crossing the border. There is no way on Earth that people coming from many of these nations could not have sought asylum somewhere closer to home and then give us a chance for orderly entry. In total, it is estimated that the transnational criminal organizations, the cartels, are being paid almost $800 million a year. What are they doing with that? If you go down to the border-- particularly if you go down there around midnight--they play the same play every night, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. They will take innocent people who are going to come across the border, and they tell them: Once you get across the border, present yourself to a Border Patrol agent, and you will be processed, which is exactly what happens. Under the Biden administration, you are likely to be released within a few days or not more than about a week. The disturbing trend is the one that Senator Hyde-Smith talked about, the disturbing number of people who are evading Border Patrol. Why on Earth would you not opt to go into a facility that is heated in the winter and cooled in the summer and spend a week of being fed three times a day, to have access to facilities, to have changing tables for babies, to have play areas while they are being detained and processed? Why on Earth would you avoid all that and take the dangerous step of evading detection, unless, at least for some of them, there is a nefarious purpose. Then they are moving into communities where we have already seen--in North Carolina, an illegal immigrant murdered a young lady just a couple of years ago. We have seen this crime, and it tracks back almost invariably to the people who are the so-called got-aways. Now I want to go to the Yuma Sector and talk about those 300,000 Border Patrol. I am wearing a ``Back the Blue'' flag. But as you all know, if it is Border Patrol, they wear green uniforms, so I say, ``Back Law Enforcement.'' Right now, Border Patrol only has less than half of the people who are sworn to protect the border doing those jobs. They are in processing facilities. They are driving buses. They are providing support for daycare. Literally, I am not exaggerating. So that means that we have half as many people protecting a border that has wide-open spaces. There are no structures whatsoever. Come across. Walk through the Rio Grande. In most cases, you can. You don't have to swim. But when those 300,000 people get there--this is the most amazing thing about this country--they are going through that 12-foot gate. If Border Patrol goes there, then the rest of the border is open for the got-aways. Our country is so extraordinary that they say: I know that it is only about a 10-minute ride from that 12-foot gate to the processing facility, but they won't transport a child unless they have a car seat for them. If somebody has disabilities, they have to make special accommodations. Imagine 300,000--300,000--people coming across the border in a 12-month period, what Border Patrol has to do to conform to our laws and treat these people humanely and safely. They need time. Time can only come when Congress recognizes that we have to secure the border. We have to fill the gaps. We have to insist that if you want to come to this country, present yourself at a legal port of entry, present a request for asylum, you will be processed. We need to send the message: If you want to come to the United States, thank you for the compliment you are willing to risk your life to come to the United States, but respect our laws and don't pay cartels $800 million a year so that they can create a conduit for fentanyl and other drugs that are poisoning almost 100,000 Americans a year. Now let's talk about immigration reform. I think that one of the ways that we can provide a future flow--a downward pressure on future flow-- is to simply say to people who want to respect our laws and apply for citizenship, for work visas, or other forms of being in this country legally, we need to actually fix the immigration laws that we have on the books to do that. If we do that, I am not going to have to worry about those memories of that little girl. I am not going to have to worry about the corpses that we are picking up in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. I believe we will have fewer people dying from fentanyl because less of it will come here, for a couple reasons: We will have better security at the border, and we will bankrupt the cartels that are making, over the last 2 years, almost $2 billion. We need people in Congress to recognize that a bipartisan solution is possible. We have a crisis at the border that needs to be solved, and we have to have an administration that spends more than four hours in 2 years at the border recognizing it is on them to help us fix it.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in a discussion about the right to life and what happened last week in Washington, DC, when tens of thousands of Americans of all ages, races, and religious backgrounds traveled to our Nation's Capital to march for life. This March for Life was particularly special since it was the first March for Life after the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, which made this march a special celebration recognizing the unborn lives saved as a result of that decision. I was proud to see many North Carolinians represent our State in the march by participating and fighting for the young babies who do not have a voice. But for the voices expressed in the March for Life, they would be unheard. In January 1974, a brave group of committed pro-life leaders led the first March for Life to advocate for a solution to the Supreme Court's judicial activism, in my opinion, in the Roe v. Wade case. This year, the March for Life was not only an event to advocate for the unborn, it was a celebration of the end of Roe and the return of pro-life policymaking to the States and, I believe, to the Congress. The Dobbs decision is historic and affirms my belief that all life is sacred. Each State government and its duly elected representatives now make the determination about what types of laws they wish to have in place. I, for one, continue to advocate for commonsense measures that the majority of Americans support, like protecting life at crucial points of development and prohibiting horrendous procedures like partial-birth abortion. While it is good for us to celebrate the Dobbs decision, as Senators, we must remember that the fight for life in the United States is far from finished. Our work to enact pro-life policies must continue if we are to be a voice for the voiceless. I believe Congress must vigorously pursue efforts to defend the sanctity of life. Some have said since the Dobbs decision that this is something that only States should weigh into, and I respectfully disagree. Just 2 weeks ago, I was thrilled to see the House pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which I am committed to supporting. This legislation would protect newborns who survive failed abortions, born alive, requiring the same degree of care as a newborn baby. I urge Leader Schumer to bring this commonsense bill up to the floor for a vote as soon as possible. Last Congress, I cosponsored dozens of pro-life bills. This Congress, I joined multiple bills to shape Federal policies toward protecting life. This includes proposals that would prohibit the use of Federal funds for abortion and prohibit Planned Parenthood from using Federal funding for abortions. When I served as speaker of the house in North Carolina, we passed several bills to protect the unborn and to defend life, and it was widely supported by the diverse State of North Carolina, which is by no means a red State. It is a blue State, maybe a purple State. But when you talk about what we were trying to accomplish, the majority of North Carolinians supported it. I ultimately believe that the States are best situated to set policies to support mothers and to protect life. That is why it is critical that pro-life advocates contact their State legislators and their Governors to ensure that lifesaving protections are enacted to defend the unborn in their respective States. I am committed to continuing the effort to support life. I am a lifetime pro-life Catholic. I make no apology for it because we are the voice in the absence of that baby yet to be born, and we have to continue to fight for them. I encourage my Senate colleagues to join me in doing this. Mr. President, I just want to say that I hope that on this issue, like so many that we tackled in the last Congress, thorny issues, that everybody thought nothing could get done--I really hope that we can get people in a room and recognize that we can come together on some basic tenets, get rid of the voices at either end of the spectrum that are preventing us from making progress on this important issue, because, literally, the lives of the unborn--their lives, their opportunity is at stake.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I want to take a moment to talk about history, and then I will be making a unanimous consent request. One hundred thirty years ago was the first time the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina sought recognition. But you have to go back about 250 years--but that is not even enough; you have to go back to the colonial times to see a Tribe indigenous to North Carolina who has maintained a culture, maintained a language, done everything they need to do to be acknowledged as a Native American Tribe. One hundred thirty years ago, they sought recognition, and they were turned away. Every year since then, they have come to Congress to try to find recognition, and they have failed to do it. Back in the 1950s, the Congress at that time--and we can talk about that, and I will talk about that in future speeches--at once recognized the Lumbee and then unrecognized the Lumbee. The Lumbee Tribe in North Carolina is a Tribe that has a distinct culture. They have a distinct language. They are a Tribe that I have been working with for years, since the time I was speaker of the house, helping them continue to preserve a heritage that has existed since the Tribe first formed. We have been trying to get the Lumbee recognized for several years. As a matter of fact, the bill that I am going to ask unanimous consent for was sent to the Senate on the suspension calendar with huge bipartisan support in the House. And it is not the first time that has happened; it has happened several times. But for some reason, when it comes to the Senate, it goes to die, and I don't understand that. In fact, I am going to spend a lot more time trying to understand it. I am going to try to understand why the Chickasaw, the Choctaw, and the Cherokee, the Eastern Band in my own State, oppose it. Some of them say it is because of the integrity of the recognition process. I don't believe that, but I am going to go into that discussion with them next year with open eyes and open ears. But I believe that there is something more sinister involved in their objection to the Lumbee being recognized, and I promise the Lumbee Tribe that every week that I am in the Senate, for as long as I am in the Senate, we are going to cast light on what are the legitimate objections to the Lumbee being recognized. It is time for them to be recognized. Tonight, through unanimous consent, we could send a bill to the President's desk, and we would right a wrong that has existed for 130 years. Now, I know there are objections on our side of the aisle. I also understand that this was cleared by all the Democrats--no objections. But I have six on this Senate side that I am going to have to work on, and I have to do my homework. I expect that. I am not lazy. I will do that. But I do want people to understand that this Tribe deserves respect. This is a Tribe that is just down the road from Fort Bragg. They disproportionately serve in the Army in spite of the disrespect this Nation has directed their way. For over a century, they have served with valor, and they have served with honor. They are serving their community. They are maintaining their heritage, and I believe the time is now that they be recognized. Now, if that doesn't happen tonight, I want the Lumbee people to know that I am going to continue to fight for them in the same way that Senator Burr has for almost 28 years. So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 522, H.R. 2758. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, may I speak for a moment?

Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I respect my colleague from Mississippi. We do great work together. This is an area where we have to agree to disagree. But, again, I want the Choctaw, I want the Chickasaw, I want the Cherokee, and I want every Tribe that has objected to this, while a majority of Native American Tribes support it, to know that we are going to have a lot of quality time together over the next 2 years.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I first want to thank my colleague Senator Sinema for her comments. I think that she has framed a lot of the challenges that we were seeking to address that are going to persist into the next Congress now. I think one of the things that we have to do, if we are able to achieve bipartisan consensus in the next Congress, is to get more people to recognize, just as Senator Sinema stated in her first few lines of her comments just before me, we have a crisis at the southern border. And it is a crisis where the border States--the southern border States--bear the brunt of it, but it affects everybody in the United States. Every city, every State, every community is being affected by the crisis at the border. I think this administration has to recognize--it is interesting if you watch the news coverage--how suddenly one end of the spectrum says: Now it is time for Congress to act. The crisis at the border--2 million illegal crossings in each of the last 12-month periods, for a total of 4 million people illegally crossing the border. We dodged a bullet this week when title 42, which is a policy that allows expedited removal for a certain group of those crossing the border illegally to be returned--but tomorrow or next week or in the next couple of weeks, that policy is going to come off the books. Then, Border Patrol says, they will no longer have control over the border. They already have said that they can barely keep up. The vast majority of people who are Border Patrol agents who should be responding to illegal crossings are now working in the aftermath of 2 million people coming across the border over the last 12 months. They are providing housing, transportation. They are not actually doing law enforcement. If title 42 goes away, that 2 million is estimated to be 3 million over the next 12 months. And it could go up from there. Ever since President Biden has taken office--we have to keep in mind that this is just an objective observation. In the 12 months before President Biden came into office, there were about a half million illegal crossings--in the 12 months before. In the 12 months after, there were 2 million. And the 12 months after that, there were 2 million. And now we have the threat of 3 million and continuing. On the one hand, when you see somebody risking their life to come into this country, you have to kind of take it as a compliment. They want to realize the American dream. And I admire that. One of the very reasons why we are so attractive as a country to come and live and prosper is because we are a nation of laws. We have order. Now we have disorder at the border. And even though it is a huge problem to have 2 million crossings every year, it is an even worse problem to have 50,000 got-aways. The way it works down at the border--I have been to the border several times--the vast majority of the people that cross the border, immediately, you literally see at the northern side of the Rio Grande an arrow that points you to where you can go to be processed. They know they are going to be treated respectfully. They will be given housing. They will be given food. They will go through the process. What is concerning is that there are some 50,000 per month who intentionally evade apprehension. Now, why on earth, if you have got a valid asylum claim or you don't have a criminal record, would you run the risk of evading Border Patrol rather than presenting yourself, getting in line, being processed and being released within a few weeks? The reason for that is that many of them have criminal background records. We had 750 recently apprehended who were documented members of gangs in their country of origin. These are people that are coming to this country and quickly going to the communities that they are most like and making those communities less safe for the people who are legally present or the people who have been relocated over the past couple of years with the flood at the border. You also have to understand that the cartel--the reason the administration has to recognize this is a crisis is the cartels made an estimated $800 million over the last 12 months paying a toll to come to this country. If you are in a Latin American country or South American country, you are paying an average between $5,000 to $7,000 per person. If you are from China, you are paying about $35,000. These cartels have set up a marketing function. They go to these source countries and say: If you pay us a fee, we will get you to the United States, in spite of the fact that they have may have passed through other safe countries that they could seek asylum. That is what we talk about when we are talking about abusing our asylum system. Our international treaties say that if somebody comes to you and you have a credible fear for your life or your family's life in the country that you live, relocate to a country that can grant you asylum and go through the process. But what the cartels are saying: Pay us a fee. We don't care where you are in the world--literally--and we will get you to the United States. And you will pass through several countries where you could have applied for asylum in between. And then when you get here, the cartels have coached them on exactly what to say to make you think that they have a credible asylum claim, in spite of the fact that with hundreds of judges--Democratic judges, Republican judges, Independent judges--80 percent of those asylum claims are deemed not to be credible. So the asylum system is broken. It has to be fixed. It is one of the foundations of any kind of framework that I could support. The border has to be secured, and we need more technology and more enforcement at the legal ports of entry because those same cartels who are making $800 million a year are spending that money to then send truckloads of fentanyl and dangerous drugs poisoning and killing Americans. I hope that in the next Congress, we can recognize, No. 1--hopefully the administration will recognize that we do have a crisis at the border and it can't be solved on partisan grounds. We have to have a conversation. Both ends of the political spectrum need to recognize that you have to move to a point where we can produce a solution. Otherwise, Americans are going to be poisoned to death, and people trying to cross the border are going to die in the hundreds. It is a moral obligation that we have to get out of our political comfort zone and get something done. Otherwise, the deaths, the blood of the people who die as a result of inaction, will be on the hands of everybody in this room.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, we have heard a lot of great comments. First, we heard great words from Senator Burr. I hope that people yield and learn from the lessons. We have also learned a lot about his body of work over the 28 years that he has been in the House and the Senate. He mentioned Speaker Boehner earlier, who was probably crying as he listened to Richard's comments. I have a tendency, when I see a friend leaving, to get a little sappy too. So to make sure that we keep Speaker Boehner on the leaderboard for the one who cries the most, I want to talk a little bit about our relationship. We knew each other before I came here. I was speaker of the house when I first met him. But I learned a lot from him over the last 8 years, and I have seen him work in a way that is unique among many Members. I feel like you sum up Richard Burr by his patience, his practicality, and his persistence. He is a very patient person. He doesn't think in terms of, we have got to get this done this Congress. He looks at the reality of the situation, and he just continues to build support until he gets it done. He is practical. He looks at something, the face of the policy, and he decides whether it makes sense. And he is willing to take the political hits to get good policy done--policy, to use Richard's words, that has purpose and meaning. And, man, is he persistent. We have had a lot of people talk about the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I watched him work this, and he worked it for quite some time. And when it was finally set up to get passed, he was making a few people and his own conference a little bit uncomfortable because of his encyclopedic knowledge of procedure. I can remember one scene when he was walking down this aisle, when we were working to get agreement, that it reminded of me of a scene in a western comedy from many years ago. People down there were saying: Don't shoot him; it will just make him mad. He knows how to get things done. I have learned a lot from him, and I am going to miss him. But with all due respect to John Boehner, I am going to have your friendship for the rest of my life.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask that the vote not occur until after comments by Leader McConnell.

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

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I have to begin by thanking my friend and colleague, the Senator from Pennsylvania, for his efforts to ensure that pregnant women have access to accommodations--reasonable accommodations at work. They need to have healthy pregnancies. As the husband of a wife who had two children while she was working and a grandfather of two grandchildren with a daughter who is a nurse, I absolutely want to make sure that those reasonable accommodations are accounted for. However, in its current form, this legislation before us would give Federal bureaucrats at the EEOC authority to mandate that employers nationwide provide accommodations such as leave to obtain abortions on demand under the guise of a pregnancy-related condition. Worse still, the legislation would subject pro-life organizations, including churches and religious organizations, to potentially crippling lawsuits if they refuse to facilitate abortions in direct violation of their religious beliefs and their moral convictions. Unlike title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act, this legislation contains no exemptions for religious organizations. I and a number of other people do not believe that abortion is healthcare. I believe it is a brutal procedure that destroys an innocent child. The Federal Government should not be promoting abortion, let alone mandating that pro-life employers and employers in States that protect life facilitate abortion-on-demand. I hope that we can work together on this legislation and amend it to address those concerns so that all the reasonable accommodations they worked so hard to achieve can be passed and can gain my support and the support of other colleagues. But until such time, sir, I have to object; and on behalf of Senator Lankford, Senator Daines, and myself, I do object.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I, along with my colleagues who have spoken before me, am proud to be able to work on a very sensitive issue in a very collaborative and bipartisan fashion. We did it in a way that was always respectful of the fact that many Americans come from different walks of life and many diverse beliefs and viewpoints. We know that nearly a million Americans are already committed to same-sex marriages who simply want long-term certainty--not only the million who are already committed to same-sex marriages but the millions of people who attended the ceremonies, their friends, and their family. As we went through this bill, we listened to the very sincere concerns of Americans with strongly held religious beliefs who simply wanted to make sure that Congress protects their First Amendment rights, especially the freedom of religion. By casting politics aside and working hard behind the scenes over the past several months, we managed to strike a balance with this legislation. There will be permanent certainty for same-sex couples, and they can rest easy knowing their families are secure. And there will be robust protections for churches, religious organizations, protections that are more robust and expansive than currently exist in Federal law. I want to talk a little bit about the compromise we reached and what it will mean for our constituents who voiced their concerns over the past few months. This bill protects religious liberty and conscience protections available under the Constitution and Federal law, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, commonly referred to as RFRA. This bill cannot be used to diminish or repeal any such protection. The bill also makes clear that no religious organization will be required to provide any services for the celebration of a same-sex marriage. Simply put, that means that no church or religious organization will be required to perform, recognize, or celebrate same- sex marriages. We also took steps to protect the tax-exempt status of religious nonprofit organizations. We didn't leave anything ambiguous. We included language that guarantees the bill cannot be used to deny or alter any benefit, right, or status of any otherwise eligible person or entity. This includes tax-exempt status, tax treatment, grants, educational funding, loans, scholarships, licenses, and certifications. Put together, the Respect for Marriage Act essentially preserves the status quo we have had in our country for the last 7 years, since the Supreme Court ruling. Same-sex couples will continue to have the right to get married, now without the fear of government intervention, and churches and religious organizations will continue to operate and worship free from government interference. This is a good compromise. It is one that is based on mutual respect for our fellow Americans, protecting the rights of Americans who may have different lifestyles or different viewpoints. I am proud of the work we did with this bill. I am looking forward to voting yes on it. And I am grateful for the leadership of so many people who were involved. Of course, Senator Collins, Senator Portman, Senator Baldwin, and Senator Sinema. But I also want to thank the Church of Latter-day Saints, the Seventh-day Adventists, the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities that represents 150 different religious institutions of higher learning here in the United States alone, and they have operations abroad, and the National Association of Evangelicals, the Center for Public Justice and its Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance. I believe this is a good bill, and bipartisan bills in any environment are difficult. And I think it is why it was so important we came together, had the courage to work together, recognized the viewpoints at either end of the spectrum, and came up with a carefully crafted compromise that I believe is good for all Americans. And I look forward to everybody voting in favor of it. We will have some opposition, but at the end of the day, I think we will prevail. And that is a message to so many people out there who want this done. I yield the floor.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I rise today to remember a friend and a great North Carolinian, Ada Markita Fisher, who unexpectedly died on October 7, 2022. Ada was 74 years old and only a few weeks away from her 75th birthday. As a young African-American woman, she was a trailblazer. After completing a degree in biology at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro--UNCG--she went on to become the first Black female to earn a medical degree at the University of Wisconsin's School of Medicine and Public Health. She was also the first Black UNCG alumna to complete a medical degree. Additionally, she completed her masters in public health at Johns Hopkins University's School of Hygiene and Public Health in 1981. After completing her medical degree, Ada chose to return to North Carolina to provide medical care to an underserved community and lead programs for victims of substance abuse. She spent some of her career in the private sector, but most of her life was dedicated to helping people who were struggling and ultimately making a positive difference in her community. I met Ada 15 years ago when I began my political service in the North Carolina General Assembly. From the first time I met her, I was inspired by her courage, focus, and plain talk. She was a lifelong Republican. She was dedicated to the party of Abraham Lincoln, and she did not hesitate to challenge anyone from across the political spectrum who threatened the principles of personal liberty, individual responsibility, and social justice. Although I met Ada after she retired, she never seemed to slow down. She traveled across the State advocating for common sense ``prescriptions'' to the challenges we faced. She became the first African-American to be elected Republican National Committee--RNC-- committeewoman for North Carolina. Ada was known for her letters. Some were focused on policies she was promoting, and others were focused on challenging policies she did not think were helpful. Whether or not you agreed with her opinion, you had to respect the thoughtfulness and the work she put into them. When Ada wasn't working on public policy, she was focused on her family. Ada never married, but she adopted two sons who blessed her with two grandchildren. She also had three siblings and a host of nieces, nephews, and cousins. She adored her family, and they adored her. I attended Ada's funeral last month, and I was honored to speak at her memorial service. While I was considering what I should say, it occurred to me that I had never written a letter to Ada, so I decided to write a letter to her and deliver it at the memorial. I wished that I had sent it long before her passing, but I hope she enjoys it nonetheless as she reads it in heaven. Dear Ada, I'm sorry I am just now sending you this letter, but I hope it finds you well in the Kingdom of Heaven. I regret that I haven't had the opportunity to see you recently, but I am glad that my last memory of you was giving you a hug when we were together. Had I known it was to be the last time I would see you, I would have hugged you a little longer. After I received the sad news of your passing, I reflected on the times we spent together, and it gave me some comfort as I grieved your loss. I knew you as a staunch advocate for people who are struggling, for diversity, for personal responsibility, and for individual freedom. I remember so many times when you challenged a crowd to think differently. You didn't look for applause lines, you looked for opportunities to make a point and to make a difference. You didn't hesitate to get people out of their comfort zone by saying what needed to be said, and you gained many followers and admirers along the way. I am embarrassed to admit that I only knew a small part of your work since the time we met 15 years ago, and I did not fully comprehend your life's work with helping others. I've studied you more since your passing Ada, and you are truly even more remarkable than I imagined. As a young African American woman, you excelled in academics--a medical degree and a master's degree in public health. You could have taken a life-long path to personal enrichment, but you chose to return home to North Carolina to set up a rural health clinic and programs to help people struggling with substance abuse. You helped veterans. You studied education and became a certified teacher in math and science. You served in what I believe is the most difficult political position on earth--a local school board. Man, I wish they were televised in those days. I'm sure it would have been a sight to see! You understood that education is the surest path to freedom, and you worked hard to ensure that every child (including your two sons) had an opportunity to pursue that path. The truth is, Ada, you have done so much for so many, and you've set a high bar for the rest of us. I am saddened that you left this earthy world far too soon because I know you had so many more things you would do to make it a better place. But thank you for everything you did Ada, and thank you for the blessing of your friendship. Now that you've had a few weeks in the Kingdom of Heaven, I hope you've found time to rest. You deserve it, Ada. Know that we are praying for you and that we love you, and we will continue to be inspired by your life's work. With Love and Admiration, Thom T.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I announce that my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Richard Burr, will be necessarily absent this week. He is at home in North Carolina recovering from hip replacement surgery. The procedure was successful, and he is doing well. He will be closely monitoring votes and looks forward to rejoining us here in the Senate next week.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I want to thank my friend and colleague Senator Portman for his work and his focus on Ukraine, and I want to thank my friend and colleague Senator Shaheen. It has been a real pleasure once we started up the Senate NATO Observer Group after it had been dormant for some time. Who knew that it could have been more timely several years ago when we began that process? I was thinking--I have used this analogy before. I grew up in a family of six kids. We, even to this day, have our differences and disagreements. I have one sister I am pretty sure wouldn't vote for me if she lived in North Carolina. We are not ideologically aligned. But I know she loves me, and I know, when our family gets threatened, there is no difference between us. That is what Vladimir Putin saw on February 24. He saw the family of nations in NATO come together like he couldn't possibly have imagined, and he saw two nations, Finland and Sweden, after decades of being nonaligned, saying: Enough is enough. Now it is time to pick between good and evil. And evil is Vladimir Putin, and good is Western democracies--Western democracies like Finland and Sweden which respect the rule of law, which respect the rights of their citizens, which respect the free press, which invest in their military, and which will be a net exporter of security the day they enter NATO. As a matter of fact, they are already a very valuable asset to NATO. I have spoken with many of my colleagues in the Department of Defense, many people in uniform. They laud the relationship that they have with the military in Finland and Sweden. They work together on exercises. They know that Finland has a formidable ground force. They know that Sweden has a formidable navy that is going to give us added presence in the Baltics and added presence in the Arctic. The worst possible scenario that Putin never anticipated was a completely unified NATO and the addition of 830 miles--1,340 kilometers--of NATO border right up against Russia. That is what he has gotten for his illegal invasion of Ukraine, and the blood of thousands are on Vladimir Putin's hands. Now I want to talk a little bit about Finland and Sweden, but I also have to start with that letter. I remember vividly, Senator Shaheen, when we were meeting with Swedish diplomats and the Defense Minister, and we were saying: What can we do to send a signal to the people of Finland and Sweden that the United States is absolutely supportive of their accession to NATO? And they said: Well, communications would be good. And we said: Well, we will do a letter. In 24 hours, we got 80 signatures. Now, the question would be, Why not the other 20? Quite honestly, we didn't take the time. Everybody that we went to signed on to the letter, but we thought it was important to get that communication out quickly. Today, we are going to see more than 95 Senators--I think even more than that--vote for ratification because they understand that Finland and Sweden are investing in their military. They understand that Finland is already at 2 percent and continuing to invest. They know that Finland has already put on order 64 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. Why is that extraordinary? Finland is about half the population of my State, North Carolina, about 5\1/2\ million people. They have on order 64 Joint Strike Fighters. We have fewer than 200 in full operation here in the United States. If we, on a per capita basis, were to have as many Joint Strike Fighters as Finland intends to have, we would need more than 4,000. Now, let's talk about Sweden. Their industrial base is extraordinary. They have advanced fighter technology. They have advanced submarine technology. They have an industrial base that can be mobilized. They have an industrial base that is already developing platforms that are NATO interoperable. When they come in, they are not going to have to do some sort of NATO 101. They are going to get to work. They are going to continue the work they are already doing. And, in Sweden's case, there are some members here concerned about burden sharing and hitting the 2 percent mark. When we were in Stockholm, we talked about this. When we met with the diplomatic and Defense Ministers, we talked about this. They are on their way. They are committed. Their government officials are committed to getting to 2 percent funding, and thank goodness. Maybe that sends a message to some of our other NATO countries that they need to get up there. If anything, Ukraine has taught us that we have to be ready, and we have to be at that level of burden sharing. But I am not in the least bit concerned with Finland and Sweden meeting their target. They are going to do it, and they are going to do it on short order. I believe that Sweden will be there by 2027, early 2028. So now, we have to move forward. Now, I am also being a little bit competitive. I am disappointed that we weren't the first nation, but I am also very optimistic. I am thrilled that so many nations have already recognized how valuable they will be as full-fledged NATO allies. So we are going to be 22nd, but we are doing it in record time. Everybody knows here that I describe this place as a ``Crockpot.'' It takes a long time to cook something in the U.S. Senate. For us to do this in less than a month is absolutely extraordinary, and I hope that the people of Sweden and the people of Finland recognize that that is because the U.S. Senate has full confidence in them. We welcome them readily, and we look forward to their accession. This step in ratifying the treaty is a great step. So I encourage all of our Members to consider voting for Finland and Sweden. The last thing I will leave you with is that there are some here who say: Well, we can't really worry about Russia. We have to worry about China. We have to worry about both, and NATO is worried about both. If you look at the strategic concept that came out of Madrid, you should also recognize that there were four countries from INDOPACOM that were at a NATO summit. They recognize that we have to look at China and recognize the threat. But they also recognize that we have an immediate threat in Europe, and we have to stand together. With NATO, I am very proud of how the partners came together, and with Sweden and Finland, I am going to be even more proud of our alliance when they are full-fledged members. And we are going to work as hard as we can as members of the Senate NATO Observer Group to make sure that the remaining countries follow suit quickly so that we can welcome both of these great nations into the greatest alliance that has ever existed.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes prior to the scheduled votes.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I will be brief. But I do want to talk about a serious subject. You know, 30 years ago, we wouldn't have been talking about email or social media or other things that we now rely on to receive communications, to be informed on political choices, and to potentially even support candidates that we want to support. But the reality is, today, we all have two or three email accounts, probably most of them based on Gmail. We have got access to Twitter, Instagram, Facebook--a number of social media platforms. And I have a concern that maybe it is not a level playing field for political views. We have always had that argument, but recently NC State issued a report that seems to find that--particularly with Gmail--we have an imbalance between how information is disseminated, how candidates are able to reach out for support. What the study found is a potential political bias against Republicans in favor of Democratic candidates. Now, I am a technology person, and I think my staff called me a bit of a nerd. I have been in technology for almost 40 years. I am not willing to jump to the conclusion that Google has necessarily created a strategy for benefitting Democrats over Republicans, but a study seems to suggest that there are legitimate questions that need to be answered. I, for one, don't think any platform should favor either policy. I think more speech, more access is better; more informed voters, more people participating in elections. But the study seems to suggest that there is a bias in the way that we receive our information through Gmail. I joined a letter with Senator Daines to say: Take a look at that report, take a look at your operations, and give us your response to the assertions in the report. I know that this is very important for the future of elections, for the future of participation in elections. And, again, I don't want a platform that biases itself toward conservatives any more than I want one that biases itself towards liberals. But I did have an opportunity to talk with technologists at Google, who dismissed the report. But that is not enough. The report has findings. And I think--in this case Google, but there are other platforms we can ask the same question. Incidentally, Twitter 2 months ago informed me that I was not who I said I was, so they suspended my account. I tried to go through an appeal process and finally just decided I don't need that Twitter account. I am wondering if that was a result of an algorithm or the result of somebody in Twitter who didn't like what I had to say about my mother and my wife and my kids on my Twitter account because I happen to have an official account that, for some reason, it is OK. We have got to get this straightened up, and Google can help us start by taking a look at the findings in this report and providing us hard answers for it and identifying others who may actually be responsible for the outcomes that we are, at this point, assuming are the responsibility of Google. I think it is very important for us to go through the report, give us the information we need because we may find out that Google is, in fact, not responsible for what some of my colleagues believe is the vast majority of appeals from conservatives going into their spam filter and never being reached. There may be other reasons. We already know that Russia, China, other state actors influence public opinion in the United States through their views and exploitation of social platforms. So the reason I come to the floor today is to basically reassert what I did in the letter to Google. Do the homework. Prove to us that there are no operations or conscious decisions made by the management or individuals in the organization to actually bias towards one ideology or the other. I need that information so that we can figure out how we can have more speech and more engagement in the political process. But I will say this: If there is any social media platform that has an employee or an organization that is biased, those folks should no longer be working for those platforms. And if I find any evidence to that effect, I will be pursuing it aggressively. But I come to the floor to encourage Google to do the homework, know that I will be objective. And I would like to get a response soon.