Thom Tillis

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, maybe just to add another chapter to that story, first, we did have a hearing on this bill about 2 weeks ago in Judiciary. That is the first step before you move to a markup. I will be asking for a markup on this bill because I think it is a bill that is a commonsense bill. It is a bill that actually has a safe- harbor provision for people in the community who may be illegally present who want to work with law enforcement. We are listening to the concerns that law enforcement have expressed. We have addressed them, like so many times we have addressed these sorts of matters before. So we will have a markup on the bill, we will have a vote out of committee, and I hope that we have a vote on this floor, because at the end of the day, some of the examples that Senator Durbin noted are sad and should be avoided, but the real sad examples are the people who are dying, being raped, and being poisoned by people who were detained and could have been transferred into ICE custody and deported to make our communities safer, including the communities of illegally present people, who are less safe as a result of the current sanctuary policies. I yield the floor.

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I come to talk about another issue of immigration that concerns me in North Carolina, and I think it is something about which every American should be concerned. It is the sanctuary policies that have been implemented in counties and cities and, at least in one case, statewide. ``Sanctuary city'' sounds like a great concept as the United States is a sanctuary to which so many people seek to immigrate. Yet the policy of the sanctuary city actually breaks down the relationship between Federal authorities and local authorities. I think this is dangerous and could potentially--and not only potentially--have serious consequences in communities. I will use a few examples. Over the past year in North Carolina, we have had over 500 people who have been released who had been arrested by local authorities. Many of them had been arrested for having committed serious crimes. They had been charged with murder, rape, indecent liberties with a child, heroin trafficking--a very, very long list--in cities just 25 minutes from where I live, down in Charlotte, in Mecklenburg County. They arrest people but not simply because they are illegally present. In fact, you can find virtually no instance in which a local authority would arrest somebody just because one is illegally present. The people who are in these jails have been charged with crimes, and in many cases they have been serious crimes. Two weeks ago in Mecklenburg County, the Mecklenburg County sheriff had made the decision to release four people--one who had been charged with murder, two who had been charged with indecent liberties with a minor, and one who had been charged with heroin trafficking. They had been illegally present but had not been in jail because they had simply crossed the border or had had their visas expire. They had been in jail because they had committed serious crimes. When Immigration and Customs Enforcement hears about these folks who have been detained, they issue what they call detainer orders. A detainer order is a request to hold a person in jail for at least 48 hours so ICE can go to the jail, interview him, and determine whether they want to transfer him into ICE's custody and potentially deport him. This is a very dangerous policy that has actually, ultimately, resulted in other people being harmed. Think about those people being released who have been charged with rape or murder or heroin trafficking. They go back into the community and cause harm to someone else. What I have decided we need to do is to at least provide a private right of civil action to a victim of that unwise decision. If that charged murderer or heroin trafficker goes out and assaults someone or murders someone--in some cases, someone who has a DWI is charged with vehicular homicide and goes back out and while under the influence harms someone else in, say, an automobile accident--I think the person who gets harmed or, sadly, his survivor should be able to bring a case against that governmental entity that has the sanctuary policy. For those who think sanctuary policies are safe and that only safe people are being released, this shouldn't be an issue to them--right?-- because no harm is going to occur. Yet, if harm occurs, I believe the victim should have a right to seek restitution. Our bill is fairly simple. It is called the Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act. It is a bill that reads, if you as a governmental entity refuse to cooperate with ICE and then release someone who does harm to someone else, that person has the right to sue that governmental entity. Our governments in the United States--the local governments and State governments--have the right to say they are immune, that they can't be sued. They have that right, and I respect that right. Yet, if they refuse to allow themselves to build their cases in court and say that what they did was appropriate and safe, then it should come at the consequence of the Federal funding for which they would otherwise be qualified to receive. Again, if sanctuary cities are safe and if all we are doing is releasing people who are not threats to the community, this should be a nonissue for any sanctuary jurisdiction. It would only be an issue if there is a victim as a result of the jurisdiction's political decisions. That is why we have introduced the Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act. In fact, we listened to some of the sanctuary jurisdictions, and they said: Well, we could get into legal trouble if we hold them for 48 hours, and for that reason we release them after a judge has ordered their release. We have another bill that addresses that problem so that liability will go away. We are hearing what they have to say and trying to address it in additional legislation. But I think this is a bill that makes sense, and I think it is something that law enforcement, county commissions, and city councils should take a look at. I think they should work with ICE. Here is the last reason why I think working with ICE is very important: ICE has a legal responsibility to pursue these people if they are released by the local government. Here is what happens. You release somebody who is charged with murder or vehicular homicide or heroin trafficking or rape. You release them in the community, and ICE has to go pursue them in the community. So instead of allowing ICE to go into a jail and have a safe transfer from one jail into the ICE detainee system, they have to actually create a task force. They have got to go into a community, and they have to apprehend them. They have a statutory responsibility to do that. Ironically, in some of those instances, the very law enforcement agency that released them now has to go into the field and back them up if it is a dangerous situation when they are trying to apprehend this person whom ICE has a legal responsibility to apprehend. I think this is a commonsense bill. Hopefully, it is one that will give sanctuary cities some pause before they release somebody charged with murder or rape or heroin trafficking--a potentially dangerous person--back into the community, whom the Federal authorities have to pursue no matter what. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 2059 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent 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

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

Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for a period of 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Madam President and those who were watching during the opening prayer, that was Pastor Andrew Brunson from North Carolina. This month marks a year since Pastor Brunson was released from a Turkish prison. Norine, his wife, is in the Gallery as well. They were swept up in what I considered to be an overreaction by President Erdogan and the Turkish regime in their imprisoning thousands of people after the coup attempt in Turkey. I actually found out about this first as casework. Pastor Brunson was from North Carolina. Then, slowly but steadily, diplomacy wasn't working, and he found himself in a Turkish prison--at one point in really what we would consider to be despicable circumstances. He was in a prison cell that was designed for maybe 8 or 10 people that had had more than 20 in it, and none of them spoke the English language. Pastor Brunson was a missionary in Turkey for almost 20 years. He had a church in Izmir, and all they tried to do for those who wanted to hear the Word of God was to speak it. For that, he was ultimately incarcerated and accused of being a part of the Turkish coup attempt. It was about a year later that they issued an indictment for him. It was a 62-page indictment that read like a horrible, fictional novel and had some of the most absurd allegations you could possibly imagine. Certainly, they were things that wouldn't keep you in jail overnight in the United States but were things that were potentially going to have Pastor Brunson convicted and spending 35 years in a Turkish prison. We got word back that after the indictment was issued against Pastor Brunson, he was afraid that the American people were going to believe it, that we would simply move on, and that he would be left there at the fate of the Turkish judiciary. When I heard that, the first thing I told my staff is that I had to go to Turkey. I wanted to go to the prison that Pastor Brunson was in, and I had the opportunity to meet Norine, his wife, the day before. I went there, and across a table that was about as wide as this desk, I told Pastor Brunson that we were not going to forget him and were not going to stop until we got him released from prison. In a series of efforts here, for which I have to really compliment all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, more than 72 Senators signed on to a letter that encouraged Pastor Brunson's release. More than 100 House Members signed on to a similar letter. We did everything we could diplomatically to get Pastor Brunson released. I decided I wanted to see how the court case was going, so I went back to Turkey a few months after I had first met Pastor Brunson in the prison, and I sat through 12 hours of so-called Turkish justice. I saw this man stand before a dais of three judges and a prosecutor, where basically you were assumed guilty until you proved innocence. His defense attorney was as far away from him as is that wall. That is Turkish justice. That is not anything we can imagine in this country, but that is what this man was subjected to. Over the course of several months and in working with the President, Secretary Pompeo, the Vice President, and a number of other people, we were able to get President Erdogan to recognize that this was a political exercise, that it was not an exercise in justice, and that he needed to be released. A year ago this month, he was released, and now he is opening the Senate in prayer. I thank Pastor Brunson for his perseverance. He went through things that most of us cannot imagine, and Norine was his strongest advocate. I see the Parliamentarian looking at me as if I am not supposed to recognize the fact that Norine Brunson is in the Gallery, so I will not recognize that fact because that would be a violation of the rules. They are a sight for sore eyes, and I am so glad to have them back in this country. I know they are going to continue their missionary work wherever they can. I thank them for their leadership and their deep faith. Thank you for opening the Senate today. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TILLIS

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

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Mr. John Falkenbury, the president and chief operating officer for the United Service Organizations, USO, of North Carolina, on his decades of service to the great State of North Carolina. For over a decade, since his initial appointment as president and COO for the USO of North Carolina in 2009, John has been integral in coordinating, planning, and leading the operations of the USO State headquarters, five USO fixed centers, and mobile centers in locations spanning the entire State. John's leadership skills were prominently displayed in his ability to mobilize thousands of volunteers over the years to support countless Active-Duty servicemembers, veterans, and their families. John's extensive resume is a testament to his lifelong commitment to public service, which includes his past role as president and CEO of Five Oaks Nursing Center in Concord, NC, serving as the managing partner of the Falkenbury Family LLC, and as the president of the Stephen D. Falkenbury Jr. Foundation in Charlotte, NC. Prior to his work for the USO, John served in the U.S. Army for 20 years, which included numerous assignments across the United States and in Germany. The USO centers across the State of North Carolina provide critical resources and support to our men and women in uniform and their families. These services include transition assistance, financial literacy, child educational programs, deployment, and homecoming operations, military and civilian outreach programs, Fallen and Wounded Warrior escort services, and a focus on providing the entire community with support and assistance. Through his leadership, dedication, and passion for service, John Falkenbury has been a champion in ensuring these programs are readily available for anyone who needs them. The North Carolina USO has a strong track record of dedicated support of servicemembers at military installations, including Fort Bragg, Camp Lejeune, and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. In 2016, when the devastating Hurricane Matthew flooded large portions of Eastern North Carolina, John assisted in the delivery of 1,000 care packages via Blackhawk helicopter to soldiers and civilians in afflicted areas. A USO mobile center deployed near Lumberton, NC, for 5 days to provide basic necessity items, a BBQ dinner, satellite access, and internet service to over 400 servicemembers. As a Senator, a member of the USO Congressional Caucus, and a North Carolinian, I am pleased to congratulate John Falkenbury on his retirement and for his impressive career of public service and steadfast commitment to our country.

Mr. TILLIS

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

Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I come before you, first and foremost, to thank Senator Inhofe for his great leadership as the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a special thanks to the staff who are working very, very hard to process the hundreds of amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act that came out of the committee with broad bipartisan support. I am here to talk specifically about some provisions that I think are pretty important that actually started in the Personnel Subcommittee. I chair the Personnel Subcommittee for Senate Armed Services. Early this year, we heard of what I consider to be absolutely unacceptable conditions in military housing across the country. In North Carolina-- and, Madam President, in your great State of Tennessee--we have bases, and we have military housing. We have men and women, many of them very young. Oftentimes the spouses are deployed, so the family is back home taking care of their children, taking care of their own jobs, and living on the base. About February, we got reports--and these are not just one-off reports; these are reports across the country of mold, mildew, damage from storms, and all kinds of conditions that I think in the private sector you would find objectionable. I think it is particularly objectionable when you are talking about people whose families are with that husband or wife who serve in the military or serve in this country. We decided to have a number of hearings where we brought the private housing providers into the Senate and my Personnel Subcommittee and the full committee to get an explanation. Quite honestly, there wasn't a good explanation. Back in 1996, the Federal Government decided to get out of the housing business. I am glad they did because they were doing a really bad job. For about 10 years, we had a great story to tell in terms of the quality of housing, the service to the tenants, and the satisfaction of the military families. But then something got sideways in a very, very bad way. This is a shower. If you see this kind of mold and mildew in your shower, would you think it is acceptable? If you go in and see children's toys--and this is actually the bottom side of a crib--mold and mildew in these folks' housing with small children in them, people with respiratory conditions living in these kinds of conditions, I expect the garrison down at the bases and I expect the private housing providers to move Heaven and Earth to eliminate these sorts of problems. We are making progress, but I feel, in order to make sure it is not progress that is being made just when they all of a sudden get the attention of this Senator and other Members of the U.S. Senate, we have to change the rules in terms of the authorities that the Department of Defense has and the expectations that we have for the private housing providers. I have to give thanks to the Acting Secretary of Defense, formerly the Secretary of the Army, and all of the service Secretaries for stepping up. They have recreated a tenant of bill of rights. They have created a dispute process. They have demanded a more timely and more transparent method for actually solving service requests. All of those now have language in this National Defense Authorization Act that Congress needs to act quickly on so that we can make sure we put into place the right expectations in the statute, to make sure that the problems that exist today are fixed and that they don't happen again. I will tell you that while we are making progress, when I go to Fort Bragg and Camp Lejeune, I hold what are called sensing sessions, which are basically getting a few dozen people together to hear their complaints. There is an amazing thing that happens when I go to North Carolina. I don't know, Madam President, if you have done one of these in Tennessee yet, but if you announce that you are going to go down and hear from the tenants, there is an amazing thing that happens. You have all of these service requests that are about to here when they announce that I am coming to Jacksonville or I am coming to Fayetteville. About a day or two before I get there, magically, they have been able to solve almost all of those service requests. Then I go away for a couple of months, and I see them coming back up again. One thing that everybody who is listening--and these are not just the private housing providers. It is the Department of Defense and Congress that I think have shifted their focus away from this problem, and we have to maintain a focus on it. So for my part, I just spoke with my scheduling director and my State staff. I told them that I want to take the next sensing session up a level. I want a townhall. I want to be able to put 200 or 300 families with housing down in Jacksonville at Camp Lejeune and down at Ft. Bragg in Fayetteville--I want to put them in a room, and I want to make it very clear to everybody involved, whether it is the private housing provider, the garrison commanders, the Department of Defense, and put a light on us in Congress because it is our inaction that has caused the problem. We want to know what their problems are. We are going to hear from hundreds of people. We are going to make progress on these kinds of things through the provisions in the NDAA, but we still have to continue to focus on this problem. First, I want to thank Senator Inhofe. He did a great job in terms of casting light on this, and I know I have the commitment of the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, but I don't want these just to be words on the floor. I want them to be words that are put into action in terms of how we can help these military families today. If you have a service request outstanding with any vendor and you do not feel like you are getting a proper response, I want you to write down ``Tillis.senate.gov.'' In my office, we will treat every single housing request you have as a request for casework, and I will have one of several dozen staff members in my office open up a case and track it until it is completed. As for anybody else who knows a servicemember who has this problem and thinks he will not have somebody who will follow up on it, give me a chance. We have already solved a lot of them, and we are going to solve a lot more. We are not going to finish until I believe the men and women and the families at Fort Bragg, at Camp Lejeune, and at bases across this country have the safe and comfortable housing they deserve. I yield the floor.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate Mr. Kenneth D. Bell on his confirmation to serve as the United States District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina. Mr. Bell has a distinguished record of serving North Carolina, and he is an excellent choice for this position. I look forward to his continued service to the people of western North Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Bell, for your commitment to serve in this position, and I wish you the best of luck.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I want to congratulate Michael B. East on his confirmation to the position of United States Marshal for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Mr. East has served as a dedicated law enforcement officer for over 28 years in North Carolina. Mr. East is highly regarded and respected throughout North Carolina. I am grateful for Mr. East's service and continued service to our State and country. I know he will make an excellent addition to the United States Marshal Service, and I wish him the best of luck.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, while my friend and colleague from Alaska is still on the floor, I want to thank him for his many years of service as a marine. I am here to talk about North Carolina and Military Appreciation Month. We have a special relationship with members of the military and their families in North Carolina. We have a million veterans in the State. Literally hundreds of thousands of people serve in the military. You may have heard of the Global Response Force. The Global Response Force is out of Fort Bragg. When there is a crisis anywhere in the world, whether it is a military conflict or a relief effort, it is the 82nd Airborne that goes out to the green ramp down in Fort Bragg, NC, and goes wherever they need to go, sometimes with 48 hours' notice. Just down the street from there, we have the marines at Camp Lejeune. The marines who are based in Camp Lejeune and Cherry Point and New River constitute about 45 percent of all the marines serving in the Marine Corps. We can go up to Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, and we have a proud number of men and women in the Air Force who are part of a base that will be the home to the new KC-46, a next-generation tanker. To say we have a close bond with the military is an understatement. We love them, and we love their families. I chair the Personnel Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, so I have an opportunity to have a direct role in showing appreciation to not only the men and women who are serving in the military but also their spouses. It is a tough job. They are serving too. As we think about Military Appreciation Month, let's make sure we are, first and foremost, thinking about not only those brave men and women who have sworn the oath to defend and protect our Nation but also their families, who are an integral part of their being capable and ready to do the job. I also want to make sure we don't lose sight of the veteran population--a million of them in my State alone. One-tenth of our population are veterans. We should also talk about the National Guard and the reservists. If you take a look at a State like North Carolina, we have had a number of people in the National Guard who have been deployed multiple times to Iraq and Afghanistan--some of the most dangerous places you could be. They do it with courage, and they do it with honor. During Military Appreciation Month, I think we should pay special attention to this special group of people. I hope that every day of the year, each and every one of you shows them the appreciation and the respect they deserve. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. TILLIS

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

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I come here with a heavy heart. On April 30, at 4:40 p.m., a shooting occurred in the Kennedy Building on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. It is a college campus. It is only about 15 minutes from my house. The shooting occurred on the last day of classes. When a lot of family members and friends were thinking about graduation and thinking about what they were going to do over the summer, their lives were shattered. I am here to celebrate the lives of two of the victims. Before I do that, I thank all of the first responders and the people on campus who did an extraordinary job. The first among them would be Chancellor Dubois, and there are so many more first responders. What makes this particularly difficult for me is the loss of life of two young men--one who was 19, Ellis ``Reed'' Parlier, and Riley Howell, who was 21 years old. These kids were in school. One, Ellis, enrolled in 2017. He loved video games. He wanted to be a video game developer. He was a volunteer. He actually tutored middle schoolers on computer programming. His professor described him as independent and motivated. Another young man, Riley, who has an extraordinary story within this horrible act, enrolled in UNC Charlotte in 2018. He had gone to A-B Tech before that. He was in environmental studies. He loved the outdoors. He loved Star Wars. He loved pizza and playing soccer. He was just a normal kid who was going to college. He was also enrolled in the ROTC at UNC Charlotte. What makes his story extraordinary are the accounts from police officers. If you understand the Kennedy Building, there are a lot of people around and a lot of classrooms. There are a lot of potential victims. This young man actually charged the gunman. Although he lost his own life, most police credit him with saving the lives of so many more. So, on this sad day that we will never forget--the day of April 30--I come before this body to let them know and their families know that we are praying for them. I yield the floor.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sydney Fincher, a member of my staff, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 116th Congress.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, yesterday, we had what I believe will be viewed as a historic hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is a committee I have been on for now about 4\1/2\ years. The Attorney General, Mr. Barr, came before the committee to answer questions about the special counsel investigation--an investigation that took 675 days, cost more than $25 million, had 34 people indicted, including Russian nationals, more than 2,800 subpoenas, 500 witnesses, 500 search warrants, more than 230 orders for communication records, and 13 evidence requests to foreign countries. I think by those measures, that is considered a pretty extensive investigation. Back about 2 years ago, in August of 2017, Senator Graham and I and a couple of other Members actually filed a bill to make it difficult to have a special counsel removed before an investigation had been completed. I actually took a fair amount of heat from people on my side of the aisle for doing that, but I believed we needed to have this investigation run its course, and it did. It culminated in a more than 400-page report that now is largely available to the public. In fact, of the 400--I think it is almost 440 pages--90 percent of volume I, which is the volume that talks about Russia tampering with U.S. elections, 90 percent of that is available to the American public. Volume II--the volume focused on whether there was obstruction of justice--98 percent of that was made available to the American people 3 weeks after the Department of Justice received the unredacted report. Now, for the leaders of the Senate, 99.9 percent of the special counsel's report is available. You could say: Why not 100 percent? Because we have rules here--and I think it is also important to point out that the Attorney General had no legal obligation to release any of this. This could have been deemed a confidential matter, and it could never have been available to the general public. The Attorney General took the extraordinary step of making sure that as much as possible could be made available, and he did a great job. I might add that throughout the entire process, the White House had the opportunity to assert Executive privilege. They could actually have portions of the report blocked out or have it redacted, which falls short of that. The White House never reached out and requested any omissions or, actually, redactions of the report, which means you can't read it publicly--not one in the nearly 3\1/2\ weeks it took for the Attorney General to get the report ready for public consumption. Some people are wondering, why did it take so long? Because the process of redaction has to take into account basically three different considerations. You have to determine whether there is a matter there that could be embarrassing to a party who had no involvement; they were just a witness in the investigation. It could be because there are ongoing investigations, or it could be because it is a threat to homeland security. But even with that, 90 percent of it is available to the general public, on Russian tampering--98 percent. The reason I tell you that is at the hearing yesterday, if you sit on the Judiciary Committee--I am not a lawyer. I am a businessperson who has been on the Judiciary Committee for 4\1/2\ years. So I don't necessarily go at this debate the same way that maybe an attorney would. We had a lot of the people in the committee really trying to mislead the American people. They were saying that there was wrongdoing because the Department of Justice had to take about 3\1/2\ weeks to get the report ready for prime time. We are saying that the report is available. It took about 3 or 4 weeks to actually make it available. But they are almost suggesting that was a criminal or obstructionist act. Some, instead of going down that tack, said that a letter--I have to explain the timeline. On March 24, the Attorney General issued a letter saying that the bottom line of the report they were reviewing was that there was no crime committed by the President and that there was insufficient evidence to even suggest there was obstruction. Now, you have to understand these two working in play. The crime that many of my colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle said the President committed never happened. After 675 days and all the interviews and all the warrants and everything that I have said, there was no underlying crime. The second half of the report is about obstruction. This would be obstruction in an investigation that concluded there was no underlying crime. The President was deemed not to have committed a crime. The President was deemed not to have committed obstruction of justice. So now we turn to a request to have Robert Mueller come before the Judiciary Committee so they can ask him questions. What questions could he possibly answer that are not embodied in a report that took 675 days, $25 million, hundreds of witnesses, and dozens of full-time professionals? What more could Robert Mueller possibly say in a 3- or 4-hour hearing that is not embodied in this report and within the full view of the American public? I don't think it is about that. Actually, one of the arguments that were used in the committee was, we need his advice on how to prevent Russia from tampering in our elections. Really? I don't need an attorney's advice on how to prevent Russia from tampering in our elections. Prosecutors determine whether laws are broken. Robert Mueller is not a professional in cyber security and elections safety; he is actually a prosecutor who finished his job. Some of the other ones said: Well, the reason we want to get his input is because the President is not interested in securing elections. Well, I would ask them to go back to the classified briefings that I have sat in and they have sat in where the administration is clearly taking aggressive actions to make sure that Russia can't penetrate our State election systems and that they can't meddle in the way they attempted to in 2016. So what this really boils down to is theater--some of it almost to the level of comedy. Let me give an example. There was a House hearing today, and I am about to put up a picture that actually was on C-SPAN that actually occurred in a House hearing. You tell me whether the chair of that committee is actually serious about this subject when you have a guy eating fried chicken in place of where they wanted Attorney General Barr to be. This guy didn't even have good enough sense to have Bojangles' chicken. And they have the chair and others letting him have that kind of theater in a House committee room. Really? I mean, can you honestly say you are serious about this, or is this like a circus and a political tool because you lost? You wanted the President to be guilty. You wanted to prove he obstructed. I get that. A lot of it was a political exercise. But the bottom line is, after 675 days, almost $30 million when it is all totaled up, 34 people indicted, including Russians, 2,800 subpoenas, 500 witnesses interviewed, 500 search warrants executed, 230 orders for communication records, and 13 requests to foreign countries to provide information-- really? These folks--some of them are prosecutors--know better. I will tell you that I think the American people want my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to focus on what Americans are really worried about. They are worried about their economic security. They are worried about their healthcare security. They are worried about keeping a job. They are worried about sending their kids to college and putting them through school. If you want to win an election next year, stop playing games and stop the theater. The President is not guilty of a crime. The President is not guilty of obstruction of justice. It went through one of the most rigorous investigations in modern history. To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, prove what policies and priorities you have for the American people, and win on the basis of your ideas on your commitments. Stop the theater, and get back to work. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, Judge James C. Fox, who served as a Federal District Court Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina for more than 35 years, passed away Saturday, March 23, 2019, at the age of 90. Judge Fox was born on November 6, 1928, in Atchison, KS. As a young boy, his family moved to Greensboro, NC, where he grew up. Judge Fox graduated from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1950 and married Katharine deRosset Rhett on December 30, 1950. Judge Fox served as a corporal in the United States Army Reserve from 1951-1959. Judge Fox attended law school at the University of North Carolina School of Law, where he graduated in 1957 with highest honors. Subsequently, he took a clerkship with Judge Donnell Gilliam who predated Judge Fox as a U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Judge Fox entered private practice in 1959 with the firm Carter & Murchison in New Hanover County, NC, where he practiced for 20 years. While in private practice, Judge Fox served as the county attorney for New Hanover County for 13 years. President Ronald Reagan nominated Judge Fox to serve as a U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina on September 13, 1982. Judge Fox served the residents of North Carolina for more than 35 years. He served as chief judge from 1990 to 1997 and assumed senior status on January 31, 2001. Even after assuming senior status, Judge Fox maintained a full caseload until he retired in 2017. Judge Fox was known as courteous but firm and was widely respected by everyone who came into his courtroom. In addition to his decades of public service, Judge Fox served as director of the law alumni association for the University of North Carolina in 1964 and president of the law foundation at the University of North Carolina from 1977 to 1979. Judge Fox served on numerous civic boards, including the University of North Carolina Board of Visitors, the Boy Scouts, the United Way, the Family Service Society, Opportunities, Inc., Davis Healthcare, and the Children's Home Society. Judge Fox was also an active member of Ducks Unlimited. He loved the outdoors and spent significant time and resources on conservation management efforts. Most importantly, Judge Fox was a devoted husband, father, and grandfather. I am grateful to Judge Fox for his service and to his family for sharing his time with the residents of North Carolina. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. TILLIS. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about a historic day, April 4. It was the day the agreement in Washington was signed to create the NATO alliance after the Second World War. I want to start by repeating what President Truman said on that day. He said: We hope to create a shield against aggression and the fear of aggression--all bulwark which will permit us to get on with the real business of government and society, the business of achieving a fuller and happier life for all of our citizens. That agreement was signed on April 4, 1949. Since the 70 years that have followed, the alliance has gotten stronger. The alliance has grown. In fact, there are a number of countries that hope someday to also be a member of the NATO alliance. It has been important and what I believe is the most important alliance in the history of mankind. This week is NATO Week. Yesterday we had the Secretary General speak to us before a joint session of Congress. The Secretary General was actually very optimistic about the future of NATO, and I am as well. I was with a group a couple of weeks ago who were wondering about NATO and some of the discussions or disagreements we have among our NATO allies. I liken it to the kind of disagreements I have with family. I grew up in a family of six kids. It is a big family. All of us have very different views, are of very different ages and life experiences. I really believe the disagreements we have among our allies are like the disagreements you have among your family members, but at the end of the day, make no mistake about it, an attack on any one of us is viewed as an attack on every one of us, and every country takes that seriously. In fact, in the 70 years since NATO was created--there is an obligation within article 5 of the agreement that if there is an attack on any one of us, then we consider it an attack on every one of us. It happened on 9/11. The only time in the history of the alliance that the article 5 obligation under the treaty has been exercised is when NATO countries joined with the United States in the War on Terror. Many people may not realize it, but there was a huge human toll for living up to their commitment. Many nations sent their men and women into harm's way, and over 1,000 of them have died since 9/11. Many others have been gravely wounded, but they lived up to their commitment. It was the first test of the treaty. That happened only less than 20 years ago. Senator Shaheen and I are now cochairs of the Senate NATO Observer Group. I want to compliment Senator Shaheen for actually coming up with the idea to reconstitute the group because we need to make sure our partners, our allies, understand that Congress believes NATO is a very important alliance to ensure our mutual safety and security. There was another interesting point that the Secretary General made in his speech yesterday before Congress. Some people have criticized President Trump for telling our partners that they need to pay their agreed-to fair share. The Secretary General said the President's call has actually been answered and that it was a positive step that he took to make these other nations recognize we must invest in our mutual defense and our mutual security. That can only come through innovating technologies that will defend the regions within the NATO alliance, making sure our troops are working together and working very well on a military-to-military basis, and we are doing that, but without that sustained commitment from our NATO allies, we could lose ground, and it is in their best interest to do it. As I said earlier, NATO is growing. We have a long list of countries that hope they can meet the requirements to someday come into NATO. Many of them were within the sphere of influence for the Soviet Union before the end of the Cold War. We all know Russia is the greatest threat to Europe. We all know Russia has done things that are illegal, according to international law. They have annexed the Crimean region of the Ukraine. Every week, Ukrainians are dying in a war that very few people know about. We have to make sure that we actually confront Russian aggression, and the best way to do that is to have a strong NATO alliance. On this historic day, April 4, 70 years later, I believe the alliance is strong. I believe that is what the Secretary General talked about yesterday, and I believe every Member of Congress shares the view that the NATO treaty, the NATO alliance, is the most important bulwark against aggression and threats to freedom. I look forward to continuing to serve with Co-Chair Shaheen to make sure our partners know this Congress is prepared to support them and to make sure the alliance grows and remains strong. Thank you.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have up to 5 minutes to make comments on the resolution.

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, I was talking with my staff, in advance of the President issuing the emergency order, and I told them I wanted to put together an op-ed to really express two things; one, my concern with the manner in which funds were being appropriated but also that there is a real crisis we have to address. In fact, I am very sympathetic to what the President did, and the only question is how he went about doing it. I received a lot of feedback over the past few weeks, but what it allowed me to do was to engage in a discussion with some of my colleagues here and with the White House over the past couple of weeks that have been very productive. My main concern with this Executive action is future potential abuses. I have a concern with the Executive action the President took, the emergency order, and that is why I voiced it, but I am sympathetic to what he was trying to do. I think we can view this as an opportunity--I thought we could view this as an opportunity where maybe we could have a discussion about the National Emergencies Act and potentially make a real difference. So today, I come to the floor to say that I do not intend to vote for the resolution of disapproval, and here is why. A lot has changed over the last 3 weeks--a discussion with the Vice President and a number of senior administration officials, a lot of collaboration with my colleague from Utah. There is serious discussion about changing the National Emergencies Act in a way that will have Congress speak on emergency actions in the future. The White House has been very gracious and I should say very patient, given my initial position, in working with us and as late as today having the President make a statement that he is willing to work with us. I suspect that we will hear more from the President. We also heard today from Leader McConnell. I was trying to remember-- I don't know whether it has been done before--Leader McConnell took to the floor this morning and said that he encourages this discussion through the regular order and working on a bipartisan basis to move a measure forward through the Homeland Security Committee and to this floor for a vote. I, for one, am going to work on that and hopefully get consensus on a bipartisan basis after the temperatures have cooled and we can move on. In the meantime, I think we have to recognize that we have a crisis at the border, with 76,000 people crossing illegally in February alone. We have narcotics flooding our country, poisoning our children and adults of all ages. A lot of it has to do with the porous border and the seemingly unending and spiraling-out-of-control crossings. One of the challenges that I have to communicate to my constituents, and I am sure everyone does, is how do I reconcile--first, I should say that my colleagues on this side of the aisle who will vote for the resolution of disapproval I think to a person also recognize that there is a crisis. I respect them for their decision; it is just not a decision that I can take. Over the course of the next few months, I look forward to working with the administration to talk about boundaries that we are very close to getting agreement on and making changes to the National Emergencies Act that will make sense. The fact that this President is prepared to transfer power back to the article I branch--by his statements, either publicly or through his administration--is extraordinary. That we have a leader, with a Republican down the street, willing to move this through the regular order is extraordinary. For those reasons, I will be voting against the resolution of disapproval, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about what I believe is a real crisis at the southern border. I think there is even a case to be made that we have challenges at the northern border, but I want to focus on what the narrative here in the country has been over the past couple of months, weeks, or really years since I have been here--sworn in in 2015. I think it is very important. We all know that we have the Executive order from the President or the emergency declaration. He clearly believes there is a crisis at the border--so much so that he was willing to invoke an authority Congress granted beginning in 1976--the National Emergencies Act--and then amended throughout the 1980s. He believes he is within his authority to declare an emergency so that he can get resources down to the southern border as quickly as possible. It is no secret that I disagree with the method the President is using to provide funding down at the southern border, but make no mistake about it--I do believe there is a crisis at the border, and I take exception to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who say the President is manufacturing a crisis. I serve on the Judiciary Committee. I have since 2015. Yesterday, we got a briefing from Homeland Security that was truly startling in terms of the statistics on the number of crossings--a record number of crossings; severalfold; in one case, 10 times--over the past few months. I believe one of the reasons we are seeing the increase in illegal crossings is that those who are coming from countries other than Mexico--who are the majority of illegal crossings today--believe that if they get across the border, there is a very low chance they will be returned to their country of origin. Speaker Pelosi said it is a manufactured crisis. It is not a manufactured crisis. Take a look at the data. It is a real crisis. The majority leader said the same thing. I think it is a crisis on several levels. One has to do with the number of people coming across the border today. There is something that is very important that I think was missed by many people in the committee hearing yesterday. There were a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle whom I work with--in fact, I worked with Senator Durbin on a solution for the DACA population. I am not necessarily considered a hawk on all things immigration. But I will tell you that when I hear the senior Senator from Illinois say that everyone who is coming across the border is fleeing a dangerous situation in their country of origin, that doesn't necessarily reconcile with the fact that almost 80 percent--8 out of 10 claims of asylum are adjudicated not to be valid. Eight out of ten claims for asylum are adjudicated not to be valid. And I don't hear anybody on the other side of the aisle saying that we should change the standard for an asylum claim. So for someone to say that everyone coming from these countries is fleeing a fear of some sort of harm by staying in their country or maybe staying in Mexico while they sort things out--that is simply not true. If you take a look at the severalfold increase in illegal crossings, 80 percent of them are deemed invalid in terms of a threat to life or liberty from their country of origin based on our standard for asylum. I am not making this up; this is a matter of court records. These cases are being adjudicated by officials who were appointed by Democrats and Republicans, so it is not as though we have someone down there setting a different standard for asylum. Eight out of ten asylum claims for people crossing the southern border are deemed invalid. But now what is happening is that we are spending so much time adjudicating, detaining, and processing this influx of illegal crossings that we are creating a more dangerous situation because bad actors are getting through. Our resources are being spent trying to process this influx of crossings that we have to stop. How do you stop it? You stop it by preventing future flows. You stop it by changing the treatment of a family who crosses from Mexico being different from a family who crosses from Ecuador, El Salvador, or any other Latin America country. You treat them all the same. You treat them respectfully. You try to give them an opportunity to make their case, but you also send a clear message that if you can't come through the normal asylum process, which means you show up and you lawfully request that your asylum claim be heard, then you cross the border and you put yourself and your children at risk. We have a crisis at the border. I spent a week--in fact, Senator Cornyn will be speaking after me. Senator Cornyn invited some of us to spend a week down on the southern border, and it was very revealing to see what is going on there--seeing crossings happen right before us, seeing cane along the Rio Grande River that prevents border security from even seeing somebody who may be 10 feet away as they are snaking through in the middle of the night. We were on horseback, we were in low-draft boats, and we were in helicopters. We saw the crisis at the border in real time. That was last year. Now we have severalfold more people coming across the border. The crisis has several layers to it. One of the ones that I think every American should get behind is that the crisis is occurring because our resources are being diluted by trying to police these borders and apprehending people, 8 out of 10 of whom will ultimately be deemed not to have a valid asylum claim. While we are tracking them down, the cartels are smuggling millions of doses of poison across our border that are killing people every year. These are the deaths that have been reported, and they are reported, sadly, almost on an annual basis--tens of thousands of people dying as a result of drugs coming across the southern border. Because our resources are spread so thin, I think this will get worse if we don't figure out how to secure the border. We have deaths of immigrants. Every year on American soil, we recover nearly 300 bodies of people who paid hundreds or thousands of dollars to the cartels so that they could pass through the plazas at the southern border. There is no way you can cross the southern border without paying a fee to these organized crime gangs who literally control the border. In fact, we were told yesterday in the committee that it will cost you $500 to put your foot in the Rio Grande River, and if you don't, you are probably going to die before you ever leave Mexico. We have no earthly idea of the thousands of people--men, women and children--who die trying to cross the border and can't pay a toll at the appropriate time, or they get caught up in a conflict between the cartels along the plazas of the southern border, but I know thousands of people have died. Over the last 20 years, nearly 10,000 bodies have been recovered on American soil--men, women, and children--because this has become one of the most profitable enterprises for the human smugglers, human traffickers, and drug traffickers in Mexico. That is a crisis, ladies and gentlemen, and it is a crisis that we need to recognize. Gang members. Thousands of MS-13 gang members have crossed the border illegally, and here is the sad reality. When they successfully cross the border, they go into Hispanic communities. They go into communities, many of them communities where the majority are legally present, and make them more dangerous. They hide there. They coopt them. They actually recruit kids into their gang activities and use minors to do a lot of the illegal activities--distributing drugs, trafficking humans, and all the other illicit activities that the gangs are involved in. That is a crisis. The human toll is devastating. When we were down at the border, we were told of one massacre--this is one instance--where there was a coyote. That is a person who is responsible for moving people through the plazas, ultimately, to cross the border illegally. In one instance, we had a human trafficker--a human smuggler--who apparently took a lot of the money that should have been passed back to the cartels to pay for the passage of these folks trying to get across the border, and they didn't have the money to pay the cartel. So what did the cartel do? They ordered the massacre of 72 people. This is one group--one group--of 72 people on the other side of the border who were murdered--men, women, and children. They never got to the United States. The sad fact is, statistically speaking, after they had spent virtually all of their life's belongings, if they had gotten across the border, 8 out of 10 of them probably wouldn't have had a valid claim to asylum. We have to figure out a better way to help these countries, where these folks want to come to the United States and enjoy our liberties and enjoy our economic blessings. Crossing the border illegally is not the way to do it. That is why I have consistently supported any measure to secure the border. There is no recommendation that President Trump has made that I haven't supported. I supported a package last year that was nearly $25 billion for people, technology, and infrastructure to secure the border--to build all-weather roads, to build walls where necessary, or structures, to invest in technology, and to provide more personnel to secure the border--not to harm these folks but to help them, to actually protect people in the border States, but also to send a very clear message: Don't try to come to this country illegally, where your claim for asylum is more likely than not going to be rejected, and the likelihood that you and your children could be hurt is very high. So there is a crisis at the border. We need to fund the President's priorities. The President's immediate priorities require $5.7 billion to fully fund his 10 key priorities at the border. I support that. I applaud the President for taking the steps he did. I am going to do everything I can to continue to come down here and send the message to those who may be contemplating making the dangerous trip--from whatever country where they may be living--with their children and potentially being harmed, to not do that. Let's find another way to help them and their country of origin. Let's find another way to let them request asylum that doesn't involve making the dangerous trip and then, potentially, being denied. I also wanted to come to the floor today to send a very clear message to the President and to the administration: I support the border plan. I support funding the wall, people, technology, and infrastructure proposals that the President has made. We just have to do it in a sustainable way, and we have to do it in a way that goes far beyond the $5.7 billion we need right now to fund the President's immediate priorities. I want to end by thanking Senator Cornyn. Senator Cornyn said something yesterday that I think was extremely important. It is interesting for somebody in a State, maybe in New England or far, far away from the border, to say: There is no crisis. We don't have an issue down at the border. I have to believe that somebody like Senator Cornyn, who knows this issue, knows the threat, knows the impact, and knows the human toll better than just about any of us, can say: Why don't you come down there and spend some time with me? Why don't you do what so many others have done to see it firsthand? Now, let's get out of the politics and saying that it is a manufactured crisis the President is acting on. It is a real crisis. Human lives are at stake. So many lives have been lost. We have to stop the carnage, get the politics out of it, secure the border, and move on to immigration reform and so many other things that we should do. With that, I yield the floor, and, again, I thank Senator Cornyn for all the great work he has done on this issue and for his leadership. I am glad to follow him into any issue that, hopefully, will get us to secure the border. I yield the floor.

Mr. TILLIS

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

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. I will state for any other Members who come in that I have no intention of yielding. And in my time, in the 4 years I have been here, it has never occurred to me to interrupt in the way that we have been interrupted here, but maybe that actually gets to the point. This bill, as proposed, doesn't work. I want to go back and tell you, as a Member of the North Carolina House, when I was in the minority as a Republican, I supported the renewable portfolio standard. I went to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and said: What you are proposing is not sustainable. Let's work together and do something different. And we did. That gave rise to almost 13 percent of all the energy generated in North Carolina today being generated from renewable sources. It gave rise to a sustainable electric bill that is one of the most competitive in the country. What has happened with the Green New Deal is that the people at the extreme are preventing those of us who actually want to make progress from having a reasonable discussion instead of shouting over each other. I don't care if it is $93 trillion, $43 trillion, or $10 trillion--it is unsustainable. We can sit here and question the sources, but at the end of the day, we all know that this was theater. This was something that people wanted to pitch. They wanted to win an election. But it was a dishonest promise that could never be fulfilled. If you take a look at the other provisions of this bill--guaranteed jobs. I mean, it is reading like some sort of a socialist manifesto. As somebody who grew up in a trailer park and who didn't get a degree until I was 36 years old, I want an America that gives me an opportunity, not an America that tells me what my job is and how much money I am going to make. So we have to have a realistic discussion about the Green New Deal. We are pushing people into corners and not having a good discussion about things we should be making progress on. By the way, just out of levity, we even had some people go so far as to say that maybe we should reduce the number of cows we have on the planet because they create methane gas. I will not get into the gross reasons as to why. So maybe the chicken caucus is in favor of getting rid of cows or eating more cows. Why don't we lower the temperature, recognize we have a proposal that doesn't work, and recognize it was generally motivated by politics. And when you take such an extreme stand, you should expect the other side to come to the floor, just as we are doing today, and make it real.