[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 23, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S212-S219]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           PREGNANCY CENTERS

  Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Mr. President, I rise to tell you the story of one 
of my constituents named Hannah. When faced with an unplanned 
pregnancy, Hannah chose life for her baby with the help of a pregnancy 
center. Despite coming from a long line of single mothers and from a 
family background plagued with alcoholism, drugs, and dysfunction, 
Hannah was able to overcome her circumstances and create a better life 
for herself and her daughter.
  At 18 years old, Hannah learned she was pregnant. Her child's father 
drained her savings and spent it on drug abuse. Disgusted, alone, and 
hopeless just weeks into her pregnancy, Hannah went to her local 
pregnancy center, Women's Resource Center in Gulfport, MS, where she 
began to receive weekly parenting classes.
  In November 2014, Hannah gave birth to a beautiful baby girl named 
Ava, a name which means ``life.''
  As a single mother, bringing a child into her circumstances was not 
easy, and Hannah struggled to overcome severe postpartum depression in 
the early months after the birth of her daughter.
  When she turned 21, Hannah got a job at a casino--an answer to her 
prayers. This job gave her a sense of pride and independence.
  When Ava turned 3, Hannah met Nuno, the love of her life, and 
together they welcomed another daughter, Maisy. After Hannah and Nuno 
got married in 2020, Nuno legally adopted Ava before she started 
kindergarten, stepping in to be the father she never had before.
  This year, Hannah felt God's call and now works as a volunteer at the 
same Women's Resource Center in Gulfport, MS, that helped her as a 
client nearly a decade ago. There, she uses her life experiences to 
give hope and help to women facing unplanned pregnancies.
  Hannah writes:

       With God, we don't have to be victims of our circumstances; 
     we can be victors who will rise up from anything.

  Hannah's story is part of the untold story of the pro-life movement 
that goes on at many other pregnancy centers in Mississippi and across 
the Nation.
  Last week, the good works conducted by pregnancy centers and 
maternity homes were recognized by the tens of thousands of pro-life 
Americans who came to Washington, DC, last Friday for the 51st annual 
March for Life. They marched not only for the protection of every 
unborn child from the moment of conception but also to support mothers. 
This year's March for Life theme--``With Every Woman, For Every 
Child''--highlighted the fact that no woman should ever feel alone in 
her pregnancy journey.
  The life-affirming impact of pregnancy centers is considerable and 
growing following the Dobbs decision that allowed lifesaving laws to 
take effect in States across America.
  In addition to having loved ones and communities to lean on, every 
woman should know of the lifesaving work of pregnancy centers and 
maternity homes across the country. A new Charlotte Lozier Institute 
study found that 2,750 pregnancy centers provided more than 16 million 
client sessions and over $358 million in free, life-affirming goods and 
services in 2022. These included free sonograms, pregnancy tests, 
diapers, parenting classes, pregnancy counseling, adoption referrals, 
and other compassionate support and resources.
  Despite what the radical, pro-abortion left wants us to believe, the 
pro-life movement is also a pro-women movement with a long history of 
empowering women during pregnancy and after. I believe Congress must 
build on that history by promoting policies that support pregnancy 
centers, maternity homes, and strong families so that more pregnant 
women will have the support they need as they embark on a beautiful and 
sacred chapter of their lives.
  Every human life is a priceless gift, but the costs and challenges 
for new parents are very real. We need to start putting our money where 
our mouth is. To that end, I, along with Congresswoman Carol Miller of 
West Virginia in the House, introduced the Pregnancy Center Support 
Act. This legislation would create a first-ever Federal tax credit for 
pregnancy centers. It would reimburse 50 percent of up to $10,000 in 
donations to these centers. This would empower pregnancy centers with 
much needed resources to meet the growing demands of supporting women 
and families in a post-Roe America.
  My legislation would build on the work of my State of Mississippi. In

[[Page S213]]

May 2020, a month before the Dobbs decision, the Mississippi 
Legislature enacted a groundbreaking State tax credit for donations for 
pregnancy centers. Mississippi currently spends $10 million each year 
on its credit, and I am glad to see that other States are also 
considering similar credits to provide life-affirming support to 
pregnant women in need in their States.
  At this very moment when pregnancy centers are needed the most, they 
have come under unprecedented attacks, including vandalism and 
firebombing. According to Catholic Vote, there have been over 88 
violent attacks on pregnancy centers and pro-life groups documented 
since the leak of the Dobbs decision in 2022. Pregnancy centers have 
also come under attack from pro-abortion politicians, Big Tech, and 
state attorneys general, which have sought to fine, censor, or regulate 
them out of existence.
  In particular, I am deeply concerned by the Biden administration's 
recently proposed rules targeting pregnancy centers, aiming to strip 
away millions of dollars through the Temporary Assistance to Needy 
Families, or TANF, Program that now supports these centers in several 
States.
  We must fight back against this. Alongside Congressman Chris Smith of 
New Jersey, I have introduced the Let Pregnancy Centers Serve Act. This 
bill would block the administration's proposed action and protect 
pregnancy centers that are serving countless women from discrimination. 
The Democrats' attacks on pregnancy centers are disgraceful, and we 
must do more to support their lifesaving work.
  The pro-life movement believes that every life counts--every mother, 
every father, and every child--and that is why we strive for an end to 
abortion. We must also support families and come alongside pregnant 
women in need.
  To all the Americans who marched for life last week and to women like 
Hannah, who has chosen life and now works at a pregnancy center to help 
others choose life, thank you for standing with every woman and for 
every child.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                            Public Education

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, America's students are failing. Reading and 
math scores are at historic lows nationwide. In places like Baltimore, 
40 percent of high schools don't even have a single math-proficient 
student--not a single one. Forty percent of the schools in Baltimore 
can't find a single math-proficient student.
  This must be a wake-up call because those school districts aren't 
alone. There are others that are failing. And yes, there is a wide 
array of performance outcomes in school districts across the country, 
but this kind of trend is being seen more and more seemingly every day. 
So it has to be a wake-up call, and it is proof that our education 
system has lost its way. It has betrayed its charge and lost our trust.
  Now, to be clear--to be perfectly clear--our students' failures are 
not of their own making. Those failures are the unintended yet 
undeniable consequences and the students the innocent victims of a one-
size-fits-all education system that has ventured into the business of 
ideological conformity, forsaking our children's literacy for the 
pursuit of social engineering.
  American classrooms have become arenas where history is rewritten, 
and parents--the rightful stewards of their children's futures--are 
marginalized or in some instances labeled as ``domestic terrorists'' 
just for questioning this new order. It comes as no surprise that 
parents are seeking alternative ways to educate their children.
  In fact, the Washington Post found that since 2018, homeschooling has 
increased by 51 percent while public school enrollment is decreasing 
year after year.
  So these parents are making a different decision. Who can blame them? 
Who can blame parents for wanting to shield their children from 
inappropriate school materials--inappropriate school materials that 
parents, understandably, are outraged upon discovering that these 
things are being shared with their students.
  Sometimes they are sufficiently upset about it that they will show up 
to a school board meeting. And sometimes within that school board 
meeting they will just read the materials that are being given to their 
children in a public school and then be told that they have to stop; 
that they have to stop reading it because it is too inappropriate. It 
is making too many people uncomfortable.
  Well, if it is inappropriate to be read at a school board meeting 
because it makes the school board or spectators uncomfortable, then it 
is inappropriate to be taught in the schools. In any event, it is the 
parents' decision as to whether it is inappropriate. And a parent who 
decides that their child is being subjected to this kind of material 
ought to have the opportunity, without excessive difficulty created by 
the government, to choose a different educational option for the 
parents' children.
  Who can blame parents for taking education into their own hands when 
year after year they are not seeing improvement in their children's 
learning? Parents, you see, and not school boards and certainly not 
unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats are the fundamental drivers of 
their children's education. This is the way it always should be.
  Now, I introduced a bill, a bill that I call the ACE Act. It is an 
acronym that stands for Achieving Choice in Education. I introduced the 
ACE Act because I believe that parents, endowed with innate and 
instinctive wisdom and an unbreakable bond with their children, are the 
rightful navigators of their children's educational journey. The ACE 
Act would deliver on this belief by fortifying the rule of section 529 
education savings accounts as vital tools for parents. Traditionally 
focused on college expenses, the ACE Act expands these boundaries to 
include homeschooling and a broader array of private school expenses, 
allowing families with students in public, private, religious, and at-
home schools to spend their hard-earned money on materials, books, 
online resources, and therapies for students with disabilities.
  Moreover, the ACE Act enriches these accounts by enhancing Federal 
tax exemptions for distributions, effectively doubling the annual 
distribution cap from $10,000 to $20,000 and introducing tax-exempt 
gifting provisions. These changes ensure that families can allocate 
more of their hard-earned money or even a generous gift toward their 
children's educational journeys and to do so without the unnecessary 
strain of an excessive tax burden to go along with it.
  You have to remember that these are things parents are concerned 
about when they decide they need to do something different for their 
child's education, including these inappropriate materials to which 
they are being exposed in many instances. These are paid for by money 
that already came from the parents. It is built into their tax 
bill. They pay it. They are already paying for it. So they shouldn't be 
told again and again that they have no choice in it--that it is not 
their choice--and then be penalized with no recourse at all within the 
tax system when they decide a different educational approach is 
appropriate and necessary for their child. This ought to be their 
choice, and governments ought to do as little as possible to interfere 
with that. Governments shouldn't be punishing parents for making that 
choice.

  So the ACE Act would encourage States to embrace more school choice 
policies and laws. Under the ACE Act, if States don't have qualifying 
school choice laws already enacted, they would lose the Federal income 
tax exemption on municipal bonds. This would encourage States to do the 
right thing, encourage more States to do what many States already have 
wisely done, which is to give parents more choice in public education.
  The guardians of our future are not, in fact, distant bureaucrats but 
rather the parents and families who live, breathe, and dream of a 
better tomorrow for their children.
  The ACE Act provides a rallying call to embrace school choice, to 
honor individual freedom, and to give the most responsibility to the 
ones who have the most at stake in it, which is families, to be driven 
primarily by parents. The lamentable state of our education system is a 
stark indication that America's educational status quo has faltered. To 
correct course, we have got

[[Page S214]]

to trust parents to discern what is best for their children. They know 
what is best for the children, better than any government bureaucracy 
ever could or ever will. They care infinitely for their children. Their 
love for them knows no boundaries. We need to respect that and 
understand that parents are very much inclined and incentivized in so 
many ways that the government never could be to look out for the best 
educational interests of their children, to plot a brighter course for 
them, one that would inure to their benefit and not to their detriment.
  So as they continue to be taxed by the State and then told by the 
State that they have got to send their child only to a particular 
institution, they need alternatives. Some of those alternatives we 
could make less burdensome, less onerous, and less punitive to the 
extent they are chosen by the parents.
  By championing the principles of choice and freedom in education and 
ensuring that government doesn't stand in the way of this endeavor, we 
can foster an environment in which America's students can thrive, 
powered by an education system that truly serves them.
  Opponents of efforts like these will sometimes build a rallying cry--
a rallying cry--that talks about the importance of the public education 
system. Yes, the public education system is important, and this is part 
of it. This is not distinct from the public education system. School 
choice options are part of the public education system because when you 
take money from someone through the tax system with the understanding 
that you will educate their children with it, you owe it to them to 
give them options and to not pigeonhole them into one school, one 
approach, dictated in many instances by a teachers union that may or 
may not have the best interests of their children at heart.
  Sometimes this is an issue, sometimes it is not. For many parents, 
they are happy with their existing public school options, but more 
often than not it is not options, it is an option. It is just take it 
or leave it. Some parents can afford just fine making a different 
choice, but they need to be given more options that are less punitive 
because it is, after all, up to the parents to make sure that their 
children are educated, that they are treated well, are cared for well, 
and that they are not being fed things that the parents find abhorrent.
  That is why this is about so much more than just the education 
system. This is about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom 
within a family for parents to look out for the best interests of their 
children without having the State or the Federal Government 
unreasonably, unfairly intruding on them.
  It is time to foster more school choice options, and it is time to 
pass the ACE Act.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  National Gun Violence Survivors Week

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, this week is National Gun Violence 
Survivors Week.
  I wanted to come down to the floor today to share with my colleagues 
the meaning and the impact of this week and the meaning and the impact 
of a national network of gun violence survivors on the debate to change 
the Nation's gun laws.
  I also wanted to share with my colleagues some good news about what 
has happened over the course of the last year since the passage of the 
Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. That is the first significant change 
in our Nation's gun laws in 30 years.
  I want to start by talking about survivors. I want to start by 
talking about two people whom I have referenced on the floor of the 
Senate in prior speeches, two of my great friends in Hartford, CT--Sam 
Saylor and Janet Rice. Sam and Janet shared a son, Shane. Shane was a 
pretty incredible young man, not without challenges, but he had risen 
up and met those challenges over the course of his life.
  On October 20 of 2012--just a month before the shooting at Sandy 
Hook--he became the 20th victim of gun violence in Hartford that year 
in a typically random act of violence. He was fixing up cars and 
selling them for a small profit.
  He was transferring one of those cars to an acquaintance. His 
girlfriend was with him. Some coarse words were exchanged between the 
two parties about his girlfriend. A physical altercation broke out, 
which caused Luis Rodriguez to go to his car where he had a gun--an 
illegal gun. He took it out, and he shot Shane Oliver, essentially 
after an exchange of words about Shane's girlfriend. Shane collapsed to 
the floor. When he reached the hospital, he was dead--20 years old with 
his whole life ahead of him. He left behind a network of survivors--his 
parents--but also a daughter, Se'Cret.
  Both Sam and Janet went into the work of preventing gun violence. 
They joined advocates in Hartford to try to create a reality in which 
that kind of random death--that kind of random gun violence--wouldn't 
be a reality any longer in Hartford, and they devoted themselves to 
that work. Janet joined an organization that responded to shootings to 
try to interrupt the cycles of violence that often happened in 
Hartford. So she has spent much of the last several years responding--
on a nightly basis often--to episodes of violence and to shootings.
  In April of last year, she got a phone call to respond to a shooting 
that had happened. She got in her car, and she headed for that scene. 
As she was driving there, she got a second call from her supervisor, 
who told her to pull over.
  He said: Janet, you can't be driving when you hear this news. The 
young woman who was shot, who you are going to respond to, is your 
granddaughter--Shane's daughter.
  Se'Cret died that night. A couple of days later, I went to her 
funeral.
  That is what is going on out there in the world today, right? For Sam 
and Janet, they lost Shane, and then a decade later, they lost Shane's 
daughter. I wish that their story was the anomaly, but it is not. There 
are thousands of families in this country who have lost multiple loved 
ones--brothers and sisters, daughters and granddaughters--to this 
epidemic of gun violence.
  So, in this week in which we commemorate the survivors, it is 
important to understand the depth of this tragedy; but it is also 
important to celebrate the work that these survivors have done, because 
over the past 10 years, in particular, through a number of 
organizations in this country, survivors like Sam and Janet and many 
others have come together to demand that Congress and State legislators 
and mayors and city councils do something to stop this reality in which 
parents and grandparents have to lose sons and granddaughters to gun 
violence.

  Last year, we finally stepped up to the plate and did something, in 
part because of the advocacy of all of those survivors. We passed the 
Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. Our theory was that, if we make a big 
change in the Nation's gun laws to make it a little bit harder for 
dangerous people to get their hands on dangerous weapons, well, then, 
we can try to make a dent in the epidemic levels of gun homicide in 
this country.
  Now, I have said all of this while standing next to this chart so you 
know of the success story that I am about to tell you. Last year, urban 
homicides in this Nation fell by 12.1 percent. That is the biggest 1-
year reduction in urban homicides in the history of the United States 
of America.
  Now, is that a cause for celebration? No, because there are still far 
too many people in this country who are dying at the hands of gun 
violence, but we should appreciate the fact that a 1-year 12-percent 
reduction in urban homicides is proof that, when you change the laws of 
the country, our communities get safer.
  So I want to talk to you, just for a moment, about what happened over 
the past year. Urban homicides fell by 12 percent. Gun-related injuries 
and deaths all across the country have fallen by 10 percent--again, 
just an absolutely remarkable 1-year reduction: a 10-percent reduction 
in gun injuries and gun deaths in a 1-year period of time. The reason 
that this is happening is, in part, because we have changed the law.

[[Page S215]]

  One of the things that happened over the course of this last year is 
we have started to get a lot more careful about selling guns to young 
buyers. So we have had a number of young buyers in this country who 
have been disqualified from buying an assault weapon. Often, those 
young buyers are in crisis, and by stopping hundreds of young people 
from buying assault weapons--because we found out through the 
provisions of this bill that they were in crisis--we have likely 
interrupted many mass shootings.
  Second, we have a lot more prosecutions of gun traffickers because we 
made gun trafficking a Federal crime. So hundreds of prosecutions have 
been successfully completed over the last year against gun trafficking 
rings. That means there are less guns in our city that are being 
trafficked on the black market.
  We have more red flag laws in this country and stronger red flag 
laws, in part because we put money into the Bipartisan Safer 
Communities Act to encourage States to adopt and strengthen their red 
flag laws. These are the laws that take guns away temporarily from 
people who are in crisis or who are making threats against other 
community members. Those red flag laws have become more important.
  We have put out the door $438 million for community anti-gun violence 
work, like the work that Janet Rice and Sam Saylor do. So there are 
dozens of anti-gun violence organizations in our cities that are 
receiving money to help them interrupt violence.
  We have sent billions of dollars out the door for additional mental 
health services, particularly targeted at young people, who are often 
the primary victims and the primary perpetrators of gun crime in this 
country.
  I can't tell you that this 12 percent reduction in urban homicides is 
completely due to the implementation of the Bipartisan Safer 
Communities Act. I can't tell you that. But what I know is that if you 
look at the trajectory of violence in this country over time, the 
biggest drops have always happened right after Congress does a better 
job of regulating firearms. The two biggest drops in violence in this 
country's history are right after the 1930s gun control act and right 
after the 1990s Brady bill and assault weapons ban.
  Whether this trend continues, I don't know, but if it does or even if 
we get a 6-percent reduction next year and an 8-percent reduction the 
next year, this could represent the third giant reduction in violence 
rates in this country's history. If that is the trajectory, then a 
piece of that story is the bipartisan legislation we passed.
  As we commemorate Gun Violence Survivors Week, it is important to 
remember that when you lose a loved one, especially in that sudden 
violent way, to gun violence, there is no repair; there is no recovery; 
your life never returns to normal.
  After Janet lost Shane, she didn't leave her house for months, 
wouldn't leave her house for months. When she finally did start leaving 
her house, often she would do it in this manner: Often late at night, 
when the streets of Hartford were quiet, she would get in her car, and 
she would drive from her home to the site that Shane was shot. She 
actually got to see Shane alive after he was shot; she held him in her 
arms as he bled out. She would go to that site, which is just two 
blocks away from where I live today in Hartford, and she would turn on 
her high beams, and she would wait.
  When she told me the story, I asked her: What are you waiting for? 
What were you waiting for?
  She said: I was waiting for Shane to come back.
  She would go to the site where he was shot, where he bled to death in 
her arms, and she would turn on her high beams in hopes that maybe 
Shane would come back.
  That just gives you one single window into what life is like for a 
mother when she loses a son or a daughter to gun violence.
  Survivors of gun violence--those who have lived through a shooting or 
those who have lost loved ones in a shooting--their lives are changed 
forever. This week, we pay tribute to them by recognizing the work they 
have done to rattle the conscience of this country, to change the gun 
laws of this country in a historic way, leading to the largest ever 1-
year drop in urban homicides in this country's history.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                            Border Security

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with me today are two of my colleagues 
from my office: DJ Sandoval, who is to my right; and Mr. Wesley Davis, 
who is in the back. They do an extraordinary job for the people of 
Louisiana and the American people.
  You can cut the irony--the cynical might say ``the hypocrisy''; I 
would rather say ``the irony''--you can cut the irony with a knife. 
After years of presenting themselves as ``sanctuary cities,'' 
officials--many of them well-intentioned--throughout our country 
learned in 2023 that the crisis at our southern border is not just a 
crisis for Southern States like Texas and Arizona and even my State; it 
is an American crisis.
  Today, President Biden's failed border policies have wreaked havoc in 
every single corner of the United States, including my State, 
Louisiana. According to one estimate--and it is not the only estimate, 
but I think this is a very telling estimate--Louisianans pay an 
additional $4,613 a migrant. That is about $604 million a year in State 
taxes because of illegal immigration.
  People in Louisiana support legal immigration, just like they support 
the rule of law, but they do not support illegal immigration. It is not 
just the money. It is a moral issue for them. It is a constitutional 
issue--as I said, the rule of law--but it is a money issue as well. My 
people pay 4,613 bucks per illegal migrant. My people have to come out 
of pocket $604 million a year to deal with President Biden's illegal 
immigration. That is happening at a time when Louisiana families are 
also having to come out of pocket an extra $800 a month to deal with 
inflation--$840 a month just to deal with inflation. So that $604 
million that we spend to deal with illegal immigration--not legal but 
illegal immigration--could provide a lot of relief to the families in 
my State who have to sell blood plasma in order to go to the grocery 
store.
  Sanctuary cities, to their credit, are finally starting to understand 
what Louisianans have figured out for a long time.
  In New York City, for example--and I love New York City. I think it 
is one of the most extraordinary cities in the world, maybe the most 
extraordinary. I love it. It breaks my heart to see what is happening 
there. In New York City, elected officials just recently had to force 
thousands of students to stay home--they couldn't go to school--so that 
thousands of migrants, illegal migrants the Biden administration 
allowed into the country, could have a place to stay. I mean, what have 
we come to? We are having to send kids home--so they can't learn--so 
that folks who have come to our country illegally can have a place to 
stay.
  In Massachusetts, Governor Healey asked residents to ``consider 
hosting'' migrant families in their homes because many shelters have 
reached capacity.
  Several suburban cities--Chicago recently voted to restrict buses 
from unloading illegal migrants in their cities. These suburban areas 
are outside of Chicago.
  Because the American people are compassionate people, we don't want 
people to starve to death or to die in the snow from hyperthermia, but 
at the same time, you don't get a free lunch. There is no free lunch, 
and you don't get one now. All of this costs money.
  We have, as you know, Mr. President, as many as 12,000 migrants 
arriving at the southern border each day. Secretary Mayorkas confirmed 
that the Biden administration admits more than 85 percent of these 
migrants into our country. Since President Biden has been President, we 
have had 8.6 million people that we know of come into our country 
illegally. That is four Nebraskas--four Nebraskas.
  No city in America--I don't care how well run or how mismanaged--can 
handle the massive influx of illegal migrants the Biden administration 
continues to release into America. That is just a fact. Taxpayers, 
students, shelter providers, hotel customers, and law enforcement 
officials in America are suffering because of these bad policies. They 
have to deal it. The White House doesn't have to deal with it; the 
people on our frontlines do.

[[Page S216]]

  As you can tell, I am very concerned about the burden President 
Biden's policies have placed on cities throughout the country, but I 
want to focus today on a subset of that really terrible problem, and 
that is the national security threat--the national security threat--
that this problem poses to every American, including my people in 
Louisiana.
  President Biden's border policies are not just a human rights 
disaster, although they certainly are, but his policies have also 
provided the perfect cover--the perfect cover--for terrorist 
sympathizers, for child sex offenders, and for cartel associates to 
enter the country illegally. All you have to do is mix in because 
nobody is checking anybody.
  The numbers that I am about to give you will make you throw up. 
Border Patrol apprehended 169 members on the FBI's Terrorist Watchlist 
attempting to cross the southern border illegally in 2023 alone--169. 
It only takes one terrorist. That is more than 10 times the number of 
potential terrorists Border Patrol detained in the 4 years before 
President Biden took office. That is just a fact.
  The men and women who earn their spot on the FBI's Terror List do so 
by associating with groups that hate America. They hate our values. 
They hate our country. They hate our people. Many of them want to kill 
us and drink our blood out of a boot. Yet they are coming across the 
southern border.
  These terrorist sympathizers--in some cases, terrorists--they may be 
evil, but they are not stupid. They know they can blend into the masses 
at the border and come in unnoticed.
  For example, CNN reported a few months ago that someone who had 
worked as an ``independent contractor'' for ISIS helped smuggle more 
than a dozen people from Uzbekistan to our border. Overwhelmed 
officials at our border process each migrant's asylum claim without 
triggering a single red flag, not a single red flag, and then they 
release the whole group--every one of them--into the United States to 
live among innocent American citizens while they wait for their 
immigration court dates, which takes 4 years. Do you think even after 4 
years they are going to show up for their court date?
  The FBI finally uncovered the problem. They finally uncovered the 
ties to ISIS after border officials released the group into the 
country. Thank the Lord that the FBI caught the mistake and caught what 
happened. It set off a mad search, of course, trying to track down all 
these individuals.
  The men and women of ISIS, I don't need to tell you, Mr. President, 
are some of the most dangerous people on Earth. I am not sure they are 
human. They have bloodstains under their fingernails. Americans, 
unfortunately, will remember that ISIS gleefully--gleefully--beheaded 
our citizens.
  The terrorist sympathizers on the FBI Watchlist certainly pose a 
threat to innocent Americans in Louisiana and other States, but at 
least we know a little bit about them. We know they hope to bring 
Americans harm, and we have some tools to track them. Thank goodness 
for that. My stomach turns, though, when I consider the thousands of 
migrants we know nothing about--we don't even know they have come in--
who hail from countries with millions of people who hate us. Customs 
and Border Protection calls these people ``special interest aliens.'' 
That is not my term; that is the term that CPB uses.
  In the past 2 years, Border Patrol has encountered 6,386 Afghans, 659 
Iranians, and 538 Syrians, all trying to enter the country illegally. 
Border Patrol also apprehended more than 24,000 Chinese nationals in 
fiscal year 2023 alone. That is more Chinese immigrants than they 
caught in the past 10 years combined.
  (Mr. MARKEY assumed the Chair.)
  I am not saying these are all bad people. I am not saying that. I 
don't doubt that some of these ``special interest aliens,'' as the 
authorities call them, may have good intentions, may want to live the 
American dream. But you would be a fool--you would be a fool--to think 
that men like President Xi Jinping of China and the Ayatollah of Iran 
wouldn't exploit--happily, enthusiastically--President Biden's catch-
and-release playbook to bring pain and terror to the American people.
  I mean, after all, we know what Mexico's cartels have done. They have 
been exploiting our open border to terrorize Americans for years. Their 
weapon of choice is fentanyl. The cartels kill tens of thousands of 
U.S. citizens per year by working with China to flood our communities 
with fentanyl. That fentanyl comes from China, and it comes from 
Mexico.
  Louisiana lost more than 1,300 people--1,300 loved ones--to fentanyl 
poisoning in 2022 alone. The narco-terrorists flood our communities 
with poison and fill their coffers with as much as $1 billion a year. 
And that fentanyl comes--the precursor chemicals come from China, and 
the fentanyl comes from Mexico.
  And the Mexican politicians know it is going on, and they let it 
happen. If you took Mexico's cartels and turned them upside down and 
shook them, hundreds of Mexican politicians would fall out of their 
pockets. And President Biden does nothing--zero, zilch, nada.
  In addition to fentanyl, the cartels make billions running--they run 
human trafficking rings. They steer the unvetted migrants to America, 
including many of the caravans we have seen in recent months, right 
into the United States.
  And don't think these cartels are social workers. Don't think these 
cartels are small businesspeople who want to make sure people get a 
good service for their money. These cartels--these members--they put 
the migrants through hell as they march them across the southern 
border.
  Predators sexually assault an estimated four out of five women. It is 
unsurprising, then, that many of the male migrants the cartels usher to 
the border are also known sex offenders. In just 2 months--just 2 
months--Border Patrol agents in Texas caught 21 known child predators. 
In 2 months, in one State, Border Patrol caught 21 known child 
predators attempting to enter this country illegally. Imagine how many 
we don't know about. And Border Patrol apprehended 284 sex offenders in 
fiscal year 2023 alone.
  The southern border is an open, bleeding wound. Everyone suffers 
except the cartels. They make billions. And that is why I helped 
introduce the NARCOS Act earlier this year. Our bill, the NARCOS Act, 
would designate the Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist 
organizations and allow U.S. prosecutors to arrest those in charge.
  President Biden's border policies have already contributed to the 
deaths of too many Americans and too many Louisianans. It gives me no 
joy to say that. There are some things beyond politics. We can do 
better. We deserve better. The American people ask for better, but they 
keep getting worse.
  In March, for example, a cartel smuggler struck and killed a 71-year-
old American grandmother and her 7-year-old granddaughter after he 
crashed his vehicle while trying to evade law enforcement in Texas. 
This illegal migrant also killed 2 of the 11 migrants he was smuggling 
in the back of his truck.
  Just last week, an illegal migrant with four prior deportations--that 
is right, four. Four times he came in, he got caught, he was sent back. 
He came in, got caught, and was sent back four times, and somehow 
reentered the United States only to drive drunk and kill a mother and 
her son in Colorado. This man had a very lengthy criminal record of not 
just deportations but also alcohol abuse and reckless driving.
  An official with Immigration and Customs Enforcement said this man 
had ``no regard for immigration law''--none. Yet he was able to get 
back into our country, drive drunk, and kill two innocent people. I am 
not surprised he has no regard for immigration law. ``Legal immigration 
and legal immigration laws are for suckers'' is the attitude of the 
people coming across the border. Why be vetted? Why wait? Why fill out 
the paperwork when President Biden and Vice President Harris will just 
let you walk across?
  I mean, how is this possible? Why can't this administration see the 
threat that the southern border--an open, bleeding wound--poses to the 
American people?
  I sure don't blame our overworked Border Patrol agents. I have been 
down there to the southern border. I have talked to them. I know that 
our agents are doing the very best they possibly can. But their work 
goes to waste, folks, when President Biden refuses to address the 
failed policies that have created this mess.

[[Page S217]]

  The southern border is a cesspool of human suffering. That is just 
the fact. It is a national embarrassment. It is the biggest national 
security threat our country faces, and that is saying something. People 
in my State do not understand the President's commitment to keeping the 
border open to criminals, to sex traffickers, to drug dealers; but they 
do suffer because of his decisions.
  Now, I want to end this way, Mr. President. I think I have made my 
point. The American people support legal immigration. I do. I know the 
Presiding Officer does. I don't know this year's numbers, but last year 
we admitted about a million people into our country legally, our 
world's neighbors. This is the greatest country in all of human 
history, and the whole world knows it.
  When is the last time you heard of somebody trying to sneak into 
China? They want to come to America because we are the land of 
opportunity and we care about our fellow human beings, whether they are 
born in the United States or not.
  Sometimes people say: Oh, the American people are selfish. I get a 
little angry when they say that. In other countries, they will let 
their neighbors die in a ditch--not in America. In our country, when 
you are homeless, we will house you. When you are hungry, we will feed 
you. When you are too poor to be sick, we will pay for your doctor.
  And we do welcome our world's neighbors to come in legally, and I get 
upset when some of my colleagues--not all of them, but some people--
say: Well, Kennedy, you are racist because vetting people at the border 
is racist.
  No, it is not, Mr. President. It is prudent.
  I read this somewhere once--and I will end on this point--and it made 
great sense to me: The American people are not racist, and they are not 
xenophobic, and they are proud that people want to come to their 
country. But they want to know who is coming in and going out.
  The American people see the southern border like they see the front 
door of their home. Most Americans lock their front door at night. They 
don't do that because they hate everybody on the outside. Most 
Americans lock their front door at night because they love the people 
on the inside, and they just want to know who is coming in and out of 
their home.
  And that is all the American people want in terms of immigration. 
They support legal immigration, but they want people to be properly 
vetted, and they want to know who is coming in and out of their 
country.
  And, for the life of me, I don't--I don't hate anybody, Mr. 
President. I don't. I certainly don't hate the President, but I do not 
understand his policy on the border. I just don't. I hear him talk to 
us a lot about democracy and the rule of law. And, boy, that is 
important. There is not a single person in this body who doesn't 
believe in democracy and have respect for the rule of law. But the 
legal immigration laws don't just have an asterisk by them.
  Now, we could secure this border. We could secure it, I think, in 6 
weeks. Here is what we need to do. I am not even sure it would take 
legislation. There are laws on the books right now; it is a fact. If 
you try to sneak into our country illegally and you get caught, you are 
supposed to be immediately deported. We need to enforce the law.
  No. 2, if you claim asylum under the 1951 U.N. resolution that we 
agreed to, you are entitled to have your asylum claim heard. But 70 
percent of asylum claims fail. Once your asylum claim fails, you are 
supposed to be immediately deported. President Biden is deporting none 
of those people.
  No. 3, we need the ``Remain in Mexico'' program. It doesn't mean that 
people claiming asylum won't get their day in court. They just need to 
remain at home or remain in Mexico until their day in court comes.
  No. 4, the whole purpose of our asylum policy is to keep people from 
being persecuted politically. That means, if you feel unsafe in your 
country, you can go to another country. But the law says--the U.N. 
resolution and treaty to which we agreed says--if you feel like you 
will be prosecuted illegally in your own country, then you have to seek 
safety in the first safe country that you go into. That is not, for 
about 90 percent of our migrants, the United States.
  If we had a safe third country policy, which President Biden can do 
like that--he could do it; he could do it by 6 o'clock--that would 
solve about 70 to 90 percent of our problem. And for the life of me, 
Mr. President, I don't understand why.
  But I know this: We don't have the slightest idea who these millions 
and millions of people are, and it only takes one. It only takes one 
terrorist.
  I appreciate your patience.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                               Inflation

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I appreciate so much hearing my 
colleague talk about the issues at the border, and I want to touch on 
some of those today, also. But I want to talk some about inflation and 
what we are hearing at home in Tennessee.
  And as I talked this weekend--you know, we have had a terrible cold 
snap in Tennessee. We have had a lot of snow. We have had single-digit 
temperatures, even subzero temperatures. And people have talked a lot 
about the priorities of this administration when it comes to energy and 
about how President Biden said: We are going to do this transition; we 
are going to have the Green New Deal. And he spent $6 trillion on this 
Green New Deal concept.
  Well, that, with the inflation, has caused higher prices, lower 
wages, and really has inserted uncertainty into our economy.
  Now, the President has really ignored the chaos that has come about 
from his failed Bidenomics and failed Green New Deal agendas. He keeps 
trying to say, and he has been out giving speeches saying, that we are 
a--and I am quoting him--story of progress.
  Well, let me tell you something. If he is talking about progress, it 
is the wrong direction because, as I said, people are facing higher 
prices; they are facing wage stagnation; and they are looking at 
uncertainty when it comes to job security, when it comes to economic 
security.
  The President also likes to say that he is ``growing [the] economy 
from the middle out and the bottom up.''
  But let me tell you, when I talk to Tennesseans, that is not 
happening. They talk about how the economy is shrinking. And they also 
talk about how costs are just hammering them every single month.
  Now, I think that when we talk about inflation and the state of the 
Nation's economy, we have to look at where President Biden started. 
When he took the oath of office, the inflation rate in this country was 
at 1.4 percent. What he did was to run that inflation up to a 40-year 
high, at 9.1 percent. And now they run around saying: Oh, we have 
gotten inflation back down to 3.4 percent.
  But, still, you have to look collectively at what has happened.
  Now, under President Biden, I have got some of the headlines here 
that show you what is happening. Here is the reason why prices across 
the board--it is not 3.4 percent that people are seeing; it is 17.3 
percent. The cost of clothing is up 7 percent. Rent prices are up 19 
percent. Food prices are up 20 percent. Gas prices, when you go to the 
pump, is up 30 percent, and home heating and cooling, 31 percent. And 
mortgage rates are at a two-decade high. That has led to Bidenflation. 
And it has led to some of these headlines: Analysis finds Americans 
need an extra $11,400 a year to afford the basics--the basics. That 
means just treading water, doing nothing extra. Sixty-two percent of 
Americans are living paycheck to paycheck as holiday spending and 
credit card debt rise. People are pulling the plastic out in order to 
try to make ends meet. And then you have another one from Yahoo 
Finance: ``Why a record number of Americans are struggling to pay 
rent.''
  CBS: ``Millions of older workers are nearing retirement with nothing 
saved.''
  You have CNN Business: ``Inflation isn't beaten yet and the risk of a 
new price shock are rising.''
  And we also know that according to the Joint Economic Committee, 
families in Tennessee spent $10,344 more last year than they did in 
2021 just to meet the purchasing of the same basket of goods.
  That is what Joe Biden's economic policies have done to our 
pocketbooks.

[[Page S218]]

It is what it is doing to hard-working taxpayers. And at the same time, 
our Nation's debt has now reached a record $34 trillion.
  Now, if any of my colleagues have a grandchild or a baby who was born 
this year, they can welcome that baby with $100,000 worth of Federal 
debt. That is their share of this Nation's debt.
  Now, President Biden's out-of-control inflationary spending would be 
bad enough for the American people, but to make matters worse, his 
administration has tried to regulate every single part of your life: 
the car you drive, the stove that you use, the washing machine for 
washing clothes, the type dishwasher, even what you are wanting to do 
with the fireplace.
  This is what they are doing with regulations. And these regulations 
are estimated to cost families another $10,000 each year because of 
added cost. It is not sustainable. And Congress absolutely cannot keep 
kicking the can down the road on this. Dealing with this out-of-control 
spending and this debt is an imperative.
  Now, there are some things that we could do. We could return to 
regular order and pass spending bills that would get this house in 
order. That means no more massive omnibus bills that saddle future 
generations with an unsustainable debt.
  Each year, in order to address this problem, I have introduced 
legislation that would make 1 percent, 2 percent, or 5 percent across-
the-board spending cuts. That would target nondefense, nonhomeland 
security, and nonveterans affairs discretionary spending for the next 
fiscal year.
  We also need to cut down on the size of the Federal bureaucracy. We 
have 2.2 million Federal bureaucrats who cost Americans billions of 
dollars in taxes and overbearing regulations. Addressing the rising 
salaries and the size of the Federal Government workforce should be a 
top priority when considering how to rein in Federal Government and how 
to control spending. This would begin the process of draining the swamp 
of unelected bureaucrats who are not accountable to anyone and would 
change the decisions that they are making about Americans' lives.


                                Houthis

  Mr. President, last week--after weeks of attacks on commercial 
vessels in the Red Sea--President Biden designated the Iran-backed 
Houthis as a ``Specially Designated Global Terrorist'' group.
  Now, the Houthis should never have been taken off the list of 
terrorist organizations. They had been placed on that list by President 
Trump, and then President Biden decided to take them off. He was trying 
to appease Iran. But in doing this, he only emboldened the Ayatollah's 
terror proxies. And we all know that Hamas and Hezbollah, the Houthis, 
ISIS in Syria, ISIS in Iraq--they are all proxy groups for Iran. Yet 
the national security spokesman, John Kirby, is still defending the 
decision to take the Houthis off the list of Foreign Terrorist 
Organizations.
  It is difficult to unravel all the catastrophic mistakes that this 
administration has made on this very issue.
  Now, we have had over 150 missile attacks from Iran-backed proxies 
against our Armed Forces and also against commercial vessels. President 
Biden has redesignated the Houthis only as a ``Specially Designated 
Global Terrorist'' group.
  As I said, he didn't go all the way and designate them a ``Foreign 
Terrorist Organization,'' which is what President Trump had done.
  Now, here is the difference in that designation and why it is 
significant. This means that the Houthis can still obtain U.S. visas; 
there is not a criminal penalty to support them; and U.S. banks are not 
required to seize their funds. So the Houthis can still get a visa to 
come to the United States. U.S. banks cannot freeze the funds that the 
Houthis have and prohibit them from getting to those funds.

  Now, who gives them most of their money? It comes from Iran, which 
gives them about $100 million a year; plus, trains them; plus, equips 
them; plus, arms them and allows them to carry out their bad deeds.
  Now, the White House also admitted this, which I think is rather 
stunning when you consider the fact that Iran, through the Houthis--you 
have had 150 attacks on U.S. ships and commercial vessels. So the White 
House said: OK, Houthis, if you will stop your attacks and stop 
attacking us in the Red Sea, in the Gulf of Aden, then the United 
States will immediately reevaluate your designation--again, practicing 
appeasement. Terrorists only understand one thing, and that is 
strength. And they know that this administration is weak.
  In 2021, the Biden administration moved Patriot missile systems out 
of CENTCOM to reduce our military presence in the Middle East. But in 
October, the President was forced to return them over growing attacks 
from Iran's terror proxy groups.
  Our military needs to continue attacking these threats until they no 
longer pose a danger to the American people, to our ships and 
commercial vessels.
  One thing is clear: We can only achieve peace through strength, and 
our adversaries are watching a very weak administration.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                    Affordable Connectivity Program

  Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I am here to speak about the extension of 
the Affordable Connectivity Program. COVID was brutal, but something 
good came out of it. And that was a recognition by the U.S. Congress--
Republicans and Democrats--that access to high-speed internet was 
absolutely essential all across America.
  Before COVID, there were many of us who represented rural States--
Republicans and Democrats--who were making the case, when people were 
arguing for high-speed internet, that we had no-speed internet. And our 
concerns were really dismissed by many of our urban colleagues.
  With the effect of COVID, it was apparent: You couldn't go to work if 
you didn't have internet. Your kids couldn't do homework without 
internet. You couldn't get a doctor's appointment unless you could do 
it online. And we had come to the conclusion as a Congress that high-
speed internet was as essential to all of America today as electricity 
was in the 1930s.
  And in the 1930s, when the debate was whether we build out 
electricity, there wasn't an economic argument that was made, although 
that was important; it was a commitment to the social cohesion of this 
country that we are all in it together. And whether you lived on a dirt 
road on a farm in Iowa or you lived in Manhattan on Fifth Avenue, you 
needed electricity. We made the same decision during COVID in the U.S. 
Congress, and we allocated billions of dollars to start building out 
high-speed internet across the entire country.
  There is another matter, though, that is important if we are going 
have access to the internet. It is affordability. And the Affordable 
Connectivity Program was a lifeline for many low-income people in the 
State of Vermont and States, in counties, and in cities and towns all 
across this country.
  If you were a Vermont family with 200 percent of poverty level income 
and you lived in a rural area, you made $15,000 a year and you had two 
kids, you could have internet going right by your house, but you had to 
make a really tough decision about whether you could afford it. The 
Affordable Connectivity Program helped that family with $30 toward the 
cost of the monthly bill for the high-speed internet. That doesn't 
sound like a lot. It is a lot to a family that is making $15,000 or 
$11,000 and has kids.

  You know, it is tough to be poor. It is hard work to be poor. A lot 
of parents were making enormously difficult decisions about whether 
they could get access to internet, and they were able to make that 
choice because they cared about their kids and knew how important it 
was to their future. That was the only chance they had to look for 
jobs.
  That program has been tremendously beneficial to folks you represent 
and I represent and to my colleagues who are my cosponsors on the 
extension bill, because this program will expire in months, and notices 
will be going out to families that that rebate they have depended upon 
is expiring.
  But that is why the bipartisan nature of this reflects how this 
internet program is so essential to everybody who wants and needs to 
have access to

[[Page S219]]

internet--whether they are in a Republican district or not; whether 
they are Democratic or not.
  I am proud to partner with J.D. Vance of Ohio; Jacky Rosen of Nevada; 
Kevin Cramer of South Dakota; and colleagues in the House, Yvette 
Clarke and Brian Fitzpatrick. All of us have constituents and all our 
constituents need this access to high-speed internet; so we cannot 
allow this program to expire.
  In the State of Vermont, what we have done in order to do the hard 
work of taking the money that the Federal Government has provided to 
build out high-speed internet is we created community union districts 
where towns have gotten together and used funds to contract to build 
out that internet and where that community union district has a 
commitment, not so much to shareholders or investors, but to the people 
in the community. The goal in Vermont is to make sure that farmer at 
the last mile on the dirt road in our most remote town has access to 
internet.
  It has really worked because there has been really serious community 
engagement. Our local community union districts have done an enormous 
amount to let folks know--those who are eligible, very low-income 
folks, hard-working folks--let them know about this program where that 
$30 is really going to make the difference on whether they can hook up 
or they can't.
  We are really proud in Vermont, too, of one of our first internet 
providers that was local called ECFiber. They set up their own program 
even before the affordable connectivity program was established.
  We have a decision we have to make as a Congress. Will we maintain 
this bipartisan commitment we have had to the citizens of this country 
to make certain that everybody, regardless of income, has the best 
possible opportunity to have access to that high-speed internet that is 
as essential to our well-being, our social connection, our sense of 
working together, as electricity was in the thirties?
  It is very popular among Republicans, at least 62 percent; among 
Democrats, 90 percent. But most importantly, among rural Americans, 80 
percent of rural Americans are in favor of this, and they know how 
vital this program is.
  Mr. President, 25,000 Vermont families have benefited by it, and 22.5 
million American families have benefited by it. Let us continue the 
program. Find the $7 billion that is necessary to maintain this, and 
make sure that the progress we made working together to build out high-
speed internet to make it accessible to all our citizens continues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.

                          ____________________