[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 50 (Thursday, March 21, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2552-S2554]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           GOVERNMENT FUNDING

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I am planning to bring three amendments 
to this set of appropriations bills that are coming. As we are quickly 
reading through it and going through the details and the information on 
the six

[[Page S2553]]

different sections of our Federal funding, which is incredibly 
important that we actually get done, there are many amendments that are 
here and many questions that have been raised.
  I am raising a couple of them on two different issues. The first is a 
very specific issue. It has been a challenge for us on dealing with an 
entity called special interests aliens. It is a term you and I know, 
but many other people around the country do not know.
  Special interest alien is an actual designation the Department of 
Homeland Security places on an individual when they cross the border 
based on where they are traveling from, maybe their connections there, 
areas of known terrorism, their travel patterns. The definition from 
the Department of Homeland Security is a special interest alien is a 
non-U.S. person who, based on an analysis of travel patterns, 
potentially poses a national security risk to the United States for its 
interest.
  Just to be clear, when they are labeled ``special interest aliens,'' 
the Department of Homeland Security is declaring this person 
potentially a national security risk to the United States. When that 
individual is encountered at our southern border--we asked many 
questions both of FBI and DHS--what happens next?
  In the past 5 months, we had 58 individuals who were on our Terror 
Watchlist. Those individuals on our Terror Watchlist, we know who they 
are. They have been identified. They were detained. We cannot get an 
exact number of the number of special interest aliens. These are 
individuals we know have terror links or come from an area where there 
is known terrorism or are traveling in a travel pattern that we know 
other terrorists have traveled on, so we know that much about them, but 
we don't know anything else about them.
  We asked the simple question: Are they detained? The answer so far 
has been: Not all of them.
  When someone at the southern border is declared a national security 
risk, we think it is reasonable to have that person detained at our 
southern border. In the past several days, we had almost 7,000 people a 
day illegally crossing our border. We don't know how many of those were 
labeled a national security risk, but we do believe the number in the 
past few months has been in the thousands.
  But DHS has yet to give us the exact number. We have, potentially, in 
the thousands of people who have been declared by this administration 
as a potential national security risk, and they cannot tell us if they 
have been detained, their whereabouts for all of them, how they 
determined that they were a national security risk, or what happens 
next.
  So the amendment I am bringing is very simple. The amendment I am 
bringing is to say we do not allow funding to be used to release people 
who have been designated a potential national security risk and to have 
them released into the United States so we don't have a situation where 
we have individuals identified at the border as a potential national 
security risk and then they were just released on their own 
recognizance for a future hearing. That needs to be fixed. I wish it 
was fixed today, but it is not. It is an issue. This is an issue that I 
have raised for a year now, both with DHS and with the FBI.
  I recently met with ICE at a hearing. And when I met with some of the 
leadership from ICE, I asked them about this on the detention. This was 
the response I got from ICE, current administration: It is accurate 
that we are not tracking special interest aliens on a day-to-day basis, 
not the totality of them. Some are probably on alternatives to 
detention where we have more tracking on, but we are not tracking all 
of them.
  Those who are on alternative detention means they have been released 
into the country, given a GPS device to turn themselves in later, after 
at the border they were declared a potential national security risk.
  To this body, I would challenge us to say: What would it take for us 
to detain those individuals and to make sure that we are not releasing 
people into the country whom we recognize, literally, at the border are 
a national security risk?
  That is why I am bringing this amendment to this bill to say this is 
a commonsense approach to be able to deal with a very pragmatic 
national security risk.
  A second set of amendments that I am bringing actually deals with two 
earmarks. There are lots of earmarks in this bill, and we can have our 
own debate on earmarks in this body. I don't actually request earmarks 
on it. I want competitive grants. I want to make sure we are focused on 
the highest national security priorities and the national priorities 
that we have--and we have many. My State has several. Many of your 
States do as well.
  We should compete for those to be able to make sure they were 
reaching the highest priorities. But I do understand there are some in 
this body who disagree with me on that. I disagree with some of the 
earmarks that are in this, and I see differences of opinions on some 
that are here. Some deal, though, with military bases and certain 
construction, which is totally understandable. Some deal with schools 
and certain construction--totally understandable. Some deal with a 
couple of issues that I just have a difference of opinion that is 
pretty strong.
  Two of them deal with hospitals. Two of these earmarks deal with a 
hospital. One of them is Dartmouth Hitchcock hospital in New Hampshire 
and the other one is Women & Infants Hospital in Rhode Island.

  What would be unique about those hospitals? Well, this is about $2.5 
million in earmarks between the two of them. These two hospitals 
actually do late-term abortions. They are different than other 
hospitals that are on the earmark list. In fact, not only do these two 
hospitals actually do late-term abortions, they actually advertise that 
they do late-term abortions and put the word out. They make statements 
about that they are. Let me see if I can pull this out. They make 
statements they have not only supported late-term abortions up to 22 
weeks, but they are ready to be able to do that.
  As one says, they routinely provide abortions up to 22 weeks. At 22 
weeks, we are pushing 5 months of pregnancy. We have children who are 
alive today who were born premature at 21 weeks. But they are alive 
today because they were able to get the care when they had a premature 
delivery at 21 weeks.
  To make it clear, this is what we are actually up against and what 
this looks like compared to other countries and locations: Spain does 
not allow abortion after 14 weeks. It is not legal because the country 
of Spain considers late-term abortion after 14 weeks. Germany restricts 
abortion after 12 weeks. Italy restricts abortion after 12 weeks.
  Twenty-two weeks is a late-term abortion. Most locations do not do 
that. We have a lot of differences of opinion on this issue of life and 
the value of every single child. I understand that.
  We had respectful dialogue in this Chamber multiple times on this 
issue as I brought this up, but at 22 weeks there is no question that a 
child feels pain in the womb. There is no question that at 22 weeks, 
all science shows that a baby in the womb can recognize its own mom's 
voice and will jump in the womb when there is a loud sound. At 22 
weeks, a baby even already has developed taste buds.
  Twenty-two weeks is a late-term abortion. And two of these hospitals 
that have designated earmarks perform this, and I have an objection to 
that.
  I think we, as a body, should talk about not just our standard for 
this but what does that mean. Can I just say it as simple as this? Even 
under the standard of Roe v. Wade that the Supreme Court has now turned 
back to the States, in this body, after the Dobbs decision, even under 
the standard of Roe v. Wade, 22 weeks is past the time that would be 
recognized that a child is viable based on previous experience with 
other children who have been born even before that and have survived 
and thrived. We, as a body, should recognize that.
  And I do object to those earmarks and think that is the wrong 
direction for Federal dollars to be used to be able to supply a 
hospital with dollars that is performing this type of late-term 
abortion.
  So I object to those two and will continue to be able to speak out on 
behalf of every child and the value of every child and their life in 
the days ahead. We have a decision to make as a body.

[[Page S2554]]

Are we going to stop the release of special interest aliens who have 
been designated by this administration to be a potential national 
security risk? And are we going to use Federal dollars to actually 
provide for late-term abortions through this bill? We will decide that 
tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________