you do that, as franklin roosevelt did, you have constant press conferences where you were not afraid of any questions that are going to be asked. obviously you stay on top of the public opinion polls. you travel the country and you don't just talk. you listen. and roosevelt case because of polio and all the responsibilities needed him to be in washington he sent all in all of the country. she comes back of his what people in their zone or think. as with the people in michigan are thinking. he put the people in rhode island are thinking. always information gathering and state of mind that when he decides where thinks need to go, he knows he'ser got to move thee public sentiments to agree with him on where thinks need to go. that was really, that chapter and roosevelt and how he went about moving -- >> we take you back live to the u.s. senate where lawmakers about to vote on a judicial nomination. live coverage on c-span2.

vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

the clerk: mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker.

the clerk: mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito.

the clerk: mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz.

the clerk: mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono.

the clerk: mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez.

mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema.

ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young.

the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- baldwin, bennet, blumenthal, buicker, cantwell, capito, cardin, carper, collins, cortez masto, crapo, daines, durbin, hine -- heinrich, kelly, king, klobuchar, lujan, lummis, markey, marshall, mcconnell, merkley, murphy, ossoff, padilla, paul, peters, risch, rosen, rounds, schatz, schumer,

smith, stabenow, tillis, van hollen, warner, warnock, warren, welch, wyden, and young. mr. coons, aye. mr. graham, aye. the clerk: senators voting in the negative -- barrasso, brit, cornyn, cotton, cruz, earns, grassley, johnson, kennedy, lankford, lee, paul, rubio, and thune.

the clerk: mrs. murray, aye.

vote: the clerk: mr. sullivan, no. mr. cassidy, aye.

the clerk: mr. tuberville, no.

the clerk: mr. wyden, aye.

the clerk: mr. romney, aye.

the clerk: mr. mullin, aye. mrs. fischer, no.

the clerk: mr. vance, no.

the clerk: mr. scott of south carolina, no. the clerk: mr. reed, aye.

the clerk: ms. butler, aye. mrs. gillibrand, aye.

the clerk: ms. sinema, aye. mr. boozman, no.

vote:

the clerk: mr. hoeven, aye.

the clerk: mrs. hyde-smith, no.

ms. hirono, aye.

the clerk: mr. cramer, aye.

the clerk: mr. scott of florida, no. mr. ricketts, no. the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye.

the clerk: ms. duckworth, aye. mr. manchin, aye.

the clerk: mr. budd, no. the clerk: mr. casey, aye.

the clerk: mr. braun, no.

vote: the clerk: mr. brown, aye.

the clerk: mrs. blackburn, no.

the clerk: mr. moran, aye.

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 66. the nays are 26. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the clerk will report the motion

to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 600, angela m. martinez of arizona to be a united states district judge for the district of arizona signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of angela m. martinez of arizona to be united states district judge for the district of arizona shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn.

vote: mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun.

mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar.

mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow.

mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young.

the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- bennet, brown, carper, crapo, heinrich, hirono, king, is manchin, moran, murkowski, schatz, sinema, tillis, welch, whitehouse. senators voting in the negative -- barrasso, blackburn, lee, ricketts, sullivan, thune.

the clerk: mr. kelly, aye. mr. ossoff, aye.

mr. warner, aye. the clerk: mr. scott of south carolina, no.

the clerk: mr. paul, no. mr. johnson, no. mr. mullin, aye.

the clerk: mr. casey, aye.

the clerk: mrs. hyde-smith, no. mr. padilla, aye. mr. romney, aye.

ms. stabenow, aye. the clerk: ms. cantwell, aye.

the clerk: mr. wicker, aye. the clerk: mr. peters, aye. ms. cortez masto, aye.

the clerk: mr. van hollen, aye.

the clerk: mr. cotton, no. mr. rubio, no. mrs. gillibrand, aye. mr. daines, no.

the clerk: ms. butler, aye. ms. collins, aye. mr. cornyn, no.

the clerk: ms. lummis, no. mrs. murray, aye. mr. graham, aye.

ms. smith, aye. mr. cardin, aye. ms. duckworth, aye. the clerk: ms. ernst, no. mr. cassidy, aye.

the clerk: ms. klobuchar, aye.

the clerk: mr. risch, aye. mr. grassley, no. mr. braun, no.

ms. baldwin, aye.

the clerk: mr. kennedy, nominate -- mr. kennedy, no.

the clerk: mr. coons, aye. mr. blumenthal, aye.

the clerk: ms. rosen, aye. vote: the clerk: mr. schumer, aye. mr. boost, no. mrs. capito, aye. mr. kaine, aye.

mr. hickenlooper, aye.

the clerk: mr. scott of florida, no. mr. lankford, aye. mr. merkley, aye.

the clerk: mr. murphy, aye. mr. fetterman, aye.

the clerk: mrs. fischer, no.

the clerk: mr. budd, no.

the clerk: mr. sanders, aye. the clerk: mr. tuberville, no.

the clerk: mr. w -- /* -- the clerk: mr. wyden, aye. mr. vance, no.

the clerk: mr. young, aye.

the clerk: mr. durbin, aye.

the clerk: mr. cramer, aye.

the clerk: mr. warnock, aye. mr. schmitt, no.

vote:

the clerk: ms. warren, aye.

the clerk: mr. mcconnell, aye. mr. marshall, aye.

the clerk: mr. rounds, no.

the clerk: mr. reed, aye.

the clerk: mr. cruz, no.

the clerk: mrs. britt, no.

the clerk: mrs. britt, no.

the settlement agreement and said that that applied to not only unaccompanied children forcing the release within 20 days, but it also applied to children accompanied planets. one court decision that did weaken a presidential authority. the fact of the matter is because of the aca that sparked all of this and president trump based his border crisis, he used the president's authority that the supreme court in 2018 decision talking about the immigration nationalization act said that current law exudes deference in every clause.

entrusting the president's decisions when and whether to suspend entry. for how long and in what conditions. the president with ample power for entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the nationality act. so, obviously, president trump was able to use existing authority, he close the border in 12 months. twelve months. not through any help by congress passing the law, by using that authority where the supreme court said the law exudes to the executive. well, when president biden came into office, he blew the border wide open. how? he did it by using that exact same executive authority. he exuded deference to the president. he used that, he used that authority and he blew up the border we see the catastrophe that has resulted.

now, the problem with this bill is that it codifies most biden open border policy. it sets thresholds. 5000, 4000. i will talk about those in greater detail. thresholds that do what? it does not really secure the border. it sends those individuals to the ports of entry to have their silent claims adjudicated in a goldberg type of situation. spent almost $20 billion, this bill. $20 billion. primarily, again, to accomplish securing the border which is to more efficiently encounter process and disburse illegal migrants that do not have the asylum claims. that is what this bill does.

it builds more detention facilities. it hires a small number border patrol agents. it hires over 4000 asylum officers to adjudicate these claims. they use a new standard. i don't see much distinction there. the officers will be given all kinds of discretion and these adjudications will now be done by asylum officers not by immigration judges. i see nothing in this bill that in any way shape or form forces a higher standard. it is all subjective. under this administration, the subjectiveness of that i can pretty much guarantee you will continue the catastrophe. it pays for more detention beds.

it pays which has never worked. effectively. $20 billion of money that we do not have. when trump secure the border, he did not have additional funding for that. he did not have additional custom border patrol agents. he used his policies. he used his executive authority. remain in mexico. you cannot come to this country and claim asylum. it was a huge deterrent. third country agreements. there are other things. using that executive authority he secured the border. we did not need an immigration bill. we have this goal forget bill that spends $20,000 that we do not have. rather than spending all of that money to encourage more illegal immigrants come to this country,

we ought to stop the flow and that we would not have to spend the money. that makes a whole lot more sense. do what president trump did it actually stop the flow. that is not what this bill does. i think the worst aspect of this bill, this is why i always talk about it being worse than doing nothing. not the 5000 average migrants a day, that is what this would look like it we just normalize 5000 or 4000. you are just codifying the open border. the 5000 threshold makes it mandatory that the president supposedly secure the border. i would argue that does not even secure the border. but it is the 4000 discretionary threshold that when average migration reaches 4000 a day, a

massive number, now the president has discretion to stop processing asylum claims and supposedly secure the border. the supreme court said current law exudes deference. president trump had the authority by congress passing a law basically implying the president does not have the authority to stop the asylum claimses. . the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. ms. smith: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that if a motion to proceed to senate joint resolution 58 is made, the motion to proceed be agreed to and that at 6:00 p.m. the joint resolution be considered read a third time and the senate vote on passage of the joint resolution, with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. ms. smith: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the

senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. smith: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. smith: mr. president, i rise today to voice my support for the world prosperity and food security act, which is the strong bipartisan farm bill proposal that has been put forward by our colleague from michigan, senator stabenow, chair of the agriculture committee. chair stabenow's framework reflects more than two years of work and outreach and contains more than 100 bipartisan bills, and it puts the 2024 farm bill back on track for being signed into law this year. as chair stabenow says, this farm bill is designed to keep farmers farming, families fed, and rural communities strong. you know, the farm bill touches nearly every aspect of life, touching the life of every american. it is a big, complicated piece of legislation. but at its core, it does three things. the first is that it governs how nutrition assistance like snap works. for 42 million americans,

including 2.5 million rural residents. so the second thing is that it sets the rules for how farm and forestry programs work, including conservation, risk management tools like crop insurance, animal health, research and education and forestry and timber. and, third, it drives rural development by supporting rural broadband, housing and rural energy so that rural america can be strong and prosperous and carpetive. for many years, the farm bill has bucked the tide of partisanship in congress by finding common ground, providing stability and predictability to farmers and ranchers in rural communities and by sustaining more than 23 million jobs across the country. and why does it pass with such broad bipartisan support? because we have all agreed in congress to support what i think of as the three pillars of the farm bill -- nutrition assistance, farming and conservation programs, and rural development.

this has been the grand bargain of congress that we agree together to keep each of these pillars strong and then you can pass the bill. if you weaken any of these pillars, then a bipartisan farm bill it just doesn't stand. and, colleagues, this grand bargain will be the recipe for success for the 2024 farm bill as well. so i want to spend a few minutes talking about where we have agreement and what more we need to do to pass a strong bipartisan bill. chair stabenow released her proposal in early may, and just this week the house agriculture committee will mark up chair thompson's proposal. while chair thompson should be commended for including many proposals with broad bipartisan support, his bill significantly weakens nutrition and conservation programs, and this undermines the grand bargain that is necessary to pass a bipartisan bill. here's what i'm talking about when it comes to nutrition programs. so almost 45 million americans live in homes that don't have

access to affordable food, regular access to affordable food. and almost all of these households are either working families or seniors or people that are living with disabilities. and this is interesting and especially a rural issue. households in rural areas are even more affected. of the ten counties facing food insecurity, the top ten counties facing the greatest food insecurity in this country, nine are primarily rural areas. so chair stabenow's proposal, which i support, strengthens nutrition assistance. it makes certain that nutrition assistance now and into the future is going to meet the needs of americans by making sure that monthly stipends are up so that families can afford the food that they need. and, mr. president, i want to just note, it's not as if people are getting lots and lots of money here. i think the average cost for a family -- the average benefit of a family is somewhere in the neighborhood of $6 a day. so this is not -- we're not

talking about a lot of money per person. now, in contrast, a the house republican proposal prevents nutrition assistance from keeping pace with food costs. so what does that mean for a family that's relying on snap benefits, for example? the congressional budget office estimates that the house republican farm bill could result in a $30 billion cut to snap over the next decades. so this is going to hurt people, it's not going to help them, and it won't work, and it won't pass with bipartisan support. so simply put, any farm bill proposal that weakens nutrition assistance now or in the future, it can't pass congress. now, the foundational farm bill risk management research conservation programs, those foundational programs, are also incredibly important and they should be strengthened, not weakened, in the next farm bill. to that end, chair stabenow's farm bill includes many bipartisan provisions that i fought for, along with many of my colleagues on both sides of

the aisle. it improves updates to krupp as if in morning business and other -- to crop insurance and other usda programs, especially for small and beginning farms and farmers from more diverse backgrounds, black, hmong farmers, recent african immigrants. across our country and minnesota, the average age of farmers ssess 58-60 years old. it is essential for the future of our food system and for agriculture and farming that crop insurance is going to work for the next generation of farmers taking over. that's what chair stabenow's bill does. i wiant to note that chair stabenow's bill maintains the sugar program. it rungs at zero cost to taxpayers. it makes sure that american farmers can compete on a fair playing field against stabilized foreign -- price-subsidized

foreign sugar. senator stabenow's farm bill includes updates to the dairy margin coverage program that we established in the 2018 bill. i expect, mr. president, this is important to the vermont dairy farmers, and it is important to minnesota farmers. it provides them with an additional tool to help them manage the inevitable ups and downs of the sector where they are competing. and when it comes to what we need to do around conservation, senator stabenow's farm bill also protects the transformational conservation and climate-smart laws that we passed in the inflation reduction act. you don't need to tell minnesota farmers that climate change is real. they see it every day in the growing intensity of the storms and droughts a and fire and flood that they contend with. and they also appreciate that better support for conservation programs for working farm and ranchland is good for their bottom line and improves their resilience. american family farmers are good

stewards of their land and federal conservation programs need to support them. climate-smart conservation means healthier soil and less need for expensive inputs. it is a win for farmers, for rural communities, and it is a win for the fight against climate change, and it is also true that we need to get a better understanding and be able to measure better how farming and ranching practices are working to sequester carbon and improve soil health. i appreciate chair stab kn knauss -- i appreciate chair stabenow's work to help farmers identify best practices to make their farms more resilient and to combat climate change at the same time. so now is not the time to dismantle our weaken conservation and climate-smart agriculture efforts. and this is why proposals in chair thompson's bill in the house to strip out the climate-smart guardrails within our conservation programs, that just won't work, and it will not

get the bipartisan support that the farm bill needs. both republicans and democrats i know appreciate the importance of a strong rural development title in the farm bill, so i want to touch on that for a minute as well. small towns are creative, diverse, wonderful places to live and raise a family. they produce our food and energy. they are hubs of manufacturing, small business, education, health care, the arts and culture and the farm bill needs to support them and that is what chair stabenow's framework accomplishes. this farm bill has a strong energy title including reauthorize reap, helps small businesses design projects to improve energy efficiency and build out new renewable energy sources. it creates jobs, reduces energy bills and cuts greenhouse gas emissions. so i'm glad that improvements and updates that i pushed for

are included in the chair's framework. i'm also glad to see included child care options and improve broadband. people living in rural areas and tribal communities should not be stuck with slow internet speeds that folks in the cities would never put up with. this farm bill mandates faster minimum speeds for usda broadband programs. that's what i pushed for in the work that i've done as well. now, mr. president, over the last several years many individuals and groups have done excellent work to develop a strong farm bill. so as i conclude, i want to particularly note the excellent work and advocacy of the native farm bill coalition. this is over 170 tribes and native groups that have worked together to improve how usda and farm programs work with tribal governments and native producers from farming and ranching to nutrition programs, rural development and forestry. this is incredibly important

work especially because too often native voices have not been heard in this policy development. in 2018, the farm bill changed that. under chair stabenow's leadership, the 2018 farm bill included over 60 provisions that benefited indian country. this was a huge success and we learned a lot from that, and this next farm bill has to continue that progress. members of the native farm bill coalition are visiting washington just this week to testify to our responsibility in congress as defined in our treaty and trust obligations to include native farmers and tribal governments in decisions about agriculture and forestry. we need to listen to them. it is actual little our obligation to listen to them and right the wrongs that have been perpetrated since the beginning of federal farm and nutrition policy and long before. tribal self-government is an essential step here. self-governance, what it does is

it recognizes that tribal nations authority to administer federal programs, they have that authority within their own communities, and it recognizes that. this is not a new idea, mr. president. it's worked successfully for over 30 years and is widely seen as one of the most successful federal indian policies that we've moved forward. and it works because it recognizes that tribal governments are in the best position to know ma their communities -- to know what their communities need and they know best how to deliver them. this is called the 638 authority. folks may have seen this on people walking with buttons around the hallways talking about 638 authority. what it comes from is the indian self-determination and education p assistance act. it says tribes can have the authority to plan and conduct and administer federal programs. so the 2018 farm bill created several self-governance pilot projects in forestry and nutrition programs. these were very successful and

they should be made permanent. chair stabenow's bill does this along with also including other provisions to recognize and respect the role of tribal governments and native producers and we can do more. with expanded authority tribal nations will be able to increase access to indigenous foods and use indigenous knowledge for forest management and support strong tribal economies. tribal leaders often say nothing about us without us. this value must guide us as we pass a 2024 farm bill. and i will continue to stand with native leaders so that we can continue to make progress and pass the very best farm bill possible. one that respects our responsibilities to tribes and to native people, one that keeps farmers farming, families fed, and rural and tribal communities strong. we have a lot more work to do, but we've made progress, and i

am ready to keep up the work with my democratic and republican colleagues to pass a farm bill that delivers on this promise. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, this week majority leader chuck

schumer is bringing up the failed border bill that the senate already rejected in february, all in a political ploy to give vulnerable democrat senators up for reelection camouflage to hide their real views on the border. that failed border bill is nothing but a fig leaf that pretends to do something about border security but wouldn't actually secure the border. in fact, if it became law it would make the problem worse. this democrat bill would codify catch and release. it would put into federal law joe biden's policy of releasing illegal aliens into this country. that is the cause of the open border crisis we have right now. it would normalize 5,000 illegal immigrants a day. that works out to 1.8 million illegal immigrants a year, every

year, year after year forever. it would provide immediate work permits to illegal aliens when they cross the border illegally. and it would provide many of them with taxpayer-funded lawyers. not only is the bill by design utterly ineffective in securing the border, it is designed to fail. in fact, we can quantify mathematically the chances this bill has of passing the house of representatives, and those chances are 0.00%. there is however a bill that we know would actually secure the border and would do so right now. it would put real penalties in place to end catch and release and to defund the ngo's that are a critical part of the human trafficking network. that bill is h.r. 2. and h.r. 2 has already passed the house of representatives. i'm proud to lead h.r. 2 here in

the senate. if the democrats want to do the responsible thing that would actually secure the border, we would pass h.r. 2. but instead the democrats deliberately want this border crisis to continue. every single democrat member of this body -- and we know this because every one of them has voted over and over and over again against policies to actually secure the border. when joe biden came into office, he inherited the lowest rate of illegal immigration in 45 years. all president biden had to do was nothing. just don't screw it up. but instead he deliberately broke the system. he made three decisions his first week of office that caused this crisis. number one, he immediately halted construction of the border wall. number two, he reinstated the disastrous policy of catch and release, the policy that democrats now want to put into

federal law. and number three, he pulled out of the incredibly successful remain in mexico agreement. the remain in mexico agreement is what had produced the lowest rate of illegal immigration in 45 years. and what happened? we went from incredible success at securing the border to immediately the worst illegal immigration in our nation's history. over 11 million illegal immigrants have come into this country under joe biden and the democrats. it is an invasion. it is larger than the population of more than half of our states. now why on earth would the democrats turn a blind eye to the people who are suffering and dying? why would they turn a blind eye to the body bags, to the 853 migrants who died last year crossing illegally? why would they turn a blind eye to the children being brutalized by human traffickers? why would they turn a blind eye to the women being sexually

assaulted by human traffickers? why would they turn a blind eye to the more than 100,000 americans who died last year of overdoses? why would the democrats turn a blind eye to the families of the children being murdered by illegal immigrants that joe biden is releasing? the answer, sadly, is that they see every one of these 11 million illegal immigrants as future democrat voters, and it's a cynical decision that in order to stay in power, it's fine for people to suffer and die. in just a moment i'm going to propound a unanimous consent request to take up and pass h.r. 2. when i do so, we'll have a moment of decision. all the democrats have to do for this to pass is nothing. just like joe biden, all joe biden had to do at the beginning of his presidency to not parekh

the border was nothing. just keep in place the policies that were working. when i asked for unanimous consent to pass this bill, if the democrats do nothing, it will pass the senate and go immediately to president biden's desk and he can sign it into law. i'm going to predict right now we're going to hear two magic words from the democrats. we're going to hear the words i object, because they object to securing the border. they object to stopping this invasion. they object to standing up to the cartels. they object to protecting the american people. but before i do that, i want to yield to my colleague from kansas, senator marshall. mr. marshall: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. marshall: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank the senator from texas to leading the charge up here to secure our border. since day one joe biden has allowed the cartels to have operational control of our nation's border exploiting every weakness and pushing deadly fentanyl into our communities, killing over 300 americans every

day. i rise today to join my colleague in calling for unanimous consent for h.r. 2, the secure our borders act, which the house passed over a year ago as set languaging here on this side of the capitol waiting for a hearing, waiting for a vote. time after time the president and his administration have shown us that our national security is an afterthought. we're facing unprecedented times. under this president's watch, over 11 million illegal aliens are here now on u.s. soil. and instead of taking any real measures to address the crisis, he's doubling down. with just six months left to the election, the left wants you to believe they have stumbled upon a solution to the border crisis they created. in the news this week, we'll see the democrats' bait and switch tactics and i want to remind the american people to watch what the majority leader and this administration do, no the what they say.

they have no serious solution. they know it. and that's why it's painfully obvious that the -- being politically motivated. americans are feeling unsafe due to joe biden's worsening border crisis. even a state like kansas is now a border state. fentanyl is flooding into our communities across the state claiming a life almost every day, and now is the leading cause of death among young adults in america. joe biden's border crisis has resulted in over 300 known terrorists being apprehended in the past year for attempting to cross the southern border. additionally, over 35,000 chinese nationals and thousands of individuals from countries like afghanistan, iran, iraq, and syria, have crossed through our southern border. we're in a sad state of affairs when our foreign adversaries are paying closer attention to our vulnerabilities at our borders than the president of the united states.

even our own fbi is sounding the alarm now warning because of this invasion, we're in high alert for a terrorist attack in the coming months. i stand today with a clear message for this chamber. it is time to do what is right for the american people, no the politically motivated messaging signs that aren't serious to the people who have been victims of the biden administration's lawlessness. mr. president, we have a solution to secure our borders. a proposal that could go to the president's desk today. let's pass the secure our borders act, h.r. 2. this legislation tightens standards. it builds a wall, increases border patrol agents and ends catch and release. it passed out of the house over a year ago, but the majority leader refuses us to take a vote in the senate. if senate democrats were truly serious about securing our borders, enforcing the rule of law and protecting our nation's sovereignty, they would stop wasting time and take up h.r. 2 today.

without secure borders, we cannot ensure our nation's safety. this national security crisis is unprecedented, and we have thoughtful, real solutions to address it immediately. americans deserve to feel safe in their own homes. this half baked so-called border bill is an insult to laken riley and her family and every other american citizen who has been victimized by crimes committed by someone who should not be in this country. even the lead democrat architect of the so-called border bill has said flat out this legislation does not close the border. you can quote him. it does not close the border. that's all the american people need to hear to see how fast and loose the democrat party is willing to play with our national security. this is a campaign stunt for the candidates you have in battleground states who are on political life support and no grandstanding in washington this week will change that fact. i'd like to yield back to the

senator from texas. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, now is the moment we will discover whether or not the senate will pass real and strong legislation to secure the border. again, all the democrats have to do to send h.r. 2 to the president's desk to be able to signed today is nothing. and so let's listen for those magic words, the two magic words that would kill this bill are i object. let's hear if that's what the democrats have to say. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 71, h.r. 2, the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there an objection? mr. durbin: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: now for the rest of the story, last october president biden had al major piece of legislation -- a major

piece of legislation that provided assistance to ukraine in its battle against vladimir putin, provided assistance to israel, assistance to taiwan, and a massive amount of humanitarian aid. it was bipartisan we thought. and then the republicans, particularly in the senate, stepped up and said we're not going to consider any bill like that unless you attach something to deal with our border, border security. well, we said how are we going to achieve that? they gave us a formula that they wanted. they wanted to have their lead negotiator, the senate republicans did, one of our colleagues, senator james lankford of oklahoma. james lankford is a certified conservative. i'm sure he would be happy to be called that and a person i respect a great deal. he is a man of principle and he was in charge of negotiating on the republican side. so they asked us who do you want to -- democrats to negotiate with. we said chris murphy of

connecticut and kyrsten sinema, an independent democrat from arizona. the three of them went to work in october of last year and they worked on this for weeks, months. went back and forth and it looked many times like it was hopeless. couldn't reach an agreement. but lo and behold they did. they came up with a bill, a bill that massively changed the way we manage the border. and they brought it to the white house and they said to joe biden in this bipartisan bill, this bipartisan bill, will you support it and he said i will. so we had a perfect formula, a bipartisan bill in a -- and a congress with a democrat senate and a republican house and a president of the united states who says i'll sign it. so what happened next? that's the best part. they went and asked the reaction, many republicans didn't take yes for an answer because we had this bipartisan bill. the architect being the republican senator of their choice. they decided to ask one man whether they should go forward.

want to guess who it was? donald trump. donald trump said no, i'm sorry, i don't want to see this issue go away. i want to be able to work on this issue as part of my presidential campaign in the year 2024. i'm telling you right now stop that bill. stop that bipartisan bill. don't vote for it. and he said if you want to know, you can blame me. go ahead and blame me for stopping that bill. that's what he said. that's a quote i saw on the record. i saw him say it. in fact, most of the reaction except for a handful on the other side of the aisle then decided the lankford bipartisan bill was no longer acceptable because trump said it was unacceptable. and that's what happened. and so that bill died and didn't go forward. and unfortunately, we know the reality as i mentioned earlier. my immigration bill that has a ghost of a chance needs to be bipartisan. this bill would prohibit funding for processing individuals who arrive at our border between

ports of entry. think about that. the bill would prohibit funding for processing individualing who arrive at our border between ports of entry. this would prevent border patrol agents from executing their duties and essentially create an open border in between ports of entry. this bill would also dramatically limit the use of parole programs that the biden administration and prior administrations, republicans and democrats, have relied on for emergencies. i'm proud to represent the city of chicago. there is a section of that city called ukrainian village. it's near north. i've been there many times, been to their churches, schools, been to their bakeries, as you can tell. i really like that section of chicago and a lot of ukrainian americans live there. when we decided to help the refugees from the ukrainian war under president biden and others, we said that we would give them an opportunity to come to the safety of of the united states while the war was pending. in the city of chicago we

estimate that 36,000 ukrainians came to chicago. we basically said to them if you can find a family to sponsor you, we'll give you a work permit and you can stay here while the conflict continues in your country. they were absorbed into the chicago and illinois and midwest economy without a ripple. they're hardworking people, good people. they were accepted in the churches, in the schools and their kids went to school there and really contributed to the chicago scene. they've done a good job while the authority like a president like biden to make that decision for ukrainian refugees is removed by this bill. this authority has been relied on by the executive branch for decades in emergency situations. the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of vietnamese allies in the 1970's and evacuation of thousands of iraqi kurds in the 1990's would be eliminated by this bill. this parls legislation only received republican votes, not a single democrat vote. this partisan legislation also includes many provisions that

are completely unrelated to border security. for example, listen to this one, how about this? want to put this in a comprehensive border bill? it would prohibit funds from being used by the department of homeland security to purchase electric vehicles for the agencies, law enforcement agencies. what in the heck is that all about? this bill would also impose mandatory electronic employment verification known as e-verify on every sector of the american economy. i left the meeting in my office with a person representing in the state of north carolina. you know what percentage our farmworkers in america working today, going out and harvesting crops and fruits and vegetables? you know what percentage are undocumented? 50%. 50% are undocumented today. so this bill would impose mandatory e-verify and would include the agriculture industry and these undocumented workers, 50% of agriculture workers would

be unable to work. what would that do to our food supply chain? i can tell you it would come to a grinding halt and it would dramatically increase food prices. hear that, america? this provision by the junior senator from texas would raise food prices on its own, massive consequences for american families. this bill is so extreme that there was a bipartisan opposition to it in the house of representatives. under close scrutiny this bill is simply not a serious effort to secure our border. it would harm our economy and make our country less safe and less secure. the bipartisan bill which donald trump and many of the senate republicans killed would have worked to move us in the right direction. we had an opportunity to vote on this legislation that would have actually helped us on the border. thou i had some concerns about it, i thought it was a genuine bipartisan effort i could support. i would disappointed but hardly surprised that the vast majority of my republican colleagues, including the junior senator from texas, who is making this motion today, voted against it.

this bipartisan bill with james lankford's leadership on the republican side rejected out of hand by republicans in the senate. it's no surprise to me the junior senator did that. the only time we brought a bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill to the floor, he voted against that, too. it's no surprise. this bill written by the senate republicans designated a negotiator, senator lankford of oklahoma, endorsed by the national border patrol council, the union that represents border patrol agents, the speaker of the house declared it dead on arrival in the house before the text was even released. we can only fix our broken immigration system if we do it on a bipartisan basis. nobody gets their way around here. you have to work for xhofrp mice. it's clear the house republicans are unwilling to help secure the border under those terms. instead they want to maintain the crisis at the border to help score political points for their favorite candidate for president. instead of a symbolic and failed effort to pass bipartisan bills

that won't actually address challenges, let's work together on a bipartisan basis. let's start with the lankford bill. that's the opportunity that will be on the floor. if you want to change it, let's amend it but for goodness sakes, let's start with the bill we agreed would be the starting point not that long ago before donald trump made his pronouncement. one that supports our frontline law enforcement officials, addresses the needs of the economy, provides a path to citizenship for dreamers, and immigrant farmworkers and livers up to our nation's legacy of providing safe harbor for refugees fleeing for their lives. the american people are tired of partisan bickering over legislation. three want us to work together and stand by america's fundamental principles, proudly i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: well, i'd like to say i'm surprised but i'm not. it is worth, though, pausing to reflect both what the senator from illinois said and what he

didn't say. what he didn't say, he didn't dispute the point i made about this democrat bill they're having a show vote on later this week. he didn't dispute that this bill codifies catch and release, that it puts into federal statute joe biden's lawless practice of releasing illegal immigrants when they're apprehended. he didn't dispute that. he didn't dispute that this bill would normalize 5,000 illegal immigrants a day, 1.8 million up illegal immigrants a year every year forever. he didn't dispute that either. he didn't dispute that this bill would give illegal immigrants who are apprehended immediate work permits. didn't dispute that. he didn't dispute that this bill would give many of them taxpayer funded lawyers and he also didn't dispute a point i made many other times, although i didn't just make it, that it would give billions of dollars to the ngo's that are part of the human trafficking network,

that it would fund the people trafficking millions into this country. he didn't dispute any of that. instead, he said the standard democrat line which is trump, trump, trump. trump is the bad guy. it's all trump's fault. and i get in democrat circles, trump is the boogie man but there's a simple fact when donald trump was in the whitehouse and when he was actually working to secure the border, we had the lowest rate of up grags in 45 years -- immigration in 45 years. when joe biden and the democrats are in charge, we have the highest rate of immigration in history. that is a fact. and all the political smoke and mirrors by the democrats can't hide that fact. but there's also -- it's also interesting what he did say. he gave these epic words about chicago welcoming immigrants partisan and he's right. our country was built by legal

immigrants, by people following the law, coming here the right way. my father came as an immigrant from cuba. there is a right way to come, following the rules. i found it striking, though that when he was saying how much chicago loves illegal immigrants, that he somehow omitted that the mayor of chicago has declared an emergency because of the crisis of illegal immigrants flooding into the city of chicago, illegal immigrants taking resources from the residents of, being housed in chicago o'hare airport. we're seeing illegal immigrants in places in new york being put in public schools and throwing americans out of their facilities. the mayor of new york city is a liberal democrat, like the mayor of chicago, has said that illegal immigration is a crisis that is destroying new york city. and yet senator durbin told us

in essence, the democrats are the party of open border oz. -- borders. he said farmworkers, we can't get anyone to work on the farm unless we have those open borders. apparently, in the democrats' view, americans are lazy and don't want to work and the only way to grow our food is to open our borders to a full-on invasion. if people have to die, if people have to get murdered by criminals and gang bangers released by democrats day after day after day, that's an acceptable price to the democrats. because, if you listen top his criticism of h.r. 2, you know what he said? well, the people who are here illegally, they wouldn't be able to work. my god, it would stop illegal immigration. that is his objection. that is the democrats' objection. they object to this bill because

it would do what they say they want to do, and the truth is they don't twoontsd that. joe biden could secure the border today. he broke the border by unilateral action. prevents him from -- nothing prevents him from ending those three actions. every democrat in this chamber supports those open border policies. i'm going to close by observing the very real victims of the democrats' open border policies. there are some democrat policies that are victim manies. this is not -- that are victimless. this is not one of them. we've heard a lot about laken riley. it is worth reflecting on what exactly happened to her. the murderer that murdered her came from venezuela illegally. he was apprehended in el paso, texas. all joe biden had to do is follow the law. if he had followed the law, what

would he have done with an illegal immigrant from venezuela? he would have put him on a plane an flown him back. but he didn't do that. they've decided they want open borders. instead, they release this legal immigrant. they let him go. what did he do? he went to new york city and we caught him again. he committed another crime. this time he endangered the safety of a child, and new york city caught him, they arrested him. all they had to do was follow the law and put him in jail. if they'd done that, laken riley would still be alive. if joe biden and the democrats had followed the law, laken riley would still be alive. but new york city is a sanctuary city, so they let him go, again. and the murderer came down to georgia and laken rile lakers a beautiful 22-year-old woman, she went out jogging for what she thought was going to be a beautiful day you and this illegal immigrant that the democrats had released over and

over and over again picked up a brick and beat her to death. mr. president, that's happening every week. another name you don't hear democrats say is jeremy caceres. a beautiful 2-year-old boy murdered in prince george's county, maryland, just a few miles from where we are right now by another illegal immigrant that joe biden and the democrats released. and i want to finally point, mr. president, to a 15-year-old girl in your home state, boston, massachusetts. not only is the biden administration allowing a completely open border and releasing illegal immigrants that are apprehended, but they are flying hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants directly from their home countries into america, in this case, the biden administration flew an illegal immigrant from haiti to boston, massachusetts. he didn't try to cross

illegally. the biden administration said, come on. get on an airplane. we'll bring you to boston. he's been arrested now for violently raping a 15-year-old girl. -- with severe mental disabilities. this is sick. this is grotesque. and this is happening day after day after day. and we have a bill right now we could pass that would stop it, and the democrats' answer is i object. and another american is is going to be killed next week and the week after and the week after and the democrats all in the name of power are perfectly fine with it. the good news is, an election is coming. and in january 2025 with a new administration, we will solve this problem. we will secure the border, we will stop this invasion, and we'll protect the american people. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, if my democratic colleagues were really serious about addressing the crisis unfolding on our border, they would demand that senator schumer immediately take up h.r. 2 instead of his counterproductive and excessively, at best, weak bill that would, if anything, only make matters worse along the border. sadly, sadly they're not. we know that by their actions. their actions today, actions that we've seen just moments ago. we're still encountering close to 180,000 illegal immigrants at our southern border each and every month. since president biden took office, there have been over 9.5 million illegal immigrant encounters nationwide. those are just the ones we know about. the actual estimates put it at 12 million or 13 million that may have crossed illegally. over 350 individuals on the terrorist watch list have been stopped while trying to cross

the southern border. over 27,583 citizens of communist china have been encountered at the southwest border in the last year alone. by any metric, this administration has no interest in securing our border. in fact, quite to the contrary. the data suggests this administration wants as many illegal immigrants to enter this country as possible. my democratic colleagues want us to think that the republicans are responsible for prolonging the crisis. why? because we were unwilling to pass a bad immigration bill mass ca masquerade -- masquerading as an immigration bill. i continue to believe that h.r. 2 would solve most of our most vexing problems at our southern border. it's not that you have to have new legislation to fix it.

but this would fix it. it would fix it because it would cabin president biden's authority to allow this to continue to happen. but he doesn't need legislation. he could do this all on his own. but become to the point, if the democrats were serious here, that is what democrats would allows to do is to take up and pass h.r. 2. now, sadly, that offer was rejected moments ago, and so trying to find something that will work, i'm offering a smaller, narrower bill, a bill that doesn't contain all the same provisions but that would help alleviate the crisis by closing some of the most gaping loopholes in the law that are allowing this thing to continue, again cabining the he prosecute's discretion, forcing his hand so as to make it more difficult for him to perpetuate this cycle of illegal border crossings. now, to be clear, this isn't the entire answer. but if my democrat colleagues

can't agree to those commonsense reforms found in h.r. 2, then if they can't agree to consider these reforms that are narrower that i'm offering, how honestly can we take their concern about the border crisis seriously? the stopping border surges act would address loopholes in our immigration laws that create some of the perverse incentives for illegal immigration. it could clarify that an adult cannot bring a child in this country expecting that child to be his or her ticket to avoid detention. this bill would help eliminate the disturbing recycling of children and babies by coyotes and by international drug cartels. it would allow all unaccompanied children to be returned to their home countries, thus ending the incentive for parents to send their young children here alone. sadly, we see what's happening to those children under the

supervision of the biden administration and secretary mayorkas. they're trafficked either into child slavery, sex slavery, as drug mules or some combination of the above. my bill would require the department of health and human services to provide the department of homeland security with biographical information about the persons to whom children are released. it would require asylum seekers to apply for asylum. it would combat the biden administration obliteration of the fear standard by tightening that standard back to where it should be. the correct application of this standard is pivotal to operation of our asylum system, for it to be there for those who need it and are entitled to it while protecting it from being abused. -- as it has been. it's been corrupted over the

last three and a half years, and more recently it's gotten much, much worse. in fact the biden administration has, you might say, destroyed it entirely. we must fix it. we have an obligation to do so. this stopping border surges act would also close loopholes and restrict asylum to aliens who present themselves at an official port of entry. we must eliminate these loopholes, not allow this administration to continue to expand them and indeed to make more of them. congress must take back the authority to establish law, and we can start that today with the stopping border surges act. ending the ambiguities in our current law will help mitigate the situation at the border and prevent unaccountable bureaucrats from acting with impunity, as the despot in miniature that they've become to

enforce their own policy preferences at their own will and whim. so i urge my colleagues to support what which i'm about to do here, which is to ask that we consider this bill. now, keep in mind, just a moment ago i had colleagues offer up to pass by unanimous consent h.r. 2. i'm offering a narrower, more targeted fix, and i'm asking unanimous consent not that it be passed right now but just that we be allude to consider it, that -- allowed to consider it, that we bring it up, debate it, and dispose of it with votes. i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 685 hand that the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: recapping, we had a bipartisan bill, republicans in the senate said we've got a negotiator here, don't bring

anybody new to the table. his name is james lankford, he is a conservative senator from the state of oklahoma. i respect him and i like him. and he headed up their negotiating. you on our side we had chris -- on our side we had chris if you are murphy -- chris murphy, and senator sinema. the three of them worked together. the bill they put together was endorsed by the national border council. when i hear the stories said by the junior senator from texas, about the terrible things that would acur, i wonder if he consider talking to the border patrol agents a who thought that it made sense? we were ready to go. we were going to have a bipartisan bill and would was going to be the beginning of the negotiation to do something about the border. we need to do something about the border. and then what happened? and that is matter of record. everyone has seen it. all the clips are on television. they went to the punitive -- i

guess that's the word -- republican candidate for president, donald trump, and said we have a bipartisan bill to consider in the senate. he said, kill it. stop the bill. don't vote for it. i'd rather have the issue. i don't want to give joe biden credit for anything. we're going to be against it and everybody who is loyal to me need to vote no. and guess what? virtually all the republican senators voted no. take a look at what's being proposed by my colleague and friend, senator lee from utah. this bill targets the most vulnerable people seeking safety in the united states, children traveling to the united states without parent or guardian. families with minor children and asylum seekers fleeing persecution. this bill would strip away protections for unaccompanied children. it would deport many of these kids back into the hands of smugglers who exploit them.

keep others in detention up to one month. you know what detention our border is for a child? it's a cage. i've seen them. that's exactly what would happen. they would sit in cages for a month. this bill would require families to be detained. detained is a nice word for incarcerated. a failed policy that has disastrous effects on kids and doesn't make the border more secure. this bill would impose multiple restrictions on asylum. the biden administration is doing what it can do now to secure the border under our outdated immigration laws. the biden administration endorsed the bipartisan bill which these republican senators all voted against. the administration has dramatically increased deportations of those who are not eligible, made tough changes to our asylum system and improved access to lawful pathways to deter illegal

immigration. ultimately you know whose responsibility it is to write this bill? congress. you know what the best starting point is? the bipartisan lankford bill that came to the floor of the senate. that's what we're going to offer on the floor. if you want to negotiate from there, offer amendments to that, be might be guest. that's what the senate is about. the notion of the senator from utah that this ought to be a starting point i think is a bad idea. a bipartisan group of senators negotiated a good starting point. it was written by their negotiator. i respect him and i think all members of the senate should. yet when it came to a vote the vast majority of republicans wouldn't support it. i just want to close by saying this. this is an issue i worked with my entire career in the senate. i introduced the dream act over 20 years ago. i really believe this is a challenge which we can only solve on a bipartisan basis. i think that lankford bill is a good starting point. let's come together and work together on a bipartisan starting point, ignore donald

trump who says he doesn't want this to move forward, and let's do something the american people really want. so to aspire to that goal, i object to that approach to it. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. lee: mr. president, this is unfortunate. keep in mind what happened here. i asked not that we pass this bill but we move to its consideration, that we be allowed to debate it, discuss it and ultimately dispose of it through votes after having an opportunity to review its merits and to consider amendments. and that too drew an objection. even though this would allow the body to work its will through amendments, and we could get to a point where perhaps we could agree on something. instead we see absolute fealty pledged to this bill, what's being referred to as the

bipartisan bill. with all due respect to those who negotiated it, keep in mind, senators in the room, two members of the democratic caucus and one republican, and then you add to that the white house, a significant player, even if you don't weight the white house as more than just one senator equivalent, putting it generously, this is a three to one negotiation. yes, this negotiation went on for many months. during most of that time most of the us were unaware of what was being discussed. as soon as the details started to leak out, as soon as we started to become aware of them, many of us started to publicly and privately expressing our concerns, first in private, then in public. look, separate and apart from what the 45th president of the united states had to say about it, many, i would say most of us in the senate republican

conference had already formed our opinions and decided to oppose the bill based on its own terms long before the 45th president of the united states weighed in on it, long before donald trump said a word about this, we were concerned. we always would have been concerned even had he not weighed in based on the merits of the bill. look, the bill itself didn't do what it was supposed to do. and it kept referring to one of my colleagues as the designated authorized representative. when you're authorized and did he having naftaed as a representative -- and designated as a representative of one or more individuals, in this case 49 individuals, that still presupposes you're negotiating something consistent with their expressed desires and subject to their approval. when at last we became aware of the details of it, we decided this was not nearly what we talked about, not what we ordered, and so we rejected it. again, this was under way long

before president trump ever said a word about it. so this isn't accurate to describe this bipartisan bill which, by the way, at the end of the day received only 4 out of 49 senate republicans supporting it on the senate floor. i believe it probably received less than that even today. it's a minimally bipartisan at best. as to the suggestion that my bill, the stopping border surges act and bare consideration of it, not just that it be passed into law, but that we are allowed to even consider it, he says that it somehow targets vulnerable people, including children, for inhumane treatment. you know what's inhumane? what's inhumane is perpetuating a system that incentivizes the recycling of children for the purpose of creating a ruse by

which adults can avoid detection, sometimes sending the same kids back through the system over and over again as if they were poker chips or something like that. children are not props. children certainly are not there as concurrence to facility illegal immigration. are there human rights violations? yes, constantly, incessantly directly as a result of this. mr. president, somewhere between 35% at the low end and 65% at the high end of the women and girls that are brought, that are trafficked into this country by the drug cartels which are making tens of billions of dollars a year under the biden administration's deliberately laxed policy are subjected to rape, to sexual assault, in many cases to sex slavery. in many instances people can't afford the many thousands of dollars they have to pay to the

cartels in order to be trafficked. so what do they do? they work it off. how do they work it off? they do what they can, what they're told to do. and in many circumstances we know exactly what that means. so don't talk to me about this being an inhumane bill. this is a bill that would stop the inhumanity. this is a bill that would tighten the restrictions so that this doesn't happen anymore, so kids aren't recycled, so they're not kidnapped, sold, borrowed and recycled as props to facilitate illegal immigration. anyone who suggests that this is humane isn't looking at the reality of the circumstances. and at the lives lost. even before you get to the americans whose lives have been ended or have ended in tragedy or met with tragedy unnecessarily by people who should never have been in this country to begin with and then carry out crimes, some too heinous to name, to describe on the senate floor, even before

you get to those americans who have met tragically with fate in those ways, just look at the inhumane treatment received by those who are being trafficked. the humane thing to do here, mr. president, is not to perpetuate this cycle. there is nothing humane about allowing human beings to be trafficked on this scale, enriching international drug cartels whose means ininevitably involve violence. shame on us if we don't do this. shame on the senate for not being willing. shame on the senate democrats not being willing today even to consider a bill that would bring that to an end. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. be mr. marshall: mr. president, i rise today to ask this body to immediately consider the

demanding citizenship in d.c. elections act. right now we have over 11 million illegal immigrants here on the united states soil. that's enough to replace the entire population of 36 states, including the population of kansas, almost four times over. when i'm back home, i often get asked why does joe biden allow 5,000 to 10,000 people to cross our border illegally every day? why would the democrats rush millions of people, many unvetted, into our country over the past three and a half years? why is our national security an afterthought? how can the president hear laken riley's story and the story of others who have died and been assaulted and not do anything? how does he sleep at night? when i think about his reaction to these questions, it becomes very clear what's happening.

the president is worried about the next election, not the next generation and not our national security. this white house has created the worst border crisis in our nation's history and has incentivized the unlawful crossings at our southern border in hopes these migrants will be future democrat voters. with the expectation that the census, which is based upon population, will bring in more democrat seats in congress, with hopes of cooking the books for elections to come. this is election interference by design with the ultimate goal being the unraffling of a -- unraveling of a free and fair election. by turning those people out at the ballot box, the democrats are courting these 11 million people including chinese nationalists as future voters. they're giving them free health care, pricey hotel stays, flights, cell phones, and more,

and reminding them to pay it back. where? at the ballot box. if you don't believe me, look no further than what's happening right here in our nation's capitol, in washington, d.c. illegal aliens are now voting in local elections. let me say that again. you can't make this up. illegal aliens are now voting in local elections at our nation's capitol. folks, this is just beginning for the dnc and serves as the road map they are building to tip the balance and dismantle the integrity of our electoral process across the entire country. that's why i'm asking this body to consider the demanding citizenship in d.c. elections act immediately. washington, d.c., as we all know, falls under the jurisdiction of congress. the intent of our founding fathers was to prevent any single state from gaining undue power by hosting the federal government. with the oversight powers bestowed on us here in congress, it's our obligation and duty to

stop this election interference. the american people want free and fair elections. they want to trust that their vote won't be superseded by the millions of illegal aliens that have been transported across the united states. so i rise today to give my colleagues across the aisle the opportunity to show the american people that the democrat party believes in election integrity and our democratic electoral process. if they do, they should have no problem supporting our legislation that explicitly states that illegal aliens cannot vote in d.c. elections. some of my colleagues across the aisle continue to deny that illegal aliens are voting in our elections. for the sake of this argument let's take them at their word. if they say illegals are not voting in our election, what's the harm in passing legislation to ensure that it never happens? let's assure the american people that we have the same goal of citizen only representation in our electoral process.

unfortunately the left won't do this because they know it's factually incorrect and they need those votes. this is election interference by design with the ultimate goal being the unraveling of our free and fair elections by engineering the largest scale invasion of our country and turning them out at the ballot box. unfortunately, when my colleagues across the aisle block this legislation today, they're showing their cards. that for democrats, the border crisis is not a crisis at all. it's their campaign trail to victory. this is the democrats' playbook. mr. president, if this is a call for us to concede consent fails the american people, we'll know the democrats true motivation for this is border crisis. we the people must fight back. too much is at stake. our democracy as we know it is under attack by this administration. this legislation is a good start on ensuring the integrity of our elections. mr. president, i'd like to ask

unanimous consent that the committee on homeland security and governmental affairs be discharged from further consideration of senate 4225 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. welch: reserving the right to object. the question here is about the control by congress over the district of columbia governance and right to self-govern.. there's a tendency and debate in this congress about whether there should be home rule for washington. i believe there should be. many of my colleagues don't, and this congress does have authority, but what is really at stake here is the question of whether a law passed by the city council of the district of

columbia should be allowed to go into effect or overridden by action here. my view is that the elected representatives have the right and the responsibility to pass laws that go with being a self-governing city council. the question of local voting -- local resident voting rights amendment act, that's what we're talking about, was passed by the city council. it's the lwcf the representative -- it's the will of the representatives of the people of this city, through their representatives to allow this to happen. this initiative has been something that's taken up by other local governments in other states where the prerogative is to make their own laws with respect to voting. and i believe that the district of columbia should have that ability to pass these laws without interference with --

from congress. now, this was challenged in court, and in march the u.s. district court for d.c. issued a constitutional challenge to the local resident voting rights amendment of 2022. also, as a practical matter, voting has already begun in d.c.'s 2024 primary elections, in this bill, if senator marshall's bill would absolutely cause chaos in the ongoing election. while folks can disagree on the policy, at the end of the day, this is local policy matter. i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. marshall: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. marshall: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate my colleague's comments on this issue. i point out a couple of important facts. the constitution clearly gives the united states congress the power to govern washington, d.c.

washington, d.c., is not a state. it is a federal district. our founding fathers wanted it that way. they didn't want you one -- want one state to have more control over the federal government over another. we think about the issues going on in washington, d.c., right now, this federal district has turned into a war zone. it's no longer safe for our staff to walk to and from their jobs. almost every week we're seeing somebody physically assaulted, carjackings, stabbings, it's to the point i'm afraid for folks back home to come and visit us, and our folks back home deserve the right to safely petition our government. look, the city council and washington, d.c., have blown it. they have not taken their responsibility seriously, and that's why we need to usurp that power back and do what the constitution says and we certainly don't want illegal aliens funding this bill.

we need more security in washington, d.c., not less. thank you, mr. president.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. welch: i would like to speak in favor of the biden administration efficiency stadz. -- standards. the department of energy finalized rule has been a long time coming and we have not meaningfully updated the standards since the 1990's, technology has advanced but our regulations haven't kept up. now, let me talk first of all about the importance of efficiency and the role that regulations can play in allowing efficiency to benefit consumers and our environment. when we have standards, it means that the manufactures compete with the production of products that meet those standards. it's not a race to the bottom. it's a level-playing field for those in the manufacturing

industry that want to sell their products to consumers. having standards that are reas reasonable, and these are very reasonable, then allows these better products to be sold -- sold and the competition is a restraint on the price that's charged. so efficiency has always been something that can help us do the following, number one, reduce carbon emissions. the less energy that's used, the less -- the less carbon emissions are created. number two, it saves money. at the end of the day, you have a more efficient appliance, it is going to use less energy by whatever means that energy is produced. third, it tends to create jobs. the folks who manufacture these have workers, they have good jobs, and it's really important. in vermont, we face very high heating bills, and one of the reasons we want and fully

support more efficient furnaces is to get those bills down. with a furnace that is not up to the new standard, a family can face an additional $600 in heating bills each year, that's a lot for vermonters. the rule, the efficiency rule here has the potential to reduce the household cost $350 a year. -- many of the bills we worked on to pass through the inflation reduction, will reduce costs, you can get a taxpayer rebate reducing the cost of what this h will -- will be. this would be better for those who rent their homes and often face very high energy bills largely because there's not an

incentive for the landlord to provide a more efficient furnace. by the way, the standards will make a major impact in our ca carbon emissions cutting 332 metric tons over the next 30 years and that's equivalent to the annual emissions are from 34% of u.s. households. so for over a decade, canada has had very similar furnace efficiency standards and has seen that there have not been significant issues with impl implementation, we should manage this, and i urge my colleagues to vote against s.j. res. 58 and show strong support for the

efficiency policy. i yield back.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: mr. president, i rise today to speak in opposition to the congressional review act resolution which would overturn the department of energy's fern as efficiency standards. it is a vote for higher costs, a vote for higher temperatures for future generations, a vote for scaremongering over science. what you have just said on the senate floor, senator welch, is a complete reflection of my own views about this issue. families face high energy bills. they're day afraid of climate chaos, but instead of tackling those problems head on, we are instead burying our heads in the sand by attacking a commonsense upgrade to energy efficiency

standards, this resolution seems to have come straight from the american gas association's playbook. use more natural gas. that's their plan. send greenhouse gases up into the atmosphere to dangerously warm our planet. that is the plan of the american gas association. i am the house author of the national appliance energy and conservation act, which was passed in 1987 and authorized the department of energy to set binding standards for appliance energy efficiency. and so that set the minimum standard of energy efficiency for 13 types of appliances, air conditioners, refrigerators, freezers, washers, dryers, gas furnaces, and that law has been updated many times over the years and now covers about 60 products and it is estimated that my appliance efficiency act

which became law over three and a half decades ago has done more to save energy than any other federal policy in buildings in our country's history. and what's the central premise? it's just working smarter, not harder. using less electricity. using less energy, working smarter, not harder. my mother always said to me, eddie, you have to learn how to work that way. that was before she would say she would donate my brain to harvard medical school as a completely unused organ. because if you don't work smarter, you are going to work harder. that's what the gas association wants, it wants to drill, baby, drill, it is to drill into the pockets of consumers, it's to

have greenhouse gases go into atmosphere which will cause incredible storms, incredible climate consequences when we could just reduce the amount of energy which we are consuming. how hard is that? during the trump era, the department of energy missed its 28 deadlines to update the appliance standards as they are supposed to do by law every single six-year period, and they left the backlog to president biden. and the biden administration has been making up for lost time. already completing 24 rules with about a dozen left in front of them this year which when finalized will save consumers nearly $1 trillion and 2.5 billion metric tons of carbon emissions over 30 years.

that's working smarter, not harder. you save money and you reduce greenhouse gases. gas furnaces, as the senator from vermont was mentioning, have an outsized impact on household bills, as residential heat something the largest source of energy consumption for most families. and when a furnace is installed in a household, it lasts a very long time. this resolution is directly at odds with the welfare of working-class families and renters who often spend a d disproportion portion gnat amount -- disproportionate amount on their energy bills and they don't get to pick their energy. winter bills are a hurj burden for families, with some having to make impossible choices every month between paying for food, medicine and basic necessities

like heat. before this new rule, the gas lobby, the natural gas lobby would so desperately like to go up in smoke, we haven't seen any meaningful update on gas furnace efficiency standards since congress first set them in my bill in 1987. that's the american gas association at work. and as much as it might be helpful for climate change, public health, and national security, the department of energy standards do not phase out pass furnaces. the rule getting targeted by this resolution doesn't even address existing gas furnaces. nor is the rule effective immediately. instead this rule that we're debating today will ensure that all new gas furnaces meet a 95% fuel efficiency threshold starting in 2028.

plenty of running room for the industry. plenty of notice. but plenty of benefits ultimately for consumers in their home heating bill and reduction in greenhouse gases for the next generation of americans who are afraid that they're going to be left paying the bill for all of the consequences of out-of-control climate change which these furnaces contribute to in a major way. this provides for a slow phaseout of older, less efficient furnaces while leaving more efficient furnaces on the market that already make up nearly half of all current models. the furnace efficiency standards alone will cut 332 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions if furnaces over 30 years as well as other pollutants like methane ■and nitrous oxides. that's equal to taking 79 million gas-powered cars off the

roads or cutting the annual emissions of 85 coal-fired power plants. they won't be needed. 85 coal-burning plants won't be needed because the electricity won't be needed because the furnaces are so much more efficient. first manufacturers like this rule because it spurs innovation. customers like this rule because it will save them money. families like this rule because it would reduce the amount of toxic gas they are inhaling on a daily basis, reducing risk. asthma, heart disease, and premature deaths. the more you inhale, the more dangerous it is for the children in the house, for pregnant women in the house. sign tises like -- scientists like this rule because it will cut how much climate change pollution we're sending up into the atmosphere. the american gas association which filed a legal challenge

that is oddly similar to my colleague's cra language does not like this rule because it will cut how many customers are dependent on their product. it will eat into their already astronomical profits. the wealthiest industry in the history of the world. but they want more. even if consumers could save. they want the hot and toxic status quo to remain in place. they're afraid that our country will become ever more efficient or even decarbonized and continue on without them. so they are acting out of corporate fear to destroy our chance at a livable future. repealing the standards would saddle millions of americans with unnecessarily high heating bills for decades to come. and let me be clear. energy poverty is a racial justice issue. it's an economic justice issue. it's an environmental justice

issue. and we must take steps today to remedy this injustice. even though an efficient furnace may cost slightly more on the market today, costs will continue to fall and households will be more than paid back in lower energy bills year after year after year. they'll have much lower emissions that are being sent up. they will have more innovation. they will have more health care benefits. all of that will flow to ordinary americans unless the american gas association has its way with this united states senate. so my colleagues will rant and rave about the need to constantly drill, back, drill to get -- baby, drill to get after fossil fuels to keep our grid running. they like to fearmonger about liability issues and keep the lights on but the cleanest, cheapest, and most reliable megawatt of energy is the one we

never have to use, and that's why everyone who supports a reliable grid should support energy efficiency standards, working smarter and not harder. we shouldn't sacrifice savings, our grid, our health, and our climate on the altar of the american gas association. a moderate increase in energy efficiency for furnaces just makes sense. this radical proposal to reverse this energy efficiency standard should be rejected, and i urge my colleagues to vote no. this today will be a vote for the future. it will be a vote for future generations. it will be a vote to say that finally the senate is serious about dealing with this crisis that is affecting our planet and the next generation of children from our country. so i thank you, mr. president, for your leadership on this issue. and i urge a rejection of this proposal coming from the

american gas association. i yield back. mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, i rise today to discuss any resolution to disapproval the biden department of energy's final rule targeting gas furnaces. in october of last year, the biden department of energy announced a final rule on energy efficiency standards for gas furnaces. and in december the agency published the final rule. mandating that gas furnaces achieve an efficiency standard of 95% when right now residential gas furnaces only

require an efficiency standard of 80%. this rule would remove up to 60% of current residential furnaces from the market and would impact 55% of american households. it would have a terrible negative effect on families who are already struggling with historic inflation numbers under the biden administration. and it would force consumers to spend thousands of dollars they don't have on renovations to accommodate a new gas furnace or to switch to an electric appliance which could mean higher monthly utility bills for families. in texas 25% of households have a natural gas furnace, and of those, over 45% would be negatively impacted, meaning they would spend more to

retrofit their home and to purchase and install a furnace than they would save over the life of the appliance. now, in every state and in the state of texas, some texans may choose to move to an electric appliance for a variety of reasons. and some may decide they'd like to stick with a gas furnace. but with this biden rule in effect, texans won't have a choice. and neither will the residents of any of the other 49 states. the biden administration will have made the decision for them. texans aren't alone in this. other states are in a similar situation. 39% of arizonans with a natural gas furnace would lose money from this rule. and let me give you some percentages from some other states picked almost at random. this is the percentage of households with a natural gas

furnace that would be negatively impacted in the following states -- in pennsylvania, 33%. in west virginia, 47%. in montana, 36%. in wisconsin, 16%. in michigan, 35%. in nevada, a staggering 63% negatively impacted. in maryland, 57%. and in the state of ohio, 47% of those households would be negatively impacted. this rule is a continuation of the biden administration's capitulation to environmental radicals who value following climate dogma more than helping families actually.for their kids and save -- actually provide for their kids and save for the future. joe biden when he campaigned in 2020 told voters that if they elected him, he would halt

drilling onshore and offshore in the united states, and his first week in office he shut down the keystone pipeline and destroyed 11,000 jobs with the stroke of a pen, including 8,000 union jobs. joe biden shut down all new leases on federal land, onshore and offshore. he shut down development in anwr putting in place banking regulators and sec regulators to cut off debt financing and to cut off equity financing for energy exploration and development. he put a tax -- yes, a tax on natural gas production despite the cost of living crisis many americans are facing because of failed democrat policies. and that's why i introduced this congressional review act, to help alleviate the unending assault on american families from president biden and the

democrats' radical energy agenda. the average household in texas has spent $5,113 more on energy due to inflation since january 2021. $5,113 is a lot of money for a lot of families. and this administration's answer to those struggling is that it's more important to appease the environmental radicals than allowing you to pay your rent or pay your mortgage or to save for your family or to put money away for your kids in a college fund. and what's maddening is that this is done, they say, to reduce carbon emissions and to help the environment. but why would americans take them at their word on this. this is the same administration that has no problem burdening u.s. oil and gas producers who maintain the highest environmental standards in the world but refuse to crack down

on iran for shipping two million barrels a day of oil all around the world. it's the same administration that in one breath wants to reduce emissions globally but will then ban new u.s. permits to ship liquid natural gas overseas leaving our allies to fend for themselves and driving them to burn dirtier coal, emit more carbon, and pollute the environment even more. so if you care about reducing emissions, this administration has been an abject failure. and instead of delivering actual solutions, it's their belief that putting a de facto ban on your gas furnace is more important than addressing record coal consumption in china, the biggest polluter on the face of the planet. and according to the department of energy's own estimate, 91% to

59% of furnace replacements will be at an annual fuel efficiency rate of 92% or higher by 2028. so according to the department of energy's own estimate, this rule is unnecessary. the folks who can already afford the higher cost of a new gas furnace can buy one. but americans who can least afford another price shock after suffering under bidenflation for years will be hurt the most. mr. president, i want you to listen to these data. according to some estimates, the department of energy rule will lead to higher prices for 30% of senior citizen households, for 27% of small businesses, and for 26% of low-income households. this rule represents the fundamental transformation of the democrat party. there was a time the democrat

party called itself a party of the working class. that is no longer the case. today's democrat party cares more about the money from california environmentalist billionaires than they do about the jobs or the monthly budget of hardworking families in america. today the blue collar family in america is the republican party because the democrat party looked at their union brethren and said we don't care about you anymore. we're chasing the money. that's why groups like the national federation of independent businesses which represents 300,000 small businesses across the country strongly supports the cra. perhaps it should come as no surprise that the biden administration is being sued for this illegal rule. the law that empowers the department of energy to set efficiency standards was passed during the energy scarcity of the 1970's.

but the law also contains a prohibition against weaponizing efficiency standards to eliminate entire product categories, like this rule seeks to do. the american people are required to comply with joe biden's rule effectively banning affordable gas furnaces on december 18, 2028. congress should come together and vote for the resolution to stop this rule. doing so would save american families and american seniors thousands and thousands of dollars as well as save american jobs, and we should do this without delay. mr. president, i move to proceed to calendar -- 399, s.j. res. 58. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the motion to proceed is agreed to, the clerk will report the joint resolution.

the clerk: calendar number 399, s.j. res. 58, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, united states code, of the rules submitted by the department of energy related to energy conservation program, energy conservation standards for consumer furnaces. the presiding officer: under the previous order shall the joint resolution is considered read the third time. the question is on passage. mr. cruz: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy.

ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan.

mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran.

mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema.

ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young.

the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- barrasso, britt, budd, capito, cotton, crapo, cruz, sinema, tuberville, and young. senators voting in the negative -- baldwin, cardin, carper, duckworth, fetter man, heinrich, hickenlooper, kaine, markey, murray, padilla, peters, smith, warner, warnock, and whitehouse. mr. paul, aye.

the clerk: mr. wicker, aye. the clerk: ms. cortez masto, no. mrs. gillibrand, no.

the clerk: mr. mullin, aye. mr. durbin, no.

the clerk: mr. cassidy, aye. the clerk: mr. manchin, aye. the clerk: mr. graham, aye.

the clerk: mr. wyden, no. mrs. shaheen, no.

the clerk: mr. welch, no. mrs. fischer, aye.

the clerk: mr. mcconnell, aye. the clerk: mr. lujan, no. the clerk: mr. kelly, no.

the clerk: mr. reed, no.

vote: the clerk: mr. rubio, aye. mr. sanders, no. the clerk: ms. klobuchar, no.

ms. ernst, aye.

the clerk: mr. van hollen, no. mr. scott of south carolina,

aye. mr. moran, aye. the clerk: mrs. hyde-smith, aye.

the clerk: mr. marshall, aye.

the clerk: mr. boozman, aye. the clerk: mr. ossoff, no.

mr. merkley, no. mr. grassley, aye. mr. rounds, aye.

the clerk: mr. daines, aye. the clerk: mr. schmitt, aye.

the clerk: ms. collins, aye. mr. risch, aye.

the clerk: mr. coons, no. mr. king, no.

the clerk: mr. kennedy, aye. ms. stabenow, no. mr. scott of florida, aye.

mr. cramer, aye. the clerk: mr. thune, aye. mr. booker, no. ms. butler, no.

the clerk: mrs. blackburn, aye. mr. brown -- mr. brown, aye.

mr. romney, aye. mr. schatz, no.

vote:

the clerk: mr. blumenthal, no. the clerk: mr. sullivan, aye.

the clerk: mr. bennet, no. the clerk: mr. casey, aye.

the clerk: ms. rosen, no. . mr. ricketts, aye.

the clerk: ms. hirono, no. the clerk: mr. hoeven, aye.

the clerk: mr. braun, aye.

the clerk: ms. lummis, aye.

the clerk: mr. johnson, aye.

the clerk: mr. cornyn, aye. mr. lankford, aye. the clerk: ms. murkowski, aye.

the clerk: mr. schumer, no.

vote:

the clerk: mr. murphy, no.

the clerk: ms. cantwell, no. ms. warren, no.

the clerk: mr. vance, aye.

the clerk: mr. lee, aye.

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 45, and the joint resolution is passed. the senator from new hampshire. ms. hassan: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hassan: i understand that there is a bill at the desk, and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s.4381 a bill to protect an individuals ability to access contraceptives and to engage in contraception

and to protect a health care provider's abilities to provide contraceptives, contraception and information related to contraception. ms. hassan: i now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be read for the second time on the next legislative day. ms. hassan: mr. president, i have ten requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. ms. hassan: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on wednesday, may 22. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to

executive session to resume consideration of the martinez nomination, postcloture. further, that if cloture has been invoked on the coggins nomination, all time be considered expired at 3:15 p.m. further, that if any nominations are confirmed during wednesday's session, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. ms. hassan: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of senators lankford and sanders. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. lankford: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president, so far this year, 1,624,790 people have illegally crossed our southwest border. 1,624,790. so far. we have at least 1.6 million people that have also been designated got-aways in the last three years. that is they crossed our southwest border, the border patrol could see them, but they couldn't get to them. let me give you some context on that. as this body knows well, because we've talked about it over and over and over again, in the

first three years of this administration we've had more illegal crossings on our southwest border than the previous 12 years combined. more in the last three years than we had in the previous 12 years combined. if you want to just drill down, one year under president biden has as many illegal crossings as we had under four years of president trump. yesterday, we had more than 5,000 people illegally cross our southwest border, yesterday. that has been true every day, i believe, but three in the last three months, that we've had more than 5,000 people a day. now, the national news media has looked away from the southwest border, but those that live on the southwest border can't look away. they're still facing it every single day.

and in cities and communities across the entire country it is still happening ef single day -- every single day, day after day, as this president has looked away from what's happening on our southern border. as i've said to this department of homeland security multiple times, if they would enforce the border the same as president obama enforced the border, we would be in a very different place. but they don't enforce the border like president trump did, and they don't enforce it like president obama did. they just fail to enforce it. the same law, the same law existed under president obama when we had less than half a million people cross illegally in a year that exists under president biden where we've had 1.6 million people so far this year, with still quite a few months to go. the same law. the same capacity to be able to

enforce the border. but this president has sailed over and over again -- has said over and over again he has nothing that he can do until something is passed. i've been very clear with this body, and i've been very honest with my own party and with my friends on the other side of the aisle. congress has a job to do. we need to clarify what asylum means. we need to add the funds needed. we need to speed up process. we need to take away the forever appeals built into it that incentivize people coming and gaming the system. that is congress' job. we should do that. and i have worked with everyone who is willing to work on that to get us to a place where we can get to 60 votes in this body to pass something to do our job. one party cannot resolve this is issue. this has to be both parties sifting down and working on it together. that's the rule of 60 in this

body. but the president also has things that he could do that he has chosen not to do. in fact, this president has taken 94 executive orders to weaken border security. he's created new parole authorities no president has of used before to facilitate faster movement into the country. so instead of actually slowing the process down, he's actually sped it up, and they've done so intentionally. in the past few weeks, department of homeland security released a new memo and a new regulatory action that they're getting feedback for that they have admitted to me that will increase screening for, in their words, a handful of additional people. a handful. when yesterday we had 5,000 people illegally cross. but currently, as right now homeland security is saying they don't have enough money to hire

more agents, they're spending millions of dollars rebranding homeland security investigation, hsi. they're rebranding them and changing some of their focus on it. now, we've yet to be able to find out how much they're spending on it, but we do understand it's in the millions. at the same time they're saying they don't have enough money to be able to handle greater enforcements. this administration's focused on the things that don't make a difference when we need them to focus on the things that do. this body is also focused on the things that are not making a difference on this. several of us sat down for months to be able to hash out in a bipartisan way how do we solve this. we felt we had a solution that could pass. we did not. now that same option that everyone in this whole body

knows won't pass is now coming back to this body again exactly as it was, and many of us, including for myself that worked on the original language, is saying why? this is not about trying to pass something. this is about a show vote in this body to show look, we tried to vote on something, and those mean republicans blocked it. well, i have to tell you, this vote when it comes up on thursday, because that's when i understand it's coming, i will be interested in how many democrats vote for this as well, because i've already heard quite a few democrats say i'm not sure if i want to vote for that, if it doesn't have ukraine, if it doesn't have israel funding. originally, it was border security, ukraine, israel funding. some democrats were voting for it. now that it has none of those things, several have said to me i'm not sure i want to vote for that without the other portions of it in there. several republicans are saying the same things as before, hey, wasn't it even more in that bill. he know there were a lot of good things, but i wanted more in it.

so they're not willing to vote for it until it has more. what would be the logical thing that should be done? the logical thing is to say that vote failed, so what would pass? you see, we can play the same game. because democrats have blocked the bill from senator scott that would fund border security and enforcement of immigration laws in a different level. the democrats blocked that vote. when marco rubio and senator graham brought bills to enforce the remain in mexico program that president biden's walked away from, democrats blocked that vote. when senator cotton brought up a vote to stop aid for sanctuary cities that incentivize more people coming into the country and disappear, democrats blocked that vote. when senator grassley brought up a bill to deport criminal illegal ill yens, democrats blocked that. when senator hagerty brought up a bill to deport more criminal

aliens, already designated criminal ail aliens, democrats blocked that bill. when i brought up a bill to fund the title 42 authority and to extend that, democrats blocked that bill. when senator marshall brought a bill to bring up h.r. 2 and senator cruz brought up the bill for h.r. 2, the house bill with a broad spectrum for border enforcement, democrats blocked that bill. when senator hagerty again brought up a bill to ban federal funds from being used to fly illegal aliens from other countries and give them parole authority into our country, democrats blocked that bill. when republicans, senator budd, brought up the protecting -- or bringing up the laken riley act, democrats blocked that bill. when i brought up a bill dealing with special interest aliens, those the department of homeland security designated as a potential national security risk, when i brought up a bill

to say all those folks could not be released into the country, they had to be detained, if they were declared a national security risk, democrats blocked that bill. we can play this game all day l long. somehow this belief that if we bring up a bill that failed before, sha somehow -- that somehow a strong movement to be able to solve the issue doesn't. it plays a political game, and we all know it. so what should we do? actually be grown-ups, sit down and actually try to figure out what we can pass, rather than bringing things up that we all know won't pass. now, i don't know if there's a belief that somehow on memorial day week that americans across the country can't wait for the senate to vote again on a bill that's already failed before that could come up again, as if

something is going to be different. i have a message to my colleagues -- the people of america are not on memorial day week focused on what the senate is doing this week. they're just not. they're thinking about their family member that was lost defending the country or they're thinking about a sale at an appliance store. they're not thinking about this and this drama. we should take seriously though the national security risk that all of us know about and do something about it. just as a side note that all of us know full well, the number of people designated by this administration as special interest aliens, those that are a national security risk by definition, that are coming across our border and being released into the country is in the thousands. we all know it. we should take that seriously. if we want to just deal with the

people that are on the higher list, that are on the terror watch list, if i go back to let's say 2017, there were two people apprehended on the terror watch list in 2017. there were six people apprehended in 2018. there were three people in 2019. but if i take that to this past year, 2023, there were 172. we have people crossing our border that we know are a national security risk while we're playing political messaging games here. let's sit down and solve this. let's not just vote on things that we know are going to fail. let's not just do political messaging. let's actually sit down and

solve this. over the past two years something has shifted on our southern border. it's not just people from the western hemisphere that are crossing illegally. it's from people from all over the world. we went from having a handful of chinese citizens that crossed the border to last year and this year tens of thousands of chinese nationals crossing our border. when i asked dhs are any of these chinese nationals being deported, they responded to me, yes, we have started deporting chinese nationals that are here illegally. i said terrific. how many? their response -- 14 so far. 14 of the tens of thousands that have crossed in the last two ye years. we've deported 14 chinese nationals. can i tell you, in oklahoma

there are thousands of chinese nationals that have come into my state that are working in illegal marijuana operations. our oklahoma bureau of narcotics has done a tremendous job of trying to shut down illegal grow operations but they continue to spring up. over and over again when they do a bust it's chinese nationals working, individuals trafficked over our southern border and individuals that are in our country illegally present, over and over and over again. we know this is going on. we know we have a terror risk. we all see it. we know there are individuals by the thousands being released that are declared by this administration as special interest aliens. we understand full well criminal activities that are happening, and we are doing messaging bills that everyone knows will fail.

why don't we sit down and actually talk about it and work it out? why don't we figure out how to solve this? that's what the american people expect us to do. my friends in oklahoma look at me and say you guys go figure this out, because they feel the problem is there, and what they feel is correct. so let's sit down and figure this out. with that, i yield the floor.

mr. sanders: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. p mr. sanders: mr. president, there has been a lot of attention and controversy attached to a recent action by the international criminal court, the icc. the core purpose of the icc is to prosecute the most serious international crimes. genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. i believe it is very important that all of us support accountability for these crimes and the important mission of the

icc. mr. president, last year the icc declared that president vladimir putin of russia was in violation of international law and that he was a war criminal. the icc issued arrest warrants for putin and one of his senior officials, saying there are reasonable grounds to believe that they had committed the war crime of unlawful deportation and transfer of population for their systematic kidnapping of thousands and thousands of ukranian children. i supported the icc decision, and in fact that is the tip of the iceberg of what putin has done in ukraine. putin started the mostly destructive war in europe since

world war ii. he has bombed civilians and devastated civilian infrastructure, killing at least 30,000 civilians and displacing millions more. hundreds of thousands of ukranian and russian soldiers have been killed or wounded as a result of putin's horrific invasion of ukraine. on that occasion, when the icc declared putin a war criminal, the united states government welcomed the icc decision. a white house spokesperson said, and i quote, there is no doubt that russia is committing war crimes and atrocities in ukraine, and we have been clear that those responsible must be held accountable. the icc prosecutor is an independent actor and makes his

own prosecutorial decisions based on the evidence before him. we support accountability for perpetrators of war crimes, end of quote. that is what a u.s. government spokesman said in march 2023, and i agree. in my view, mr. putin is in fact a war criminal. mr. president, we live in a world of increasing division, tension, and hostility. around the globe, countries are dramatically increasing their military budgets. more countries are attempting to gain nuclear weapons and other dangerous weapon systems. it is in times like these that we most need international law. without it, we will have an even more violent world where might makes right and where criminals

can act with impunity. in recent years the icc has attempted to hold governments and political leaders accountable for crimes against humanity. that is what they do, and that is what they are supposed to do. all wars are terrible, and very often civilian casualties are unavoidable. but after the horrors of the second world war, countries throughout the world came together to try to establish rules to govern the conduct of war and to limit civilian casualties. the icc's role is to enforce these limits. mr. president, yesterday the icc prosecutor announced that he was requesting arrest warrants for

three top hamas leaders, including yahya sinwar, the group's leader in gaza. to my mind, sinwar and his hamas accomplices are clearly war criminals. the horrific october 7 terrorist attack on israel began this war and included the mass murder of 1,200 innocent men, women, and children, the taking of hundreds of hostages, and sexual violence against captives. these war crimes are well documented and very few people would dispute the merits of those charges. mr. president, the icc prosecutor also asked for arrest warrants for israeli prime minister netanyahu and defense minister gallant. the icc charges focus on the use

of starvation of civilians as a method of war as well as international attacks against the civilian population. those are the charges. the use of starvation of civilians as a method of war clearly a war crime as well as intentional attacks against the civilian population. specifically, the prosecutor says that netanyahu is responsible for, quote, depriving civilians of objects indispensable to their survival, including willfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the geneva conventions, end quote. now many people here in the beltway in washington have responded negatively to this decision from the icc prosecutor. it seems that some folks here were comfortable with what the

icc did in terms of putin and in terms of sinwar, but not with netanyahu. some have argued that it is unfair to compare the democratically elected head of the israeli government to putin, who runs an authoritarian system, or sinwar, the head of a terrorist organization. but that is not what the icc has done. in fact, the icc prosecutor has looked at what each of these leaders has done. looked at their actions and then compared those actions to establish standards of international law. in other words, the icc is not making some claim of equivalence as some have charged, but is in fact holding both sides in this

current war to the same standard. yes, democratically elected officials can commit war crimes. let me repeat. democratically elected officials can commit war crimes. the icc is doing its job. it's doing what it is supposed to do. we cannot only apply international law when it is convenient, and the independent panel of international legal experts the icc appointed to help with this case unanimously, unanimously agreed with the charges. mr. president, people may be uncomfortable to see the prime minister of israel charged with war crimes, but let us take a hard look at what he has actually done.

and we must determine whether his actions meet the standards of being a war crime. in seven and a half months more than 35,000 palestinians have been killed and almost 80,000 injured. thousands more are still under the rubble. but their bodies have not been fully identified. some 60% of the victims are women, children, or the elderly. more than 250 aid workers have been killed, including 193 u.n. staff, more than any previous conflict. mr. president, there are 2.2 million people living in gaza, more than 1.7 million of them have been forced from their

homes. 7 35r7b of the population -- 75% of the population. i'm trying to think of my own state, what it would be like, three-quarters of the people just driven out of their homes. these are by and large poor people, in the last few yeeks, more than 400,000 have been displaced, many of them chased out of one place, chased to another place, gone to another place. many of these people are children, gaza has a young population, many of them are elderly, many of them are sick. these are people who have been forced out of their homes and move, and move again often without adequate food, without adequate water supplies, and certainly without adequate health care. mr. president, when we talk

about war crimes, talk about attacks on civilians, let's understand, gaza's housing stock has been demolished. again, i try to think of my own state, what it would mean if 60% of the housing was destroyed. now, if these people who have been chased their their homes, displaced from their homes are ever able to return to their communities, where are they going to live? over 60% of the housing units in gaza have been damaged or destroyed, including 221,000 housing units that have been completely destroyed, leaving more than a million people homeless. entire neighborhoods have been wiped out both by bombing and planned detonations of explosive charges. we are looking at the war, we understand that hamas is a

difficult enemy, often uses civilians to protect their own enemy. what we're talking about over 60% of the housing units in gaza have been destroyed. hard to believe there was a terrorist in every one of those buildings. israel has destroyed the civilian infrastructure of gaza. you know, wiped out their ability to have electricity. virtually no electricity in gaza right now, virtually no clean water, and raw sewage is running through the streets spreading disease. now, if that's not an attack on civilians, i don't know what is. the health care system in gaza has been systematically anni annihilated, 21 hospitals have been made inoperable, of the hospitals in gaza, only four have not been damaged by bo bomba bombardment, raided by the israeli military or closed.

more than 400 health care workers have been killed. well, what do we say when we have a war in which the health care system is annihilated at a time when you have tens and tens of thousands of people who are wonneded, many of them seriously? -- wounded, many of them seriously. mr. president, the education system in gaza has been virtually destroyed. every one of gauze's 12 universities has been bombed. got that? every one of 12 -- of the 12 universities in gaza has been bombed. more than 400 schools have suffered direct hits and 56 schools have been totally destroyed. today 625 children in gaza have no access to education at all. and i'll tell you something else. when you talk about what's going on in gaza, what is not talked about almost at all. i think i read one article on this. i want you to think about the

psychic damage done to children. the children who see housing being destroyed, their parents or relatives being killed, see drones flying around them, some of which have guns, being pushed out of their homes, deafening noise, inadequate food, inadequate water, pushed, shoved into any place, everyplace, what psychic damage, if there is one child in gaza that does not suffer psychic damage from this horror, i will be very surprised. mr. president, as a result of the destruction and israeli policies restricting the entry of humanitarian aid into gaza, more than a million people today face catastrophic levels of hunger and gaza remains on the brink of famine. hundreds of thousands of children face starvation.

even now more than seven months into this war, israel's invasion of rafah has severely disrupted the humanitarian relief operation, closing the two main border crossings and making it almost impossible for the u.n. to access warehouses or distribute aid. very little aid has gotten in for more than two weeks, bakeries have had to shut down and hospitals are running low on fuel. just today, today the u.n. announced that it had been forced to halt all food distribution in rafah after running out of supplies. the world food program said, quote, humanitarian operations in gaza are near collapse saying that food and other supplies don't resume entering gaza in massive quantities, famine-like conditions will spread. end of quote. now, mr. netanyahu's been on tv today, and elsewhere. he denies it all. in truth, says mr. -- isn't

true, says that mr. netanyahu. he claims that israel is deeply worried about the civilian population, worried about the children and israel is not blocking humanitarian aid at all. not at all. well, it turns out that the united nations and virtually every other humanitarian group involved in the humanitarian disaster in gaza strongly disagrees with mr. netanyahu. now, we can -- we can trust the words of a prime minister under criminal indictment in israel or we can trust the people whose function in life is to provide humanitarian aid. u.n. secretary general says that much more aid is urgently needed to, quote, avert an entirely preventible human-made famine

and that there is no alternative to the use of land routes. cindy mccain, the wife of our former republican colleague john mccain who is now the head of the world food program said of gaza, quote, there is famine, full-blown famine in the north and it is moving south. end quote. a month ago, more than 50 humanitarian organizations called on israel to allow greater humanitarian access and stop unnecessarily restricting aid. that's 50 humanitarian organizations. mr. netanyahu says one thing but 50 organizations who are desperately trying to the get food to hungry people say something else. and let the world decide who is telling the truth. and this group of humanitarian organizations included catholic relief services care, mercy

corps, save the children, refugees international and scores of other well-respected humanitarian organizations. they say that netanyahu and his team have blocked humanitarian aid. mr. president, our coll collcolleagues -- two of our colleagues, senators van hollen and senator merkley visited rafah in january, and i heard their presentation to the democratic caucus. upset by the unreasonable israeli restrictions on aid, and they talked about trucks being inspected, inspected, sent back that things that should have been allowed to get through were not allowed to get through. they said afterward that the u.s. must, quote, demand that the netanyahu government lift the impediments for delivery of basic goods needed to sustain life in gaza, end quote. netanyahu denies it, two of our

colleagues who were there say that israel has blocking aid. the united states government also disagrees with netanyahu. u.s. aid administrator samantha power said, quote, food has not flowed in sufficient quantities to avoid this infinite famine in the south and it is giving rise to child deaths in the north. in march, secretary of state blinken said, quote, the bottom line is food is getting in but it is insufficient, end quote. in april he said, there has been progress, quote, but it is not enough. we still need to get aid in and around gaza. end quote. in a formal report this month, the state department said, quote, israel did not cooperate with the united states of america government efforts and the united states supported international efforts to allow

humanitarian flow to gaza. i got a kick out of hearing mr. netanyahu this morning. he talked about air lifts. my god, they're supporting air drops, they're supporting food coming in from the sea. the reason the united states is spending millions of dollars getting food from the sea is precisely because israel is blocking the ability to get trucks in and the reason that jordan and the other countries and the united states are doing air drops is once again because trucks cannot get through. netanyahu is taking credit and yet the reason we're having to do those is precisely because of the policies of his government. president biden himself has said, quote, that that major reason that distributing humanitarian aid in gaza has been so difficult because israel has not done enough to protect aid workers -- aide workers trying -- trying to deliver desperately needed help, israel has not done enough to protect civilians. end quote.

president joe biden. it is fair to say that most of the world disagrees with mr. netanyahu. mr. president, think about all of that destruction, think about the tens of thousands of civilians killed, the schools and hospitals blown up. take a look at the pictures of emaciated children starving to death while food sits miles away. one of the things interesting to my mind is that we don't see enough of those pictures and maybe that has something to do with israel -- the israeli military has killed dozens and dozens and dozens of journalists. i just met with some journalists last week. a young man who happens to come from my home state of vermont who had no doubt he was targeted along with other press people, big press symbols on their coats and they were attacked.

he was slightly injured, one of his colleagues was killed and another one was severely injured many now, if you add all that stuff up, are these actions war crimes? yeah. i believe that they are. i believe that there is substantial evidence that the extreme right-wing israeli government led by netanyahu has used starvation as a weapon of war and has clearly targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure. as i think we all agree, i certainly do, israel had the right to defend itself against the hamas terrorist attack of october 7, but it did not -- and this is where we get into the issue of war crimes -- yes, you have the right to defend yourselves. yes, israel has the right to go after hamas. very few people doubt that. but netanyahu and his government do not have the right to wage an

all-out war against the children, against the women, against the innocent people of gaza. and for that, there must be consequences. what the icc has done is important not only for the global community in the sense that we cannot allow the human race to descend to barbarity. somebody has got to say, look, war is terrible, it's a little bit embarrassing as a human being that we've been at war for thousands of year, and not seem to have made much progress at eliminating war. but if there is war, let us learn from what happened in the past and do our best to protect the women, the children, the innocent people. so israel had a right to defend itself against a terrible enemy in hamas, but it does not have the right to wage an all-out war against the people of gaza.

now, what is -- what the icc is doing is important for the world. it's to -- to leaders all over the world, dictators in democratic countries, that if you go to war you cannot wage all-out war against civilians. that's what the icc is doing, that's important. but it is also important, mr. president, for those of us in the united states. our nation claims to be the leader of the free world, free world, and at our best we try to mobilize countries to uphold international war and prevent crimes against humanity. that is what we to, and have done -- that is what we do and have done. mr. president, how will the united states be able to criticize any country in the world, whether it is russia,

china, saudi arabia, or anyone else, in i other country in the world, if we pretend that what is happening in gaza, if we actually believe what netanyahu is saying? if we turn our backs and ignore the crimes against humanity that are being committed in gaza right now, what credibility will we ever have in criticizing the actions of any country, no matter how terrible those actions may be? because people will say, oh, really? you're atarking china -- you're attacking china, turkey, anybody else, really, you're really deeply concerned? but apparently for netanyahu, it's allowed, we don't believe you. and i don't want to see this great country of ours be in that position. i want to see this country respected all over the world as a country that does believe in human rights, that does believe in international law. the icc as i see it is trying to

uphold international law and minimum standards of decency. our government should do no less. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate previous order, the senate the senate gambling out for today at lawmakers work on judicial nominees if confirmable mark 200 court appointments for the biden administration. senate also voted to repeal the administration efficiency standards for gas furnaces. that will go to the house for consideration the white house said it will veto the bill if it gets the present on thursday the said it's expected to revote on a bipartisan border security measure that failed earlier this year. live coverage of members return here on cspan2.

♪ c-span's "washington journal" our live form involving you to discuss latest issues and governments, politics and public policy. from washington and across the country. coming up wednesday morning, democratic strategists assignment rosenberg talks about president biden's reelection efforts campaign 2024. then, from that foundation for defense and democracy discusses the next steps for iran after the death of iranian president several other top officials. see spans "washington journal" join the conversation alive at 7:00 a.m. eastern on wednesday mornings he spent now or online at c-span.org. >> associated press is reporting the biden administration has decided to release 1 million barrels of gasolin in

advance of the summer driving season the gas currently held at storage sites in new jersey and maintenance from aortheast reserve established after super storm sandy will be allocat at increments of 100,000 barre at a time. the ap notes energy department departmentis hoping the aroach l create a competitive business bidding process gas lincoln flowing to local retailersave the july 4 holiday and sold at competitive prices. ♪ c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including ♪ ♪. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ mid coat support c-spans a public service log these other television provi