even consider helping ukraine fight this war against putin unless you do something about our border. there's got to be a change in our border policy. and so there eventually emerged a group that took on the task of writing a bipartisan bill. and make no mistake, legislation on the subject as serious as this will never pass as a partisan piece of legislation. it has to be bipartisan. and so both sides of the aisle decided to enlist the colleagues to sit down and do a dlibive effort to -- deliberative effort to write a bipartisan border bill to address the crisis we face at the border. the republicans chose as their spokesperson, their negotiator james lankford of oklahoma. james lankford is a certifiable conservative republican, respected on both sides of the aisle.

i join that chorus of respect for him. and the republicans said to us, none of these freewheeling efforts. james lankford is our man. he will negotiate this and we'll stand by him. at that point chris murphy, democrat from connecticut, was enlisted to be part of that negotiating effort along with the senator from arizona. they sat down and started a threeway effort to find a bipartisan bill. they worked on it not just for weeks but for months. during that period of time, i met with them from time to time, not to interject my efforts or any ideas i had but just to measure their progress. and they were not happy about the course of business and how quickly they can reach a conclusion. but the fact of the matter is, they d they reached a bipartisan agreement, one which i don't agree with in many aspects, but a good one, a heartfelt, serious effort, bipartisan democrat and

republican effort, and we were prepared and did call on the floor of the united states senate this bipartisan bill that senator lankford had led the republicans into establishing. i believe it tended up with four votes, four votes. the republicans have told us, keep your hands off, democrats, when it comes to lankford's efforts. let him do the work. when he finally produced a good-faith effort, rejected it, walked away from t the senator from alabama just explained they didn't have time to read it. if i recall, there were several days that passed where that bill was available for staffs to analyze and look at. most of us, who wanted to, knew the contents of it and i thought it was a step in the right direction going forward. but it was objected by the same republicans who initiated the process by saying there will be no supplemental for defense until there's a bipartisan bill

and the bipartisan bill is being put together by the senator from oklahoma, and when it finally appeared before us, they walked away from it. they walked away from it, this bipartisan bill. i will just tell the senator from alabama, i have worked on this for a number of years. the only issue that finally resulted in a comprehensive immigration reform that came to the floor was totally bipartisan, a gang of eight senators which i was part of, led by senator mccain on the republican side, received over 65 votes. it wasn't taken up by the republicans in the house. but it was a good-faith, bipartisan effort. that's the only way we can pass legislation that is meaningful when it comes to legislation. the bill that the senator from alabama produces here today will not secure our border. it will not prevent -- it will prevent the flow -- it will not prevent the flow of illicit drugs through ports of entry or improve public safety. it would allow the secretary of

homeland security to suspend the entry of all asylum seekers at the border any time the secretary deems it necessary to achieve, quote, operational quell of the border, whatever that phrase means. let's be clear, no secretary of homeland security, including the secretary under president trump, has ever achieved operational control of the border. the bill also requires the suspension of entry at border of all asylum seekers -- if all asylum seekerers cann -- seeker cannot be detained and placed in expedited removal. no administration, republican or democrat, has of been able to detain in place an expedited rule, all or most asylum seekers. not even president trump. coop be done. -- couldn't be done. and no congress has been willing to provide the funding that would be necessary to to do it. this bill would indefinitely send asylum protection without additional resorrieses for the department -- resources for the

department of homeland security, without any alternative for desperate women and children fleeing persecution. we have learneded from past experience that attempting to shut down the border is inhumane and simply doesn't work. to assume that this is one big wall that we can close the gate on is just wrong. it's not the reality. our experience with title 42 emergency health authority demonstrated this. repeated attempts at unlawful crossings soared despite title 42, did as the number of noncitizens who successfully evaded the border patrol, often referred to at got-aways. recent data from the cbp shows that in 2024, the daily number of got-aways was 70% lower than prior to the end of the use of title 24e6789 our current laws for processing asylum seekers are fundamentally broken and measures like this bill will not fix it. the bottom line is the buck stops here.

the buck stops here with the united states senate and the house of representatives. the last time we passed meaningful immigration reform was over 30 years ago. we wonder why this broken system continues to be broken? it's because of our dereliction. in contrast, we have the opportunity to devote on a bipartisan -- to vote on a bipartisan border bill, which will be offered tomorrow. it is written by senator lankford, republican of oklahoma, senator murphy and senator sinema. this legislation would actually help secure the border and provide essential national security funding. it would reform broken laws that are not working to process asylum seekers at our borders and it would provide desperately needed resources to our agencies to allow them to implement these new provisions. while these new processes are being implemented, the bipartisan border bill would provide for a temporary suspension of asylum in between ports of entry, if the number of asylum seekers arriving at the border exceeds the capacity of dhs to process.

i have some concerns about the bill, but it reflects a genuine bipartisan effort to create solutions to outdated laws and underfunded that will plagued the immigration system for years. i was really disappointed, as i'm sure senator lankford was, to see most of my republican colleagues vote against that bipartisan bill. though the bill was written by senate republicans designated negotiator, senator lankford, and endorsed by the national border patrol council, the union that represents border patrol agents, the speaker of the house declared it, quote, dead on arrival in the house before the text was even released. to think that the border patrol agents saided that this will improve the situation, the lankford bill, and the republicans still voted against it tells us the whole sptory. i hope my colleagues will work with me to pass legislation that the american people deserve, one

that addresses the needs of our economy, provides a path to citizenship for dreamers and immigrant farmworkers, and lives up to our nation's legacy of providing safe harbor to refugees fleeing for their lives. the american people are tired of partisan posturing and bickering over immigration. that is why this bipartisan bill, which was encouraged by the republicans and the democrats, needs to be the starting point of our negotiation. they want us to work together to secure the border, support our economy can and stand by america's fundamental values. i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: well, there you have it. the american people have their answer. democrats don't care about securing the border. they never have and they never will. they pretend to. they continue to choose open borders. more crime, more fentanyl overdoses, more human trafficking, and more american deaths.

democrats will say republicans tanked a bill that would have secured the border. you just heard that. this is a blatant limelight this bill -- this is a blatant lie. this bill crafted by democrats would have done absolutely nothing to strengthen the border, not one thing. in fact, it would have made things worse. it would codify the problems that we've had the last three and a half years. my colleagues have offered real solutions. republican colleagues offered real solutions for the last month to fix the problem. we have a huge problem. somebody needs to recognize that. but my democratic colleagues have voted against and objected to every single thing that we've brought up. don't buy into this law. -- into this lie. mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: let's start at the gras grassroots of iowa. the question that comes up frequently at my county meetings -- and next week i'm going to hold a q & a in 12 of iowa's 99 counties, and i expect i'll get this question that him a going to pose to you that i get. senator, what are you going to do about the open border? people illegally entering our country. my answer is usually pretty short, that a long time before i came to the congress, congress passed laws saying you can't come to our country without our

permission. in fact, i add that we're very -- we're a very favorable country towards immigration because about a million people come here every year and maybe we should have more that come here under our laws, within those laws, not breaking our laws by entering the country illegally. i don't get much of a pushback from that, because i plain to them we pass laws and then the president enforces those laws under our constitution, and the president has decided not to enforce the immigration laws, and he shouldn't surprise us that he's taken that position for three and a half years because he told us before the election that he was going to open the border.

but there is some things congress can do about immigration, and that's why i am here on the floor today to ask unanimous consent for a piece of legislation that i put in. now, maybe if this legislation would become law, the president still might decide not to enforce it, like every other law. so since day one, the biden administration has pursued an open border policy. the result has been utter chaos and a crisis at the southern border. this crisis has become an indelible hallmark of president biden's america. however, president biden, as i have said, has the authority to secure the border. he's already empowered under our current law to do that.

he could do it today if he really wanted to. it's the same authority that president trump used to secure our border just a few years ago. the constitution makes very clear that the president takes an oath to -- shall take care to faithfully execute the laws. president biden doesn't follow that constitutional oath to take care in regard to it the immigration laws -- to the immigration laws. trump did take that oath very serious. so under the biden administration, some nine million migrants have been allowed to illegally enter our

country. that's about three times the population of my home state of iowa, and the president has done that for three and a half years. let me repeat that that nine million figure, it's like the entire population of iowa nearly three times over. so instead of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed of enforcing these immigration laws already on the books, this administration chooses to ignore our border and abuse our nation's immigration parole and asylum system. so that's what my bill deals with, the parole system. immigration parole is supposed to allow the executive branch to

temporarily grant individuals entry into the united states on a limited but case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. but instead of case by case, the biden administration uses this program to admit entire categories of people as a means to bypass the legal immigration pathway outlawed by congress. in other words, not doing it on a case-by-case basis. the actions of president biden are completely out of line with what congress intended the parole authority. so to address this loophole, i've introduced s. 505, the

immigration parole reform act. my bill will close this loophole and ensure compliance with congress's original intent as a limited authority for exceptional circumstances. my bill outlaws specific parameters for what constitutes an urgent humanitarian reason or significant public benefit. this bill would also provide clarity on the timing and extension of immigration parole, among other reforms. so at this point, mr. president, as if in legislative session, and notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged be from further consideration of s. 505, and the

senate proceed to its immediate consideration. further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. padilla: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mr. padilla: mr. president, this week has given the american people yet another clear window into the republican minds when it comes to immigration. they're not serious about addressing immigration or about having a secure or humanely managed border. instead, republicans only seem to believe in highlighting the challenges at our border, instead of actually taking action to address them, and they're prioritizing how it may

impact the results at the ballot box this november. that's their goal. to stoke more and more fear of immigrants every month between now and election day. so, i've asked before, i'll ask again, my republican colleagues, when are you ready to get serious about immigration reforms? all but ending the practice of parole and cutting off legal pathways to immigrants is not a serious approach to the immigration problem. they know it can't happen in practice, and maybe that's exactly why they're calling for it. let's be clear what this is and what this isn't. this is not updating the amnesty process, which is legal but in dire need of additional resources so that we can provide due process for those who may be seeking amnesty and provide them

determinations on their requests sooner rather than later. this is not updating work visa programs, because i know all of us are hearing from employers across industries that there's a need for additional workers to keep our economy driving. what we're talking about here in this measure is parole in place. every president since eisenhower has used their parole authority on a case-by-case basis to allow a safe and secure path for immigrants who are fleeing natural disasters or who need urgent specialized medical care to come to the united states. that's what we're talking about. both republican and democratic presidents have used it because it's a humane way to help address global crises. i'll give you some more recent examples. we've been able to provide protections for families of our

military members. we've been able to provide protections for people fleeing the war in ukraine. we've been able to provide protections for people who've fled afghanistan after the taliban takeover. and for haitians, more recently. and venezuelans. and those of other nationalities seeking refuge from violence and instability in their home countries. taking it away will actually force more people to come to the southern border, instead of using other lawful pathways like parole to come in a more orderly way. is that what republicans really want? because that's what will happen, to force more people to go to the border so they can continue to point fingers at a crisis of their own making? the president's ability to grant parole on a case-by-case basis

to people fleeing horrific and dangerous conditions is actually fundamental to america's continued leadership and our proud history of embracing strategic immigration as part of our success. mr. president, this bill represents a lack of respect for humanity and the laws of our nation, and therefore i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. grassley: i'd like to take 30 seconds before i yield, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i regret there is an objection, because fixing the biden administration border crisis begins with operational control and security at the border. this responsibility ultimately falls to the president, biden, as head of the executive branch, to enforce the border and immigration laws already on the

books. in other words, i would ask president biden to honor his oath where he took -- said in upholding the constitution he'd take care to faithfully execute the laws. i yield.

the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. budd: i ask unanimous consent that we enter a quorum call. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

mr. budd: i ask to vitiate the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. budd: mr. president, in order to be a strong nation we have to have strong borders, and right now we don't have that. we haven't had that for three and a half years. in fact, we're in the middle of the worst border crisis in american history. this is a crisis of president biden's own making. starting on his first day in office he has intentionally and repeatedly undermined security at the southern border. during his first 100 days in office president biden took 94 executive actions to open the bo border. three and a half year layers, nearly 10 million illegal aliens have entered our country. now those 10 million include an unknown number of dangerous

individuals, hundreds on the terrorism watch list, countless trans national cartel members, drug smugglers, human traffickers. it's a laundry list of evil. perhaps the worst consequences that we've seen over the past three and a half years are the trag tragedies, the innocent men and women taken from their families by an illegal alien who should have never been here in the first place. imagine, being a mother or father, you send your daughter off to college. you're beaming with pride, but you're also a little heart sick that they're going to be out there on their own. then, a few months later, you get the worst call in your life. and that's the reality for the family of laken riley, or another situation, let's imagine that your uncle is a sheriff's deputy. couldn't be prouder of him. you know he gets up, goes to work every day to defend and

protect his community. one day, you see his name on the news as a victim of a pack of illegal alien gang members who brutally murdered him while on duty. that's the reality for the family of wake county, north carolina deputy sheriff ned byrd. now, i recognize that the debate around illegal immigration is full of passion and sometimes and tag anything -- antagonism, but i believe we can all agree that if an illegal alien commits the crime of assaulting a police officer, he or she must be subject to immediate deportation. and mr. president, that's why i stand here today, to propose that the senate pass the police act. it's a straightforward bill. the police act simply states that an alien, an illegal alien, can be deported for assaulting a police officer, firefighter, or other first responder. the bill, it's already passed

the house and can be sent to the president's desk by passing it right now. any senator who claims to support the police should have no problem supporting this bill. so, let's help remove dangerous individuals, mr. president, before another tragedy strikes. notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the senate resume legislative session, the committee on the judiciary be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 2494, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. murphy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: mr. president, reserving the right to object. this is an interesting bill to be offered for unanimous consent because it actually does nothing. it does nothing. why? because individuals are already subject to deportation for

assault, whether they assault a police officer, whether they assault a milkman, whether they assault your family member. people who are convicted of serious assaults of law enforcement are already deportable, they already can face both state and federal criminal allegations. under current law, if an individual is convicted of any crime of violence and sentenced to a year or more in prison, that's an aggravated felony. that person is deportable. even more so, any crime of, quote, moral turpitude, is subject to deportation. additionally, any noncitizens convicted of any aggravated felony, including misdemeanor offenses, including misdemeanor offenses, are subject to deportation. this bill doesn't do anything. if you are here waiting for an

asylum claim or on a green card, and you assault a police officer, you're subject to deportation under existing law. so why are we considering taking this up under u.c.? i think senator budd referenced it in his underlying remarks. it's part of an effort to try to make americans believe that there is a specific dangerous threat posed to you by immigrants, that you should be afraid of immigrants, that there is a crime wave sweeping this country, caused by people who are coming to this country to seek a better life. i spent five months negotiating a bipartisan border deal, because i believe that we need to come together in a warp way -- in a bipartisan way to bring greater order to the southwest border. so i won't take a backseat to anybody when it comes to taking

a vote to make this -- the senator offering this voted against the bipartisan bill. so did many of his republican colleagues. we had an opportunity to do something about bipartisan border security but the republicans rejected it. president trump said let's keep the border chaotic, do nothing until the election. we had a chance to come together in a thoughtful way on a bipartisan border bill and we did not. the facts are this, whether you choose to want to believe the facts or not, that is not my decision. it is your decision. but immigrants commit crimes in this country at a rate lower than natural born citizens. you may not believe that if you watch fox news every night, but i hate to tell you it is the

truth. so if you want a safe town or a safe neighborhood, you're better o off, you are statistically safer if you have immigrants because they commit crimes of violence at a rate lower than people who are born in the united states. i don't know why we're being asked to vote on this bill because it doesn't do anything other than feed this idea, this false narrative that this country has something to fear from families that are coming to the united states fleeing either economic desperation or violence or terror or torture for a better life. and for that reason, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. budd: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. budd: such an honor to serve the people of north carolina, all 100 counties, all different

backgrounds. i don't profess to know what it's like in connecticut, but i think -- thank my colleague for his remarks. it's disheartening to me to hear a simple legislation, the police act, which states an illegal alien can be deported for assaulting a police officer, a firefighter or first responder is nothing. i don't profess to understand that. perhaps it's different in connecticut than north carolina. i don't know, i don't want to put words in the mouth of the family of laken riley or the family of deputy sheriff ned byrd, but i don't believe it's nothing. i yield. s

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on rules and administration be discharged from further consideration of s. 4292 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. further that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: reserving the right

to object. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mr. padilla mr. president, i've read the measure that is being attempted to be brought up by this motion. i want to make one thing perfectly clear. it is already a federal crime for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. every member of the senate should know that. mr. padilla:in fact, any noncitizen convicted of even registering to vote could face up to five years in prison. and every single state has a law prohibiting noncitizens from voting in federal elections. and the consequences for noncitizens go beyond prison time. claiming to be a u.s. citizen under penalty of perjury while registering to vote or while actually voting are deportable

offenses. so it's already against the law with significant consequences for violations. and in fact experts have found that voting by noncitizens is exceedingly rare. a study of the 2016 election, for example, found that noncitizen votes accounted for -- let me get this ri right --.0001 percent. doing the math, that's about 30 incidents of suspected -- not even proven -- suspected noncitizens voting out of 23.5 million votes cast. what does that tell us? it tells us that our current laws are working. don't just take my word for it. the cato institute agrees. in november of 2020, the cato

institute found that, quote, noncitizens don't illegally vote in detectible numbers, end quote. so, colleagues, plain and simple, this bill is a solution in search of a problem. what it attempts to do is once again make it harder for eligible americans to vote or to discourage people from voting, particularly american citizens who happen to be experiencing homel homelessness, for u.s. citizens of color, for u.s. citizens without driver's licenses. do they have any less of a right to vote than any of us, or less of a claim to our country? i speak today, mr. president, as

both a former california secretary of state as well as being a member of this body. and i've always believed that our democracy works best when as many eligible people participate. that's why i along with several of our democratic colleagues introduced the freedom to vote act. the freedom to vote act does not extend registration or voting rights to noncitizens. what does the freedom to vote act do? it includes provoter policies for eligible americans like early voting, vote by mail. imagine that, making it easier for eligible u.s. citizens to exercise their franchise. that's the american way. whereas this bill would only serve as yet another barrier to participation by imposing not

just extremely burdensome, but unnecessary requirements on registering to vote. so, therefore, mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, it's unfortunate that we didn't have a chance to pass this today. i would love to have passed it. the reason i would have loved to have passed it because as my friend and distinguished colleague, the senator from california, has just noted, it's illegal for a noncitizen vote. because it's illegal for a noncitizen to vote, we need to make sure it doesn't happen. the fact that it's prohibited by law with federal criminal penalties attached to it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, doesn't mean that it couldn't happen, doesn't mean that it's not more likely to happen when we bring a whole lot more n

nonsits into the country. there are an estimated 30 million or so noncitizens inside the united states. my friend and colleague from california cites a couple of studies. one of those studies is from the cato institute from 2020. this was about 12 million noncitizens ago. under this administration, let an additional 12 million or so noncitizens into the united states. that rapid of an influx can cause problems. he also cites another study from 2016. a 2016 study, probably 15 or 16 million noncitizens ago. things do change. the cato study, the one from 2020 he mentioned, says there is no evidence that nonsits are voting -- noncitizens are voting

in detectible numbers. the more noncitizens we have and the more time that elapses when the national voter registration act or nvra remains intact, the more predictable, foreseeable and indeed likely it becomes that many people, some of them perhaps maliciously, knowingly intending to violate the law, others who might be in sort of a gray area, not quite realizing what they're doing or the fact that it's illegal might end up registering to vote. let's remember 1993 congress passed the so-called motor voter law, the national voter registration act, made he it very easy to vote. if you do that, you're registered to vote. now fast forward two decades, the supreme court of the united states decides a case interpreting the national voter registration act as prohibiting the states, preempting the field

in such a way that states may not request any proof, any evidence of citizenship when registering someone to vote such that they would be eligible to cast a vote in a federal election. so meanwhile we've got a change in trend. decades ago when the ndra was passed, number one, we had far fewer illegal aliens flt country, we also, number two, had a lot of states that wouldn't issue a driver's license or were reluctant to do so to someone who is illegally in the united states. it's now the case that at least 19 states issue drivers licenses to individuals who are unlawfully, illegally in the united states, all 50 states, plus the district of columbia issue drivers licenses to noncitizens generally. what that means is somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 million

people, or at least the adult segment, that portion of the nearly 30 million people who are noncitizens inside the united states today, all they've got to do is go get a driver's license, which most of them, if they have any interaction with other members of society, are likely to do, to go get a driver's license. you need a driver's license for all kinds of things. wungs they do that, check that box, sign their name, under the honor system, they will be registered to vote. not only does the state not necessarily know that they're noncitizens, the state is legally constrained, legally prohibited for asking any evidence establishing whether or not they're citizens. so this really is concerning. we shouldn't prtreat it lightly

and the fact that it -- treat it lightly, and it is less likely to have record evidence supporting citizenship. we have to do this in other context. anyone who travels abroad or might in the future travel abroad will have to apply for a u.s. passport, to do that you will have to produce some sort of evidence of u.s. citizenship. when you start a new job in the united states, you have to fill out a us-9 form. if you are not a citizen, you have to produce a visas and your eligibility under the visas program to work. but if you're not here on a visa and you're an american, then you have to produce evidence that you are, in fact, a citizen of the united states. so you have to produce that stuff to get a passport. if you have to produce that stuff whenever you start a new

job, why would it not make sense to require proof of citizenship upon registering to vote in a federal election? how else are we supposed to protect our elections? our sacred elections within our constitutional republic from foreign interference? look, mr. president, one person, one vote. one citizen, one vote. this is how it's supposed to work. this is a foundational principle and it is under an unprecedented threat today. it's under threat specifically because president biden and secretary mayorkas have refused willfully to enforce the law. and now we face a direct threat to our electoral system as a result. consider this. since president biden's inauguration, over 9.5 million

undocumented immigrants have entered the united states illegally and have been observed, an estimated 12 million or so have come in, that includes the people estimated to have entered without being observed. this figure exceeds the populations of 36 u.s. states, creating a crisis that's been met with the -- just troubling silence and inaction from many across the aisle. with millions of unauthorized entrance on to u.s. soil, the potential for ineligible election fraud is a reality. instead of urging the president of the united states to address this crisis, democrats seem to prefer to resurrect the so-called orwellian name, border security act, a bill that's

already failed in this body and will do nothing to mitigate the border issues at hand, the border issues created and then exacerbated by this administration. with the influx of noncitizens under this administration, even if just a fraction, say one in 100 were to vote, this could translate to hundreds of thousands of votes. enough certainly to sway or tightly contest elections and potentially alter outcomes even in something as significant and nationwide implications and as far reaching as a presidential election. this is concerning, considering a study found that noncitizens have ample openings to illegally vote. somewhere between 10% and 27% of noncitizens are registered to vote and somewhere between 5% and 13% of noncitizens vote in

federal elections, including presidential elections. across the nation, instances abound where states have inadvertently facilitated the crisis. i say inadvertently, but in some ways their hands are tied. inadvertently here sort of refers to the fact that they don't necessarily mean to, it's that they're prohibited from asking for proof of citizenship. for months unsolicited voter rengster phones -- register forms, practices relying merely on the honesty of noncitizens including illegal aliens have opened the floodgates to voter fraud. and while throughs it's already illegal -- true that it's already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, there really are no effective systems in place to verify the

rej are station of -- registration of voters. there is little risk of being caught due to inadequate state election structure. federal law even prevents states from requiring proof of citizenship when registering voters via federal ephe -- fede forms. it blurs the distinctions meant to protect the integrity of our elections. prominent democrats have openly discussed these tactics as not just existing elements but as things that are beneficial to their agenda. only months ago every senate democrat voted to count illegal aliens in the census to help them shore up more seats in congress and more electoral votes in the electoral college. this cannot continue. it's our responsibility, it's our moral imperative to close these gates.

my bill, the safeguard american voter eligibility act, also known as the save act, would be a vital step in securing the electoral process, ensuring that every state -- that every state, that every vote cast is legitimate, and every voter is duly registered. the save act will enable states to require proof of citizenship when registering voters for purposes of federal elections. under the save act, we mandate that states obtain concrete documentary proof of citizenship at the time of voter registration. it specifies acceptable documentation that really is desperately needed. it's far more endurus if you want to compare the two, if you want to talk about the burdensome amount of paperwork that goes on related to what

needs to be protected, i think it is harmful, if not more so. to fail to require documentation and citizenship in voting in a federal election than it is when completing an i-9, which everyone has to do when starting a new job, citizen and noncitizen alike. furthermore, the save act compels states to remove noncitizens from voter rolls and penalize those who register for noncitizens. this bill echos the settlements of people from coast to coast, it speaks directly to the core of what makes our country great -- fair, free, and secure elections. this is about preserving the integrity of our elections and ensuring that each state have the opportunity to participate in a way that involves each vote being cast to reflect the american will. and if this administration

insists upon keeping america's borders open, then the administration must also ensure that none of these illegal immigrants are thwarting our free and fair elections. look, this border crisis, make no mistake has been engineered and perpetuated by this administration. now, they shouldn't want open borders for a lot of bad reasons, a lot of good reasons why this is a bad idea, a lot of reasons why we shouldn't allow this, and a lot of people like laishg who have -- laken riley who have lost their lives and endured heartache, trauma and devastating consequences because of people who should not be here to begin with. but if this shwhat they want -- is what they want, then for the love of all that is -- we need to make sure that had those same

people that they willfully allowed to enter our country against our law and against the will of the american people to at least not be allowed to vote in our country. every day we delay the foundation of our electoral processes erodes a little more. we can't wait for this administration to enforce the law because this administration isn't enforcing the law. by passing the save act, we send a clear message that in the united states voting is not just a right and bridge of citizenship -- privilege of citizenship, but it is also a protected and cherished one, one that our own government won't deliberately allow to be i did lewd and -- i diluted and made less meaningful. as debates about elections rage, the save act will guarantee that only american citizens will have a say in our elections, and

thereby keeping those elections free from foreign interference. something we all care about. american elections must be decided by american voters, full stop. bo the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: our country is in the grips of the worst border security, presh's open borders have caused an unprecedented humanitarian disaster with grave consequences for safety and security and the rule of law. for years democrats have stood by and watched as president biden presided over and potentially exacerbated this

historic crisis. they know that president biden has the authority to secure the border, yet instead of taking him to task, they remain silent. instead of calling on the president to fix the problem, we're here attempting to reincentivize the so-called border security act. a bill that already failed to pass and will do nothing to secure the border and if anything would likely make it worse if heaven forbid it became law. it would certainly make it worse when administered under this administration because the amount of executive branch discretionary authority that this bill creates. look, let's be honest here. this is a political exercise, not a serious debate because that bill's going nowhere and we all know that. and since president biden's inauguration, over 9.5 million undocumented immigrants have entered the united states

ille illegally. just the ones that we know about. just the ones that have been observed, that have been recorded by our border security personnel. it's larger than the population of 36 states, most of our states are smaller than the number of people who have been observed and recorded as crossing into our country through our southern border unlawfully just since january 20, 2021. the magnitude of the border security crisis is hard to comprehend. what's not hard to compro hence is that -- comprehend is that this is a public safety crisis and should be treated as such. our constituents know this, and we know it from them. they feel strongly about it, and they don't like it. so let's not pretend that president biden lacks authority to secure the border, and needs

new legislation or else he won't be able to do anything about it. that isn't true. that is science fiction fantasy. that is a fraudulently produced statement. it is a truth-free assertion. president biden, you have the power right now to secure this border. you have it, and you know that you have it. and you deceive the american people when you suggest othe otherwise. let's not waste the american peo peoples' time by debating a bill that makes the crisis even worse, by giving you, sir, more power to make this worse, which it will do. we know already how you would utilize that discretionary authority, because we know how you utilize the discretionary authority you've already been given. we should be considering measures that force this administration to actually secure the border, that stay the president's hand and that force him to do his job, which is to secure the border. we can do just that, or at least

move in the right direction on that front simply by passing my legislation known as the valid act. thanks to the biden administration, inadmissible aliens are not just entering the united states on foot. they're being flown on commercial flights, often at government expense, into and throughout the country. the cbp1 mobile app, never intended to be used by migrants seeking entry into the united states, has been repurposed into a tool by the biden administration that facilitates the entry of even more illegal aliens into the united states. today, migrants can download the app, put in whatever identifiable information they'd like, no matter the accuracy of the information, regardless whether they just made it up just like they walked into a party and wrote their name down on a name tag, saying hello, my

name is thus and such. then they can use the app as their sole exclusive form of i.d. necessary to enter the united states. so the rest of us, if we travel outside the united states, need a passport to come back into the united states. but if you're an illegal alien, no documents, no citizenship, no visa, no problem. we got you covered. all you've got to do is color inside the lines, just write down whatever information you want to make up, put it on the app, that's your ticket. you're getting in. can't tell you how many times my constituents service operation in my state office back in utah gets calls from frantic, concerned american citizens, they're somewhere outside the united states, they lose their passport. it's a real crisis. we do our best to help them.

we can almost always figure out a way to solve the problem, but it creates a real difficulty. the american citizens don't have access to the cbp one mobile app. but you know who does? illegal aliens, and it helps them get into the country. now, not only can illegal immigrants use the app to enter the united states by plane, but they can also use it to travel throughout the united states, within the united states, on domestic flights, paid for by the u.s. government. migrants don't need a legitimate i.d. or passport. they can board a plane using biden's cbp one mobile app, by the cbp advertises at airports nationwide. if you're an american citizen, you will have an entirely different airport experience. you'll be expected to wait in long security lines, show proof of valid identification, then potentially be subjected to an additional invasive security

scre screening. americans are expected to follow our country's laws. yet, illegal aliens, who are in the u.s. only because they broke our country's laws that govern how you get into this country, are held to a lower standard. it's almost an insult to standards to call it a standard at all. it is a nonstandard. the biden administration is rewarding people illegally entering our country with their own personalized form of tsa pre-check. but it's better than tsa pre-check. it's free. you don't have to provide any documentation. you don't have to have any real security review. this backwards policy has real conse consequences. hundreds of thousands of otherwise inadmissible aliens have entered the u.s. using the cbp one mobile app as their sole form of identification or travel authorization. among those who have entered by using the app include a haitian

migrant who, after entering the u.s. through the comp p cbp one mobile app was arrested for double homicide in new york. cory alvarez, who entered through the app, was arrested for sexually assaulting a disabled 15-year-old girl. americans deserve the right to fly without fear, which is impossible when we have a president who allows people, without verifiable information, to enter our country against our laws. my bill can be end this unacceptable lapse in security and public safety, and it can do it today. all i'm asking for is a vote. a vote on legislation that would prohibit individuals from flying from foreign countries into the u.s. if they're using the cbp one mobile app, a notice to appear order or notice to report order is their sole form of

identification or travel authorization. this shouldn't be a hard idea to get behind. this shouldn't be controversial. not remotely. before you board a plane, you should prove who you are, just like the rest of us have to do. we do it all the time. we have to prove who we are when we go to the doctor's office, the pharmacy, when we check into a hotel, pick out a rental car, if we get pulled over on the highway for speeding. anytime we do just about anything of significance, it seems, we've got to produce identification to show who we are. look, this has been a pretty widespread practice that americans have been required to follow for a long time. at airports, certainly, since 9/11. everybody just understands it's what you got to do. even for a u.s. citizen to fly from one u.s. city to another, he or she must establish

identification, proving identity. president biden's reversing that standard, and importing crime into every community in america. no community in our country should be forced to fear that foreign nationals, whose identities we cannot confirm, can travel freely throughout the united states, freely off on a government expense, freely without even having to produce so much as identification papers. earlier this month, one of our colleagues was quoted as saying, quote, there's only one party that's serious about border security, it's the democratic party. we're going to ask republicans to join us. look, i'll pose the same question that he asked, and pose it now to all my democratic colleagues. if you are, as you claim, the party that's serious about border security, then for the

love of pete prove it. step up. go on record and show the american people where you stand on this commonsense border security reform. and let's pass the valid act. so to that end, madam president, notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the senate resume legislative session and that the senate proceed to s.4387, which is at the desk. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. murphy: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: reserving the right to object. great deal of respect for my colleague from utah. he and i collaborated on a number of really important pieces of legislation, especially in the national security space, so i say all this with tremendous respect for the senator from utah. first, let's go to the heart of the argument that he is making, because he makes an argument that you hear very often on this

floor that tens of thousands of people are entering the countries illegally, they're entering the country illegally. the senator knows the law, i would probably guess better than most so he knows that those people entering the united states without permission also have a corresponding right to apply for asylum. technically, they enter the united states without permission. but they are allowed to apply for asylum. and that right to asylum is a superseding right. and so, there has been no dispute whether the president is joe biden or the president is donald trump that if you enter the ont united states and -- enter the united states and claim asylum and have a valid claim of asylum, that you are able to make, theist passing the -- thus passing the credible fear claim, you get to stay in the united states to process that claim.

so, this idea that people coming into the united states to apply for asylum are here illegally is on i havated by -- obviated by long-standing law that requires the united states to allow those people to stay here while that claim is being processed. i just think it's important for everybody to understand what the law is, and that both democratic and republican administrations have allowed people with valid claims of asylum to stay here and to process those claims. as to the specifics of this bill that the senator is asking for unanimous consent on, again, i say this with great respect for my friend, i have no idea what the senator is talking about. i literally have no concept of the problem that he just described because it doesn't exist. there are not hundreds of thousands of it people coming to

the united states using cbp one as their only form of identification. that is not true, and i would suggest that the senator check with his staff. in order to qualify for cbp one, you have to have a passport. in fact, you have to have another means of identification in order to qualify for the cbp one program. champ cbp one papers are not an acceptable form of identification by tsa. individuals showing up at airports are showing up with a passport or another means of acceptable identification. the senator may have examples of exceptions, but there are certainly not hundreds of thousands of people coming to the united states with only cbp one documentation to present to t

tsa. it's just not true. cbp one, in fact, is the way by which we assure that individuals who are coming to the united states are, in fact, who they say they are. many of the programs through which we use cbp one include a vetting process, a vetting process frankly that admittedly often does not take place outside of cbp one. when people come to the border and claim asylum, if you don't have detention capability, as has been the case under both president trump and president biden, many of those are allowed into the country to process their asylum claim without the kind of vetting done in the cbp one program. i just don't recognize the problem that the senator is trying to solve here today, and i do think it creates a pretty problematic misimpression that you have the idea that there are

hundreds of thousands of people showing up at tsa and plopping down a cbp one document, coming to the united states with only that document. in fact, the only way you get the cbp one document is to have shown and verified your proper documentation. in addition, this amendment just feels kind of unworkable an if there is a specific work-around to the existing system that requires documentation, proof of identity in order to get a cbp one document, then i'm happy to work with the senator on it. but this amendment, or this bill, makes the requirement operative on the airline. the airline is not actually the entity that checks documentation, that -- that is entities run by the department of homeland security. so, i just don't see the same

problem that the senator does. in fact, i think the cbp one program is an incredibly important way to validate identity, to be able to do important vetting, and through certain processes, through which we use cbp one documentation, a way to control the number of presentations at the border. remember, through cbp one and the cnhv program, we've been able to greatly reduce the number of people showing up in an unplanned way at the border, in particular cubans, haitians, and nicaraguans. i understand republicans have a policy disagreement to fly into the country so they don't show up at the border.

i will continue to defend the use of cbp one as a very legitimate way to make sure that we have ability to vet individuals and we have an ability to relieve pressure on the southwest border. i just see this bill as attempting to tackle a problem that i have not been able to exist. i'm happy to talk to the senator off-line to see if there is a more limited problem that he's identified that we can perhaps discuss and work together on. but my broader frustration is this, if the senator would just vote yes on the motion to proceed tomorrow, we can work on this in the context of a bipartisan foundation. if the senator is upset about the underlying parole program, well, the bipartisan border security bill negotiated by senator lankford, senator mcconnell, myself, senator sinema, it makes significant changes to that parole program. in fact, it eliminates for all

intents and purposes the parole entrance used, the 236-a program, to limit the use of parole to true humanitarian purposes. that was vigorously negotiated by senator lankford and senator graham and others. i understand that the bipartisan bill is not perfect. it's not everything senator lee would want, not everything senator lankford would want, not everything i would want but it's a compromise. the vote tomorrow is just to begin debate, just to get on the bill so that we can see what amendments might be able to get to 60. maybe there is a more limited version of have, i would argue, badly crafted bill that could be added on to the bipartisan border bill. but we can't even have that debate. we can't even get to the bipartisan foundation because almost to a person republican senators are choosing, are choosing to vote against this

bipartisan bill, even considering the bipartisan bill. maybe this is not true for the senator from utah, but certainly others have been pretty clear about the fact that president trump has decided that he wants no compromise, no changes in border policy before the election because he wants the border to be a mess. he thinks that's good politics for him. and he wants republicans to vote against everything, everything in order to preserve this issue for political purposes. i think we'd be better off having a debate next week, getting on to the bipartisan border bill which does have republican support and has democratic support. not all democratic support because it's a real compromise. there are many of my members who don't support the bipartisan border bill. but we could choose to get on this bill tomorrow, take the senator's idea, vet it, work it out between the two parties, and have an old-fashioned senate debate. but we're not going to do that because republicans are going to vote almost to a person to

reject even taking up the bipartisan border bill. and maybe not for every republican senator, but for many that seems to be because president trump wants to keep the border a mess for political purposes. i regret that. i think the american people regret that. i'm looking forward to having a conversation with the senator i've worked with on a lot of other issues, but this bill seems to attack a problem that i can't yet identify. and for that reason, i would object. mr. lee: madam president. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the senator from utah. mr. lee: i appreciate the thoughtful analysis, consistent with his always thoughtful analytical approach to matters. it's been brought up by my friend and colleague, the distinguished senator from connecticut. he and i have worked on a lot of things including national security space. he and i need to talk about one of those things some time soon. i do, however, disagree with a

number of conclusions that he's reached. i think i see where he's going and i understand how he gets there, but i think he's mistaken on a couple of points. number one, there have in fact been hundreds of thousands of people who have entered the united states using the cbp one mobile app as their basis for entering the country and as their form of identification. hundreds of thousands. in fact, my understanding is that between october of 2022 and the end of september of 2023, that calendar year there were a total of 221,456 such people who did that just from four countries alone. from venezuela, haiti, cuba, and nicarauga, people being brought in and then paroled. these were people who, as i understand it, the department of homeland security has acknowledged, had no valid basis for entering the country and

that's why they had to be paroled into the country. they were using immigration parole illegally, illegitimately to bring them in because to actually use immigration parole, the statute requires that it be made on an individualized basis not a categorical one. these were brought in categorically. with respect to his assertion regarding the entry into the united states followed by an assertion of a right to proceed under our asylum laws, that's a different question altogether. first of all, if you enter the united states unlawfully and then apply for asylum, you still have entered unlawfully. he describes then these individuals as having a right to asylum. nobody has a right to asylum in the united states. we do have asylum laws. those laws allow the department of homeland security through authority that goes through the

secretary of homeland security to extend asylum status on a discretionary basis. there is no statutorily conferred right, certainly no constitutionally conferred right to asylum. in fact, what we do have is that if you enter the united states without documentation and then you apply for asylum, you have to have your asylum claim adjudicated. that can take years. in fact, a number of people who are entering the united states now, if they apply for asylum after entering, they are often told that their court date may not occur until well into the 2030's. we know that most asylum applications are denied. most people who apply for asylum are ultimately deemed not eligible for asylum. you can't call this a

statutorily or constitutional right, statutorily conferred or a constitutionally conferred right. nor can you say that they are asylees as of the moment that they apply. under our asylum laws, while there is some complexity to it, i think the most natural reading of them is that they are supposed to be detained while their asylum applications are pending and until they're finally resolved, which as i just noted, most asylum applicants are ultimately denied that. so to tell them, okay, fill out this form using the app, that can be your form of identification. you may enter the country using that as your i.d. you may fly about the country at will using that i.d. to say that that is based on some sort of lawful immigration status isn't accurate and it certainly ignores the fact that we're flouting in countless

circumstances either immigration parole or asylum in order to get them to that point. as to the suggestion that those entering the country with cbp one, the cbp one mobile app, if i understand my colleague's assertion correctly, i think he's saying you've got to have other forms of i.d., perhaps a foreign passport or something akin to that in order to use the cbp one mobile app to enter the united states. it is not my understanding at all. i've had countless conversations, i as well as my staff, with officials within the department of homeland security when we've raised these concerns. never heard any suggestion anywhere that that ability to use the app in that fashion is conditioned upon the ability to show, to produce a foreign passport or other official form of foreign identification. and i would add here i'm kite

certain that is not the -- quite certain that is not the case for the additional reason, that you see along our southern border people ditching their identification papers, their identification cards, passports, driver's licenses, whatever they are from their home jurisdictions. at the moment they cross the border, they ditch them. they ditch them because they don't need them. they ditch them because that way they can fill out the cbp one mobile app and make their name or their date of birth or whatever it is, whatever they want. this is a very known phenomenon. these are very widely observed facts along the southern border. these are not hundreds of thousands who have been here, that is not my understanding.

221,000-some odd people flew in just from the four countries i mentioned alone and just for the 12-month interval that i mentioned. we've got many hundreds of thousands who have come in using the cbp one mobile app. at the end of the day we do have a problem. we have a problem because we've got so many people coming in here who don't have a visa to be here, don't have citizenship, don't have status as a lawful permanent resident or otherwise and they're entering without documentation, without any other legal right. the fact that this administration has chosen to paper over the fact that in any other administration, in any other era of american history or at least modern american history, since we, these things started happening, those would be regarded as illegal aliens,

which of course they are. in this administration, they do their best to try to paper over that by either declaring them eligible for immigration parole, even though they're not because you're not allowed to use immigration parole that way. you can use immigration parole in two instances, both of which are specific, neither of which may be categorical. there's the humanitarian use, for example your mother is in the united states, you're outside the united states. you don't have a visa. you're not a citizen. you're a citizen of another country. you want to come in because your mother is sick, she's about to pass away and for humanitarian purposes they'll let you in for a brief peter. understand that it is momentary. the other is a public use purpose. public use. let's say you speak a language that's needed in the united

states, i don't know, interpret at somebody's trial, translation services or something like that. either way, it has to be a spe specific, individualized determination. this administration is using these things by the hundreds of thousands to say come on in. if you're from venezuela, haiti, cuba, nicarauga, one of the other favorite countries on this, just come on in. papering over them doesn't make them legal. they are still illegal aliens and we're still facilitating the process by which they enter the united states and making it easier for them to enter the united states without proper identification. this would fix that. this bill would fix that. i ask today not that we pass it by unanimous consent. i asked only that we turn to it, that we get on to it. even that drew an objection. that is most unfortunate. finally, i want to make the point with reference to the 45th president of the united states.

i, like many, i believe like most of my republican colleagues, i have grave concerns with the so-called border security measure. it's really more of an immigration bill than a border security measure that democrats want us to turn to next, they want us to get on to. i've grot grave concerns with that, and most of my republican colleagues do. most of us had real concerns with it long before the 45th president of the united states weighed in on it. my objections had nothing to do, still have nothing to do with the preferences of the 45th president of the united states with regard to that bill. they have everything to do with what that bill actually said. i understand a number of people put a lot of time into that bill. i get it. but that bill didn't do what most of us as republicans asked that it do, which is that it remove the president's vast discretion to make it easier to

paper over and document illegal aliens to make them appear legal when in fact they are not. mr. murphy: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: i know my other colleagues are waiting to speak, so very quickly. i know terminology matters a lot to my colleague, and so i want to put a fine point on this. republicans may have an objection to the way in which the president uses his parole authority, but the president has always had broad parole authorities. and the individuals who are here under cbp one are not illegal. they have been granted the ability to be in the united states under the president's parole authority. you can have a policy objection to that and the courts may opine on whether the president has the authority to use parole in the way he's using them. those aliens are not here illegally.

second, there's a difference between people using cbp one mobile app, versus using it as documents to get on an airplane. it is true tens of thousands of people from those four countries have used cbp one to be lawfully in the united states, it is not true that they are not providing documentation in order to get cbp one. those are two different issues. yes, tens of thousands of people use cbp one as the means to come into the united states legally, no, hundreds of thousands of people do not use cbp one as their identification mechanism to get on an airplane. i just think it's important to distinguish between the two. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming.

mr. barrasso: madam president, let me defer to my colleague from utah. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i will be brief and i appreciate my friend and colleague from wyoming indulging me in this. there are a couple of points. they are entering unlawfully, again, this administration is using other laws to paper over their illegalty. the fact that president biden is unlawfully using immigration parole to make them appear legal does not make them legal. if you count the tail of a dog as a leg, how many tails does the dog have? the answer is it's still four tails. somebody who enters unlawfully is here lawfully because the president is using an authority

that makes them lawful doesn't allow him do that. as to the suggestion those who enter using the cbp one mobile app has uniformly provided a passport. it just isn't true. in fact, i had confirmed right now with the person who helps me with these things, who helps constituents and people in my state who confirmed just now that it is not a requirement. they're not required to provide ra pat port in order -- to show a passport. and it is repeated over and over again. thank you. mr. schumer: mr. /* mr. murphy: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection.

mr. murphy: i have 11 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. mr. murphy: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 701 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 701, designating the week of may 19 through may 25, 2024, as national public works week. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. murphy: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. murphy: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on thursday, may 23. that following the prayer and pledge, 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 conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the dalton nomination postcloture, and that

if the nomination is confirmed 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. mr. murphy: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. -- previous order following the remarks of senator barasso and senator wyden. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. i come to the floor to continue the discussion of the crisis at our southern border. when joe biden walked into the white house, the southern border was secure. tragically for our country he then signed 94 executive orders in his first 100 days. he rolled out the welcome mat and millions and millions of illegal immigrants flooded into our nation. democrats in congress joined him. they joined the president. they worked with whim.

they aggressively -- with him. they aggressively rolled back republican-led policies that had worked to keep our country safe. our southern border is now a pipeline for illegal crossings. since joe biden took office, almost 10 million illegal immigrants have invaded america. democrats' uncontrolled illegal immigration, it strains our tax dollars, it undermines the safety of our citizens, it endangers our communities. hardworking american taxpayers are now paying -- they're paying for housing, they're paying for health care, they're paying for government handouts all for illegal immigrants. according to one study the democrat border crisis costs citizens $450 billion each and every year. the heaviest costs are by families, communities, and local law enforcement. day after day lives are cut

short or changed forever. just two weeks ago in florida an 11-year-old girl was kidnapped and sexually sauled by a 20-year-old illegal immigrant brought into this country under the catch and release program of president biden. he's here because of this dangerous program. now, the local sheriff in florida had this to say. he said the federal government is victimizing the people who live in this country by letting these people in. to my democratic colleagues, i would say who vowted for open boards, what if this were your daughter, what if this were your granddaughter, a 20-year-old here, terrible, frightening. fortunately this young girl's mother was able to identify the situation and ran desperately to get that daughter who had been kidnapped.

we are here fighting to secure the border, to make our communities safer. democrats in this body have done nothing to secure the border, done nothing to stop the flood of illegal immigrants. the record by the democrats in this body is appalling, and let me start with h.r. 2. it is the house bill, called the secure the border act of 2023. it's the strongest border security bill in our history. it completes the wall because walls work. it surges new technology to the border. it hires more border patrol agents and gives them a bonus, it ends catch and release and reinstates the successful plan of remain in mexico. if signed into law, h.r. 2 would stop the flood of illegal immigrants. now, the house of representatives passed this bill, the secure the border act of 2023 on may 11, 2023. that was over a year ago.

the senate majority leader refuses to bring this house passed bill to the floor and he has been blocking the bill for over a year. of course it's not just blocking the sewer the bothered act that is the problem -- border acted that is the problem. democrats will not vote for real border security measures. for three years now open the border democrats, each and every one of them, have rejected solutions aimed at fixing the border crisis. not once, not twice, 22 different recorded votes. democrats banded together to say no to finishing the wall, no to ending catch and and release, no to restoring remain in mexico policy, they blocked the laken riley act. meanwhile they embraced policies that tried to smooth the know of -- flow of illegal immigrants when americans all across the country are saying, stop this flood, this includes sending

illegal immigrants cash payments paid with taxpayer dollars. democrats continue to fund sanctuary cities. for three years my democratic colleagues seemed to welcome the crisis at the southern border. they now want to run away from their record and we know why, because election day is less than six months away and they can read the polls. democrats can run but they cannot hide. the majority leader recently said the situation at the border is unacceptable. i'm not sure he actually believes that. after all, one of his first comments after the 2022 election, he endorsed amnesty for illegal immigrants. the majority leader said at the time, that opening our borders is, quote, the only way we're going to have a great future in america. the only way, that's what the majority leader said, the only way we're going to have a great future in america, amnesty for illegal immigrants.

democrats have no desire to secure the border. every single democrat in this capitol is responsible for the drugs, the death, the destruction brought on by the invasion of our nation of illegal immigrants. this is a cycle of suffering that the senate republicans are determined to stop. this week i introduced a bill called the build the wall act. we know that the border wall works. my proposal finishes the law. it pays for it by clawing back unused covid funding. this law is absolutely vital to our nation's security. you know, once upon a time senator schumer supported a border wall, many of his democratic colleagues supported a border wall. when senator biden was actually a senator in in body, he voted for a border wall. they all flip-flopped and we know why. politics, plain and simple. to my democratic colleagues, i

say this. you're responsible for innocent americans being victimized by illegal immigrants in communities all across the nation. if democrats are serious about securing the border, they should start by voting for a policy that actually works and is paid for. that's the reason to vote for the bill i've introduced, the build the wall act. and so, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22, the senate rye -- resume legislative session and proceed to immediate consideration of s. 3492, which is at the desk. the presiding officer: is there objection. mr. wyden: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: thank you, madam president. i share my colleague's view that the southern border is serious business. i strongly favor smart, effective policies to deal with it, and the reason i can't support what he has proposed is

that defunding infrastructure does not make sense and that has long been the position of this senate. the money that is being discussed here has been supported unanimously over three particular initiatives here in the congress, and the authors of this -- and i would say this specifically -- have been senator cornyn, a member of the leadership on the other side of the aisle and our colleague from california, senator mr. padilla:. let me repeat that. we have gone through this three times, strong bipartisan support, republican leadership, our colleague from texas, senator cornyn and senator mr. padilla: -- and senator padilla from kal kal.

-- california. woo mr. wyden: we have said we can come up with smart is policies on the border and also maintain our infrastructure. and also the funding that my colleague is talking about would harm the effort to ensure we build the roads and the bridges and we deal with lead pipes in schools, that's what we're talking about, that's why the states and the localities have been such strong supporters of this. and my colleague serves on the finance committee. there are a number of areas where we have worked together and i note that this week in the finance committee a number of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have talked about how they want to generate more growth. smart idea. put me down as interested in

wanting to work in a bipartisan way. well, the reality is you can't generate big league economic growth with little league infrastructure, and that, unfortunately, is what is going on here where we agree that we ought to be tackling a very serious issue, the southern border, we disagree on the method of funding that effort, and i think defunding infrastructure is the end result of what my colleague is talking about and it turns upside down the bipartisan coalition that has allowed us to use that money at the state and local level, with republican leadership and our friend from california. so, that is why i have to object, madam president, and therefore i do object this evening. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. barrasso: madam president, let me be very brief in just

pointing out that this bill calls for using unspent covid money, specifically as a result of the covid pandemic that hit our nation, money sent to be spent for that. it does seem to me, and to probably just about every american, that we are way beyond that period of time, and moye money -- money designated for that purpose, it has not yet been spent, it should be readily available for a project like this. i also note that my friend and colleague who is on the floor, was along with president biden and president schumer one of those who did vote engineer 2006 for a bill -- did vote in 2006 for a bill at the time, called the secure fence act. thank you, madam president. . i yield. mr. wyden: very briefly, having participated in these debates, this specific discussion now on several occasions, again, my friend and i just have a difference of opinion. senator cornyn and senator padilla have repeatedly talked about this being for the roads

and bridges and dealing with lead pipes in schools that is so essential to the brighter future we all, democrats and republicans, want for our country. so, as we wrap up, i want it understood i share my colleague's view about how serious the southern border is, what we differ on is how we're going to pay for it, and defunding infrastructure, which senator cornyn and senator padilla set out to do, and i think in a very smart way, is not the way to go, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 stands adjourned until 10:00 today centers conrmed 200 the judge for a lifetime appointment during the biden administration. theyorked on the nominee to