presidential nominee for the november election. the libertarian national convention live at 3:30 p.m. eastern on c-span and online at c-span.org. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's shop, browse the apparel, books, home decor and accessories, there's something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation and shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> c-span is your unifilered view of government funded by these television companies and more, including media com. >> at media com we believe what you do is here, or here, or in

the middle of anywhere, you should have fast reliable internet. that's why we're leading the way. >> media com supports c-span along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. and we take you now live to the floor of the senate where this morning, members will be considering a nominee to be undersecretary of the air force. and later, senators will be revoting on a border security measure that failed in the chamber earlier this year. you're watching live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. ... . the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. today ace opening -- today's owning prayer will be offered by pastor adam weber, pastor of

embrace church, sioux falls, south dakota. the guest chaplain: let us pray. gracious lord, we thank you for this day. help us not to take it for granted. thank you for the breath in our lungs. thank you for hearing our voice when we cry out, for hearing our voice when we ask for your wisdom. today, i lift up this senate body to you. would you fill them with your love, joy, peace, grace, and truth. fill them with your wisdom, which starts and ends with you, o lord. would you guide, lead and direct them, lord. help their thoughts, conversations, and decisions today to be pleasing to you. i'm so grateful that you are all powerful, that we are mere instruments in your hands. today we dedicate this day, our

country, and our lives to you. and we pray this in your holy and precious name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., may 23, 2024. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable raphael g. warnock, a senator from the state of georgia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patty murray, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. thune: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, let me just say a word of welcome today to pastor adam weber. you heard him offer the opening

prayer today. i'm very privileged to have him here. and adam is someone whose family i have known for a long time. sort of watched him grow up, if you will. he's a millbank, south dakota native. and at the young age of 24 started a church called embrace church in sioux falls, south dakota. and at that time i think the first service had 32 people. his office was a chevy cavalier. and a decade later it was one of the fastest growing churches literally in this entire country. and they've continued to grow through the years. and they'll do it the same way they've always have and that's one person at a time. emb embrace's heart is to relentlessly reach the next person for jesus. it's something that adam lives out. he seeks out strangers. he goes for what he calls nonfluff conversations. and he reaches people. lots and lots of people with the

good news of the gospel. and i have had the opportunity to attend services along with my wife, mr. president. adam also has a podcast which reaches literally thousands and thousands of people that i've listened to. he interviews people from all walks of life and talks to them about their spiritual formation. it's very meaningful to his listeners and certainly whens been -- certainly has been important in my life, too, as we try to apply the truth of the scriptures at a time when we face enormous challenges as a country and in a lot of our communities across the country. i'm dwlieted to -- delighted to have adam here and thank him for his ministry and grateful to chaplain black for making it possible for him to be chaplain for the day. and i would tell my colleagues what i have said many times before, and that is that we do have a bible study that the chaplain leads on a weekly

basis, thursday at noon and encourage all. my -- all of my colleagues to attend. it's been enormously important to me through the years in keeping me anchored and grounded on the solid rock at times when things can be very uncertain. and sometimes tumultuous around us. so i'm grateful for the chaplain for his leadership here and delighted to have pastor adam weber from sioux falls, south dakota, and embrace church with us here today in the united states senate. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to calendar 397, s. 4361. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 397, s. 4361, a bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for border security and so forth and for other purposes. mr. schumer: thank you, mr.

president. and first, let me add my greetings to our dhap lynn -- chaplain from south dakota and welcome him under john thune's auspices. so welcome, pastor. pastor, welcome. mr. president, three months ago something truly stunning happened here on the senate floor. senate republicans filibustered the strongest, most comprehensive border security bill congress has seen in a generation. and they did it because donald trump wanted to exploit the border for political gain on the campaign trail. well, today we're going to try again. we will vote to move forward on a border security bill that democrats and republicans spent months on together. i hope our republican colleagues join us to reach a different outcome. we all know the situation at the border is unacceptable and demands attention from congress.

democrats believe that our republicans have been saying it and that's why three months ago we sat down with them to write a strong and necessary and bipartisan border security bill. poll after poll shows that large -- a large majority of americans across party lines support our position of getting a bipartisan bill done and only 8% are in opposition. when republicans like donald trump say don't support a bipartisan bill, wait til next year, they're in a distinct minority with the american people from one end of the country to the other. people want us to get things done. people want us to come together. and when they hear that the only reason republicans backed away from this bill is not that it wasn't strong enough but that donald trump said he wanted chaos at the border. they don't like that. this is our bill.

the public is on the same page and in the polling data, democrats, republicans, and independents are all on the same page. act on a bipartisan bill, get something done. don't play political games. and this is a bill that will hire thousands of new border agents, a bill that will finally reform asylum, a bill that will commit billions to stop the flow of fentanyl, a bill endorsed by the national border patrol union and the chamber of commerce and the very conservative wall street editorial page. so to my republican colleagues, you wanted this border bill. today we vote on this border bill, and it's time to show you're serious about solving the problem. look, i understand that today's bill is not going to win every single democratic vote or every single republican vote. that was never the goal of this bill. the bill was rather to come up with something that could get 60 votes. a majority on both sides of the aisle. that's how it was crafted.

and it's far different than what the republicans have done. look at what happened to h.r. 2. it didn't get a single democratic vote here in the senate. it did not even get the support of every senate republican. if anything is political theater, it's h.r. 2. it's not designed to solve the problem. it's designed to make a political point. the bill we are bringing up was designed to solve the problem. and republicans and democrats labored together in good faith to get that done, and it would have gotten done had donald trump not said, i don't want this done. blame it on me. i want chaos at the border so i can win reelection. that is not what the american people want, as i mentioned. that's -- the polling data is clearly on our side. the bipartisan border bill is something so different than h.r. 2 because it is a serious attempt at legislation that republicans helped put together. now, people might forget that there was actually a lot of

bipartisan interest in getting this bill passed before donald trump killed the bill and told the country please blame it on me. that's what he said. blame it on him. my friend, the republican leader, openly admitted that, quote, it's actually our side that wanted to tackle the border issue. we started it. that's what leader mcconnell said. my friend, the senator from texas, similarly said, it makes no sense to me for us to do nothing when we might be able to do things better. that's just what we're doing today, i would say to my friend, the senator from texas. a few weeks before our bill was released, our colleague from iowa warned, quote, we stand the risk of losing the chance to actually get something done on the border now because i don't see this opportunity coming again -- coming up again any time soon. again, that's what we're doing, just what our republican senators asked us to do for months. and i would be remiss not to include the good observation of my friend from south carolina.

he said, h.r. 2 was unable to get any democratic support in the house. we lost one republican in the senate. so to the conservative world, you have a unique opportunity to get border security reform. and he added, this moment will pass. do not let it pass. i can't say it any better. and what they said then is perfectly applicable now. what made them change when she had such conviction that we had to get something done in a strong bipartisan way? one thing, donald trump said turn around, reverse yourself. 180-degree reversal and they did. the words i have mentioned are not the words of senators who think this was all political theater. they sound like the words of senators who are hoping to get something done. but as i mentioned, it wasn't until after donald trump swooped in that they changed their tune. so we're going to try again today. i hope republicans join us on today's vote to reach a

different outcome than the one in march. if republicans were truly serious about calling the situation at the border an emergency, they shouldn't delay any longer. you can't call something an emergency one day and then suddenly kick the can down the road the next day. let me finish with this. america is proud of its immigrant tradition. we always have been and always will be, a nation comprised of people who come from across the world looking for an opportunity here in this country knowing that there's no place better than america if you work hard, you can provide a good life for yourself and your family. that was what has importune people for generations. we should never let go of that. we must always work to give people more opportunity to come here to treat them humanely, and embrace people who want to contribute to our economy. there's nothing more american than that. immigration has been one of the great causes of mine since my earliest days in the senate. i was part of the bipartisan

gang of eight led my myself and my friend, the late john mccain, that wrote comprehensive immigration reform. we passed that historic bill because both sides were able to work together. the lesson of that bill is it passed the senate i believe with 68 or 69 votes, bipartisan, is we can only do these things in a bipartisan way. only. so today knowing that lesson, we need to try and work again together. we know our nation is stronger because of immigration. we know that the status quo at the southern border is unacceptable. the results of decades of neglect going back administrations on both sides. so to all those who have said for years we must act on the border, this is the chance to show you're serious about fixing the problem. this is our chance to show the american people that we're willing to reach across the aisle and work to solve one of the most vexing problems that affects our country and what the

public overwhelmingly wants in poll after poll. i urge my colleagues on both sides to join us in moving forward today. a chance like this, sadly, only comes once in a blue moon. to might senate republican colleagues, please do not let this moment pass. on big oil, mr. president, it's disturbing -- it's a disturbing tale as all this time while big oil companies bask in record breaking profits, hardworking americans are feeling the pinch of high prices at the pump. instead of working to lower gas prices for americans ahead of a busy memorial day weekend, big oil executives seem to be huddling to find ways to keep gas prices high and keep profits soaring. one of those ways included big oil executives spending their time cozying up to donald trump who, as we all know, is no enemy of big oil. a few weeks ago "the washington post" released a disturbing account of a meeting donald trump held with big oil executives at marah largo where

donald trump promised big oil executives he'll gut the clean energy investments and jobs made possible by the legislation we democrats passed in exchange for $1 billion for his reelection efforts. this is sickening. donald trump would quite literally be bought by the biggest polluters in the world and be totally beholden to the fossil fuel agenda. and americans will pay the price at the pump. donald trump is not even hiding it. sadly, big oil's greediness doesn't stop with donald trump. a recent report showed big oil companies were among the biggest perpetrators of stock buybacks, using soaring profits to further line the pox of wealthy example and shareholders. stock bye backs aren't good for the economy, for workers, or for anyone but the wealthy oil executives and shareholders. it shows that instead of fives in investing -- in investing in

new energy, they're instead raising stock prices. there is something deeply wrong with big oil companies continuing to rake in the cash at the expense of the american people. so democrats will keep working to shine a spotlight on oil companies' unfairness practices and hold them accountable. choice -- next month, mr. president, america will mark a dark and somber anniversary. june 24 will be two years since a radical maga majority on the supreme court overturned roe v. wade. it was one of the worst, if not the worst, supreme court decisions of modern times. in one fell swoop, maga justices pulled off one of the most draconian reversals of individual liberty ever. today at least 20 states have near total bans or severe restrictions on abortion. senate democrats will put reproductive freedoms front and center when we return after the memorial day state work period.

two days ago i began the process for the senate to consider the right to contraception, led by senators markey and hirono. we'll consider that bill in june. there will be more action to come after that. at a time when tens of millions of americans are worried about reproductive health, tens of millions of american women worried about reproductive health, though many males are as well, senate democrats will focus on protecting fundamental freedoms, like the right to vote. access to ivf, continued access to contraception and more. democrats will never relent until we reverse the immense damage that the supreme court has inflicted on this country, and the american people have a right to know where their elected officials stand on protecting the rights and reproductive care. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the clerk: ms. baldwin.

1,624,790 people have lately crossed our southwest border. 1,624,790. so far there we have at least

1.6 million people that of also been designated gotaways in the last three years. that is, they cross our southwest border, the border patrol can see them, but they couldn't get to them. let me give you some context on that. as his body and as well because we 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 that we had in the previous 12 years combined. if you want to drill down, one year under president biden has as many illegal crossings as we had under four use of president trump. yesterday we had more than 50000 people illegally cross our southwest border yesterday. that has been true every day, i

believe, but three in the last three months that we had more than 5000 people a day. now, the national news media has looked away from the southwest border, but those that live on a southwest border can't look away. they are still facing it every single day. and in cities and into marriages across the entire country, it is still happening every single day, day after day as this president has looked away from what's happening on our southern border. as i said to this department of homeland security multiple times, if they would enforce the border is 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 crossed illegally in a year that exist under president biden where we've had 1.6 million people so far this year was still quite a few months to go. the same law. mr. mcconnell: we're nearing the end of president biden's term, and the american people's patience for his failure to secure our southern border is running thin. after three years in office, nearly every conceivable metric has distinguished the biden administration from its predecessors for all of the wrong reasons. since the president took office,

customs and border protection has seen the highest annual total for border encounters on record. cbp has reported more than 77.8 million encounters with illegal immigrants at the southern border, and this doesn't even count the 1.6 million known get-aways. fentanyl and other lethal drugs pushed by china through mexico and across our border are the primary cause of death among american adults between ages 18 and 45. and reports of individuals on the terror watch living to sneak across the southern border have

literally soared on president biden's watch. five years ago, cbp didn't encounter a single individual on the list between southern border ports of entry. last year, they encountered 169. this is what broken borders look like. this is humanitarian and national security failure of the highest degree. and it's no mystery how we got there. president biden and vice president harris were promising open borders four years ago on the campaign trail, and they started following through literally on day one. the biden administration rescinded policies like remain in mexico that helped cbp hold the crisis at bay.

they froze construction of physical barriers at the border out of spite for their prede predecessor, a move that most americans now say they want to see reversed. every senate democrat voted to let president biden repeal title 42 a pandemic-era policy that represented border officials' only meaningful fool to stem the flow of illegal arrivals. the administration's supposed border czar traveled widely to discuss the root causes of migration, but for months she couldn't find time to visit the border itself. and for years washington democrats have refused to call the situation what it obviously is, a crisis. at every step, the american

people have been left literally scratching their heads. in some cases, they've been left with unimaginable grief, like the family of laken riley, the student murdered by a man who shouldn't have been allowed into the country in the first place, and in every case they've wondered why their elected leaders are missing in action. families are wondering why senate democrats opposed senator blac blackburn's proposal to allow state and local law enforcement to cooperate with ice to detain and deport criminals. why they voted down senator budd's legislation that would have printed granting legal status or citizenship to individuals who have assaulted a law enforcement officer. why they blocked a proposal that would have required that

individuals dhs deemed to be special interest aliens, potential national security risks, are detained at the border and not released into the interior by the thousands. they're wondering why left wing groups are exploiting the crisis to line their own pockets. but one thing the american people don't have to wonder about is why washington democrats are suddenly chomping at the bit to convince their constituents that they care about border security. after all, working families are the ones telling pollsters the border is their very top ele election-year concern. the american people aren't fooled. they know that the president's summary reversal of commonsense border authorities is what started the crisis, and they know the solution is not cynical

senate theater. the solution is a president who's willing to exercise the authority, to use the tools he already has at his disposal, and to start cleaning up this mess. if senate democrats wanted to start fixing the crisis tomorrow, they would be urging the president to do exactly that. the american people have every right to expect secure borders, along with safe streets and stable prices. they don't have time for destr destruction, and neither do senate republicans. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the clerk: ms. baldwin. quorum call:

>> our country is in the grips of the worst border security crisis in our history. president biden's open border policies have caused an unprecedented humanitarian disaster with grave consequences for public safety, national security and indeed for the rule of law. for years democrats have stood by and watch a president biden presented over and eventually exacerbated this historic crisis. they know president biden has the authority to secure the

border. yet instead of taking them to task they remain silent. no, state college of the present to fix the problem we we're e attempting to revive the so-called border security act, a bill that's already failed to pass muster in this body 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 initiation because the amount of executive branch discretion and authority that this bill creates. look, let's be honest here. this is a political exercise, not a serious debate. that bill is going nowhere and we all know that. since president biden's inauguration, over 9.5 million undocumented immigrants have entered the united states illegally.

that's just the ones we know about, just the ones that event observed, that of been reported by our border security personnel. that's larger than the population of 36 states, most of our states are smaller than the number of people who have been observed and reported and is 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 comprehend is that this is a public safety crisis and it should be treated as such. our constituents from our various states know this and we know it from them. they feel strongly about and they don't like it. so let's not pretend president biden lacks authority to secure the border and need new legislation or else he will not

be able 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 the border. you have it and you know that you have it, and you deceive the american people when you suggest otherwise. let's not waste american peoples time by debating a bill that stands to make the crisis even worse, , even worse by giving yu more power to make this worse, which it would do. and we know already how you would utilize that discretionary authority because we know how you utilize the discretionary authority you already been given. we should be considering measures that force this administration to actually secure the border, that stay the president hand, and that force them to do his job, which is to secure the border. we could do just that, or at least move in the right

direction on that front simply by passing the legislation known as the valid act. thanks to the biden administration, admissible aliens are not just entering the united states on foot. they are being flown on commercial flights often at government expense into and throughout the country. the cbp one at which was never intended to be used by migrants seeking entry into the united states, it's been repurposed into a tool by the biden administration to facilitate the entry of even more illegal aliens into the united states. today, migrants can download the app, put in whatever identifiable information they would like, no matter the accuracy of the information, regardless of whether they just made it up, just like they have walked into a party and both her name down on a name tag saying hello, my name is such and such. and then they can use the app as

a sole exclusive form of id necessary to enter the united states. so the rest of us every 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 come just write that whatever information you want to make up, put it on the app. that's your ticket. you are getting in. can't tell you how many times my constituent service operation in my state office back in utah gets calls from frantic concern american citizens, somewhere outside the united states they lose her passport. it's a real crisis. we do our best to help them. we can almost always a good way to solve the problem, but a

creature of difficulty. the american citizens don't have access to the cbp one mobile app but you know who does? illegal aliens and helps them get into the country. now, not only can illegal immigrants use the app to enter the united states biplane, but they can also use it to travel throughout the united un, within the united states, on domestic flights paid for by the u.s. government. migrants don't need a legitimate id or a passport. they can board a plane using biden's cbp one mobile app which the tsa now proudly advertises at airports nationwide. of course if an american citizen, you will have an entirely different airport experience. you will be expected to wait in long security lines, show proof of valid identification, and then potentially be subjected to an additional invasive security screening. americans are expected to follow

our country's laws, yet illegal immigrants 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 standard, to standards, to call it a standard at all. it is a nonstandard. the biden administration is rewarding people illegally entering our country with our own personalized form of tsa precheck. but it's better than tsa pre-check. it's free. they do have to provide any documentation. you don't have to any real security review. this backwards policy has real 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 for travel authorization. among those of entered by using gap include an haitian migrant

who after an injury the u.s. the cbp one mobile app was arrested for committing double homicide in new york. corey alvarez another man who entered the to 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 end this unacceptable lapse in security and public safety, and it can do it today. all i'm asking for is a vote, vote on legislation would prohibit individuals from flying from foreign countries into the u.s. if they using the cbp one mobile app on notice to appear order or a notice to report order as their sole form of identification for travel authorization.

this shouldn't be a hard idea to get behind. this should be controversial. not remotely. before you board a plane you should prove who you are come just like the rest of us have to do. we do it all the time. we have to prove who we are will go to the doctor's office, the pharmacy, will recheck in 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 long time. at airports, certainly since 9/11, everybody just understands it's what you've 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 is reversing the standard and importing crime into every community in america. no community in our country should be forced to fear that foreign nationals who identities we cannot confirm can travel freely throughout the united states come freely often at government expense, freely without even having to produce a much as identification papers. earlier this month one of our colleagues was quoted as saying, quote, there's only one party that serious about border security. it's the democratic party. we are going ask republicans to join us. look, i'll post the same question that he asked, pose it now to all my democratic colleagues. if you are as you claim the party that serious about border security, then for the love of pete prove it.

step up, going record and show the american people where you stand on this commonsense border security reform. and let's pass the valid act. with that, madam president, not within rule 22 i assume its consent consent the send resume legislative session and that the senate proceed to as 4387 h is at the desk. >> is there objection? >> madam president. >> the senator from connecticut. >> reserving the right to object. great show of respect for my colleague from utah. he and i have on a number of really important pieces of legislation, especially at 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's making because he makes an argument that you hear very often on this floor, that tens of thousands of

people are entering the country illegally. they are entering the country illegally. senator knows the law, i would probably guess better than most year, and so we knows that those people who are entering the united states without permission also have a corresponding right to apply for asylum. so technically, they enter the united states without permission, but then 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 it are the united states and claim asylum, and have a valid claim of asylum, that you are able to make fast passing the credible fear screen, you get to stay in the united states to process that claim. and so this idea that people coming to the united states to

apply for asylum are here illegally is obviated by long-standing law that, in fact, requires the united states to allow those people to stay here while they claim is being processed. just think it's important for everybody to understand what the law is, and that both democratic and republican administrations have allowed people without a claim 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, i can't 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 he just described because it doesn't exist. there are not hundreds of thousands of 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 piece of identification in order to qualify for the cbp one program. cbp one papers are not an accepted form of documentation by tsa. individuals are showing up at the airports are showing up with a passport or another means of acceptable identification. the senator may have examples of exception but there are certainly not hundreds of thousands of people coming to the united states with only cbp one documentation to present to tsa. it's just not true.

cbp one, and 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 to which we use cbp want to include a vetting process. a vetting process frankly that admittedly often does not take place outside the cbp one, when people come to the board 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 people are allowed into the country to process their asylum claims without the kind of bedding that is that in the cbp one program. i just don't recognize a problem that the senator is trying to solve here today and did you think it creates a pretty problematic this impression that you have come get you there hundreds of thousand 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 to get the cbp one document is to have shown and verified your proper documentation. in addition, this amendment deal is kind of unworkable. if there the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, may is a month dedicated to honoring our military. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of defense, melissa griffin dalton of virginia to be under secretary of the air force. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, may is a month dedicated to honoring our military. we have armed forces day which was celebrated this past

saturday. memorial day which will be observed on monday. and the entire month is observed as military appreciation month. mr. president, ronald reagan is reported to have said, and i quote, some people live an entire lifetime and wonder if they ever have made a difference in the world. the marines don't have that problem, end quote. and i would just expand that, mr. president, a little bit and say that our military members don't have to ask that question and don't have that problem. if you want to see people living a life of purpose, mr. president, just look to the men and women of the united states military. the men and women who get up every day ready to defend our freedom to the point of laying down their lives if necessary. mr. president, many of our military members enter right after high school or college. at an age when their counterparts are thinking about graduations and internships and taking the first steps toward a career, these young men and

women take a different path. they embrace a life of reg regimentation and roll calls. of tough, physical and mental demands a. life that asks them to forgo comfort for sacrifice, up to and including the sacrifice of their lives. and they do it willingly. most of us don't often see the sacrifices our military men and women make. and so it can be easy for us to forget, as we go about our daily lives, that those lives are only possible because these men and women spend their lives working to defend our country. mr. president, during this military appreciation month, my thoughts turn to those south dakotans serving in our armed forces, particularly the men and women of the south dakota national guard and our airmen after ellsworth air force base. our south dakota military members represent the very best

of our state, and i'm grateful every day for their service and sacrifice. i'm proud to report that the 28th behm wing at ellsworth air force base was named the beth bomb -- best bomb wing in air force global strike demand during the past year. i'm excited that ellsworth broke ground this spring on a new weapons generation facility, part. construction to prepare the base to become the first home of the b-21 raider. i'm also proud that the black hills region, home to ellsworth and the south dakota national guards camp rapid was named to the 2024 class of great american defense communities. south dakotans know and value the sacrifices made by our military men and women, and i am tremendously proud of how the black hills region has worked to support our airmen and national guard members. mr. president, a discussion of military appreciation month would not be complete without mentioning our military families. it is not just our men and women in uniform who serve and

sacrifice. if is their families as well. life as a military spouse or as on -- as a son or daughter of a military member is often challenging. there are frequent moves and deployments, and most of all there's the knowledge that one day your husband or wife, your mom or your dad could be asked to give up their life for their country. and so as we hon our our military member -- honor our military members this month, it's right that we honor and remember the sacrifices their families as well. mr. president, in his 1941 proclamation of bill of rights day, president franklin d. roosevelt said and i quote, those who have long enjoyed such privileges that we enjoy forget in time that men have died to win them, end quote. those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget in time that men have died to win

them. as we go about our lives in peace and safety, it can be all too easy to forget that that peace and safety have been purchased at a price, that they have been purchased with the blood of the men and women who have laid down their lives to secure them. and on this monday, above all, on memorial day, we should resolve to remember. to remember and to recommit ourselves to living lives worthy of their sacrifice. mr. president, may god take to himself all those who have fallen in the service of our country and may he comfort their families and may he bless and protect the men and women of the united states military. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island.

mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. i rise to express my support for ms. melissa dalton's nomination to be under secretary of the air force. ms. dalton is an exceptional qualified lead we are a long and grd career and service -- distinguished career and service to the united states. she has more than two decades of experience in defense and intelligence policy, including extensive background in department of defense strategy, policy, operations, processes, and workforce issues. ms. dalton currently serves as assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense and hemispheric affairs and served previously by performing the duties of the assistant secretary of defense for strategy, plans, and capabilities. the armed services committee held a nomination hearing for ms. dalton four months ago on january 23, and it is critical that we approve her nomination now. if confirmed, ms. dalton will face a number of pressing

challenges for the air force. the services operated at a high tempo for the past two decades supporting around-theclock operations in the middle east and around the world. this mission has strained air force personnel and aid to combat fleet quicker than anticipated. this also challenged air force leaders to adequately invest in modernization efforts with china posing new unprecedented challenges to our air power in the indo-pacific and emerging technologies like hypersonic weapons and unproved aerial systems or uas create new threats around the world. the air force must adapt quickly to stay ahead. in particularly the air force must continue to strengthen and improve itzhak decision system -- improve its acquisition seem to match the speed of technological change. the next under secretary will need to take steps to ensure

that the air force has a secure and reliable industrial base and a trained and qualified workforce. at her confirmation hearing she pledged her immediate unwavering attention to these issues. this was an important commitment and one that i support. if confirmed, ms. dalton will help lead the air force at a critical moment as we continue our long-term strategic competition with china and russia. this will require thoughtful, resolute leadership with a deep understanding of the issues and throughout her career, ms. dalton has developed and implemented just these sorts of leading edge defense policies and she reemphasized her commitment to them during her confirmation hearing. ms. dalton is an outstanding nominee to serve as under secretary of the air force, and i'm proud to support her nomination. i urge my colleagues to vote yes

and confirm this great leader. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

quorum call:

mr. reed: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: i would ask to dispense with the calling of the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: i also ask for the yeas and nays on the pending legislation. excuse me, the yeas and nays on the pending nomination. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be.

the clerk will call the roll. 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.

senators voting in the affirmative, coons, cramer, lujan, reed, smith, are tester and warnock. senators voting in the negative, budd, schmitt, and sullivan. mr. johnson, no.

the clerk: ms. ernst, no. ms. stabenow, aye.

the clerk: mr. schumer, aye.

the clerk: mr. risch, no.

mr. schumer, aye. mr. kaine, aye. mr. scott of south carolina, no. mr. barrasso, no.

mr. blumenthal, aye.

the clerk: ms. sinema, aye. mr. graham, no. mr. wicker, no. ms. hassan, aye. mr. crapo, no. mr. daines, no. mr. marshall, no.

vote:

the clerk: mrs. murray, aye. mr. van hollen, aye. mr. boozman, no. mr. bennet, aye.

the clerk: mr. lankford, no. mr. grassley, no. mr. schatz, aye.

the clerk: mrs. shaheen, aye. mr. merkley, aye. the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye.

the clerk: mr. king, aye. mr. tuberville, no. mr. cotton, no. mr. braun, no.

the clerk: mr. padilla, aye. mr. murphy, aye. mr. thune, no. mr. welch, aye.

the clerk: mr. tillis, no o.

the clerk: mr. rubio, no. the clerk: mr. lee, no.

the clerk: mr. heinrich, aye.

the clerk: ms. collins, aye. the clerk: mr. brown, aye. mr. warner, aye. mr. paul, no.

mr. moran, aye.

the clerk: mr. kelly, aye.

the clerk: ms. hirono, aye.

the clerk: mr. sanders, aye. mrs. blackburn, no. ms. butler, aye. mr. trump dur -- mr. durbin, aye. vote:

the clerk: mr. whitehouse, aye. mr. kennedy, no.

the clerk: ms. lummis, no. the clerk: mr. casey, aye.

mr. cardin, aye. mr. ossoff, aye. the clerk: ms. cantwell, aye. the clerk: mrs. fischer, no. mr. rounds, aye.

the clerk: mrs. gillibrand, aye. mrs. britt, no. the clerk: mr. cornyn, no.

the clerk: mr. carper, aye. the clerk: mr. young, aye.

mr. vance, no. ms. murkowski, aye. mr. romney, no. mr. mcconnell, no. the clerk: mrs. hyde-smith, no. mr. booker, aye. mrs. hyde-smith, aye.

the clerk: mr. as cassidy, no.

the clerk: mr. peters, aye. mr. scott of florida, no. the clerk: ms. klobuchar, aye.

the clerk: ms. rosen, aye.

the clerk: ms. cortez masto, aye. the clerk: mr. ricketts, no.

the clerk: mr. markey, aye. mr. hoeven, aye. mr. cruz, no.

the clerk: mrs. capito, no. pppp. vote:

the clerk: mr. hawley, no.

the clerk: ms. baldwin, aye.

the clerk: mr. hickenlooper, aye.

the clerk: ms. duckworth, aye.

mr. wyden, aye. the presiding officer: the yeas are 56, the nays are 39, the

nomination is agreed to. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mr. padilla: mr. president, when i was a kid growing up, the last thing i thought i'd do when i grew up was to be involved with government and politics.

but when i returned home from college, i came home to california to find hateful tv ads warning of an invasion at our border. these were in support of a measure demonizing immigrant families like mine. a jen of la teen -- a generation of latinos in california grew up knowing that officials who were to represent us were more than happy to scapegoat our families as the root cause of the state's challenges. but instead of just putting our head down and waiting for the political tides to turn, my generation decided to get involved, and we started a movement that put more people from our communities into positions of power. now, three decades later, the

state of california is not just home to more immigrants than any other state in the nation, we also represent the largest economy of any state in the nation. that's not a coincidence. but, sadly, today we're also seeing some of the same hateful rhetoric once again. and when i hear it, i feel it. and i think about my children and a whole new generation of latinos across the country that leaders -- see leaders of the republican party demonizing immigrants and people who look like us. yes, the republican presidential nominee warns that immigrants are, quote, poisoning the blood of our nation, echoing rhetoric

from nazi germany. that's happening. i haven't had to come down to this chamber earlier this year, just couple of months ago, to object to one of our colleagues seeking to declare a, quote, invasion at our southern border. that's the moment that we're in, and it's an undeniable part of the context in which the bill that we're going to be voting on soon was written. i proposal before us was initially supposed to be a concession, a ransom to be paid to republicans to pass urgent and critical aid to ukraine. not my words. theirs. the proposal was three months ago. but guess what, mr. president? we passed the foreign aid.

it was the right thing to do. and so i can't help but ask what's this concession for now? because it surely cannot be the new starting point for negotiating immigration reform. mr. president, i'm disappointed because this bill contains some of the same tried and failed policies that would actually make the situation worse at the southern border. it includes arbitrary border closures and practically eliminate the right to seek asylum for people fleeing for their safety or for their very lives. many of us have acknowledged, both sides of the aisle in both formal conversations and informal conversations, that one of the biggest reasons that so many people come to the southern border is because it's so hard to come to the united states

legally. so i look at this bill, and guess what? it fails to address the root causes of migration or to establish more lawful pathways. and it's not just what's in the bill that troubles me. it's what's not in the bill. if enacted, this bill would fail to provide relief for a single dreamer, for a single farm worker, or a single essential worker or long-term resident of the united states who has been here for years, in some cases decades working, paying taxes, contributing to the strength of our communities and our country and the success of our economy. so the senate is voting on this package now for a second time, but still no votes on the dream act, which, by the way, does

enjoy bipartisan support. it's hard to swallow. and there's more. we hear that there's some extreme executive actions coming soon. for as much has been accomplished by this body, this chamber has also served as the backdrop for some of the most vile rhetoric in our nation's history. the same hatred that met irish and italian immigrants coming tlul ellis island permeated these walls for the chinese exclusion act. the same villainized west for mexico and the southern border. every time political leaders villainize immigrants, communities like mine feel the

effects. just ask any latino kid who's been told to go back to where they came from. ask anyone speaking spanish in america who's been told to speak english. ask any asian american who has harassed during the covid-19 pandemic. colleagues, what chapter of our nation's history are we choosing to write today? i ask because, yes, there will come a time when history judges us, and what will you say? will you say that you worked to defend the american dream for future generations, or settle and deny opportunity for future generations? countless immigrants and children of immigrants will ask whether republicans and

democrats will leave them behind once again. colleagues, i urge you to vote no today and to be more thoughtful in how we address border safety. i urge you to join me in staying true to our values in modernizing our immigration system. i urge you to join me today in doing what's right for dreamers, farm workers, and other long-term undocumented members of our communities. they deserve better, and we, we should be better than this. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. schatz: mr. president, it has been more than 100 days since republicans killed a procedure deal -- a border deal that they specifically demanded and they actively helped to wr write, from start to finish. this bill is not some partisan democratic wish list. in fact, the previous speaker, the senior senator from california, is correctly upset at our lack of attention to legal immigration, to the plight of daca individuals, and to try

to anchor our policy and our core values of understanding that we are a nation of immigrants and maybe even separate and apart from that, immigration is one of the most ef effective anti-inflation policies out there. but the vote we are about to take is not about immigration. it is about border security. and it is fair to say that the democratic conference has come a long way on border security. we negotiated with one of the most conservative members of the united states senate, james lankford. and when i heard that chris murphy and james lankford were negotiating, i was not hopeful. not because i don't think they're serious legislators, but i figured they were too far apart. and so when they came to a

conclusion, i didn't love everything in that bill, but i still support it, and here's why. because it makes real reforms and meaningful investments to address a real crisis at the border that needs to be fixed. there is no contradiction between believing in legal immigration and believing in the core values of the united states and believing in the need for order and security on our northern and southern borders. and so this bill will expedite the asylum process. it will provide, it would provide immediate work authorizations. it would expand legal immigration pathways. it would provide billions of dollars to law enforcement to stop the flow of fentanyl. those are all necessary measures, but the reason the bill failed back in february, the reason the border continues to be the way it is today is

donald trump. donald trump woke up one day and decided that doing nothing on the border would help him politically. he literally said, blame me. blame me. the funny thing about this situation is if you describe what happened exactly accurately, which is that we, with chris murphy, kirsten sinema and james lankford negotiated the toughest border package in many generations that has a chance to pass, a bipartisan bill where democrats were were understandably uncomfortable, that when this thing came out, i was in conversations with republican members of the senate, and they were saying they expected a vote in the high 70's, close to 80

votes. they were very comfortable that this was going to win going away. and then donald trump said kill it, and that's what happened. it got killed. and so the thing about describing things factually in this instance is it sounds like i'm trying to lob rhetorical bombs or make a partisan statement, but that's just literally what happened. we negotiated this thing. they told us work with james lankford. they told us reform the asylum process. they told us cbp needs more resources, they're overwhelmed. they told us we need technology. we did all those things. chris murphy negotiated all those things. it's not easy for -- i'm not sure if he would like to be called this -- an unreconstructed progressive to negotiate such a bill. he's looking at me right now. i think he doesn't love that term. but they voted to kill it

anyway. republicans chose to preserve chaos at the border, and now this crisis is on them. so spare me the crocodile tears. spare me the press conferences, spare me the unanimous consent request, spare me the cable news hits, spare me the memes, spare me the tv ads. you had your chance. and now the beauty of this is you have your chance again. an hour and 45 minutes from now you can decide, am i going to vote for the strongest border package in a generation or am i going to vote no because my boss is donald trump and he doesn't want this to pass? the choice is theirs. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. ms. ernst: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, president biden has opened our homeland to the

world's criminals. under his leadership, over nine million illegal immigrants have crossed our southern border. nine million people. that's more people than the population of 75% of our states. month after month and year after year the biden administration is shattering all the wrong records. for example, cbp has reported 1.6 million known got-aways in the last three years. a stark increase from the 1.4 million known got-aways we saw in a ten-year span from 2010 to 2020. and that's just the known got-aways. who really knows how many people have gotten past cbp undetected?

these aren't just plain old numbers, folks, okay. they're people that too often include violent criminals who harm americans. hardly a day goes by without hearing of another american who has fallen victim to crimes perpetuated by the illegal immigrants the biden administration has let flood into our country. we all read the stories of the illegals arrested on serious criminal charges and post bail never to be heard from again. everyone knows the story of laken riley, the 22-year-old nursing student beaten to death by an illegal immigrant who was in police custody in new york city before being let go.

but the crisis only continues. just last friday news broke that raul santana, a mexican national who is in the united states illegally had his bail dropped from $1 million to $100,000. what did he do? well, he struck and killed washington state trooper christopher gadd while driving drunk and high at 112 miles per hour. for more than eight years i have warned against the dangers of letting illegal immigrants who have already broken our laws roam the country and continue their lawlessness.

i have called on this body to step up -- criminals who are in our country illegally, and pass my bill, sarah's law. eight years ago iowans michele and scott root woke up to every parent's worse nightmare. their daughter sarah was killed by a drunk driver. sarah, a 21-year-old from councilsbluff, graduated from bellevue university in nebraska with a 34. -- 4.0gpa. she was heading home after celebrating her important milestone with her friends and family. she had her entire life aof her,

but like trooper gadd, she was struck and killed by an illegal immigrant drunk driving. before the root family could even lay sarah to rest, her murderer posted a $5,000 bond, was released, disarounded -- disappeared and has never been seen again. mr. president, these tragedies don't have to continue happening. today we can act to ensure that no family will be subject to the pain and anguish sarah's parents have experienced every day for the past eight years. my bill, which is named for sarah, would close the appalling loophole that let sarah's kill ergo free. it -- go free. it would merely require ice to

detain otherwise deportable illegal immigrants charged with killing or seriously injuring another person, it also requires ice to inform victims and family members of necessary information pertaining to the investigation. had sarah's law been on the books when sarah and laken and trooper gadd were murdered, law enforcement would have to detain their killers instead of opening the door for them to simply flee. the roots, the rileys, and the gadds would have been kept up-to-date on federal immigration authority's efforts to remove them from the country. simply put, this should be easy.

sarah laken and trooper gadd's deaths were unnecessary and will be repeated thanks to the administration's ill-informed policies and the democrats' refusal to take up this very simple legislation. those who come here illegally and harm our citizens should, without question, be a priority for removal. it's just common sense, folks. otherwise deportable illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes in the u.s. should face justice. we can no longer prioritize illegal immigrants over public safety. we must pass sarah's law to send this message loud and clear for sarah's family and for the

countless american families that sarah's law would protect. as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent, that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 161, 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. murphy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: mr. president, reserving the right to object. i don't think we are in disagreement on the senate floor on this matter. i think we all agree that noncitizens who are convicted of serious violent crimes, who have committed serious violent crimes should be detained, and they should be subject to removal proceedings. the good news is that is the

current law. that is the current law. this bill is a reiteration of current law. let me tell you what current law requires. current law requires the detention of any individual with serious criminal convictions, including those who have committed crimes of violence or theft offenses, including murder, rape, and assault. that is the current law. furthermore, this administration has given specific direction to the department of justice to prioritize the detention and removal of individuals who have committed violent and offenses. and so as with earlier unanimous consent requests, this unanimous consent request is essentially a reiteration of current law. i have a great deal of respect

for my colleague. we worked together on a number of important matters, but i find myself asking the question, why are we being asked to simply restate current law when it comes to the detainment or removal of immigrants who have committed violent crimes? of who right -- who right now are subject to removal for those crimes. i've come to two conclusions. the first is that it's a means of distracting the conversation from the vote that's going to happen in an hour and a half. we went through a painstaking process to negotiate a bipartisan compromise. that process was begun at the request of senate republicans. in the room was their appointed negotiator and representatives of their chosen leader of the

conference. it couldn't be more official than that. their appointed negotiator, senatored lankford -- senator lankford, the leader of their caucus, senator mcconnell, in the room negotiating a bipartisan border security bill. in that room we achieved the result, we got an agreement that the senate republican caucus told us to get an agreement with. and within 24 hours almost every republican senator sided against that bill. i submit that they may have had reasons for it, but it was very can clear up until the point that donald trump said, don't do anything, i want the border to be a mess, there were many republicans invested in that. colluded in that -- compromise are important reforms in the way that we try to make sure that

anyone with a violent history never enters the united states. under current law, if you have a criminal history outside of the united states or previous criminal history inside the united states, that doesn't become relevant to the asylum claim until you present before an asylum judge. under the bipartisan bill that question of whether you have a violent history and whether you should enter the united states happens at the border as part of your credible screening. that would be a really important bipartisan reform to make to make sure that anyone with a violent history never enters the united states. the current law isn't good enough, the bipartisan law would have made that better. but republicans almost to an individual are going to vote against that later today. what we're left with are these unanimous consent agreements that don't close to providing the kind of security that the bipartisan border bill does. but it also serves a second

purpose. it also has a secondary impact. i wish my republican colleagues didn't care only about crimes committed by immigrants. i know they care about crimes committed by others, but it seems that there is a disproportionate amount of energy on this floor dedicated to crimes committed by immigrants, which gives the impression to the american public that there is a specific problem related to immigrant communities, that they commit crimes at rates that are higher than natural born americans, when in fact the opposite is true. i worry that there is an effort afoot to try to turn us against each other, to make us fear michls, when -- immigrants, in fact immigrants have crimes lowers, americans are two times

more likely to be arrested for violent crimes than immigrants are. immigrants are less like to be incarcerated in this country than natural born americans are. the mass shooter in las vegas wasn't an immigrant. the mass shooter at pulse nightclub wasn't an immigrant, the mass shooter in uvalde wasn't an immigrant, the mass shooter in southingling sfrings wasn't an immigrant, the mass shooter in parkland wasn't an immigrant. yet, there wasn't a rush to the floor by my republican colleagues after those mass shootings to try to fix the problem. i grieve forevery single victim of crime in this country and i think we should all be working on ways to better prkt our citizens -- protect our sglents, but i wore -- citizens, i worry

this is will paper over the fact that the republicans will vote against a bipartisan border bill that would make this country safer and whether intentional or unintentional to make us specifically afraid of immigrants when in fact the truth is the people who are coming to this country are fleeing economic did hes using to -- did hesty using to, and they have been victims of terror and when they get to the united states are actually less of a threat to our public safety than those that were born in the united states, and for that reason i would object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. ernst: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for iowa. ms. ernst: thank you, mr. president. i will just respond briefly to a thumb of points made by my colleague in opposition to this bill, and one, i just want to

say, this -- this u.s., this bill -- this u.c., this bill, i'm not trying to distract from the vote that will happen this afternoon. this is an effort i have engaged on for eight years. i have brought this bill many times to see it passed for sarah, for her family and others in her similar situation. and so i would hope that we would able to pass it today. i know that i will again in the future be bringing this bill to the floor. as my colleague pointed out, we do -- we do appreciate the fact that there is crime all across the united states and for those that are impacted by that crime, we do wish that they had not had to go through that crime. but the fact of the matter is there is a difference between american citizens that are committing crimes and illegal

immigrants who are committing crimes against american citizens. the difference is that many times those illegal immigrants who in my bill i am asking ice to detain so that they can go to their hearings, i'm asking ice to detain them not voluntarily detain, not maybe have someone release them early, but they will be detained to face justice. many times those illegal immigrants are operating under assumed names. under assumed social security numbers. we don't know their true identities. many times they don't have roots in communities. so what has happened, and we know this to be true because it happened in the case of sarah root and her killer, is that

he'd within mejea, that's at least one of the names this gentleman used while he was in the united states, when he was released on bond, he was able to slip into the shadows. and the authorities were not able to trace him. they were not table to find him. why? because he was an illegal immigrant operating many assumed names. operating out of many different communities. with who knows what family or what contacts. whether america citizens are committing crimes, oftentimes we can trace them. we know who they are. we know who their family members are. we know where they've worked. it is very difficult with those that enter the country illegally. we can't trace them.

we can't find them. the families like sarah root's family, michele root, scott root, they will never see justice for their daughter because the man that killed her was released and slipped right back into the shadows where he came from. this family in council bluffs, iowa, will never see justice for their daughter. many of these other families will never see justice for their loved ones because our law does not require ice to detain and hold those murderers, those killers until they have been seen by a court of law. that's what my bill does. it requires the detention, not

allows ice to voluntarily to keep them. it requires them to keep them. justice for our families. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you very much. i'll be making a unanimous consent request here in a second. senator britt will be joining me in that endeavor. so we're going to have a vote at 2:00 about a bipartisan bill which i applaud the effort to change our immigration laws and get control of an out of control

situation. unfortunately it doesn't matter what laws are on the books if the administration is not going to enforce the ones that already exist. we had a vote in february on this bill, and one of the problems i've had the entire time is that a parole was being abused by this administration. since february until now, april, 77,800 people have been paroled in the united states, and i believe that's an abuse of the statute that's on the books. 1.3 million in f.y. 23. over 1.2 million were paroled by cbp alone. now let's talk about the parole statute, if we have that. let me tell you what the law says. it basically says you can be

paroled for two reasons. unique humanitarian need or a special benefit to the country. the statute that they're using to parole all these people has limitations as to how it can be used. and on average, the statute in question during the obama-trump years was used about 6,000 people on average were paroled in the united states using the statute that biden's administration has been abusing. so f.y. 19, 7, 525. f.y. 18, 6, 466. f.y. 19 again, 7500. in f.y.22, the biden administration paroled 795 be

561. in f.y. 23, 1.2 million plus. why are they doing parole differently than obama and trump? they're abusing the statute. why are they just waiving so many people in the country? that's for the voters to decide. i think they're just basically abusing the statute because they don't want to turn anybody around and send them back. so they just let people come into the country in violation of the law. again, the parole statute in question is limited to two circumstances, unique benefit to the country, special benefit to the country, unique humanitarian situation, your mother's dying, special need to the country, you're a witness in a trial and we need to get you in on a limited situation. parole is not a permanent status. laken riley of which we will ask

unanimous consent to vote on the bill authored by senator britt, the man accused of murdering her indicted in georgia, jose ibarra. he was apprehended by the border patrol in september 2022. he was released through parole. it took me forever to find this out. the reason for parole, the subject was paroled due to detention capacity at the central processing center in el paso, texas. the reason for parole, subject was paroled due to detention capacity at the central processing center in el paso, texas. they had no room for the guy. and he's now being charged with murdering this young woman in georgia. he was arrested in 2024 and

senator britt will tell us what her bill does here in a moment. she's trying to find a way to make sure this never happens again. the two crimes he was charged with should result in immediate expulsion from the country. that's what her bill does. but i want the country to know that the man accused of killing this young lady in georgia was released into our country by dhs illegally, in my view. they violated the statute. they gave him parole for a reason that doesn't exist in the statute. and you wonder why we don't want to pass another bill. the reason we don't want to pass another bill is we don't trust you, the biden administration. why create a new law that's not going to be any more effective than the current law? from the time we had this debate until the end of april, did things get better? no. 77,800 people paroled from the original debate to now. clearly they haven't changed

their idea or policies regarding the use of parole. the average for obama-trump was around 60,000 for the entire year -- 6,000 for the entire year. 77,800 since february. so why are we skeptical? because of the way they do business of the bidening administration. secretary mayorkas has all the power he needs to stop this. you'll never convince me that 77,800 people were individually screened. they have a program waving people through based on country, not individual status. they promised me that an individual analysis was done on each parolee. i asked them that and they said yes. we found one parolee accused of murdering a lady in georgia was not analyzed and released based on the statute.

he was released because they had no place for put him. so what we want to do today is try to find a way to deal with the situation that led to this murder of this young lady. the law has a loophole in it, i guess, for lack of a better word. i'm going to recognize senator britt now to tell us what her bill does, because what do we know about the georgia case? we know the man charged with the murder of ms. riley was released into the united states under parole not based on statutory requirements but just because we were full. if i were the riley family, i'd be pretty upset. they might want to thank about suing. but right now i'd like to yield to senator britt from alabama who has tried to find a solution to this problem. mrs. britt: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama.

mrs. britt: first i'd like to say thank you to my colleague from south carolina for his leadership on this critical issue. the laken riley act is the bipartisan border bill that should be on the senate floor today. i am proud to be the lead senate sponsor of this critical legislation along with my colleague from north carolina. the laken riley act passed the house of representatives in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion. the gentleman from georgia, congressional district 10, secured 37 democratic votes for this bill on the house floor. and here in the senate this bill is bipartisan and has a cosponsor list of 47 senators. i am confident that a bipartisan majority of senators support the laken riley act and would vote for it today. the house already did its work in a bipartisan fashion on this legislation, and now it's our turn here in the senate. and frankly, it's well past

time. we should send this bipartisan bill to the president's desk immediately. if this bill had been the law of the land, laken riley would still be alive today. now this body has an opportunity and a responsibility in my opinion to prevent this kind of unimaginable tragedy to happening to more families across america. the laken riley act is straightforward. it says that ice would be required to detain and deport illegal aliens who commit theft offenses. it would also allow states to seek an injunction against any action taken by the secretary of homeland security or the attorney general that violate immigration law to the detriment of the state or its citizens. my colleague from south carolina has been at the forefront of exposing the biden administration's unprecedented abuse of immigration parole,

which is directly relevant to the laken riley case. under the trump administration and the obama administration, parole was granted at our southern border on average less than 6,000 people a year. however, under president biden, grants of parole have skyrocketed and now we know over 1.3 million people have been paroled in the past year. one of those grants of parole went to laken riley's alleged killer after he crossed the southern border illegally in 2022. this abuse of parole continues to have devastating consequences for families and communities in every corner of our nation. president biden could stop this abuse of parole today if he wanted to. but he doesn't. and he won't. the president refuses to reverse course. it is past time to force his hand on that and pass the laken

riley act. it will secure our homeland. it will help to safeguard our streets. it will help defend our families. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: i make a u.c. request in a minute. senator blackburn would you like to speak? i'm just about to wrap up. so i sent a letter yesterday to secretary mayorkas wanting to know about the two people who tried to get into the marine base, quantico. apparently both of them are illegal claiming to be amazon contractors who were not, and there's a lot of mystery around this. i want a response to my letter. who are these people, what do we know about them? were there any affiliation with terrorist groups? what were they up to? i think we need to know as a nation what went on because i find it very odd that two

fighting age illegal immigrants joined together to try to falsely get into a marine base. that sends shivers up my spine. so i want to introduce this letter into the record, if i may. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: thank you. as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on the judiciary be discharged from further consideration of s. 3933 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. further, that the bill be considered and read a third time and passed and 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 senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, we all agree noncitizens who are convicted of violent crimes should be detained and removed from the united states, period. sadly, the laken riley act does nothing to address violent crime. under current law, current existing law, noncitizens who

enter the country illegally, violate the terms of their status, or have their visas revoked can be detained now under the law by officials of the immigration and customs enforcement, better known as ice. current law also requires, requires the detention of individuals with serious criminal convictions. those who have committed murder, rape, or any crime of violence or theft offense with the term of imprisonment of at least one year. the law also gives ice discretion beyond that to detain a noncitizen in any case in which a noncitizen has been charged with a crime. to make this decision, aisles assesses the individual circumstances of the case, ensuring the agency's limited resources are used effectively to protect national security and public safety. the reality is congress has never appropriated nearly enough money for ice to detain every

undocumented immigrant who's charged with a crime. and remember, the vast majority of our senators on the other side of the aisle, including the sponsors of this measure, blocked a bipartisan national security supplemental in february that would have given ice more funding to detain more undocumented immigrants who might pose a threat to our countries. they voted against it. they'll have another chance to vote to provide that additional funding in just a short time today. i hope they'll finally take this opportunity. vote for more ice agents if you want more ice enforcement of existing laws that exist on the books. here's the reality, the sweeping approach in this bill would actually harm national security. why? because it would eliminate ice's discretion to prioritize dangerous individuals. certainly, people who are being convicted of a violent crime or charged with a violent crime are more serious offenders than

perhaps those guilty of theft. we don't know the circumstances of each case. we would instead require ice to treat those arrested for nonviolent crimes, this proposal would, treat those for nonviolent crimes the same as individuals who actually did violent crimes. with limited ice agents, you have to make a choice. what's the priority? what's the most dangerous individual? this proposal before us would overwhelm ice facilities and make us less, not more safe. for example, this law requires ice to detain every immigrant ha is simply arrested for shoplifting. arrested. even if it quickly becomes clear the person is innocent ballparks this bill does not require a charge or conviction. does it make sense to treat a n noncitizen arrested for shoplifting the same as someone convicted of murder? i think we all know the answer. this bill also grants state attorneys general the standing to sue federal immigration

authorities if a state disagrees with immigration enforcement decisions made by the federal government. for example, this bill would give a state attorney general the standing to challenge the use of the parole authority, like uniting for ukraine, which allows ukrainians flewing putin's war to -- fleeing putin's war to temporarily come to the united states if the state can show harm of $100. you talk about parole, how many, 70,000 in the last six months or so? among those were ukrainian ref refugees. they were brought to the united states from the war-torn zone because of vladimir putin's invasion. 36,000 of them came to chicago. the conditions of their coming to chicago? a background check, secondly a sponsoring family so they have someone who will help them assimilate into the united states, and third they're given the right to work. we have had little or no negative publicity about these ukrainians. we have a very proud ukrainian american community, and they're

absorbing these individuals who are the victims of the war in ukraine. these are part of the parole numbers that have just been alluded to. in contrast, we received 46,000 migrants sent by the governor of texas on over 880 buses to chicago, without any warning, without any preparation. that's been a difficult situation, and it's really put a tax and strain hon the governments of the -- strain on the governments of the area. to argue parole for ukrainian refugees is wrong? i disagree with that. that was a humanitarian gesture on the part of the united states. it's worked well, at least in our community. the situation with the governor of texas is a sharp contrast there this circumstance. laken riley's murder, by any standard, was a tragedy. every description i've read about this young woman supths she was -- suggests she was an amazing person. that she lost her life is terrible, no excuses. we must do everything to prevent

crimes like this from happening. this legislation before us makes our system less orderly and less safe. it does nothing to help the situation, the circumstances that affected her. the reality is that most immigrants in the united states are law-abiding individuals who are seeking a better life in our nation. many studies have shown immigrants are less likely to commit crime than natural-born u.s. citizens. donald trump recently said undocumented immigrants were, quote, poisoning the blood of our country, closed quote, a phrase that closely mirror's hitler's "mein kampf." when the supplemental comes to a vote, the vast majority of republicans opposed it at the request of donald trump. you know what he said publicly and clearly? blame me if the bill fails. i am blaming it on him. the normer president -- the

former president made it clear he does not want a solution at the border. he wants a campaign issue for november. i urge my colleagues to reject donald trump's advice, support the actual solutions before us in the next hour and a half, and i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. graham: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you. to my colleague from illinois, senator durbin, we've done a lot of things together, i enjoy working with you, but here we have a fundamental disagreement. number one, you're entitled to your opinion, but not your facts. 77,800 people paroled in the u.s. since february came from cuba, haiti, nicaragua and venezuela. that doesn't count the people from ukraine. they all showed up at the border, paroled in. no way two statutory requirements were applied to 77,800 people. now, why did they just wave them through?

parole has been abused. the average was 6,000 a year for trump and biden during their prance -- their presidency. now, 77,800, nothing to do with ukraine. as to the people from ukraine, i want to help them, but we have a refugee law where you can apply for refugee status if you're in a war zone or things are bad where you live. they're taking the parole statute and granting anybody and everybody they choose to grant. the bottom line is we are either a rule-of-law nation or we're not. this has nothing to do with ice funding. we're not talking about funding ice here. this is a decision by the executive branch to abuse the law on the books. the tools available apparently are not being used by anybody. why does senator britt offer legislation? because we have a real-world example where the system failed. let's make it stronger. why did this bill pass

overwhelmingly in the house? because it makes sense. if you learned nothing from the laken riley case, learn the following -- she is a victim. her family's a victim of a broken immigration system. her family is a victim of willful disregard of the law by the biden administration. the man accused of murdering this young lady was allowed to come into the countriy on parol based on no place to put you, not the statutory requirements to get parole. so this is a big issue. we should learn from the death of this young lady. we should change our parole system. we're not. that's why we're not going to add a new law that won't be enforced. until you prove to me you're serious about following the law as written, you're going to have a problem with us on this side of the aisle, and hopefully a few democrats. we should learn from the laken riley case and do what senator

britt encourages us to do, which is to change the law, to address the situation, so we have no other laken riley cases. apparently, the death of this young lady has taught us nothing as a body. we've learned nothing from this case. we're doing nothing different, and it breaks my heart. it looks like the murder of this young lady should be a wake-up call to a parole system broken, and to fix this never-ending catch-and-release, you're caught for crimes and you're released before the sun goes down to commit more crimes. it needs to come to an end. we will have a chance as a democratic people to vote in november. if you think the system is working the way it's intended to work, then you need -- and you're okay with what's going on, vote for biden, you're going to get more of the same.

if you think this is broken, needs to change, you ought to think about voting for somebody else. i yield. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: i know there's another unanimous consent consent to be made, so i'll be very brief. i've always taken senator graham's concerns about parole at face value. in fact, the last 30 days of the negotiations over the bipartisan border bill were dedicated to this question of reforming parole. in fact, the bill we're going to vote on in a matter of minutes involves the most significant, most serious reform of parole likely in the history of the country. we entered that conversation at the urging of senator graham. he was intimately involved in the negotiations over the reform of parole, and the reforms are signi significant. an elimination of 236-a parole, parole used between the borders.

a substitution for that process, with a new ripping russ examination of every individual who's arriving's credentials for asylum. major reforms to the humanitarian parole program to make sure it is drool used -- truly used only for humanitarian purposes. so the irony of the complaints being made, about the overuse of parole, is that the bipartisan border bill, negotiated with senator graham involves the most significant reforms to parole, the most significant restrictions to the president's patrol authority that anyone here in this senate likely ever negotiated. that's why it's regrettable that we are debating unanimous consent agreements instead of coming together to vote on a proposal that addresses many of the concerns raised by my colleague. mr. durbin: does the senator yield for a question? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois.

mr. durbin: does the senator from connecticut yield for a question? mr. murphy: i would. mr. durbin: in what intervening event prohibited or stopped this bipartisan measure from passing on the floor of the senate? murphy thank you for the -- mr. murphy: thank you for the question. we groeshd in good -- negotiated in good faith, with the appointed representatives by the republican conference. snaerm graham was among -- senator graham was amongst those. i thought we had a product with the broad support of the republican conference. they ticked off to us their priorities, and they were legitimate. they said we want reform of the asylum system, we want to raise the standard for credible fear, we want more detention beds, we wants tore reform parole, we want to give the president a new authority to shut down the border at times of emergency. obviously, democrats came to that conversation with priorities as well. we wanted to expand the number of family visas and work visas. we wanted to make sure that immigrants can exercise their

legal rights. we achieved an old-fashioned compromise. the night we released that bill, senator durbin, i thought we were on a path to passage. but it was president trump who intervened and said, plain and clear, as senator mcconnell admitted, i want nothing to pass before the election. i want nothing to pass before the election, because, president trump's treatment decided it would be better off for the border to be a mess, to help his political prospects, instead of solving the problem. i hear senator graham when he says, well, we don't trust the biden administration. well, we didn't trust the trump administration. that's a road to nowhere. if we don't pass reform legislation when the other party's president is in power, we will never do the business of the people. we had a chance to do that, until the intervention of president trump. i wish, i wish that instead of choosing his political prospects this november, we were choosing

to secure the border in a bipartisan way. mr. durbin: at 2:00 this afternoon we're going to have a vote on that bipartisan measure, and this had been an -- it will be an opportunity for those with amendments to come forward with those amendments after we pass it. mr. murphy: that is correct. this is a motion to just proceed to debate. this isn't final passage. if members think there are imperfections in this bill, they want additional restrictions on parole authority, they can vote to proceed, then we get into a process to solve any remaining differences that have arisen since the announcement of the bipartisan bill with republican leadership, with their designated negotiator. i wish we could just get on to this bill so we could try to sort this out, instead of allowing this to be a perpetual political football, as seems to be the interest of many of my republican colleagues. mr. durbin: i yield. mrs. blackburn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam president. thank you, mr. president. . i have found this conversation

so interesting. i will remind my colleagues that h.r. 2, a border security bill, actually did come to the senate, had and it has been here since may 15, 2023, an actual border security bill. and the fact that the provisions in front of us are not border security provisions are things that are of concern. i have come to the floor to talk about the biden administration ending a policy that we had during the trump years, and it was familial dna testing at the southern border. now, they chose to end this. nobody has benefitted more from this reckless decision of the biden administration than these cartels that are abusing and

recycling minors to help illegal aliens. yes, indeed, they are recycling children. they're recycling children who have no relationship to the adults that are bringing them in because these illegal aliens being pushed by the car tells are -- by the cartels are attaching children to the adults so they appear as a family unit at the border and that will help them to get aasylum. -- to get asylum. while more than 400,000 migrant children have crossed our border under this administration, reports show us that as many as 30% of those children that are dna tested by border agents are not related to the illegal

aliens that are posing as their family members. so i come to the floor to call for a motion to proceed to s. 1483, the end child trafficking now act, to restore familial dna testing at the border. the bill would criminalize child recycling. it would require dhs to deport illegal aliens who refuse a dna test. it would mandate a maximum 10-year sentence for illegals who fabricate family ties to a minor and require hhs to process such children as unaccompanied minors. protecting migrant children should not be controversial, but if my democrat colleagues object, they are making their position clear on this issue. so, mr. president, i ask

unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session. further, that the committee on the judiciary be discharged from further consideration of s. 1843 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: reserving the right to object, mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i understand this bill is intended to, quote, require a dna test to determine the relationship between asylum-seeking adults at the border and, quote, any accompanying children. however, it fails to accomplish this goal, and our current laws already include provisions to allow for dna testing. under current law, as written, dhs and the state department already have the necessary authority to collect dna where there is any question about the familial relationship between a noncitizen and a minor child travelling with them. at the southwest border, the department of homeland security currently conducts dna testing

when there is any question about the validity of the child-parent relationship. additional scrutiny is placed to ensure that a child is not being traffic add. due to what issume is a drafting error in this bill before us i would have to assume that this would not apply to families seeking asylum at the border. as it is currently written, this bill only applies to someone who is, quote, currently admitted to the united states. asylum seekers at the border, quote, enter, close quote, at the united states but are not admit. there is a big distinction here. that means this bill would apply to any noncitizen family coming to the united states through our legal immigration system but not families crossing the border to climb asylum, exactly the opposite of what the senator says she wanted to achieve. the family relationship of those who are coming to our country through the legal immigration

system are usually validated by multiple agencies before applicants are issued a visa. for example, assume a family from mexico wanted to come to disneyland in florida and apply for a visitors' visa for that purpose for themselves and that earn their children. they would need to prove at the airport under this bill that they are the relatives or guardian of the children or submit to a dna test. is that what we're going to expend our energy on? if a family refuses, the adults may be arrested, the children will be placed as unaccompanied children an placed in custody. is that what we want to achieve? this bill would prove every such family to prove their relationship with the children at the airport or other ports of entry. this would bring our system for processing lawful travellers to a halt and deter legitimate trade and tourism in the united states. as the senator from tennessee knows, protecting kids has been one of our top priorities in the judiciary committee. last year we held two hearings

on safety and well-being of children seeking refuge in the united states. we heard from child trafficking experts and government witnesses. following up on these hearings, the committee is in the midst of an ongoing investigation of the issue. we all agree that no child should be abused or trafficked, whether the senator is a republican or democrat. i oppose the inhuman family separation policy. it's easy to criticize the executive branch, but let's take a look at the reality of the situation. we need to look in the mirror. it has been decades, over 30 years, since congress passed meaningful immigration legislation. in less than an hour, at 2:00, every senator will have a chance to make history, to start us on a conversation, a bipartisan conversation, for a better immigration system. instead of lobbying part -- lobbing partisan attacks, let's come together to fix the broken immigration system. we should provide money, funding

for enforcement against child labor violations and ensure child migrants have the services they deserve. i've introduced legislation to improve children navigate our legal system and better protect them. i welcome my colleagues to join movement i'd be more than happy to sit down with any of my colleagues to discuss solutions that would prevent child trafficking. sadly, this bill does not accomplish that goal at all. i object. mrs. blackburn: mr. president. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. president. i think that the esteemed chairman of the judiciary committee is misreading the bill because this would apply to people that are entering the united states. it would apply to those who are coming to the southern border, and this is a process that had been in place. the biden administration chose to stop this process. mr. president, what we need is they chose to stop this because

the test takes 45 seconds, 45 minutes -- excuse me, 45 minutes to determine if that child is or is not related. 45 minutes to determine if that child should be left with those adults. and 30% of the children that are dna tested at that southern border are found to not be related to the adult who is holding them by the hand, who is bringing them in the country. so i would ask my colleagues, is 45 minutes too much time to take to be sure that a child is secure? we've had 10 million people come to that border. we have had 400,000 of those, children. don't we want to provide the best for these children and separate them from traffickers?

and, by the way, hhs has lost track of 85,000 of these children. they can't tell your committee, mr. president, where those children are. they can't tell judiciary committee where those children are. 85,000 children. we do not know if they are dead or alive. we do not know if they are being labor trafficked, sex trafficked. we do not know what is happening. dna testing is a way to help save some of these children. we should return to this policy. and, by the way, again i will mention, h.r. 2 that be in here. homeland security committee has had 374 days to have a mark-up on a border security bill. they chose not to. the judiciary committee could have had a mark-up on a border

security bill. they did not do it. but they're bringing a political stunt bill to the floor today to try to push it through to give cover to vulnerable members of your party. i yield the floor. mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that following my unanimous consent request that the following senators be allowed to speak prior to the scheduled roll call vote. senator lankford for up to five minutes, senator sinema for up to seven minutes, and senator murphy for up to seven minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. lee: mr. president, for over three decades, the radiation exposure compensation act -- or reca, as it's frequently described -- has stood as a testament to our nation's

enduring commitment to righting the wrongs of the past. where it's hurt someone, it wants to do something about it. since 1990, this vital program has distributed over $2.4 billion to more than 38,000 individuals adversely affected by the fallout from atomic weapons testing and the uranium industry labor. these americans suffered due to federal activities and decisions beyond their control, enduring illnesses that span generations. yet as we speak, reca is on the brink of expiration. on june 10, just 18 days from now, unless we act, the sun will set on a program that has provided essential relief to those still living with the horrific consequences of radiation exposure. among those -- among these are not only just the downwinders

affected by nuclear tests but also the hardworking uranium miners, mill workers and transporters contracted by the federal government in connection with federal activities. they're suffering -- their suffering was part of the price of our national security during the cold war, and their plight must not be forgotten. so while we debate the merits and the potential expansions of reca, it is unthinkable that we would interrupt access to aid for those currently suffering, those current beneficiaries, those currently eligible for reca compensation. they consist of people who no one disputes have been harmed, so we don't want to interrupt coverage to them simply because we're talking about who else might also need to be covered under this program.

the bill i propose is a clean extension of the existing program. it maintains the existing reca framework, ensuring no disruption in access to compensation while we deliberate on how best to enhance and extend its reach. and i don't dispute that it's ppropriate to expand and extend its reach in certain respects because there are some people not currently covered by it. but again we don't want to harm those who are the current beneficiaries, and there is no reason why their coverage should lapse. the proposal previously passed by the senate to expand reca includes regions in additional compensation claims in a variety of jurisdictions. in some of those instances they are abundantly backed by data. in others, they're not. in some of those areas, there may be victims who are covered by other programs. in others, there may not object.

in some of them, they're clearer than others. some of the clearest cases are those involving victims in the state of missouri and in the state of new mexico. and we'll talk more about those in a little bit. the current bill does have some challenging aspects to it, challenging from the standpoint of moving forward toward passage. the bill as it stands risked inflating the deficit by at least $60 billion. that's at the low end. and it may jeopardize the access of resources by americans who depend on reca compensation or survivor benefits in the event a family member tragically passed away due to exposure. that i will not do. and i'm a loan. -- and i'm not alone. the house of representatives has thus far declined to take up and pass senator hawley's previous

bill with some signaling concern, embracing some of the concerns that i just restated. it's deeply troubling that amidst urgent need we might find ourselves entangled in one form or another of brinksmanship, sitting on our hands, waiting for an unjustly expansive and unattainable bill, one that no one believes can be passed by the house, expected that that bill will be passed at the 11th hour puts real lives at risk. if what that means is that the existing reca structure can't be reauthorized. so i refuse to stand by and let the program lapse while we continue to search for a solution for legitimate victims in missouri and new mexico. we can't allow access to reca's benefits to be held hostage during those negotiations. i too am in favor of expansion,

including and especially the expansion for new mexico and for missouri. i think those categories of would-be beneficiaries do need to be added. but we can't allow access to the benefits for the existing reca beneficiaries to be held hostage during those. but until we can iron out some of the details more carefully, it's no less imperative that we pass a straightforward extension that will allow support for the existing beneficiaries to continue without interruption. those people haven't done anything wrong. there's no reason why they should be punished based on the fact that we haven't yet found a solution that can pass through both houses of congress and make it to the president's desk. with the clock ticking down to

just 18 days, less than three weeks, before reca expires, every moment that jeopardizes benefits for those suffering the consequences of our nation's past actions is significant, and we should find that troubling. these individuals do not have the luxury of time. that seems at time so abundant to washington. they need our help now, and they deserve swift and unencumbered continuation of access to the support that reca provides while we work out the other issues. so i urge my colleagues in congress to not allow reca to lapse. let's pass this clean reauthorization. let's do it right now and let's send a clear message, america takes care of its own. to that end, mr. president as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on the judiciary be discharged from further consideration of s. 4175 and

that 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: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. hawley: mr. president, reserving the right to object. mr. president, i have literally grown hoarse coming to this floor defending the rights of americans poisoned by their own government to be compensated by that government, when through no fault of their own they have been exposed to nuclear radiation, nuclear waste, nuclear contamination in the soil, in the water, in the air. i just listened to my friend from utah describe this 11th hour bill after the senate has spoken to this issue multiple times, mr. president. multiple times. after that has been done, now my

friend from utah comes and says we need a clean extension. a clean extension. clean. there's nothing clean about this bill. no, it leaves missouri filthy, dirty with nuclear radiation. let's just remember how it happened. all the way back in the manhattan project, the united states government used the city of st. louis as a uranium processing site and did the united states government clean up the nuclear radiation after the fact? no, it did not. did the united states government warn the people of missouri that they were in fact being poisoned by nuclear radiation? no, they did not. what they did instead is they lied to the people of missouri, while the nuclear contamination seeped into our groundwater, seeped into our soil, for 50 years and more the people of st. louis and st. charles and large parts of my state have been exposed to nuclear radiation, we have the highest rates of breast

cancer in the nation in north st. louis county. entire schools cannot go to school because their classrooms are filled with nuclear radioactive material. and what has the federal government done? not a thing. what would this bill do? not a thing. would it clean it up? no. would it clean the lungs of the survivors who even now are dying from the poison they have been exposed to? no. would it clean the areas of the navajo nation that have been overrun with nuclear radiation? no. would it clean the mines that our veterans went to for decades exposed to nuclear radiation? no. no, it would do none of these things. this bill, i think, partakes an entirely different philosophy. it's the philosophy expressed by the junior senator from utah, mr. romney, who said recently

it's too expensive. it's too expensive for the federal government to actually make right what it has done to all of these good americans for decades on end. no. instead what we need to do is pass this bill that the senior senator from utah is now advocating. it's a small fraction he says -- he's right about that -- and it's reserved for those individuals who have been determined to have actually suffered, to have actually suffered. so let's just be clear. if you live in missouri, you are not deemed to have actually suffered under this legislation. if you live in new mexico, you are not deemed to have actually suffered under this legislation. heck, if you live in utah, you're not deemed to have actually suffered. is there any expansion for the state of utah in the legislation proposed by the senior senator? no. there's not. mr. president, we have been here

before. we have been here for months. we have been here for going on years now. senator lujan and i have passed through this chamber not once, but twice, legislation that would reauthorize this critical program and finally do justice to the hundreds of thousands of americans poisoned by their own government, and this body has passed it twice, the last time by well ney 70 votes. the time now is to act. it is not the time for further delay. it is not the time to look away. it's not the time to change the subject. it is the time for the house to act. study after study has shown the expanse of the nuclear radiation. here's a study from 1997, from 2005, another from 2005, from 2023, all showing that the nuclear radiation is far beyond the contours of the original reca bill passed in 1990. and yet my friend from utah

wants to keep doing the same old thing, leaving out in the cold hundreds of thousands of americans. i will not consent to it, mr. president. this body will not consent to it. would he have been here before. we have had this debate. we have settled it. and this is not the time to reopen it. this is the time for the house to act. no more excuses, no more delays, no more changing of the subject, no more blaming of the victims. this is the time to stand up and be counted for the house to act. before i object, mr. president, and i am going to object, i want to yield to my friend, the senator from new mexico, who has been such a champion in this fight. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator from new mexico. mr. lujan:mr. president, i come to the floor today to talk about the radiation exposure compensation act yet again. and i appreciate this

opportunity. because as i have learned, every opportunity we get to talk about the families, to share the stories of the families who are dying of cancer and suffering, where the federal government has ignored them for decades, we're able to earn one more vote. one more member will stand courageously in that well and say we can do the right thing and we can ensure that we're going to provide support and coverage for these families. i come to the floor today to share the same concerns as my friend, senator hawley. i've proudly been working on the radiation exposure compensation act since i was elected to the united states house of representatives in 2009. prior to that my predecessor in the senate and in the house, tom udall, was working on these policies and these issues. i've had the honor of speaking

with the late senator orrin hatch -- may he rest in peace -- about the faults that were made when this legislation was passed in 1990 and amended in 2000, of the families that were left out. and after we hear about this approach, we're going to get a chance to talk a little bit more about another idea. and i hope to be able to share some quotes from senator orrin hatch about how we should be working together. but today, mr. president, for this portion, i want to share the story of mary dixon. mary grew up in the fallout of nuclear testing. she lived downwind of the nevada test site where an estimated 100 nuclear tests were detonated above ground.

she has said that all around these testing sites utah families were going about their daily lives, drinking milk from the local dairies, eating vegetables from the local gardens they tended to. the kids would even mix sugar with snow so they could pretend it was ice cream, she wrote. in my home state of new mexico, where the first bomb was tested at the trinity test site justifies miles from the town telarosa, kids saw white ash coming down from the sky. those kids thought it was snow as well, so they went out to play in it because there was no warning. as a matter of fact, the united states government then did something even worse. they lied to these families and said that there was just a drop of munitions.

these kids were playing in radioactive waste. these kids ate radioactive waste. only some of these kids are now adults fighting for their lives. far too many of these adults face cancer diagnoses. many face diagnosis that was similar to their parents or their siblings or their grandparents or their neighbors. mary faced her diagnosis at 30. others gave birth to babies with birth defects. far too many died far too young. the senator from utah and i agree that the people of utah deserve justice. i and others, like senator hawley agree that those impacted in other states deserve justice as well. today's exercise is not the answer. the senate has already acted twice, once to amend the

national defense authorization act with democrats and republicans, 61 votes strong. the same people that once said that the radiation exposure compensation act could not pass through the legislative brafrnl, through the -- branch, through the house and senate were taken back that there was this enormous vote and success. only a few months later to see another bill authored by senator hawley that i was proud to work with him on with the advocates. and the advocates should be tep table as we're having these deliberations. where their voices? 69 votes said yes. now it sits in the u.s. house of representatives where recently even speaker johnson's office commented on taking action to make sure that this program will not die. i appreciate that.

i certainly hope, mr. president, that the families that i've had the honor of meeting with, that i know senator hawley has met with, that all senators here that dprae that we should take further action on the radiation exposure compensation act meet with them as well. and i hope the senators start with mary dixon. learn her stories. invite her in. get to know her, her advocacy, her plight. because by learning her story we're going to help countless others all across america. i strongly urge my colleagues to stand with all the victims. and i yield the floor. mr. hawley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. hawley: mr. president, for a year now senator lujan and i have been coming to this floor and warning, warning that the radiation exposure act is going

to expire. and that's why this body took action not once, but twice, in overwhelming bipartisan fashion to expand and extend reca in a way that does justice to every american, every veteran who has been poisoned by their own government. and now it is incumbent upon the house to act. and i want to be clear, i will not consent to any short-term stopgap, to any halfway measure. i will not give my consent to it. it will not pass this floor with my consent. this body has acted. this body has spoken. we're not going to turn our backs on the victims, not any longer, it's been 50 years in the state of missouri, it's been just as long in new mexico, it's been just as long for the nava who he nation, and -- navajo,

and jand there is no going back the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i deeply appreciate the insights offered today by my friends and colleagues, and that they truly are, the senior senator from missouri, and the junior senator from new mexico has made an impassioned plea, an impassioned plea i'm deeply sympathetic to for a variety of reasons. they're both right. it's their respective states. the folks in missouri deserve to have this coverage and so do the people in new mexico. there are also additional people not covered by the existing program in utah who need to be covered and in all three instances, with respect to utah, new mexico, and missouri we need to get this done. you know, taking into account all of the arguments that they have made and the evidence that

i've reviewed, i'm prepared to do what it takes and i'm prepared to get this done today. as i mentioned, this isn't just an abstract concept to me. this is near and dear to my heart. many people i know and love have had their lives altered and in many cases ended but exposure to down-wind radiation. one of those people was a loving husband and father, raised seven children who was taken at the prime of his life, at the peak of his career, just days after his 61st birthday as he was surrounded by his wife and seven children, one of whom stands at this desk today. my father died from this in 1996, just 28 years ago, and we didn't know at the time. didn't know until years after that he had, in fact, been a

victim of and died of a cancer linked to his exposure as a child growing up in eastern arizona, spending his summers in reserve new mexico, a small sawmill camp where his family lived each summer. but he was exposed to down-wind radiation and that led to his untimely death. my dad would be nearly 90 if he were alive today, and i can only imagine the youth and the vitality that we would still see in him. i'm convinced he would still be practicing law, i'm convinced he would still be a runner. his life, and that of so many others in utah, missouri, new mexico has been cut tragically short by this exposure, which is why we need to get this done. so in light of these concerns and the political realities that we face, again, i want to make sure that reca doesn't lapse, so

i want to offer an updated version of the down-winders act. this bill would extend the benefits of those -- extend the benefits of the program to those in missouri exposed to the hazards of improperly stored nuclear waste while also addressing the historical oversights in new mexico and in parts of utah. so when we look at this, we've got to do this to make sure that we're following the science, and in tall three of those -- all three of those areas the science is backed up and in all three of those jurisdictions, not only does the science back it up, but there aren't other government programs that may overlap with it. if this were not the u.s. government doing it, this would ultimately be some species of tort law, because it is the u.s. government and the u.s. government as a sovereign

entity, you can't just sue it unless the u.s. government makes itself amenable to suit, and that's really where reca came in. because we're uniquely situated by what both the science backs up and i think it makes sense to accord that to these its states -- to these states. the other states covered now pending in the house that stalled out in the house, it passed here. that's done, it's moved on from this chamber. one of the reasons i understand it stalled out in the house is because of cost. i'm not aware of the full context of the quote provided by my colleague from utah, that quote, i'm not sure there is more context there or not, but if that was the whole context, i don't share that approach, i don't share that sentiment. in other words, we do not do this because it's expensive. the whole thing is expensive.

the loss of life is expensive and we need to address that. the issue is, again, one whether and to what extent the plans are backed up by the science and whether and to what extent there are other programs that already cover it in one way or another such that the bill adequately addresses that. there are other states pending in the house, deal with guam, the islands, ohio, mexico, perhaps one or two other jurisdictions. the claims in those states are not on equal footing. they're different from these claims. the utah and new mexico claims are very similar, they stem from the same sequence of events related primarily to exposure to downwind radiation from the atomic weapons testing. in missouri, they are a little bit different but they share the same elements and are backed by

science. in these other jurisdictions, it's a little bit different, it's not where not all but a lot of the expense is accrued and a lot of concerns expressed in the house that are impeding its quick passage in the house there, that might lead it to not be passed at all. but, look, to ensure we do our due diligence here where there is uncertainty as to some of the other jurisdictions covered by the bill now pending in the house, my bill that i'm offering now includes a requirement that the federal government must study and report on other regions that should be eligible for compensation. we need to get this done. i'll continue to fight for the recognition and compensation of all those exposed to radiation through no fault of their own because it's the right thing to do. regardless of costs. with the clock ticking down to just 18 days before reca expires, every moment that

jeopardizes benefits for those who suffer consequences for our nation's past actions is signature -- significant. we can't ignore it. these individuals don't have the luxury of time. thee need our help now and they deserve a swift and unencumbered continuation of access which reca provides. i ask my colleagues to pass the expanded downwinders act and send a clear message, america takes care of its own and with this legislation, we'll be able to take care of our own and expand the coverage to missouri, to new mexico and to the previously unaddressed regions of utah that have nonetheless been affected. mr. president, to that end, as if in legislative session, i ask that the senate proceed to s s. 4403, which is at the desk, i

ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. hawley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. hawley: mr. president, i think now i've heard my friend from utah change his position. now he's saying he is willing to acknowledge that there needs to be an expansion of coverage for the people of missouri, for the people of his own state, for the people of new mexico. i'm glad we've gotten to this point. i'm glad we're willing to acknowledge finally that, indeed, there are those who have suffered, americans who have been poisoned by their government and never been compensated and i think that's the position where we're at. it's taken us a long time to get there, but i think that's what i'm hearing the senior senator from utah saying, and that costs should not be an excuse.

let me explain something. the cost has been paid. it's been paid by the victims. who is paying the medical bills? the victims are. who is having to choose whether to do a cancer treatment or buying school supplies for their kids? the victims are. who are having to decide if they have -- can afford the burial of their loved ones? the victims are. they're the ones bearing the costs, the united states government has gotten off scot-free. 50 years the united states government hasn't paid a penny in my state, new mexico, the hoe nation -- the navajo nation, in missouri, it is still not cleaned up. as i stand here on this floor, coldwater creek, still poisoned, the west lake land fill, still

burning, weldon spring, not cleaned up. the government hasn't done anything. and i'm glad to hear an acknowledgement finally that it is time for the federal government to take responsibility for what it has done. we can all agree on that. we can all agree that the time to act is now. which is why this body has acted. it's done everything senator lee has just talked about. we've done it. we did it months ago. months ago, the senator talks about getting this done today. it's been done. the senate has done it. we passed this bill with nearly 70 votes months ago. i urge the senator to use his good offices in the house to speak to speaker johnson who pledged, by the way, to the congresswoman from missouri, ann wagner, in a public statement, he said the house would take this up and make sure reca's renewed. i believe the senator is right, they've got 18 days.

18 days. he made a commitment. let's keep our commitment. i urge the good senator to use his offices now that we agreed to get this done in the united states house of representatives. that's where the obstacle is. i reiterate, i will not be party to any attempt at some half-way measure or some shortstop-gap bill or some effort to sweep this under the rug. not anymore. the victims have waited too long. i yield to my friend from new mexico. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. lujan: i will begin by quoting senator hatch. senator hatch said, quote, updating this legislation is a moral imperative. reca, as it is currently written extends benefits only to uranium miners, millers and transportsers who --

transportsers who worked up until 1972, but an updated bill would extend to those who worked after 19 # 2 -- 1972, many of whom have developed cancer as a result of radiation exposure. end quote. let me repeat that. senator hatch said it was a moral imperative to provide justice to what are called post 71 miners. and what does this bill offer to these americans? who have suffered for our country? nothing? -- nothing. what does this bill offer to downwinders in arizona, nevada, colorado, idaho, montana? again, nothing. instead this exercise is an attempt to undermine the strong bipartisan coalition that passed historic reca legislation.

i don't -- i hope no one misreads what's happening today. there is a bipartisan coalition, there is a bipartisan group of advocates across the country that is growing and growing. there are more cosponsors in the house. the strongest vote that has ever taken place in the united states senate has already passed this bill. mr. president, let me be clear. our bipartisan coalition will work with anyone who wants to meaningfully help the victims of all aid ration and uranium exposure illnesses, including those that voted no when the senate passed the reca to the house just a few months ago. but we should help all of them. every one of these families that qualifies. and, by the way, just because a community is included as a

downwind county, it doesn't mean all the people living there benefit from the program. they still have to fight and prove that they lived in in community for a number of years, that their critical illnesses and cancers are those that science shows were due to this exposure. they have to fight. sthis a whole -- there's a whole process associated with the science and study after study continues to show how these families decisive this help. as a matter of fact in committee this week we had a hearing to help coal miners in america and some of the experts in that room, i asked them about exposure with uranium. and the kind of cancers we should expect. i asked them specifically about uranium mine workers. it wasn't surprising when that witness told us that the same uranium mine workers who worked

1971 and before, their cancers, it turns out that the uranium mine workers that worked in 1972, they had the same cancer as well. senator orrin hatch through his wisdom and his work and in my conversations with this great leader said we have to fix these mistakes. i'll close with this, mr. president. a few years ago a navaho elder -- and i've shared this with our colleagues before -- when she spoke before the house of representatives, she asked an important question to the panel of members that were not supportive of expanding reca. it was simple. are you waiting for all of us to die so that the problem goes away? with the simple vote in the

house, taking up this senate legislation that the senate passed with 69 votes authored by senator hawley, we can answer her question with a resounding no. we're going to get help to families. i yield back the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. hawley: i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, we've got to keep our eye on the ball and our eye on the fact that the legislation while pending in the house is itself mired. i want to be clear. in response to something -- a comment made by the senior senator from missouri, this is not a new realization on my part. this is not a new willingness on my part to acknowledge the legitimacy of the claims and the suitability of the claims under reca from missouri and those from new mexico. it's not new at all. in fact, it's not just in this

congress that i support that. two, three years ago in the prefer congress -- three years in the previous congress, after reviewing the data i concluded that the beneficiaries that would be, need to be beneficiaries in missouri and those in new mexico deserve to be added. and so to be clear, what i'm offering here, yeah, it's not the whole thing that exists in the bill that's now passed by the senate and pending in the house but appears to be mired with no hope of passage over th there, it's not the whole bill. but it's something. and it takes care of our three states and it's not because our three states are important and the others aren't. no, it's because the claims that are rising in our states are materially different than those pending in other jurisdictions. in most other jurisdictions, the scientific data isn't of the same caliber, drawing the same

causal link from radiation exposure and liability on the part of the u.s. government and ultimately the conditions at issue, the types of cancers and related ailments that go along with it. they're materially different. and until such time as the science catches up, i think it's going to continue to have difficulty passing the house. i could be wrong. that's how i see it. that's what i've heard from everyone i trust as to diagnosing the ability of that bill or lack thereof to pass in the house. with respect to the post-1971 uranium miners, there is a distinction here. it's not a distinction that's necessarily impossible to overcome in every circumstance, but the congressional research service looked at this for us. and we asked them to examine it. it concluded that the post-1971 uranium millers and miners

covered by the hawley legislation now pending in the house were from the commercial sector. they were not doing this as contractors or as employees or otherwise as agents of the united states government. but rather for private sector industry. and in those circumstances, in many of those circumstances if not most or all, those can be addressed through tort law and/or through workers compensation law. for those that can't, there may well be an appropriate use of reca. but if we're going to start expanding this into purely private sector activities, that changes the nature of this bill, and i suspect we'll continue to make it more difficult to pass in the house of representatives. so what we've got in marshall islands, idaho, kentucky, iowa, and alaska, there may be worthy beneficiaries there as to whom there exists adequate scientific research to justify the expansion of reca and as to whom

there is no other adequate recourse provided for by some other government program or through state tort law, workers compensation law, or something else. as to those, i'd be happy to expand reca but we've got to overtwo those two issues. they haven't been overcome. but they have been overcome as to utah, as to new mexico, and as to missouri. it's unfortunate that my friend and colleague from missouri chose rather than to allow the victims in his state and in new mexico and the yet uncovered victims in the state of utah to be taken within the protective boundaries of reca today. we could have gotten this today. i'm confident we could have gotten it passed in the house right away. he chose to object to it. in other words, unless you can have all of his bill passed, including the parts that are not scientifically backed, making it unpassable in the house, he's not growing to let even the victims in missouri or the victims in new mexico get covered. that's most unfortunate.

we've got to deal with this. i'll be back. we have to get this done. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. a senator: mr. president, three senators started about eight months ago now working to try to get some solutions on border security. mr. lankford: it's for obvious reasons because we have record high numbers over and over and over again at our southern border. we had a record high number in october, record high number in november and december. december had the highest number of illegal crossings ever in the history of the country in a single day. as of yesterday, we had about 5200 people that illegally crossed yesterday. in fact, almost every day this year we've had more than 5,000 people illegally crossing day after day after day. this is a very big issue that

the american people want solved. it's a frustrating issue that we've not been able to get to resolution on. it is an issue that people have been frustrated with president biden because president biden has not enforced the border the same way president trump did or the same way president obama did. to be clear, this year we'll have two and a half million people illegally cross the border. with the same law in place under president obama, we had half a million people that illegally crossed that year. and as i've raised over and over again with this administration, if they would just enforce the border the same way president obama did, things would be very different. but they've chosen not to. they have chosen not to enforce it the same way president trump did, and instead we've absolutely been overrun with people from literally all over the world. to put this in perspective, in the last three months, we've had more people illegally cross than any full year under president

obama. they need to do what they can do. but congress needs to do what we can do. we've got to change the definition of asylum. we've got to change the appeal process. we've got to be able to speed up the process. we've got to provide more clarity so we don't have people waiting around eight years for a hearing. we can't just release people at the border, as what has happened day after day after day for years now. we can't have a brand new parole program that the biden administration literally invented that no other president has ever used to release thousands of people a day. we can't have that. we need to solve this in the administration. we need to solve this in congress. i wish that's what we were doing today. but we're not. when senator murphy and senator sinema and i started working on this months ago, we were working to solve it. we were not able to get that done. but today is not a bill. today is a prop.

today is a political messaging exercise. today is an opportunity to be able to have a vote that's sitting out there so people can send fundraising e-mails out later tonight and said look, i tried to get something when no work was actually done to get something done and completed and passed today. in fact, i anticipate there will be fewer votes today than there were two months ago whether this came up -- when this came up on both sides of the aisle. because everyone sees this for what it is. it is not an effort to actually make law. it is an effort to do political messaging. that doesn't help us as a country. we still have people that are illegally present here that need attention. and we're not getting it. we can say democrats can bring the bill up and we tried to do something. so what. the republicans can do the same thing. we brought house resolution 2 twice to this body. that's passed the house with a broad sweeping piece of approval

in the house to come over here to be able to change the way that actually asylum is done the entire process. that's been voted down twice on a strictly partisan vote. so we could have this vote today and people can say, well, republicans voted against this so it didn't pass. republicans can say democrats didn't vote for h.r. 2, so it didn't pass. that still doesn't solve the problem. at the end of the day the people in my state say there's another 5,000 people that illegally crossed the border. why aren't we sitting down and resolving that? so today i'm going to vote no. on a bill that i think should pass but there's been no effort to really get this to pass. let's get us back to the table. let's actually resolve this issue as we need to get done. with that i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. a senator: mr. president, i stand here today yet again as the border crisis continues to devastate my state.

ms. sinema: on february 7 i stood here angry that rank partisanship tanked the single, most important piece of border security and immigration legislation produced in decades. as we all remember, last october i joined with senators james lankford of oklahoma and chris murphy of connecticut to craft this legislation. we worked every single day for over four months navigating difficult policy decisions, working carefully to get it right. after months of tireless negotiations, we delivered a strong product. we produced a bill many thought impossible. we ended catch and release. we added more detention beds. we increased deportation flights. we quickly decided asylum claims. and we put border patrol back in the field where they belong securing the border, not stuck inside processing paperwork. yet less than 24 hours after we released the bill, my republican

colleagues blocked it. despite the fact that this is the most restrictive migrant legislation in decades. my democratic colleagues blamed republican political theater for blocking action. so did i. they were right. i spoke here on the senate floor twice in defense of our legislation. it turns out my republican colleagues were all talk and no action. today, though, my democratic colleagues have chosen more political theater instead of real efforts to solve this crisis. all talk and no action goes both ways. today the senate will hold a show vote whose sole purpose is to point the finger back at the other party. yet another cynical political game. these games demonstrate exactly why americans have lost faith in their elected leaders. a congress bickering and fighting for power instead of solving problems and making progress, any kind of progress for regular people.

today's vote is not an attempt to solve the problem or provide relief to arizona border communities. today's vote is for send a -- to send a message. but arizona doesn't need your message. arizona needs your help. arizona needs action. these games of tat for tat caving to the messaging game force both parties further to the fringes and further away from real solutions. today the senate is proving what many americans already think about congress, that senators come here for political games, not to deliver results. today's vote won't deliver lasting results for americans. but the impact of today's vote is actually worse than simply being a useless message because this vote does send an important message. but it's a message to us as lawmakers. i've often asked my colleagues in the interest of ourat