vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to

change their vote? if not, the yeas are 64. the nays are 34. the nomination is confirmed. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. ms. cortez masto: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cortez masto: thank you. mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. ms. cortez masto: thank you. i rise today to honor a dear friend. her name was emily faye reece who passed away on november 3 at the young age of 44 after eight years of battling colon cancer. emily was a source of strength and a beacon of light in the reno community. she radiated love and kindness to every person she met, and her

loss will be felt by every single person whose life she touched. she loved and adored her three children, madeleine, kay jay and thomas who are living legacies and testaments to the amazing person that emily was. live life, love life, and impact others. these are the words that emily lived by and wanted to share with the rest of the word. during her life she embodied the simple message giving life and love, doing all she could to make a difference in the lives of others. she did this first as a public schoolteacher and after her cancer diagnosis, she became a person on a mission to educate us all about the importance of accessible, affordable, and quality health care for everyone. before her passing, emily wished for her friends and family to honor her by voting. she recognized how consequential elections are to build a better future for her children and her

country. and emily was proud that she was able to vote early and cast her ballot to make sure her voice was heard in nevada, even in the final days of her life she continued to fight for all of us. her advocacy was one way for her to impact others and she fought to protect the health care of nevadans by using her diagnosis to openly talk about what it's like to live with a terminal diagnosis and the difference that the affordable care act has made in extending and improving the quality of life. she reminded us how the a.c.a. meant that she could spend her time with her children instead of worrying about bills and bankruptcy. the last time i saw emily was here on capitol hill just a few months ago, and she was advocating on behalf of our fellow nevadans who rely on medicaid to get the care they need. she was here to oppose massive funding cuts to the program that she said was saving her life. she was here to speak about and

out against a lawsuit that would take away protections from americans with preexisting conditions and fight for people like her who didn't have a voice. she was a battle-born woman, and she bore her fight against cancer and for health care for every american with grace, dignity, and courage. emily was a fighter. she was a mother, and she was a friend. and i will be forever grateful for the time she spent to give voice to the voiceless and for her commitment to bettering the lives of those who, like her, needed their health care protected. today and every day i honor emily's memory and continue to fight to protect health care for every nevadan so that those struggling with illness can focus on their fight to get better, spend time with their families, and live out their lives with dignity. emily's legacy lives on through every life she's touched,

including mine. emily's legacy will continue to live on in each of us and through her beautiful family, and i know she will continue to bless us with her profound light that will guide us and give us strength through the good times and the bad. knowing emily was a blessing, and i thank her for her friendship. thank you, mr. president. and i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: mr. president, i ask consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i'd also ask consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: mr. president, i come to the floor today as i have many times in the last several years -- and i know i'm not alone in this of course -- to talk about, unfortunately to have to talk about yet another mass shooting, this one occurred in my home state, in allegheny county, pennsylvania, in the southwestern corner of our state, in the city of pittsburgh in a community known as squirrel hill. i come today to do a couple of things. number one is to honor the victims of this mass shooting and the individuals who were

injured. of course to offer condolences to the grieving families again, to express gratitude for the law enforcement and medical professionals who responded to the scene, and of course to stand with a community in the face of hate and terror. on this occasion, this deadly mass shooting occurred in one community, but it also occurred in a house of worship. it resulted in the deaths of 11 innocent pennsylvanians that left 6 people injured, including 4 law enforcement officers responding to the scene. it was a targeted hateful attack on the jewish community in pittsburgh. as i mentioned, in the squirrel hill community in the city of pittsburgh. it was an act of violence that we must work to ensure never happens again, and it was just

a couple of weeks ago, long before election day. on saturday, october 27, three congregations, the tree of life congregation, dora hadash congregation, and new light congregation, all three were engaged in shabat morning services at the tree of life synagogue in the squirrel hill neighborhood, which is a residential part of the city of pittsburgh. as these worshipers were engaged in services, what played out was the worst deadly act of violence -- or i should say the most deadly act of violence against the jewish community in american history. these congregants were targeted for one reason: because of their religious beliefs, because they happen to be jewish. and their lives were changed

forever by one hateful act of terror, as were the lives of those who were injured. so our deepest condolences are with the families of the 11 victims of this attack. here are the names of the 11: joyce fienberg, richard gottfried, rose mallinger, jerry rabinowitz, cecil rosen thal and his brother david rosenthal, bernice and sylvan simon, daniel stein, melvin wax, and irving younger. may their memory be a blessing to their families and community. it's difficult to even begin to

adequately express the hurt that this community has endured, the horror that these families have endured, and the hurt that is still part of this community. maybe one of the best ways to convey not just our condolence and our sympathy but also our sol solidarity with those who face that horror and that danger and that hate is to talk about what those folks did in that dark, dark hour, and it literally was about an hour, maybe a little more than that, that morning, that saturday morning. we of course at this time, and so many have since that date paid tribute to those in law enforcement who confronted the

murderer with uncommon valor. we pay tribute as well to the emergency service professionals, nurses, and doctors and others who ministered to those who were wounded and tried their best to minister to those who were dying. all of these individuals -- and it's impossible to name all of them, whether they're in law enforcement or medical professionals or emergency personnel -- all of these individuals were at that moment, as they always are, servants in the most profound meaning of that word. these were servants who came forward to help in that darkness. they came forward to save and to comfort. and as the great hymn tells us, that goes by the title of "the

servant's song," these were servants who were holding the light for these individuals in the nighttime of their fear. that's what that song reminds us, "the servant's song." so in that nighttime of fear, when a gunman with very powerful weapons is shooting directly at individuals, targeting them in a house of worship, with no protection at all for those who were victims, and those who were targets but who survived but had to wait what must have seemed like an eastern -- like an eternity for help because the gunman was in control of that scene for a period of time, they were in that nighttime of their fear, and those servants came forward to bring some light to that darkness, to bring light to that nighttime of their

fear. people all over the world have marveled at the strength, the resolve, and the love of the people of pittsburgh, a community that is, as they've said so many times since then in that community, it's a community that is stronger than hate. and i would argue stronger than ever. so we're thinking about those families. we're thinking about those who gave so much in that hour of tragedy and horror and death and darkness. but we also have to do more than that. commendation and sympathy and condolences and solidarity and being determined to try to prevent this from ever happening again, all of that is important, but we have to do more. we have to also act, or maybe it's better to say to take action to enact commonsense

policies, laws and other policies that will reduce, at least reduce the likelihood that these acts of violence will in fact continue to occur. this is a problem, this problem of mass shootings is a uniquely american problem that has to be solved by the american people, of course through their elected representatives. and at every level of government, but maybe most especially here in the united states senate and the other body, the house of representatives, working with the executive branch. i believe we have to take action. no single law or no series of measures, even if they were to be enacted into law, will remove the possibility that these mass shootings and other examples of horrific gun violence will suddenly vanish from the earth and never happen again. but there are steps we can take

that will for sure reduce the likelihood. the point i made all along is that we've got to take action, enough action, even a series of actions that might prevent one of these, one fewer incident where kids are killed in a school, like we saw six years ago in new town, connecticut, sandy hook elementary school. one less example of people being gunned down in a nightclub or in another school in florida, and another in a synagogue in pittsburgh. what do we need to do? well, we can start with measures that have broad-based support. some of them support by 80% to 90% of the american people. we could require universal background checks. i think that's about a 90-10 issue maybe p. ban military-style assault weapons.

millions of them on our street already, weapons of war on our streets and communities and limit high-capacity magazines that allow hundreds of rounds to be fired in just a matter of seconds or minutes. we must keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, suspected terrorists, and individuals convicted of hate crimes, stalking domestic violence and dating violence. these policies can't prevent every act of violence or replace what has been lost at the tree of life synagogue or in communities across the nation, most recently, the most recent of course in california. but we can take action. and i don't think it's in the best interest of the american people to surrender, to surrender to this problem, to surrender to this uniquely

american problem, and just throw up our hands and say there's nothing we can do, some might say, about mass shootings. there's nothing we can do, some might argue, to lose over 30,000 lives a year to gun violence. i think we can take action. i think we can do more. at a minimum, we have to try. and everything i mentioned, you could add more, like plugging the loophole that says if you're too dangerous to get on an airplane because we have a reasonable suspicion, a well grounded suspicion that you're a terrorist that you can't get on an airplane, why would that same individual be allowed to have a weapon? it doesn't make a lot of sense. so we have some work to do as legislators and as americans to try to reduce the likelihood

that these attacks will continue. none of the measures that i've outlined here today, and we could add more to the list, are in any way inconsistent with the second amendment or in any way would undermine the right of after law-abiding american to purchase a firearm and to use a firearm for self-protection or for hunting or whatever else. we have to take action at long last. it's been too long, too many tragedies, too many lives lost, and the response by the congress, for years now -- you could even say decades -- has been to throw up their hands and say there's nothing that we can do. i don't believe that about america. that the most powerful nation in the world can do nothing on this issue. we need to do more. we need to debate it on the floor again, but to do something that we haven't done in a substantial way, in at least six years, and that is to have votes

on this floor that deal with this issue. we have to solve a lot of problems in the weeks that remain in this congress and in a new congress, but one of them is this -- to begin to solve this problem that only america has suffered from. it's difficult. it is contentious, and it is certainly not a problem that has an easy solution, but to do nothing, which is basically what the congress has done for far too long, to do nothing is not in the best interest of the american people. i would argue it is inconsistent with our values. it's inconsistent with who we are. so, mr. president, as we express condolences for those who have loved and lost, those families who have suffered either the loss of a loved one or are still suffering because a loved one is injured, the law enforcement who were injured in this incident,

and as we commend and salute the good work of law enforcement, the good work of medical service professionals, those professionals who are on our streets every day saving people, as we do all of that and offer those words of sympathy and condolence and come endaition -- comen daition, let us be determined as a people to begin to reduce the likelihood that we're going to be the only country in the world that continually suffers and endures mass chuting after mass -- mass shooting after mass shooting, losing lives through all of these many years and in just the last couple of months. i think that's also a challenge and also solving that is worthy of a great country. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk should call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. lankford: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lankford: mr. president, earlier this year congress created a bipartisan committee, eight republicans, eight democrats, half from the house 0, -- house, half from the senate. their mission was to reform the budget process. it was an acknowledgment that our debt is climbing and there's no structure in place to even

address that debt. any time our debt is addressed, it seems to be haphazard or accidental or an ad hoc committee is formed to go after debt every ten years or so. this is spiraling and we need to have something done and it needs to be built into the structure. starting in april, these 16 members of congress started to meet with these instructions, quote, to significantly reform the budget appropriations process. the idea was simple. we're getting a bad budget product, we probably need to look at the budget process and to be able to find out what's happening with the process. you see, this process that we have was are started in 1974, right after watergate, congress created this new process with budget, with a president's budget, with authorizing bills, with appropriating bills, and it would all work together for great transparency.

it was a great plan on paper. but since 1974, it has only worked four times. four times. and year after year americans keep saying the same thing. why isn't the budget working again? why is everything climbing? and every year congress says the same thing, we'll fix it next year, next year, next year, next year. at some point we have to admit it's a bad process and we're not going to get a better product out of it. we have to be able to fix that process. so we started meeting. today we had our first set of votes on how we're going to significantly reform the budget process. started meeting about 10:30 this morning, and after 15 amendments and debate, the hearing was suspended at lunch for a week because a few of the members wanted to fly home early for

teang. -- thanksgiving. so now we'll have to finish that work next week. it signaled me again that we don't seem to be serious in this body about dealing with debt and deficits. that even the group selected to reform the process couldn't finish debate without breaking early for thanksgiving. so far the only agreements to do significant reform, remember that's the mandate, the only agreements that have been set so far have been to do budgets every two years rather than every year, but still keep reconciliation and appropriation every year, change the membership of the senate budget committee and then to add a new optional bipartisan budget pathway in case some future congress has lightning strike and they want to be able to try it. that's the only agreement that

we've had so far. i don't know if that sounds like significant budget reform to you, but it doesn't to me. that sounds like just shifting things around. for months we have researched the history of the budget process. we have identified sircht option that's -- different options that are out there. we tried to figure out how we've gotten to this unworkable spot of deficits that we're in and,000 to fix it. -- and how to fix it. for months we worked on this. and then as we got to this point, suddenly everyone starts backing up into the status quo and just say we'll try harder again. this will not work to just try harder. the process has to change. you see, we met with the leadership of the congressional budget office and asked some very blunt questions about our debt and deficit that americans inherently know and they can just feel it. but we asked the simple,

straightforward numbers. the congressional budget office reported back to us that if we would -- if we want to get back to the historic level of debt and deficits that we have had for the past 50 years, if we want to just get to that level, we will have to start cutting or taxing 630 -- $630 billion every year starting in 2019 to just get back to the historic elt -- hisk levels -- historic levels we have been at. if we want to remain in this position that we are in right now, we will have to cut or tax an additional $400 billion every single year just to tread water. the reason for that is our interest rates are continuing to go up and on $21 trillion in total debt right now, as our interest rates tick back up, we will be soon approaching

$1 trillion in interest payments each year. that is more than all of our discretionary spending combined. when people ask the question, why is the debt increasing suddenly and they look at things like the tax bill and say is it the tax bill? no, it's not the tax bill from last year. in fact, the tax bill from last year and the tax changes that were made for this year, there's actually more revenue coming into the federal treasury this year after the tax changes than there were last year. let me run that by you again. everyone seems to want to blame the tax bill on the increasing debt and deficit. there's more revenue coming to the treasury this year than last year even after the tax cut because the tax cut spurred economic activity, more people have jobs, more people are paying taxes, more people are

make pg more money, they -- making more money, they are paying additional taxes. even with the cut, more revenue is coming in. it is not about the tax cut. it is about a skyrocketing interest on a $21 trillion debt. and there's nothing we can do about that other than begin to address it seriously. it has been predictable. c.b.o. has seen it for years, and it's here. and the simple mandate of the budget reform committee was to bring out a significant reform in the process so we could address this together. but so far this has one of the most frustrating processes i've had in my short time here in the senate. because most don't want to solve it. because the decisions will be hard. so let me lay out some of the

options i do think fix this. what are some of the hard choices? the first thing that i heard over and over and over again in this budget reform process is that we need to get to a bipartisan process, and i agree. republicans and democrats are going to have to look at the debt and deficit and work together. there seems to be all of these different gimmicks to work together when we're avoiding the one simple way. there is one simple way to do something bipartisan, it's called passing a law. right now the budget, as it's done every year, is not law. the senate writes a budget, the house writes a budget, neither is actually passed, the president never signs them. the house creates a budget, the senate creates a budget, and then everyone debates for a year and then we get to appropriations and fight over appropriations at the end of the year because those are actually law. here's the simple solution. if you want to avoid government shutdowns, if you want to end all of the end of the year

fighting, if you want to make budgeting an actual bipartisan process, there's a simple solution. make the budget a law. i know that may sound overly simplistic to people outside the body. and many people think the budget new hampshire a law. but it is not. it is into the law because then you can create partisan documents and debate it and hash it around for a full year, and then go fight at the very end of the year before the government shutdown happens when there's lots of pressure. the simple way to resolve this at the going up is to make the -- at the beginning is to make the fight about the budget at the beginning of the year long before there is a discussion of government shutdowns. make the budget itself a law. push the house and the senate and the white house to sit down early in the year before may 31, resolve how we're going to spend, what we're going to do, what is the plan, what are we going to save, and then pass it as a law enforcement when that happens -- as a law.

when that happens, then all the work can happen after that. then do you all the appropriations bills. then you talk about what you're going to save. but you've established the big deal. it moves the fight from the end to the beginning. most everyone on this committee is fighting with the one simple, obvious answer -- make the budget a law instead of a partisan political document every year. that is not -- that has not worked. let's fight it out earlier. we're going to have budget fights. we have disagreements in this body. let's have our agreements but let's have them early instead of holding the entire country hostage at the end of the year right as we approach a government shutdown. let's lay out in the budget debt-to-g.d.p. targets. what do we produce total as a country? what's the total amount of debt that we can handle as country? let's create a plan for that in

the budget and then through the course of the year actually execute that plan. that's what every family, every business does. they look at the revenue coming in. if they've got debt like their mortgage and cars, they plan and allot for that. we too. the budget is a political document and then we make up spending as we go through the year without a significant plan. make the budget a law. create your debt-to-g.d.p. targets in it and then execute those in the course of the year. most americans have heard something about appropriations bills. they've heard that on some news report or something. the 1974 budget act requires that we do a certain number of appropriations bills. right now it is 12 bills required. it breaks up the major parts of government spending into 12 little spots. basically we have 12 separate bills set aside for spend. we never have a single bill set aside for saving. let me run that past us again.

there is no plan for a bill that is set aside for savings. one of the things i've recommended to make the budget a law to force everyone to have the fight early rather than late, but to add a 13th bill. do our 12 appropriations bills, but the 13th bill be a bill that set aside every session of congress that is focused on what are we going to save? forcing congress every session to have to stop and have the debate. how are we going to save money? what are we going to do? each congress can decide how much they want to save. but every congress has to work a little bit on this. currently, every time we fight debt, it may be once a decade big meeting on debt. we're never going to get ahold of $21 trillion in debt trying to fight it once a decade. we're going to have to do it little by little by little and chip it away. but this congress, just like the

last congress, just like the one before, didn't do a significant work on debt reduction because there was no deadline and the work is hard. if i know anything about this congress from the short time he have a. been here, it's that it will not do anything until it has to. so if we created in law a requirement that every session of congress there has to be what i call the 13th bill, this bill that's designed to say congress has to debate how much they're going to save and where they're going to save, it would at least force that moment where we have to be able to resolve things. there's been no dialogue so far 0 on how we really reform the debt limit. the debt limit only is an american invention. it was designed to be able to control our spending and control our debt but i can assure it has not worked. 78 times we have raised the debt limit. the debt limit has become a debt cliff and a big fight rear than something that actually --

rather than something that actually controls our spending. if we would put in place something to actually cause congress to have a vote on debt, i would be glad to deal with the debt limit. it is drama every time. and substitute it for something that's really going to reduce our debt burden. but that's not what the discussion is. the discussion in the committee is not about trying to actually reduce our debt or to put in plan a way to be able to reduce our debt. it's just what can we do to take out the debt ceiling vote entirely because it is tricky. that doesn't help us. that's not significant reform just removing something because it's tricky. significant reform on our budget process is when we replace it with something that's effective. every year the president of the united states since 1974 has

submitted something called the president's budget. millions of dollars are spent compiling this big, giant document that no one reads. it becomes a bill political document. every single president has put one out since 1974, every year, and not a single one mass ever passed, not one. but lots of time and ahe tension is spent on the, quote-unquote, president's budget. there is a simpler way. turn the president turn over their priorities. turn over the agency issues that they see on spending, perfectly acceptable. but don't create this big expensive process of having a giant president's budget that really means nothing. how about shifting our budgeting and our whole process to the calendar year rather than the fiscal year. many americans don't know that congress runs from october 1 until september 30. well, guess what? it's the middle of november right now. our appropriations are not done

for this year. they're not done for last year. we've carried them over on something called a continuing resolution, or which lay people say is a c.r. just like was done the year before, just like was done the year before, just like was done the year before. you see, congress actually functions on the calendar year but we pretend to function on a fiscal year. but it guarantees that every october, november, december, we've got budget chaos as we're trying to figure out how to be able to run the system. how about this for a simple solution -- why don't we actually run it on the calendar year because that's how we actually do it, including this year. that would mean you could actually plan and structure for that. that's significant budget reform. but currently the conversation in the budget reform committee is, no, we'll try again next year and see if we can make september 30 work. it won't, by the way, but no one wants to actually make the shift. there's been a lot of debate

about something called reconciliation. reconciliation is a process that's intensely broken. it was designed by the budget act to be something to really focus on debt and deficit. but it's become a fight with our parliamentarian and with each other about how to stick in something that's not debt and deficit-related. why don't we simplify the language? why don't we clean up the reconciliation process? why don't we make it what it wasstein designed to be and make sure it is clear so that reconciliation is used to deal with debt and deficit. it is a doable task. we have laid out multiple different proposals to be how to be able to do that. so far they've all been turned down. we've got to figure out a way to get better numbers. if we can't get better numbers, we're not going to get better results. we've got to real real numbers from the congressional budget office and joint tax. we have to allow dynamic scoring so we get a predictive way to

look at the tax and see what happens. we've got to have real consequences if congress doesn't do a budget. americans know, if congress doesn't do a budget, they just leave town and say, oops, didn't get it done this year. how about this for a simple idea -- that would be effective even today if we were doing it -- there is a set deadline in statute, in law when the budget has to be completed, when the appropriations bills have to be completed, and when they have to be signed. and if those milestones or deadlines are not hit, congress cannot adjourn, cannot leave town. i don't care if it is approaching thanksgiving or not. you set a deadline and if it is not completed by that deadline, congress has to be in session every day, including weekends, until it's done. that's a simple solution. congress, if they're in session every single day, at some point they will say, i want to be able

to go home and see my family. we need to get this resolved. i would agree. there's not a pressure point better than forcing congress to stay in town and stay in session until the work is done. we'll see if that is actually added into the proposal. but so far that's trending away from just saying to congress in the future and now, no, we'll try to get that done, but i'm not sure that we really will. if we want to end government shutdowns, then keep congress in session. if you want to end long continuing resolutions, keep congress in session until it is done. it is a pretty straightforward process. it would benefit our economy, it would benefit this congress. even simple things -- it's fascinating to me. there is an internal process called vote-a-rama. it is awful. if you're ever year around it or watching it, it is terrible.

it is around the budget process, and it is an endless debate, vote, but none of the votes actually count. they're all mentalling votes. but -- they're all messaging votes. but anyone can bring up anything at any time. it's a terrible process. that's fixable. in fact, we brought pup an amendment today in the process, one of those 15 amendments that was debated before people left early for thanksgiving, we brought up that amendment today to fix the vote-a-rama. and it failed. because folks on the other side wanted to have messaging votes just in case it came up. interestingly enough, in the last vote-a-rama that happened, this all-night, perpetual meaningless vote series, the last vote in the vote-a-rama was a messaging vote, should we end vote-a-ramas or not?

it passed unanimously because everyone in this chamber says they hate it. but when there was a real option to get rid of it, they kept it. because the status quo is easier than change. significant budget reform was the mandate. it's not happened so far. not even small budget reform has happened so far. we'll come back after thanksgiving. we'll have another series of amendments. we have an opportunity to be able to get this right and to be able to fix a very broken process. and i would pray that over thanksgiving members of this body and of the house determine that $21 trillion worth of debt

needs significant reform, not just tweaks around the edges, and that when we come back from things -- thanksgiving, people actually aprofess this seriously instead of the flippant way it's been approached so far. we've got to get this done. and i commend us to get it done. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk should call the roll. quorum call:

mr. inhofe: mr. president? i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call in progress shall vitiated. the presiding officer:, would. the senator from oklahoma, without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, a few weeks ago there was a media attention on the caravan from central america coming up through mexico and making their way to the united states intending to declare asylum or cross the border illegally. this is kind of interesting because people don't realize that we have within our laws the ability, if a person declares asylum, that it has to be acted on. it has been a matter of routine and we've heard all about people declaring asylum, getting a court date and not showing up for court. we know that that happens and it's really a no-brainer.

but nonetheless it has been going on and on and on. the law does prescribe that anyone coming to this country to seek asylum willing -- will be coming to the country through other countries then they should first go to whatever other country they go through before coming to the united states. in other words, someone can be from central america is obligated, if they're coming through mexico, they should go not to the united states but to mexico to seek asylum. asylum is not well defined. anyone can can say -- can say, my life is in danger and i need to come into the united states across the border. back in my real life, i spent 20 years on the border. i was a developer. i spent time down there, and they have the same solutions and wonder why we don't go ahead and have a solution.

so, anyway, we were told the my grants are -- my grants were -- my grants are escaping. they maybe want to reunite with their families. i would think that anyone within earshot right now would -- would want to do the same thing for their families. so this has been going on for a long time. and while the caravan rightfully garnered a lot of attention, it is really part of a much larger problem. in fiscal year 2018 alone more than 296 -- 396,000 people were caught illegally caught crossing our bored by customs agents. an average of 5,,000 something a week. they know our border is porous.

while the problems are not new, the caravan brings a renewed spotlight to our vulnerabilities. we have to secure our borders and tackle the policies that encourage abuse of our immigration system. after decades of seeing our border breached over and over again, voters responded very actively to president trump when he was pledging to address our immigration crisis by building a wall. here's the thing, walls work. we know they work. we're about the only one who doesn't have walls here. d.h.s. has estimated that a wall, and we're talking about the walls that have been in the discussion proposed by this president and proposed by many of us in this body, will deter 90% of ill -- illegal crossers. 90%. so walls do work. in nearly 2,000 miles, it will take an estimate, they have been

using the figure, estimated $25 billion to fully secure our southern border. i heard my colleagues tbrieping -- griping about how we will pay for it and we don't need to grow our deficit or use our tax dollars to pay for it. that's why i'm introducing the wall act of 2018, to build the war and secure our border. and we are going to introduce this. we have talked this over and determined this will work. it is very simple. it provides $25 billion -- actually more than that -- for a wall by eliminating federal benefits going to illegal immigrants. now, a lot of people are going to yell and scream. we have a lot of liberals in both bodies of congress that are going to say, no, we can't do that. liberals are always great about giving things away, but the bottom line -- i always think of margaret thatcher when i think about this. she said that socialism is a

wonderful thing until we run out of other people's money to give away. that's exactly what is happening now. under current law noncitizens who are not allowed to work are able to receive earned income tax credits, that's a refundable tax credit. they are eligible because applicants do not need to provide work-authorized social security numbers. prior to 2003, the social security administration routinely issued social security numbers simply to anyone needing a driver's license or bank account. we stopped that now but those numbers still exist and allow for illegal immigrants to obtain social security numbers and receive this refundable tax credit and possibly other federal benefits. now, more significantly, this bill that we're introducing would require the tax filers themselves to provide a work authorized social security number to receive the refundable

child tax credit. now, under the law filers only have to provide a social security number for dependents that they are claiming to receive tax credit and refundable portion. now, that's under the current law. an illegal parent can with legal dependents at the end of a tax year could get a child tax credit for a check for as much as $1,400 per child and that check comes from uncle sam. by closing these loopholes, we can save billions of dollars a year, we can save even more taxpayers dollars by ensuring the integrity of other federal welfare programs like snap by mandating the all states use the e-verify system, we can add an additional layer of integrity to ensure the legal work eligible status of benefit recipients.

now these are commonsense reforms. you have to ask the question, why would we not do this? only those who -- those legally in this country and eligible for work should be receiving benefits, federal benefits intended to get people out of poverty and get them back to work. and that's something that actually would work. and they are all common sense. one of these things that fall under the category of makes so much sense, why don't we go ahead and do it. we have the opportunity to go ahead and do it now. only those legally in this country and eligible for work should be receiving federal benefits intended to get people out of poverty and into jobs. and, finally, this bill is actually an additional amount that is out there that -- but we should be taking advantage of it. it says that it would increase the minimum penalty for every illegal crossing of the border. over the past five years there's

been an average of 5,000 illegal border crossings each year. by raising the minimum penalty on illegal border, the government would raise as much as $15 billion over a ten-year period. this more than pays for a wall. our president rightfully demanded a wall not be paid for with hardworking american tax dollars and my bill full ill fills -- fulfills that commitment by not taking money from a legal citizen or lawful imgrant. to sum it up -- i was having a news conference last week on this bill and someone said, well, the president has said mexico should pay for it. in a way you could say this fulfills that commitment too. it is being paid for by benefits that would otherwise go to legals who will not get the benefits. it is the best of both words and a solution to the problem.

it is what the american families deserve, but even more, it's what the hardworking lawful men and women who are abiding by our immigration process deserve. that is the bill we're going to be introducing, and you will be hearing a lot about it. because one thing that people say has not been resolved is how do you come up with $25 billion with a wall? it is easy, it can be done, the figures batch, -- match and it is the right thing to do for lawful americans. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk should call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: